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

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

http://reason.com/blog/show/123670.html

"Adding to the list of improbabilities this man of vision sees, it's ain't just UFOs--it's Ron Paul as his running mate. Paul spokesman Jesse Benton tosses some cold water:

"Dr. Paul and Rep. Kucinich are friends and there is a lot of mutual respect," Paul communications director Jesse Benton said in an e-mail when asked whether a running-mate spot on the Kucinich ticket would be attractive to Paul. "They have worked, and will continue to work, together on the ending the war and protecting civil liberties.

"However, Ron wants to substantially cut the size and scope of the federal government. There are too many differences on issues such as taxes and spending to think a joint ticket would be possible.""

The UFO thing bothers me too. It's a real argument against Kucinich. Even if I hold nothing against him for it, it tainted him in a way that I don't want to transfer to Paul. And I can't believe he was so dumb as to not avoid answering, or even refusing.

 

[crashm1]

NoMoreNicksLeft,

I have a very hard time seeing RP and Kucinich as a ticket, here's why IMHO. Ron Paul is a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment, he is pro life, he is for smaller government, he is for lower taxes to name a few. Mr Kucinich is none of those things. Yes they agree on some things (Patriot Act, NAFTA and the war) but on very important issues they disagree in major ways. That is gonna make it tough all by itself, now on to their respective bases. The majority of supporters for Congressman Paul are sick of big government telling them how to live and what is allowed, the majority of Congressman Kuciniches supporters want to have more government oversight of more and more things. That sorta leaves us stuck in the same place as we are already if they each got 50% of their ideas through congress. The other thing that would be a problem would be the caucus states, I live in a state with an open primary but those states with a caucus system like MN or IA to name two would be impossible to get RP through the primary if he had a democrat as his running mate let alone the most socialist leaning of the bunch.
For myself I will not vote for someone who believes the 2nd amendment is a right reserved to the State, not even as a VP. Were Ron Paul to nominate Kucinich as his running mate he would lose my vote and I would be forced to vote Libertarian.
I am having a hard enough time voting for someone who is against abortion and a republican (no offense intended to anyone), I don't need any more challenges.

 

[loupeznik]

NoMoreNicksLeft,

I have a very hard time seeing RP and Kucinich as a ticket, here's why IMHO. Ron Paul is a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment, he is pro life, he is for smaller government, he is for lower taxes to name a few. Mr Kucinich is none of those things. Yes they agree on some things (Patriot Act, NAFTA and the war) but on very important issues they disagree in major ways. That is gonna make it tough all by itself, now on to their respective bases. The majority of supporters for Congressman Paul are sick of big government telling them how to live and what is allowed, the majority of Congressman Kuciniches supporters want to have more government oversight of more and more things. That sorta leaves us stuck in the same place as we are already if they each got 50% of their ideas through congress. The other thing that would be a problem would be the caucus states, I live in a state with an open primary but those states with a caucus system like MN or IA to name two would be impossible to get RP through the primary if he had a democrat as his running mate let alone the most socialist leaning of the bunch.
For myself I will not vote for someone who believes the 2nd amendment is a right reserved to the State, not even as a VP. Were Ron Paul to nominate Kucinich as his running mate he would lose my vote and I would be forced to vote Libertarian.
I am having a hard enough time voting for someone who is against abortion and a republican (no offense intended to anyone), I don't need any more challenges.

Amen!

 

[Oddball]

NoMoreNicksLeft,

I have a very hard time seeing RP and Kucinich as a ticket, here's why IMHO. Ron Paul is a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment, he is pro life, he is for smaller government, he is for lower taxes to name a few. Mr Kucinich is none of those things. Yes they agree on some things (Patriot Act, NAFTA and the war) but on very important issues they disagree in major ways. That is gonna make it tough all by itself, now on to their respective bases. The majority of supporters for Congressman Paul are sick of big government telling them how to live and what is allowed, the majority of Congressman Kuciniches supporters want to have more government oversight of more and more things. That sorta leaves us stuck in the same place as we are already if they each got 50% of their ideas through congress. The other thing that would be a problem would be the caucus states, I live in a state with an open primary but those states with a caucus system like MN or IA to name two would be impossible to get RP through the primary if he had a democrat as his running mate let alone the most socialist leaning of the bunch.
For myself I will not vote for someone who believes the 2nd amendment is a right reserved to the State, not even as a VP. Were Ron Paul to nominate Kucinich as his running mate he would lose my vote and I would be forced to vote Libertarian.
I am having a hard enough time voting for someone who is against abortion and a republican (no offense intended to anyone), I don't need any more challenges.

Bingo!

 

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

NoMoreNicksLeft,

I have a very hard time seeing RP and Kucinich as a ticket, here's why IMHO. Ron Paul is a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment, he is pro life, he is for smaller government, he is for lower taxes to name a few. Mr Kucinich is none of those things. Yes they agree on some things (Patriot Act, NAFTA and the war) but on very important issues they disagree in major ways. That is gonna make it tough all by itself, now on to their respective bases. The majority of supporters for Congressman Paul are sick of big government telling them how to live and what is allowed, the majority of Congressman Kuciniches supporters want to have more government oversight of more and more things. That sorta leaves us stuck in the same place as we are already if they each got 50% of their ideas through congress. The other thing that would be a problem would be the caucus states, I live in a state with an open primary but those states with a caucus system like MN or IA to name two would be impossible to get RP through the primary if he had a democrat as his running mate let alone the most socialist leaning of the bunch.
For myself I will not vote for someone who believes the 2nd amendment is a right reserved to the State, not even as a VP. Were Ron Paul to nominate Kucinich as his running mate he would lose my vote and I would be forced to vote Libertarian.
I am having a hard enough time voting for someone who is against abortion and a republican (no offense intended to anyone), I don't need any more challenges.

Thank you for your reply. Some of it I can't disagree with, some I think is being overemphasized.

For instance, I sincerely doubt that Kucinich wants big taxes, just that he sees no other way to pay for the things he believes in. This might not be a distinction others would bother with, but it is an important one. Then again, maybe I'm mistaken, and he literally just wants everyone to have less of their own paychecks.

I also agree with Paul on abortion. It is morally wrong. I'm an atheist, and yet I can't see how you can say there is nothing wrong with letting a mother choose to end the pregnancy without also allowing them to commit infanticide.

On the other hand, I don't want to see abortion criminalized. I have no reason to want to see women punished after the fact, that won't save unborn lives. And it won't even act as a deterrent. I'd like to see someone attack the root causes for the demand of abortion: poverty, availability of contraceptives, sex ed, and rape. Get rid of these, and many many fewer abortions even take place.

So neither get this right as far as I'm concerned, not directly (though, I think Paul would do much to eliminate poverty).

Personally, I'm not a big L libertarian. I don't think I could ever be. Socialism itself may not be the problem, but rather the extent of it. If it could ever be kept on a tight leash, it might not be a bad thing in small doses. If for instance, say 2% of my paycheck were going to a fund that helped those with bad luck to get back on their feet, how could I be annoyed by that? It's not the welfare that bothers me, it's not the tax that bothers me. It's that somehow 10 years after it's 8%, and 10 years after that 30%, and welfare that was meant to help the unlucky has been perverted into something that encourages people to be lazy. Neither extreme works for me. And neither does this obscene middle ground that we've found, which someone has the worst features of both extremes rather than the best.

I think that for one reason or another, Kucinich as VP might help that balance to be achieved. The points I will concede on are those that he might be more of a liability than an asset. We do not need for it to be October and for the UFO thing to come back and allow Hillary to swat Paul good. We can't have more defections than conversions over it. We'd have to avoid all the possible ways that the media would try to twist it. Maybe I am wrong, but it needs to be discussed.

At least agree on this: were there a candidate who wasn't objectionable in any real way, and if this candidate were well known and well liked, waiting til after the convention to name a VP would not be necessary. They always choose the other vomit-inducing candidates that will give them the biggest electoral advantage anyway, something I heop and expect Paul to not do.

 

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Besides all that has been mentioned, choosing a VP needs to bring strength to the party's choice. I see Dr. Paul growing in strength -- I do NOT see Kucinich doing that. I believe he would be more of a detriment than a strength.

This I also consider a valid criticism. Hasn't he already opted for federal matching funds? And it's absurd to think he'll raise half as much at his own moneybomb this December.

I've yet to decide if Kucinich's flirtation with the idea is him wanting to do good and thinking they're stronger together, or if he's grabbing onto anything as his own campaign sinks. Paul to the rest of the GOP is at least as strong as Obama to Hillary. But Kucinich? I've read articles that have Biden and whathisname being more likely than K. Which says Kucinich is where (in the Dem race) the media really wishes Paul was (in the GOP race).

 

[loupeznik]

Personally, I'm not a big L libertarian. I don't think I could ever be. Socialism itself may not be the problem, but rather the extent of it. If it could ever be kept on a tight leash, it might not be a bad thing in small doses. If for instance, say 2% of my paycheck were going to a fund that helped those with bad luck to get back on their feet, how could I be annoyed by that? It's not the welfare that bothers me, it's not the tax that bothers me. It's that somehow 10 years after it's 8%, and 10 years after that 30%, and welfare that was meant to help the unlucky has been perverted into something that encourages people to be lazy. Neither extreme works for me. And neither does this obscene middle ground that we've found, which someone has the worst features of both extremes rather than the best.

Please please help me to understand this. I can understand a willingness to help others. The part that I don't get is why is the federal government supposed to be so good at it. If you want to get a warm fuzzy feeling your heart for helping someone, then why not volunteer your time of give someone you know needs money yourself? If it's the christain thing to then do it. Anytime it becomes a tax it brings the baggage of force. What happens if you don't pay your taxes? At some point there will be a knock at the door with some carrying a gun to make sure you are "helpful" to the downtrodden. I hear this argument from democrats all the time. X is a moral good so X ought to be done by the federal government. If X is so good then go do it. You go do it. Don't think that we can make this a moral work just by voting the right way. Just like we can't make this campaign happen just by voting. It takes work.

 

[KCIndy]

I have an abiding respect for Kucinich, don't get me wrong. But as others pointed out, there are too many fundamental differences between the two for Kucinich to make a viable running mate... Besides, it's a little early for *anyone* to be tossing around VP ideas.

 

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Please please help me to understand this. I can understand a willingness to help others. The part that I don't get is why is the federal government supposed to be so good at it. If you want to get a warm fuzzy feeling your heart for helping someone, then why not volunteer your time of give someone you know needs money yourself? If it's the christain thing to then do it. Anytime it becomes a tax it brings the baggage of force. What happens if you don't pay your taxes? At some point there will be a knock at the door with some carrying a gun to make sure you are "helpful" to the downtrodden. I hear this argument from democrats all the time. X is a moral good so X ought to be done by the federal government. If X is so good then go do it. You go do it. Don't think that we can make this a moral work just by voting the right way. Just like we can't make this campaign happen just by voting. It takes work.

I don't think the federal government would be good at it. That's naive. But if you're asking me if I think they might in some limited circumstances be barely adequate without bankrupting and enserfing us... I think it's theoretically possible.

I can give to charity, I do. But I expect there to be those people who need help who aren't anywhere near me. I can't spend 24 hours a day searching for them so that I can help them personally. And corporate charities are a joke... does my money go to help, or to pay some nonprofit's CEO $500,000 a year? There are lots of bad solutions, and few good ones.

The only thing I struggle with, is whether it's even possible to limit such welfare and taxes meaningfully. I've read that at the beginning, income tax only affected those making the equivalent of $100,000 a year, and then only amounted to single digit percent of income. And I honestly tell you, that were it still that... I'd not give a shit. I doubt I'll ever make a six figure income, and I can hardly be sympathetic to someone so solidly upper middle class making do with a few less percent. But it didn't stay that way. Maybe it can't.

As for libertarianism in general? No, you can eliminate all the problems with the economy and market that we have now, and while I think many will be much better off, and most of the rest will be somewhat better off, it's naive to think that some won't run into bad luck. It's naive to think that people will magically become different afterwards, and be involved and pay attention enough to help those individually.

What do you do when neither extreme works as well as you'd like, and even the middle ground doesn't seem to? I don't know.

Until I was 11, my mother and my brother and I were on foodstamps. She wasn't lazy, she wasn't greedy, wanted to be self-sufficient but it just wasn't possible. I don't think that absent that, that someone would have came forward to help us. She was a good woman, and it'd not shock me to discover that she would have prostituted herself to keep us from starving. It affects my views. If we're going to make things better by getting tax rates off of everyone's back, and keep the reserve from bankrupting our nation, there oughtta be a way to not leave anyone behind, so we can all enjoy it. Wish I knew what it was.

 

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

I have an abiding respect for Kucinich, don't get me wrong. But as others pointed out, there are too many fundamental differences between the two for Kucinich to make a viable running mate... Besides, it's a little early for *anyone* to be tossing around VP ideas.

This rubs me the wrong way. Ignore Kucinich completely for the moment.

The reason they wait until so late in the game, is because that's how they rigged it. You'll choose a VP from one of the runnerups, despite the fact that you thought he was a bad enough candidate that you'd not step out of the way to let him win, just so you can buy votes in his home state, or with some minority or another that he appeals to.

It's sick. Paul is going to be doing alot of things differently, and it wouldn't be a bad thing if this was one of them, supposing there was a good VP candidate to choose.

I have my doubts about Kucinich too, but I'm scared. I want Paul to win every last little vote that he can, and I don't know how that can happen. I've only got one to give him. And I don't want a repeat of Perot choosing some no-name senile ijit. There is a deficit of nationally known figures who might suffice. What if in desperation he's forced to choose some nutball like the rest of the GOP candidates, if not actually one of them? In my nightmares, Paul chooses someone like Buchanan.

 

[crashm1]

Thank you for your reply. Some of it I can't disagree with, some I think is being overemphasized.

For instance, I sincerely doubt that Kucinich wants big taxes, just that he sees no other way to pay for the things he believes in. This might not be a distinction others would bother with, but it is an important one. Then again, maybe I'm mistaken, and he literally just wants everyone to have less of their own
paychecks.

The problem is the things he believes in are not things I believe in nor will they lead to a smaller less intrusive government.

I also agree with Paul on abortion. It is morally wrong. I'm an atheist, and yet I can't see how you can say there is nothing wrong with letting a mother choose to end the pregnancy without also allowing them to commit infanticide.


I ain't touching this other than to agree to disagree. I am going to say I am slightly confused by your support of Kucinich in light of your opposition to abortion.

On the other hand, I don't want to see abortion criminalized. I have no reason to want to see women punished after the fact, that won't save unborn lives. And it won't even act as a deterrent. I'd like to see someone attack the root causes for the demand of abortion: poverty, availability of contraceptives, sex ed, and rape. Get rid of these, and many many fewer abortions even take place.


So neither get this right as far as I'm concerned, not directly (though, I think Paul would do much to eliminate poverty).

Personally, I'm not a big L libertarian. I don't think I could ever be. Socialism itself may not be the problem, but rather the extent of it. If it could ever be kept on a tight leash, it might not be a bad thing in small doses. If for instance, say 2% of my paycheck were going to a fund that helped those with bad luck to get back on their feet, how could I be annoyed by that? It's not the welfare that bothers me, it's not the tax that bothers me. It's that somehow 10 years after it's 8%, and 10 years after that 30%, and welfare that was meant to help the unlucky has been perverted into something that encourages people to be lazy. Neither extreme works for me. And neither does this obscene middle ground that we've found, which someone has the worst features of both extremes rather than the best.

I would prefer to be allowed to donate to my favorite charities or governmental programs/agencies rather than be forced to give to an entity that has proved incapable of regulating itself. If you believe in giving a helping hand to those in need go for it, if you feel the air force needs a new bomber and want to give to the cause write a check, but don't tell me I have to give because you think t's a good idea and especially don't force me under penalty of law to give you a piece of my paycheck for your social, military, regulatory programs that I may or may not believe in. I have strong objections to an entity or person using force to encourage compliance.

I think that for one reason or another, Kucinich as VP might help that balance to be achieved. The points I will concede on are those that he might be more of a liability than an asset. We do not need for it to be October and for the UFO thing to come back and allow Hillary to swat Paul good. We can't have more defections than conversions over it. We'd have to avoid all the possible ways that the media would try to twist it. Maybe I am wrong, but it needs to be discussed.

I don't want balance, I want a strict constitutionalist or two reigning in a government that is running roughshod over the foundations of this nation (oh boy I sound like a whackadoo tonight), I want someone who will veto federal legislation that goes against the constitution, I want the option at least to keep more of my paycheck, I would like to buy guns that have no sporting purpose from any hardware store in the US, I want to be able to carry a weapon if I choose without worrying about what state or city I am in, I want illegal immigrants to go home and immegrate legally so we can welcome them with open arms.

At least agree on this: were there a candidate who wasn't objectionable in any real way, and if this candidate were well known and well liked, waiting til after the convention to name a VP would not be necessary. They always choose the other vomit-inducing candidates that will give them the biggest electoral advantage anyway, something I heop and expect Paul to not do.


I agree with you there, I just don't think Kucinich is the guy.

How's that for a second post?

 

[crashm1]

This rubs me the wrong way. Ignore Kucinich completely for the moment.

The reason they wait until so late in the game, is because that's how they rigged it. You'll choose a VP from one of the runnerups, despite the fact that you thought he was a bad enough candidate that you'd not step out of the way to let him win, just so you can buy votes.

Very true.


It's sick. Paul is going to be doing alot of things differently, and it wouldn't be a bad thing if this was one of them, supposing there was a good VP candidate to choose.

There is, there are 300 million people in this country after all. No idea who he has in mind but I suspect there is someone.


I have my doubts about Kucinich too, but I'm scared. I want Paul to win every last little vote that he can, and I don't know how that can happen. I've only got one to give him. And I don't want a repeat of Perot choosing some no-name senile ijit. There is a deficit of nationally known figures who might suffice. What if in desperation he's forced to choose some nutball like the rest of the GOP candidates, if not actually one of them? In my nightmares, Paul chooses someone like Buchanan.

I wouldn't be adverse to Huckabee (well maybe a little) in fact that may be the balance you are after. He is another compassionate conservative and more likely to follow through on his convictions than Bush did.

 

[partypooper]

one more of these threads and we will be back to 1%.

 

[loupeznik]

What do you do when neither extreme works as well as you'd like, and even the middle ground doesn't seem to? I don't know.

Until I was 11, my mother and my brother and I were on foodstamps. She wasn't lazy, she wasn't greedy, wanted to be self-sufficient but it just wasn't possible. I don't think that absent that, that someone would have came forward to help us. She was a good woman, and it'd not shock me to discover that she would have prostituted herself to keep us from starving. It affects my views. If we're going to make things better by getting tax rates off of everyone's back, and keep the reserve from bankrupting our nation, there oughtta be a way to not leave anyone behind, so we can all enjoy it. Wish I knew what it was.

Would it have been ethical had you robbed taken from your neighbor by force? Would it have been ethical had you found someone else to take from your neighbor by force? Would it be ethical to vote for your government to take from your neighbor by force?

I understand that there are victims in Capitalism. I also know of the victims of socialism, communism, and feudalism. Comparatively the victims of Capitalism are less numerous and less extreme. In a Capitalist society you have the choice to make a personal difference. Our form of government is not perfect. Our form of economy is not perfect. The combination of these two systems is the best this world has seen.

 

[Fox McCloud]

I deeply respect Kucinich for looking beyond his party and, basically, supporting Ron Paul...I also am glad that he wants us out of the war and wants to open an independent investigation for 9/11.......However, this isn't enough; every single one of his other policies are the total opposite of what I believer in....tightly gripped markets (the government, of course, doing the gripping), "equality" (which isn't truly equality, but group rights), socialism, gun-control, the list goes on and on.

Besides, Ron wants us out of the war too, and is willing to also open up an Independent investigation on 9/11.....um, why would I want to vote for Kucinich? Better yet, why have someone who is completely against what I believe in as VP?

I think Kucinich's problem is that he is mislead....if he "saw the light" so to speak, I think he'd be very similar to Ron Paul....but sadly, he has not seen the light (and I doubt he will).

Denis Kucinich for VP = no!

 

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

I deeply respect Kucinich for looking beyond his party and, basically, supporting Ron Paul...I also am glad that he wants us out of the war and wants to open an independent investigation for 9/11.......However, this isn't enough; every single one of his other policies are the total opposite of what I believer in....tightly gripped markets (the government, of course, doing the gripping), "equality" (which isn't truly equality, but group rights), socialism, gun-control, the list goes on and on.

Besides, Ron wants us out of the war too, and is willing to also open up an Independent investigation on 9/11.....um, why would I want to vote for Kucinich? Better yet, why have someone who is completely against what I believe in as VP?

I think Kucinich's problem is that he is mislead....if he "saw the light" so to speak, I think he'd be very similar to Ron Paul....but sadly, he has not seen the light (and I doubt he will).

Denis Kucinich for VP = no!

I think he will see the light. After 2 or 3 years of Paul as president, only the dishonest will be able to deny it, and they never were in socialism to help people anyway, it was just a convenient excuse to powermonger.

Anyway, this thread can end now, I've read some things that say both candidates have finally put a firm no on the question, so it's all moot.

That being the case, the entire campaign needs to think long and hard about who will be. Paul's gone on record as not endorsing any of the other republicans, so they're out. Needs to be someone with national recognition, a libertarian bent, and no scandal potential. I'd rule out celebrities myself, but with Arnold and Reagan and even Thompson, that doesn't seem to be a problem, so maybe some could be considered.

 

[Kade]

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.

You people are as thick as they come.

Kucinich is not a socialist. By whatever standards you adhere to socialism as equivalent to a mixed economy, you are wrong. I'm not going to defend some of Kucinich's stances, just as much as I can't defend some of Paul's. BOTH of them are pro-civil liberties, pro-privacy etc... Is that not what matters above all?

 

[Sandy]

You people are as thick as they come.

Kucinich is not a socialist. By whatever standards you adhere to socialism as equivalent to a mixed economy, you are wrong. I'm not going to defend some of Kucinich's stances, just as much as I can't defend some of Paul's. BOTH of them are pro-civil liberties, pro-privacy etc... Is that not what matters above all?

K is pro gun control. Are you sure he's pro-civil liberties? Thick? You don't have your facts straight.

 

[Kade]

K is pro gun control. Are you sure he's pro-civil liberties? Thick? You don't have your facts straight.

Facts are all I have. Kucinich is against gun ownership, and I'm not, I don't see where I made the clear statement that I support Kucinich 100%.
Ron Paul wants a theocracy, I do not. The government scares the shit out of me. And "K" and Paul. There we go.

Facts are all I have.

 

[Oddball]

Dr. Paul wants a theocracy!?!?!????????

That's a new one on me. Care to back that assertion up with some of them "facts" thingys???