Studs Terkel interviewed on Diane Rehm (NPR): Kucinich has no chance

[pruner]

he said Dean is his second choice, of course.

:bounce:

[Hep]

1. Kucinich has no chance

But from my position that's fine. He still has a chance to add input to the debate, and I hope he continues.

[jeter]

26. Hep, but in reality he's invisible

Why hasn't Kucinich caught fire? Simple. Because he's just as bad as those who pander to special interests. He only panders to a different group of special interests. He is not seen as a leader. Only as someone who takes marching orders from a small constituency.

It's hard to hear. But true. Because you agree with those special interests doesn't exempt him from that perception.

His plans are all idiotic and unrealistic. Therefore, no one takes him seriously.

Who supported/opposed the war first is irrelevant. Dean clearly opposed the war. Dean also has a 12 year record as Governor. Dean also has a credible plan for health care insurance. People say, "this guy can be President." No one says this about Kucinich. Not even people who support Kucinich.

[Zorra]

27. This guy can be President!!!!!

A Kucinich supporter.

His plans are only unrealistic to those who have been brainwashed by right wing media.

[Yupster]

32. His health care proposal is idiotic

I own a small business, and I can't afford another 7.7 % tax. Neither can most small businesses. What the #$%$# is the matter with him to even propose such an idiotic proposal?

Carol Mosley-Braun has a much better plan for universal health insurance. It suggests paying for it from general funds which makes sense. A huge new program like that should be payed for by everyone.

Kucinich wants something for nothing. Make somebody else pay for it. Well that's just stupid. He should know how much stress small businesss are under right now.

[mountebank]

33. Do you offer your employees private insurance right now?

This is from the Kucinich page:

"Funding will come primarily from existing government healthcare spending (more than $1 trillion) and a phased-in tax on employers of 7.7% (almost $1 trillion). The employers' tax is less than the 8.5% of payroll now paid on average by companies that provide private insurance."

If you don't currently offer your employees health insurance, then it sounds like you're the one getting something for nothing.

[Yupster]

35. Nope - don't offer employees insurance

Why in the world should health insurance be tied to employment anyway? To me that makes not a lick of sense.

Health insurance is a permanant need of everyone. Yet it is tied to employment which is a temporary status. I understand why the two became tied during WWII, but that doesn't mean they should still be tied together 60 years later.

A permanent need should be handled through the government which is a permanent institution.

An additional 7.7 % tax would probably close my business down. I've been thinking of going to work for a company and shutting it down anyway, because it's just not worth the hassle.

I don't understand the "getting something for nothing part?" Please explain? I have a small business. I hire people. They work. I pay them. What's the nothing part?

[Malva Zebrina]

37. Everybody did just fine years ago

when a job came with "benefits" and those benefits included health care. The employee was loyal to the employer and worked hard for that employer--the "marriage" was strong and lasted.

Then something happened. This loyalty on the part of both, suddenly disappeared. Suddenly, people were laid off in favor of cutting costs--suddenly employee loyalty and the willingness to do a good job for the employer--just disappeared.

Now it is obvious, this has totally gone out to the dump with the rest of the garbage. It is every man for himself, including the employer. The two are contradictions--they are pulling against each other. There is no connection and one will screw the other when given the chance. It is truly a brutal way that is so very different from what it used to be.

Why should you give health care to your employees? Beats me! Screw em--they are nothing to you and you are nothing to them--chances are , though, that you are making a great deal more money off their labor than they are making being under your jurisdiction and control.

[Yupster]

40. I think you describe a utopia

that never existed -- at least never in the world of very small businesses like mine.

It kind of reminds me of right-wingers bemoaning the loss of the family of the 1950's sit-com.

Anyway, health insurance is no longer an incidental expense as it was 20 years ago. Today it is a major expense, and very expensive for companies to provide. It just isn't going to come back to the way it used to be.

The best solution for today's world in my opinion would be universal insurance paid for by general funds so that we all share equally in the cost.

[Isome]

41. You wrote:

A permanent need should be handled through the government which is a permanent institution.

I'm not quite understanding your rejection of the proposal. According to Kucinich, the 7.7% will be "phased-in".

The employers' tax is less than the 8.5% of payroll now paid on average by companies that provide private insurance.

According to Newsday: "Government studies have shown that the administrative savings of moving to a single-payer system would free up enough funds to pay for expanding coverage to all. This is, in essence, what Kucinich wants to do."

Moreover, anything "handled through the government", means that we all pay for it; that includes you.

[Yupster]

45. Are we all going to pay for it?

That's Carol Mosley-Braun's proposal which I support, or

are only employers going to pay for it which is Kucinich's proposal which will put many small businesses like mine out of business.

I don't even understand the logic behind tying insurance to your employer other than it's the way it's always been.

Maybe it's so politicians can promise people something for nothing making other people pay for it. To me if it should be a benefit to all, it should be paid for by all.

[Isome]

47. He proposes a combination...

The current funds will be used and other tax monies will be added to it. The average amount that employers who now pay for their employees' healthcare (as an employment benefit) would decrease (from an average of 8.5% to 7.7%) and instead be paid into the community pot... so to speak.

[Yupster]

50. So while my business goes broke,

I'm supposed to feel better that "on the average" businesses will do fine?

Robert Reich makes a joke that on the average, him and Shaquille O'Neil are 5'10" tall, but it wouldn't change the fact that he's still really short.

[Isome]

55. There's no logic to your conclusions about this issue.

You're not considering that your business is too small to be required to provide a healthcare benefit, so it's not clear if it will be included in the proposed Universal plan, and you don't know how your business will be faring in the next three years. The economy may pick up if multi-nationals are required to pay their fare share of taxes and stop exporting jobs. Getting rid of NAFTA (which no international human rights organizations endorse because of environmental abuses and low wages) may greatly stimulate truly free trade that in turn boosts the economy.

To make informed choices we have to think critically, not pessimistically. There is a difference.

[Yupster]

56. I went to Kucinich's site

and read through his proposal to see if there was some number of employees or something before the tax hit you. It wasn't there, so I assume he means all businesses when he says businesses. Maybe he has a floor number and didn't put it in his proposal, but if that's the case, it's pretty careless because everyone in my position, trying to run a small business is going to try to be as informed as possible on an issue like this and if they think someone is trying to throw another heavy tax onto them, will reject the candidate out of hand as disconnected from economic reality.

So, if he doesn't mean the tax should apply to small business, he better say that so he doesn't look so economically ignorant.

[mountebank]

65. Check with the campaign.

I'll send a message to the Kucinich campaign to see what they say. I think it IS an important topic, and the website doesn't cover the specifics. To brand it "idiotic" based on the available evidence is a little unfair, though. Obviously, Kucinich is friendly to small businesses, so I'd be surprised if his plan would result in a number of them getting 7.7% tax hikes (that is, from 0 to 7.7).

The decoupling of employment and health care is intriguing - but perhaps at this point Kucinich's plan is a little more - dare I say it - practical.

Still, your views are sounding more and more Libertarian. To clarify my previous point about you getting something for nothing by not providing health coverage to your employees: the idea that employers would provide for the well-being of their employees is - for me - an ethical position. I believe the employer and employee gain something from the arrangement. I'm sorry I can't be more exact about it. And I'm also sorry that our current system, and those who run it, have not afforded you the financial stability to see it that way. Instead, they've pitted your needs against those of your employees.

Middle class vs. lower class. Those struggling to stay afloat vs. the freeloaders. That's how they stay in power. That's how they run this game.

[mountebank]

79. Reply.

The moderator of the campaign discussion board replied that small business owners will not necessarily have to pay the 7.7% payroll tax and they may follow a WA initiative which allows businesses to apply for hardship exemptions.

[Yupster]

57. I'm all for single payer

Carol Mosley-Braun has the best proposal in my opinion because she takes it away from ties to employment. No one has ever explained to me why health insurance should be tied to employment.

I'm all for single payer, just not a foolish plan like Kucinich's.

[Mairead]

38. "I own a small business, and I can't afford another 7.7 % tax"

So, like WalMart, you want a free ride at the expense of other people? Why should you get a free ride? If you couldn't afford premises, would you expect the public to pay for them, too?

[Yupster]

39. What in the world are you talking about?

I want a free ride?

I pay over $ 700 a month for my family's health insurance. I have to but individual coverage.

What free ride are you talking about?

I pay $ 700 a month.

If I don't buy my neighbor his insurance too, then I'm getting a free ride? What in the world are you even thinking about?

[Mairead]

59. Well, I'm not talking about your neighbor!

I'm talking about you providing health insurance for your employees. That's how people get health insurance in the USA today: through their employer. If their employer doesn't provide it, they're left with either doing without or seeking publicly-funded emergency-room services.

Those business owners, such as the owners of WalMart --and you-- who choose not to provide coverage for their employees are shoving the problem off onto everyone else. In essence, your profits are being subsidised by the rest of us.

What makes you think that's fair?

[Yupster]

60. So your thinking is that

if a person opens a small business, they should just automatically buy health insurance for their workers?

Doesn't matter how expensive it is?
Doesn't matter whether he can afford it or not?
Doesn't even matter if the business is turning a profit yet or not?

It should just be some gift to go with employment.

And the reasoning behind this is that that's just the way things are done in America.

Well, I don't think you know much about small businesses in America, because that's not the way it's done. Few businesses with 2-3 employees provide health insurance to their workers. If they do. it's usually because their two workers are the wife and kid.

Also, there are not two options for getting health insurance, getting it from your employer or getting it from emergency rooms, or doing without.

You can also do what I've always done and every other small business owner who is not eligible for group coverage does. Call a damn insurance agent and buy your own personal coverage. Are employers somehow incapable of picking up the phone and calling their insurance agent like their employer does? Have we now gotten to the point where people are incapable of foing things for themselves?

But individual coverage is expensive. No shit. That's why I pay $ 700 per month for crappy coverage, but if I get company coverage I'd have to pay at least 50 % of each employee's premiums and since it's such a small number of employees, each one would still have to be individually underwritten so there wouldn't be a rate advantage to the group coverage anyway. Also, you need a 2/3 participation rate which is hard to get because most employees that I've had have had better coverage through their spouses.

You don't think I've looked into this a bunch of times?

Anyway, what's amazing to me is this attitude of people just wanting other people to do stuff for them. I guess we all like something for nothing when it comes down to it. Couple that with ignorance of what it takes to start and run a small business and you get this attitude that business owners are just pots of money that should just pay for stuff. Why? Because - well that's how it's done - even though it isn't.

"Hey Mr. Owner. When you're out there trying to find some health insurance that you can afford for your family, could you buy my family's coverage too? You know if you won't buy it for me, I'll have to buy my own, and that sure wouldn't be fair now would it?"

[Mairead]

61. "they should just automatically buy health insurance for their workers?"

That's how the system works today, pal. Those who refuse to do it are freeloading. Collecting corporate welfare.

[Yupster]

62. Am I still getting corporate welfare...

if I'm not a corporation?

Old Definition of freeloading: If you tell someone to give you something for free, you are freeloading.

New Definition of freeloading: If someone tells you to give them something for free and you say no, then you are freeloading.

I think this is the way a lot of people actually think today. If you don't give me stuff for free, then you're freeloading. Amazing.

And no, that's not how the system currently works either. A two-three man business that provides company health insurance is not, and has never been the norm. You can keep saying it though I guess. It's a free country.

I guess since I think Detroit is the capital of Michigan, then it must be.

[Isome]

64. Wait a second...

In a previous post you were confused about corporations/companies being large enough to be mandated to provide healthcare insurance. You asked if all companies were too small to be required to provide it. Now the tone of your post has changed to authoritative, yet it's wrong.

Truthfully, you know that what you wrote isn't a definition anyone would use for freeloading. I can't speak for the poster you were addressing, but I think I understand her point. Businesses are given tax breaks; a reduction in revenue in one area creates the need for an increase of tax in another. That increase falls on the individual, who are ordinarily the working and middle class.

If you had a larger business, you would be required to provide health insurance. You don't, so the point it moot. However, it's not free to the employees, like a gift basekt of fruit. The employees have to pay a percentage/portion of the costs for that coverage in addition to making the co-payments. It's not free-of-charge, as your post(s) implies.

[snoochie]

48. It's not like he's planning on doing it on his first day.

I believe the plan is to phase it in over several years.

And I'm sure, since he's intent on closing the offshore tax loophole, and on making other changes to our tax code to make it more fair, that he would consider relieving the unfair tax burden on small businesses to be a requirement before applying this tax to them.

If you read what the man has to say about small businesses (far more than just throwing some chump change... oops, I mean subsidies... your way) you just might realize he's thought this through in a lot more detail than the corporate media would like anyone to know.

[Yupster]

51. With as much pressure small businesses are under these days

with stores like HEB and Walmart sending them hurtling out of business, what would possess anyone to suggest throwing another major tax onto them?

It just seems completely insane, or at least ignorant.

Maybe he'll do other things to temper the damage... he'll phase it in slowly... What would possess someone to even suggest such an economically stupid proposal? My assumption is that he sure never started a small business himself.

[Isome]

54. How do you know it's economically stupid...

When, 1)you don't know how your business will be doing in 3, 4, 5 years, and 2)you don't know if the proposal includes businesses currently too small to be required to provide healthcare benefits for their employees? Why do you want to assume the worst, before you bother to find out what the specifics of the proposal are?

[Yupster]

58. Aren't all businesses currently too small

to be required to provide healthcare benefits for their employees? Are any companies required to provide healthcare benefits to their employees? I thought each business had that choice, but I could be wrong about giant companies. All my experienceis with very small businesses.

[Isome]

63. No, ALL businesses are NOT currently too small.

Yes, there are companies that are required to provide healthcare benefits. In Florida, if I recall correctly, an employer with less than 50 employees is not required, but employers with more than that are required to do so.

To reduce costs, many companies shifted more of burden of the costs to the employee by choosing less comprehensive healthcare insurance.

[Cleita]

52. Remember the surplus Clinton left us?

[mountebank]

30. These are irrational statements.

"His plans are all idiotic and unrealistic."

"People say, "this guy can be President." No one says this about Kucinich. Not even people who support Kucinich."

No one will take you seriously with quotes like these. Continue preaching to the converted. March on, Dean-bot.

[charlie]

31. Is that how it's done?

Define the guys you don't agree with as "special interests" so you can categorically dismiss them as petulant pressure groups?

S'funny, thanks to the Republicans, a good part of the electorate is convinced that the Democratic party is nothing but a bazaar for "special interests." Even funnier, they'd probably split a gut laughing hearing you, a "special interest" calling some of the rest of us "special interests."

[Isome]

46. Let me add this...

This man CAN be president, and he'd be one of the best we've ever had!

That he stood strong in the face of relentless pressure, from the banking industry, while mayor of Cleveland is testament to his intestinal fortitude to do what is right. He didn't do what was expedient, nor what was political; he chose to do right. And, he was vindicated after all was said and done. That's a leader. That's Dennis Kucinich!

Signed,

Me, a Kucinich supporter!

[loudnclear]

2. Diane's show is the best on the air. Studs is my man!

I love Kucinich but we must go with someone who can really win. It will take another 4 years for Kucinich to make himself known to the poplace in ways that will endear him to them.

BTW, you can listen to Diane on the Net...scroll down to find the program for today or use the archives. I recommend her show to everyone who really wants to be informed. It's not all politics. She does wonder book reviews and special issue programs. Let's her guess express their ideas and positions without cutting them off and she asks the very best questions to glean interesting information.

http://www.wamu.org/dr/index.html

[Rose Siding]

3. Studs said as much in a recent article he wrote

I was thrilled- I have enormous respect for him, though not as much confidence in Kucinich in a general election.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/103003I.shtml

snip>

I suppose the best of the lot, if it is not Dennis Kucinich, would be Howard Dean, because he is at least challenging the Democratic Leadership Council, which is of course the albatross that is somehow still at the rudder of that sinking ship. Had the Democratic Party true leadership, Kucinich would be the candidate. And, of course, if he were nominated, he would win. In a debate with Bush there would be a knockout in the first round, there would be no competition. And this is the perfect time for that, except for the role of the media.

Fortunately, we have an alternative press. The effect of the alternative press is seemingly minor, but it has a ripple-in-the-water effect. You can tell that by reading the letters to the editor in the Chicago Tribune—my barometer of what the public is thinking. But aside from alternative journals like In These Times and Bill Moyers and humorist Jon Stewart on television, Upton Sinclair’s brass checks are alive and well today.

Now is the time to act, and, thus, become what we were born to be—thinking, active citizens of a democratic society.

[loudnclear]

4. Kicking for the night crew.

A good program to listen to.

[James T. Kirk]

5. "Studs Terkel" is a really cool name.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnKleeb]

7. Terwill thanks man

[Terwilliger]

8. don't I look good?

as a moderator?

:shrug:

(no prob, John ;-) )

[pruner]

9. I believe the subject is technically correct…

but I won't complain if you wish to lock it.

:)

[Terwilliger]

10. I HAVE THE POWER (I think)

but Terkel's hate of the DLC is reflected in a lot of Dean's popularity

[pruner]

11. if you're just "playing moderator" than I don't think you should lock it

the fact is, this thread's been open for more than 12 hours, so real mods could've locked it earlier if they thought it was inappropriate.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pruner]

14. for a while I thought it was good having him in the race

but it's time for him, and Sharpton and CMB to exit the stage now.

[dweller]

15. but wouldn't it be much easier

for you to take the friendly advice offered above, rather than have the mods locking or deleting your posts?

your efforts otherwise are pretty evident on this and other posts as noted in many posts by K supporters?

curious,
dp

[Isome]

42. THANK YOU...

I saw Studs on democracynow.org and I recall him having only the highest praise for Kucinich. He singled him out as the man with a true vision that entails actual change (for the better)in this country.

This thread's title is misleading.

[JohnKleeb]

44. it was done on purpose

Thanks Terwill again.

[bpilgrim]

13. a NATIONAL TREASURE

http://www.studsterkel.org/gwar.php

peace

[mountebank]

16. This thread title is downright deceptive.

And it obviously is intended to be. Thanks to other DK supporters for clarifying that Dennis Kucinich is Studs Terkel's #1 choice for President.

[JohnKleeb]

17. of course it is

and people wonder why we get mad.

[mountebank]

19. Kucinich must actually scare them.

It's the only conclusion I can draw about someone who's last three threads that I can find are all about Kucinich and mostly deceptive. While I have nothing against Dean really, I think Kucinich really scares the bejesus out of most Democrats and their supporters. Why else would a Dean supporter spend so much time knocking Kucinich?

I think they know Kucinich supporters believe in DK from their hearts - and I'm not some kooky New Ager here. Consider myself a pretty rational guy. But I know Dennis Kucinich has a type of politics the other candidates (with the exception of Mosley-Braun and perhaps Al Sharpton) do not. I could list the specifics, but in addition to the specifics, for me there is also the intangible quality of DK being different - and better.

Those of us who support Kucinich do so because we really just feel that he is a very close approximation to how we would like to see the U.S. governed. I suppose an argument could be made that supporters of all the candidates feel that way about their candidate, but I would argue that you see much more candidate switching among the likes of Dean, Clark, and Kerry depending on superficialities, sound bites, or who is riding the media surge.

Basically they know that DK supporters will stop supporting him only when/if he drops out of the race - and they would like to hasten that departure before people become aware of who Dennis Kucinich is. Because it is undeniable that he has been ignored by the media; and it is also true that in the places where he is known, he has had an amazing tendency to catch fire.

All they can do is try to dampen our morale - but what they don't realize is that for us it has nothing to do with morale.

(Please forgive the rampant us/them-isms, by the way; it's mostly for the sake of cutting down on the word count.)

[JohnKleeb]

21. You said it

Yeah we all are pretty rational although admittingly idealistic at leaset I am. They should respect us imo.

[mountebank]

22. I'm definitely idealistic too.

They (that all-encompassing they again) have been pretty good at making us (!) feel like lunatics because we admit to some idealism. In my estimation, idealism has accounted for about every decent social change in the world. When things actually change for the better, it will be in great part due to idealism. Those who would like to keep the status quo (i.e. DLC and everything to the right) have been effective at discrediting "idealism," making it seem somehow crazy, because they know this. Part of the same war on words that tarnished "liberalism" maybe for a long time - only Democrats played an active part in the smearing of "idealism" as a concept. Of course, Bush is an idealist - but of abhorrent ideals. They did well to sell him as status quo.

But I guess I don't really want respect from the establishment when it comes down to it. You plod along, stick to what's right, organize, disseminate information, and know that in doing so you will attract people to the cause. Unfortunately, I feel for this method to work in the U.S., without using lies and manipulation like our thread-starter here, things would have to get pretty bad. Worse than now, hard as that is to imagine....

What do you think?

[JohnKleeb]

23. We all are idealists in some way or not.

[dweller]

20. You mean the actual quote from Studs?

"And, of course, if he were nominated, he would win."
(see Truthout.org link above)

yeah, the intention of the Kucinich bash poster is to keep a *moron in office 4 more years through slight of word, hand and deed.

sad,
dp

[mountebank]

24. Only gleaned gist of Terkel interview from the other posts.

Didn't hear it myself; but realized after reading the posts that it was a blatant misrepresentation of Terkel's intent, which clearly was to praise Kucinich.

[JohnKleeb]

25. Yep and hes endorsed him as well

Of course this was taken out of context delibartly.

[funkyflathead]

18. At least he is realistic enough to realize Dennis isn't winning

but kudos to Studs for voting his principles.

[raysr]

28. Dennis

I can't even put up Kucinich campaign signs where I live w/o them being torn down in an hour. That doesn't sound like attitudes of people who think he has no chance. I am disappointed with his numbers but after seeing and hearing him in person has given me some hope. There are also no other candidate campaign signs in my area. It's like there's only one and why advertise. Rednecks, lots of them. Don't think it's a religious thing, maybe a tax/gun thing. Real bright folks.

[mountebank]

29. Kucinich is the principled choice.

I just feel like keeping this thread going since it was started by such a wanker but has turned into a nice forum for DK.

The lantern-jawed, pompadoured politicians are just scared shitless by someone like Dennis Kucinich, not that they don't hide it well behind a stonewall of indifference and condescesion. But that's exactly what I would do were I someone in power who saw an alternative that was so appealing - I'd ignore it. And so the media and the DLC ignore him despite the fact that he has gotten support in those quarters where he is known.

Dean is honestly outside of the system - no one should deny it. And that's why I support him to some extent despite the fact that he pales in comparison to DK. It doesn't take much to be outside this system at this time, and that's the problem with Dean. He will so easily be co-opted by the system, for he falls just outside its ambit. Dennis Kucinich is outside and untouchable. Such is his charm.

Such is why we will not stop supporting him even if he drops out. He quite simply represents our ideals. The Dean-bots, most of them, don't understand the concept of conviction - they ride the trend. They consider Clark, they weigh the costs, the benefits, they crunch the numbers, much like Republicans, losing their souls in the process, etc......

[loudnclear]

34. You bet he is. Hoping for a miracle!

I love Kucinich!

[MuseRider]

36. Very good!

Welcome to DU. I saw this thread and read it with dread until I saw it turning around. You hit the nail on the head. He certainly has my support. Idealist here and proud of it. His world is the one I wish to live in.

[Isome]

43. Keeping the thread going...

I'll give you a hand because I, too, love Dennis!!

[diamondsoul]

53. Bravo!

Welcome to DU, and let me just say I like you already! :D

[mountebank]

66. Thanks for the welcomes.

I'm enjoying how the Kucinich people have by and large stayed above the fray in all the banter and bickering over Dean, Clark, and Kerry. I really think it's because we held our beliefs before DK came along; he so happens to have the remarkable quality of embodying our beliefs in a way no other candidate does. It really transcends party politics, "the issue of electability," and the other transient topics that routinely sweep DU and then disappear forever into irrelevance.

[MuseRider]

67. I think that is

exactly right. It is more than politics, it is all about a way of living, dealing with sustainability. I can't find the article about his views on sustainability, surely someone else has it bookmarked and will supply it. If you have not read it enjoy it. It is more a philosophy and for those of us who already try to live by those principles he just fits.

[mountebank]

68. Thanks.

Thanks for the heads-up. I haven't read it, but certainly will.

[redqueen]

69. Are you referring to the Gist interview? n/t

[MuseRider]

70. I am not sure!

I read it and thought I had bookmarked it but I can't find it anywhere. I loved what he said so I can't believe I can't find it. I looked through my stuff and see no reference to Gist. DAMN! I will keep looking and post it if I find it.

[redqueen]

71. I can relate.

So just in case you're referring to this interview -- which I recall is a wonderful interview in which he did discuss sustainability -- I'll go ahead and post the link.

Dennis the Menace
A Grist interview with Democratic presidential contender Dennis Kucinich

Grist: Great. Let's start with a general response to President Bush's environmental policies so far.
Kucinich: I'll start by saying that I will have an Environmental Protection Agency.

Grist: So the implication is that Bush doesn't have one at all?
Kucinich: The implication is that the EPA under Bush stands for Every Polluter's Ally. The air and the water and the land are viewed by this administration as just another commodity to be used for private profit. We have to be about what one writer called "the great work" of restoring our air and our water and our land. to look at it as the common property of all humanity -- as the commonwealth, rather, of all humanity. And so my candidacy arises from a philosophy of interdependence and interconnection which respects the environment as a precondition for our survival.

Grist: Is this philosophy of interconnection at the root of your progressive platform? You are known as the progressive Democratic candidate. Can you elaborate on what makes you more environmentally progressive than other candidates?
Kucinich: I'm not tied to any corporate interests that would strip our forests, that would pollute our air or water. Throughout my career, I have worked for structures of law that protect the environment, and the principles that animate my campaign are principles of sustainability. The principles that animate my life are principles of sustainability.

Grist: It sounds like you are referring to a broad, far-reaching notion of sustainability -- not just in terms of the environment, but in terms of econ--
Kucinich: Everything. In terms of everything. You know, monopolies are not sustainable economically. A full-employment economy is sustainable. Health care for all -- that's sustainable. Taking the profit out of health care creates sustainable health systems. Preventive health care, complementary and alternative medicines a sustainable approach to health care. And universal education from pre-k all the way through college is a sustainable approach toward education. A qualitative approach to education is sustainable, as opposed to quantitative, which is based on test-taking.

[MuseRider]

72. You are my hero!

Thanks, that is the one. I am now going to put it in several places so I do not lose it again! I was a K supporter long before I read this but if I had ever wavered this article would have held me strong. Sustainability.

[redqueen]

73. It really is a great one.

Kucinich 'gets it' in a way we never see in other politicians.

IMO he's trying to force people to evolve in their modes of thinking. It's about time. We've been held back on that front for a long time due to the soporific effects of the media and our busy lives.

Some people think this country isn't ready for him yet. I disagree. This is The Moment. :D

[MuseRider]

74. I remember as a kid

when Kennedy was in office. I did not know too much but I do remember him with his fitness campaign (anyone remember 'chicken fat'?) and his push for science. We were all encouraged to do better, try harder and it was not for us alone but for our country. IMO Dennis Kucinich has taken this one step farther, related it all together and is pushing for us to work harder for a better world. This is a lofty goal but an important one. I don't know, this article just hit me and summed it all up. I really get what he is saying and believe he is correct. He wants us to be outside of ourselves when we think of problems and solutions. He wants us to read and make ourselves informed. He wants us to stop with the knee jerk reactions that always come down to fear, selfishness or from just being uninformed. I can't pass this up. I want to be better, I want us to be better and I want the world to be better. I know, an idealist, but I am very proud to be linked with you all.

[redqueen]

76. He's above and beyond.

In looking for that article, I ran across this one, which I glean from the content may have been when he decided to make advocating for peace the focus of his life in politics.

What I Learned from the War
by Dennis Kucinich

On February 6, talks began in Rambouillet, France. The Administration billed the talks as a promise to arrive at a peaceful resolution. Details that emerged weeks later about Appendix "B" to the agreement--which gave NATO the right to go anywhere in Yugoslavia--mark Rambouillet as the start of the war, not the beginning of a peace. Madeleine Albright issued a series of nonnegotiable demands to ensure that the only solution was to be bombing.

I did not anticipate that the U.S. and NATO, in the name of a humanitarian cause, would undertake the bombing of Serbia and thereby violate the U.N. Charter, the NATO Charter, the Congressional intent in approving the North Atlantic Treaty, the U.S. Constitution, and the War Powers Act. The U.N. Security Council was the proper forum for debating such offensive action. In the 1949 Senate debate on the founding of NATO, Senator Forrest C. Donnell, Republican of Missouri, worried that such an organization could supersede the War Power of the U.S. Congress. Now, U.S. planes were dropping U.S. bombs on Serbia in the name of my country, in the name of NATO, but without the approval of the U.S. Congress.

Suddenly, the United States had a clever new spokesperson, Jamie Shea, from England, who talked cheerfully of damage done, of punishment being meted out, of NATO power and NATO air superiority. When a few members of Congress observed that such action was a violation of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, we were told our objection was academic, pedantic, and, worse, insensitive to the plight of the Kosovar Albanians. (...)

The bombs continued to drop on Serbia and Kosovo, killing innocent civilians and ruining the infrastructure from which must arise a civil society--the only entity that can generate political change.
In those early days of April, as I watched news accounts of the bombing, the flight of refugees, the ongoing atrocities, I knew I had to speak out for peace--not just the absence of war, but peace through mediation, peace through negotiation, peace through thoughtful, reflective thinking.

[MuseRider]

77. Another good article

and reason to support Kucinich. Thanks.

[mountebank]

75. Great interview. A great work on sustainability is....

Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. It provides a vision of production where things really are resuable and recyclable in the true sense in that they can be broken down and remade into the same product of the exact same quality. It was written by an architect and a chemist. It's a real vision of how the economy and the environment can both prosper if we design our lives in the appropriate way, that there really need not be such antagonism between them.

I'm a grad student in Ecology & Evolution and throw a part of this book into the discussion sections for the Conservation Biology class I teach. It's been inspirational for the students because it is such a radical, and much needed, shift in our way of looking at the world.

Reminded me of the article on DK because both he and book emphasize how sustainability infuses everything.

[MuseRider]

78. Thanks.

That sounds very interesting. I will have to pick that one up. We are building a house on my farm soon and we have been looking at all the alternatives to be more sustainable.

[Isome]

49. an idealist's goalie *kick*