Kucinich embraces deceit in his spin of the post debate discussion

[Alamom]

Monday Morning Headlines, 6 am est. Search Kucinich News, Google. (1st pg story on all 3 candidates)


http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_070715_kucinich_embraces_de.htm


July 15, 2007 at 23:44:52

Kucinich embraces deceit in his spin of the Hillary Clinton & John Edwards post debate discussion

by Steven Leser
OpEdNews, PA - 4 hours ago


There are key moments in a person’s life where they can make a choice between staying on the narrow path of honesty and integrity, and going off the path to make a quick score. It isn’t always apparent beforehand what that quick score will cost you. Kucinich has always been touted as the guy who is for all things good, honest and decent, the guy who believes what he says and who eschews rhetoric. That is now over as far as I am concerned.


If you missed the brief brouhaha over the discussions between Hillary Clinton and John Edwards after the last debate, they were heard discussing limiting the debates to fewer people. It was a quick discussion, one where neither had the opportunity to completely explain their views on the subject. Edwards later explained that he believes in formats where there would be three or four candidates at a time. All candidates would participate, but on separate nights. This way, instead of eight to ten candidates sharing ninety minutes, which equates to about ten to twelve minutes each (less after moderator and other time is deducted), three or four candidates would share ninety minutes at a time, giving us all much more time to get to know all of the candidates, so far, so good.



Kucinich takes this and spins it into some conspiracy to prevent him from participating in the debates. He very well knows that this is not the truth of what Edwards meant, but he wants to score some points to boost his sagging campaign, so he made the quick score. I guess Kucinich is tired of running for President every four years and not making it past 1% in the primaries so he figured he didn’t have anything to lose.


Think about this for a minute, to believe Kucinich, you would have to believe that after the entire 2004 campaign, plus the debates of the 2008 campaign thus far, no one knows who Kucinich is and what he believes. And you would have to believe that Edwards was concerned, despite Kucinich currently polling at 1% among Democrats, about Kucinich’s continued presence in the campaign such that he would be discussing excluding him from future debates.

>

If I can figure this out with about 15 seconds of deductive reasoning, Kucinich and his campaign can figure it out as well. Kucinich knew very well he was telling a whopper. Well, Dennis, I’m here to tell you, you were wrong when you thought you had nothing to lose by telling this lie. You did have something to lose, your honor.


Is this one of the reasons? FWIW, there was only one source. *FAUX


http://www.wdtn.com/Global/story.asp?S=6791214&nav=menu590_1



Kucinich tops $1 million mark, has little cash left


Associated Press - July 15, 2007 6:45 PM ET

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has topped the one million (m) dollar mark in fundraising for the year.

The Ohio congressman is far behind frontrunners Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois. Both are on pace to raise between 90 million and $100 million by the end of the year.

Campaign finance reports filed today show Kucinich raised roughly $757,000 from April through June, more than twice the amount raised during the first quarter of the year. But the campaign has spent about $900,000, leaving him with about $213,000.

Of the second-quarter donations, $9,891 came from Ohioans, while his top donor state was California, which gave nearly $64,000.








http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/13/269346.aspx


Mystery Solved Posted: Friday, July 13, 2007 10:26 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Categories: Democrats, 2008



From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro and Mark Murray
As we mentioned yesterday, Clinton and Edwards were caught talking on an open mic after the NAACP forum. Parts of it were inaudible, but it turns out they were talking about how to exclude lower-tier candidates from future forums/debates.

Here’s what was said per the Associated Press (via Fox News microphones):>

[LaurenG]

1. I thought he handled the whole thing nicely and Steven Leser

is obviously NOT a Kucinich supporter. It sounds like he's doing a little spinning of his own because that was exactly how I heard the conversation between Edwards and Hillary.

[earthlover]

2. So Hillary and JOhn get caught with an open mike talking about excluding Democrats from debates...

...John later comes up with an "explanation" that what he really meant was a different format of debates.

Yet it is Kucinich who is the one who is spinning?

[welshTerrier2]

3. the article's author is LYING

talk about deceit ... look at this crap and then we'll analyze it:

If you missed the brief brouhaha over the discussions between Hillary Clinton and John Edwards after the last debate, they were heard discussing limiting the debates to fewer people. It was a quick discussion, one where neither had the opportunity to completely explain their views on the subject. Edwards later explained that he believes in formats where there would be three or four candidates at a time. All candidates would participate, but on separate nights.

The article's author, through clever but deceitful juxtaposition, is implying that Edwards' subsequent remarks provided the opportunity to explain what he meant during the exchange with Clinton. He creates the false impression that the subsequent remarks were necessary because the post-debate exchange "was a quick discussion, one where neither had the opportunity to completely explain their views on the subject."

The author is creating linkage between the subsequent comments and the post-debate exchange as if one clarified the other. The problem is, there was no DENIAL of exactly what has been reported after the debate. The author tries to con us into believing that Edwards' has explained his "views." What was actually said to Clinton wan NOT that candidates should debate three or four at a time and Edwards has NOT said otherwise. No one would have objected to looking for alternative ways to give ALL the candidates more time to speak. The objection has been to what he said at the debate about cutting out some of the candidates.

The bottom line, however this author chooses to LIE AND SPIN, is that Edwards did NOT deny what was ACTUALLY SAID. When Edwards addresses exactly what was said at the debate and either endorses it or says he was wrong, then we can reassess the situation. Absent that, he said it and no amount of spin or lashing out at Kucinich is going to change that.

[ixion]

4. yep, so he takes Edwards' spin and calls Kucinich dishonest

only in politics. :crazy:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Well, I've been talking to friends about Kucinich,

and some had never heard of him--so I'd say that to some extent he is correct in saying that many don't know about him or his message. A lot of folks don't pay attention to the primaries and only find out about the nominees running against one another.

Personally, I'd like to see the format of the debates changed, as Dennis Kucinich recommended. Spouting off 60 second soundbites is not a debate.

[Alamom]

6. They "all" need more time. eom