How Many DUers Believe

[Red1]

1. That any one candidate for President, by themselves can bring our servicemen and women back from iraq quicker than another?
2. That any one candidate will be less involved with American corporations than another?

That pretty well sums up the complete agenda for the next president;
-the economy
---jobs
---interest rates
-health care
-the environment
-education
-foreign policy, including iraq/iran
-alternative energy sources

These items will require involvement from the house and senate,

[demnan]

1. Mine would.

[MH1]

2. No (as worded) and Yes

1. None of them CAN bring our troops home sooner. Which one WILL bring them home sooner is the question.

2. Yes, there are differences in how much one or the other will kowtow to corporations. I don't know if there is a significant difference in the viable options this year, because the one viable candidate who I *trust* to work for people instead of corporations, has said he will not run. (John Kerry.)

[Sonicmedusa]

3. Dennis is da man!

Dennis stance on the war:

One cannot be against Iraq war yet still fund it.
We're in Iraq for oil & looking at attacking Iran for oil.
New direction in Iraq, and that direction is out.

Dennis on corporate control:

Withdraw from NAFTA and WTO
Will not accept corporate PAC money.
Public financing for elections.
Universal not-for-profit health care.
Not-for-profit system differs from Hillary's pro-HMO system.
Water should forever be in the public domain.
Will sign Kyoto climate change treaty.
Shift USDA funds from agribusiness to family farmers.
Repeal tax cuts for wealthy to fund public higher ed.


http://activote.ontheissues.org/AVA/Dennis_Kucinich.htm

[LWolf]

4. I do.

While your point about necessary participation from congress is well-taken, that is true regardless of who sits in the WH. A president who actually WANTS to accomplish these things, who actually makes them a priority, is going to foster more action and quicker resolution than one who doesn't.

[welshTerrier2]

5. the OP questions miss the point

it makes no sense to suggest that a single person can make the radical changes we need without support from thousands of others especially including the American public.

having said that, however, a single person can lead the country in the right direction using the right vision and the right words and passion and commitment. a single person can move mountains given that perspective.

the OP seems to be dismissing the idea that the person we elect can radically change the landscape in the House, the Senate and throughout the country. bringing about the radical changes we need will require leadership but that does not mean followers and supporters are not needed to get the job done. it's important not to conflate these two concepts.

[Red1]

7. I'm Pessimistic

Once upon a time, vision - leadership - passion, were the determinate for our country,

Is it that way still, or is it more you scratch my back and ---?

[welshTerrier2]

10. I'm optimistic ... well, sort of ...

think of this ... that which grew the strongest has always fallen ... in time, all that is not in balance is leveled ... all empires, great and small, have disappeared ... they were all once seemingly impenetrable ...

the forces of money and greed have invaded every pore of the body politic like a cancer ... it seems like even those we put into positions of power are compromised before they even arrive ... they are funded, both left and right, from the same sources ... one offers explicit corporatism with no protections for anyone; the other offers more subtle corporatism with bandaids for those it injures. if that doesn't create plenty of shelf space for pessimism, what does?

but the great machines of empire cannot sustain themselves indefinitely. today, we are seeing the final days of the great American empire. external pressures are conspiring to bring us down. and the American people are finally awakening to the lies and the propaganda. perhaps they have been duped into seeing themselves as "lone wolves" in a competitive sea of survival of the fittest. they have lost the vision of the US as a "society" where we all look out for each other. they have been duped into the meme of "personal responsibility" as if that absolves them of societal responsibilities.

but, however aware or unaware we may be, however educated or uneducated we may be, regardless of what values we may or may not have been taught, at some point more and more come to realize that something just doesn't seem right. at first, fingers are pointed in all directions. blame the Democrats. blame the French. blame this candidate or that one. in the end, all the roads lead to the same place: our government is no longer operating to serve We the People.

when that light goes on, and only then, change, however slow and however painful and however costly, finally becomes possible. we have not yet arrived at the breaking point but finally those of us who were for so long stopped dead in our tracks are on the move. more and more people are awakening and joining our ranks everyday. it won't be easy bringing down an empire. we are out-gunned, out-financed, out-media'd and out of power. their poisons have permeated everything. they will threaten us with all sorts of horrors. we risk losing what few liberties we have. as our numbers grow and the risk to the power elite becomes greater and greater, perhaps they will drop all pretense of democracy and freedom and try to seize power for good. this really is a life or death business and there are no guarantees in the short-term about whether we can succeed. make no mistake about it though, we have no choice.

so, while there's plenty of room for pessimism, I do finally see an awakening and I see that as the only chance we have to taking our country back. in that sense, I'm optimistic ...

[Red1]

12. Well Said WelshTerrier2

I too see improvement in the expectations of this country.

And my point for this thread is the best way to sustain this
new paradigm. I hope the people will look at the candidates
and pick the one that has the best chance to sustain the
momentum, the time cycle is short and those looking for
the optimal candidate may well set the game back, significantly.

[welshTerrier2]

13. well, here we may disagree

i have no problem with your statement that we should not look for the optimal candidate. but, nevertheless, I believe that some candidates are enablers of the current system. I point to those who are well funded by corporate money. that money is NOT given without strings. the K Street boys and those they represent do not spend their money; they invest. and when they invest in candidates, beware of those candidates for the days of repayment are just around the corner.

as Deep Throat said so wisely, "Follow the money."

We don't need to have a perfect candidate and we can overlook one indiscretion or another. What we cannot abide, however, is someone, no matter how good they might seem in comparison to the republicans and no matter what they may promise, who has been enlisted by the armies of our enemies. You can know the corporatists by the source of their campaign funding. Please do not be deceived.

What might appear to be the lesser of the evils, and in truth might even be, does nothing but safeguard the status quo. The parties are NOT the same and the candidates are NOT the same. But too many of them, from both sides of the aisle, serve the same master. And when they do, they cannot be serving We the People.

[yurbud]

6. we have to get a good person in White House, and weed the corporate dems out of congress over time

It will be a slow, painful process, but the silver lining of the Bush years is they have shown how crucial it is to our survival to do it.

[Sonicmedusa]

8. We don't have time.

The US cannot afford another 8 years of "slow, painful process" - regardless of the party.

ALL Democrats need to find out where their candidates $$$ are coming from and ask themselves if their candidates contributors are in synch with the dream they (Dems) have for the future of their children and America. NOW.

If your candidate has no corporate $$$ in their pockets then do the right thing. You know what that is.

[yurbud]

11. post links to your favorite clean money group

[LeftyOzark]

9. Campaign Finance Reform to Save US Democracy

I see many issues as important but until a more just 'Campaign Finance Reform' happens I don't think we will every have a true 'Democracy of the People'. With the current leaning of the Supremes I question if it could be instigated. The high cost of campaigns keep the process and the politicians locked into the current style of big money influence and a two party system; sound bites, and limited views and vision. I've wanted public financing and so many hours(amount debatable)donated by the major networks since the seventies. I think more parties would make for a more dynamic election process, more views presented and open for debate. Sound bites would diminish in importance. (Thank the Universal Creative Processes) Platforms and agendas of each candidate/party would be published online and in newspapers.

It would involve a rework of the process: for example, the current primary's would be done as a more, in-party, process and would be 'The Party's Primary's'. It could even be an online primary of those registered. A certain percentage would have to be attained to take part in 'The National Primary' which would then be more like EU's. Those who had taken the lead in 'The Party's Primary's' would run on standardized National Primary Ballots. The results of that if no one candidate got over 51% would be the National Election, with no agreement of the other parties uniting to challenge the 51%. Essentially, and most likely, two leaders would have a run off. Those with the highest votes? Those whom, by coalitions of parties, with the highest percentages, would then run. There would have to be more time between the National Primary and the National Election. There would be deal making between the parties and agreements on platforms. That takes time. Online voting might again be used by the uniting parties to establish the platforms. There would be more varied views and wishes by the voting political body of 'The People'. This would occur on both right and left and perhaps new parties of new status that don't adhere to current frameworks of Left and Right would arise in importance.

There are of course many bugs and particulars to deal with and issues of fairness and eliminating frivolousness.
There is one thing missing in todays elections that would be present in such a system briefly outlined above:
The Trust of the People. That is missing in todays election processes. That is the cause of such a high degree of alienation by so many of voting age and elections of such low voter turnouts. Would it shake up the status quo? Yes, to a degree, but probably not as much as many fear who oppose such a change. Again, there should be more trust of 'The People'.
This is just a raw outline of suggestion's for reform. I welcome serious thinkers to add to it and I even suggest that a dedicated section be developed for a discussion of Campaign Reform, both finance and reorganization of the election process.

This is not to suggest that all our current candidates are bought and paid for; it's the election system stupid.

Sincerely for a more True Democracy