Has DU always been this far right?

[MMT]

I feel confused. I thought people would be overjoyed to finally have a candidate who's both liberal and practical, and who's not one of those BS artists who borrow your watch to tell you the time and then walk off with it.

But the majority of people around here ignore Kucinich like he's some nerd their parents are trying to fix them up with. At most you say "yeah, yeah, he's great" and then go back to talking about how you really want the BS artist, or the guy who wants you to pay for the dates, or the guy with the dangerous-looking tatoos.

What gives?

[displacedtexan]

1. We all love Dennis!

n/t

[Joe the Revelator]

3. We just want to win..

this isn't the year to run an activist canidate that won't appeal to any crossover voters. Bush has to be stopped now.

[krkaufman]

6. Ditto

Ditto. Love his message. But Bush has to go. And, sadly, the country isn't ready for him.

[question everything]

149. Please, please, don't say ditto.

Next someone will wonder whether DU is where all Limbaugh's "dittoheads" gather..

[mopinko]

155. ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto

there, i said it. i use it, cuz i was raised with it WAY WAY before flush took it over. he can't have it. it is a very useful word.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

2. Because in this election, the usual rules do not apply.

People are dismissing Kucinich because he can't beat Bush (they think) and this election is all about one thing. Electability.

p.s. I'd vote for Dennis, but then, i'm NDP.

[vi5]

4. C'mon...that's a bit of hyperbole, no?

Other than Leiberman, who I don't think there are many supporters of on here I don't think any of our candidates could be considered right leaning by anything other than partisans for a particular candidate. Every candidate has their right wing baggage. It all depends on what issues you think are important or not. For instance, I like Kucinich but he has a long record of voting pro-life. I can respect his conviction but that to me is a pretty right leaning way to vote on that particular issue. But I would never say he was right wing. Each of the candidates has one of those which is his or her cross to bear when trying to fire up the base. But to say the entirety of this board leans right is a bit much I would say.

[Bread and Circus]

5. I think you are looking at it too black and white....

I like Kucinich's policies and the liberalism he
stands for. It's just that it is not realistic for
him to win a national election. He needs to run
for mayor of a liberal city or governor of a liberal
state.

There is what is ideal, and what is realistic.

[no name no slogan]

126. He was already mayor of Cleveland

what more do you want?

Excuses are excuses. Right now, ANY Democrat could wipe the floor with Bush, and his numbers are dropping further as we speak.

If we're going to replace Bush, let's REALLY replace him with Bush's exact opposite: one who will get us out of Iraq ASAP, one who has pledged to bring us Universal Health Care SOONER rather than "eventually", one who will get us out of NAFTA NOW, rather than "tinker" with this flawed agreement.

The original poster is right. If we're supposed to be "Democrats", then why do we pick candidates who are noticably to the right of our party's platform?

:shrug:

[Caution]

7. If you wish to push your candidate

slandering DU and calling us rightists is not the way to do it. Dennis gets a TON of press on DU but the fact is that in the polls he barely registers, and he is marginalized by the media. People discuss what they know and see. Rather than call us dirty names such as "rightists" you would do better to educate us about why Dennis could win or why he is the proper choice. I love Dennis, and agree with him on nearly every issue. I'm not voting for him because I don't believe he can win in the US and I feel that this election will determine the course of this country for the next two decades. Convince me I'm wrong and that Dennis could actually sway the moderate American electorate over to the left.

[Fovea]

51. Convincing you about Dennis

is not going to be required. George Bush is going to move this country to the left. This is the start of a disasterous year in America.

Consider any or all of the following are possible, many are likely:

Bush is not going to be able to leave Iraq without the U.N.. The U.N. is not going to take over this mess. He will either leave anyway, in which case Iraq will fall apart in flames, figuratively and literally, or Dubya will not leave, and our second troop rotation will coincide with a 'tet' style offensive.

al Saud will fall, or sustain itself by an internecine struggle in which the winning side is Wahabbist. The US is attacked a la Iran within Saudi Arabia, making our 'war on Islamists' a three front war.

Palestine does not get any better. The road map to peace proves to be a mine field.

G.M. foods and Mad Cow represent a unilateralist strategy applied to agricultural trade. It will succeed about as well as Iraq. America will essentially export no beef in the first half of 2004 at least, and longer if the buyers do not see both regulation AND enforcement.

I.T. and other technical jobs will really start to hemmorage and we will enter quarter 3 with another half million fewer jobs than we do now. The DOW will be struggling titanically to hold at 8000 in June.

The E.U. will start to prefer other trade partners over America, as we will not be able to prop up the dollar enough to buy their goods.
And they will claim we are dumping on them.

By summer, the cumulative effects of the Bush drug benefit, health, and overtime policies will be understood by the average voter.
By summer, Cheney will be pushing for yet more consessions to the uber-rich.

By June

The Enron defendants will be pardoned.
Karl Rove will be pardoned and still be working behind the scenes.

John Ashcroft will invoke God and national security at least once successfully to hinder his removal.

Heroin will be the newly available 'in' drug in every middlin sized town in America.

The Plame case will be dismissed out of concern for national security.

The Airline industry will be nationalized in all but name only. Huge subsidies will be required to hold it up. Amtrak will cease operations on over 50% of their routes.

The Automobile industry will be subsidized, but local states will have to pass draconian energy taxes and regressive sales taxes will stun local businesses. Gas will hit $3.50/gal June 2004.

A series of smaller suicide bombings will start in the U.S.
like Israel, shopping areas will be the most frequent target.
We will increase dramatically the number of Islamic Americans in internment camps. This will work approximately as well as it does in Israel.

The preperation for the draft will no longer be hidden. There will be even more propaganda about making the M.E. safe for democracy.

The 1000th American will be buried from Iraq.

We will be told that it is our patriotic duty not to protest any of this.

In July, the American electorate will have suffered a sea change. I argue that it is happening now, or Lieberman would be our preferred candidate. And most Americans will look back longingly on 2003, and think of the Clinton presidency like we regard the reign of King Arthur. At that point, the philosophical style of social control will be indistinguishable from the 50's Soviet Union, except for the incessant reference to God.

[justinpower]

84. I beleive any nominee will beat the chimp

If you really do prefer Dennis, you should support him in the primary, unless you are worried about another candidate getting the nomination. If you have confidence in the candidates we are fielding, than there is no reason to withold a vote from DK based on unelectability.

[Paragon]

8. Yeah, right.

Like the rest of the country, Democrats are *begging* to have someone nominated who will take out Bush.

Kucinich, while a fantastic Democrat, is not that man.

Don't go tagging everyone at DU as "far right" because your guy is a quart low on charisma.

[RUexperienced]

9. Kucinich IS a BS artist

He has been anti-abortion his whole life... until the day he decides to run for president.

Now he claims that he would never appoint someone to the Supreme Court who holds the beliefs that he himself held just one year ago.

He was either lying then or he is lying now and is worse than all the others combined.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Fovea]

53. Or he changed his mind.

What he never had to change his mind about was the importance of peace, and the need to change our energy policies.

I can live with the fact that it took him awhile on the Abortion issue. It does not matter to me where he stood two years ago. It only matters where he stands now.

[RUexperienced]

76. And he just 'happened' to change his mind when

he was running for a new office and in need of the backing of a new special interest group?

Mark Twain: "There is no such thing as a coincidence."

[redqueen]

78. No, it was two years ago.

Pay attention.

[RUexperienced]

82. Don't be naive!

This is classic political suck-up.

It happens all the time. Even the best of polititians do it.

[redqueen]

91. Don't be misinformed.

Check his voting record yourself.

[Cheswick2.0]

113. I have checked out his voting record

he also voted for legislation that would allow for trying kids as adults amoung other civil rights abuses. I am not a fan of his but I am a fan of many of his supporters.

[redqueen]

116. Oh brother

Cheswick, you must have missed the discussions about these issues.

Does anyone else have the patience to find a link for this?

At least now people are going to the trouble of trying to smear him. :)

[RUexperienced]

152. Check his hometown paper yourself

It was last March, less than one year ago, when it announced that Dennis was no opposed to abortion.

Try Google.

[redqueen]

153. LOL

So, you consider the newspaper's announcement of the fact more telling than the man's actual votes?!

I don't even know what to say.

[RUexperienced]

160. If we are talking about the date the man became a two-faced,

you have your point.

If we are talking about whether or not he is two-faced, you lose.

[youngred]

161. except he's not two-faced

nice inaccurate smear though

[RUexperienced]

162. Even true-blue Democrats disagree with you

and your candidate.

Do you really thing he will even break 10 percent of the Democratic primary vote?

[youngred]

165. note you didn't answer the question or point

but went on the attack of electability, which he can't get because the media won't cover him like the others and short-sighted people who don't pay attention

[RUexperienced]

166. You fail to recognize that Kucinich has flip flopped on the

single most important litmus test issue in the Democratic party.

And he did it just just as he began running for president when he knew he would have to please a single issue special interest group.

[diamondsoul]

107. Try again.

Kucinich's last Pro-Life vote was cast in Sept. 2001 He declared his candidacy in Feb. 2003. That's 15 months time, and a lot longer than I took to go from PL to PC.

People DO change positions for honest reasons in spite of what you may think.

[Cheswick2.0]

110. except he then voted for the "PBA" ban

so I guess he didn't change that much.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

145. Disinformation....He voted NO on the last PBA ban..

Not only that, he spoke passionately against it on the floor of the House.

TWL

[Terwilliger]

99. You are misinformed

and compared to the rest of the candidates, this "flip-flop" is nothing

[youngred]

124. or 2001

2 years before he started running.

Get your facts straight....PS It is OK to change one's position, esp in the way Dennis did by talking to women who had had abortions and who considered it and their feelings.

Nice try

[bryant69]

10. I don't know about anybody else

But I personally don't base my political decisions based on some arbitrary idea of what being a leftist means. I looked at Dennis Kucinich and I decided that he's not the right man for the job. If he gets the nomination I'll support him of course, but I think we have better candidates, in my own opinion. People who would make both a better candidate and a better President.

Isn't that what you are supposed to do in a Democracy; look at the list of candidates and pick the one you think will do the best job?

Anyway I don't want to come off as too negative on Kucinich, its' not like he's miles away from the guys I prefer; truth to tell, I think we have a good field of excellent candidates.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[madrchsod]

11. there were alot of people

here last night backing a canidate named hamm. there must have been 50 or more posts last night about mr hamm. he`s the man,mr hamm

[bowens43]

12. In the age of TV

Dennis can't win. If you put Dennis and Bush on the stage together, Bush will look presidential. Unfortunately, for a large portion of the electorate, the presidential race is very much a popularity contest. That's how bush beat gore.

[w13rd0]

15. Bush didn't beat Gore...

...sorry to be nitpicking, but I'm still crying in my teacups. Gore beat Bush by half a million votes...

[Bucky]

13. Translation: "If you don't support MY candidate, you're a GOP stooge."

I'm sorry that General Clark isn't virgin enough for you. I would think that a candidate who opposes the war, wants to hike taxes on the wealthy, extend college education to all American students, extend health care coverage to all Americans, protect the environment, keep corporations from shipping our jobs overseas, extend full rights to gay couples, and vigorously enforce civil rights legislation would be considered a real Democrat.

The same goes for Kerry, Dean, Edwards, and Sharpton. We've got a passle of strong Democrats this year. The virginity tests some Democrats demand are getting absurd.

[tinanator]

14. No, but these "centrists" really dont like to hear about it

Those who forget history, live in America.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. I remember history (1984 and 1988)

When we nominate a liberal, we lose.

[tinanator]

26. who's "we"?

Im certain that word doesnt belong to "us".

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. We as Democrats

We nominated liberals in 1984 and 1988. The results were less awful. In 1992 and 1996 we nominated a centrist. The voters were much more receptive to a centrist.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. Correction:

In 1988, we nominated center-left types who were such inept campaigners that they were painful to watch. And I can vouch for the fact that the real left in this country didn't like either Dukakis or Mondale and found them wishy-washy.

In 1992 and 1996, we nominated ONE centrist who happened to have a charismatic personality.

Suppose someone with Clinton's personality and campaigning skill had been running with Dukakis' politics in 1988. He would have made center-left poliics the most exciting thing in the world.

Suppose someone with Dukakis' personality had been running with Clinton's politics in 1992. He would have put the public to sleep with recitations of DLC talking points.

[library_max]

44. And apparently US electoral history began in 1988. /nt

[Fovea]

57. a centrist who ran

with Gays in the military, and national health care in his platform and won decisively.

We really must have single payer health care in our platform.

[no name no slogan]

136. Dont forget the Perot factor, too, Lydia

Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections. Perot siphoned off many of the anti-Free Trade Republicans who didn't like Bush I or Dole-- enough to keep them from winning.

Clinton got lucky. If Perot hadn't been there, it's doubtful he would have won.

[IrateCitizen]

63. The liberal was cast aside for the "centrist" in both those years

Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale were far from "liberal". In fact, in both 1984 and 1988, there were considerably more liberal candidates who ran (Jesse Jackson springs to mind, as does Gary Hart). The Party decided to go for the more cautious "centrists" in both instances.

And both were incredibly inept campaigners. Dukakis blew a 17-point lead following the convention. He finally began to tick back up at the end -- as soon as he adopted more fierce, populist rhetoric -- but it was still too late. Mondale came right out and told people he would raise their taxes -- a HUGE no-no in political campaigns, even if he DID know that he would HAVE to do it.

I, for one, am sick of this whole "liberals don't win" myth perpetrated with regards to Democratic Presidential candidates. The Democrats haven't nominated a liberal in my lifetime, and I was born in 1973. Each and every time a more "centrist" candidate has gotten the nomination -- and only when they lose, is the "liberal" label applied to them from those within the party itself.

[Nederland]

87. Its not just Presidents though IC

Its politicians at every level. Take a look at the positions held by elected officials today and compare them to the positions of elected officials of 30 years ago and you'll find that everything has shifted to the right. Sure, its true that the Democrats haven't nominated a liberal to run for president in over 30 years, but how do you explain all the other liberals that ran and lost?

[IrateCitizen]

131. I don't know that I'd go that far, Nederland...

I wouldn't say that things have moved "right" as much in the last 30 years as they have moved "corporate". I would also say that there are several causes for this.
1. The fact that most people get their news from TV
2. The fact that TV has become controlled by a decreasing number of corporations
3. The changing from the old guard of TV journalists (Walter Cronkite, for example) to the talking heads of today's "infotainment"
4. The accompanying "branding" and hyper-commericalization of everything around us
5. The increased cynicism as social mobility (especially up from poor and working class) has diminished and communities have been degraded from corporate job flight (see: Flint, MI)
6. Discontent resulting from increasing gaps in wealth, accompanied by the feeling among the "have-nots" that they will never make it to the "haves"

Quite honestly, I think that this is really just a tip of the iceberg. And despite first appearances, there IS a backlash going on against this. A prime example would be the recent mayoral election in SF, in which Green Party candidate Matt Gonzalez almost won with a pittance of campaign funds in comparison to Democratic nominee Gavin Newsom -- not to mention the appearances by the Democratic establishment on Newsom's behalf.

There are REAL progressive undercurrents out there -- the key is tapping into them. Their potential won't be realized by simply proposing radical changes -- they have to be couched in "traditional" themes. But then, as evidenced by the media blackout surrounding the Kucinich campaign, there comes the issue of getting past the media monopolies.

I really don't know how we'll see change, to be quite honest. All I know is that I'm doing what I can, in the directions I feel the strongest sense of purpose, to work toward bringing such change about. I don't delude myself that everyone out there shares the same views as me -- but at the same time I also realize that people feel disconnected and discontent, and that disconnection is crying out for progressive change, whether they are ready to openly realize it or not.

[Terwilliger]

101. 1984...Reagan enjoyed ridiculous popularity

You could have had the best Dem candidate in the history of the world, but that wouldn't have undercut Reagan

1988: As many MANY people here have already said, Dukakais wasn't even all that liberal, much less the most liberal of all the candidates available.

So....maybe a real liberal would be attractive to people.

[no name no slogan]

139. I worked for Dukakis in 1988, he was NO LIBERAL

Whenever reporters asked him "are you a liberal?", he winged and winced around it, doing everything he could to deny it.

Until late October that is, and he finally grew some cojones. Then he wasn't afraid of the word. In fact, his numbers finally started to go up again late October, because he wasn't afraid to stand up for REAL liberal values and principles.

Fritz Mondale could hardly be called a "liberal", either-- at least in the modern sense. He is a corporate/business-friendly party hack in the same mold of a latter-day Humphrey. He's very "connected" to the controlling powers of this country, and has little if anything to do with the common people these days. Just another sign of the rot and decay that has gotten into this party over the last two decades.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

143. Dukakis and Mondale were BOTH neo-liberal centrists

so, try again.

[Indiana Democrat]

17. LOL!!!!!!!

You've GOT to be KIDDING me??

Kucinich can't win...You know that. So the question is, what's your agenda??

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. He certainly is liberal, but not very practical

Losing all fifty states would probably only cause Republicans to increase their majorities in both houses of Congress.

[jsw_81]

20. DU is hardly "far right"

It's actually quite liberal, even far to the left on a few issues. Last December, for example, many DUers attacked me when I dared to voice my support for the Democratic candidate in the SF mayoral election instead of the leftist Green that most here were supporting (the Democrat won). I was accused of being a conservative, a right-winger, and a Republican even though I'm really a liberal on almost every single issue imaginable.

The reason that we don't support Kucinich is that we want a strong candidate who can actually beat Bush in November, not just a candidate who'll make nice speeches about social justice and NAFTA and then end up getting trounced in a 49-state landslide. And I'm sorry it hurts your feelings that we don't support your guy, but this election is serious business and we just don't have any time for the type of candidate who cannot and will not be elected president. Unfortunately, Dennis Kucinich is that kind of candidate.

[OhioStateProgressive]

36. i refer you to post 33(nt)

[chyjo]

21. Dennis Rules

he is the only candidate that Ive given money to, but by the time the New york primary comes around Im not sure what good my vote will do him.

[molly]

22. Don't feel confused - we are all DEMS!

some are moderate - some are left of moderate - and some are radical. We all come here because we care about this country and her future. We need to unseat the evil empire and need a candidate that can do that. Period - the end. :kick:

[Desertrose]

23. welcome to DU MMT..think you made a cogent point

and many posters just proved it.

Been on DU since day ONE and I have noticed too that this board has become much more right/centrist in the past year or so.

Go figure...so much for *underground*...more like mainstream.....

...and yeah, DK is more like the way Dems used to be...but why do so many people on here have to repeat over & over that he can't beat Bush...he could do it in a heartbeat...its just getting him nominated within his own party...very strange IMO!!

Anyhoo :hi: Meg & welcome

Peace
DR

[MMT]

117. Thanks for the welcome, DR!

I had to smile when I read the responses. The people responding really act like they're serious about not understanding how non-Democratic they seem to someone who voted for LBJ.

Something I found strange is the way everyone read my title as "has DU always had a far-right population" when what I meant was "has DU's population always been as far to the right as it is now".

[no name no slogan]

148. Welcome

and your point is spot-on.

I posted a poll yesterday outlining some of Nixon's platform from 1968, and asking whether or not any DUers would vote for him today. So far, the "Yes" votes outnumber the "No" votes by a very large margin.

In particular, one poster ridiculed a mandatory livable wage as being "unrealistic" and "idealistic"-- which is doubly funny considering that Nixon was hardly a liberal even in his own party and that he also practices "realpolitik" in the biggest sense of the word!

Maybe it's because I was born and raised in Minnesota, which has a proud liberal/progressive tradition, but it seems like today's Democrats are looking more and more like yesterday's Republicans-- and those are the so-called "liberal" ones!

This party needs to start representing economic populism again-- our pro-business "centrist" candidates have brought us nothing but defeat in the last two decades. Economic Populism is how we've won before, and how we'll win again-- if only we'd select candidates that support it.

[OhioStateProgressive]

24. you are correct

the non support for Dennis has made me lose my faith in the Democratic Party, it stands for nothing anymore

[henslee]

25. I've got mad love for the boy mayor.

but we're talking BUSH SLAYER at this juncture.

[Tinoire]

27. No DU has not always been this right. This started with the Primaries

There was a time DU was mostly Dean and Kucinich & almost everyone on the same sheet of music about what our values were.

Donate a few dollars. Do a search through the archives. Look for polls. The evidence is all in there. Lots of DUers have left and many are on a different board where they don't have to spend their time arguing with people who think that the DLC cares about people or that the School of the Americas is a Human Rights' finishing school.

[library_max]

34. Well, the School of the Americas IS a human rights finishing school.

Their graduates have been finishing human rights all over the world.

Anyhow, the point (as I'm sure you've gathered from all the other posters) is that all the good intentions in the world don't amount to diddley if you can't get your guy elected. Kucinich supporters are welcome to believe that he's electable, but if he's too liberal to win (or even come close) in the Democratic primaries . . .

[Tinoire]

55. Good (funny) first point. Second one

That's such a sad myth... Kucinich is regulary voted for by Independents, Centrist Dems and Republicans in his district because the issues he addresses are ones which affect us all that everyone cares about. Republicans care about a living wage too.

Kucinich was marginalized by the media and the unelectability myth sold. The day people realize that they have the power is when things will change. I fear that Nader was right. Things will have to get a lot worse before they can get better because too many people allow the media to frame everything.

TV- what a marvel of modern science- the most effective tool at our system's disposal.

[library_max]

74. Ah. Blaming the media. There's a winning strategy.

Blaming the media is inevitably the last and weakest sour grape of a dying candidacy. As for Kucinich's district, it is solidly liberal, went for Al Gore by something like sixty percent (when the state went for Bush).

[JohnOneillsMemory]

118. Voters go for strong personalities and animal appearance. Tall. Ahnuld.

Not for policies unless they've been spun as simple black and white morality and survival issues with comic book enemies and heros.

I'm reading 'Hitler: A Study in Tyranny' by Alan Bullock. The similarities between post-WWI Germany and the US are disturbing.

Linguist George Lakoff writes about people's views of politicians being framed by 'family style' thusly:

Repubs are selling the idea of the strong harsh father (dictator.)
Dems are selling the idea of the gentler nurturing mother (teacher.)

Americans have been told that teachers are elitist and give bad grades while dictators are coaches who yell at you to do your best.

This a simplistic blurb on the electorate's psyche but accurate to me.
"Nice guys finish last" spun in a violent competitive climate of fear.

Hence, the Kuch isn't mean enough for many of our Fallow Merkins.

[redqueen]

65. "too liberal to win... in the Democratic primaries"

Interesting.

Seems to me he's not too liberal to win the primaries, but the Democratic electorate is too spineless about its values to nominate the candidate who best represents them.

People (of all parties) value integrity, honesty, and backbone. Kucinich has all three. Yet what do we do? We whine and fret and handwring about how we have to appeal to 'swing voters'. He's not too liberal to win the GE. Especially not against Bush.

But go ahead, nominate the milquetoast - 'us too just not as much' candidate. It looks like even now people are too scared to vote their conscience. Amazing.

[library_max]

70. I'm sorry, my bad.

Apparently I caused Kucinich to come in - what - fifth? in Iowa and I'm keeping him in the single digits in New Hampshire and nationwide. Me and my lack of liberal faith.

Watch and see. Either Kucinich will win some primaries or he won't. I predict that he won't, but wait and see. If he doesn't, you can call Democrats every name you can think of, but it won't change the fact that they won't vote for him. And if Democrat primary voters won't vote for him, the American electorate sure as hell won't vote for him.

[redqueen]

75. lol

Strawman alert! When did I say that you caused anything? I think your defensive reaction is interesting.

What caused him to come in fifth is the result of no single event. It's a combination:

- of liberals too scared to stand up for their own values
- of liberals siding with the RW media and allowing them to marginalize our best candidate from the start
- of liberals who have allowed themselves to be manipulated time and time again

If the shoe fits, then by all means... but I did not single you out. :)

And your assertion that 'if "Democrat" party voters won't vote for him - then voters the GE won't' is badly flawed. Americans won't choose between bush and Kucinich based on who looks better on TV or who is the least offensive to 'mainstream' America. They'll vote in their best interest, to the best of their ability.

This, of course, will require some effort from us. We'll have to stop saying that the media is 'only doing its job' and start calling them on their BS. But since it serves so many who support other candidates so well, they're showing a lot of selective outrage.

Americans are suffering - Kucinich would win in a landslide. Give voters some credit, and stop believing everything your teevee tells you. :)

[library_max]

81. "Americans won't choose ... based on who looks better on TV...

or who is the least offensive to 'mainstream' America. They'll vote in their best interest."

Geez, what color is the sky in your world? So when blue-collar voters elected Reagan and re-elected him in a landslide, they were voting in their "best interest"? And did you just sleep through the 2000 election, when the contrast in qualifications and ability could not have been more stark? When is the last time a short, homely guy got elected president? (Hint: he was running as an incumbent because he inherited the office when his predecessor died. Another hint: it was before most people had television).

Like I told another poster, you can call me names and call Democrats names and call everybody names until the cows come home and it won't make Kucinich one bit more electable. And blaming the media is another guaranteed losing strategy. We do need to straighten out the media in this country, but trying to do it during an election just makes us look like whiners and losers.

[redqueen]

92. Yes

Reagan Democrats voted for Reagan because they perceived that it was in their best interest.

And why do you consistently ignore the fact that Gore WON in 2000?

You say that we need to 'straighten out the media', but what is done about it, by all one savior centrists after his election? Oh yes! That's right, he made it worse!

We're still going to be waiting for our centrist savior to help us with our liberal ideals while the Democratic party becomes obsolete.

[Nederland]

89. If there is one thing I can't stand

its Kucinich supporters who claim that he would win in a landslide if people just stood up and voted their conscience. They make this claim without a single thread of evidence to back them up. There is not a single poll or survey that indicates that the positions that Kucinich holds are compatible with the mainstream. Not a single one. Support for abolishing the death penalty? Support for cutting the Department of Defense budget? Support for repealing Welfare Reform? Do Kucinich supporter really believe that these are majority positions?

[redqueen]

93. Really?

No evidence that most Americans prefer single payer healthcare?

No evidence that most Americans would prefer to end the drug war?

Really?

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's progressives who help the media to convince other progressives they should shut up and let the centrists do the driving.

[Nederland]

96. Nice try

I noticed that you delibrately ignored the positions that I cited in my post and listed new ones that just happen to be among the few that doesn't make Kucinich look like a 60's hippie throwback. How about if you address the positions I cited in my post instead of ignoring them?

[redqueen]

97. Yes I ignored the silliness you posted

Just like 41 million Americans without healthcare will ignore it.

Thanks. :)

[Nederland]

100. Typical

Once again, a Kucinich supporter refuses to address the facts. Good luck with that electoral strategy.

[redqueen]

104. The facts are

that no matter how much the media tries to spin the same tired cant you just did, that people will vote in what they perceive as their best interest.

Single payer is in their best interest.

We can do what you seem to want to do, which is engage in a debate about the whore media and how it will spin itself blue trying to get people to vote against Kucinich, but what is the point of that? We know it will be done against whatever candidate is up against bush.

Where we probably diverge is in what way to best counter that. You seem to think it's by electing a 'safe' candidate so that it's somehow harder for them to slime him.

I think it's by electing an excellent candidate, policy wise.

Everyone sees the whole 'image' thing as a fait accompli. They seem to think that nothing ever changes. I disagree, that's all.

Disparage me if you will for that, but I'll take it anyday over the cynicism displayed by many on this board. Any day.

[Nederland]

105. Single Issue voting

First of all, what people 'percieve' to be in their best interest and what you claim is in their best interest are two very different things. Proof: Blue collar union guys voted for Reagan in droves.

Second, you are assuming that health care is the only thing people care about. You claim that the 41 million people without health insurance will all vote for Kucinich. Really? Even all those the truck driving, gun toting, Confederate flag waving, fundamentalist Christians without health care? People like that--and there are many many many of them--aren't going to vote for Kucincich because he offends them on far more levels than he appeals to them.

[redqueen]

109. Blue collar Reagan Dems / Single issue voters

Firstly, regarding perception - that's *exactly* why they voted for Reagan! These people preceived (whether correctly or incorrectly is immaterial) that Democrats were 1) giving their jobs to illegal aliens, 2) giving their jobs / contracts to blacks (affirmative action), etc. So YES, they thought that voting for someone who was anti-illegal alien and anti-affirmative action was in their best interest.

Secondly, I'm not assuming that, just using it as an example. NH primary voters said (in some exit poll or another) that healthcare was their number one issue. Are they the exception?

Whether you're right about the truck-driving, gun-toting blah blah blah is anyone's guess. You just said yourself that Democrats voted against their own best interests to go for Reagan. But you turn around and say that it's impossible for another group to do so for Kucinich -- why?

Kucinich is a straight talker - that appeals to everyone.

Kucinich is honest - not only does this appeal to everyone, but he's nearly ALONE in posessing that quality!

Kucinich has integrity - this appeals to everyone.

IMO, you can single out all the freaky-deaky things you want, but it won't amount to a hill of beans in the GE.

What it boils down to is that people vote for two reasons -- either because they perceive some benefit to themselves (their own interest) or because they just LIKE the person.

Kucinich IMO is very likeable (doesn't attack, doesn't try to characterize bush for points, is passionate yet doesn't come across as so 'angry' that people are turned off), and I think if we give him a chance to present himself before the American public, that it would indeed be a LANDSLIDE.

[Nederland]

125. Listen to Yourself

Kucinich is a straight talker

Kucinich is honest

Kucinich has integrity

Kucinich is very likeable


Does it even occur to you that

1) These are merely your opinions about Kucinich.
2) Not everybody in the country shares those opinions.

This is what I mean when I say the Kucinich supporters make arguments that are completely devoid of facts. Do most people think Kucinich is a straight talker? I don't know, but I do know you haven't given me any proof. You have to give me something right now that makes me believe that what you are saying is true because right now the only fact I have in my possession regarding what "most" people think about Kucinich is the fact that when it comes time to vote, he is in single digits.

Single Digits.

That's that only fact I know of right now. Give me another fact that should make me believe Kucinich is more popular than he appears.

[redqueen]

128. Opinions?

Yes, the likeable one, as I stated, is my opinion.

But honesty? Integrity? Being a straight talker? These are facts, my friend.

If you're asking me for proof you haven't been paying much attention so far.

But you have been paying attention to polls.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm....

I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you that Kucinich is honest, has the courage of his convictions, or that he is a straight talker. I perceive that you have been hostile towards his campaign from day one, and that being the case, I don't see much of a reason to reintroduce material you've already seen and either dismissed or ignored.

Thanks anyway.

[Nederland]

130. No they aren't

But honesty? Integrity? Being a straight talker? These are facts, my friend

No they aren't. Not even close. If you don't understand that the statement:

X is honest

is intrinsically a statement of opinion and not of fact I don't even know where to begin. Facts are things that are provable and indisputable. Gravity pulls things downward. Kerry voted for the IWR. George W. Bush was arrested for DUI. These are facts. Statements such as the one above are opinions and always will be because of their disputable nature. For example, the poster above that complains about Kucinich's flip flop on abortion might very well claim that he is neither honest nor a straight talker but a typical politician. I would disagree with his opinion, but I wouldn't go around saying that he is "factually" wrong.

[no name no slogan]

168. Kucinich is the 2nd choice of 50%+ of Democrats in Iowa

Do you know what that tells me?

Most people are too afraid to vote their conscience because they think that "the others" won't vote for him. They've bought into the fear that we can't elect a candidate who would give us universal single-payer healthcare, an end to pre-emptive wars, protection for American jobs and a foreign policy based on peace and cooperation because "we're just not ready for that".

Hell, we've BEEN ready for a long time! Unfortunately, Democrats buy into the Repub talking points and pick a candidate who will appeal to the so-called "moderate" and REPUBLICAN voters!

We DON'T NEED a candidate who appeals to Republicans-- they've already got their candidate. We need a candidate that will appeal to THE REST of the country (Democrats and disaffected voters-- IOW, the 75% of the country who DON'T vote Republican).

All we need are REAL Democrats, who stand up for Democratic values, and will fight for them regardless of how "popular" they seem to the Repubs.

Nobody but DK and Sharpton are doing this now.

[Uzybone]

86. What does Dean have to do with being liberal?

how can you mention him in the same sentence as Kucinich?

[Tinoire]

112. Just talking about the supporters not the candidates themselves n/t

[edzontar]

90. There was a significant exodus of progressives

After the "Stop Dean Movement" threads were (in my opinion, mistakenly) re-opened and the "bash-Dean, we need a General" agenda became the dominant voice for months on DU.

There was always a strong DK contingent, but some of them pissed me off with their endless "Dean in a Conservative" threads--which helped to divide the more lefty element on the board and contributed to a lesser extent to the exodus of the Dean progressives.

As recently as a week ago, this place could easily have been nicknamed Clark Underground--and the "I have a Scream" responses represented the nadir in the history of these forums as a haven for progressive dems.

On that night, Dean supporters could have felt more welcome on Free Republic.

But things are changing, and there has been a move of the more conservative element o the arms of Kerry, while an odd alliancce of Clark and Dean supporters appears to be emerging as well.

Strange days indeed.

[goobergunch]

158. I concur with posts #27 and #90.

:thumbsup:, Tinoire and Edzontar.

[Hoppin_Mad]

95. Bingo ! -nt-

[OhioStateProgressive]

28. truth

i doubt a single person here is qualified to be anything more than a VOTER

people need to stop pretending they are election analysts, qualified to determine what is truth and who is electable

do your job, vote, and vote for what you want, because that is how our land is set up

[Joe the Revelator]

30. "i doubt a single person here is qualified to be anything more than a VOTE

thats a VERY bold assumption to make. :nuke:

[OhioStateProgressive]

32. no it isn't

all citizens=voters

this is a pure example of vanity in America..people think they are important, with something valid to say...but only a few select people are qualified to even have opinions

the masses need to vote and quit trying to be scientists

[library_max]

39. Vote for who you want, for whatever reasons seem good to you.

And let others do the same. Your argument here seems to be, "I don't know anything, therefore nobody else does either." A simple look at U.S. electoral history (such as you could get from a standard encyclopedia or reference book on the subject) would tell you what happens when either party nominates a candidate for his appeal to the base (left or right). You don't need a degree or any particular credentials.

But do what you want, vote how you want. Just please remember the other half of the "social contract" of democracy. Once you've voted and had your say, you then need to abide by the will of the majority. But I suppose you'll continue to tell yourself that the majority of Democrats really wanted Kucinich no matter who they voted for. You decry our credentials for practical politics, but I don't see yours for mass telepathy.

[OhioStateProgressive]

58. my argument

Is that I believe the populace doesn't know anything, and yet they have the audacity to pass their opinions as analysis, and as I sit back and realize how little is known by those same people I feel frustrated by it

a nation of mediocrity we are

[Fovea]

62. You make being a voter sound trivial

It is the punditry that is trivial. Voters are essential, and what they say in their analysis is critical to the health of political debate in the US. And to be honest, this may be the last election in the history of the US where we can honestly say that.

So I want every American to pretend they are a political analyst and start by figuring out who is bending them over the stairrails.

Voters are the largest branch of the American government, and it is time they get off their fat asses and work for a change. That change is best represented by Dennis Kucinich.

[GreenArrow]

64. that's funny

cause I think there are dozens (at least) of people here who would make a better president than anyone currently running. But of those running, DK is the only one who appears to see, understand and talk about what is really going on. The others give lip service at best, and sacrifice principle for expediency. I suppose that will win elections, but it really doesn't say much good about the state of this country. Most people seem to prefer being subjects rather than citizens.

[goobergunch]

159. There used to be three candidates for federal office on this board (n/t)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. Not far right, but scared

and basing their support on their notions of what they think other people want.

And who knows what other people really want? It's clear that the corporate media don't want Dennis. Dean supporters complain about the media slamming their guy. Well, at least the media mention him.

The media blackout is not my imagination. Last night, a pollster from Suffolk University was being interviewed on CSPAN, and a caller asked him why he never talked about Kucinich. His response was that "there are all kinds of minor candidates running, and we have to draw the line somewhere." So you draw the line above a U.S. Congressman and lump him in with that Hamm guy?

He was not mentioned at all, not even in a throw-away paragraph, in the New York Times yesterday.

Dean supporters have said that DK is not media savvy, but I've observed that the situation is more like, "What if they gave a press conference and nobody came?" When he was here in Minneapolis in October, he attracted 1600 people to a high school auditorium on very short notice, but only one of the five local TV stations featured it. The rest spend an awfully long time on a soap opera-like dispute involving a local law enforcement official, so they "didn't have time."

The fact is, we don't know what people would think of Dennis if he received the same coverage that the other candidates get.

It's not surprising that the average American voter, relying on network TV for political news, is ignorant of Dennis. I think they would respond to his rags to riches life story, his advocacy for health care, education, small businesses, family farms, putting people back to work repairing the country's infrastructure, and a more peaceful and cooperative foreign policy. I think they would recognize hiim as one of them.

Simply because DK is talking about the issues that no one else is talking about, he's dangerous to the establishment. That's why they are trying desperately to make sure that no one hears him and that the public believes that Howard Dean is at the outer reaches of leftist ideology.

But it is sad that all the DUers who profess to "love" Dennis Kucinich are not pressing their local media to give him better coverage so that the voters can make up their own minds about who they want.

[no name no slogan]

137. If I could follow on to this Lydia

regarding the DK rally in October, with our 1600 attendance:

a few weeks later, Clark was in town campaigning. He stopped here on a Friday night, and got 100-200 supporters into a ballroom in a hotel by the airport.

This event was in the paper, on the radio, and broadcast on TV news ALL WEEKEND. And yet, there were only 200 people there MAX, on a Friday night.

The press does him and his campaign no justice, because the owners of the press are AFRAID of what he stands for: reigning in corporate power, breaking up media monopolies, and having a Worker's White House that's more interested in the needs of Main Street than Wall Street.

[kodi]

31. what gives? ideology doesn't feed, clothe or house me.

yes, kucinich speaks about my concerns more than any other candidate, but honestly i would rather work towards a partial victory instead of a sure defeat with kucinich. sorry to inform you of that fact, but you had better deal with reality instead of pipe dreams

frankly, a dennis kucinich will not be elected in my lifetime, and i am not about to support anyone anymore who i dont think can win.

its plain and simple analog logic:

kucinich = 0
someone else (dean, clark, kerry, edwards), = 1

my vote is not therapy. its supposed to help get someone elected who will help me by his/her policies once they are president, and i'm not going to get that help unless my candidate choice actually wins.

i don't bet on long shots nor my favorite teams if i truly expect them to lose.

the same logic rules my choices for president.

[OhioStateProgressive]

33. what qualifications do you have?

to prognisticate political science?

vote

do your job

[jsw_81]

46. My qualifications

I've been following politics intensely for years, and could probably give you a detailed analysis (including history and voting patterns) of any state in the union. Believe me, Dennis Kucinich has ZERO chance of ever getting elected president. It just isn't going to happen.

[OhioStateProgressive]

56. those aren't qualifications

basically you just told me you have watched television for years

Dennis won't be elected and cannot be elected because of people who believe they are election analysts, and political scientists when in fact they are just average citizens who go to work everyday

[jsw_81]

85. I may not have many formal "credentials"

But I do know more about politics than probably 95 percent of the population. And I know enough to know that your guy is toast.

[Ficus]

111. wow

that's cocky.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. And if you never ask for what you really want

you'll be very lucky to get even half.

The Republicans are never this shy and scared about what they truly want. If they want tax cuts, they vote for the guy who talks about tax cuts all the time. And they get tax cuts.

[library_max]

41. Yeah, because tax cuts are a real long shot with American voters.

I mean, you can hardly find anyone nowadays who supports tax cuts. So that's really a perfect example of the gutsy radical thinking of the Republicans.
:eyes:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. In 1980 it WAS gutsy thinking

and they made it the norm through their relentless pursuit of what they really wanted while most Democrats fretted in the corner and never mounted a successful counter-argument.

[library_max]

47. Really?

Tax cutting? A risky political strategy? On what planet?

Tax-cutting has ALWAYS been popular. They heaved the tea into Boston Harbor because of taxes. Huey Long: "Don't tax you and don't tax me, tax that fellow under the tree." Does Proposition 13 ring any bells for you? Hint: it passed in 1978.

[Terwilliger]

102. funny you should talk about the Boston Tea Party

since its clear that an imperial elite has taken over power in the USA

[Nederland]

54. Sure they are

The Republicans are never this shy and scared about what they truly want.

Yes they are. Do you recall any mention of banning all abortions everywhere even in the case of rape and incest in the State of the Union address? Neither do I. That's because the far right wing is smart enough to realize what parts of their agenda will sell in middle America and which parts won't. This is completely unlike the far left, who consistently delude themselves into believing that a majority of voters are in favor of higher taxes and abolishing the death penalty.

[justinpower]

88. Yeah, most people would prefer to

back a paper winner than back someone they think should win

[Goldom]

38. you do realize

that almost every single person said they would like him, but don't think he could win... you know why that is? cause -everyone is saying the same thing-. If people who liked him weren't too afraid to vote for someone who they think couldn't win, then he -could-.

[library_max]

43. "Almost every single person" on DU.

Not almost every single American voter. There's a difference. If we could elect a president from DU, yeah, Kucinich would have a real shot. But that's a testimony to how far left we are, not how far right we are or how mainstream Kucinich is.

[tinanator]

59. why dont you go ask some Republican, Libertarian and Independants?

I already know how "centrist" Democrats feel. They are the only opposition to a straightforward, honest candidate with Justice on the agenda. Bush has no friends, but if you give him a Bush lite opposition, we all know how it will go.

[library_max]

79. Actually, we don't know how it will go.

When we run toward the center, we win some and we lose some. When we run toward the left, we always lose in presidential elections.

I live in Texas, so believe me when I tell you that I do talk to Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents. And Bush has lots of friends here, and in the other red states. Don't kid yourself. People who panicked after 9/11 and supported the invasion of Iraq have convinced themselves he's a great leader, because it's easier than admitting that they were duped. We have a huge uphill battle ahead of us. We can't afford to carry the baggage of unpopular positions and radical rhetoric.

That said, it is true that many Republicans would love to see us nominate Kucinich. But not because they plan to vote for him.

[Padraig18]

40. How far 'right' DU is depends on how 'left' YOU are, actually.

It's all a matter of perspective, really. To Gus Hall, DU would look like a bastion of fascism, but to Ronald Reagan, it would look like a hot bed of Communism.

DU is actually left-of-center. :shrug:

[waldenx]

48. Most people are all talk no action.

I find it sickening.
When politicians do the same, these hypocrites will be the first to complain. I say the current crop of spineless coward politicians are very representative of the public.

[redqueen]

94. Hear hear! n/t

[peaceandjustice]

49. no, he's not great.

He's ok on some issues, like energy regulation and gay marriage.

But I don't see how he can claim bringing the UN into Iraq will get the U.S. out when the U.S. has historically always provided the majority of troops for UN missions. And I'm not reassured by his proposal to forbid the U.S. government or U.S. firms from managing Iraqi oil. It isn't a proposal for Iraqi management and leaves the possibility that Saudi Arabian interests or French interests will swoop into war-profiteering.

The Department of Peace would require a massive commitment of federal resources just to equip it with an infrastructure and to staff it. The U.S. already has an infrastructure adequate to pursue peace if that is the White House's priority. And if it isn't, then a Department of Peace would just be another tool of militarism, one with an Orwellian name at that.

I'm all for cutting the Department of Defense, but not by some number, in this case 15%, pulled from thin air, and not until soldiers' health care, education and salary needs are met. Shouldn't the President wait until wasteful spending has been identified and cut that instead of promising a threshold of cuts?

[no name no slogan]

169. You should really read his platform-- it will correct your misperceptions

Dennis has intimate knowledge of Pentagon spending: he's the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee that overseas Pentagon appropriations. He KNOWS what programs can be cut. In fact, he's probably the most informed candidate about Pentagon spending, given his position in the House.

The Department of Peace would be funded by part of the 15% reduction in Pentagon spending. The Pentagon cannot account for over $1 TRILLION it has been given. Let me state that again, with the zeros, so we can see how big that is:

The Pentagon cannot account for $1,000,000,000,000

The rest of the 15% would be used for veterans' benefits and rebuilding public infrastructure. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of Veterans for Peace members here in MN who are DK supporters-- including our Outreach Guru!

The UN is ready to take over Iraq-- in fact, Kofi Annan has even offered to take over the mission on nearly identical terms as DK is proposing. Before the invasion, DK spoke at the UN against the war. There's even a video available on www.kucinich.us that shows excerpts of the speech and visit.

Seriously, you should really go take a look at what he's proposing for Iraq-- I honestly think you'd be suprised at the clarity, simplicity and sensibility of his plan.

:hi:

[Nederland]

50. DU has always been to the right

...of Noam Chomsky.

[Terwilliger]

103. Really??

Considering Noam Chomsky is quite conservative, that's a hell of a statement.

[mdmc]

52. I wish this was considered far right

Liking Kucinich, or Nader, but voting Bush lite to rid the world of W., well that just plain "right".

WE ALL LOVE KUCINICH!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. I see that nobody has denied

my contention that Dennis is under a media blackout.

[JohnKleeb]

67. its true

You have to be lucky to so much as to find an article on Kucinich. A mention is considered good. The answer to the original poster is no, I dont understand it either. I admit I got a little more pragmatic when I started supporting Kerry as an equal but DK is still my cocandiate. Its funny, people here want his policies but they won't support him. Oh and despite my Kerry avatar, I think I would vote for him in a primary, not sure though. I like both of the K's. Kucinich is the unsung hero of the 8, has done so much for us.

[redqueen]

68. Maybe they're tired of looking silly

Last night the stats were reported for the 'frontrunners' (including Joe, of course, because he's not a liberal).

Their take of the poll added up to 90%.

The other 10%? Who cares!

I'm sick of this and of every Democrat who finds it easier to pretend what's being done to Kucinich is fair.

[Silverhair]

108. Not a media "blackout". It is just that JK is a non-story.

The media doesn't bother with non-stories as those kind of stories don't sell air time or newspapers.

[redqueen]

114. This is so ridiculous

The candidate who has the most in common with the electorate - but he's a non-story.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

And the media really isn't biased toward the GOP, either, right? It's just that liberal issues are all 'non stories' that can't 'sell'.

:eyes:

[library_max]

140. "The candidate who has the most in common with the electorate . . ."

Now this is the kind of thing you just keep making up and trying to pass off as fact. Kucinich does not have "the most in common with the electorate" just because you say he does. He isn't electable just because you say he is. Most Democrats are not closet Kucinich supporters just because you say they are. It would be helpful if you could distinguish between fact and very personal opinion.

[redqueen]

141. Common sense

Who do people have more in common with?

The guy living in the same house for 30 years, or millionnaires?

The guy who goes to work and does his job (voting on bills) or the guys who do whatever the hell they want to (campaign while on the taxpayer's bill)?

The guy who speaks forthrightly about issues, or the guys that pontificate and hem and haw? (this helped get bush elected, actually)

I could go on but this is just sad.

[library_max]

147. Yes, it is just sad.

But not, I suspect, in the sense you mean.

[redqueen]

150. So I take it you won't be answering any of those questions, then?

n/t

[library_max]

154. Well, I'm not an authority on your opinions and you are.

So you'd do a better job of answering your own questions, I guess. Because every one of them is based on nothing but your own opinions. Does it matter what kind of house a candidate lives in? To you it does, apparently. Is Kucinich the only candidate "doing his job"? To you he is, apparently. Is Kucinich the only candidate speaking forthrightly on the issues? In your opinion he is, apparently.

What ice do you think any of this cuts with the rest of us?

[redqueen]

156. Well you seem to think you have Americans down pat

Remember, this isn't about me, this is about the average American voter.

You've pointed out how they won't agree with Kucinich's policies. Despite polling indicating otherwise, mind you. So which is it?

Why do you now pretend to know nothing about how they'd react to a candidate who doesn't worship money, for example?

[library_max]

164. Okay, we have apparently come to the nub of our disagreement.

We seem to have conflicting views of how American voters in general react to Dennis Kucinich, his image, his personality, and his stands on the issues.

Gee, if only there was some way to actually put this issue to the voters themselves. If only someone would actually go and ask them what they think - compared to, say, five or six other candidates, do they prefer him or one of the others? A poll or something, for example. Even better than that, what if someone would set up a system so that people could actually vote on which of the candidates they prefer? Then we'd know for sure whether voters generally prefer Kucinich or not.

Gee. If only.

[IrateCitizen]

132. I think it's time for a lesson in how the media works

Silverhair, please read THIS, and then come back after you've had a chance to absorb it.

Perhaps it might help you realize how the media -- not the electorate -- help establish "viablilty" in political candidates.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

133. "The first filter"

Chomsky's phrase is so apt!

[David__77]

66. DU'ers not "right-wing," though maybe Machiavellian.

I think the concern is electoral triumph. I think sometimes the concerns are misplaced: "nothing ventured, nothing gained." I think the experience of third party candidacies like Nader's has amplified this tendency.

[CivilRightsNow]

69. I love Dennis

I love his ideas, I love his persona. But unfortunately, the world is too hard, impractical and unyeilding for Dennis at this juncture. I wish that it wasnt the case. Many people say, well, you have to compromise, you have to pick the most electable candidate. While I dont agree with the consensus opinion on who is electable, sadly.. Dennis isnt this go round. I do, however, think that he could make a name for himself this election and run green next election and have a fighting chance of atleast getting enough of the vote to give the green party some official federal funding. That is my hope for Kucinich in the future. I will continue to support him because his input is needed in this race, but I cant hitch my wagon to him. This party has shifted way too far over to the right.

[Iverson]

71. I asked a related question, MMT.

As far as Kucinich goes, I have said repeatedly that I find him respectable. Were he to get the nomination, there's a strong probability that I would vote for him instead of the Green nominee.

Perhaps your concerns dovetail into mine. Consider offering your thoughts, please.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1049438&mesg_id=1049438

[zulchzulu]

72. Dennis is nice guy...just unelectable

The point of this year's election is to get rid of Bush at all costs. It is not a time to hold your head high and vote for someone who will never have a chance to beat Bush.

I'd say most DUers like DK or some of what he says. I find his supporters to be generally pretty cool people in real life.

It is unrealistic to assume that DK could be the nominee at this point as well as be the candidate to beat Bush.

Frankly, I find some of his policies like getting rid of NAFTA and the WTO to be a bit naive. No one has ever talked about what kind of economic tailspin that would cause in Latin America, Canada, the US and many sectors in Europe if that happened. At this point, NAFTA and the WTO need to be amended, not ended.

His policy on leaving Iraq the way he wants is also very unlikely to happen.

Hopefully, you'll do what most DK fans I know have done. Join the Kerry movement. JK's record with the environment and progressive domestic record are pretty compatible.

[redqueen]

77. We've had 10 years to 'amend' NAFTA and the WTO

How long can you beat a dog before it bites you?

I guess we're much more tolerant of abuse than dogs.

[onecitizen]

73. Huh?.........

What are you talking about? Why do you think we do not support Dennis? We LOVE Dennis. The majority ignore Dennis? Nope. Read more please.

[John_H]

80. C'mon, don't let your anger get the better of you.

I've written and read other DUers write a hundred times that if we thought Dennis had a snowball's chance in hell of beating Chimp, we'd be right with him.

Just because you place your decision above the need to get rid of Chimp, please don't start slinging GOP labels.

[Cuban_Liberal]

83. DU is not far right.

The only folks who would think DU i 'far right' would be those who are 'far left', IMO. I think DU is quite center-left.

[Hoppin_Mad]

98. No - There was a massive influx of pro -US Imperialism Hawks

a few months back.

[Cheswick2.0]

106. I don't find DK all that liberal

no on the issues I most care about. He has a 40 percent rating with the ACLU. Now if your issues are different than mine it is very understandable that you would see him differently.

Give me a real liberal like Henry Waxman or Barbara Lee and I am with you.

[youngred]

127. No matter how oft that is refuted, you still bring it back

the ACLU rating is derived largely from his stance against abortion which he changed 3 years ago, and since then he has an excellent record.

[TSElliott]

115. Well now that you mention it yes,

I do think all of the canidates are way to right wing for my vote including Dennis Kucinich.

Damn, who am I going to vote for now?

[indigo32]

119. I don't understand how not supporting Kucinich translates

into far right. Splain it to me again.

[MMT]

121. See my response to DesertRose

I didn't mean it to be read "Has DU always been this far-right?", I meant "Has DU always been this far (to the) right?"

Why are people reading it as "far-right"? Is that because everyone has it in their minds that DU *is* "far-right"?

[mzmolly]

120. I don't find Dennis practical or that liberal *considering his voting

record. I think he's got great vision, but I don't see the *beef* personally.

I think of Dean as the practical and compassionate choice.

[youngred]

122. Nope

It's been moderated by the campaign influx. Read some of the archives, this place used to be downright leftist

[feckerman]

123. Honestly...

As I sat and watched last Thursdays debate, I agree with DK 100%. I just don't think someone as radical as him, or myself, can win. And that is what I want more than someone who matches me 100%.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

129. Here's a question for all you pragmatists

If the frontrunner is clear after March 2, that is, if one of the "socially acceptable" candidates has enough delegates to secure the nomination by then, and you live in a state with a later primary or caucus, would you THEN be willing to vote your consciences as a vote for a more progressive platform and a more sympathetic ear for progressive concerns?

Or will you feel that you need to jump on the bandwagon with the guy who already has enough delegates so that you can be one of the cool kids?

[library_max]

144. Here's a question for you.

What difference would it make, in the scenario you've presented?

It's highly presumptuous to assume that everyone who takes the removal of Bush-the-unelected as our highest priority is a closet Kucinich supporter. But worse than that is the underlying assumption that voting is about something other than determining who wins the election. That's what voting is for. It isn't about the "cool kids," and it isn't about your conscience. It's your part of the answer to the question, "Who's it gonna be?" If that question has really already been answered, the rest is moot.

Don't forget, though, that delegates are not bound by law to vote for "their" candidate at the convention. So it does actually matter how many delegates a candidate has above a bare majority.

[ulysses]

157. yes, being in the cool crowd has always been a big concern of mine.

Come on, Lydia. To answer your question - yes, I've long planned, should Kucinich still be in when Georgia votes and Dean be a moot point either way at that time, to vote for DK. Of course, GA is on March 2, not after.

[ButterflyBlood]

134. maybe he's being ignored because we don't want to waste our time?

Kucinich may have great ideas, but I'm not going to waste energy on a guy who's polling 1% and shows no signs of going up.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

135. So what's your answer to post #129?

:shrug:

[davidinalameda]

138. he may be liberal and practical but has no chance of winning

and he flip flopped on the abortion issue once he started running for president

[redqueen]

142. OH. MY. GOD.

This is debunked earlier in this very thread.

My head has just exploded.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

146. Could this misinformation be put to rest already...

He stopped voting on choice related issues over TWO years ago.

Long before he was DRAFTED to run for President. He was NOT planning to run and planning to change his stance for a run.

He went throuhg an emotional personal journey on the issue and came out on THE CORRECT side. That's something to be applauded.

TWL

[redqueen]

151. How much do you want to bet this doesn't end it?

It's so tragic, because (unlike in other cases - Dean's pro corporate history, Kerry's BFEE investigation / results, etc.) it's not like this is some fuzzy area where there could be a reason for not clearly seeing one side or the other.

Oh well.

[David Zephyr]

163. You Mean Like People Who Call Him "God" But Worship Another Candidate.

Dennis needs to stay in the race.

With Gephardt and Braun and now Lieberman dropping out, his voice will be heard more and his message will get more attention.

Don't give up!

[Trajan]

167. "Have you stopped beating your wife ???? ... "

Begging the question fallacy ....