It appears a number within the GOP would be happy to be Mitt Romney’s running mate against a vulnerable Barack Obama and Joe Biden – but recent hints likely leaked to the media suggest Romney has narrowed the list down to four potential candidates to be the nation’s next vice president…
Here is that final four in no particular order:
Tim Pawlenty – The former Governor of Minnesota would provide welcome help in garnering this important swing state, and insiders have suggested the two men genuinely like one another.
Rob Portman - The Ohio Sentor also offers up serious swing state credentials, as well as considerable experience on the debt crisis issue – a major weakness of Barack Obama.
Paul Ryan - Yet another swing state candidate, Paul Ryan is among the fastest rising stars within the GOP – and one who finds a wide swath of support from influential and mobilized Tea Party members.
Bobby Jindal - Like Ryan, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal also brings more than a bit of national recognition status, while at the same time, also adding to the executive experience that would be the result of a Romney-Jindal ticket.
Political insiders are now indicating the Romney camp to make a running mate announcement within the next 10 days…
_______________
I pray he makes the right choice who ever he picks.
If we do not want to hand the WH over to the the dems in four to eight years, Romney must choose a VP who will be a legacy. That was the fatal mistake Bush 43 made with Cheney. Even if the hatchet job the MSM and the dems did on them years prior to the 2008 election hadn’t worked, no body wanted to vote for old, tired, sick Cheney. So, what did we get? An old, sick, tired McCain whom not even the star power of an inexperienced Palin could save from annihilation.
“Inexperienced” Palin wrapped rings around those three morons she was in contention with in ’08. Don’t fall for the liberal smear.
I haven’t fallen for anything. I repeat…even Palin’s star power wasn’t enough to save McCain. And yes, she was inexperienced. Sarah is a decent human being who was sabotaged by bottom feeders like Couric and McCain.
Dusty is right. Sarah Palin’s running mate did not want to win.
If Romney chooses his VP primarily for reason of status and/or of votes — swing, ethnic, gender, or otherwise — I will despise him and he will LOSE my TRUST entirely.
The candidate who ends up in the White House had better get there flanked by an arsenal of SKILL . . . the knowledge and ability to ACCOMPLISH the resurrection of this nearly destructed country.
Pandering for votes makes me feel sick.
In my opinion, of those ‘final four’, the one who has proven his skill and his loyalty to this country and his INTEGRITY to the nth degree is Paul Ryan. I want nothing less than the kind of intellect, experience, skill, patriotism, and integrity already evidenced by Paul Ryan. Our bankrupt country NEEDS Ryan’s Roadmap.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Paul+Ryan%22+Roadmap&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1
Yes, it absolutely should be Paul Ryan. In addition to the points above, he makes Romney seem more exciting. Ryan is the only one who thrills the social and fiscal conservatives and rallies the Tea Party.
If Paul Ryan thrills someone, then a fiscal conservative they are not. Ryan’s plan was not conservative, it was socialist lite!
That’s ridiculous. Paul Ryan isn’t Ron Paul, and that’s a good thing.
We DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY of despising Romney, we have NO choice b/c Obama MUST be defeated or we are no longer FREE!! It’s one step at a time, we can deal with RINOS later, but we must keep focused on Obama’s resounding DEFEAT first!!!
Exactly….everyone needs to understand this.
We are under the jackboot now. We are not in a position to change the country at this time.
This election has nothing to do with Romney.
It’s all about “Obama”.
If Pee Wee Herman is running—shut up and vote for him.
The voters of this country can’t be trusted. We have to show them what “Obama” really is.
I concur with ITYS because we must defeat Obama, no matter what!
However, why on Earth is Portman even being considered. He is more boring than Romney!
Same here! I’m always amazed at the people who are debating this so much – about the VP and other stuff — who cares !!!!! At this point, we just want to get rid of Obama and his Communist regime that’s into everything. Romney loves America, Obama hates America. This is a no-brainer folks.
ITYS (July 9, 2012 at 1:37 am), you ASSUME that I would not vote for Romney if I despise him.
I am KEENLY aware of the peril this country has been facing.
There is a vast sea of difference between a personal opinion and a vote.
I have also read that there is evidence Romney would prove to have some of the same frightening globalist aims that Obama has exhibited. If I learn that is true, I will still vote against Obama.
I researched Obama for MONTHS before the 2008 election and found, among many other things, archived evidence that he had been a card-carrying member of the radical leftist Socialist New Party in Chicago. Yet only a couple conservative political commentators wrote about that and cited the evidence. Only recently has that indisputable fact gotten more attention.
Likewise I researched Herman Cain when he was running last year, and I learned things about him in his business world (not his pizza chapter) that, by comparison, made the women’s allegations seem like NOTHING. Very fortunately, the U.S. escaped four years with that ‘executive’!
In other words, I DO my homework — assiduously — before voting.
As for the past hour’s homework, I just finished reading UM’s link, and from there clicked on an article — Paul Ryan, Aiming for Ways & Means Instead of VP? — by the same author. What I read in that article has given me second thoughts about where Ryan might be enabled to do the most for this country. Excerpt:
. . . by chairing Ways and Means, he would be charged with overseeing legislation to rewrite the tax code and could lead the way on all entitlement reform.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/07/05/romneys_vp_short_list_it_may_be_down_to_four_114698.html
As VIP, Ryan would be head of the Senate, which would be helpful in tie cases, specially for budget matters.
Had you been visiting my blog you would have found that info in Feb of 2008.
As you said – few wanted to know.
Governor Romney’s wife said a female is being considered. I think Bachmann’s still on the list – could be wrong, but she’s in trouble at home (mostly for making a run at the White House) and may be available. Ryan is also strong.
As long as McDonnell is not on the list, I will be encouraged. He shot himself in the foot on the drones.
It won’t be Bachman. If it’s a woman-Condi Rice.
No – it wouldn’t be Bachmann – LOL Ann was saying they wanted someone with the same type of personality and would enjoy working together, etc. Michelle and Romney – nope.
Definitely not Bachmann (sadly). Definitely (I hope) not Condi, the female Colin Powell. Anyway, she said that she wouldn’t accept. She has a terrible record as Sec’y of State. She’s more interested in buying pricy shoes.
Nikki Haley, Jan Brewer or Susana Martinez???
It will be Rand Paul for this reason:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-mccain-picked-palin.html
I’m agitating the libertarian wing of the Party to get them disaffected. Forcing The Issue.
It won’t be Rand Paul.
No Rand Paul. We can’t afford to lose any conservative senators.
Good point.
Rand Paul is libertarian, not conservative.
Just a quick read I copied off Pat Dollard’s blog site. Just goes to show how inept Obozo’s crew really are. Hard to believe they’re this out of touch…
(CBS CLEVELAND) YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (CBS Cleveland/AP) — An Ohio man who says he once lost his job and introduced President Barack Obama at a rally on Friday had been accused of stealing trade secrets by a former boss.
Court records show that Daniel Potkanowicz and a business partner in the Youngstown area were ordered to pay $500,000 to Clearview Window & Door after a judge ruled in 2009 that they had violated trade secrets.
The Vindicator newspaper in Youngstown reports that the two partners have not paid back the money.
Potkanowicz told the newspaper that he didn’t want to talk about his past. “That’s part of my life I really don’t want to go into,” Potkanowicz told The Vindicator. “I’m not really talking about that.”
A call to his home wasn’t answered Saturday.
Richard Albright, owner of Clearview, couldn’t believe Potkanowicz would be allowed to introduce the president.
“I’m wondering who put him up there,” Albright told The Vindicator. “He was involved in a scandal, and he’s introducing the president.”
Potkanowicz now works for Summer Garden Food Manufacturing, a company Obama toured on Friday. He says the president’s campaign selected him to speak after talking with management there.
I dont buy Jindal. Portman and Pawlenty are pretty boring technocrats (and maybe thats a good thing this year). Ryan could be a very good choice to excite the base, but creates a large opening for the left to demagogue Medicare.
That said, Ive been saying for a year now Condi Rice would be an excellent best choice. She significantly bolsters his foreign policy credibility while throwing identity voters a huge curveball.
Jindal?????
A) Not Elligible. Both parents were foreigners (indians) at the time of his birth.
B) Remember the disastrous response to the first State of the Union from TMWCHO (the man who calls himself obama)? Do we need another 4 years with a VIP proned to gaffes?
I agree!!
Bobbi jindal & Marco Rubio are …… “NOT”…… Natural Born Citizens…..They are good men; but, not NBC!!
Yes, they are American Citizens by Birth on US Soil; but that does not make you “Natural Born Citizens”.
They would have Dual Citizenship….. American Citizenship because of place of Birth ; but they also obtain the Citizenship of their Father…..
***********
Vattel, The Law of Nations:
*******************
If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law, they cannot be considered anatural-born citizen.
This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature.
Children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The “country of the fathers” is “therefore that of the children”.
In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a “citizen”; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and “not” his country.
Vattel, The Law of Nations: I. XIX. § 212
Please no Condi….She was in over her head and a whiner to boot under Bush…Not to mention she voted for Obama…
We are not picking a color wheel …but a leader who could assume the presidency
Good point. Voters still want distance from Bush. He might be popular with people now because he was never as bad as O-bummer, but still the Bush Wars will be front and center if he chooses someone from the Bush43 administration. Too many independents still hate Bush and currently hate Obama……not a good move for Romney.
I like Rand Paul or Ryan but don’t think it’ll make any difference about number of votes. OT but breaking about Obama’s bc fraud — Arpaio says they know who forged the bc – he and a helper that they’ve already interviewed and will disclose at his July 17 presser….yeah, well….we’ll see how well this ends.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/busted-arpaio-team-finds-the-man-who-forged-obama-bc/
Sounds too good to be true and who will prosecute
….and….will they live long enough to testify……..
Nothing says buzzkill like Paws, Port and Jindal.
Paul Ryan or bust.
Ryan, Nikki Haley or Jan Brewer. All of them can poke Comrade Barry and the Gaffetastic One in the eye.
I like the names you suggested and would suggest one more, Allen West. He is one of the few who does not pander to anyone, tells it like it is and would be fantastic in a debate against Biden. When you hear him speak, he tells the unvarnished truth – like it or not and would be a good contrast to Romney. He would excite the Tea Party and Independents as well. West might upstage Romney, however.
Not only does he tell it like it is, he has the military experience that Mitt Romney lacks. It would be a good balance.
think build and protect.
Romney can build create an place were business can grow and help turn the economy around
West could work with the military to best protect what we build
West would be PERFECT. Takes away the “race card” issue and Romney’s lack of military experience, as well as his RINO image which, for some reason, he just can’t seem to shake. If he seriously planned to win, he would pick West.
I’m trying to analyze the VP pick based on how it’ll play; first, for the GOP base, then to Indy’s, then the the broader electorate.
Nikki Haley, while a fine governor, doesn’t move the dial on excitability. Plus, as much as I hate to say it, picking another woman for VP will just be perceived as weakness and novelty on Romney’s part. We don’t want to add a male/female dynamic to the issues. This is all about Obama.
Jan Brewer is older, attached to immigration in a way that we don’t need to highlight in a national election at this time, and yes, a woman. And no pizzazz. Again, this is all about Obama.
Col. West is fantastic but his style clashes with Romney. I don’t see Mitt going in that direction at all, although I wouldn’t mind it if he did.
Rubio is great but the natural born citizen thing will sink Romney if he tries to float Marco for VP. You can bet Obama’s team, while skirting his own ineligibility, would trumpet that with the help of the media. And people would follow right along with it since it seems no one likes to do their own research anymore but instead prefers to digest what momma bird media drops into their mouths.
Paul Ryan is the man for VP. Let’s lace this thing up and sprint to the finish.
USA, I agree with you on every point but I would add one more thing: Allen West would be spinned by the Obama camp/libs as the GOP playing “copycat” by bringing in a black candidate. Remember how vehemently they went after Hermann Cain (justified or not) simply because they didn’t want a conservative black man running against Obama… that would crimp the libs’ game of playing the race card.
However, Allen West has much to offer whether he remains in Congress or fills a position in the Administration in the foreign policy/defense realm so, probably, another reason he need not be on the VP list to help strengthen our country.
Oh, definitely agree. Not to say we should shy from it because they’ll try to shout us down.
While it’s important to have the right people in place, we should always keep the longview front and center: Obama must be defeated because he’s destroying our way of life.
If Emmett Kelly were still around we should be able to run him and still landslide based off of that longview.
I’d like to see Col. West in a much bigger role than Representative. He’s been in the thick of war and he knows how to mete out justice. Sarah Palin should be appointed Sec. of Energy or something, too.
The progressives are afraid of and despise West. He is not afraid to take it to them and in fact seems to welcome the fight. He is just the spark that Romney needs to get people excited about this election.
Yes, indeed. I have been very happy with him speaking out….however, that’s think that’s one of the big reasons he will NOT be selected.
Condi has said she will not accept.
I love Paul Ryan, and I don’t want him holed up in a backwater position. He’s too important to be Veep.
Same for Rand Paul.
The person WILL be chosen to get votes, not necessarily for any other reason.
Allen West is still a bit untried, but holds great promise.
I’m glad I don’t have to make the decision!
Politicians are inherently hypocritical, greedy, deceitful, and sleazy. Presidential races have historically been between the lesser of evils to choose which huge machine would do less harm.
THIS IS NO ROUTINE HISTORICAL ELECTION. NOR WAS 2008.
Obama will stop at nothing to get re-elected. While it almost sounds like paranoia to connect the Executive Orders with Soros and Leo Gerard, Le Garde, et al., and fear martial law, suspended elections and the end of America . . . consider this:
Why did the financial crash of 2008 occur 6 weeks before the election?
McCain was actually polling ahead of BHO in September 2008 . . .
What did Paulson (ex-Goldman Sachs) and Soros do to ensure Obama’s election?
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/whos-behind-the-economic-collapse/
This was real.
Perhaps the crash just weeks prior to election day was a coincidence.
Maybe not.
Romney has to win . . . and the worse must be both anticipated and thwarted in the coming months.
correction: WORST (not worse . . . spellcheck)
Yes – my vote is that it WAS “generated”. I remember WHI talking aobut ths way back last year I think…when he was talking about all the stuff they had manipulated for Obama to win. I think he said Geithner was a big player – they were worried about the polls showing McCain ahead and so this was their play. So I’ve always thought that. Geithner is HUGE in all this. So….what’s going on NOW?! Unexpected (too soon) or deliberately planned by the “powers that be”? Maybe the Insiders can enlighten us?
Insiders had better stop the next debacle in its tracks.
Insiders had better make sure nothing happens this time around.
Enlighten us later.
This was posted TWO YEARS AGO – (and Countrywide is now just seeping in to present headlines)
– and it’s eerily prescient:
“Why have the identities never been reported of those who withdrew funds that week? Shouldn’t there be even some curiosity about an event that wiped out the jobs and life savings of so many people? And why has there been no follow-up inquiry by into Rep. Kanjorski’s statement? There needs to be a public investigation concerning the amounts and offshore destinations of the funds withdrawn from U.S. markets that precipitated the crash.
Did an unwritten partnership exist between George Soros and Barack Obama? Could Soros, through Obama, be seeking a “velvet revolution” in the dismantling of our nation as he has done elsewhere? These questions need further investigation. With the Alinskyite tactics employed by Team Obama, none of this is beyond the realm of possibility.
Americans recoil at the thought of having their elections manipulated by outsiders. As long as Democrats control Congress, there surely will never be an effective inquiry into this affair. Perhaps a GOP victory this November will allow a thorough examination finally to begin. Add this to the many investigations the GOP will need to make when they finally take back Congress.”
http://www.redstate.com/jplukens/2010/04/07/2008-market-crash-should-be-investigated/
WSI said at one point that he did not think Timmy G. needed to go. I cannot remember which UM report it was in, but it was in the context of who in the regime would we be better off without. And I distinctly recall WSI’s saying he did not include Turbo Timmy. That really surprised me because the little elfen G-boy most certainly does seem to have a NWO tinge to him – and he’s snotty.
“Little elfen G-boy”… fantastic!
What is it with the repugs? There’s nobody of any worth in the party so they need to be naming more ineligibles? romney has real issues he must answer to….ie: where is his daddy’s naturalization docs? Dad born in mexico makes romney INELIGIBLE, and, jindal knows he is ineligible.
“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’ either by being born ’in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’”
Romney was born to American citizens living in a Mormon church colony in Chihuahua, Mexico.
Even though he wasn’t born in a United States territory or state, George Romney was given citizenship at birth because he was born to American citizens, essentially granting him the status of a natural-born citizen.
“When you’re born outside the United States to [U.S.] citizens, you have citizenship at birth,” explained Peter J. Spiro, a professor of law and an expert on the law of citizenship at Temple University. “You don’t have to do anything to claim your citizenship. You are a citizen from birth.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/how-mitt-romneys-mexican-born-father-was-eligible-to-be-president/
I don’t have the links off-hand, but I have seen questions about Mexican law that does not allow foreign missionaries, thus Mitt’s grandfather may have voluntarily given up his US citizenship. Not positive about that as I hit a dead end in my research, but it is possible.
Lynda – When I first looked this up (didn’t take but a few minutes) — I checked out the sites that only said that he WAS ineligible/birther issue – his dad was born in Mexico. But I also noted they were on LIBERAL sites….therefore, I knew they were propaganda (lies, deceitful) b/c this is what I’ve learned from experience and doing my own research.) After searching other sites, I found my post, which is the truth. If you want the truth, I suggest you never accept anything from anyone and do your own research of other sites – generally speaking, the liberal sites are deceitful and full of lies in order to promote their agendas and get more votes. They do not care one bit for truth – b/c usually that would only hurt them.
If you really do want the truth & just hadn’t gotten around to checking this out further – my question is why did you not? Ignorance, naivete is very,very dangerous & has bad consequences – as proven in spades by this current Admin.
On the other hand…if you really don’t want the truth, why not?????
@Lynda Fox: Your comments always remind me very much of Hillary supporter, Linda Starr, who, apparently, was the person who contacted Attorney Phil Berg on the Obama eligibility issue. Any connection?
Just curious…
Lindandy (July 9, 2012 at 3:44 pm), if my memory is working tonight, Linda Starr herself posted at least once here. I know I saw her name and comment, but am not quite 100 percent certain it was here at The Ulsterman Report.
Yes, it was here. Google found her comment. This link will take you right to it:
http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/01/22/obama-to-ignore-judges-ruling-to-appear-in-court-over-eligibility-hearing/#comment-10212
Google found no other by Linda Starr at this site, so it may have been her only comment here.
What a coincidence! I also just remembered that a few months ago you asked me how I got the links to the comments. I had intended to reply, but my time was crunched then and I didn’t get back here for a while. I hope better late than never! Just click on the date next to the poster’s name. The comment number will then appear attached to the URL in this page’s address bar.
Bobby Jindal,Marco,Nikki are NOT “natural born citizens”. Parents were not American at time of their birth.
bland, bland, bland..***snooze***
I agree with M. Simon. I believe it should be Rand Paul. Although I agree losing a Senator would not be good, I believe Kentucky is a conservative state and that they will elect another Conservative to take his place. A Rand Paul VP would be a guarantee win for Romney. You see, Romney still to this day has not connected with the Libertarian side of politics, he hasn’t connected with the Tea Party either. He attracts the Republican Establishment side of politics that’s it. So, if he put Rand Paul as his VP, he connects all the dots. Establishment, Libertarian and Tea Party. Ron Paul has about 20% of the vote. You add the 20% plus Romney’s 46% and you now have the percentage to take the Presidency from Obama. Ron Paul folks will write in before they will vote for Romney. By putting Rand on the ticket, that will pursuade the Ron Paul folks to vote Romney. Just my thoughts.
Thanks! An excellent exposition on my underlying thought.
And there would be no traditional conservative on the ticket… about 40% off the electorate.
You’d have a Rockefeller Republican (read: a squish) and a new-age libertarian with hardcore (one might even say rabid) fans. Who do you think would run that White House?
VP Rand Paul would be tantamount to President Ron Paul. Republicans have a Libertarian problem. They’ve gone Alex Jones on us. Way too cozy with the Russians. There, I said it.
Randall,
If you compare modern conservatives to 1900 conservatives you will find the moderns are actually the right wing of the Progressives. In fact the Progressive movement diverged and left us with two progressive parties. 1900 Conservatives are what you call libertarians. Crazy people? Only if Patrick “Liberty or Death” Henry is crazy.
I like Rand. It would be nice to have an American Conservative near the top of the heap instead of a Christian Democrat.
Actually, what we call libertarians today are the same folks whose rebellions Washington and Adams had to put down in the late 1700s.
You mean rebels like this one?
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” – Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson was the first “big spender” in American history. He made the Louisiana Purchase, and he even did so without Congressional consent.
He also committed American troops to military action without a Congressional declaration of war, and had plans for regime change in a Muslim nation.
Jefferson was nothing like the libertarians of today. That’s revisionism and faux-Constitutionalism. If Jefferson was around today, he’d be George W. Bush.
Unlike a lot of the folks here who go all starry-eyed for Rand Paul, Randall is one of the few posters here who actually get it.
The GOP does indeed have a Libertarian problem. It’s time for the Republican Party to jettison its radical revisionist, anti-civic, Russia-before-America, paranoid conspiracy nut fringe.
The Democrats embraced their lunatic fringe. It got them the smallest House minority since World War II. Let’s not make the same mistake.
Choosing Rand Paul for Vice President would only increase the power of the Republican Party’s Big Headache (their Libertarian fringe). These people are radicals in much the same mold as Barack Obama–you can’t get them to settle down by coopting them, you’ll only embolden them and make them even more loony.
The GOP needs to jettison its Libertarian fringe, not empower it.
As for the Tea Party vote, only about half of the Tea Party likes the Pauls. Specifically the half that has been trying to hijack the movement since it began–namely the Libertarians who are fleeing their failed party to grab on to conservative Republicans’ coattails. The other half, the Rubio wing of the Tea Party movement, are either ambivalent or staunchly anti-Paul.
Rand Paul was brought in by the teaparty. EAB, you’re the one who doesn’t get it. The Libertaians are the ones who are trying to resist the Communist goal of trying to capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
They have captured the democatic party right now. I refer to the 45 Goals of Communism In America. Extension of Remarks of Hon. A.S. Herlong,JR. of Florida in the House of Representatives dated Thursday, January 10, 1963. It’s their 15th. goal. The bottom linje is this, Rand Paul stands for the Constitution, do you have a problem with that?
As I already said, Rand Paul represents only about half of the Tea Party–the Libertarian hijacker half. The other half of the Tea Party either merely tolerates him or outright despises him (and his dad).
The Pauls don’t really stand for the Constitution. That’s libertarian revisionism. The revisionist Ron Paul / Rand Paul / Libertarian version of “constitutionalism” would have been unrecognizable to people like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton.
Jefferson?
This Jefferson?
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
– Thomas Jefferson
So you want to drive these people:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120707/us-american-pulse-libertarian-america/
Into the arms of the Democrats? The article – also published in my home town (pop. 150,000) paper – calls them the “leave us alone” people.
And they are winning the youth. Right and left.
Did you ever wonder why the “smaller government” party NEVER reduces the size of government? It is because authoritarians have no use for smaller government. We do have a two party system. Democrats and Christian Democrats. And the essence of the Democrats is authoritarianism. The Democrat party has two wings. Secular and religious.
I wonder if Mssr. M. Simon has ever read Mises, Hayek, or Friedman.
They don’t sound like the modern day libertarians. They respected the traditions offered by Constitutionalism. They understood history and human nature, as did the Founders of this country.
Government is there to provide stable, predictable law so that free citizens can thrive. Legalizing crack cocaine does absolutely nothing to promote virtue, integrity, self-reliance, much less a brotherhood of man. Legalizing heroine would create an army of zombies. Marijuana would be just fine decriminalized… if you ask me the war we wage against that particular crop is counterproductive.
The problem with Republicans is that they’re terrified of their own shadow. Libertarians (i.e. libertines) are taking over the party. I don’t want a group of licentious 20-somethings running the country. The problem with Libertarians is that they can’t accurately describe the state of the world… mostly because they’re corrupted by Russians and drug interests.
Sorry for the reality check.
What you failed to mention in your attempt to promote your agenda is that most of the people you refer to already are in the arms of the Democrats.
The Libertarians and college students who have been wreaking so much havoc in the Republican primaries this year are and always have been nominal Democrats. They were going to vote for Obama anyway, except on the off chance that their party-hijacking attempts succeeded.
Libertarians side with the far-left Democrats on blame-America-first foreign policy, drug legalization, 9/11 conspiracy paranoia, and a whole slew of other issues, both substantive and frivolous. They only part ways on taxation and spending.
Libertarians are basically liberals without the redistributivist “social justice” platform. There’s nothing conservative or Republican about them. They’ve always been nominal Democrat votes. The GOP will not be losing anything by telling them they aren’t welcome.
As an unfortunate resident of the Peoples Republic of Minnesota I can tell all that Minnesota is not a “swing state” and hasn’t gone GOP since NIxon ’72.
PAWLENTY WOULD BE A DISASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HE IS SMART AND IS A CONGENITAL RINO. Take my word for it Pawlenty is a 100% RINO and makes Romney look like Milton Friedman.
You’re funny.
And you’re probably right.
Pawlenty appears weak and lacks dynamic presence.
Maybe it’s his chin.
Maybe it’s his overall body language.
During the debates he looked like a sick baby eaglet.
Jindal is the only one of the “Final Four” that excites me. He has a sterling record of both competence and conservatism, plus those who know say he’s gotten considerably more forceful and articulate since his lackluster State of the Union response.
Paul Ryan would be red meat–for the other side. The left and their media minions would go to DEFCON 1 immediately, and Romney would never live it down. It would be like picking Gingrich. Anyway Ryan can do more good as chairman the House Budget Committee or the Ways and Means Committee (the latter being a position Ryan is said to be eyeing).
Pawlenty? Why is the very first candidate to flunk out of the Presidential primary even being considered?
Finally there’s Portman, widely regarded as number one on Romney’s short list. Certainly Portman is competent, and he seems to be capable of adding a few percent of the vote to Romney’s total in Ohio. In many ways he would be the ideal Vice Presidential candidate. But could the ticket get any more dull vanilla than Romney-Portman?
I still think Santorum would be an excellent choice for VP, but the bad blood between Romney and Santorum appears to be too strong.
And it depresses me to note that all of these four hypothetical tickets are light on foreign policy, at a time when America needs foreign policy expertise more than ever.
You know that was about the only thing I liked about Bush. He got foreign policy.
And he tried one other thing I liked. Repurposing 1/2 the FBI drug squad to the terror war. That didn’t work but at least he gave it a shot.
One more thing: The conventional wisdom about a “safe pick” notwithstanding, the “snooze factor” can doom a Presidential campaign. Just ask Bob Dole and whoever-the-heck-his-running-mate-was about losing to Bill Clinton a mere two years after the GOP crushed the Democrats’ House majority into a pulp.
Do you remember how goofy Bobby Jindal looked (sad to say, but he did a little) when he walked down a hall to the microphone to deliver the GOP response to the State-of-the-Democrats’ Disaster in ’09 was it?
And do you remember how stupid and desperate Barry looked as he strutted out to slow-jam the news with Whatshisname, the jumped-the-shark moment? Same thing.
Some governors, some members of Congress, should just stay where they are.
If we do not want to hand the WH over to the the dems in four to eight years, Romney must choose a VP who will be a legacy. That was the fatal mistake Bush 43 made with Cheney. Even if the hatchet job the MSM and the dems did on them years prior to the 2008 election hadn’t worked, no body wanted to vote for old, tired, sick Cheney. So, what did we get? An old, sick, tired McCain whom not even the star power of an inexperienced Palin could save from annihilation.
Excellent point. Let’s hope the RNC is reminding the Romney campaign to plan ahead (something Romney is accustomed to doing anyway). We need a Vice President who can be elected President eight years from now.
Funny thing E.A.B. I was a huge Palin supporter. She was the most libertarian of any candidate I have seen the Republicans put up since Goldwater and possibly his offspring Reagan.
And you might want to look at the Rasmussen stats on those favoring pot legalization:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/may_2012/56_favor_legalizing_regulating_marijuana
That would be 56% and rising (it was 50% about a year ago).
You want to drive them into the arms of the Democrats? You will never win another election until that issue is off the table. Is that really what you want?
There are hints Obama is going to make it an election issue late in the campaign in order to attract that 56% and possibly the 67% that say Prohibition is not working.
How much of that 67% does Obama have to bring to the polls to win the election?
Yep. Driving libertarians out of the R Party will be an excellent move. A winning election strategy to be sure. I may just take your advice and start campaigning for Obama when he breaks the issue.
Do I expect to get screwed? Of course. As my grandpappy used to say, “They are all crooks.” But at least the Democrats will pretend to like me before the election. The Christian Democrats don’t even pretend.
One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn’t belong…
Anyone who would actually campaign for Obama is no Republican and no conservative. Why should anyone in the GOP listen to you?
Get your own party.
Do you even know why the “drug war” is failing so badly? It’s because the coalition of liberals and libertarians had ensured that the drug war was never taken seriously in the first place. Slap-on-the-wrist penalties, revolving door prisons, and blue states undermining anti-drug laws at every opportunity. Do you know what Obama’s excuse to deploy drones en masse over America will be? He’ll echo your claim that the drug war isn’t working, but he’ll present drone strikes as the only solution since conventional law enforcement (which, in reality, hasn’t even been attempted) isn’t working.
Do you seriously think drug legalization will actually further the cause of liberty? What do you think is going to happen when legal and freely available bath salts and spice result in a few thousand more ultra-violent crimes? What do you think the distressed populace will start clamoring for? More freedom? Yeah, right. Never forget that chaos is an integral part of the globalists’ plan.
And what about when 100 million Americans are addicted to some drug? What happens to those people when some tyrant “discovers” a federal governmental power to “regulate” this drug? Will these addicts not become slaves of the federal government in the plainest possible sense? They will willingly give away their freedom to get their fix. Call it the “ketracel white” plan.
Any thing to which a person may become addicted and thus rendered controllable, is not conducive to liberty.
One thing to keep in mind. The kids are going libertarian. Socially tolerant and fiscally conservative. So if you are thinking 2020 (assuming 8 years) you will want to pick the most libertarian candidate you can find.
Palin would be good. As would Rand Paul.
I wish there was a like icon on this website.
I wish there was a “dislike” icon on this site, lots of hate for Romney and Christians here today, very disappointing!
M. is right. My generation will tell you that they aren’t interested in Party labels. Then, they’ll tell you that they tend to be Libertarian when it comes to social issues – which is why they won’t identify themselves as Republicans – even though they are fiscally conservative. They’ll tell you that they want to vote for Republican but won’t do it because of the social issues. They really just want to be left alone, but when force to choose, they’ll choose Dems.
People tell me I’m in the wrong party all the time. I tell them that I can’t in good conscious support the Democrats and I can’t support the Libertarian Party either. However, truth be told, I have a hard time with the Republicans who want to control people’s lives as much as the Democrats do – though for different reasons.
I love the idea of Rand Paul. Paul and those like him are the future of the Party and the direction the country is going. We need more Libertarian views, not less.
People are concerned about privacy rights. People are concerned that they are incrementally losing their freedoms through government action. People are tired of the TSA/DHS thugs. People want to be able to make their own choices about how they live their lives. People don’t want to be carded to buy NyQuil (because it has alcohol in it). People want the freedom to make dumb choices for themselves because they can, and not be restricted because someone (from on high who is unseen and unknown) decides that they can’t handle making the choice. (Remember we were the first batch of latch-key kids who were at home while mom and dad worked, so we are extremely independent and capable of making decisions by ourselves…)
We are sick of the lies and want problems solved. Mitt needs to find someone who is competent and can instill confidence that if he gets knocked off, then they will be able to handle things. Palin didn’t do that and she was demonized in the media. We can’t afford that mistake in 2012.
And as long as I brought up the issue. Here is America’s biggest drug problem:
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3807&sid=4de7afbde485e833abc3ffbdd90c25ce
Yeah, but what you don’t seem to understand is how ingrained (no pun intended) alcohol is into our culture. Cocaine and heroine, crack and bath salts, PCP and meth… these are not part of our culture, and they need not be, ever.
And that type of thinking (historical and traditional) is what separates conservatives from the “history starts today” libertarians. Studying history makes a conservative. Don’t believe me? Ask Hayek (or see The Fatal Conceit).
I don’t put marijuana in the same category as those hard drugs. Bottom line is, very few people develop serious marijuana addictions (though I have known some). And you can’t OD on weed. Given the massive prison population associated with marijuana, decriminalization for small amounts seems prudent to me. I would, however, like to know exactly where the stuff is coming from and who it is funding.
Did you know that most cartel money isn’t actually drug money, but trafficking, laundering, and narco financing?
The FDA will have to approve it, as with all other products that go to market for human consumption.
Guess what you’ll have? Another massive, federally-regulated industry.
Talk about creating commerce for the sake of regulating it.
Maybe, though given the centuries long experience with marijuana I don’t know if that’s necessarily true.
New marijuana is thc juice because it’s genetically modified. Older, natural strains pack far less, shall we say, of a wallop.
I don’t advocate substance abuse. Drinking too much is extremely harmful to your health. Given that humans seek to get high, loose, drunk, etc. and will continue to do so, it only makes sense to manage what is least harmful. Of all the drugs people use, marijuana is the least harmful I can think of.
Having said this, we’re now debating ending marijuana prohibition while the Constitution burns. These are trifling issues. The main issue is that our government ceases to have any limitations, and that those in power are corrupted by drug and terror interest groups. Add in a complicit (and stoned) mainstream press, and an academia adamantly opposed to self-rule, and you have today’s crisis.
Modern day libertarians are a dangerous lot. According to them, our worst enemy is ourselves. Russia, terrorists, drug cartels pose no threats. I don’t believe that Ron Paul even supports a secure border.
There’s no such thing as “socially tolerant and fiscally conservative.” First of all, virtually all Americans are socially tolerant. License isn’t tolerance. There’s nothing virtuous about out of wedlock children and drug addiction, much less fascist Russia or mob-run Mexico.
Come on guys, grow up.
Randall,
You have not done your homework on Mr. Ron Paul. Ron Paul believes in complete border security. He’s definately not a neocon, but he believes in securing our borders more than any other candidate. His idea is to secure the borders, have the best military defense, stop meddling in other foreign countries affairs, and protect our citizens so well that noone will want to mess with the USA. There are things about Ron Paul that don’t mesh well with me and that is his ideology in legalizing marajuana. I’m not there on that topic, but noone can argue that Ron Paul doesn’t support the Constitution of the United States. Without the Constitution, we are not an exceptional nation. I want someone who believes in less Government and protects our beloved Constitution.
I’ve done tons of homework on Ron Paul, which extends beyond what Dr. Paul says.
Visit mises.org for a few months and read their articles. Visit lewrockwell.com. Visit infowars.com. These are Dr. Paul’s people.
Murray Rothbard, a fine economist no doubt, but also a Reagan hater and prop for the USSR. Regular columns by Paul supporters declaring the Constitution flawed and praising the Articles of Confederation (see Tom Woods). A gaggle of Lincoln haters (see Thomas DiLorenzo). Stockpiles of racist newsletters written of the course of decades, with Dr. Paul’s name on them.
Who hasn’t done their homework?
Actually, it’s easy to argue that the Pauls don’t support the Constitution. Just compare the Pauls’ policy proposals with what the Framers actually did.
The Pauls and their libertarian supporters are revisionists, interpreting the Constitution as they want to read it. No better than Ruth Ginsburg.
Randall, you say the modern day Libertarians are a dangerous lot because they believe our worst enemy is ourselves? Well hello! They are so right! How did we get to this point right now, with someone like Obama at the helm? Can’t blame the condition of this country right now on anyone but ourselves. I don’t mean the apologizing world tour kind of thing that Obama espouses, but the reality that we’ve gotten so far removed from what our Founders laid out can only be put on the backs of the two parties – Democrats and Republicans. The R’s might be a little less obvious in their big government, freedom removing schemes, but they’ve done it none the less. Having a Libertarian presence in the White House may be just what we need. Don’t be blinded by the radicals in their party, the ones that talk the loudest. The fiscal conservative beliefs of the Libertarians may be the only thing that can save our country at this point.
Did you not read anything I wrote? Do you not care about the mound of evidence suggesting that the radical libertarians are looking for nothing less than a Dictatorship of the Pauletariat?
We have a Constitution with enumerated powers, and a Declaration that, well, declares us inherent of natural rights. We don’t need more than that to save the country. Ron Paul LEFT the party because he so despised Reagan. Most Republicans and most conservatives will jump ship as they learn that. The divide between conservative and libertarian is wide and perilous.
Are you familiar with the differences between the GRU and KGB? Are you familiar with the Czarists and Eurasianists in Russia today? Are you aware that Russia is the largest consumer of drugs in the world? This stuff might be a little closer to the Paulies than they’d like to admit.
Wow, Randal, and you say the Libertarians are the whackos. I have a hardtime reading your drivel.
Drone.
Not Portman!!!
http://www.redstate.com/paulkib/2012/07/06/vp-hopeful-portman-introduces-global-conservation-act-of-2012/
Please send Mitt’s campaign a message saying you will not support Portman on the ticket!
I’d take Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Jindal, or West. Rubio, maybe.
The youth have been screaming “leave us alone” for a long time. They’ve been choosing not to participate in Party politics because they don’t want to choose between Democrats and Republicans (as they are both deeply flawed political movements). They will tell you how they feel about an issue, but they prefer to be independent and not tied into a Party.
Such disaffection from the political process will lead to one thing: seizure of the government by more determined individuals.
It might sound nice to say you’re independent and unaffiliated… to say you’re the “leave me alone” generation… but sooner or later the wrong person/people will notice your un-vigilance, and use it to their own advantage.
That’s the harsh reality of politics in democracies. If the citizenry isn’t assertive, the rulers get aggressive.
That’s the difference between you and I, you see our politics, our form of Government as a democracy. It’s NOT! It’s a Republic.
With all due respect, I think I’ve graduated from civics 101. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America, didn’t he? Little d democracy. We live in a democratic republic. No need to split hairs…
I agree. The youth is starting to go “leave us alone”.