<div> </div>
<div>Paul et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ron Paul will never get the Republican nomination. If he wants to offer voters an option, he should run in another party. Otherwise he will just be a Republican version of Kucinich, someone who gets media time and has a large following, who speaks his mind a bit more bluntly than the other candidates in part because he has no chance anyway and can thus offend without worry of alienating critical voting blocks.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If Ron Paul ran in another political party, he could split the more "conservative" vote, giving the democratic candidate a huge advantage, like Perot in 1996. He would not win the presidency. Various "powers that be" with the deepest pockets, which after all is what wins presidential elections in the current system, would go after Ron Paul with a vengeance.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As far as a candidate that "both sides" can reach out to, this very way of thinking is part of the reason democracy is the USA is sadly limited. Look at some of the other democratic governments today and witness the diversity of political parties in their nations. I want far more diversity that an almost entirely republican/democrat controlled US Congress and executive. I'd love to see the US Congress be 10 percent Libertarian/Free Market, 10 percent Green Party, 10 percent Christian Fundamentalist (let them call themselves what they are when they control our nation in the name of their religion), 10 percent Socialist, 10 percent Atheist, 10 percent Gaiaist (more spiritual version of the Green Party), 10 percent Agaiaist (my new word, similar to "Atheist," for those heretical deniers of the true faith of Goddess Earth Worship that is the only path to humanity's salvation!), then maybe those arrogant democrats and republicans that have a stranglehold over politics in the USA can fight over what is left.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Both sides? Why not 9 sides as I listed above? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett, trying to think "outside the box," which seems to enclose thought no matter how I think.<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/18/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Rumelhart</b> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">In an effort to switch topics, I'd like to pose the following question:<br><br>What are people's thoughts on Ron Paul (Republican candidate for President)?
<br><br>I'll start it off by saying that I'm on the lookout for candidates that<br>might be somewhat palatable to both sides who don't care to establish<br>more Presidential power or remove any more of my civil liberties, or
<br>force us to go to war with any other countries unjustifiably. I fear<br>that Hilary Clinton will prove to be a rallying point for Republicans to<br>react against. I'd be willing to switch my vote from my usual vote for
<br>Democrats or Independents if it means stopping the kind of trouble we're<br>in the midst of now.<br><br>As for Ron Paul himself, I really like his stance on civil liberties. I<br>also like many of his Libertarian positions, but not all of them. I
<br>like that he voted against the Patriot Act, and that he voted against<br>the war in Iraq. I don't like his isolationist tendencies, or his<br>willingness to fence off Mexico. I like that he wants to place more<br>
decisions in the hands of the individual states, even though I'm in the<br>minority in Idaho. He seems to be very principled, and doesn't seem to<br>be in any corporations pocket. I especially like that he sponsored a
<br>bill to have Congress declare an actual war in Iraq, although he stated<br>he wouldn't vote for it. He wanted a real declaration of war if we were<br>going to war, not some Presidential power play.<br><br>As for his most famous recent stance, I think he is right that our
<br>actions in the past have caused a situation where we have made ourselves<br>a target. The concept of "blowback" is very real. Our removal of a<br>democratically-elected leader in Iran to be replaced by the Shah and the
<br>Iran-Contra affair haven't helped. Training Osama Bin-Laden how to<br>fight was probably not such a bright idea, either. I'm not saying that<br>we're to blame for 9/11, just that we may share in the blame in a small
<br>way through bad diplomatic or political decisions - and that we should<br>take that into account when making more such decisions.<br><br>Anyway, enough of my opinions. What does everyone else think? Is this<br>a candidate that can be reached out to by both sides? If not, then who?
<br><br>Paul<br><br><br>=======================================================<br>List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">
http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br>