Ron Paul 2012: Who should be Ron Paul’s running mate?

Check out the new Ron Paul 2012 Overview

Ron Paul hasn’t announced a decision yet whether he is going to run for President in 2012. If he runs, who should he choose as his running mate?

You can select up to 5 answers below.

If Ron Paul runs for President in 2012, who should be his running mate?

  • Peter Schiff (17%, 795 Votes)
  • Jesse Ventura (13%, 569 Votes)
  • Dennis Kucinich (11%, 503 Votes)
  • Mike Huckabee (7%, 339 Votes)
  • Rand Paul (7%, 338 Votes)
  • Sarah Palin (7%, 300 Votes)
  • Mitt Romney (6%, 288 Votes)
  • Chuck Baldwin (6%, 259 Votes)
  • Other (specify below) (4%, 204 Votes)
  • Jim DeMint (4%, 194 Votes)
  • Pat Buchanan (4%, 187 Votes)
  • Lou Dobbs (4%, 173 Votes)
  • Wayne Allyn Root (4%, 164 Votes)
  • Michael Bloomberg (3%, 152 Votes)
  • Gary Johnson (2%, 106 Votes)
  • Mark Sanford (1%, 65 Votes)
  • John McCain (1%, 40 Votes)

Total Voters: 2,739

Loading ... Loading ...

Check out the new Ron Paul 2012 Overview


  • Wayne Root’s hero is Ron Paul as with so many other freedom loving americans.

    Ron is full of wisdom, but Root can take the fire balls that the news networks throw at him. Having Root go out on news shows and promote RP with great success. Ron has a tendancy to have the deer in the headlights look when hit hard by the pros on news networks.

    Ron Paul I just love him. I say Root would be his best assect for when the fireballs start hitting all around.

    Root is becoming very well known around the country. He is becoming the Ross Perot of the day.

    Paul/Root 2012

    • Liberated Woman

      Yea, Root has energy, a lot of energy. He has never held a public office which is both a plus and minus. One of his greatest assets is that he has been a net tax producer his whole life. That is something that Ron Paul really respects.

  • jeffbrooks

    ron paul my only true hero really have to wait and see what we have to work with when the time is here but out of the list #1 trusted would be his son rand paul the funnest pick is peter. not on the list would be judge nap,lew rockwell,mybe ross perot,granholm gov of michigan.

  • Vance G

    Penn Jillette!!!!

    • Dan Valley


  • Kelli_D

    Dennis Kucinich? Are you serious? That would be the absolute end. I want Ron Paul to run again, but I would not vote for him if Kucinich was on the ballot.

  • Clint

    Walter Williams

  • S. Martalik

    James Bovard.

  • peter campbell

    Robert Prechter and Mike “Mish” Shedlock should be on this list…i do not see anyone qualified to make extremely difficult economic and social decisions…other than Ron Paul on the list. Both have understood, predicted and called nearly every turn in our collapsing economy. Both support and deeply understand the concepts behind and need for elimination of the Fed,..currency that is not Debt and elimination of fraction reserve lending all of which have landed us where we are today.

    certainly Peter Schiff with market observations so misguided that he lost over 65% last year – despite being right about the banking industry and equity markets is clearly unqualified to understand free market dynamics properly…as Dr. Ron Paul does. However Robert Prchter and Mike “Mish” Schedlock clearly do understand what is going on and have demonstrated vision and clarity aswell as made fortuitous recommendations.

    Robert Prchter:
    Mike “Mish” Shedlock:

    one other writing could be Dr. Robert McHugh who made significant efforts to get productive use of stimulus money and economic policy in meeting with the washington hob nobbers and presentations to congress:

    • onemore

      Another Sitka advertisement?

      Dr. Paul chose Mr. Schiff as his economic adviser during his presidential run. You’re barking up the wrong tree with that balderdash.

      Show some evidence for your statement about Mr. Schiff losing 65% last year.

      I’ve done well following his advice for more than 8 years and expect to do well over the next few years. Not going to fret over an eight month blip. Long term is the maxim.

      You might want to compare Schiff’s record, over the last decade, to either one of your Dynamic Duo.

      Send a check to for the advertising you ‘attempted’ on their site.


      • peter campbell

        what i find troubling is that your response is absolutely without any factual research. I work in the securities financial business. Most investors do not follow invested protocol as planned…or follow advice selectively and as agrees with their opinion. This is both the reason that some will make but most will lose money no matter the advice they get and from whom. However, since you insist. I have NEVER seen more off base economic analysis that peter Shiff’s. Hyperinflation is simply not possible if you understand the true definition of inflation and deflation. (Deflation: A contraction in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods) Falling prices are a consequence and symptom of deflation and are not deflation itself. Deflationary condition are caused by debt destruction, bankruptcy, banking contraction and other general le-leveraging. Peter Schiff believes still to this day (or at least he says he does) that the dollar is going to get killed. That the world will be decoupled and as china and europe wag the american dog. I put it rather bluntly…Decoupling did not work. China collapsed along with the US…worse actually. Europe too. How about proposing some money management guidelines or hedges – no its better to be a hero ad be right about the call of a life-time trade. Well. Peter Schiff was right about one thing and one thing only the collapse of the US debt engine and the stock market. But he positioned people long major markets and currencies with no hedge against failure. BTW many of the markets that he went long have been down over 50% many much more. Additionally to all this he shorted the dollar. I wish him luck with that strategy. It will work about as well for him as it did in the past. But Peter published books and articles and built his whole reputation on the views about hyper-inflation and the dollar collapse. He CAN’T change it now. He has to be the HERO. but he will be wrong and prove himself to be a charlatan…as he has done for the last several years. Being prescient about one call and wrong about all the other while not taking any evasive action is simply one thing – advice of a charlatan.

        Will the dollar collapse – yes. But after Peter Schiff and the many others in the extremely crowded and (overly obvious) hyper-inflation trade. so in 2013 to 2014 – will be a timing window for the collapse of the dollar. The Euro will most likely be gone well before the dollar implodes…but i forgot Peter is long that. What’s his basis? He has not basis…its just an opinion and more importantly a hope and worse a prayer.

        Peter Schiff’s portfolio coming right up:

        and more detail here:

        I would not trust Peter to run the economy on a hope or a prayer and i would never give any of my or my investors money to run. I would love to give money to Prechter to run but he won’t do that. And I am am happy to give money to sitka.

        Good luck in your trade and next time you attempt to berate someone for being factually incorrect you compare the records of the aforementioned to the facts…in my case everyone of these guys has been more prescient and correct and performed better with their portfolio management by about 248% that Schiff. In comparison Schiff does nto even know the facts and worse he will take down a lot more people with him.

        • onemore

          You didn’t need 600+ words to say ‘Neo-Keynesian’.

          Clicked on the first link:
          It is a copy of one individual’s activity. One individual client that took his own decision about how to weight his portfolio, just like I do.

          Clicked on the second link:
          Another Sitka Advertisement

          Sell your wares elsewhere. If you want to be a stooge for the crowd that wants to ‘Get Schiff’ because he has proven the Keynesians wrong, again and again, do it somewhere else. You have no friends here.

          Can’t shake a Schiff

          • peter campbell

            you are a fool…your misguided beliefs will hopefully deliver results for you…keynesian economics is the problem and for you to interpret my comments or prechter or shedlock in that does not paint a good picture of your intellect or motivations…

            get a life…and try not to lose you mind and money…no matter how difficult that is for you

          • onemore

            Tisk Tisk

            Read your own argument, every 90 days for the next two years, and watch it wither.

            Call yourself philosophy whatever you want. Doesn’t matter.

          • peter campbell

            my hit rate for trading is above 80% profitable trades…better than Schiff and 99% of market analysts – so don’t worry about me. What i worry about is having an economic advisor who has been as wrong as schiff making economic decisions…though i must say anyone would be better than the dunces we have in power today. Nouriel Rubini would be much better than schiff…and was a name i was debating of putting on the list.

            good luck i hope schiff can come through for you…if your imagination is as good as i think it is after reading the documentation proving schiff’s total disaster the last two years…then be my guest – continue to believe in the guy. But schiff is not and should not be on any ron paul ticket – there are a lot more knowledgeable and humble people out there – i mentioned a few…and they not I are keynsians.

        • onemore

          uh huh

        • Nate Y

          Schiff and Paul walk lockstep in essentially all economic concerns.

          When you say “I would not trust Peter to run the economy”, it exposes you as an interventionist/Socialist/Keynesian. The most important thing to recognize is that NO ONE should be trusted to run the economy because no one CAN run the economy. Like running to the Moon, it is an impossible task and destined to failure.

          • peter campbell

            you know what’s funny is that your statement is so ludicrous that its not even funny…One of the things i love about ron paul is that he is understanding, intentions and efforts are in the right place…and when he sees that those efforts and intentions need to adapt he does so with intergity and honesty.

            Two years ago Peter Schiff’s story sounded much more plausible than it actually was. The collapse of the dollar will happen…as Dr. Paul has been saying…but it will likely happen after a dramatic period of doallr strength – most likely more than most than most are anticipating for reasons that are not explainable in this blog post. After this dollar strength, the result in the end will be what dr paul is expecting – the dramatic devaluation of the dollar reserve system.

            I agree no one should run the economy, no one should interfere with the currency or the markets. However if you have to have people administrating the process of getting us there…they should be able to be impartial, objective and have a good understanding of free markets – suggesting that Because i propose some of the most free market thinkers in the world as choices for the ron paul ticket makes me interventionist/socialist or keynsian only serves to demonstrate the socionomic anomalies with with people make judgements and decisions. You are wrong on all accounts except that no one should interfere with the economy. If some has to influence that process it should not be a charlatan who has clearly demonstrated limited understanding of the recent economic and market conditions and irresponsible advisement as Peter Schiff has done.

        • Nate Y

          Meh. I guess I misread your sloppy language. If your for free markets and against government control/manipulation/intervention we pretty much have nothing to talk about.

          • Sean

            Nate doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He thinks everything is black and white. If austrian’s don’t explain something out word for word than he doesn’t understand it.
            I think you confused him when you said something good about free markets and bad about peter schiff.

  • QuinnWard

    How about Ross Perot for a running mate? I wouldn’t trust a baby boomer for common sense let alone economic sense. I chose Peter Schiff for my answer. But Ross Perot would be my “other” choice.

    • Jason Roledolt

      Where is Perot now when we need him?

      • QuinnWard

        Ross Perot is discouraged, because when he was honest about the USA’s predicament he was pretty much assassinated by the MSM and the political class. Isn’t that what happens to those who march outside of the mainstream and are willing to tell the simple truth. They must be destroyed at all costs. Just look at how the GOP and the so called “conservatives” treated Ron Paul.

        “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”

  • Jason Roledolt

    Paul & Michael Badnarik

    We need contitutionalist.

    Kucinich is a socialist. Ventura couldn’t say one critical word about the current administration when he had a chance to do so on the Larry King show (he was just selling his book.. awful..)I can’t stand Palins look.

    • Dan Valley

      I saw that and it was sad when he could have used the time much better.

  • Anonymous

    Michael Badnarik wouldn’t be a bad choice either, he ran as a Libertarian a few years back. His site…

  • James

    What about Bruce Fein?

  • Tony


  • John

    Paul Ryan from Wisc. He would be detrimental to a Ron Paul election. I believe these two would make a wonderful team for all Americans. Well by all I do mean the ones who still love our country, service men, and believe the constitution is all the government we need.

  • Watchman2010

    I’d let Ron Paul decide who would be his running mate. He knows what needs to be done. And who can work with him to do it.

  • Dan Valley

    I dont care what you believe but the second you bring it up in political conversation it disqualifies you.

    I want you to follow the rule of law….not lobby for jesus or buddah….I consider them special interest groups.

    • Whoaaa Dan

      When we are on your blog, we’ll remember your rules.

      Thx 4 Theheadsup

      • Dan Valley

        oh is it your blog?

      • longshotlouie

        Did you lose another memo?

        • Dan Valley

          must have missed that memo….I thought we were all fighting for our civil liberties this includes freedom of speech….even if its speech that otherwise goes against imaginary sky friends and cool-aid drinking creationists.we need a strict constitutionalist in the house and all im saying if they use religion as a defining character element then they shouldnt be considrered. Ron may be religious but hes not using it to sell himself.

          • onemore


            You say ‘all fighting for our civil liberties’ as a means of inclusion, then you follow it by trashing most of posters here.

            Division, it’s a funny game.

          • Dan Valley

            Just deal with real issues,,,religion should be kept to yourself it has no bearing on what is trying to be accomplished,in fact it is detremental to the cause.And Im sure Ron realizes this fact and will select someone with the common sense to stick to the real issues.

          • longshotlouie

            So, No God in public life?

            Getagrip Mr. Valley, we’ll speak in the terms that we choose, as will you.

            It’s a public forum here. Not a Dan Valley forum.

            God Bless

          • Lindsey Brutus

            Dan: When you are asked about your faith should you deny it? I believe Peter did that 3 times! Well, I’m sure that a real leader will not mind expressing his views on religion although I don’t think that whether a person believes in creation or that our descendants are primates makes any difference in a person’s ability to govern, do you? If Ron Paul said he believed in creation would it make him a Kool-aid drinking wacko? I think not!!!!!!!!!

          • dan valey

            If he is a creationist …. i didnt know until now, so as Ive said hes not using it to sell himself. Hes promising to follow the constitution and thats all I care about.

            As a side note these people have the exact same idea as you think they are wacko?

            The Raelian Religion is an international non-profit organization with 60,000 members spread in 85 countries around the globe.
            Welcome! You may browse public areas of our site.
            Life on Earth is not the result of random evolution. It is a deliberate creation, using DNA, by an advanced race of people who made human beings literally “in their image”. Traces of this epic masterpiece can be found not only in the Bible, but in the ancient texts of many cultures – as can their symbol of infinity, the oldest symbol known on Earth. The word “Elohim” (found in Genesis) is plural and in Hebrew does not mean “God” in singular but “Those who come from the sky”.
            Leaving us to progress alone, the Elohim maintained contact through PROPHETS such as Moses, Buddha, Mohammed, etc., deliberately chosen and educated by them to deliver the Message appropriate for each Age. Jesus, whose father was an Elohim, was given the task of spreading these messages throughout the world in preparation for this crucial time in which we are now privileged to live – the predicted AGE OF REVELATION. Now thanks to our scientific understanding, we have a chance to comprehend our origins and the true nature of these “Gods”, who created us and who love us as their children. In 1973, French journalist “RAหL” was contacted by the Elohim, who asked him to make their final message known worldwide and to prepare an EMBASSY where they can officially land among us, bringing with them all the Prophets as announced by every religion. This information can be found in the book entitled: “Intelligent Design – Message from the Designers” written by Rael.


          • VR

            The Raelians say that their religion is ‘a beautiful combination of spirituality, sensuality, and science’.

            [laugh track]

            That ancient religion, circa 1974.

            [laugh track]

          • VR

            Vorhilon (founder of the Raelians) claimed to have received a revelation that flies in the face of all past revelations. He says that the four-foot tall aliens that picked him up in 1973 told him that there is no God, no eternal life other than cloning, and no responsibility other than pursuing physical desires.

          • VR

            This is at the end of all of their newsletters:

            “Ethics” is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism, through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and new technologies.
            There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history, it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.
            On the contrary, let us embrace Science and the new technologies unfettered, for it is these which will liberate mankind from the myth of god, and free us from our age old fears, from disease, death and the sweat of labour.
            — Rael


            Now which part was ‘exactly like creationism’?

          • dan valey

            hey VR…its all nonsense and disfunction…why cant we believe in what we can do and what science shows us…this so called intelligent design cannot be put thru rigor it relies on a blind belief not science.Take responsibility for yourself and look to how you can improve the human experiment that is rapidly coming to a close.Actually, Western society is so constructed as to concentrate the greatest power in the worst possible hands. See,
            practically anything has military applications. So really the most important knowledge is now Top Secret classified.

            The first thing that would impress a visitor from outer space would be the tremendous, inexplicable gap between potential
            and performance. It’s amazing when you consider what the human organism could do in terms of its potential, and what it
            actually does. No species that isn’t fundamentally flawed could be so stupid this consistently. Let us consider the human
            organism as an artifact. Comparative evolution will show us what is wrong with it and how far it has to go.
            You have the first airplanes… now, take one look at that artifact and you see that everything is wrong with it. They were
            incredibly dangerous, they had a very short range, and to be anything more than a curiosity it has a very long way to go…
            So now up here’s your present planes and rockets and so forth… and all the steps in between… well now take an artifact –
            see, we can see that this artifact is in a rudimentary stage and that it has a very long way to go, we could see that back
            then. We don’t have to see all this development to know that if this is going to do anything at all it’s got to make a number
            of forward steps. Now take an artifact like the bow I’ll put it up here – what’s wrong with it? Very little. It’s gone about as far
            as you can go on the principle of a projectile propelled by an elastic spring – you can use rubber bands, it’s the same
            principle. The artifact is subject to a basic limitation: the stronger the bow, the more energy required to draw it. It can’t go
            very much further. Now of course modern bows have appeared and there are a lot of hobbyists who hunt with bows. They
            kill bears and I think even lions, and undoubtedly these bows, modern bows, are much better than anything that people
            had five hundred years ago. But they’re not all that much better. They’re not basically different or basically much better.
            Now take another artifact down here, the flintlock rifle or pistol. Take one look at that artifact and ask yourself what is
            wrong with it. Just about everything. They didn’t even have the firepower of the bow; they took much longer to load and
            prepare them. They misfired very frequently; rain and wind would render the weapon quite useless – if rain gets in the pan
            it won’t ignite. Black powder is dangerous, very much more volatile than smokeless powder. It’s very dangerous to
            transport and use, static electricity will set it off; if you shuffled across the floor and picked up a canister of black powder
            that would be a very dangerous thing to do – it’d blowup… So it has a very long way to go.
            Up here to modern automatic weapons, another factor comes in and that’s the factor of money. Money and profit
            becomes very important because as soon as an article goes into mass production they don’t want to know about a better
            article. And they particularly don’t want to know about one that is basically different, because the most expensive thing a
            manufacturer can do is to junk his dies. He’s got his dies set up to manufacture the very inefficient internal combustion
            engine, he doesn’t want to shift to a turbine. So he will suppress inventions. Very useful inventions are now suppressed…
            And we can also see living creatures as artifacts. When you take an artifact like the weasel, well what’s wrong with it?
            Well, not much. It’s limited, but in terms of its structure and goals it functions well enough; it has reached the limit of its
            development. And you look at the human artifact: what’s wrong with it? Just about everything, it’s right down here with the
            flintlock… It’s got a long way to go.
            First the question as to what distinguishes the human animal from other animals is one of the very frequent questions, and
            Korzybski, who started the idea of general semantics, the meaning of meaning, had I think the best answer: it’s language.
            But language must not be confused with communication. You see animals communicate and they talk, but they don’t
            write. They can’t make knowledge available to members of their species outside their communication range. Everything
            they learn they have to learn during their lifetime. Now a wise old rat will know a great deal about poisons and traps, but
            he can’t write a treatise which other rats could read, he can’t pass that knowledge on to rats over here or to future
            generations of rats… very fortunate… for us. Now to get back to the human artifact; one of the things that distinguishes
            man is language, that animals talk but they don’t write. They’ve got no way of writing something down so that it can be
            available through space and time. Actually, we know that some people don’t write, but the whole of human language they
            can pass on orally, which animals cannot. Language is essentially a symbolic system where something represents
            something else. You can’t draw a map, it doesn’t mean anything to an animal; you can’t get an animal to read a map, but
            illiterate, so-called illiterate people can.
            Well, let’s consider the human artifact and what is wrong with it. Consider a creature that can live on the seacoast,
            watching ships come in, day after day, year after year, and still believe the Earth is flat because the Church says so. They
            knew the Earth was round. They believed it was flat. Or an artifact that can use cannonballs for 500 years before the idea
            of a cannonball that explodes on contact blossoms in this barren soil. I could go on and on.
            So why has the human artifact stayed back with the flintlock? Well, I’m advancing a theory that we were not biologically
            designed to remain in our present stage any more than a tadpole is designed to remain a tadpole. The human is in a state
            of neotony – that’s a biologic word we’ve already heard from Dr. Lotsch used to describe an organism fixated at what
            would normally be a larval or transitional phase. Now ordinarily a salamander starts his life cycle in the water with gills;
            later the gills atrophy and drop off and the animal develops lungs and comes up to land: then they go back and spend the
            rest of their lives in the water and they have to come up to breathe. Just why they do that I don’t know.
            However, there are certain salamanders who never lose their gills and they never leave the water. Now they’d be
            considered in a state of neotony. The Xolotl salamander, found in Mexico, is an example. And scientists, moved by the
            plight of this beautiful creature gave him an injection of hormones, whereupon he shed his gills and left the water after
            ages of neotony. Whether this was any advantage to him is another question. It does seem advantageous if
            you’re gonna spend much of your time in the water to have gills, but evolution is a one-way street. Once you lose your
            gills you can never get them back. I think it’s a little too much to hope we could be jolted out of neotony by a single
            injection. But by whatever means the change takes place, if it does take place, the change will be irreversible. The Xolotl,
            of course, once he sheds his gills can never reclaim them. This law of evolution… I don’t know any reason for it but it
            seems to be a law – the whales must have been on land at one time: they lost their gills and they never got them back.
            Now when we consider these evolutionary steps, one has a feeling that the creature is tricked in a way into making them.
            Now here is a fish that has survived droughts because he has developed feet or rudimentary lungs. As far as the fish is
            concerned, the feet are simply a means of getting from one water source to another or of going down into the mud and
            waiting out the drought. But once he leaves his gills behind he has made an involuntary step – I won’t say forward exactly –
            but a step. Looking for water he has found air. And perhaps a forward step for the human race will be made in the same
            The astronaut is not looking for Space, he’s looking for more Time to do exactly the same things. He’s equating Space
            with Time and the Space program is simply an attempt to transport all our insoluble problems, our impasses, and take
            them somewhere else where exactly the same thing is bound to occur. However like the walking fish, looking for more
            Time he may find space instead, and then find that there is no way back. Now such an evolutionary step would involve
            changes literally inconceivable from our present point of view.
            The first step towards Space exploration was to examine the human artifact with biologic alterations in mind that would
            render our human artifact more suitable for Space conditions and Space travel. Now we are like water creatures looking
            up from here at the earth and the air and wondering how we can survive in that alien medium. Fish didn’t have the
            capacity to do that: we do. The water we live in is Time. That alien medium we glimpse beyond Time is Space. And that is
            where we are going… Read all the science fiction books and stories one could find and the assumption, the basic assumption, that there is no real change involved in Space travel, same dreary people playing out
            the same tired old roles. Take that dead act into Space. Now here they are light years from Planet Earth watching cricket
            and baseball on a vision screen…. can you imagine taking their stupid pastimes light years into Space. It’s like the fish
            said, ‘Well, I’m gonna just shove this aquarium up onto the land and there I’ve got everything I need…’ (laughter)… you
            need entirely too much.
            “Well, to begin with there is the question, of weight, the human organism weighs about 170 pounds and that is a decided
            disadvantage. But also this breathing- eating-excreting-dreaming human organism must have its entire environment, its
            awkward life process encapsulated and transported with it… into Space.
            I am speaking not in moral, but in biologic terms.
            So I’m starting here with a basic assumption which of course many of you will, cannot accept: that our destiny – again I’m
            talking about our biologic destiny – is in Space, and that our failure to achieve this is the basic flaw in the human artifact.
            That’s why it’s back here, down here with the flintlock instead of being somewhere up here.

          • VR

            Did you just post a prayer?

          • dan valey

            dont believe everything you think

  • Bob Waldon

    Take the two strongest supporters of the Constitution from both parties and form the coalition of independent voters and recover america from the Banksters , the military and the israelis.

  • Gabe M

    Stephen Colbert
    1. Vice Presidents don’t do much
    2. Gives him time to do the show
    3. We need more charismatic leadership

  • CareyB

    Ventura is as educated on and incorruptible by the NWO as Paul himself.

  • jeffbrooks

    judge nap or rockwell leave peter,rand paul and the rest for senate seats or other jobs ron paul & judge nap would make me glow for the rest of my life no matter what the economy or world was like. all you people out stay focussed dont slack stay alive and go wake up some sheep cause there all on prozac & american idol waiting for the fema camp directions.

  • carolinarn7

    Chuck Hagel