An Idea from a Free Thinking American - How Dr. Paul can Win, easily.

While I appreciate the spirit of the original post, and admire some of the things Kucinich does, and note that Dr. Paul has called him a friend and said that he understands a lot of civil liberties issues I think Dr. Paul will be better off choosing his VP and cabinet from that pool of like-minded people from outside Washington DC that he is more comfortable with.

I respect Dr. Paul enough to have confidence that he could choose a much better running-mate for himself than I could suggest for him.

I've played the game in my head many times. Thinking he could one-up everyone by picking a running mate who was a democrat, black or a woman, and 5x points for all three (does anyone else find themselves reminded of Robert Heinlein's essay and short story "The Happy Days Ahead" from "Expanded Universe?") But the most important quality a VP could have will be like-mindedness and shared purpose. If anything should happen to Dr. Paul the VP needs to be someone who can and will fulfill his mission.

In the end, I think we'll all be surprised at the dynamic cabinet he gathers to himself as he takes office. They will be fresh faces from outside Washington, people we will only recognize if we've spent some time being economics nerds. And others who speak of the value of liberty like no-one we've heard of outside history books.

I'm not an 'it', I'm a 'he'. I'm a supporter of Dr Paul. If I had to put myself into a 'party', it would be either Constitutional or Libertarian... probably a mix of the two.. Libertutional?

I get my own opinions through decades of experience. I swore the oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies - foriegn and domestic - long ago, and have not wavered from that oath.

I understand that everyone has an opinion, and that those opinions aren't always going to glide with my own - and I respect that. That's part of the freedoms we strive so strongly to protect. I do find it interesting that a person in a group that is open to the idea of the free flow of ideas can resort to name calling and extremist views, but that all I find it - interesting.

If I see something I find incorrect, or I have a different opinion on the subject, I'll chime in with my own thoughts. But 'brain dead', 'idiot', 'ignorant' and such terms will not be my own first responses to anyone.

There are those who are here that truly do want to help Dr Paul in this ultimate journey to the highest office in the land. Some have not taken part in any campaign, in any way, for many years - or ever.

Finally, a candidate that offers hope, solution and straight answers to problematic questions comes along - and it behooves us all to come up with as many potential routes to victory as we can. This is not a 'new way of thinking' candidate, we all understand that. But to the majority of voters out there, anything 'new' is something to be feared.

One goal should be to remove the roadblocks of fear, the walls of misunderstanding, and the fence of uncertainty that stand between Ron Paul and the voters who would otherwise not vote at all.

There are probably many methods which could be used to accomplish these barrier-breaking tasks, and we need not discount all of them.

The general idea of what I suggested is sound. I may have originally picked the wrong person to use for the example I provided, but the idea can still stand on it's own. No need to attack the messenger just because you are not capable of finding the potential in the message.

If someone's proposal is faulty, point out the faults of the proposal. Dont waste time with extremist nonsense or attacks on the qualities of the person with the ideas and/or questions.
Perhaps a solution can be found that would work. If not, the idea would probably die a natural death anyway.

It seems that some people here are so feverishly devoted to getting Dr Paul elected using their own ideas to get the job done, that any suggestions that are 'new ideas' or 'different' are immediately shunned, ridiculed, attacked and discounted without much thought at all.

Odd.. I thought the media doing that to Dr Paul would have taught some of you a lesson on how faulty that line of reasoning is. I guess not.

I'll keep on with this idea. We dont know who Ron Paul is planning on asking to be his Vice President. We could be suprised, we might not be. Regardless, I doubt the views and opinions of myself in this single thread floating in bits and bytes on the internet is going to make any actual change in Ron Paul's strategies. Unlike some people, I dont hold my opinions up with such enforced regard that I expect everyone - including a future President of the United States - to immediately jump to task and do as I say.

It was an idea, that's all.

CF

now that is funny

Yes, they are different. I DO understand how different RP and Dems are.

The problem is, the average american doesn't. They see them as the same things with two different names.

In many aspects, they are the same. You say Dem's are generally for big government, but then you go on to say RP is not. Yeah, we know RP is not.

The correct way to have phrased that would have been to say "Democrats are generally for big government and socialized solutions to peoples problems and the Republicans are for small govt. and letting individual liberty and the free market be the solution to peoples problems". THAT would be 'different'.

Unfortunately, that is not true.

I concede the suggestion of Obama.. I merely used him as an example.

So find another Democrat that comes closer to RP's viewpoints - there has to be someone out there who does.

THe point is, just by putting together a team made up of both parties, it will get the prior non-voters to sit up and take notice, and if they notice, they'll vote.

It's an alternative to the 'one party decision' that half this country is tired of having to make. Give them another option and they'll come out in droves.

And "Libertarian" or "Constitutional" party isn't the kind of 'other option' they're looking for. Many of them are comfortable hearing the words "Democrat" and "Republican". They are time-honored parties with seriously entrenched members in government. "Libertarian" or "Constitutional" takes too long to explain to most people who might be interested in change, but think of anything with a different name as too radical to take seriously.

They take Democrat and Republican seriously.. so why not throw them something they can at least raise an eyebrow about.

Unfortunately, I dont think there will be much choice in the matter.

Sure, RP can pick a libertarian, and then spend the next four years vetoing every single bill that comes down the pipe.

He disagrees with Republican policies. He disagrees with Democrat policies. But it's those two parties that will be doing all the big time bills in Congress and the Senate.

If the Congress and/or Senate were dominated by Libertarians/Constitutionalists, or at least a third of them were Libertarians/Constitutionalists, then it would be a different story.

What you're saying is that no republican or democrat can be a valid choice, because it's Constitutional or Libertarian ALL THE WAY!!

Sorry folks, but just having that kind of power in the White House isn't enough to change a country. Or have we forgotten how Legislative and Executive powers work?

(heheh. .just noticed how the title of this post turned out.. I'm sure many will agree with it LOL)