Ron Paul teams up with Dem candidate (Kucinich) to end war

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Ron_Paul_teams_up_with_Dem_0724.html

Ron Paul, a Republican Presidential candidate who is opposed to the war in Iraq, believes that lawmakers can reach across the aisle to pass legislation that will bring American troops home as soon as possible.

"Sometimes, those labels are misleading," he told Joe Scarborough on MSNBC Tuesday. "I think if you approach this from a constitutional viewpoint, we can join hands with the left as well as the right and come up with a solution and get our troops home."

As the host mentioned, the Texas Congressman has co-sponsored a bill with another presidential contender, Democrat Dennis Kucinich, that would repeal President Bush's authority to use force in Iraq within the next sixth months. Besides Kucinich, 18 other Democrats have signed on.

And the Greenies and Libbies have more in common than people might think.

A lot of good things.Seems easier for both sides to just demonize each other though instead of looking for that common ground,to the detriment of both.

Bernie Sanders ran for office without any Democratic opposition and he caucuses with the Dems even though he is to the left of the party.

Others who advocate for third parties are somehow convinced that they can start at the top and do it all overnight.

could make a difference.

Maybe this could be the "Unity08" dream team Sam W is speaking of.

I know there just has to be a number of us here that remember what happened when Ross Perot first started to run.

I will never stop believing that if he had not dropped out, he would have won.

We the people, we did have the momentum then, we are in a far darker place now.

between the libertarian right and the libertarian left. It has interesting possibilities and could in fact be the political base for the destruction of the existing duopoly.

Plus Ron Paul is a libertarian POSING as a Republican! Now there's a guy you can trust...

Sounds interesting.

Was just browsing over at Unity08's forums and saw that idea being kicked around. Although on the surface, the two seem about as diametrically opposed as they can be, they tend to agree on the major issues more than they disagree.

If they could work together, the possibilities fascinate...

But I still like the sound of Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Kucinich (or Kucinich/Kennedy, if you prefer) better...;)

You mean they've already decided on a ticket? Or do you mean you don't like Kucinich or Paul?

except for the war. I'm betting Unity '08 actually wants to find electable candidates and be at least competitive in the race. How I feel about Kucinich and Paul is beside the point.

significant that there is no possibility of a compromise. Both of them have fundamental flaws in their economic policies. Paul favors, through limited taxation and economic intervention, a level of economic determinism that would destroy the middle class in America. Kucinich favors policy which, through too much economic intervention, would further hamper America's competitiveness.

CD: Congressman Dennis Kucinich is kind of similar in that he is one of the more vocal antiwar critics on the Democratic side of the debates. I know you guys probably disagree on a load of things, but you’ve come together a lot to work on issues of war and peace. So could you talk about your relationship with Congressman Kucinich over the past couple years, what it’s been like, what you think of him?

RP: We’re close friends, and we certainly agree . And I think we may end up voting closely all the time on the war issue. Sometimes some of these funding bills are a little bit complex, and even Walter Jones and I will disagree even though we agree on what we’re supposed to be doing, but the interpretation will be a little bit different. But I think Dennis and I usually come down on the same side of it. That is, if you don’t want the war you quit the funding, and that’s our responsibility and it’s not the president’s authority to do what he wants because we have the purse strings, so you have to vote against the spending. So we get along very well on that, and since it’s such a major issue I think I will continue to work with him the best we can. And you know, take some of the liberal welfare spending that Dennis might support more than I. But you know, I’m not hostile toward that. If I can save the money from overseas, put some of it against the deficit, end up with a net reduction in the size of the budget, at the same time stopping a war, I may well be very open to funding some of these programs. Because I’m not out to gut some of these programs that have taught people to be very dependant on the government, like medical care. I mean, that’s not my goal. I’ve never run for office with the goal of slashing (those programs) even though philosophically I don’t think it’s the best way to deliver services and prosperity to poor people.

from interview here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/davis4.html

it would be difficult to compromise on such issues. Tolerating such programs is different acting as the vice President of someone would made them a focal point of his policies.

I was pointing out that, surprisingly, at least for me, Ron Paul does not have a right wing knee jerk reaction to social spending programs. (based on this snippet)

as the other candidates are and they don't play the same game. This may be the luxury of not being a major contender or perhaps the converse.

Greens, Socialists and REAL Democrats have nothing in common with Libertarians. Libertarians may be against Corporations, but they are also against something like health care for all, public roadways, puplic education, social security, etc.

buying it. When she said she was a progressive. . . :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

*abolishing the IRSand Progressive Taxation

*closing the public schools

*abolishing Social Security and MediCare.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich may have reached the same conclusion on the illegality and immorality of the Iraq Occupation and Constitutional Protections, but they are a World Apart on almost every other issue.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

There's a huge difference between shutting down the dept. of education at the federal level and closing the public schools. Paul wants to eliminate fedaral mandates like no child left behind. Schools are a local matter.

I think there's a huge difference between philosophically opposing SS and MC and abolishing them now when millions of Americans depend on them also, and know Paul's addressed that difference.

Personal income tax is only 1/3 of federal revenue. If the tax system were truly progressive you might have a point there, but I can't imagine what it could be unless you really have a problem with funding the federal government with corporate and luxury taxes on stuff like gas and oil. Besides Paul is the only guy, except for Kucinich maybe, making an issue of the regressive taxation that occurs due to government actions like deficit spending or just outright corporatism.

A Paul/Kucinich ticket would be interesting, but it's really a shame we won't see them running against each other in the general, because that would be a debate that could actually result in some positive change.

Instead we'll likely get Clinton and Giuliani argueing about who looks better in a dress, since they seem to agree on everything else.

he is corporate leaning and way too business friendly. I don't give a fuck where he stands on social issues and I am real glad he's against the war, but he is way too vocal an advocate for privatization of government services and he refuses to take into account human nature.

You DON'T want him as President.

Granted either ticket is way out in fantasy land, but that's another story entirely.

The thing about Presidential running mates is that while they campaign as a team after they win, one becomes the most powerful person in the world, the other breaks ties in the Senate. Yes, the modern Vice President is now often a Senior Advisor to the President, but the bottom line is that he advances the President's agenda, not his own agenda.

If Kucinich is at the top of the ticket, his domestic agenda would be the policy the administration would advocate for. Likewise with Paul.

but I don't know if it's going anywhere.

Edit: Imagine how Congress would freak out if they had to deal with President Kucinich and VP Paul. They wouldn't know whether to shit or wind their watches. It would be fun to see.