I'm Curious: Who Would Make a Better VP? Ron Paul or Joe Lieberman?

I think that Al Gore made a lousy choice to be his VP in 2000. As much as I admire Al, I am thankful that Joe Lieberman never was the Vice President. That's the only consolation I can find from the election of 2000.

There's a lot of condemnation about a simple comment made by Dennis Kucinich regarding his merely considering Ron Paul to be his VP. Too much condemnation, if you ask me.

I think that those who piled on Dennis should back off.

I understand the concerns, but for argument sake, based on the holocaust of Iraq today, the millions dead there, the debt it has left our nation with and all of the horrific possibilities that point toward the mother of all civil wars there, I ask this question:

Who would make a better Vice President of the United States? And consider this before you pile on Dennis Kucinich.

Ron Paul or Joe Lieberman?

Enjoy.

choice of avatars.

Ok, he's dead. So what? I still like him.

Is this the wackiest poll ever or what? And yet it makes a point that the pile on Dennis was equally silly.

I got to visit FDR's home last month. It was great. Thanks for picking up on my nutty poll.

FDR is a knock-out champ of a president.

I still like most of that model of governance, too.

John may surprise everyone with a win in Iowa.

Lieberman is not going to be on any party's ticket for Vice-President again, and everyone knows it.

Paul is only going to be on a ticket with Rep. Kucinich if these two form a third party, and if they do, Paul is more likely to head the ticket, as he has more money and followers to bring to the bargaining, and is far and away the tougher man of the pair.

Most who see this will recognize it as no more than an attempt to trap them into saying yes to one of two figures no left or progressive person feels the least affinity for, and will not think about it at all past that immediate understanding. A grandson of mine at two went through that phase of saying 'No!' to everything, but when first asked "Is 'no' all you can say?", an odd gleam came into his eye, and he pointed up at the ceiling fan, then towards the window, and then toddled off out of the room....

No one is trapped at all. It is a fair question.

Had Al made it to the White House, Lieberman would have been a single heartbeat away from being president. That is reality.

Dennis' comment is far less injurious if you ask me.

In any event, since neither are Democrats, but one was on our ticket once, it's a fair question.

And again, the only way a ticket combining Paul and Rep. Kucinich could appear is through those two joining in a third party. The nearest thing to a real assurance Rep. Kucinich will not bolt to an independent run is the likelihood that if he did, the Ohio Democrats would select a single strong primary challenger and sweep him from the slate at the next opportunity.

Dennis will not leave the Democratic Party. Ain't gonna happen. And one heartbeat away from being president, The Magistrate...think about that. President Lieberman?

Selecting Lieberman was a mistake, that embodies the reason Vice-President Gore did not make that election a rout, namely his determination to repudiate President Clinton, and pitch his banner on difference from Our Bill rather than continuity. We pay daily for that mis-judgement.

It seems from your comments above that the question really you meant to pose is which of these two would make the better President, and taken on those terms it does not trouble me at all to answer Lieberman, since he would at least preserve remaining legacies of the New Deal, while Paul is committed to return the country to the age of the Robber Barons of the late nineteenth century. Lieberman's bellicosity in the Near East would do harm to the country, certainly, but not so much as Paul's assault on its social fabric under the Libertarian banner. Lieberman would be a disease of the skin; Paul a disease of the heart.

I think either of them would make terrible leaders and would cause great harm to our country which is already in more serious trouble than most are even aware of.

Lieberman clearly has a nutty thing for making war against Muslim nations. He's suggested it against Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and Iraq all in less than five years. On the other hand, Paul is a Ayn Rand reactionary and lives in a fantasy world where all people have equal opportunity if they will only apply themselves.

My first instinct was to ask "which would make the worst VP" but that would have drawn far too serious of comments. Hence the lighter side. Still, it is a fair question.

"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Another new league record.

.... those are some pretty scary choices! http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/duh!.gif

Is it too much to ask that our VP be a Democrat?

.

In olden times the vice presidency wasn't valued. In much more recent times a guy like Dick Cheney can make it an underground, undisclosed Oval Office.

Using the Cheney model of influence and control, I want neither of your two poll options anywhere near real power.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No outrage here over Gore's pick, just attacks on Dennis.

I think you wanted to use a word more like shiteaters or demented haters, no?

:P

Back off of Dennis? I think most of us were doing fine just not supporting him. Get over the bitterness, already.

I'll never vote for his reupke ass. :puke:

One's a traitor and the other comes from the enemy camp.
There is good reason to suspect the republicans of murder and
attempted murder (anthrax, tillman, and many more).
Dennis would be dead on inauguration day if the Republicans could seize the office that way.
As for Lieberman, I'm convinced he was spying and bad counseling for his Republican pals in 2000.
He's goose stepped and rubber stamped right along with his Republican allies.
I wouldn't want to buried on the same continent as this cur. I would certainly never support any
ticket with his name on it.

Which is worse? Which is better?

At least one never claimed to be a Democrat.

how would you prefer to be tortured? cigarettes put out against eyeballs, or your fingernails ripped out with pliers?

In other words, both options totally suck.

But I thought I would pose a question that would make eyes roll and then hopefully, put some perspective about Dennis' simple comment and Al's real choice in 2000.

After the GOP "debate", I thought a respite from hard thought might be nice.

I could have asked who would have made the "worst" VP, but that would have produced far too serious of comments.

and your post did elicit serious responses. here's another one: In 2000, we didn't know who Lieberman really was. his voting record really didn't indicate that he'd turn out to be one of the biggest war mongering assholes in recent memory. We do know who Ron Paul is- and so does Dennis. Personally, I don't think Dennis is serious about Paul; he's playing politics and trying to tap into Paul's base. Why is anyone surprised? Dennis is a politician- much as some people seem unable to recognize that fact.

They're both repukes and Paul might be a Dominionist to boot.

"Would you rather run a mile, jump a stile, or eat a country pancake?"

(Those who give the last choice are soon informed what a country pancake is!)

I would definitely rather run a mile, jump a stile OR eat a country pancake than have any dealings with either Lieberman OR Paul.

I would probably write in my neighbour's cat. Actually my neighbour's cat might make quite a good leader.