reasons Dennis Kucinich is unelectable....

[mike_c]

Here are some compelling reasons why a vote for Dennis Kucinich is a waste of time. Pick the one that means the most to you:

1) He's a woman. Americans have NEVER elected a woman president and although attitudes toward gender are changing, it is way too risky to offer a female candidate now. The stakes are just too high.

2) He's black. Americans have NEVER elected a black man president and although attitudes toward race are changing, it is simply too risky to push a black candidate forward now. The stakes are just too high.

3) He's too populist, and yet at the same time too smugly entrenched among the elite, living in an immense house, conspicuously enjoying benefits denied to average Americans because of his lucrative law practice and his investments. His voting record in the Senate is strongly at odds with his new found populism. Americans distrust populists who speak from the pinnacle of personal privilege-- it is simply too risky to tempt voter backlash against his impeccable grooming and fine living now. The stakes are just too high.

4) He's latino. Americans have NEVER elected a latino president and although attitudes toward cultural heritage are changing, it is simply too risky to push a latino candidate forward now, particularly when immigration and the former Attorney General are still such raw issues. The stakes are just too high.

5) He voted to authorize the war against Iraq and continued to express support for the war even after it became apparent that it was based on lies and had no coherent mission, becoming an active participant in one of the worst U.S. foreign policy blunders of all time. Although attitudes toward spectacular failures of judgment and leadership are changing, it is simply too risky to push a hawkish rubber stamp forward now. The stakes are just too high.

6) He worked to deny Americans bankruptcy protection from predatory and usurious lenders while allowing corporations and the wealthy to use bankruptcy as a weapon to break the backs of labor unions, pensioners, and small business people. Although attitudes toward corporate tools are changing, it is simply too risky to push a blatantly owned candidate forward now. The stakes are just too high.

7) He's up to his eyeballs in the "war on drugs" that has spawned injustice, vicious prosecution of victimless crimes, and social divisiveness for decades. Although attitudes toward puritan moral police are changing, it is simply too risky to push someone so deeply involved in the incarceration industry forward now. The stakes are just too high.

8) He's short and looks a bit elfin. Although American attitudes toward people under average height are changing, it is far too risky to offer a candidate who is not Reaganesque in stature. The stakes are just too high this time around.

[ThoughtCriminal]

1. Worst of all

He's smart.

[bobthedrummer]

5. Yep, and he called Mr. Bush a liar in the 2004 debates, smart and truthful=unelectable

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

[L84TEA]

30. oh... burn! nt

[mikelgb]

2. 2

[MissWaverly]

3. Hey, I am short and a bit elfin, don't knock the gnomes

and although many of those are nutjob reasons for not voting for Dem candidates, you forgot the biggest
problem of all.

He tells the TRUTH, which in the Beltway is worse than bad breath but the country does not live in the
bubble of the beltway.

[Rhiannon12866]

36. You got it in one!

The American public apparently prefers serial liars than those who tell it like it is...:grr:

[MissWaverly]

49. serial liars who cut their taxes which shortchanges everybody

else, rich ride for free, corporations ride for free.

:-)

[mopinko]

4. 9 he let them steal the election in his state

he issued a press release, like 10 days later. he did not stand with jesse jackson and john conyers, and quite a few du'ers, to protest the voter intimidation and outright theft that happened not only in his state, but in his district.

i'm waiting for al.

[polichick]

14. Interesting...

Did he have an explanation?

[mopinko]

16. no he did not.

i remember very well a flaming will pitt post- where the hell is dennis.

[ProudDad]

56. Is this the same kind of reasoning

that states that he's at fault for "not getting HR676 out of committee"?

I was under the impression that the repukes and their stooge ken blackwell stole that election...

Hmmm, I must have missed the memo that blamed Kucinich...

[understandinglife]

6. # 10. He tells the truth.

[LWolf]

7. 11. He's too principled.

He's not willing to sell out the country to increase his status with the power holders.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

8. He's a dirty rotten scoundrel -- you forgot that one...

...in fact, many people don't know it, but the movie "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" (1982, starring Steve Martin and Michael Caine) was based on the true life story of, that's right, none other than Cleveland Mayor, Dennis Kucinich.

Also, when Al Gore was inventing the internet, Kucinich laughed and made fun of Al telling him the whole project would never fly, thus shaking Al's confidence, slowing his progress, and thereby delaying delivery of our beloved internet to the people by about ten years.

Also, most people don't know it, but the Exxon Valdez only crashed and ran aground because it had to swerve out of the way of some crazy nut out windsurfing who wasn't watching out for anyone -- and who was that crazy windsurfer? You guessed it, Dennis Kucinich.

Definitely not electable.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

9. I'm Not Buying It! Vote for the Smart Dude!

;) 'Dennis voted NO: Patriot Act, Wiretap, War In Iraq, Corporate Welfare, Outsourcing Jobs, "Guest" Workers, Discrimination, and Tax Breaks for the rich and famous.

Dennis voted NO for all the other unconstitutional acts of GOPwarts in general that we have come to recognize as high crimes. On the record.

I'm not only voting for the smartest candidate, but the only one who would take the actual job of "President" seriously. The others would be too busy looking like actors to work for us.' Dennis even inspired someone to write the perfect song! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMiiOF6clrY Dennis is the only one with a really great Health plan http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x50012#50026 -Must turn the volume up for these videos

[Superman Returns]

10. How About...

#9
He takes the most ideological liberal position on almost every issue, making him obviously the best person for the Presidency, even though he is ranked as one of the worst mayors in American history, and remains a lowly congressman in a reliably liberal district.

The Republicans would chew him up and spit him out. Sorry.

[rjones2818]

11. Perhaps the powers in Cleveland at the time

decided to take the little man down, and thought he would back down. He didn't. Period. You may like going along with the banks and the consolidators, but Dennis didn't back down, and he won't as President.

Sorry that you want the status quo.

[mike_c]

12. retreaded republican talking points thoroughly repudiated by history....

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0123-04.htm

But even his critics came to admit that Kucinich was formidable. Knocked out of the political arena in 1979, he returned to Cleveland from his Western wanderings in 1983 and won a seat on the council.

"I don't think anyone, including me, thought this was a big comeback," he said. "I was only back to where I started. But I was reconnected."

Perhaps more important, Clevelanders were starting to believe Kucinich had been right about Muny Light, especially after members of a congressional staff concluded, in 1980, that the default had been politically motivated. History was about to be rewritten by the loser.

In 1993, then-Cleveland Mayor Michael White cited Kucinich's "wisdom" in not selling the utility, and in 1998 the council honored the deposed mayor for having the "courage and foresight" to stand up to the banks. The utility, now known as Cleveland Public Power, provides low-cost electricity that saved the city an estimated $195 million between 1985 and 1995. One of the new buildings in its expanded plant is named for Kucinich.

more@link

[DianaForRussFeingold]

15. K&R

I :patriot: You! "I live each day with a grateful heart and a desire to be of service to humanity," Dennis Kucinich :patriot: Thanks Dennis:loveya:

[DianaForRussFeingold]

13. That's bull! I'm not buying it!

:rofl: "The Republicans would chew him up and spit him out.Sorry" You mean like they did with Wellstone and others. Sorry,but that's what I'm worried about!!! He did the right thing and almost was assassinated and now his constituents are reaping the rewards of a lower energy bill each month. What stand did your candidate take? I have to vote my conscience! I'm voting for the only (person) who, I believe in! :patriot:

[Zodiak]

18. You are correct

A lot of us are tired of being on the same "lesser evil" treadmill in election after election with few electoral results from these strategies in many cases and no effective representation from the Democrats who DO win. Fear is what drives a strategy of extreme risk aversion, and I refuse to be paralyzed by fear of the pukes and compromise my base principles.

I am done with "pragmatic" strategists who have driven us off of a cliff over and over. "You don't understand how goverment works," I hear from them all of the time, but they are always wrong. So who the hell are they to tell me that I know nothing? The Democrats are earning my vote this year....my vote and millions of other fed up Democrats, and we are tired of excuses. If it looks like another capitulating wanna-be Republican...no sale.

And I never go back on my word. Call it a character flaw. The line is drawn. We wouldn't be this way if this last Congressional session didn't look like a giant exercise in polishing the boy king's crown, so they made their bed.

[slipslidingaway]

21. They are earning or not earning mine as well. n/t

[CTyankee]

28. OTOH, I am old enough to remember the great, liberal Democratic presidential candidates who went

down in flames: McGovern (a great liberal, genuine war hero and a true family man), Mondale (a great populist), Dukakis (a Massachusetts liberal, supporter of civil liberties, who could talk about the immigrant experience from his own family standpoint).

I could go back to Adlai Stevenson, but I won't. Needless to say, at the time he was the prototype American liberal.

Perhaps you are not old enough to remember living through those searing defeats. I confess that I am and I have the scars to prove it!

This is no defense of a lot of what you say the Dems have been doing. Although I am not supporting Kucinich, his voice is crucially needed to keep the dialog going. Altho I am offput by his earlier anti choice stand on abortion, I am willing to believe that he truly had a change of heart and mind.

That said, you have a good point, up to a point. I am still going to work for and vote for the Democrat in 2008. If we get mad and sit it out, we'll have a hard time with our conscience if we are then forced to endure another 4 or 8 years of a Republican administration.

[Zodiak]

39. Did they lose because they were liberal?

Or because they were up against big personalities (like Mondale vs. Reagan), or had endure unfair election practices with a not-so-exciting personality (like Dukkakis)?

I cannot answer for McGovern since I was not there at the time, but I would also argue that the country has changed quite a bit in my lifetime. Remember, every election you cite is 20 years old at least.

We went with moderates for the last two election cycles and suffered defeat, as well (mostly because they were toomoderate to fight election fraud). Should we never do a centrist campaign again as a result?



I know the consequences of the Democrats getting defeated in 2008...that is why it perplexes me so that they would pursue a legislative and electoral strategy that sheds supporters.

[CTyankee]

41. Greg Palast, a real iconoclast if ever there was one,

discussed the phenomenom of those millions of American voters who voted for GWB in 2004. He said we have to wonder why they did. I don't believe they were all fundies. And while I do believe there was some hacking of voting machines, we still have to wonder at all the votes he actually got. Why do Americans that we all know, work with, are related to, march off to the polls for GWB in 04, after Katrina and the collapse of the war, etc, etc?

Part of our problem, IMHO, is that Dems are too gun shy of the labeling, and swiftboating, and smearing, and CONTROL of so much media and acquiescense by MSM. My guess is that they have been looking at polls, both their own and others, and just rolled over. I don't think they saw what you call "a policy that sheds supporters." I think they were afraid of LOSING supporters if they took a strong stand. You and I and most all of DU notwithstanding, there are a lot of people out there who see things differently. Wrongly, IMO, but differently.

I also think that Bill Clinton at his worst was better than we ever could have with ANY of the Republicans in the race now for 08. I am willing to bet that we could get a fine president in John Edwards (I will reserve comment on Hillary and Obama). Edwards won't be what a lot of DU folks want, I realize. But I have high hopes for him.

[Zodiak]

47. They are shedding supporters at a rapid pace

right now, and the beginning of the loss of supporters coincided with their capitualition on the war and other issues. So if they are looking at their dropping numbers, it is impossible to conclude that America doesn't like Congress because they aren't moderate enough.

They haven't taken a strong stand and they lose supporters....what kind of idiot would conclude that their timidity is too tough? Oh yeah, idiots like Carville, Brazile, etc.

[CTyankee]

48. I hear you and I've seen Congress's poll numbers, lower than Bush's!

I'm just trying to look at the situation from their point of view and figure out why. Money is probably the reason, which is why we must have public financing. Right now, it doesn't look too good on breaking the logjam...

[Zodiak]

50. No it does not look like we will get public financing soon.

I have tried very hard to think of issues from their point of view, but their actions do not make sense to me. I cannot make assumptions based on facts we cannot know (they're being blackmailed!), but apparently all known facts would lead to the conclusion that they must stand up to the boy king.

It is tremendously disconcerting.

[CTyankee]

51. OK, what does it take to do this? Is it will?

I don't get why someone in the Congress doesn't stir it up. I think it may be because the people "know" something is wrong but don't know what it really is. I don't want to sound condescending here, but nobody can devote their lives to finding out what motivates their Congressional delegation. People are just too busy making a living. Crumbs of information are being fed to them by the media. And Republicans know this. We should know this too, but we don't know how to handle it. That may be our biggest question.

[Zodiak]

60. Could be, because ignorance is the biggest barrier we always face

How many times have we discussed the current state of the country with someone and it more felt like you had to give them a series of 40 lectures on who is in the government and what relationship the various departments, agencies, an branches have with each other.

For example today, we have a young lady who is working in my lab as a work-study (she is one of the best we've had, to boot). She is majoring in homeland security or some field like that (which I found very odd, but Ohio State is big)....she is basically trying to get into the FBI. She had to ask me why Alberto Gonzales had to leave the DOJ and had never heard of PNAC. What's more, she was convinced that we found weapons of mass destruction (1.88 tons of enriched uranium, gas, etc.) because she wrote a report on it from government sources..I checked on Google and the only references I culd find to her claims were Worldnetdaily and other such sources. She had never heard of PNAC and bought the "fight them over there so we don't do it here" argument. It was amazing to me that someone who was ostensibly Democrat would buy into all of this propaganda but even though she was studying this subject as her major she was missing all of the information necessary to even understand what she was studying to be or who she would be working for.

She was perfectly ignorant, yet well-trained to be right in the middle of things. A very scary situation. But she has learned to trust me fact-wise, so I am trying to give her a few teaching moments to arm her for her future.

I've eaten up your time. Thanks for the good convo, and sorry for the ramble.

[CTyankee]

62. Wow! Even for a young undergrad, that's pretty awful.

At the risk of sounding like a fuddy-duddy, I think this ignorance is caused by our not teaching Civics in school any more. I had Civics very early, perhaps in Jr.High, I really can't remember. But I knew there were 3 branches of government and what they were and I knew what the Bill of Rights was essentially. This was in a public school system in Dallas in the 1950s!

I've had similar experiences with younger people in the workforce who know their narrow area of expertise but cannot identify the Capitol building in Washington, D.C.! And once I drew a little picture for a coworker, rather crudely, with 3 separate branches and each one identified (a White House, a Capitol, and a Supreme Court building, all badly done!).

What can we do to get states' Dept. of Education to require Civics in every basic curriculum before kids get out of high school?

[Zodiak]

63. A good first step wuld be to have civics teachers teach civics

Because nowadays that job is usually given to the football or basketball coach.

Not that these people can't teach, but usually their knowledge of their subject probably does not extend much farther than their text book or the hand-outs in class.

[CTyankee]

64. Civics should be a sub head of history.

Surely history teachers can teach it!

[Zodiak]

17. I contend with your assertion that he picks the MOST liberal position

That's a tall order. Name a Kucinich proposed policy and I am absolutely certain I can come up with something more "liberal". I am sure that most other DUers can.

And the study you cite is entirely subjective. Here is another's argument about the low mayor rating accusation:

"Oh, and that mayor rating? Holli surveyed his 1600 "experts" in 1993, and the rankings are rather subjective. (Chicago Mator Richard Daley received a top 10 rating!). Dennis became Cleveland's Mayor in a tumultous time, elected because of a promise to keep corporations out of City business, and he honored his commitment, refusing to sell the electric company to bankers. In the short term, it threw Cleveland into financial throes. In retrospect, Kucinich has been lauded for his foresite and courage. In 1998 he was honored by the Cleveland City Council for saving the City an estimated 195 million dollars between 1985 and 1995."

(thanks to KC wherever you are for the concise refutation)

And there have been other Congressmen elected President, you know. Here's one:



Here's one more: Garfield.

In addition, a number of congressmen have won the nomination of one of the two major parties. Bryant comes to mind. Not to mention that about half of US presidents had been in the halls ofthe U.S. House of Representatives at some point in their career. Think Kennedy.

Besides, even if all of your points did not have such corrolaries, I still think that Kucinich is head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to being "right" about the issues. And this is about issues, is it not?

[treestar]

26. Letting the repukes decide how to frame all the issues

is that got this country where it is in the first place. Drifting ever rightward, failing to stand up for liberalism.

[YOY]

45. You forgot to call him an Anti-Semite

n/t

[democrat2thecore]

19. This McGovern Commercial from *1984!* Says It All

Everyone knows McGovern was the nominee in 1972. How many knew he ran again in 1984? There was even a book written about it - "Vote Your Conscience: The Last Campaign of George McGovern" .... Anyway, the big deal was that a vote for McGovern would be "throwing your vote away." McGovern ran this TV ad, which is nothing more than his response in a debate to that very question. This is the same position Kucinich is in and just substitute Dennis for George in this campaign ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxUccNGJfZY
Bottom line: Don't worry about throwing your vote away - don't throw away your conscience!

[slipslidingaway]

20. Wonderful! Thanks n/t

[burrowowl]

22. Add another reason not to vote for DK

The League of Conservation Voters gives him the highest rating, he is too damn Green!

[Recursion]

23. He wants to outlaw civilian ownership of handguns and semiautomatic rifles

Even if some people on this board agree with that position, let's not pretend that's a position that will win a US Presidential election.

[Cronopio]

40. Since most congressional Democrats don't support that, Kucinich is still a safe vote for them. nt

[ProudDad]

57. Nobody but a few fanatic

gun nuts really gives a shit...

The other 98% know that the Dems aren't "going to take away everyone's guns!" That's just a bullshit right-wing, NRA talking point.

It's a NON-ISSUE to the rational 98%

[calteacherguy]

24. Cute. nt

[Vidar]

25. Great post. Recommended.

[treestar]

27. Very good point McGovern had

It's hopeless to get repukes to agree with any liberal position, but reasonable to let the rightward Democratic candidates know that they shouldn't be so damn scared to take on a liberal position.

Repukes have won by paying attention to their base and maybe this would work for Democrats (who seem instead to take theirs for granted and to try to win over repuke voters, which they never can do)

[Ninga]

29. Lovely posts in support of Dennis. In a perfect world he could stand a chance.

And McGovern won what? He got elected to what?

Let's get real people. This election is the most important one of my life time and it's nothing to fool around with, so I want to read some good stuff from all of you Dennis supporters.

I don't want to know how YOU feel, or why YOU support Dennis, but WHY DO YOU THINK OTHERS WOULD?

I want to read some hard core debate about how Dennis would play if he were the presidential nominee to those who do not follow politics at all. You know, the people who vote, but don't read, don't watch the debates, who get to the polls without knowing who they are going to vote for. Millions and millions of people vote that way.

Those of us on DU represent less than 3% of the voting population.

DU'ers are a major minority in the voting public. So the question is: Why would the non engaged, non educated voter, vote for Dennis??

[Cronopio]

37. Yes, let's do get real.

"And McGovern won what?"

The verdict of history saying that his was the correct stand to take on Vietnam and not Nixon's. The verdict of history saying that, had the American public voted intelligently, the nation would have been spared the disgrace and disappointment of Watergate. The personal satisfaction and pride of knowing that he ran a clean race and that he didn't sell out to the corruption.

Either those things mean something to you or not, but the fact is that winning the Oval Office and winning your own self-respect and integrity are, more often than not, mutually exclusive choices.

"This election is the most important one of my life time ..."

No, that was 2000, when we could have headed off a lot of problems with Supreme Court nominations, climate change, fiscal policy, foreign policy, and everything else that the tactically expedient candidate - George W. Bush - screwed up over the last 7 years. 2008 is about damage control, and even if we get the right candidate in the Oval Office it's going to take a few more cycles to really get the reform going.

Having said that, you are never going to get serious reform with a candidate that lets you know at the outset that they are beholden to more powerful interests than you. All you're going to get is a candidate you're going to have to argue and fight with (and be ultimately ignored by) later on, along with a lot of disappointment. The problem is, when that happens, you won't have an argument. You freely CHOSE to vote for the lesser of two evils, and as Jerry Garcia aptly said, choosing for the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. The candidate knows that, the party knows that, and you know that - which is why the Democratic Party feels so safe right now in abandoning progressive, anti-corpofascist principles and choosing the short-term payoffs of evil themselves.

Edwards is a good candidate, but he hasn't taken the political hits that Kucinich has and then come back for the second, third, and fourth rounds. Candidates with that kind of perseverence and integrity are rare, and selling them out (along with the principles they stand for) in the name of political expediency is only selling *your own* interests out in the end.

"WHY DO YOU THINK OTHERS WOULD?"

WHY DO YOU THINK I SHOULD CARE? I have enough to deal with educating myself on the candidates and the issues - I have no time or interest in trying to figure out how to educate large numbers of other people who don't want to be educated. In the end, the rest of the electorate will either smarten up, do their homework, and vote in their best interests or screw up and vote the "safe", "electable" vote, just like they did in 1972.

Vote for Edwards or Kucinich, but don't vote for anyone just because you think everyone else likes them. Vote for them based on what they SAY and what they've DONE - nothing else. That's the only way the right candidates will ever become electable.

"Why would the non engaged, non educated voter, vote for Dennis??"

They wouldn't and won't. They will never vote for Edwards either, no matter how many good reasons you give them to do so. They will vote the way their immediate social group pressures them to vote, or who the media presents to them as the most popular candidate. They will assume that the candidate wouldn't get that much good press if there wasn't something good and effective about them. Most people, including progressives, operate that way at some level. It's a natural, and very often mistaken, social instinct.

Are you any better when you say that Kucinich could only be President in a perfect world, when your own political cynicism is a part of making the system less perfect and even more compromised?

How is your argument against Kucinich different from congressional Democrats saying that can't do their job because they "don't have the votes?"


"DU'ers are a major minority in the voting public."

So were the number of Floridians who voted for Nader in 2000. How easily people forget.

[slipslidingaway]

54. Excellent....!

"Having said that, you are never going to get serious reform with a candidate that lets you know at the outset that they are beholden to more powerful interests than you. All you're going to get is a candidate you're going to have to argue and fight with (and be ultimately ignored by) later on, along with a lot of disappointment. The problem is, when that happens, you won't have an argument. You freely CHOSE to vote for the lesser of two evils, and as Jerry Garcia aptly said, choosing for the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. The candidate knows that, the party knows that, and you know that - which is why the Democratic Party feels so safe right now in abandoning progressive, anti-corpofascist principles and choosing the short-term payoffs of evil themselves."

[ProudDad]

58. OK

Read this and tell me which positions you DON'T agree with:

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/

The two major ones that the majority of voters can be counted on to agree with being Get Out of Iraq NOW! and Universal Health Care for All...

[Autonomy]

31. You forgot the number one reason

that Dennis Kucinich is unelectable:

#1: Not enough people will vote for him.

[ProudDad]

59. I take it that's one vote for someone else? (n/t)

[hurricaneric]

32. My problems with Kucinich

I'm a liberal Democrat. Although Kucinich seems to be the champion of the liberals, at least on DU, I have one serious problem with him. His policies seem to be big pies in the sky. I remember when he was responding to a question in a debate about health care, he went off about giving everyone free healtcare ect ect. but frankly there was no substance to back it up, I had to cringe with embarassment. To be frank I haven't done much research into the man, but I believe he knows what side of an issue to be on, however, I think he would have a hard time leading on the issues. We need people like him in Congress, we need a more realist Democrat in the White House to balance the needs and demands of the country and move us forward. One of the problems with the Bush administration is it has led the country from a partisan, extremist point of view (Neocons!). We don't need another extremist point of view in the White House, even if it is closer to our own views.

[eleny]

34. "no substance to back it up"

Like your posting?

[mike_c]

35. pie in the sky?

Kucinich has a real bill before congress, H.R. 676, that outlines real health care reform. All of the other candidates talk about health care reforms, but Kucinich is the only one who has outlined exactly what he wants to do in the form of legislation. That makes it seem to me that his is the LEAST "pie in the sky" proposal-- the other candidates are all talk at this point. Kucinich has introduced genuine single-payer health care reform.

[CTyankee]

42. Introducing a bill in Congress is a start but that is all it will be unless

there is the energy and know how to actually get that much reform in a country that has been brainwashed for YEARS about health care systems. If DK or any other candidate could get the active involvement of those millions of Americans without health insurance to CHANGE the system, that would also be another start.

Personally, I think that since America's business is business, as someone famously said, it will be business in the country that will push us into a single payer system that will be paid for across the vast tax base, as it is in so many other countries. GM doesn't want to part with $1500 of the cost of each car it makes that goes to pay for workers health care. And I think that will make a big difference in the way we pay for our health care here.

[LWolf]

66. I guess you can choose to spin "substance" however you want,

at which point it becomes meaningless.

Substance on health care? HR 676 is more substance than any of the other 7 have offered, and it's already been introduced into Congress. The walk matches the talk.

I would like to cordially invite you to DO THE RESEARCH on Dennis Kucinich that you have not yet done. If you do, you'll see that he leads the pack by miles on virtually every issue, and has been doing so consistently for years.

[Apollo11]

33. It's great that Dennis is taking part in the debates

But I don't buy the theory that he can win the nomination - and certainly not the general election.

Maybe his looks/height are part of the reason. Especially when he stands next to Elizabeth.

But there are also important reasons to do with character and experience.

Not to mention his political views are kinda outside the mainstream.

At least that is how he is perceived - whether we like it or not.

[Cronopio]

38. "At least that is how he is perceived - whether we like it or not."

And not questioning mistaken perceptions are what gave us GWB in 2000, Reagan in 1980, and Nixon in 1968 and 72.

It will also pave the way for the next corpofascist President, if people let it. The precedent has been set. Whether we like it or not.

[mike_c]

43. herd behaviour is not the answer....

That's what got us into the situation we're in now, and repeating that behavior in 2008 will not get us out of it.

[CGowen]

44. not a CFR member? n/t

[Perry Logan]

46. And don't forget America's intense hunger for another Republican President.

[PBass]

52. What is Dennis Kucinich's position on national defense?

Is he a pacifist?

Did Kucinich say he would not respond to an attack on America with a military response, and that the world would condemn the aggression of the perpetrator instead?

I'm disgusted by Bush's pre-emptive war policy, but not responding wih military force when attacked seems ludicrous. There has to be a sensible middle ground, I would think.

Please help me understand what the Kucinich postion is... I may be mischaracterizing his stance.

[slipslidingaway]

53. Dennis on National Security

"Did Kucinich say he would not respond to an attack on America with a military response, and that the world would condemn the aggression of the perpetrator instead?"


The world did condemn the attack on 9/11 and Iran cooperated with us in Afghanistan. When it became clear we had bigger intentions many people and their leaders were no longer willing to help. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and Dennis knew that, why would we invade their country? He believes in responding appropriately, not bombing 100 people in hopes of killing one person. That will only generate hatred, create more terrorists and make our nation less safe in the long run.

Vote for the smart dude!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMiiOF6clrY


"The Kucinich approach to national security is anti-militarist, not anti-military."

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/resources/dennis-on-national-security/


"The current administration's national security doctrine, with its reliance on preventive war as a standard instrument of policy, is making the world more dangerous. We must reject this approach, and develop and communicate to the American people our own vision of national security. National security policy must contribute to broader foreign policy objectives, and complement our domestic priorities.


Since the 1970s, the Democratic Party, especially its progressive wing, has been put on the rhetorical and political defensive on national security issues. Conservatives have sought to portray their opponents as weak on defense, and have denigrated legitimate differences of opinion as naiveté or disloyalty.


The attacks of September 11 and the consequent "War on Terror" have allowed the Bush administration to frame the national security debate as it sees fit. The attack on Iraq was portrayed as a part of this war, despite a lack of any credible evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. At the same time, budgets for defense programs across the board have been greatly increased, with no reference to, or debate regarding, their relevance to the war against those who attacked us. The perception of an ongoing emergency has made many Democrats hesitant to take on the administration, in an area that effectively has been surrendered to the Republicans.


The current administration clearly believes that international terrorism can be defeated solely through military, law enforcement, and intelligence actions, without addressing the underlying foreign policy issues that, while in no way justifying the attacks on us, certainly contribute to explaining them. This is a prescription for war without end, for exacerbating anti-Americanism and winning more recruits to al Qaeda, and for continuing to alienate our friends and allies worldwide. The reluctance of Congress and the public to criticize the President during wartime (which, given the nature of terrorism, could be defined by the White House as lasting indefinitely) also facilitates the accomplishment of this administration's domestic agenda, including the erosion of civil liberties and economic policies blatantly favoring the wealthiest among us.


My vision of national security ties together not only military but diplomatic, economic, and human rights polices, and views the use of military force as a last resort. Building the link between domestic and defense issues, I believe that this country is more secure when the largest possible number of its citizens have a stake in its success, when decent education, healthcare, and housing contribute to productive lives for everyone.


The U.S. military is the strongest in the world, by far, and will remain so. We need to recognize the accomplishments of, and hardships experienced by, our men and women in uniform. My position on pay and benefits, for both active duty military and retired veterans, reflects this recognition. The Kucinich approach to national security is anti-militarist, not anti-military.


National security must be defined in terms much broader than size of the defense budget, or number of carrier battle groups, fighter aircraft, or infantry divisions. Unfortunately, the response of many Democrats has been to paint their canvas in a Republican frame, to accept the need for vastly higher budgets and assertive use of military force, with minor fine-tuning. It is time to redefine the argument, to convey to the public that effective multilateral institutions, appropriate economic aid, principled foreign policy, and support for arms control regimes buy us more real security than launching preventive attacks or further increasing the Pentagon budget."


More here
http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/strength-through-peace/

[ProudDad]

55. Kick

Too late to recommend.

Good Work!!!!


Add to #8) His stand on the issues is congruent with that of the majority of USAmericans...

[Greyhound]

61. Can't believe I missed this, well here's a kick anyway.

Bravo!
:kick:

[question everything]

65. 8 is serious enough

At a recent debate I was thinking that he should not be standing next to Obama.

Ever since Nixon's famous "five o'clock shadow" and Dukakis tank ride we've realized how appearances matter. Can you imagine him in a debate next to, say Fred Thompson?