Can a Kucinich fan explain the Ron Paul thing?

[ecstatic]

Kucinich said that Ron Paul was his number one VP pick. He said it multiple times! For anyone who doesn't know, Ron Paul is a right wing libertarian-republican who is homophobic and has many racist friends. In the off chance that Kucinich had won the Presidency of the US, Ron Paul would be Vice President right now. Ron Paul, who says healthcare is NOT a right and that the government should stay out of it. Ron Paul who says that abortion is murder! Ron Paul who wants to shut down the Dept. of Education. Then Ron Paul would have the best chance of winning in 2016, and God only knows which right wing loon he'd choose for his VP!

I used to admire Kucinich so much! But new facts require new opinions. You have every right to admire Kucinich as a hero, but don't say I'm any less liberal because I don't believe in him or his sincerity anymore.

Thanks!

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

[Fire1]

1. Thanks for the info. Never knew Kucinich said that! BUT,

remember who JFK's VP was. What's that adage about politics and strange bedfellows?

[happy2bhere]

24. remember Gore's pick- awk!

I don't think Kucinich ever said that though.

[Fire1]

26. This info came from several DUers on this thread. The OP

has been around for awhile and I've found no reason to question their credibility.

[happy2bhere]

29. I thought it was a loaded question

but Kucinich was a horrible candidate, very bad campaign organization, wasted the little money he had, ignored volunteers, made many big mistakes etc. I know campaign volunteers who finally got their campaign gear after he dropped out, which was typical of his campaign. It seemed like someone on the inside was trying to ruin his chances and he wasn't paying enough attention or something.

He has many great ideas and I have learned a lot from him. I do not think he would have voted no if it weren't going to pass. He had the option to vote no without affecting the outcome so he thought he would make a statement which is what he does. Why anyone is surprised or mad about it is kinda silly to me. He also happened to take a principled stand when he led the effort to prevent the war in Iraq. He also took a principled stand when he led the effort against the patriot act when it turns out he was one of the only ones that read it. Funny the Republicans never complain about the length of that bill or the fact it was handed out late at night before the vote the next day.

[Fire1]

34. Of course they didn't complain about the length of the PA nor

handing it out hours before the vote! The shoe is now on the other foot and it ain't no fun when the rabbit got the gun!!!! LOL!!!

[MuseRider]

2. What I remember is

he was asked who he would consider. He said he would consider anyone. Ron Paul was one. They are friends. He later said, I have no link to show you so take it or leave it, that he was not considering him but that he was only asked who he would consider. I was ready to blow when he said the first thing but was mollified by his explanation. As a long time supporter I have to tell you that if he had been serious I would have never supported him again.

This was asked of him as he was going into a building to do something, it was almost an ambush. Still no excuse if he really had been considering him.

This is just my memory of the incident and I am pretty sure it is accurate because I spent a few days in real conflict about what I was going to do if he was serious.

Edit for spelling

[ecstatic]

3. Sorry, that's not true

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18&feature=related

He answered Ron Paul each time without hesitation.

[MuseRider]

6. Holy crap!

I had not seen that. Wow. I will have to listen to the entire thing but I have to leave. Thank you for showing that to me. That concerns me a LOT. I will listen to what DK says before I say any more but it will have to be later. Thank you, I guess. It disturbs me that I had not seen that and that he said what I heard in the first few seconds.

[flvegan]

19. Keep in mind, the question is "What Republican would you choose"

He goes on to say that he'd consider people from either party, because he wanted a diverse leadership that would appeal to everyone and have both sides of each opinion.

IIRC, one of the big reasons DK liked Ron Paul is because he was the only other person around that was committed to ending the "war" in Iraq immediately, and that we never should have gone there.

[ecstatic]

20. Not true. He offered Ron Paul's name

on his own in this audio http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/11/exclusive_audio_kucinich_consi.html

and then if you listen further into the youtube clip, he says he'd pick Ron Paul even though he's a democrat.

[flvegan]

25. I'm commenting on the video you offered.

And his answer is consistent regardless of the frame of the question. He wanted diverse, appealing leadership. Paul was one of the ONLY folks that wanted out of Iraq immediately, which was one of DK's top priorities. He wanted leadership that would get that done and bring together both sides of Congress, without choosing some fundy wingnut moron. I believe Lincoln wanted to be surrounded much the same way, with everyone getting a say. Don't know if that's such a bad thing. Not that I particularly like Ron Paul one ounce, because I think he's nuts. But I'd trust DK to know better than I.

So...yes true.

[MuseRider]

36. Thanks.

I just got home and still will not have time to watch it for a while. I trust Kucinich but if he would actually do something like this he would not be getting my vote or support. I will catch it later.

[peace13]

4. Why are Kucinich supporters portrayed as idealizing him.

'You have every right to admire Kucinich as a hero'. That sounds like something my right wing mother would say to me.

[mmonk]

18. It sounds the same because it is the same tactic.

It is to say your opinion has no worth because you do not see someone clearly as the one who opposes the person in question claims does and therefore he and you are flawed and anything related.

[redqueen]

27. Cause the over-the-top statements are the most noticeable. (nt)

[NYCGirl]

5. Maybe he thought it'd bring him in some campaign money. Paul was raking in

the dough — Kucinich not so much.

[iceman66]

7. Ron Paul is more anti 'war on terror' than most elected Democrats.

That's always been a big issue for Kucinich.

The two share some common ground on economic/trade policy as well.

[happy2bhere]

28. yes, also against patriot act

n/t

[MineralMan]

8. He did say that. For me, that said that he was

not a viable candidate for my vote. In fact, anyone who would consider Ron Paul for any high office will never get my vote or support.

It's a bit awkward for the Kucinich supporters here, isn't it?

Kucinich is a non-starter for anything having to do with the Presidency. He always has been a non-starter, and always will be a non-starter.

[redqueen]

31. There was a time I would have disagreed with you so vehemently.

I would have sworn up and down that you were wrong about him being a non-starter.

Now, though... not so much.

[MineralMan]

39. I have to apologize. I am a pragmatist.

I didn't used to be. I marched in Selma. I wore my USAF uniform to protest at the Pentagon. Now, I'm an old man. I have learned that politics in the United States are a matter of pragmatism. I still want the same things I wanted as a young man, but know for a certainty that they will not be obtained.

DK was never a viable candidate, so the sort of undying support some here give him is misplaced. He never had, and never will have, a chance at being more than what he is, and his is a lofty position, indeed. I hope he can keep it.

Those who wish for a President like Kucinich are as much living in a dream as those who hope Sarah Palin will become president. It's a waste of time, and interferes with progress towards a goal. We cannot have single payer health care in this country at this time. It is impossible. We have the system we have. We are seeing the results of that system in the current time. There is no alternative to compromise on this issue.

We can either try for a compromise that leans our way or we can insist on getting nothing at all. I choose to get something. I choose to get some coverage for those who have none. I regret that we cannot have full socialized medicine. I hope that will happen at some point, but it will probably be after I am dead and gone. But, let's keep working toward that goal.

I'm not even affected all that much. I'll be on Medicare as of July 29 of next year. I'm old. I've smoked for too many years. I'll be lucky to make it to my mid-70's.

However, I have nieces and nephews who have young families and are having trouble making ends meet. Right now, they're bare-backing it as far as health care is concerned. They have no insurance at all, and cannot afford to buy any. I have 11 great nieces and nephews. I only hope none of them contracts anything more serious than the flu. It appears that the current plans will at least offer them some sort of coverage. That is better than their complete lack of coverage. So, I favor the current plan, or whatever compromise comes about in the end.

Dennis Kucinich? He's irrelevant. I can't even believe we're discussing him here on DU. I can't believe that we're discussing many of the things we're discussing, instead of devoting our energies to making the most of what is actually possible to achieve at this time.

Sometimes, I wonder what the point of discussion on DU is. But, then, I see clear heads here sometimes. I see people who understand that change is always incremental unless revolution occurs. In the latter case, everything ends for some time. So, I welcome incremental change, as long as it is headed in the right direction.

I oppose those who declare that they will support nothing unless it meets all their demands. Such people are fools and are irrelevant to what will be decided. Idealism is great. Reality, however, prevails in any case.

I rarely comment in threads like this one. It annoys people when I do. I will stop now.

[Duende azul]

32. But someone who not only considers but keeps Bush appointees like Gates

in office is a viable candidate for your vote?

And the war drags on...

[MineralMan]

37. And that person is now President of The United States.

Had Kucinich gotten the nomination, the President would be John McCain, with Sarah "Quittercuda" Palin would be VP.

Politics is the art of the possible. It has always been that. You can elect a person who shares a good portion of your beliefs, or vote for someone who cannot possibly win. I choose the former.

Add Ron Paul into the equation, and it's not even a question.

And the war drags on...perhaps you'd like to explain your plan for ending it. You must have one, right? So, let's hear it. How soon can you end Iraq and Afghanistan? How would you do that? Go into some detail, if you don't mind.

I'll be waiting to hear your plan. You may consult Kucinich, if you like.

[Duende azul]

40. Are you serious?

The plan is pretty simple: Just bring the troops home and with them all the fucking contractors.
Every weapon that can't be brought back has to be destroyed before leaving the place.

For the details on logistics consult the fucking generals. They are supposed to be the experts. The one who comes up with the fastest credible plan wins a promotion. The rest of the bunch will be dismissed.

Try the war criminals from the top down.

Ask the assaulted nations for forgiveness and pay the reparations. And at least try to offer some sort of indemnification to the families of the victims.
Ask the civilized world, if they are willing to accept your country among them as long as you promise to handle your interests in a peaceful manner. That goes for every country that participates in these occupations. But it would help a lot, if the US would be the first to end this since they started it.

That should do it.

[ecstatic]

9. Sorry for the inconvenient OP! If you agree not to call me names

for no longer being thrilled by DK, I'll agree not to bring up the inconvenient truths.

[Fire1]

10. As you can see by the replies on this thread, truth is

central to intellect. One cannot be expected to make intelligent decisions without facts or truth and for that, I thank you.

[Statistical]

11. COMPLETE LIE.

He never said Ron Paul was his number one pick.

The question was:

"If you HAD to pick someone seeking the REPUBLICAN nomination as your VP pick who would it be?"
Answer: Ron Paul.

So in a fantasy world when the Democratic VP came from the Republican candidates he would pick Ron Paul.
I am no DK fan but there is no need to needlessly slander him. Most candidates would simply refuse to answer such an unscripted question.

[Echo In Light]

12. Why, you'd think one would really have to turn a blind eye to miss such a qualifier!

Thanks for pointing it out

[ecstatic]

13. Nope. There are many articles and videos out there

with DK saying the same thing. The one linked in the OP is one of many.

[mullard12ax7]

14. The Iraq War isn't over either, but that's not stopping anyone from posting it

Thanks for standing up to the blatant lie though.

[ecstatic]

15. It's not a lie. Just google Kucinich and Ron Paul

:eyes:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

33. "...as the Democratic Nominee I would consider Ron Paul."

Here is what he actually said:

"actually, I had a...that question came up earlier where people asked me what kind of a person would I like for a running mate. They didn't say Democrat or Republican. They just assumed I'd be saying a Democrat, OK? Uh...as the Democratic Nominee I would consider Ron Paul. Because I think that he is someone who has integrity, he has a vision, he has courage... Um...when I'm in congress, and I look at the American Eagle that spreads its wings 50 feet across...above the floor of the House of Representatives...a glass etching. It's an incredibly beautiful piece of art. It's a glass etching of an American Eagle in all of its fullness--all of its strength and the arms spread. And when I look at that, I'm reminded. That American Eagle needs two wings to fly. It needs a right wing. It needs a left wing, ok? You got it. And think about this. I'm talking about an administration that isn't going to necessarily be made of people I agree with on everything. How boring that would be? We wouldn't have the chance to have chance to have the kind of discussion that would get us to the best place. I want people who would bring diversity of opinion so we have different ways of looking at the world. And Ron Paul would do that."

[MineralMan]

38. Go listen to the YouTube recordings.

He said that "Democrat or Republican, Ron Paul would be my choice."

Kucinich was a one-issue candidate. End the war. You will notice that he never gained any momentum at all. He could not possibly have won. Therefore, he is not even in the mix.

Ron Paul takes it into the realm of pure fantasy. I don't deal with fantasy when it comes to national government. Perhaps that's your bag. You're welcome to it, but please accept that you have marginalized yourself and will have no influence on anything at all as long as you hold a fantastic position.

Politics is never pure. It cannot be in a nation of 300 million citizens. Politics is about pragmatic choices. Your opinion about what should be done is weighed against 299,999,999 other options, the vast majority of whom disagree with you. They disagree with me, too.

And so, we have American politics. Without throwing out everything that establishes this country, it will not be any other way.

If you disagree, please explain your plan. If you cannot do that, then please go on with your fantastic view of how things work, and you'll continue to be irrelevant.

[ecstatic]

16. More inconvenient audio of Kucinich wanting RWer Paul on his ticket

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/11/exclusive_audio_kucinich_consi.html

[Forkboy]

17. Is guilt by association really the best you can do?

This makes me question something, but not your sincerity.

[ecstatic]

21. It's not guilt by association. It reveals his vision for America

and I don't like it.

[Forkboy]

22. No, it is. Don't kid yourself, because you're not kidding us.

[VMI Dem]

23. How do you know Ron Paul is homophobic?

Hmm.

[MilesColtrane]

35. He may not be.

But, he sure as hell published loads of homophobic crap under HIS NAME in his newsletters.

That makes him just as bad as a homophobe. (if he indeed isn't one)

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul’s newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul’s “old colleague,” Representative William Dannemeyer--who advocated quarantining people with AIDS--praising him for “speak out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby.” In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine “who certainly had an axe to grind, and that’s not easy with a limp wrist.” In an item titled, “The Pink House?” the author of a newsletter--again, presumably Paul--complained about President George H.W. Bush’s decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite “the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony,” adding, “I miss the closet.” “Homosexuals,” it said, “not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.” When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, “Bring Back the Closet!” Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, “Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals.”

The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, “a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby,” and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted “a well-known Libertarian editor” as saying, “The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is ‘Silence = Death.’ But shouldn’t it be ‘Sodomy = Death’?” Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to “poison the blood supply.” “Am I the only one sick of hearing about the ‘rights’ of AIDS carriers?” a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” which is false. Paul’s newsletters advertised a book, Surviving the AIDS Plague--also based upon the casual-transmission thesis--and defended “parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims.” Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said that “gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense,” adding: “hese men don’t really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners.” Also, “they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.”

The fact that Kucinich even considered a nut like Paul is alarming.

[rudy23]

30. No, there are plenty of valid of attacks on DK. It's that they're coming in this manner that's fishy

It's not that I even love his politics, or that I agree with a lot of what he does. I might've voted for this bill, if I were a rep. I just have to point out the manner of the attacks are very suspect, and very offensive given Kucinich's endorsement of Obama, and his supporters' work in helping to get Obama elected.