The "tinfoil ticket '08"? Don't laugh because Kucinich obviously isn't
We've heard this idea bandied about for some time now. Not because we're sadistic and twisted but because to a few people, this scenario makes sense. (Will it happen? Only God knows.) Don Surber gets the tip on this one:
This is not my idea. Ed Mathews, a columnist for the Erie Times-News, said Dennis Kucinich keeps talking about having a Democrat and a Republican on the same ticket.
Mathews wrote: “The Republican he is suggesting, Ron Paul, is a congressman from Texas. According to one political observer, it could be called the liberal-libertarian ticket.”
Tinfoil time!
They have little in common other than opposition to the war. But with the allies winning in Iraq (I say we won), I doubt that will be an issue a year from now.
I know that the Paul-bots are dug in, and ready for the fight. Of course, they're also hoping they can continue to gin up support for a guy who has less than a snowball's chance in Hell of taking the GOP nomination, and if he does do a third-party ticket (of which we understand that if he does do that, he can't run as a Republican to keep his House seat), he'll get the Libertarian nomination, but he won't win the general. In fact, if he does make that move, he's going to pull from the Democrat more than the Republican. (He is the antiwar candidate on our side -- a trait he shares with many Democrats now.)
But would he accept running with Kucinich on a third-party ticket? that's the question. Kucinich is nuttier than Paul is, I'll admit, but neither one really has any sort of serious proposals that will come true.
Look, here's a memo for the Paul-bots -- We like his small government stance, but what are the chances he'll accomplish his goals? The Congress won't go along with his ideas of getting rid of the NEA, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the IRS. Going back to the gold standard? Yeah, right; Congress is ready to jump on that one. And what of those letters of marque that he spoke of? Again, yeah right.
Likewise, if we look at Kucinich's proposed plans we see that he is completely off his rocker, and doesn't even begin to fathom how this nation works. Hillary talks about her "35 year record of accomplishments" as her credentials to be president, and at least that virtually invisible record makes more sense than anything Kucinich has to offer.
If these two decide to join up, then so be it. They'll be the laughingstocks of the election cycle. Neither has a shot at their respective nomination, and a third-party bid is only going to hurt the Democrats. GOP voters -- even those that are sick of the war -- won't join up with these guys because there's more to this election than just the war. It may be a central point on the trail, but they'll trust the GOP nominee more than a loon from Ohio and a nut from Texas.
Publius II
This is not my idea. Ed Mathews, a columnist for the Erie Times-News, said Dennis Kucinich keeps talking about having a Democrat and a Republican on the same ticket.
Mathews wrote: “The Republican he is suggesting, Ron Paul, is a congressman from Texas. According to one political observer, it could be called the liberal-libertarian ticket.”
Tinfoil time!
They have little in common other than opposition to the war. But with the allies winning in Iraq (I say we won), I doubt that will be an issue a year from now.
I know that the Paul-bots are dug in, and ready for the fight. Of course, they're also hoping they can continue to gin up support for a guy who has less than a snowball's chance in Hell of taking the GOP nomination, and if he does do a third-party ticket (of which we understand that if he does do that, he can't run as a Republican to keep his House seat), he'll get the Libertarian nomination, but he won't win the general. In fact, if he does make that move, he's going to pull from the Democrat more than the Republican. (He is the antiwar candidate on our side -- a trait he shares with many Democrats now.)
But would he accept running with Kucinich on a third-party ticket? that's the question. Kucinich is nuttier than Paul is, I'll admit, but neither one really has any sort of serious proposals that will come true.
Look, here's a memo for the Paul-bots -- We like his small government stance, but what are the chances he'll accomplish his goals? The Congress won't go along with his ideas of getting rid of the NEA, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the IRS. Going back to the gold standard? Yeah, right; Congress is ready to jump on that one. And what of those letters of marque that he spoke of? Again, yeah right.
Likewise, if we look at Kucinich's proposed plans we see that he is completely off his rocker, and doesn't even begin to fathom how this nation works. Hillary talks about her "35 year record of accomplishments" as her credentials to be president, and at least that virtually invisible record makes more sense than anything Kucinich has to offer.
If these two decide to join up, then so be it. They'll be the laughingstocks of the election cycle. Neither has a shot at their respective nomination, and a third-party bid is only going to hurt the Democrats. GOP voters -- even those that are sick of the war -- won't join up with these guys because there's more to this election than just the war. It may be a central point on the trail, but they'll trust the GOP nominee more than a loon from Ohio and a nut from Texas.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 3:44 PM
<< Home