An Idea from a Free Thinking American - How Dr. Paul can Win, easily.
Posted January 11th, 2008 by ColdFusion
output
Original Post Changed - Yes, I Concede the Obama Reference
With all the current ups and downs of this campaign, I dont think anyone can disagree that Dr Paul is probably going to end up on the ballot for November.
He still has a long road to travel before he gets there, but get there he will.
Unfortunately, unless some major events spring forth to propel him far in front of his competition, he is going to barely make it to that final ballot.
This is where he needs, in my opinion, to demonstrate - not just propose or claim - that he is truly the candidate of change. That he is absolutely, without question, the candidate most capable and willing to bring the parties together to fix this broken nation.
He will have a one time opportunity to declare his devotion to binding this country together - and there is a critical step he can take to solidify his determination in the minds of all voters.
He needs to take a Democrat as his Vice President.
Before you spit coffee on your screen, listen to the logic behind this.
Aside from his taking a Democrat as his running mate being a slam-dunk in demonstrating his will to unite the bickering seats in D.C., if he chose correctly - it could create a landslide victory in November.
If Dr. Paul were to ask a similar-minded democrat to be his running mate, there would be benefits on many fronts. Not only will the aformentioned 'proof of unity' be etched in stone by bringing a Democrat to his team - but the voters who may have backed A Similarly-Minded Democrat in the primaries would quite probably vote for the Paul/Dem ticket.
I have a feeling that the Democratic race is going to be a close one. Regardless of who comes out in front of that one, whoever is in 2nd place is going to be in a very CLOSE second place. Take those votes and add them to A.) The current support for Dr Paul and, B.) The additional votes that will be generated by the sheer act of a Republican and Democrat running together, and I believe it would propel this cause to a victory in November.
But, that's my own personal opinion.
If Dr Paul can't get the party nomination on his own (and I'm not saying that he can't, he has a great chance to do so), I think that bringing a Democrat to the table as a running mate would be more valuable on election day than any debate win he could muster.
If Dr Paul does win the party nomination - I would still recommend a Democrat for his running mate. The opportunity to not only have a bipartisan oval office, but to garner votes from both sides of the political spectrum are too great to discount.
I could be wrong, and many might feel this idea is bound to fail because of a feeling of 'siding with the enemy' if a two-party team were on the Presidential ticket.. but if Dr Paul wanted to make an absolutely undebatable, undenyable and utterly demonstrative move - selecting a Democrat for Vice President on his team would be a truly awesome event.
IMHO,
CF
Bookmark/Search this post with:
There is something more important than winning this election
And that is teaching everyone that every time a dollar goes to Washington, either nothing or worse than nothing comes back.
Everytime a dollar stays in YOUR pocket, everyone benefits.
Once everyone knows that, the Revolution will have succeeded.
There are still way too many people who think the old way.
All Democrats are big spenders.
So this idea will not work for the LONG TERM benefit of America.
Which Democrat?
RSK There aren't any that have similar views across the board. The closest would probably be Dennis Kucinich. He and Dr. Paul have similar views on foreign policy, however, there views on domestic policy are in many cases diametrically opposed. Dennis is anti second amendment (guns). It would be a difficult decision. Then again, there really aren't any Republicans with similar or the same views as Dr. Paul. He may have to choose his running mate from outside of the Congress.
I agree.
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.
Ron Paul will never choose a
Ron Paul will never choose a Democrat as a VP. If you don't understand why, please view the flash demonstration in my signature.
Signature: Individual Liberty for Newbies (Pass it on!)
I didn't spit my coffee on my screen.
But Mr. Obama, CFR spokesman, is not the man for the job.
Next.
Cold Fusion Brain Dead
Maybe runnng Ron Paul with a Democrat for Vice-President, as Cold Fusion points out would indeed secure victory in November for Dr. Paul, should he make it in the Primaries--which is not all that certain.
But he would be violating his principles by passing over the next best pro-liberty candidates to put what amounts to a Stalinist in the Vice Presidential slot. Then all that the international socialists would have to do is get rid of Dr. Paul and the Democrats would be in control.
Is Cold Fusion brain dead? Ot is it a secret agent for the liberals?
I wonder.
I'm not an 'it', I'm a 'he'.
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
He already gave an indication of this
He at least mentioned Kunnichi - or whatever his name is on Jay Leno
IF a democrat were going to
IF a democrat were going to be chosen as Paul's VP(which I admit is an interesting strategy that could help thwart Bloombergs globalist unity plan), I'd want it to be one who at least agreed with RP on the illegal immigration issue and stopping the North American Union and NAFTA.
Some possible choices I could see is Gene Taylor, Nancy Boyda(she is attractive and would help draw the women vote in and has signed onto anti-NAU/anti-NAFTA superhighway legislation), Jon Tester, Heath Shuler. Any of those three would be far better than picking Obama or one of the other current presidential candidates on the dem side who could care less about the above three issues I mentioned.
Thoughts?
ColdFusion (and others....)
No harm done with your suggestion-
and here's mine: a link to a pretty short article recapping Obama's policies and role with the CFR.
http://www.nowpublic.com/...
ps-to everyone: how 'bout we wait and see who RON PAUL decides on for VP? Just a thought.....this thread topic seems to get posted every few weeks or so,anew....
What About One of Ron Paul's Sons?
While I was reading all of the comments on this post, I suddenly thought of Ron Paul's sons. My daughter heard one of them speak at her college. Are they involved in government in any way? Surely they have the same beliefs as their dad.
Stop the Madness!
OK,I could not even read past your 'Obama' mention,nor the comments below.
PLEASE-do your homework,people!
I have already posted,as have others,many times,that Obama is a CFR member (and cousin to Cheney-8x removed!)----he is the 'Hillary backup'---
to make it look like democrats have a 'choice'.
AND,his policies are nothing like RP's=-what is closest?
Yea,he says he wants 'change'.
Rhetoric.
And that is the only statement that even comes close to RP's stances.
Obama=national healthcare,war with iran,continue in Iraq [he voted for funding 2005-07 for the war]. Ok,I am not going on and on here. I am amazed that this was even suggested. It's kind of funny,actually.
Wow.
Obama is even more of a socialist than Clinton. How could this be a good idea?
y????
allow a fox in the hen house??? i guess you don't want eggs or chickens....
Bipartisan anything is NOT good...
Our system was designed to keep the factions at odds so that government could be controlled. The fact is, the whole damned process should be at a constant stale mate. The lack of stale mate, and the fact that they learned to horsetrade with each other is what has allowed the government to grow so damned large.
The last thing we need in Washington is more bipartisanship!
Besides, as as been noted... Ron Paul, indeed, we are nothing like that side of the house (though, I will say that I respect individuals like Dennis Kucinich and Gravel who at least are trying to represent the people and in their best interest, even if misguided).
Lieberman?
Curious what people think about Lieberman?
lol
now that is funny
Your thinking has some logic but some faults
Obama isn't the guy for this discussion, Dennis Kucinich is and everyone knows it.
However, even though they differ greatly on many things it would be an incredible ticket for the American people. Would it, could it ever happen? Highly doubtful but you never know what RP's got up his sleeve.
Obama gets an F on gun owner rights
and he's also a cohort of the CFR. Another democrat maybe , Obama has too many issues including being on the www.judicialwatch.org top 10 corrupt politician list.
Not to sound mean but...
It sounds like you don't really understand how different RP and the democrats are. Democrats are generally for big government and socialized solutions to peoples problems and Paul is for small govt. and letting individual liberty and the free market be the solution to peoples problems. Don't be confused by the fact that they might agree on certain issues such as getting out of Iraq. Dr. Paul opposes the war for totally different principled and ideological reasons. Please people stop suggesting this. Bad idea all around, not to mention it is never going to happen. RP would never agree to it and a democrat isn't likely to to agree to this either.
Yes, they are different. I
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.
UMMMMMM , NO The democratic
UMMMMMM , NO
The democratic party as well as all the other GOP candidates see more government as the solution to our problems.
Hold them to their oath:
President
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Dr Paul could debate Obama first
I would not even consider such a thing until we know how Obama does in a debate against Paul. Obama is an AIPAC candidate who promised not to take bombing Iran off the table and not to lift sanctions.
HELL NO!!!!!!YOU DID NOT JUST say Obama as a running mate.
screw the socialist movement. WE HAVE TO REVERSE our ways,we need to fuck socialism to oblivian until it is nearly extinct in America.Obama is an opportunist,anti-american,socialist..he is funded by former black panther marxist members.FUCKIN WAKE UP.OBAMA is no Ron Paul
"Stop paying lip service to the Constitution,and OBEY IT!"-Ron Paul
I concede the suggestion of
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.
Yeah Right
Obama's a "racist"! And a "liberal"! And an "open borders" supporter, "let 'em all in" it was their country first mentality (speakin' about Mexico)! And a "lets attack Pakistan" enthusiast! Maybe you ought to read up on 'em!
Kucinich is a weakling! Like all "Demoncrats"!
Yeah Right #2
While I "laugh" at the idiocy of this post, why not Bill Clinton.
Free Thinking is not based upon ignorance.
Because Bill Clinton cannot
Because Bill Clinton cannot be Vice President. Read the Constitution to find out why. Perhaps I'm not as ignorant as you seem to think.
Dont you just love the trolls who pretend to be in the Constitution Party, but dont even have the sense to learn what's in it.
Unfortunately, I dont think
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)
Attacks from the left
Great news from NH this morning!
Ellen Ratnor who is a huge SOCIALIST reporter on WNTK in NH was on this morning.. In Her opening she called Ron Paul a "wacko" but then COMRADE Ratner quoted "we borrow 10 billion from China to give to Mushariff who over threw a democratically elected gov't and then we invade Iraq to promote democracy."
The socialist left is already starting to attack him while the fascist right is attacking. BOTH FACTIONS FEAR HIM!
NH Senator John Sununu was also on. I called the show and asked senator Sununnu if the fact that 35% of the post debate show voted for RON Paul could be democrats fed up with big spending. I also asked if he thought Ron Paul was saving or destroying the Republican party.
The economic argument stated by Ron Paul is the key to winning the Presidency. It will reuinte the Reagan Coalition!
The left wants to end the war to have socialized Medicine. Ron Paul wants to end the war to let people KEEP there own money.
IT IS THE ECONOMY STUPID!!!!!!!!
No
You are wrong. Here's why: it's the message, not the man. Our ultimate goal is not to put Ron Paul in the White House. Our goal is to change the direction of this country and restore freedom. That is going to require total committment to the message. And no democrat running for president embraces the message of freedom. So they do not qualify for this movement. Sorry. I will not vote for a gun-grabbing socialist as VP even if it will help RP win the election. We will win this election without compromising the message of liberty. And we will win the NEXT election without compromising the message liberty. And the next. And we will change the world, just the way Dr. Paul has, by sticking to the message. The message is liberty. Liberty, in all its glory. Not some half-baked semi-freedom.
Dennis kucinich for VP is a good idea
I was thinking along the same lines.
Obama certainly not, he is CFR and you should better investigate who is supporting his campaign.
Dennis instead is great and even if they would not agree 100% on monetary policy at least they would on foreign policy which would be a first step.
In my opinion Dennis is the best choice for Ron.
He would lose my support
It's the message. It's not about getting along and bringing the country together to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy.
The Democrat message is so far from the Revolution message that there is no way the two could mix.
If Ron Paul picks a Democrat I would drop my support for Ron Paul immediately.
why? democrat/republican
why?
democrat/republican have become stupid, meaningless terms.
What you should care about is the person's stance on issues, and Ron Paul's trust in him/her.
Agreed
Democrat/Republican have indeed become meaningless in this day of SSDD in Washington.
But unlike those of us here, a large percentage of American voters dont know that Dr Paul isn't really either party. His stances on the Constitution and Libertarianism have been overshadowed in the media by their lumping him in with the general Republican candidates.
We all, that is WE all, know why he's on the Republican ticket. But the average voter just looks at him like 'another Republican', and since his viewpoints and ideas are not in the same 'flow' as the Republicans he debates with, he looks to many viewers like something else.
That's the problem. The 'something else' is not being interpreted as 'a better choice' or 'an independant thinker' or even a 'libertarian'. The slow minded and unattentive crowd says "Hey, that guy is so different from the other Republicans on the stage, he must really be a Democrat!", and he loses ground because those folks think he's some kind of fake.
And the media knows this. They are using that lack of definition to thwart Dr Paul at every turn.
Or can you tell me that Dr Paul's views and ideals are purely Republican ones?
Many people would say that if he cant get elected on his own merits, and is willing to be a pretend Republican just to get into debates, that he doesn't deserve their vote.
WE know that no Libertarian is going to make it to the big Debates.
WE know that there was really no choice but to enter the race as a Republican in order to get the publicity/media coverage required to run a campaign with success.
The general public though. They believe everything they see on TV. They are living under the impression that every candidate is a fake in one way or another.
Telling me that having a Democratic vice president would be a bad thing because it would be considered 'tricking your way into votes' is no different than anyone else saying that pretending to be a Republican, while sporting Libertarian values, isn't 'tricking you way into votes'.
Dr Paul has my support, but being The Few and The Proud doesn't bring victory on election day.
Dont tell me that Dr Paul wont stoop to lowering his own standards just to win an election. In my mind, he already did when he ran on the Republican ticket - and I do not hold that against him in any way, shape or form. It HAD to be done.
If the difference between a win and a loss in November is the choice of VP, then it might be yet another thing that HAS to be done.
"Victory by any means" or "The end justifies the means" is the ONLY way that you'll see a win in November. Playing by the rules does not work when the one's you are campaigning against dont play by them.
That's why I want Walter Williams.
He's NOT a Democrat because we don't NEED another Democrat politician in power. He's a freedom-oriented economics professor, and not a politician. The reason I think he'd make a good VP is that I've been wanting Prof. Williams to run for *President*, and that's the true test of a good VP. He keeps refusing my "run for President" requests (politely, and in person -- I was shocked & honored!) but that just makes me like him even-more for the job because it's proof he's smart. He endorsed RP early-on, too.
JMR
The ideal running mate
You are so far off base I doubt if you really know and understand Dr. Paul. First off, Ron Paul will not sacrifice principles to just get elected. He believes in honoring, supporting, and defending the constitution. Read his books and you will see that his positions are consistent over time. His goals include many transitional approaches. These will help minimize the bad policies damage while restoring the republic.
To have a CFR member in the VP slot would undermine all that RP stands for. To have a true constitutionalist in the VP slot would enhance all that RP stands for. The choice is clear: Michael Badnarik for VP. To learn more go to his website: constitutionpreservation.org.
Absolutely not
RP should pick someone who is his mirror on issues to be his VP. Preferably an libertarian economist.
VP has the tie-breaking vote in Senate, no?
I don't think that Dr. Paul would have a VP with a completely different ideology presiding over the Senate. It would be difficult enough getting Dr. Paul's ideas through Congress. He'd need people in his administration/cabinet/Congress with similar economic ideas to get anything done. With the Congress, it could take a while for that, but other positions are appointed. Besides, if something happened to Dr. Paul, would he want someone to take his place who would be an ideological opposite? I don't think so.
I have to admit, this is
I have to admit, this is compelling. Choosing an opposite thinking VP would probably fly in the face of what Dr Paul's strategies would be.
I suppose it comes down to the whole backbone of "Change through Unity". With the current state of affairs and activities on both sides of the aisle, unity through cooperation is impossible. Left plus Right cannot equal 'center'.
So the obvious way out of the mess is to put a 'centered' person/party at the helm. Unfortunately, those who might be convinced to join such a movement are too far removed from politics to pay any attention to the possibilities. Potential votes for RP, from the non-voters of the past, need to be gained, but how?
It has to be BIG news before it will get the historical non-voters to even notice something is happening in their favor. The majority just switch off the radio, change the channel, go turn on a video or head to eBay for some shopping when the politics hits the news.
If it's not something so compelling that they have no choice but to watch the set, or turn up the broadcast, or buy that headline, the non-voting 50% of the nation will remain in the background, hoping for the best and taking the "Well, when things go haywire you wont be able to blame it on me, because I didn't vote for anyone" route to self vindication.
RP has a good shot at taking this election. Even with the blockades that the 'free press' have put in his path, and the outright unfairness they have displayed in any broadcasts they provide, he still holds the hearts of his supporters, and is gaining more each day.
Perhaps there is no silver bullet to get the non voters off of their rears and into the voting booths, but if there were, I think RP would be the candidate of choice for the majority of them. They're just not being reached with the news.
We're all doing our part to try to get the word out there, but we are fighting a three-front battle. One is getting republicans to choose DP as the best candidate for their party, the second is getting democrats to recognize him as the best route to true change, and the last is getting the word out to the non-voters - who dont watch political debates, who dont read political news, who dont click on political links, who dont read political ads and who dont trust their government at all.
200 million people to convince to vote. Quite a hard route to travel.
Kucinich or Gravel
Obama voted for Patriot Act, wiretapping, war funding, etc. etc.
Have you read his speeches given to the Council on Foreign Relations?
I don't think he's the answer..
Gravel is probably the better choice because he wants to abolish the IRS also..
how do I delete this
wrong post
I thought this too at first, but
Now feel that he needs to choose another Libertarian that can run for President in 2012. We need to ensure we have representation, if Ron Paul could announce it sooner than later it would help and would set up the run for '12 from whoever that is. I am new to politics and Ron Paul, but I love it.
Getting that person involved now, who can deliver a great speech and believes in the same principles would do wonders for our movement. There needs to be an established transition. Many feel this President will be a transitionary President that does not accomplish much. 2012 we stand the best chance of winning, although I am not saying Dr Paul cannot win or we stop what we are doing now.
Just establish the next natural candidate as Dr Paul even if he won would be 76 in 2012. With the two party system and the way the primaries work we will never win as an Indpendent or Libertarian so we need to grow our ranks within the GOP and funnel all our cash and donations to select candidates.
Libertarian for VP? Maybe not.
RSK A Libertarian is behind the old "racist" letters (written by someone other than Dr. Paul) which have "now" conveniently surfaced. I ended up at one of the Libertarian sites, and some of the articles written by their columnists contain very negative content with an anti Ron Paul angle. All related and in response to these so-called "racist" writings written by a "ghost" writer. The despicable irony is that Dr. Paul may have his candidacy derailed by the very people who have an almost identical philosophy, a Libertarian Doctrine. The very ones who were supposed to be his most ardent supporters. They remind me of the Christians awaiting the return of the Messiah. Well guess what, your Messiah has arrived and is here now and his name is Ron Paul, and you (much like the Judean Temple Priests) are presently in the process of crucifying him. May GOD be with and work through Dr. Paul throughout these trying times.
A VP should be more than a
A VP should be more than a strategic decision, it should be someone who would make a good President, and who Ron Paul would feel comfortable endorsing. He will have a hard time selecting a VP because there are very few people in the political arena who understand the Constitution as well as he does. Since he is so motivated by monetary policy and limited government, I can't imagine him ever choosing a Democrat. Don't worry, I'm sure he has a few ideas up his sleeve.
Poster is clueless about CFR
Obama is CFR and will never act against it.
Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas
"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."
ahhhhhh no
I CALL BULLSH$T ON THIS POST.. the reason why this country is in the place it is in is because of those stupid lying socialist democratic dipchits.. and the lying in disguise republicans who are democrats.. you cannot bridge these 2 parties! what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong.. THE CONSTITUTION HAS NO PARTY.. IT IS THE RULE OF LAW AND ONLY IT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED TO THE LETTER BY ANY POLITICAL PARTY! screw the dems and screw the repubs! they are all the same.. till the American people get this figured out this country is DOOMED! you can't mix oil and water... take obama as a VP don't make me laugh!
Perhaps I should give
Perhaps I should give another example. One that might not pull the colorful metaphoric statements and interesting language selections.
In the US, 50% of the eligible voters actually vote. A good estimate is that 45% of those are Democrat, 45% are republican, and 10% are in-between, libertarian, green party, etc.
So, overall, 20% of the voting population votes Republican, 20% votes Democrat and 10% vote 'other' or are undecided until election day rolls around.
The other 50% of the eliglible voters dont vote. They are not affiliated with any party at all - or have grown so tired of whatever party they were in, that they no longer trust anyone to truly unite and change government, so they dont bother to go to the voting booth.
THAT is the group that would be harnessed if a dual-party ticket were brought to the table. If a Dem/Rep combo were to run, it would more than likely get a large majority of the non-voting 50% to the voting booths.
You can argue that two parties cannot be bridged. Fine. Lets suppose they cant. If RP really does stand for a 'for the people' government, then 'party' should not enter into it at all.
If you looked at it statistically, if you took the votes of every eligible voter to heart, NOONE would have been elected in many many years.
Dispense with party politics, give the voters a way to get someone into office that is willing to give the power back to the people, and the people will respond.
"till the American people get this figured out this country is DOOMED!" is how you put it, about the Constitution having no party. What better way to display and affirm this than by a Dem/Rep running mate ticket?
I dont look at it as 'one complimenting the other', I look at it as Democrat + Republican = No Party At All.
And that's the goal, right?
Obama is CFR...this story features him
What you are saying sounds highly appealing, but please check this out..
CFR Stacks The Deck With Both Democrat And Republican Presidential Candidates
http://thought-criminal.o...
Just a few thoughts...
Well, when Leno asked him who he would choose as a running mate, RP did settle on Kucinich. So I don't think he would be completely against the idea of running with a democrat. Even if our most important goal is to spread the virtues of and desire for liberty, remember that the doc is *running for president.* I want him to win as much as anybody and I agree with the poster that showing that he is above petty party lines might go a long way to endearing him to moderates.
BTW, a friend of my husbands last night said he wouldn't vote for Ron Paul simply because he is a Republican and Republicans always will bow down to what the party wants no matter how idealistic they may be. Clearly this person is refusing to look at the facts about the situation and nothing can save a person who won't open their own eyes. But I think there are probably many people who just see another old, white, GOP clone and who might tune in closer at such an unprecedented move on RP's part.