I am not getting ahead of myself here. I understand that a Ron Paul presidency is still a long shot, although not as much of a long shot as many in the media would suggest. It will be difficult for Ron Paul to overcome the pro-war faction (the majority) of the Republican Party. However, if he manages to break through, I think he has a really good chance at beating Obama. As for this discussion, it doesn’t hurt to fantasize, speculate, and strategize.
Walter Block wrote a piece on this very subject the other day. He suggested several names. I would like to comment on some of his suggestions and add a few of my own. If anyone wants to add any more names in the “comments” section, feel free.
Some of Walter Block’s names are not realistic and he admits this with many of them. Bachmann, Daniels, Sowell, and even comedian Jon Stewart can’t be Ron Paul’s running mate because they are not anti-war. Even Gary Johnson, who is better than most other Republicans, is still not anti-war enough. While I like John Stossel, the same goes for him too.
Gary North suggested Walter Williams as a pick. While I admire Williams for his great economic lessons, he is, again, too pro-war, or at least not strongly against war.
Unfortunately, the same can be said for Ron Paul’s son. Rand Paul is easily the best senator in Washington DC, but he is just not radical like his dad. I would not trust Rand Paul to end the wars like his dad would. Not only would ending the wars save many lives and make us safer in the long run, it is also the easiest thing to cut out of the budget that would save a significant amount of money.
I don’t know enough about Jim Grant to comment extensively, except with the little I know about him, I get the feeling that he is not as radical as Ron Paul (but I could be wrong).
The only choices I like on Block’s list are Judge Andrew Napalitano, Lew Rockwell, and Doug French. I highly doubt that Lew Rockwell would consider this position and he is much more important in running his website.
If Ron Paul did get the Republican nomination, I think it would be very important for him to pick someone at least as radical as him. This is actually a safety issue. The establishment hates Ron Paul and I would not want to see anything happen to him. The best way to protect himself is to have his running mate as someone that the establishment fears just as much or even more. Plus, if Ron Paul is going to win the presidency, he should have someone as Vice President who would carry out his radical, pro-liberty agenda. Plus, it would be nice to have someone who he could talk to for advice.
There are several names I could suggest, but who I don’t feel are quite radical enough in all areas to serve as his running mate. For example, both Walter Williams and Peter Schiff are great in economics, but I question their foreign policy. These guys should be economic advisors to a President Ron Paul or one of them could be in his cabinet as Treasury Secretary. Again, there are also some who are great in foreign policy yet more questionable in economics. These people could fill positions like the Secretary of State.
So who are my top choices as a running mate for Ron Paul? I like radical people who are anti-war and also understand Austrian economics. They also have to be well-mannered. I am not saying that any of these people would accept the offer, but here are a few of my choices:
Tom Woods
Robert Murphy
Thomas DiLorenzo
Jeff Tucker
I am not sure about DiLorenzo, only because the media would obsess about his writings against Lincoln, although I’m sure the media would find distractions with anyone. There are also some other names I could come up with like Anthony Gregory, but I’m not sure if he is old enough to qualify.
If Ron Paul received the nomination, he shouldn’t care at that point that the general public would have no idea who these people are. Ron Paul doesn’t need to pick another politician, since there are no other well-known politicians who are anywhere near as good as Ron Paul. If someone like Tom Woods were being interviewed on the major networks and he were debating Joe Biden, I would have the utmost confidence that he would present himself well and present the libertarian agenda well.
What are your thoughts on a Ron Paul running mate?
Hey I just registered Republican so I can vote for Ron Paul in my state’s primary. There is a link to do this in most states at http://www.dailypaul.com/165288/register-republican-to-vote-for-ron-paul-in-republican-primary
I appreciate not having to bother to log in to post a comment…
You referenced Dr. Paul as “RADICAL” at least six times during this blog.
The three main definitions of radical are 1.Basic or Root, 2. Extreme, 3.Favoring fundamental change…Most people commonly associate with definition #2…please in future do not overuse any word especially a word that while some may understand your “Radical Concept” (1.) they might find you too “Radical” (2.) in subscribing to the “Radical” (3.) action…needed to save our Country and world.
Ron Paul cannot pick a politician…there is no one to trust…on second thought Herman Cain is clever enough to learn…and would assure a victory for liberty by allowing the minority sympathy vote to be split…I voted for RP in “88” and have never regretted one Buddhist prayer sent his way…If you ever get a chance to actually meet him you will notice an absence of the usual disgust one feels with politicians…he IS the real deal.