Kucinich and Gravel don't have the same netroots support on the Left as Ron Paul has on the Right

[Bullet1987]

I've noticed after the post-debate polling and internet discussion...that Kucinich and Gravel don't have nearly the same level of support amoung Democrats as Ron Paul has amoung Libertarian Republicans, etc. Now, you can't say the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party is more vocal than our more Liberal wing...because they're not. But I'm wondering what's going on? Is it just that Dems are more satisfied with the candidates running than the Republicans are? The ReThug base is totally not satisfied with Romney, McCain, OR Guiliani...that much is obvious no matter how much the media will claim otherwise.

[WI_DEM]

1. On our side I don't see the enthusiasm for DK that he had on the left in '04

I think and I hate to say this because it will offend some but I think Dems really want to win in '08 (not that they didn't in '04) and I think most people think that DK and Gravel are lost causes. Also I've noticed more support on the left for Edwards this time and also for Obama. Dodd is also beginning to get some interest.

[Radical Activist]

9. The other candidates are more liberal this time.

There weren't many options for progressives in '04. Dean attracted a lot of people by pretending to be liberal but had a very moderate career record. Most other candidates were for the war. Clark sounded progressive but was basically a wild card without a record to judge him on.

This time Democrats have more options for liberal Democrats who speak out against the war like Obama, and Edwards who moved to the left in the last four years.

[rucky]

2. Maybe the righties are more pissed at their party than we are at ours n/t

[jobycom]

3. I think that's it. I think their party is more divided now, and the main contenders

aren't spouting the conservative ideology enough, so the party is looking for alternatives. Meanwhile, the Democrats by and large are more worried about getting someone sane in office than about ideological perfection, so we aren't pushing our "purists" (not that Kucinich or Gravel are really purist) as much as we have in past years.

[Warpy]

4. The pubbies know that they were hammered in 06

mostly because of the war, and Paul is the only one who has been vehemently against that war from the beginning. That's why he has support, not because he's the only flawless candidate out there. He's deeply flawed and they know it. They're just one issue at a time kinda folks, and they feel an antiwar pubbie can beat any Democrat out there.

Kucinich and Gravel are also flawed candidates and lefties on the web are acutely aware of it. While they are both getting high marks for some of the ideas, the whole package is being looked at a little more skeptically than Paul is.

[question everything]

5. Thank you. Perhaps there is some hope

for mature, intelligent and realistic Democrats who realize that keeping control of Congress and winning the White House requires compromising on many issues, including on how we get out of Iraq.

Don't forget, most voters did support the war initially and were impressed with the "shock and awe." And if by any miracle the "surge" will work, many will drop their strong opposition.

In contrast to Gravel, Kucinich and Paul, most Americans are not against military intervention as a matter of principle. Most support the intervention in Europe (twice), in Kosovo and, I would hope at least among us - in Rwanda and in Darfur.

Thus, these three are clearly in the fringes and I hope they stay there.

[Bullet1987]

6. I don't think MOST AMERICANS support global intervention

unless it's neccessary. That's a DLC comment. MOST Americans supported the Iraq war in the beginning because of 9/11 and mostly because of the lies of the Bush Administration. MOST Americans I think only want to do what's needed instead of getting our hands tied in foreign entaglements.

[The Magistrate]

12. That Was A Flat Statement Of Fact, Sir, With Which The D.L.C. Had Nothing To Do

Opposition on principle to use of military force is virtually absent among the people of our country, which is why doctrinaire anti-war activism never advances from the fringes of our political life.

[Bullet1987]

15. You tell that to the 70% of Americans who disagree with you and stop

reading from the MSM script. MOST Americans DON'T want us heading into aimless wars. Period! This has nothing to do with some anti-war stance. It's simple fact.

[The Magistrate]

22. They Do Not Disagree With Me, Sir, They Disagree With You

Most of the opposition to the occupation of Iraq rests on the public having come to understand it is a failure, and that that failure was produced by mismanagement and feckless incompetence at the highest levels of their government. They have no objection to the thing in principle, nor do they thing it criminal or morally wrong, and had it succeeded, they would be solidly in the Republican camp, and Rove would have had the re-alignment for a generation he wanted, rather than the one it looks like he has got instead.

My own view is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a colassal mistake, for the course events have taken was the one to be most readily expected by anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the region, its history, and the customary usages of partisan warfare. There has never been any doubt in my mind that the thing was contrived and pressed purely for domestic political reasons, as a means to distort our country's political life in favor of the Republican Party, and it was this basically frivolous motivation in which lay the seeds of the disaster it has fortunately become for its authors.

However, you are quite welcome to amuse me further in future by accusing me of reading off a main-stream media script: occassions for a little laugh are always welcome in this vale of tears....

[dave_p]

16. This is the problem

If you ask most Americans, of course they'll say what you said.

If you ask them when a particular intervention is at issue, most will support the action. There's a problem there.

Your statement is quite correct. But the presumption that actual intervention is legitimate tends to win the day. That's where the disconnect lies.

Americans need to remember that the world carries on. And sometimes those closer to the action have the better insight.

America isn't the world's policeman. Sometimes it needs to chill. It's what folks nearer the frontline do if they get the chance.

And sometimes they do come up with the goods without reminding the parties of their Stone-Age heritage.

[DemBones DemBones]

7. Ah, another "Kucinich is irrelevant" thread.

I suppose we're quieter this time because we've been hearing this shit since 2003.

I'll tell you this: we will never regret supporting Kucinich. If anyone else wins, I predict a lot of buyer's remorse by June 2009.

[Bullet1987]

8. Ummm...

Where did I say "Kucinich is irrelevant?" Please, take your knee jerk reactions to another thread.

[DemBones DemBones]

10. Saying Kucinich doesn't have the netroots support that Ron Paul does is

pretty much saying Kucinich is irrelevant.

Here's the thing about Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul: if either were elected, it would mean a massive shift in policy.

Otherwise, it will be "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

[TheWatcher]

11. Unfortunately DemBones, you are screaming into the Darkness on this one

Why my fellow countrymen refuse to support people would would represent actual REAL CHANGE is disturbing.

Things will NOT change in 2008.

As a matter of fact, they will probably get worse.

If Hillary gets elected, I suspect those on the left will be happy for a few months, but when the sheen wears off, they will have a David Byrne Moment.

"My God, What Have I Done?!!!"

[AnOhioan]

25. How true

The status quo appeals to most folks. Candidates and elected officials blsutering on about "America's might", half-assed proposals like "Universal Health Insurance", and feel good talk about saving the middel class with no actaul plans.

Why? Simple in my opinion, most Americans take a very short-term view of life, they worry about the next year or maybe the next five years. The MSM contributes to this outlook, marginalizing anyone who dares to "upset the apple-cart" with long-term thinking and proposals that would actually make a difference in people's lives and creating "sound bite" beauty contests.

The average voter sees and hears what the MSM puts out there and allows others to make their decisiosn for them, after all, that is alot easier than doing real research on the issues.

Sad, but that is the reality of political activity in the US.

[ludwigb]

13. Ron Paul is basically a Libetarian

He isn't really appealing to a right-wing base a la Alan Keyes or Pat Buchanon. He gets a lot of netroots support because there are tons of libs on the web.

Plus he distinguishes himself in the debates. Really he's the only Republican candidate I would consider voting for.....

Finally there's a lot of people who identify themselves as Republicans but who actually have fairly reasonable views on the issues and Paul speaks to that mentality.

[primative1]

24. Bingo ...

Netroots is an INDEPENDANT phenomena ... it isnt owned by a party or an individual ... The war is a huge driver but so are other issues, immigration, "free" trade , civil liberties ala patriot act ect ...
Ron Paul draws support from everywhere by connecting with people who are otherwise not represented ... The contrast of seeing it from the GOP side is breathtaking where as on the dem side the views get lost in the flush of patronizing talk and half ass support from pretenders ....

[Czolgosz]

14. By what skewed measure do you doubt that Kucinich has less netroots support than Paul? Gravel, I'll

you, is lacking in support but that's largely because he has bad ideas which have not found fertile soil in the minds of many voters.

[dave_p]

17. Bt the MSM's measure, of course!

Who better to judge candidate's roots? Silly of us to even ask!

[Bullet1987]

18. Ummm...by looking around various forums and blogs which defines the netroots...

[Zodiak]

19. Actually, there was a poll right here on DU

that had Kucnich winning in Presidential preference amongst DUers.

I have seen no other polls, but admit I haven't cared to look. Too early, and I don't like the horse race when the issues are what need to be discussed.

To the poster below: please address support amongst the netroots as the OP indicates. You are conflating electoral success with the actual issue at hand, a logical fallacy (non-sequitir used to take a potshot at other DUers' support) of which a DUer of your long-time affiliation with this site should be well-aware of.

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. He won many DU polls back in 2003

But his sucess in real primaries was much less impressive.

[Czolgosz]

20. And you don't notice Kucinich getting much attention, but you do see Paul getting lots of attention?

I suspect that you are going to unrepresentative blogs.

[silverback]

23. And here is why.

He said this in 1998...

"Sadly, our policy in the Middle East has served to strengthen the hand of Hussein and unify the Islamic Fundamentalists against the United States. Hussein is now anxious for the bombs to hit so he can further stir hatred and blame toward America for the pain he has inflicted on his people. Indeed, at every turn in this "crisis," Hussein has gone before his people and blamed the US for their problems. And the Iraqi people believe it.

So now we are faced with the possibility of going to war, alone, for… what reason? To protect a region which says publicly that it does not need to be protected?

I, too, worry about a biological or nuclear threat. But I see our cities at a much greater risk because of our aggressive, hostile policies, than if we were friends with all, enjoying economic relationships and open dialogue. The way we usually get dragged into a war is by some unpredictable incident, where innocent Americans are killed after our government placed them in harm's way and the enemy took the bait. Once hostilities begin, debating the policy which created the mess is off limits; the thinking goes that everybody must support the troops by blindly and dumbly supporting irrational and irresponsible policies.

But the best way to support our troops is to have a policy that avoids unnecessary confrontation and bloodshed. A pro-American constitutional policy of nonintervention would go a long way toward guaranteeing maximum liberty and protection of life and property for all Americans.

Unfortunately, we cannot expect such common sense to prevail in the current political climate."

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst98/tst020298.htm

Paul represents the libertarians and paleo-conservatives who've disagreed with the Bush administration on almost everything. The "big tent" of the Republican party is collapsing.