Too good to verify: Alien elf wants Guy Fawkes for his running mate
posted at 8:00 am on November 28, 2007 by Bryan
Well, their politics are actually not all that dissimilar, and Kucinich was pro-life until 2002. So there’s that. And the general nuttiness.
The race goes on, but one thing that can be said for U.S. Rep. and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, of Ohio, and that is he is always proposing something new. This time he mentioned a possible Democrat-Republican ticket. 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. We have noticed a number of Ron Paul signs in Erie. Both Kucinich and Paul frequently have copies of the Constitution with them while campaigning. Both men are still in the race, which is kind of a surprise. Neither has made inroads on either party ticket.
The blog that posted this doesn’t source its claim and I’ve never heard of the blog before, so I can’t vouch for its word one way or the other. But come on. It just makes a warped kind of sense to put these two on a ticket.
Update: Thanks to commenter amerpundit, here’s a Cleveland Plain Dealer report on Kucinich’s Tinfoil Ticket idea.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Has anyone ever seen the two of them together ? Are we sure they are not one and the same ?
DoctorDentons on November 28, 2007 at 8:12 AM
Which one is the elf?
James on November 28, 2007 at 8:14 AM
He kind of looks like a white Sam Cassell.
RW Wacko on November 28, 2007 at 8:26 AM
At first I thought this was just a PR stunt for Kucinich to try to raise his profile, but I’m moving toward thinking that he is serious and that the appeal is based on earnestness. Both of these two candidates say exactly what they think, so they probably respect each other on that basis.
That ticket would be pointless though, outside of the war they would have little common ground.
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 8:34 AM
Well, they both want to impeach President Bush and Dick Cheney. I’m not sure how far a platform of no-war and impeachment will go, I’m would guess no where.
Complete7 on November 28, 2007 at 8:46 AM
I suspect they will have some difficulties getting alignment on their healthcare proposals.
RW Wacko on November 28, 2007 at 8:59 AM
Dear God, Bryan, you’ve done it… you’ve actually linked to GoErie.com. Erie… So many painful memories rushing back.
On a tangent, Erie (actually Millcreek, the immediate suburb) inexplicably produced Tom Ridge, whose credibility was sadly shattered forever when he was given the unwinnable position of NSA director.
A lot of us had hopes that Ridge, as PA governor, was being set up for a presidential run. A no-apologies conservative, an honest-to-goodness decorated Vietnam war hero (with verifiable stories), and a consistently popular Republican in the bluest corner of a blue, blue state.
Geez, why would I be reminiscing now, what with so many great, qualified GOP candidates from which to choose…
saint kansas on November 28, 2007 at 9:04 AM
How about calling it the dumb and dumber ticket?
right2bright on November 28, 2007 at 9:04 AM
He reminds of what we call in the hollers of Appalachia, a “F.L.K.”. A Funny Looking Kid. It’s a real medical term.
bloggless on November 28, 2007 at 9:08 AM
RP has support from Communist, so no shocker Kookcinch is attracted to him. He’s probably losing support to him and trying to gain it back.
jp on November 28, 2007 at 9:11 AM
Bryan, it was also reported by the Cleveland Plain-Dealer.
amerpundit on November 28, 2007 at 9:17 AM
They may both carry copies of The Constitution, but I think their interpretations are distinctively different. That’s the problem when you try to follow to the letter a 200 year old document.
BohicaTwentyTwo on November 28, 2007 at 9:18 AM
Kucinich/Ron Paul ’08. Superior Air Power.
BKennedy on November 28, 2007 at 9:50 AM
The Hot Wife & Whores Ticket!
Frozen Tex on November 28, 2007 at 9:59 AM
Blair’s Law just keeps proving itself.
1. The alliance between the radical Left and extremist Islamists is an example of Blair’s Law.
2. The fact that white supremicists like David Duke supported ‘Mother’ Sheehan’s sit-in at Crawford, TX is an example of Blair’s law.
Veeshir on November 28, 2007 at 10:05 AM
HA
HA HA
mjkazee on November 28, 2007 at 10:26 AM
There is a distinct difference between Paul’s invocation of the Constitution and Kucinich’s. You simply can’t be a liberal (and by liberal I mean modern liberal — a socialist) and be a Constitutionalist. Constitutionalist = Libertarian, period. You can’t say things like “Neoconservative Constitutionalist” or “Liberal Constitutionalist” with a straight face. They’re wholly oxymoronic.
Mark Jaquith on November 28, 2007 at 10:40 AM
How about the “Hail Mary” ticket. The only downside is that there may be some immediate outrage until the moonbats understand that it is referring to a football pass and not a plot by the Catholic church.
highhopes on November 28, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Pauls’ view of the Constitution is profoundly flawed, he’s not a real strict constructionist or Originalist. Thats what Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are.
jp on November 28, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Heh. Lay it out for us readers. What is ‘profoundly flawed’ translate to?
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Constitutionalist = Libertarian
I’d hardly equate the two terms because it suggests that complete idiots like Ron Paul and his band of annoying bloggers are the keepers of the Constitution. That isn’t any more true than those who suggest that Al Gore is the spirit of the environmental movement.
highhopes on November 28, 2007 at 11:22 AM
The All-Nimrod ticket would clearly be a boon to both the tinfoil and bedsheet industries. And finally the illegal aliens–the ones from other planets, I mean–would feel safe to come out of the shadows. But instead of a Presidential limo, they’d need to switch to a big clown car.
Getting lots of lunatics all in one place would also be helpful in getting them all back on their medication.
ReubenJCogburn on November 28, 2007 at 11:37 AM
It makes great sense, that is if one is running against the War Party, which both of them are.
Nonetheless, RP would never go for it, he not being the relativist that Kucinich is. Ron Paul’s actually rooted in history and political/economic philosophy — things alien not only to Kucinich but the Republican Party in general.
If Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination he will most likely run on a third party ticket and this will be devastating to the Republican candidate and the outcome. The good news is that the results may cause many Republicans scurrying to find some way to salvage the party, which in turn may lead them to discover some roots grounded in something other than nationalism and perpetual war for perpetual peace.
As I said in another thread (not that my posts mean much at HotAir), I’ve crossed over to the Paulistas and it doesn’t feel like demon-possession. Indeed, it confirms the conservatism that I’ve studied for 30 years. It’s hard, because I’m still very much a Republican and extremely anti-Democratic Pary, and there are libertarian bits about RP that I think are wrong.
Nonetheless, because I won’t sit by anymore and remain silent as Ron Paul is slandered and insulted, I assume I’ve made myself a troll.
I await the obligatory banning.
Drum on November 28, 2007 at 12:02 PM
I got it…
The “Lunaticket.”
Jimmy the Dhimmi on November 28, 2007 at 12:04 PM
I thought he said he wouldn’t do that?
The sense I get from Kucinich (aside from the wheels-off stuff), is that he is like most people – he sees things through his position. Specifically I think he thinks the Executive Branch abuses power and the Leg. Branch should have more. Just about exactly what you’d think a legislator would say.
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 12:10 PM
I don’t know if Ron Paul said he wouldn’t run on a third ticket. Maybe he did. The thing is, if his supporters insist on it, he might see it as (don’t laugh) akin to Washington being reluctant to run for a second term and practically being forced to.
Kucinich is a socialist. He wants a Department of Peace for crying out loud. In other words, for Kucinich it’s not the Fed that disturbs him, but by whom and how the Fed gets run.
RP comes at things from a completely opposite angle and embodies what Reagan had in mind, if not in practice: government is not the solution, government is the problem.
Drum on November 28, 2007 at 12:18 PM
That’s beautiful, man–the ticket for those who find reality way too confining.
ReubenJCogburn on November 28, 2007 at 12:31 PM
historical ignorance, he’s a crank literalist who picks and chooses what he wants to beleive to fit his liking. same as liberals.
1 example:
problem is, George Washington and the first congress, full of Founders….passed many federal laws relating to criminal matters, one of which was making it a federal crime to interfer with an officer. And of course Washington signed the Judiciary Act which eventually set up the Federal Courts.
another good example, Paul says that Foreign Policy is to be made by the Congress, not executive. George Washington didn’t get the memo…Michael Ramsey, Scalia’s former clerk and harvard law professor has a great piece on what “Executive Power” meant in regards to Foreign Affairs in the 18th century definition of the term.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No1_Ramseyonline.pdf
and of course just the general idiocy/ignorance of claiming the founders were isolationist and ‘advised’ us to be isolationist today. Too bad its not remotely true, the Military has been deployed abroad over 200 times since inception…the best parallel for today being the Barbary Wars by Jefferson.
Since the Constitution does not provide for the Louisianna Purchase, which more than doubled the size of govt. with one stroke of the pen by the President, Thomas Jefferson….I think Paul shouldn’t participate in the Iowa Caucuses, since Iowa, using his logic, is an ‘unconstitutional’ state.
jp on November 28, 2007 at 12:37 PM
>and of course just the general idiocy/ignorance of claiming the founders were isolationist and ‘advised’ us to be isolationist today.
Ron Paul has never said this (find it for me) and never would. Non-intervention is what he prescribes. And as he increasingly is forced to point out, we are becoming more isolationist as the much of the world increasingly tells us to F*ck off with regard to our policies. I have no doubt that we will win whatever it is we’re battling, but for whom and at what cost?
Drum on November 28, 2007 at 12:43 PM
when he ask stupid questions like, “how would we feel if China was building bases here” or Iran….he’s being a relativist thinking fool. the founders sure as heck never thought that way.
the whole basis of his Foreign Policy is insane, it assumes mankind is fundamentally “good”….exactly like secular humanist such as Kucinich.
jp on November 28, 2007 at 12:43 PM
>the whole basis of his Foreign Policy is insane, it assumes mankind is fundamentally “good”
That’s not true. Indeed, it’s Bush’s democratic ideology that’s founded on the idea of universal and fundamental goodness: “The hearts of mankind yearn for freedom” and all that. God, read his second inaugural, it’s f*cking utopian.
Drum on November 28, 2007 at 12:48 PM
The further you travel away in the universe, the closer you arrive to your point of origin.
Kini on November 28, 2007 at 12:50 PM
“non-interventionism” is isolationism, no matter what he wants to say. he says on a regular basis that the founders “advised us of that”…….Robert Kagan has wrote alot on this subject….as have Michael Medved’s recent columns debunking the entire notion.
and we are non-internventionist, in the parts of the world we don’t have any national interest….Tibet, Darfur…
however we are engaged in the parts we do, the Middle East(kinda like the Islamic Barbary pirates/terrorist of Jefferson’s day). i do think you can make a case for a draw down in Japan and Germany, not all the way but some…problem is they don’t want it. Our military presence subsidizes their welfare states.
jp on November 28, 2007 at 12:50 PM
the idea that if we withdrawal from the world, that the Islamo-Nazi’s will suddenly “leave us alone” and not try to spread Islamo-nazism to the entire world as they’ve states in their goal….can only come from a beleif that man is fundamentally good, and then we’d be able to hold hands and sing kumbaya.
we tried pauls way shamelessly in the 1930′s, passed one Neutrality Act after another while in Britain they ignored Churchill and listened to Neville Chamberline. It cost the lives of 10′s of millions, which is why the nation reacted so strongly against it after we barely won WW2…and we took a very Interventionst stance in the Cold War up until today….call it ‘blowback’. Everthing they learned from that and how it workd, is whats being applied today.
the Islamo-Nazi’s attack us because of Sura 9:5 and 9:29….they divide to world into two camps, House of Islam and house of Kuffar(non-islam)…guess which side we are in. and they beleive as a religious tenet they are to make war against our ‘house’ via Jihad and conquer it.
not at all that different from Imperial Germany or Japan….of the Soviet Commies.
jp on November 28, 2007 at 12:55 PM
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6863
jp on November 28, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Without having yet read Ramsey’s essay, Ron Paul usually has in mind (if I understand him correctly) the president’s usurping or making law at whim. That is, he can’t essentially deny or change the citizen’s legal rights by ignoring or making law. The insanely complicated and sophisticated legal and philosophical arguments circulating before and after ratification surely do not give any indication that the executive is wholly sovereign over law and foreign affairs. Were that the case, we’d have gotten us a King. Cheney’s wet dreams notwithstanding, this is not what Washington or Jefferson had in mind, regardless of their questionable (but rare) legal actions.
Drum on November 28, 2007 at 1:02 PM
both
Mojack420 on November 28, 2007 at 1:03 PM
“We represent the lollipop guild, the lollipop guild. Follow the yellow brick road………”
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on November 28, 2007 at 1:51 PM
A few months ago, I wanted to irritate my Clintonista neighbors but my wife won’t let me put up the Kookcinich and Paul signs.
Now I might be able to do it.
madmonaco on November 28, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Lunaticket = genius.
I’d vote for them. The country would go to hell, but we’d be laughing all the way down.
JackOfClubs on November 28, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Here is the Ramsey link on “foreign Affairs”…its a classic example of what an Originalist does, they go back and see how the founders actually shaped the constitution and what things meant back then. The irony is that Jefferson is the one, while in office, that helped shaped this view of Foreign affairs.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No1_Ramseyonline.pdf
jp on November 28, 2007 at 3:08 PM
ok I’ll post this again
“Dr. Paul and Rep. Kucinich are friends and there is a lot of mutual respect,” Paul communications director Jesse Benton said in an e-mail when asked whether a running-mate spot on the Kucinich ticket would be attractive to Paul. “They have worked, and will continue to work, together on the ending the war and protecting civil liberties.
“However, Ron wants to substantially cut the size and scope of the federal government. There are too many differences on issues such as taxes and spending to think a joint ticket would be possible.”
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123670.html
libertytexan on November 28, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Here is what Ramsey ends his essay with:
Good point. Now, read the link in the Foreign Policy blog to Ron Paul’s speech, and see that the blogger is not taking into account what Ron Paul was addressing and in light of all his other pronouncements. When Ron Paul talks about Congress reasserting its Constitutionally mandated responsibility in the realm of foreign policy, he has in mind the declaration of war and the power of the purse — both of which could end the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and prevent further tragedy in Iran, were they executed.
Meanwhile, Cheney and Addington are doing everything they can to keep the Executive branch autonomous and not bound by anything other than what they deem necessary for the safety of the country. You might find this comforting, I find it sinister. And you can’t tell me Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison are smiling at these creeps’ shenanigans.
But in light of the war on terror – which is not only global in scope but domestic as well, and which according Cheney, et al, will be a loooooong war, everything comes under executive power. There’s the rub.
You and others may think that anything is the Constitutional prerogative of the Executive branch if it keeps Americans safe from terrorists. Indeed, one still hears the refrain, “If you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to worry about.”
That’s what this is about.
Drum on November 28, 2007 at 4:40 PM
For anyone keeping track, I’ve been predicting the potention for this for months.
RightWinged on November 28, 2007 at 4:53 PM
>we tried pauls way shamelessly in the 1930’s
Oh God, this is so tiresome and so historically illiterate it barely deserves responding to, but I can’t help myself.
Pray tell what exactly the Arab states have to threaten the West with besides oil embargoes and sand storms? Indeed, France’s present discomfort is not the fault of Arabs and Muslims, but of liberal French multiculturalism and welfare — both of which are exactly what Bush refuses to stand back from with his ideas on immigration and America being the last best hope of the world.
We managed to hold off 40,000 nukes in the Soviet sphere aimed directly at us without having to drop a single bomb in their neck of the woods. (Or did the Vietnam War hold back the giant communist domino effect that was to trample the free world?)
James Burnham set it out decades ago in his book, The Suicide of the West. We will defeat ourselves via liberalism. Bush is a liberal and so is Cheney and the rest of them. Think about it, you can solve this one on your own.
Islam doesn’t threaten the US, nor do the Arab nations, in any significant way. Geez, their combined GDP amounts to something akin to that of Greenland’s. So what are you afraid of?
Putting America first might go a long way in keeping America safe. In the meantime, Ahmandinjad is not Hitler, and Iran is not Nazi Germany. Get over that one and you’ll be a lot farther along in being able to diagnose America’s real threats.
You must really think little of Americans and America if you think Islam is a threat. Or is it that you see America as a morally, spiritually, economically, and militarily, hollowed out shell of a country? If that’s the case, then nothing’s gonna save us from Mohammed.
Drum on November 28, 2007 at 5:00 PM
What the… what? So who flew into the twin towers? Blew up the USS Cole? The Khobar Towers? African Embassies? Etc, etc…?
Frozen Tex on November 28, 2007 at 6:59 PM
ok, If the “Iraq War Resolution” didn’t satisfy the “declare war” clause, I’d like to know what the point of it was? It was in effect, congress saying to the CinC….go to war. Paul says plainly that:
this is flatly wrong, starting with George Washington and going fwd. Paul is ignorant of the Constitution and history.
btw, if the War Resolution isn’t the same in effect as congress declaring war. Then why did Paul vote FOR the 2001 AUMF that the Afghan war is fought under??? Did paul vote for an “unconstitutional war”?
of course now, being the kook that he is, claims we are in Afghan to build oil pipelines. He say Michael Moore’s documentary no doubt.
jp on November 28, 2007 at 7:18 PM
uh, their defacto armies…..al qaeda, hezzbollah,….you no, Islamic terrorist groups. I live not far from a hezzbollah sleeper cell that got busted. Its not all arab states that harbor and support terrorist, the State Dept. says Saddam’s Iraq(which is factual, see: husseinandterror.com), Iran, Syria and another I can’t think of.
its an ideological war at its heart.
jp on November 28, 2007 at 7:21 PM