Kucinich – Paul…wtf?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

This has got to be the most patshit crazy idea I have heard of since Perot got in the game back in the day.

Kucinich considers Paul as running mate. 

“I’m thinking about Ron Paul” as a running mate, Kucinich told a crowd of about 70 supporters at a house party here, one of numerous stops throughout New Hampshire over the Thanksgiving weekend. A Kucinich-Paul administration could bring people together “to balance the energies in this country,” Kucinich said.

It would create a stunning, if dizzying, blend of beliefs, wedding two politicians who hold different views on abortion rights, the role of government in providing health care, and the use of government in fostering — or hampering — the public’s greater good. Those are among the reasons it would never work, said a spokesman for Paul, a congressman and doctor from Texas.

Goddamn if that is not the most bug-fuck crazy thing I have read in a while. It’s so crazy, it might just get people talking about stuff on some random website usually dedicated to drinking, cycling and boobs.

I am not sure about either of these guys, but seeing as some people keep pushing Ron Paul as the most viable alternative to the current crop (even though he is hardcore Republican/Conservative on most of his viewpoints…) I figure it would be a good topic for our Wed. meeting.

Talk amongst yourselves.


Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About bikepunk

“Cuts, scrapes, bruises… all in a day’s riding. Then it’s off for some good german beer in a local biergarten.” Munich, Germany

10 Replies to “Kucinich – Paul…wtf?”

  1. Someone mentioned this to me a couple days ago and sounded it like a great situation for everyone. Except some folk entrenched in professional politics in the bad for now DC. We know the good one.

  2. While I acknowledege that this is a “batshit” idea, I love it. Go to each of their websites, read the blurbs on their “issues” pages and see that they are not that far apart.

    Moreover they both seem to be willing to say that the emporer is not wearing clothes. They are the only ones in the race talking about how the system is broke AND walking the talk.

    Yeah they are both never going to win but they are raising importannt issues and giving voice to those of us who are sick to death of business as usual.

    As far as being running mates, don’t they need to win the primary and secure their parties (which one) nomination before they choose a running mate? Maybe the idea is that they will run as independents in the Batshit party.
    Thanks for the Wednesday Rant BP.

  3. I fully agree, Sorelegs. Anyway, this is no crazier than the status quo. Just because we’re used to Bush/Cheney et al, doesn’t mean they’re not batshit crazy.

    Re: comments that Kucinich isn’t “manly” enough (whatever that means): even if that’s true, “strong men” and politics are a bad mix, as a quick glance at mid-twentieth-century European history will confirm. Plus, I think cracks about Kucinich are BS, anyway. Even if you disagree with him, there’s no getting around that he’s got the balls to publicly fight for controversial views. It’s the macho-on-the-outside-frightened-on-the-inside types who are trying to turn the US into a “security state” at the expense of civil rights and rule of law.

  4. It’s called FLILF. Oh yeah.

    Seriously, he’s religious, but he’s not about imposing his religion on other people. At least to my knowledge. Unfortunately, he’ll never get elected (or nominated even). He should stay clear of Ron Paul. Paul represents TX14, which is one of the more conservative districts in Texas. Galveston is not a liberal place. It baffles me how people are willing to accept Paul’s social beliefs, just because he talks about fiscal and war issues. He takes money from stormfront (white supremacist fuck heads)! To my knowledge he hasn’t publicly burned their money yet. Well given it back, since burning it is illegal. If he really wants to get them he should donate every cent to the NAACP or UNCF and send each of the stormfront donors a subscription to Ebony. That I would respect.

    And on the war, as much as I know we should never have gone in; as much as I wish we could get out immediately; as much as it is a drain on our current and our future economy, there is no realistic way we can. (My girlfriend’s sister is there, and I dread the day she gets THAT call.) BushCo put us into a situation where we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Shit, they probably knew they were doing it, and did it anyways just to protect the interests of his daddy and Cheney. All this talk about how Iraq is unstable, guess what, that was our doing, and we have to take responsibility for that goat-fucker Bush screwing things up. The days of isolationism are long gone, we can’t pull out in anything less than 5 years without things turning into an even bigger haven for extremest genocidal nutcases. We need to impeach Bush and Cheney right now (and the rest of BushCo), and start working on figuring out solutions to the mess they have gotten our country into.

  5. el jefe, what “days of isolationism” are you talking about? Of course, the Pres and VP should be impeached for breaking laws and violating their oaths, but that’s not gonna happen. So, yeah, let’s get solutions going.

    Thus, put Ron Paul in office and see what things might be like for American citizens if we can get this on: Rule of Law/Constitution vs. Oligarchy/Supranationalism?

    P.S. Check out how Ron Paul’s positions and voting record on individual rights, states rights, role of Federal govt. and Constitional law relate to whatever social issues concern you. I think you’ll be WAY better off that the lip service given by other candidates.

  6. Ron Paul is not a Constitutional scholar, and when he talks about upholding the “rule of law” and the Constitution, usually he is talking about things that HE SEES in the law and the Constitution which actually ARE NOT THERE.

    Paul’s pull with most fools is twofold. (1) He says he’s against the war in Iraq. (2) He says the Fed Income Tax is illegal and the Fed Reserve Bank is unConstitutional.

    On point (1) a smart person would examine Paul’s thoughts on foreign policy and “terrorism.” Paul endorses Michael Scheuer’s view on the Middle East and “terrorism.” Michael Scheuer says we need to hunt down and eliminate al Qaeda and all other Middle Eastern “terrorists” because they threaten the “American way of life.” So what Ron Paul actually is arguing on the Iraq War isn’t that he’s against WAR, but rather that he is against the war that Mr Bush is conducting. Ron Paul would use US military and other resources to “destroy terrorism.” How is that different from what we now have?

    On point (2) Paul’s bases for these statements is somewhat skewed. He comes at them from the perspective that the Fed Govt is largely un-necessary and ought to be mostly dismantled. He says many laws and regulations are impediments to business. He would return to a “laissez-faire” form of American buccaneer capitalism, where anything can and will be allowed as long as it promotes “the bottom line.” Unfortunately mankind will take shortcuts and will yield to its more base and negative impulses if not checked by laws and regulations. Examine what happened in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan’s rollback of many regulations and regulatory enforcement. You will see records of huge financial crimes on Wall Street and throughout America, and evidence of environmental damage wherever EPA regs were relaxed and not enforced.

    Ron Paul is a trojan horse for the Ronald Reagan/David Stockman/Alan Greenspan wing of “conservative” thought, a gang of people who want to have a regulation- and law-free “market” for businesses to go crazy and have a huge friggin’ party.

    And that sort of thought is what put us in the pickle we’re now in.

    So if you think Ron Paul is revolutionary, you’re not thinking clearly and you’re ignoring the real import of his underlying views.