The question no one is asking. If Paul were elected POTUS, who would be his Cabinet/appointees/croni

Every POTUS has been accused of stacking the Cabinet, various Secretaries, Czars, etc, with those who support his agenda. This has been often called Cronyism.

Make no mistake, if elected, he will be accused of it as well.

I’m curious though, who would these individuals be? These people have a large impact on how Congress acts and votes. And they definitely have a daily impact on the American people and the world at large.

I can see him appointing Kucinch to a post such as Sec. of State or Interior, but am at a lost as to whom he would nominate for other positions such as SecDef, etc.

Currently, I like his domestic views but am against his isolationist policies. So this question, once answered will have a large impact upon my vote.

Also, the other GOP candidates just don't trip my trigger.

But I feel that anybody would be better than the current Admin. A lot of people thought the same last election cycle, and where has that got us?

Your thoughts?

He won't need one.

He'll fix America with his magic wand.

If there were one thing I were to say Paul does not do too well with, it would be personel. This is evident in the fact that he is dealing with Lew Rockwell's writings being passed off as his own, because Rockwell wrote them while employed by a company Ron's name was attached too.

Additionally, he had an employee that is a huge Kissinger / Palin fan, and anyone who is a fan of Henry Kissinger / Sarah Palin is not OK in my book.

That being said, people learn from their mistakes.

FTR: Ron Paul is not a Isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. He wishes to interact with countries with words rather than military might; in fact he wishes to employ those troops to protect our borders from real threats to America, not some bomb that may or may not exist. "Canada does not have an enormous military presence all over the world. Are they isolationist?" - Judge Andrew Napolitano's facebook

reply to post by TDawgRex
I could be wrong, but I believe it's a violation of federal law to name possible appointees ahead of time as a means of securing votes (and even if this isn't the reason it might actually be done, with the ease of construing it as such, I doubt many candidates would want to risk it).

That said I could see Walter Williams coming in, likely some of his current campaign staffers (Fein as Atty Gen.? Wead for Chief of Staff? Etc.). I would definitely suggest Gary Johnson (possible Veep?), and I'm trying to remember who we bounced around as SECDEF the other week. Let me think...ah yes, Col. Douglas McGregor. I wouldn't be at all surprised by Kucinich getting an invite somewhere, myself. And since he's been so fair, I wouldn't mind seeing Ben Swann as WH press secretary.

As to the rest - I'm sure there's been some good speculation over at RonPaulForums or the DailyPaul, but I haven't caught much myself.

Originally posted by jtap66
He won't need one.

He'll fix America with his magic wand.

Wait, he's also got a WAND?!

Oh, we have definitely got to get this guy into office, start spreading the world - first ever WIZARD president!!

EDIT:
Now that you mention it, he does kind of look like Gandalf. I'm surprised I never picked up on that before.

reply to post by Praetorius


If you like his wand, wait until you see his time machine!

It's back to 1776 we go!

You know, when blacks had no rights and we lived to be 35.

reply to post by jtap66
Now, a time machine... THAT would be handy. I'd like to be there myself to see a muslim nation being the first to recognize our independence from Britain. Hey, do you think he'd let me borrow it so I can go back to the 70s or so when gold was still pegged at twenty-something/oz?

As far as the blacks go, that would be kind of neat as well to see if he'd try to get the slave owners to realize the errors of their ways the same as he does with people who support the drug war and militarism, given the similar impacts they have on minorities.

I don't think he could do too much to help with the short lifespan, though - that's mainly a result of the lack of industrial progress, refrigeration, preservatives, general sanitation, and other factors that didn't come along until more recently...and despite his understanding of liberty, self-reliance, and christian ideals, I don't think he's much of an inventor or engineer?

Good thinking, though!

reply to post by derst1988


You are correct, I did pick a poor choice of wording, he is not a isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. But that being said, I am curious as to how he would respond to a threat to National Security. I agree with him that if we were to use military action that to paraphrase him, "Waging all-out war with Congresses approval until victory is achieved."

But what about terrorist incidents, and the nations that support them? This is now the norm for warfare.

reply to post by Praetorius


That's a real shame if that naming people ahead of time would be illegal. I'm sure it would actually speed things up.

We could look at the bigger picture of a possible future Admin. and make our minds up a whole lot better.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by derst1988

 

You are correct, I did pick a poor choice of wording, he is not a isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. But that being said, I am curious as to how he would respond to a threat to National Security. I agree with him that if we were to use military action that to paraphrase him, "Waging all-out war with Congresses approval until victory is achieved."

But what about terrorist incidents, and the nations that support them? This is now the norm for warfare.

Hmm.. At what point does blowing up something or shooting someone switch from criminal to terrorism? Would someone like Al Capone be a terrorist these days?

I think the bigger problem is that we have mixed our definitions to the point that we have forgotten our purpose. The single biggest threat to national security is the US Government.

reply to post by derst1988


instead of saying "people who support Palin aren't okay in my book" why dont you educate yourself and others who arent 'in the know"

reply to post by TDawgRex

You are correct, I did pick a poor choice of wording, he is not a isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. But that being said, I am curious as to how he would respond to a threat to National Security. I agree with him that if we were to use military action that to paraphrase him, "Waging all-out war with Congresses approval until victory is achieved."

But what about terrorist incidents, and the nations that support them? This is now the norm for warfare.

Hi TDawg. Despite the common marketing, Paul's not a pacifist and will respond to threats or aggression accordingly. He actually introduced legislation for Letters of Marque and Reprisal originally regarding the 9/11 attacks (and then later to Somalian pirate attacks), which "would have targeted specific terrorist suspects instead of invoking war against a foreign state," according to Wiki (these basically sets loose bounty hunters and the like to target search & destroy or capture as compared to using the full military to invade other *nations* we're not at war with, for a short and insufficient explanation), but then did also vote for the Authorization for Use of Military Force when came to Afghanistan.

He believes in narrow-scope & proportionate force to overwhelmingly deal with the threat and be done with it, as well as streamlining (and maximizing the efficiency of so we can actually USE it) our intelligence agencies - cutting the bloat/jurisdictional crossovers that result in so much lost or unused intel (like that warning us of the imminent attacks in 2001) and letting us actually ID threats and address them as needed ahead of time.

This is likely a very inadequate clarification, but long story short - get us lean & mean, rested and refreshed so we can knock the socks off any actual threats instead of building up 3rd-world boogeymen of no substance that just get us bogged down with wasted lives and money in their deserts.

reply to post by TDawgRex
I agree somewhat, am of mixed feelings about it...but I can also understand the possible legal insanity that might ensue from promised appointees eventually being disregarded for some reason, everyone that voted for the candidate based on the appointee pick throwing a fit, and whatever else can be involved there.

And I could be wrong about that, but I believe I saw an article some weeks back about either Romney or Gingrich having violated a statute by naming one of their picks (doubt anyone will take any legal action on the violation, but apparently there's something on the books against it).

Jesse Ventura - Secretary of Defense


HooRah !

Hey, this is a nice question for a headline/OP. Here is my wish list:

President: Doctor Ron Paul
Vice Pres: Ted Nugent

Secretary Positions:

Defense: Jessie Ventura
State: John Bolton (He'd follow Paul's orders, but wouldn't take crap off ANYONE else)
Interior: (Council balanced between American Citizens and Native American Tribal Elders)
Sanitation (HUD): Frances Fox Piven (someone must keep the sewers flowing..she's got experience)
Justice: Randy Weaver (Does this need explanation? The system needs fixing )
Homeland Security: General Russel L. Honore', U.S. Army, Ret. (Recall "Stuck On Stupid" fame from Katrina?)
Treasury: Donald Trump
DNI/CIA: Doctor Michael Savage (another position where the man won't take crap off anyone)
FCC: Rolleye James (Radio Host fame..among other accomplihsments)

Just to keep it all honest, let's see our very own Simon Gray chosen to serve as United States Inspector General. We could use an honest voice digging for what no one wants found in that position.


Well, I have 0 chance of seeing any of this...and not every choice would make everyone happy, but I think that set of talent would save our nation. It may be a horrible choice of people in peace time and during prosperity, but the United States is about to collapse and become junk in a can. We need butt kickers and hard men to guide our nation through these coming few years.....not politicians and sycophants...which is all I actually expect to SEE in reality.

Well, we have talked about it before. It also will have to be one of his biggest difficulties in getting like-minded-appointees when there is so much dirt in front of the brush, although I'm sure he knows where to look among the veterans and newbies. They'll have to be good, and be able to withstand attacks from the military lobbyists, who have seen the government as a big fat cat for far too long now. If he gets in it will be very interesting how it all plays out.

Originally posted by knightsofcydonia
reply to post by derst1988

 

instead of saying "people who support Palin aren't okay in my book" why dont you educate yourself and others who arent 'in the know"

Educate myself? I would love to know where you can even begin to assume that I am uneducated, based solely on the narrative provided. I am not a fan of the war mongering, neo-con Kissinger; and Palin is a person that continually makes asinine remarks. How in the world does not being a fan of Palin make me uneducated? That is quite a jump in logic, if I ever saw one.

Clearly you are a Palin fan, and thats ok; even if you like her for her "experience with foreign policy." You know, cause she lives "just across from Russia."