Who thinks we could see Ron Paul on a Democratic ticket for Presidnent?

[CalebHayes]

I don't think it would happen but I want to throw the idea out there and see what DU thinks? Could he make a good VP choice and can he bring Texas or more moderate southern states into play?

[ConsAreLiars]

1. You agree with him that destroying Social Security, Medicaire, and all that sort of stuff

is a good idea? Go join the Corporatist Libertarians and put him on your ticket.

Edit to add the following, assuming you really haven't looked beyond the Corporate Media in evaluating him:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst012405.htm
"If the administration truly wants to give people more control over their retirement dollars, why not simply reduce payroll taxes and let them keep their own money to invest privately as they see fit? This is the true private solution."

http://nh.craigslist.org/pol/359672299.html
"Health care is a personal and individual responsibility. The only people concerned/not concerned with your personal health care and medical needs should be you and your providers. There is no constitutional provision for "government" intrusion into your personal health care and medical needs. Why do you want a disinterested third-party involved in your personal and intimate affairs? Why would you want this for your family members? Why would you want it for others?"

There is much more. You are smart enough to do your own search. Don't get fooled by the Corpulent Media's portrayals of the candidates or anyone else in the public eye.

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. Putting him on a Dem ticket is a disaster without parallel, unless you count

putting Lieberman on one.

[lvx35]

2. it sounds like good thinking, to be frank.

Compared to our front runners together: A Hillary Obama ticket is strategically insane, given all traditional politics. The wife of an ex-president hated by all conservatives, plus a rich polished yankee attorney, nevermind the fact that he's black and she's a woman. (which we really should ignore even if its not politically expedient) Its hard to see it taking any part of the red state base we desparately need.

I think a ticket like Gore/Paul would actually be quite a winner, a southern democrat and rebel conservative. It would drain red states hard, not to mention those red states like alaska that are starting to see in very visible ways the effects of global warming. But garunteed you'll never see it.

[ConsAreLiars]

6. Yeah, a liberal/fascist alliance would be a winning ticket! ????

What the hell are you thinking? Do you have the faintest idea who you are supporting? He makes Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs look like board members of the ACLU.

[lvx35]

10. Actually, Ron Paul has a decent record on civil liberties:

I just googled him on this:

* Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Jul 2006)
* Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
* Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
* Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
* Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
* Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
* Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
* Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

He's been quite vocal against the patriot act.

Bu that's not the point, I don't support him. I'm talking about running candidates that bring the Republican base under our tent, which Hillary/Obama do not.

[ConsAreLiars]

12. Yeah, my language was sloppy.

He doesn't advocate totalitarianism, but he advocates unrestrained Corporate power. The practical result of his position is Fascism=Corporatism. So he serves fascism, even if he thinks he advocates merely "free enterprise."

[lvx35]

14. Ah yes. Which gets a deeper issues about Libertarianism.

I basically totally agree with you on that one, I got into politics from Libertarian pals way back, and used to be one. It was all based on such naive ideas about power, like that you could abolish government power and it would just go away, instead of slipping into other entities which (because of limited government power), answer to nobody and rule with an iron fist.

But I am glad for the OP for talking about reaching into the red base, I don't hear nearly enough of it.

[ConsAreLiars]

19. We can reach into the 'red" base in other ways.

One would be a truly inspirational candidate who simply appealed to basic human decency without being dressed up by the Corrupted Media as a partisan nutcase. Not much chance there.

Another would be a candidate who promised to restore US imperialist dominance through diplomacy and intelligence (there's a novel approach!) rather than brute force. Clark is one of several, but with the "General" label, Clark might also appeal to the cowards, even though he ranks with Kucinich on in terms of his credentials as a progressive.

[lvx35]

21. Clark is a great candidate, and I think you have the right idea with...

...appealing to the "cowards". There are of course two parts of the Republican base, really rich powerful smart ruthless fuckers and the idiots who vote for them. All we need to do is take the idiots, and this means running a guy who has the trappings of a general or preacher or texas cowboy (As Bush II the Yale boy demonstrates) but who advances progressive ideals through the language of the heartland. I fear that Hillary (especially) is the opposite of this, she has all the trappings of New York Yankee liberal, all the hate against her for it, but may advance an agenda that is actually quite conservative, from a corporate stance.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. for clarification.

The reason he voted against the Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage was not for the sake of gays and lesbians, but because he, as I understand, doesn't not believe in "messing" with the Constitution.

[madfloridian]

3. Do a search on him and On the Issues.

You will be shocked. He is anti just about everything I strongly believe in.

He wants the government to butt out. I believe government has a role in helping those who can not help themselves.

Do the search. He is anti-choice also.

[cui bono]

4. NO! He is a true libertarian when it comes to social issues.

We cannot have him as VP. We need someone who will carry on a progressive agenda.

[Guaranteed]

24. ....I think liberals are social libertarians.

Civil libertarians. Libertarian on social issues.

Where we'd probably get hung up with the guy is fiscal issues. He wants to tear down the government entirely- destroy the Dept of Education, etc.

[CalebHayes]

5. I know what he stands for on the issues...

Remember the Kerry-McCain roomers? Do you think Kennedy was real excited about putting LBJ on the ticket? No.


On second thought it may be a death sentence for our nominee.

[ConsAreLiars]

8. Your second thought is right.

Remember Gore/LIEberman?

[saltpoint]

7. Good considerations, but I'm not sure Paul is the guy to bring us Texas.

I like him better than the entire pack of Republicans, certainly, but not as well as our team.

We have a huge field of talented vp possibilities within our Democratic ranks. I'm guessing it's definitely going to be one of those.

[MissMarple]

9. Ohh....sweetheart. We may agree with libertarians on some things.....

but not on so many others. At least he is not a fascist. That is a good point for libertarians, but as for progressive values....they are more than somewhat lacking. They just don't get it. They don't seem to have an inherent sense of community, of "we sink or swim together". He doesn't understand how important the health of the middle class is to our republic, and of our government's role in maintaining the viability and growth of the middle class. But, then, many democrats don't either, most sad to say.

[Cameron27]

11. You're absolutely right.

[Bucky]

15. I make this distinction: You're not shallow, but your suggestion is.

Among other problems here, Ron Paul has pledged to support the Republican nominee, whoever he is. Ron Paul is right about one issue: ending the occupation quickly and not jumping into more imperialistic adventures. On every other issue around, he is wrong.

Good grief!

[Alexander]

16. Never, ever, ever. Never.

Not ever.

Never.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. Ditto.

[JI7]

17. NO , i might have to vote third party if he is on the Dem ticket

[Truth2Tell]

20. No.... BUT

the Democrats would be well advised to take a hard look at what is drawing people to Ron Paul. And here's a hint - it's not his radical Libertarian views on social policy that so many here at DU, including me, fundamentally disagree with.

What HAS drawn voters - especially young, populist, anti-authoritarian and web-savvy voters to Ron Paul are these things:

He has attacked the foundations of American interventionism in world affairs. He has hit back at the canard that "they hate us for our freedom" - and hit back publicly and hard. He single-handedly made Rudy Giuliani look like a moran regarding 9-11 - something none of our fine first-tier Democratic presidential contenders has dared touch.

He speaks up loudly and unfailingly for personal privacy. No Democrat, and I mean none, has been more outspoken about the Patriot Act than Ron Paul. None has spoken as loudly and clearly about signing statements, or wire-tapping, or even habeas corpus. He has made these CENTAL ISSUES, not just passing mentions.

He is seen as a man of integrity. Say what you will about his loony tunes views on many issues. At least he is consistent. At least he calls it like he sees it. Every single time, damn the torpedoes.

The above characteristics are why such an important segment of the voting population is flocking to Ron Paul. Any so-called progressive Democrat who wants to win the White House next year ignores this voting bloc at their peril.

I don't support Ron Paul. But I do think we, as Democrats, need to open our eyes to what he really represents and not throw away the baby with the bath water.

[miceelf]

27. Truth2Tell

I agree with you that the Dems should be stronger on the patriot act than they are. But I'll wait to emulate Ron Paul until I see how many votes he actually gets. He also doesn't have the burden of people automatically assuming he is soft, which is (unfairly) what the Dems have to deal with.

This notion that we should support someone who wants to gut our social safety net because they are right on the war is really annoying (not attributing it to you, but it's floating out there).

It's the same kind of silliness that makes people support Cindy Sheehan (who also wants to eliminate the social safety net and thinks we should not have fought the Nazis).

[Truth2Tell]

33. OK, keep waiting to see if people actually care about these things..

Maybe we can win in 2012?

And Sheehan wants to eliminate the social safety net? Who knew? I assume you're referring to her call to temporarily stop paying certain taxes as a war protest. When you frame that as wanting to "eliminate the social safety net", it becomes pretty hard to take you seriously about anything.

[miceelf]

34. social safety net

She said that income tax is unconstitutional. Period.

So, how does the social safety net get funded in her imagined libertarian utopia with no income tax?

[Truth2Tell]

35. Got link?

Actually, don't bother. Why hijack the thread into a Cindy Sheehan bash fest?

[TwilightGardener]

43. He attracts the fringe, who are always seeking a prophet. That's his support.

[Truth2Tell]

44. Have you noticed

how we keep seeing posts glorifying Ron Paul on DU? And how someone always needs to step up and educate folks about what all of his views actually are?

The fact is that many of Paul's newest supporters don't know much about him. They are not his traditional StormFront, black helicopter, Michigan militia supporters. Many are young, cynical first time activists on the Web.

They hear him speak what they know to be true about the war. And they hear him speak what they know to be true about the crimes of the Bush regime. And that's the basis for their support. Call me crazy, but I think the Democrats need to be courting those same voters. Or we lose.

[LeftishBrit]

22. MY GOD, what a nightmare - it's not up to me, but I HOPE not!

It would be like going back in time and getting a far-right Dixiecrat on the ticket.

[NoPasaran]

23. Not in a million years

Ron Paul can take his racist, nineteenth-century views and go to hell.

[Perry Logan]

25. Ron Paul is very popular at StormFront, and with conspiracy nuts

He is always introducing bills to get us out of the United Nations. Not exactly a Democrat.

[Perry Logan]

30. I hasten to say, Ron Paul is in no way a white supremacist.

My point was only that he's the favorite among alienated white guys.

[Totally Committed]

26. No offense, and I will say this as respectfully as possible:

You've lost your mind.

TC

[ripple]

29. No and no.

I suspect he might run as an independent, though. He definitely has the market on the xenophobes of the world- and there are many right now.

[w4rma]

31. You obviously don't know his positions on many things. (nt)

[LanternWaste]

32. I don't want the Democratic party to tolerate, let alone endorse a racist.

I don't want the Democratic party to tolerate, let alone endorse a racist. If it happened (and I suppose anything is mathematically possible), I'd re-register as an Independent.

[Mass]

36. That would be a good reason for me to vote Green\nt

[high density]

37. I hope not?

Too many people on this forum seem to be one issue voters (the war) or simply have no clue about what Ron Paul's platform is.

[TwilightGardener]

38. UGH! Please. Don't we have about 40,000 Democrats to reject first

before we consider him? Not to mention Independents--I'd sooner see Bloomberg, and I don't really want to see that either.

[TwilightGardener]

39. Another question--what would he bring to the ticket, besides wackalooniness?

Dems are against the war. Don't need him for that. Dems are for government protections and services (so are most Repubs, by the way)--he's not. Dems are pro-choice--he's not. Dems are for civil rights--he's not. Dems are for UN participation and global outreach--he's not. This is about the stupidest idea I've heard of.

[Iris]

42. bingo.

[Stop Cornyn]

40. That's the stupidest idea I've heard in a long time. Just because Paul is not a "loyal Bushie" that

doesn't mean that he's ideologically acceptable on any issue besides the war.

He's a Libertarian in Republican's clothing, and in no case should he be confused for a Democrat.

With that said, he'd bring an interesting spin to the Unity '08 malarkey. He'd lose, of course, but he'd make that unity ticket more interesting.

[bigwillq]

41. Not me.

Not at all.