Original post here.
Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul should run together in the next presidential campaign (I don’t care who’s on the top of the ticket, they can hold an internet election or some such for all I care). They are in agreement on enough issues that (if elected) they could abolish the Federal Reserve and create interest free money for this country, do an investigation (not a cover-up) into the 9/11 tragedy, decrease the military budget, end the American empire and U.S. global hegemonic ambitions, remove troops from countries distributed all around the world, put an end to destabilizing governments that are attempting to work for change in their countries (such as Venezuela and Bolivia), get a federal standard for elections and a return to paper ballots, promote policies to treat addiction as a medical (not criminal) problem, install nationwide run-off or instant run-off voting, repeal the Patriot Act and restore the civil liberties that Bush has eviscerated, prosecute the Bush war crimes and criminals, end the War on Drugs, stop forcing the taxpayers to be the benefactor of last resort for moribund and incompetently managed corporations, decriminalize marijuana (and perhaps some other controlled substances), get the United States out of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, and probably a whole lot more that I can’t think of just this minute.
Kucinich and Paul certainly disagree on a lot, but if you throw half progressives and half libertarians into a room (for a battle royal, lol), maybe they can work out something on issues such as health care (where Kucinich is for single payer, and Paul is for even more of a for profit system). A crazy idea, but I think they’d get a higher percentage of the vote than any other possible third party/non-duopoly tandem (well perhaps Nader/Paul or McKinney/Paul could also work, as you can see I’d like to see the progressive on the top of the ticket, but I just want to see the duopoly face any kind of challenge to its nefarious stranglehold on power), and if they could get into the debates, which I admit is not likely based on the fact that an iron-fisted duopoly front organization currently controls them, well who the heck knows what could happen.
This sounds vaguely familiar. Has anyone heard something like this before?
As far as racism, any grievances blacks and/or hispanics may have are far and away eclipsed by Native Americans.
I note that Sean Fenley does not use the words “progressive alliance”. Paulie Cannoli does. Also Tom Knapp shortly after declaring his candidacy for 2012 paraphrasing he’s interested in a progressive alliance but has disagreements with my version. I claim initial use of “progressive alliance”. & I think you will find that the original creator or discoverer of concepts etc. is usually the one who has it down the best. Forget Den & Ron because the are a dem and a rep. RP’s endorsement of Baldwin shows he is not thinking left-libertarian(progressive) but right(paleoconservative).
“…get a federal standard for elections and a return to paper ballots…install nationwide run-off or instant run-off voting…”
Ron Paul would not do this.
The idea is non-sensical.
The highest percentage vote for a third party, would be simply to declare that the Democratic Party is a third party.
Then you could take the Obama victory as an absolute validation of 3rd parties.
But if you actually believe in something, and, are promoting some particular goal, that can be tricky.
The Catholic Trotskyist Party of America has also mentioned this possibility of a Kucinich/Paul ticket at some point, and if Obama does not live up to the glorious path that God has set for him, I would advocate for this ticket even more strongly in 2012. John Lowell, remember that Kucinich is actually pro-life, but unfortunately sold out that position to get the support of some of the secular and buddhist progressives, but with the influence of Ron Paul, he may return to that position. Granted, as you said, Ron Paul showed himself to be a wimp in this election after the primaries.
In an unprecedented show of unity, the Catholic Trotskyist Party of America is amassing a broad array of proposed guests for its upcoming fundraiser for Robert Milnes’s presidential campaign, which may be held sometime in late 2009. Invited special honorary guests will include my nemesis (Ralph Nader), Milnes’s nemesis (Ron Paul), as well as this Sean Fenley person, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, the Protestant Stalinist Party, the Australian Sex Party, and any IPR writers who may wish to attend.
I don’t know if Kucinich and Paul are necessarily the right people, but it’s an interesting idea.
No socially conservative person ought have a problem with a Nader vote – and in my view ought to support Nader – if he or she is not asked to compromise the sanctity of life, which sadly, is not the case at the moment. It isn’t a question soley of a libertarian/progressive alliance, the potential is significantly larger than that. Certainly, no Catholic can in conscience justifiably support Republican candidates willing to compromise on stem-cell funding as did Bush in 2001. And a vote for a Democrat is about as life-destructive possibility as there exists. If progressives and some libertarians are willing to respect the view of socially conservative voters on these questions, a very broad alliance indeed might be formed. But the bottom line is respect for the human person and that begins at conception.
Progressives suck. Though I am beginning to understand why Milnes is such a progressive TR fan
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36650.html