Is there any way to persuade Paul to offer veep to Kucinich, and soon?

Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
47
If it were accepted, and if Kucinich would fold his own campaign, there are several primaries where democrats could switch last minute. He'd pick up another 3-5% in some of them. Maybe even more if they believed that having Kucinich on board would temper/balance some of his views.

Paul's never said that he'd not do this, though my impression was that he's at best lukewarm to the idea.

Is this even being considered? Is it impossible? Do other supporters not like the idea of Kucinich being veep?
 
If it were accepted, and if Kucinich would fold his own campaign, there are several primaries where democrats could switch last minute. He'd pick up another 3-5% in some of them. Maybe even more if they believed that having Kucinich on board would temper/balance some of his views.

Paul's never said that he'd not do this, though my impression was that he's at best lukewarm to the idea.

Is this even being considered? Is it impossible? Do other supporters not like the idea of Kucinich being veep?

What do RP and Kucinich have in common besides the war? Anything?
 
This would be a horrible idea. I could not support a socialist like Kuchinich. Even IF it meant an extra 3-5% (which I don't think would happen) Paul would certainly have attrition from his existing base.
 
While I like kucinich as a guy, but dislike most of his big government political beliefs, I would really like to see him be Ron Pauls VP in a perfect world. I think it would be really neat that people across party lines could come together like that.

HOWEVER, in the world we live in, such a move would likely sink Ron Paul's campaign. A lot of the neocons already say Ron Paul should be a democrat. Can you imagine the field day they would have if Ron Paul chose such a socialist as his vice president?!
 
It'd be horrible to make a gesture of bipartisanship?

Kucinich isn't Cheney, he's not going to puppeteer Paul as if he were a marionette.

Kucinich may be a socialist, but he's not evil. Besides just ending the war and non-interventionism in general, there is drug policy. Habeus corpus. Patriot act. Torture. FISA wiretapping. Corporate welfare. A strong economy where people have real jobs.
 
If it were accepted, and if Kucinich would fold his own campaign, there are several primaries where democrats could switch last minute. He'd pick up another 3-5% in some of them. Maybe even more if they believed that having Kucinich on board would temper/balance some of his views.

Paul's never said that he'd not do this, though my impression was that he's at best lukewarm to the idea.

Is this even being considered? Is it impossible? Do other supporters not like the idea of Kucinich being veep?

Temper/balance? As in what, socialists ideas? NO thanks. Ron Paul wouldn't pick Kucinich, and in a warped world if he did I would drop RP faster than a hot potato. RP sticks to his principles, or have you forgotten this? He's not going to pick socialist Kucinich to pick up extra votes, now that would be slimey, and RP isn't. If he did pick Kucinich (in a warped world) he would LOSE a ton of votes, and way more than 3-5% in many states.
 
A living wage, free health care, education for all are just some of the things Kucinich is advocating. None of these are things a Republican would want to get behind. Kucinich did have a good quote in a debate. When asked about the patriot act and being the only one who voted against it on the stage he said "Thats because I read it". Then he said the people the wrote and voted for the bill should be held responsible. I like that but I cannot support his socialist Ideas.
 
> RP sticks to his principles, or have you forgotten this?

I would hope that bipartisanship is one of them. I dunno. You people act like I suggested Hillary. Sometimes I wonder.
 
> RP sticks to his principles, or have you forgotten this?

I would hope that bipartisanship is one of them. I dunno. You people act like I suggested Hillary. Sometimes I wonder.

Compromising your principles WOULD be taking Kucinich as VP. Bipartasanship? You mean compromising to go along with socialist ideas? That's not what this country was founded on, does not lead to freedom, and if he picked any socialist he would not get my vote. So he's not as bad as Hillary so I should jump on the wagon for Kucinich? I don't care WHO it is, I will not vote for any socialist, no matter how nice they are. You do NOT pick someone for example that is pro gun control to be your VP when you are completely against gun control. Only an idiot would do that.

Sometimes I wonder.....
 
> RP sticks to his principles, or have you forgotten this?

I would hope that bipartisanship is one of them. I dunno. You people act like I suggested Hillary. Sometimes I wonder.
Thats a good comparison other than war. Hilary and Dennis both want national health care and gun control. Only pick a VP that is identical to the Pres. , because he only one heartbeat away. Dennis would take our guns....



.
 
Paul & Dennis' Priority : Restore the Constitution

What do RP and Kucinich have in common besides the war? Anything?

The War is just the biggest example of getting the Executive and other branches back into their Constitutional cage.

The agree on the value of Federalism letting different states have different policies. And both oppose UN/NAFTA, etc.

The Anti-War Party is coming one way or another.
 
A living wage, free health care, education for all are just some of the things Kucinich is advocating. None of these are things a Republican would want to get behind. Kucinich did have a good quote in a debate. When asked about the patriot act and being the only one who voted against it on the stage he said "Thats because I read it". Then he said the people the wrote and voted for the bill should be held responsible. I like that but I cannot support his socialist Ideas.

Not asking you to support his socialist ideas. Ron Paul wouldn't be asking you too either, if he did this. He'd just be showing that he'd listen to them. I don't want this to turn into some big dailykos or redstate circlejerk where they are insular and don't want to include anyone that doesn't think exactly like we do.

As for living wages and healthcare, I was under the impression that Ron Paul didn't hate these, wasn't against them. Just that they weren't the things the federal government should be doing. Unlike Chimpy, Paul won't have a Rove running around scuttling state iniatives that he doesn't like. Or am I wrong?

Ron Paul should be taking the high road, and us with him. Including people isn't bad. Showing people that we're adults, and we settle things reasonably. That we listen to ideas, even those we don't like, and that we disagree because of reason. We can all be adults. Compare that to the shenanigans that both the republicans and democrats have been doing in Congress for years.
 
Thats a good comparison other than war. Hilary and Dennis both want national health care and gun control. Only pick a VP that is identical to the Pres. , because he only one heartbeat away. Dennis would take our guns....



.

Well, then I shouldn't vote for Paul either. He has crazy ideas that this is a christian nation, seemingly without a clue that the founders were mostly deists.
 
Anyone running for federal office should deal with federal problems. Education, health care, living wage and all the other socialist crap should be left to the states to decide. Most are forbidden within the constitution or simply not talked about. Kucinich should be running for governor.
 
> RP sticks to his principles, or have you forgotten this?

I would hope that bipartisanship is one of them. I dunno. You people act like I suggested Hillary. Sometimes I wonder.
"Bipartisanship" as it is presently practiced sucks ass!!!

When remocrats and depublicans get together and agree on something (like the Department of Fatherland Security and that fool USAPATRIOT act), it's we the peeps who're gonna take it in the shorts.
 
This thread and others like it ought to be deleted.

If someone in charge wants to delete it, I'm not going to whine about it, or keep pestering.

I thought Paul supporters might be the reasonable ones, who can really discuss things. I didn't realize that you all had so much in common with redstate after all. The "I don't want to talk about it" attitude is childish.

And those talking about "compromise" aren't much better. A compromise would be signing a bill into law that he didn't agree with, or vetoing one that he did, just to make someone else happy. How including others could be equated with this is bizarre. If the man wins, when he wins, he won't be president of the Ron Paul supporters. He'll be president for all americans. That's a big difference.

Saying that you wouldn't support him were Kucinich his VP, at least it's honest even if I don't consider it to be thought through carefully. Saying "this should be deleted, we can't talk about it" when it was a discussion asked sincerely, in a polite manner, and only because it seems to me that it might help his campaign... that's just low. Does anyone realistically expect a landslide? He will need every last vote he can get when the primary comes to your state. We're not talking about him cheating. We're not talking about selling out. We're talking about him showing those americans whose policies he does not agree with that we're at least willing to listen to them as long as they're decent about it and stop with all the bullshit rhetoric that Hillary and Giuliani, Obama and McCain, Edwards and Romney are about.

The VP is first and foremost an advisor to the president. Ron Paul's a strong man, one with a strong mind and personality. Kucinich won't hypnotize him to change his mind. I like it when people disagree with me when it's civil... if you only listen to those who agree with you completely, there's no one there to keep you honest. No one there to force you to take a hard look at your own positions and to really defend them, to show that they are indeed defensible.

Those who worry that the VP is but a heartbeat away from the presidency, I admit, this would be a risk. And while there are those that would want Paul shot, I don't think Kucinich is the kind of man to try something like that (unlike, say, LBJ).

There is no other democrat that has anything like decency or honesty among the other candidates. Hillary's glad to continue this perverse war that kills thousands, and Obama and Edwards either agree with her or are too scared to speak out against. Pretty much the same thing I suppose. Kucinich is different. He's wrong about guns, I agree. He is too socialist. But, when Ron Paul's policies actually start working, he's just honest enough that I think Paul might change his mind.

As I see it, There's at least a 4 way tie brewing in the GOP. Whoever it is that controls this show can't seem to make up their minds about who the frontrunner is. This is good... if there were only Giuliani and he was getting 60% of the primary vote, there'd be no way to beat him, even with an incredibly strong showing. But more or less a tie among 4? If the frontrunners are only getting 60 or 70% of the vote, that's like 15-20% a piece. It's still thinking that Paul might not just scrape by, and win it slowly over the course of the summer, but for him to come in 1st nearly everywhere.

Especially if he could pick up another 5% from democrats and independents that are worried he's just another republican. The democrats don't have anyone to vote for either... Gravel's already been shut out, and they're getting ready to do the same to Kucinich. There's no one left for them that is sane, even what passes for sane in that party. Let's show them their worries aren't right, let's show them that their concerns as voters will at least be acknowledged too.
 
Back
Top