reactionary, self-important post.. duped.. kick me, spit on me

[liberalcapitalist]

I've been a supporter of Howard Dean since shortly after the first debate. I felt he was the most progressive of the "realistic" candidates. Kucinich was always my top choice, but I didn't believe the "seabuscuit" hype.

The reason I switched over to Kucinich, and advised other similar Dean supporters to do the same, was because I more strongly believed in Kucinich's more progressive platform. I was willing to donate my time and money to a candidate I knew had very little shot of winning, but really REALLY stood for the same ideals as myself.

I should have done a little more studying, I guess, because I cannot reconcile this flag burning ammendment issue. In the past two weeks, I have become active in my local Kucinich campaign, and I feel like someone just punched me in the stomach. How can the "progressive choice" seek to infringe on freedom of speech? I do not suggest we ban cross burning, swastikas, or the confederate flag, even though I find them just as distasetful as flag burning, so why does Kucinich??

When you juxtapose this with his 40 years of pro-life voting record it becomes clear that Kucinich is a politician-- not the idealist he would like us to believe him to be. I am seriously disillusioned and would appreciate all of the abuse you could heap on me for being such an idiot.

Thanks

[Dookus]

1. well...

I'm adamantly opposed to the flag-burning amendment, and a long time member of the ACLU.

But remember, Presidents have NOTHING to do with constitutional amendments. It's a non-issue used by the right to try to impugn others. Now Kucinich, as a house member, DOES vote on the amendment. He wouldn't as President.

[liberalcapitalist]

2. I know, but it is about idealism

I forgot to mention that I still think Kucinich is the best candidate-- but I can't get behind a longshot who I don't see completely eye-to-eye with. If a nazi is running for dog catcher, he wouldn't get my vote.

[ShimokitaJer]

18. So maybe we should vote for Kucinich for president...

just to get him out of the House so he can't vote for the amendment.

What a brilliant campaign scheme!

[SahaleArm]

3. Kucinich wants to ban confederate flag burning?

How can the "progressive choice" seek to infringe on freedom of speech? I do not suggest we ban cross burning, swastikas, or the confederate flag, even though I find them just as distasetful as flag burning, so why does Kucinich??

Huh? Kucinich is a real progressive, he's not just stumping for votes.

[liberalcapitalist]

5. I don't know how you got that

How can the "progressive choice" seek to infringe on freedom of speech? I do not suggest we ban cross burning, swastikas, or the confederate flag, even though I find them just as distasetful as flag burning, so why does Kucinich??


huh is right.

I'm saying that cross burning, swastikas, and the confederate flag, are as distasteful to me as burning an American flag, yet I do not think those symbols or practices should be banned. The First Ammendment protects all speech-- even that which is distasteful.

[SahaleArm]

6. Your wording...

made it sound like he was for banning all of the above. I agree with your position on flag burning though. I just don't like the slippery-slope argument, it's a little too Santorumish.

[liberalcapitalist]

9. sorry, it's 4:06 AM

And I have a speech at noon to a class of HS seniors... I'm that upset over this issue!

[rucky]

4. I'll beat you if you beat me...

No, it's not a come-on

I went from Dean, to Kucinich, back to Dean, to Clark

back to Dean? At least I've learned not to get too attached.

I'm not a single-issue voter by any means, but if anybody supports that gawdaful amendment, something is definately misfiring in their noggin.

The irony is, I wouldn't have even thought of burning a flag until the wedgemeisters brought it up.

[liberalcapitalist]

7. right, it doesn't matter if they can't do anything about it

And of COURSE we've never considered burning flags.

Think about it: Kucinich wants to DECRIMINALIZE marijuana, but CRIMINALIZE flag burning???

Furthermore, what will banning flag burning do? REDUCE the number of flags burned?? HELL NO! It will multiply the number 1000 fold! Someone should point this out when a conservative dickhead asks them the question. Arm Dean with this ammo so he's not sucked into saying yes just so he won't get labeled an America-hating liberal.

[Terwilliger]

8. It's the one thing

...one step over the line of acceptability, I agree. I have foregone the implications of it because it is one flaw in a ledger of solid progressive policies. And no one is perfect, which some cannot accept.

And I do have qualms about his former pro-life stance.

I still support him over the other choices.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

10. exactly

I have never agreed with Kucinich on this issue. And the only other worry I had was his pro-life record, but after the last year and his many defenses of choice and his statements I do not worry about the choice issue.

You are right, he is so much stronger on every other issue besides the flag burning that I am not going to let that change my mind.

TWL

[liberalcapitalist]

11. but could there be a more important issue?

Than freedom of expression? I mean, from a principled stance... And if you're supporting Kucinich, you're doing it from a stance on principles, not on electability.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

12. alot of issues are important..

It's hard to qualify issues as being MORE important than others.

Is stopping a war for oil important?
Is freedom of expression important?
Well yes they both are very important.

But you are generalizing. Apparently Kucinich does not want people buring US flags, so he is against freedom of expression? All freedom of expression?

I agree that we disagree on this particular stance, but I find it ridiculous to generalize that Kucinich is against freedom of expression.

get real :P

TWL

[blm]

17. Dean agreed with the GOP congress on the flag being protected

just said it doesn't need an amendment. But...PROTECTING the flag still means jailing the flagburner. Is that acceptable to anyone?

Kerry, Braun and Edwards are against ANY law protecting the flag and against free speech, although they'd probably feel like decking the flagburner. lol

[ShimokitaJer]

20. Alright, knock it off

At no point did Dean say, "We should jail people who burn the flag." You are making a ridiculous assumption based on overly dramatic intepretation of the word "protect."

What Dean was doing was pandering. He wanted to come out as "pro-flag" while still maintaining the position that the Constitution did not need to be amended. It's a bit of a weasal move, but saying "protect the flag" and "criminalize flag burning with a mandatory jail sentence" are not the same thing.

[Scott Lee]

21. Clark wants to ban it constitutionally

Sorry to kep reminding you of this, I know it must put your knickers in a twist.

[gottaB]

13. Braun, Edwards, Kerry

If this issue is vital to you, vote for one of those three--although Kerry may give you a knuckle sandwich if you actually burn a flag.

Personally I have never been enamored of Dennis, but his platform is generally very progressive and he has a *lot* of great ideas. You have to weigh these things.

I support Braun. Her steadfast defense of constitutionally guaranteed liberties is one of the prime reasons I do. It's not just the first amendment, not just the bill of rights, but the whole idea of constitutional government, respect for the judicial branch, which is responsible for upholding the "right of privacy" among others. The matter of judicial appointments thus greatly concerns me, and I feel I trust Braun's judgement on those matters.

Kerry is high on my list because of those same concerns. Edwards too makes my list, but some of his votes bug me. I am also unhappy with both of these candidates because of USA PATRIOT, their slowness in coming around to cricizing the legislation itself (though one shouldn't be guided by spite), and their votes on the IWR.

I am not myself a strict ACLU voter. For example, I'm not sure about their position on campaign finance reform and what the priorities should be there.

Anyhow, you have to weigh these things. Kucinich is a fine candidate with passionately held beliefs. The absolute right of expression free from government restrictions is apparently not one them. I rather suspect that his position on the flag reflects his sincere beliefs. Yes, he is a poltician and engages in rhetorical twists and turns, but that hardly makes him dishonest in the grand scheme of things.

[Mairead]

14. "Kucinich is a politician-- not the idealist he would like us to believe"

I think that's overstating--and oversimplifying--the case. If he were a mere politician, wouldn't he have sold out in Cleveland? He'd be Governor or a Senator now if he had. And would he be so forthright in his positions now? Some of them open him to attack because they're unconventional. Why would he do that, if he's an empty politician?

I think a more complete view would be that he is someone who has political skills AND who takes stands on principled rather than expedient grounds.

Note that the so-called 'flag-burning' amendment is actually about flag desecration, not burning. Something like smearing the flag with noxious substances would probably be desecration, but lighting it afire with a match could not be: burning is the only canonical method of destroying a flag.

Now, is he against desecration of that national symbol on principled or political grounds? My guess would be some of both. It's something that the GOP likes to beat on Democrats with, so by voting against desecration he has gratified people (vets, older people) who are appalled by abuse of the flag AND has totally pulled that issue off the table as a stick (it's always a GOP amendment). And it has never gone anywhere after the House vote. It has never reached the states, and shows no sign of ever doing so. So it's a safe vote as far as actually injuring the First Amendment goes.

But Dennis has always been a very patriotic guy--who else ever unashamedly sings scraps of patriotic songs as part of speechmaking?! And he believes that America should actually live up to its ideals (horrors!) rather than be a fraud and a shooting zoo for the wealthy elites. So he probably really does believe that that particular symbol should be treated with special deference because, to him, it stands for the ideals, not for the corporatocratic rapine and pillage that he fights against.

The flag has always been burnt or desecrated as a protest against governmental failure to support US ideals, not for any other reason. Given the choice between bringing the ideals to life by subordinating the wealthy elites to democratic control on the one hand, and allowing the flag to be damaged as a symbol of protest on the other, my vote would be for the former every time. Wouldn't yours?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

15. Never forget: They're all politicians AND human beings...

You don't get to this level of politics if you're a "social worker." Also - they are only human and therefore imperfect.

Kerry, Dean, Clark, Kucinich, Sharpton, Edwards, Bobby Kennedy, JFK - they are competitive people and want to win.

[Renew Deal]

16. I wouldn't worry about it.

I do not support Kucinich but... Do you vote on this issue? The president cannot touch an amendment and I doubt this will be part of Kucinich's agenda. There are always going to be things about candidates that you aren't going to like. 4 of our candidates are for it. 3 are against it. Those 3 are Lieberman, Kerry, and CMB. There are so many issues and none of the candidates are going to fit your views perfectly.

[Cocoa]

19. removing it as an issue

in the hierarchy of important topics for this campaign to be about, real ways that Bush is a miserable failure and needs to go, flag burning ranks somewhere between the ten commandments and the pledge of allegiance.

I hope the candidates don't hesitate to do whatever they have to just to kill off these moron topics.

[spooky3]

22. You're being very hard on yourself...

Here's another view that you may find hard to swallow.

I am a firm believer in don't lose the good seeking the perfect. I also do not believe that ANY candidate will match our tastes and values perfectly. They are all human and they are their own persons and all of them have to compromise to succeed in the messy business of (little d) democratic politics. My goal is always to find someone who stands for as much of my own views as I can find, has integrity, and holds no public views that are important that I find repugnant or intolerable.

If you'd be willing to consider that, maybe you can still feel good about DK. If you can't, you have many fine other people to choose from. Give yourself credit for being a caring citizen.