I spoke to Dennis Kucinich on the phone this afternoon.

[PeaceNikki]

He was on At Issue with Ben Merens on Wisconsin Public Radio.

I asked him about the possibility of choosing Ron Paul as a running mate and how it scares his supporters.

He said:

"Of course that's not gonna happen" and then said "his position on international matters, particularly with respect to avoiding war as an instrument of policy has been identical to mine and we salute him for that. Imagine that, Ron Paul, if he was the nominee of the party and if we nominated anyone other than myself, it would be Ron Paul that would stand out there as the one who wanted to get us out of Iraq and not a democratic nominee. So we made the point about Ron Paul's real singular opposition to the war inside the Republican party. but, of course if I was to pick a running mate, it would NOT be Ron Paul. It would have to be someone who is a member of the Democratic party and it would be someone who is very close to the way I look at the world."

I wish I could have pointed out the fact that we know Paul's REASONS for opposing the war. And that the end does not justify the means.

[Annces]

1. Yep

I thought if you have a feel for Kucinich, you know he does not want to ally himself with people that are fools. He is a well grounded person, and sensible.

[PeaceNikki]

2. I was kind of grossed out that he "saluted" a piece of shit like Ron Paul.

:puke:

[Rageneau]

15. How is Paul a P.O.S.? What qualifies him for that?

I've got a soft spot for Ron Paul because he is the only Republican who sees a few things the same way as I do.

Of course, I disagree with him on lots of things, too, but nothing about the man seems to justify calling him a piece of shit. Limbaugh, yes. Gingrich, yes. Mann Coulter, yes -- but not Ron Paul.

He stikes me as sincere, honest, intelligent and a respecter of the Constitution.

Which is a big improvement over what we're putting up with now.

[Richard Steele]

16. The fact that he wishes to destroy most of what's GREAT about the USA is a bit "off-putting", IMHO.

[Lasher]

18. Ron Paul is none of those things.

He respects a Constitution that doesn't exist, one that is controversially defined by his own self-assumed authority alone.

If he is sincere and honest, why does he bemoan "spending other peoples' money" to grant Rosa Parks a medal from Congress, while he lobbies for $8 million in federal expenditures for Wild American Shrimp Marketing in his own district?

Far from being intelligent, he has no economic sense whatsoever. He is consistently obsessed with returning the US to a gold standard like it was before FDR. His words:

The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

This would be disastrous for America on several fronts. First of all, there is not enough gold in the world to supply America's economy. A gold standard, then, would result in massive deflation which would stymie investment, encourage hoarding, and trigger a depression cycle. Because America exports a trillion dollars a year, and also has a massive trade deficit, America would bleed gold which would require a crippling recession to remove the trade deficit.

Most economists know this, and Paul as congressman would surely have heard the arguments against the gold standard. So why does he continue to pursue it? Some would say it's because he's consistent, but he is inconsistent when it suits him.

For example, he has made no secret of his opposition to abortion. He gutlessly avoids the controversy of an outright federal overturning of Roe v Wade by saying it is a states' issue. But if he truly believes this, why did he vote for the ban of partial-birth abortions in H.R. 760?

I'm just getting started but I think I'll leave it at that.

Ron Paul is not sincere, honest, intelligent, or a respecter of the Constitution. Calling him a piece of shit is being charitable.

[Selatius]

19. People who push a gold standard are to be opposed.

Fiat currency is fine. The only problem is controlling inflation. If the energy supply were stable, which it isn't, there would still be inflation with the current banking system. As it stands, we're seeing inflation due to the usual machinations of fractional-reserve banking as well as oil prices driving up the price of everything else.

[Lasher]

20. Yes, and we're not accounting for all inflation.

Energy and food costs are not included in inflation data cited by the government. The justification claimed for this is the fluctuation of these costs. These omissions divert attention from the plight of the middle class and poor, who spend a higher percentage of their income on food and energy than do the affluent. But when the average person's wages go up, inflation concerns come quickly to our discourse.

[Selatius]

21. They omitted food and energy to get a "better picture" of the stability of the money supply itself

It's a meaningless figure for most working people. Few Americans live without fossil-fuel based electricity and certainly none can live without food. The Fed probably should've frozen interest rates rather than cut them twice in a row. Dropping interest rates will stoke even further inflation by making borrowing easier--which of course leads to the creation of more money through fractional lending. That's my fear. They only cut the rate to bail out banks and investment houses like Citigroup and Morgan Stanley. There's no other explanation that I can find that isn't silly.

And they report the inflation minus food and energy to anesthetize people from demanding bigger cost-of-living adjustments. This basically allows employers to cut wages by letting inflation do the cutting for them. Nevermind the continual debasement of the US Dollar. Pretty soon, a loaf of bread will cost 5 dollars.

[Lasher]

22. Propping up the house of cards until 2009

I'm sure that's what the Fed and the White House are thinking. One key motivation is to perpetuate the supply side myth if they can. I share your concern, and believe their ploy is exacerbating problems that will become more obvious sooner or later.

Edit: Are you aware that GDP calculations are also inaccurate? For example, production at factories in other countries are counted as US GDP if the facilities are owned by US corporations.

[Selatius]

23. GDP has been messy for several decades now.

I'm not even sure GDP is greater than 1 percent if you deleted all manufacturing facilities in China and India and other places in the world that happen to be owned by American firms. Large corporations tend to be net liquidators of jobs, yet they post positive gains with the GDP all the time because of increases in net profits due to "decreased operating costs." Most of the economy is still largely driven by small business, like 2/3rds of the economy. You're better off watching fluctuations in the median wage and studying the wealth gap to gauge a better picture of the economy, and it's not good on both of those.

[Lasher]

27. But GDP discrepancies are more severe now due to increased offshoring

With the flow of US manufacturing to other countries being more prominent under this administration than any other, this distortion is greater. We should be mindful of this when we make historic comparisons of anything (military spending for example) based on a percentage of GDP.

And if we use inflation-adjusted dollars in such an exercise we also have a problem, as we discussed before. :-(

There is irony in the corporate accounting practice of declaring gains by reducing headcount. I am reminded of the way Defined Benefit Pension Plans were converted to Cash Balance Plans. Since this saved corporations money, they were able to declare huge profits because of reductions in future known liabilities that had already been accounted for on the books. And then it's obscene bonuses all around for the CEOs & other senior executives, for exceeding earnings objectives, wheeee!!

After that well dried up they continued to eat their children, many by eliminating pension plans entirely. Remember when they used to call the 401(k)s 'savings plans'? Awhile back they all started calling them '401(k)retirement plans'. See, that's supposed to make you think they didn't terminate your DBPP.

So what to do after there's no more pension plans to plunder? Surely you don't expect senior executives to actually do something to turn a real profit, to earn those bonuses do you? So it's goodbye to employee/retiree medical benefits of yore, hello brave new world! Under the guise of 'expanding health care coverage to Americans' they are promoting an increase in the amount of money that can be sheltered (not taxed) in "health savings accounts", coupled with a push for Americans to use less expensive catastrophic coverage policies in conjunction with the savings accounts. The employer sets this up but bears none of the costs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=210673

OK it's not my fault I rambled. I accidentally tripped over a pet peeve.

[druidity33]

29. GDP is a farce

The Exxon Valdez spill increased the GDP substantially for Alaska. Does that denote a better society? Cancer, road accidents, toxic spills, etc all contribute to the GDP. "The GDP takes only one measure of progress into account: activity. Economic activity." (William McDonough & Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things)

That's not the kind of "progress" that's important to me or anyone i know. Especially when that "economic activity" happens only in the upper echelons of moneyed people and corporations.

You probably agree with me, i just wanted to reiterate:

The GDP is a farce.

[Orsino]

26. It's the only diplomatic option...

...and it seems right to me that we encourage Paul in this, the only matter that he seems to have gotten right.

[2beToby]

3. Rec'd

Kucinich is a good man, I really do hope he wins this one.

[lonestarnot]

4. Thanks for posting this.

I wish it had never been given a thought, and that is my position.

[PeaceNikki]

5. Dennis said it, too.

"to balance the energies in this country"

Yuck. http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/119606963456620.xml&coll=2

[madrchsod]

6. well it confused the hell out of me

but he cleared the air did`t he...to bad other`s are not as "honest" as he is

[MonkeyFunk]

7. Of course it's not gonna happen n/t

[PeaceNikki]

9. Of course not. He'd have to win the nom in order to pick a running mate.

I just had never heard him respond to the ridiculous notion. And I am a but bothered to think that he suggests that it's somehow feasible and justifiable to consider just because they both oppose the war. Fuck the reasons why.

[TheWatcher]

24. Self Delete.

[fenriswolf]

8. woo for a minute

i thought he might have been as kooky as the repubs paint him as.

[druidity33]

10. what are

"Paul's REASONS for opposing the war"?

:shrug:

[fenriswolf]

11. he may live in his own nutshell

but he is a strong believe of letting corporation wax and wane as they may, they do not need restrictions on them nor do they need help from the government by drumming up a war so that others may profit.

[TheWatcher]

25. Ron Paul In A Nutshell.

[Richard Steele]

17. He's an isolationist. He thinks we should build a wall around the USA and ignore the world.

[burrowowl]

12. K&R!

[Truth2Tell]

13. I think the issue of war vs peace

is very very high on the list of priorities for Dennis. Higher than maybe some other things people around here might prefer sometimes. Personally, I'm OK with that.

[Desertrose]

14. Thanks for asking that question.....

It needed to be clarified for many here.

Dennis is a Dem and would never choose outside the party.

[Le Taz Hot]

28. Sorry, the original question was poorly

handled. It was a sophomoric mistake and we can't afford ANY mistakes -- especially on the world stage -- after 8 years of Dim Son. He lost my support on that day. Now I'm adrift -- again.

[mmonk]

30. I see a mistake as agreeing to anything the neocons

are doing to this country. By that standard, this isn't a mistake.

[Le Taz Hot]

31. Truly, I've got nothing against the guy.

His Congressional presence has been a beacon of hope to progressives all over the country. And I care not about "electability," but, we're literally talking the life or death of this country and I just don't think he's ready for prime time. Unfortunately for this country and the world, the person that fits that bill has chosen not to run.

[mmonk]

32. Unless there is a brokered convention and he steps in.

[Le Taz Hot]

34. Be still my beating heart!

n/t

[a kennedy]

33. Hey I heard ya PeaceNikki

:thumbsup: :hi: :patriot: