The Obama-Paul Dream Ticket 
 Thursday, May 8th, 2008

 

Barack Obama and Ron Paul for President.  Impossible, right?  But who makes it that way?  There is perhaps no one more skilled in the effort of pitting "left" and "right" against each other than the two-party system itself.  For example, on April 10th, Rick Davis - the Campaign Manager for Republican Candidate John McCain - sent out an e-mail to Republicans entitled, "40 Million Attacks By The Far Left."  Terms like "liberal megadonor," "billionaire left-wing Democrats," and "liberal left" were tossed around as liberally (pun intended) as the April 30th e-mail from the National GOP Headquarters itself, which boldly announced "the left-wing attack machine is spewing venomous falsehoods again...the extreme left playbook."

This isn't a tactic employed only by the "right."  The Democratic Party utilizes its own terminology to attack the RNC:  the DNC accuses McCain of "pandering to the right wing," saying he will appoint "right wing judges" and is "Bush-like," "more of the same."  (It is apparent, however, in a recent comparison of the two parties, that the GOP leans more heavily on left/right segregational rhetoric.)

ConnieTalk wonders if we will ever see a day where candidates are judged solely on their individual platforms, instead of Americans feeling boxed in by who's on the ballot for which Party (especially considering the third parties are all but ignored).

If it were up to us, the best ticket for US President and Vice President for 2008 - in either order - at this point would be Barack Obama and Ron Paul running on the same ticket.

Sure, it's a dream, and it's unachievable - at least for 2008, but probably forever.  But think about it.  Obama and Paul are both truly the people's candidates:  their campaigns have seen some of the most fervent, enthusiastic supporters and have generated a growing interest in politics among America's youth.

Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate who voted against the US invasion of Iraq; Ron Paul is the Republican candidate who did the same.  According to US polls, the majority of Americans agreed with them.

Both advocate a peaceful foreign policy.  Both advocate dealing with the war on drugs as a substance abuse problem, over an open-and-shut criminal act.  Both wanted to pursue the chase of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan when the US instead sent troops to Baghdad.

Where Obama may lack experience, Paul brings 17+ years in Congress to the table (plus time in the U.S. House of Representatives).  Where Ron Paul has had more of a suburban, apple-pie upbringing, if you will, Obama presents a perhaps more modern American heritage of multiple ethnicity.  And though they may have opposing views on as many issues as they agree upon - abortion (Paul is pro-life, Obama pro-choice), gun control (Paul is for rights to own guns, Obama tends to be for stricter regulations), health care (Paul wants a free market system, Obama's looking to universal health care), etc. - wouldn't it be an advancement, not detrimental, if an administration were truly pushed to compromise on issues (that Americans tend to be just as similarly split down the middle on)?

Would it be so terrible if the offices of the President and Vice President of the United States actually represented the diversity that the country does?

Comments > >