Elizabeth Kucinich: My Husband Would "Absolutely" Consider Running With Ron Paul

A former 100% anti-choicer with a current 100% anti-choicer? No thanks. It isn't all about Iraq for me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/23/elizabeth-kucinich-my-hu_n_73905.html @ 2:35

Kucinich, Gravel and Clinton are the only candidates I am sure I won't be voting for in my primary, so this doesn't change anything for me.

It will be interesting to see if the people who railed against Lieberman for not supporting the Dem nominee will rail against Kucinich if he does the same thing.

that would piss me off I'm afraid. :(

Richardson, Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, Obama.
In that order.

at this point. I can't say anything bad about him yet.

I dunno. I see how much power Cheney has had as veep and I don't like the idea of Paul having that much power. There is too much I disagree with him on.

No way.

and apparently both respect each other very much.

As much as most of this board thinks Paul is bat-shit crazy, I think a Kucinich/Paul debate in the general election would be the best thing that ever happened to politics in this country.

Considering a bi-partisan Unity08-style race with Ron Paul would be suicide for Kucinich, and I think he is keenly aware of that.

There is simply no reason to consider running with Ron Paul. The guy is a right-wing nutcase who wants to eliminate most governmental functions. That would seem to make him a polar opposite of Mr. Kucinich.

I don't understand the reasoning here.

I'm sure he might be okay with having Paul as his Veep, though... :)

???:wtf:

If Paul helps gets Dennis's message out there, so much the better. What's your problem with that?

And at least up here in MA his TV ads are pretty good (and made possible by the fact that he is using Dean's method of "insurgent" fundraising -- pray that the rest of the GOP doesn't pick up on this and stick with direct mail).

Kucinich and Paul, as I repeatedly have to point out on this board, are good friends and really respect each other. This is something to remember when you slam Paul, IMO. He does, in fact, offer the most coherent and consistent message on the GOP side, it's well thought out, and though I disagree with it, it's by no means "loony".

Paul is the only Republican (and except for Kucinich, the only candidate period) who agrees with me on what the actual problems the country faces are. His proposed solutions are 180 degrees from mine, but in some ways I'd rather have a guy who is right about our challenges than somebody who's trying to solve the wrong problems the right way.

The 1890's were not the glorious time that Ron Paul makes them out to be.

The gold standard is quaint and problematic but it's not insane. Insane is that the rest of the candidates refuse to acknowledge the current financial system is fundamentally broken.

He had a huge turnout. If Paul helps to galvanize the anti - Imperialistic, Eisenhower elements that fear the military industrial complex forces in the US , all the better. He is honest and not beholden to the corruption we call elections . Can't say that about some Democrats. We can respect honest Republicans even if they are bat S*** crazy on other issues; without voting for them. Honest Repukes, even if a little wacked are hard to find. Honesty such a rare commodity.

She doesn't sound like she is lying about it, or slipping her words up, is sounds like something they have talked about.
Thankfully, there is no chance of Dennis being our nominee.

For as long as I can remember, I have been saying I would vote for the Dem nominee no matter what.

Is Kucinich serious? Ron Paul is not exactly centrist/progressive once you filter out the Iraq issue.

Now that I think about it, this really lowers my esteem for Kucinich.

On Edit: If this is true, Kucinich has gone from a hero to a clown in my book.

What would you say if she had said he would consider running with Cheney instead? I doubt you would say "He would 'Consider' it and reject it wholesale". If it were Cheney you would expect "absolutely no way would my husband consider running with him", right? Someone running for the Democratic nomination for President flat out should not even consider running with Ron Paul for an instant.

This was his wife speaking, someone who it is natural to presume knows what Kucinich is thinking. Maybe she doesn't, but it is natural to presume that she does. Dennis needs to clarify this himself. His wife may not be representing his views but if she is not he needs to say so. Kucinich was the one Democratic candidate at the last debate who did not pledge to support the Democratic nominee for President.

I agree that it's natural to believe that she knows what she's talking about. If they have actually considered the possibility and have concluded that it's a legitimate option, I'd have to vehemently disagree with that conclusion. The guy's a right-wing nutcase.

She's still freaking hot, though.

I just posted the video-didn't want to shock anyone! I forgot they went together.

...he would consider including a lampshade. Fred said he'd be happy to do that. Then, he paused for about three seconds and said, "I considered it, and I've decided not to do it."

Just saying.

that he would not support the Democratic nominee if the nominee doesn't reject war as an instrument of policy.

If Dennis wins, I expect the rest of the party to vote for him. He should return the favor. Kucinich shouldn't run for a nomination he won't honor.

But with many people, IOKWDDS (It's OK When Dennis Does It). Pro-life roots? OK! Support anti-flag burning legislation? OK! Run with a Republican? OK!

Yes, the fact that I trust Kucinich means something.

If Hillary said she was picking a Republican as her running mate, I'd have all sorts of questions about the kinds of deals she'd made, and what she'd sacrificed. I'd be skeptical because I don't see her as someone of integrity. I'm sorry to say that, but I when I constantly see her using weasel words to explain away certain warmongering votes she's made, votes that play right into the Republicans' hands, I simply don't find her trustworthy.

Dennis Kucinich has shown himself to me to be a man of extraordinary integrity that merits my trust. There have been many times when conventional wisdom would've dictated that Dennis do a little "creative interpretation" of his views to make himself supposedly more electable. And time after time, he has refused to back down, and has given the same unflinching message of peace and wisdom.

That's the difference between the two. And it makes a difference.

and poor executive skills. Since I witnessed his high on drama / low on results mayorship many years ago, "integrity" is not a word I'd use to describe him. I like his voting record more that Clinton's, but there is one area they are equal on: they would both be mediocre presidents.

Both are staunch and strict Constitutionalists, both heartily reject the invasive roles of corporations and lobbyists in government, both value individual rights, both are isolationists in terms of foreign policy, both hate the Fed, both are anti-war, anti-military establishment, anti-corruption, etc...

It would be interesting to find out where such a tandem would stand on labour, healthcare, abortion, same-sex rights, etc...

If they ran an independent campaign, who would it hurt more, progressives or libertarians, I wonder? What major party would lose more votes, Dems or 'Thugs?

dennis wants extensive regulation of business. ron paul wants to friggin' dismantle the social safety net. dennis wants to strengthen it. ron paul wants to devalue and destroy the individual rights of women- and he's a fucking racist. ron paul wants to lower corporate taxes. dennis wants to raise them.

it ain't gonna happen.

Actually asked some of the same questions you did regarding incompatibilities, wondering where they would stand, thought it was interesting, that's all...

still wonder who such an independent ticket would hurt more, tho.

haven't heard the racist charge - or is that because of his fondness for "states rights," that good ol' boy code word?

they've been posted here several times.

He wants most of all to do away with the "regulations" that give massive corporations such unbridled power in the country and the world.

he wants to do away with such piddling things as OSHA. Give me a break with that anti-corporate power line.

As a warning, at the beginning it takes the interviewer a minute or so to pull his nose out of Paul's backside...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX2rAjP7EUA

"Even in a free market the government has a very important role to play... a corporation making a lot of money off war profits is different from (a company surviving in the free market)"

"The drug companies make a lot of profit while the patients are getting poorer care and the doctors are so upset they want to get out"

"The collusion between government and big business is messing everything up"

"Who rebelled in Mexico when we had NAFTA? It was the very poor who were hurt the most. The ... large corporations control things and do it in the name of freedom, and capitalism, and free trade, but I think it's all a collusion to make a managed market for profit and control"

I think the key to understanding Paul's relative success is that he isn't spouting the pro-corporate BS of your average economic conservative.

"Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us."

Got that? he wants to cut taxes on capitol gains.

how about this?

"The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting."

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. not.

And there's this:

"Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us."

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

Got that? he wants to cut taxes on capitol gains.

Yes. We all stipulate he wants to lower taxes.

But wanting to lower taxes does not equal being a corporate shill. You didn't address any of the examples I gave you of his criticizing corporate power.

"The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting."

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. not.

It makes a good deal of sense if you listen to his argument. His justification for environmental policy within a libertarian framework is that (and these are his words) corporations cannot be allowed to make environmental changes that affect everyone else's property. He wants to make polluting corporations liable for damages to private property.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

Do you think government is good at making windows into people's souls and combating bigotry?

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Wow, you've proven to me that he's against affirmative action, which I already knew (and it's one of the reasons I wouldn't vote for him).

However, since the topic here was that he is against unfettered corporate power, and I provided several instances from a single interview backing that up (and will happily provide more from other interviews), and you have shown that he:
1. wants to lower taxes
2. plans to use private property rights as a tool against corporate pollution
3. is a barely-concealed racist

I'd say I've carried my point, since my quotes address the subject at hand and yours either do not or prove my position.

and justifying the unjustifiable. It's rather remarkable, really.

In case you really don't get it: Corporations already are liable for damages for polluting private property. That's worked well, hasn't it. He wants virtually unfettered capitolism.

He wants to get rid of OSHA. Period. I can't wait to see what you have to say to try and convince us that that's not a big fat corporate kiss.

"Do you think government is good at making windows into people's souls and combating bigotry?"

Talk about a feeble strawman and his little straw dog. No, gov't is not good at making windows into people's souls. Yes, gov't has fucking PROVEN to be effective at combating the tangible RESULTS of bigotry; riding the back of the bus, separate and unequal, etc,etc, etc.


"2. plans to use private property rights as a tool against corporate pollution"

Please. He wants to abolish the EPA. He clearly is not concerned with using property rights as a tool against corporate pollution- and virtually everyone with half a brain can see behind that thinly veiled excuse to give corporations greater polluting rights.

You're not carrying anything but Paul's shit.

I can tell it ticks you off that I'm actually willing to look at what Paul's saying rather than reject him out of hand (the irony being I would never vote for the guy in a million years). However, since I think he represents a real threat to our party, I'm not going to
A) dismiss him as a loony
B) shut up about him
C) pretend his platform is as simplistic and single-minded as you desperately want to believe it is

If no one is watching them, they can do whatever they want with no repercussions.

The problem is so many industries now are "regulated" by boards composed of the corporations themselves.

veep... what would you think then? Would make very interesting.. I'd rather Kooch watch that man than the other way around... Just saying

Or when they sober up...



PB

dennis needs to come out and refute it. she's not merely his wife, she campaigns for him and acts as a spokesperson in that capacity.

PB

how disingenuous.

in case you really are that slow about this: Dennis is running for president, and this was a campaign error. This is not about policy. duh.

Is that drastic enough for you?

the president from becoming a dictator. It is time for DRASTIC.....oh, forget it.

Oversight? When was the last example of government oversight? The Carter administration?

If we could elect a Congress willing to do its damn job, I'd be all for more oversight; as it is, if the only offer I get is for actual deregulation that undoes the perks the corporate world has written itself with our tax dollars, that's much better to me than the current situation, even if we lose a lot of (currently non-existant) oversight.

We should wait and see if there is anything to this.

First, I don't believe it.

Second, Dennis Kucinich would never ever entertain the deregulatory schemes that Ron Paul entertains. Period. It's not even worthy of discussion.

After all, Ron Paul is anti-war. He is probably the least offensive of the Republican candidates. Maybe it's their way of making a statement with respect to that.

I think Paul and Kucinich have some similarities. But they're worlds apart on economic issues. As a vp, I think Kucinich could do much worse.

I don't know what is going through their minds. But it seems highly unlikely Kucinich would pick a Republican as a running mate.

I've done far fewer than I have considered. Kooch can do the math, he knows that he'll get a solid majority by uniting the Centrist DLC with the Left. Far more than he will by making common cause with the Reep Fringe.

Does his wife know what she's talking about? No doubt. Did she say he's decided to DO this? Nope.

Ron Paul is a disaster, economically.

I'm having enough problems getting the Progressive Democrats to help us get signatures in Virginia without that.

but it's interesting to know what kind of a Democrat Kucinich is. Apparently not a very good Democrat, to say the least.

And both agree that the collusion between business and government elites poses the greatest danger we currently face.

and wants a vice president who thinks the government should do next to nothing for it's citizens.

I wouldn't have suspected a THING, had I not read your post. Thanks!

:)

Doh!

was it a set up?

If your husband had a really good friend, and someone asked you if you thought he would be good at a most important job in your husbands company, how would tact dictate you answer that?

She answered perfectly if you ask me. He would "consider" it. He is a thoughtful man, i'll bet he would consider it. He is an intelligent man too, which is why i think he would REJECT the idea.

This brouhaha is really nothing more than speculation.

Let someone ask DK this question...

:shrug:

That said, who cares what she said? Nomme.

Thank you!!

The crime scene in which the Constitution was slain is covered with bipartisan fingerprints. The Democratic establishment has protected the Bush regime by putting impeachment off the table, has voted to do away with habeas corpus, has given the government the power to spy on its citizens, has given immunity to corporations that collaborate with the government gathering information on law abiding citizens, has given its imprimatur to rendition and torture, and has voted overwhelmingly to give Bush the go-ahead for war against Iran.

When it comes to the Constitution and our freedoms, the two-party system has been a miserable failure.

As to OP itself:

1. Joe Lieberman was rewarded with the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. It is now considering a proposal by Jane Harman to further infringe our freedoms, all for the sake of national security, whatever that means anymore.

2. Ron Paul has said that he won't support the GOP nominee, but he has also said that he won't run as an independent.

3. Dennis Kucinich has not said anything about running as an independent. His wife is entitled to her opinion.

4. There is a good likelihood that there will be an independent challenge to the 2-party nominees, but it won't come from the Left, but from the Center. Can we say Michael Bloomberg or Lou Dobbs?

looks at the field and decides blech, and nominates RP for VP?

And don't give me "he didn't say it, his WIFE did!". She's privvy to his personal thoughts and knows full well what's going on in his campaign. She wouldn't have said that if the subject hadn't come up.

I also don't give a flying fuck that Ron Paul is against the Iraq war. Good for him, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a libertarian. And a fucking scary one at that.

Ever spent time with a group of Ron Paul supporters? They're like members of a cult. Having a political debate with them is like arguing with a brick wall. They don't like hearing anything that doesn't jive with their world-view. True, they're better informed than a freeper, but their insistence on the correctness of their stance is eerily similar.

The fact that Kucinich has even CONSIDERED teaming up with Ron Paul is highly disturbing.

way.

but thanks for assuming that I have motives. That says far more about you than it does about me.

Kucinich was actually my very strong second. I would have loved nothing more than an Edwards/Kucinich ticket. No more.

Zero social net. Dog eats dog. Survival of the fittest.
Is this a cruel joke about Kucinich/Paul 2008?

...rather than Paul/Kucinich???

is a twisted rightwing nutbag.

I'd want to ask Dennis what a genuine, true-hearted public servant like him is doing in such scurrilous company.

FWIW

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html

"This raises a broader point. It has become fashionable among certain commentators to hurl insults at Ron Paul such as "huge weirdo," "fruitcake," and the like. Interestingly, the same thing was done to another anti-war medical doctor/politician, Howard Dean, back in 2003, as Charles Krauthammer infamously pronounced with regard to Dean that "it's time to check on thorazine supplies." Krauthammer subsequently said that "t looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium again."

For a long time now, I've heard a lot of people ask: "where are the principled conservatives?" -- meaning those on the Right who are willing to oppose the constitutional transgressions and abuses of the Bush administration without regard to party loyalty. A "principled conservative" isn't someone who agrees with liberals on most issues; that would make them a "principled liberal." A "principled conservative" is someone who aggressively objects to the radicalism of the neocons and the Bush/Cheney assault on our constitution and embraces a conservative political ideology. That's what Ron Paul is, and it's hardly a surprise that he holds many views anathema to most liberals. That hardly makes him a "fruitcake."

Hillary Clinton supported the invasion of a sovereign country that had not attacked us and could not attack us -- as did some of the commentators now aggressively questioning Ron Paul's mental health or, at least, his "seriousness." She supported the occupation of that country for years -- until it became politically unpalatable. That war has killed hundreds of thousands of people at least and wreaked untold havoc on our country. Are those who supported that war extremist, or big weirdos, or fruitcakes?

....This whole concept of singling out and labelling as "weirdos" and "fruitcakes" political figures because they espouse views that are held only by a small number of people is nothing more than an attempt to discredit someone without having to do the work to engage their arguments. It's actually a tactic right out of the seventh grade cafeteria. It's just a slothful mechanism for enforcing norms."

for information which I happen to think has some merit.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html

"...There is something disorienting about watching the same people who cheered much of this on, or who will enthusiastically support for President a candidate who enabled and cheered much of it on, trying to constrict debate by labeling as "weirdos" and "fruitcakes" those who have most aggressively opposed it all. As the debates of 2002 should have proved rather conclusively, the arguments that are deemed to be the province of the weirdos and losers may actually be the ideas that are right. They at least deserve an honest airing, especially in a presidential campaign with as much at stake as this one..."

I seriously doubt it.

"A former 100% anti-choicer with a current 100% anti-choicer?"

No fucking way.

"Selling a War," on PBS. A Paul Administration , we'd have fight for domestic policies. But, should Kucinich or Paul ever hold the office of President; we'd not see a return of the lies Moyer's reported by Bush in the war run up of 2002. Hillary, I am not so sure you'd not see a repeat of such stunts.

:smoke:

If the spouse of any of the other candidates had made a similar "off hand" comment, there would be multiple threads in multiple forums. Aren't you defensive.

Ms. Kucinich made an extremely provocative comment and it seems reasonable to bring it here for discussion. I don't see why anyone would take offense to that. :shrug:

interview. She just quickly answered a question put to her. She basically just said she thought Dennis would be open to some possibility.

It's not news.

What Elizabeth said probably isn't 'news', per se, however it is worthy of discussion. It certainly would be 'news' if a 'top tier' candidate's wife said something similar. Kucinich should not be held to a different standard than the other candidates.

and she was apparently caught off guard. BFD.

It appears that Dennis and Elizabeth are in agreement.

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

some confirmation.

If it's true, they'll both be marginialized and ridiculed even more than they already have been. And Dennis would have just lost my vote.

Beyond the war issue, DK and Ron Paul have nothing in common.

As I said earlier in this thread, this would at least Kucinich some of those elusive cross-over votes. But the costs would be extreme.

I hope it isn't true.

A peace-monger and a xenophobe. Wow.

At least Kucinich could finally get some 'cross-over' votes. :rofl:

it's fucked up that Elizabeth did, but at least give Dennis the benefit of the doubt.

beliefs she does, and that she is simply talking out of her ass.

Edit: Is "traitress" a word? Yeah, I suppose it is. Well, too late to change it now.

Did you not know this whole time that Paul and Kucinich are close friends and have a great deal of respect for each other?

Or does it only bother you if he's actually willing to translate that friendship and respect into action?

Why does anyone even take this candidate seriously?

then he doesn't deserve to serve in the House of Representatives, much less the White House.

Was there a lot of hand-wringing and anger then too?

and Teresa Heinz-Kerry certainly never said that Kerry would consider McCain.

But McCain, as bad as he is, isn't nearly as a a big nutjob as Ron Paul is.

is that Dennis will consider Ron Paul, one is not interested in much more.

Reopening the 911 investigation among other various criminal acts these Demons have pulled off.

The Bush connection to the bin Laden family.

- Escorting dozens of members of the bin Laden family out of US after 9/11

- The Patriot Act having been written decades before 9/11

- The call for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ by the neocons who orchestrated the wars

- A totally invalid and false connection between Iraq and the ‘War on Terror

- Regular, politically timed terror alerts

- Toxic air quality at Ground Zero after 9/11

- The ‘junk science’ of Global Warming and its effects around the globe

- WH orders to suppress and politicize reports on by the Surgeon General

- Plans for wars with Iraq and Afghanistan that were made before 9/11

- Saddam Hussein’s possession of WMD

- Saddam Hussein’s connection to Al Qaeda

- Saddam Hussein’s involvement in 9/11

- Saddam Hussein’s threat to the US or his neighbors

- Having NO plans for an extended occupation of Iraq or for keeping the peace

- Inadequate armor and supplies for our men and women in uniform

- Supposed ‘progress’ in Iraq, time after time

- Fudged numbers of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq

- The staged ‘toppling’ of Saddam’s statue

- The staged rescue of Jessica Lynch

- The lies about Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire

- Illegal warrantless spying on US citizens

- Torture at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan

- Rendition of detainees to other countries for torture

- Outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative

- White House involvement in the firing of federal prosecutors…

There are so many more lies to list, but I think you get the idea.

They are more distrustful of the Bush administration role / non-role in 9/11 than most DUers.

Let's wait for that.

Everybody talks without thinking once in a while. It's the candidate's wife, for heaven's sake. Nothing to get all hysterical over.

It is something if what his wife said is left hanging as his campaign's last word on the subject. She does have an active role in his campaign.

She mentioned its "a consideration, absolutely".

"he's a great truth teller as well...."

"there could be some bi-partisan movements going on there"

This does not sound as thought DK is ready to sign on with RP...as what?? Independents??


Nah, never happen. They may be close on some things, but not nearly enough on others.

to make a ticket from statements like that...
in 2004 reporters were also throwing VP questions at candidates who would politely say "why not" - then headlines would follow: "Clark wants Elliott Spitzer as VP"!
I think to draw that conclusion from this interview is to be in REALLY bad faith...the way MSM usually is.

I think Kucinich and Paul are two of only three or four candidates not dodging and weaving around what they stand for. It's one of the reasons I respect Kucinich. He's not the candidate that I'm likely to vote for, but I respect him. I think this is why Kucinich and Paul are friends. They may not agree with each other, but at least their both willing to lay it on the line and say what they mean.

Let's see, two people at (mostly) opposite ends of the spectrum with the shared goal of ending the Iraq debacle and rescuing our goverment from itself get together, eh?

Wait, that's a bad thing?

Oh, silly me.. I guess I got confused, and I genuinely thought that most people here had the future of the country as the primary consideration, not continuation of the status qou as long as it had the letter -D behind it.

I'm dismayed that revolutionary thinking is so quickly crushed here. Sure, there's things that RP may believe in that you're against, but you also forget that at one point our Constituion mandated checks and balances, and that the POTUS doesn't get carte blanche to cut things as he sees fit.

The POTUS isn't King, and RP believes in that. From what I read, so does DK. I think its a match made in Heaven, and considering my current opinion is it'll be Clinton or Obama versus Guilani, I'm not holding any hope for the annoited party canidates fixing the future.

Whatever, though. I don't care about parties in power, I care about my country. Which is why I think you'd get more mileage out of a RP/DK ticket instead of DK/RP.

that'll be the beauty of the next Pearl Harbor -- er -- Persian Gulf war with Iran if it happens.

bills because they already have the votes to pass, hold meetings with the WAR CRIMINAL with NO dems, this for 12 FUCKING YEARS! and now, finally, that the Dems have WON, and we have a chance at REVERSING all the CRIMES that the LYING REPUKES committed, the trolls here are calling for "bipartisan" bullshit.

NO.

FUCKING.

WAY.

Only AFTER the DEMS get to past OUR bills and UNDUE ALL the crap for the past TWENTY YEARS, will I be able to BEGIN to CONSIDER "bipartisanship"

Repukes and their trolls here want "bipartisanship"? Vote WITH the Dems to RESTORE our country FIRST. Then we'll talk.

Kucinich would never have Ron Paul as his running mate.
EK's saying he would consider it is a platitude.

I will NEVER vote for ANY repuke.

EVER!

Hear that dems?!!!

If you put a repuke on the ticket, I stay home.

Period.

Put a repuke on the ticket in number two - you are sealing your own DEATH by ASSASSINATION by REPUKES!

There is no way I will support Kucinich if he is going to consider Ron Paul as a VP.

Kucinich hasn't said anything to contradict her yet, so I would give her the benefit of the doubt. She probably knows what she is talking about.