Why I'm wary of Dennis Kucinich.

[cali]

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of Kucinich's ideas very, very much. I'm with him on single payer healthcare, on impeachment and on a swift withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Here's my problem: I know that neither house in the Congress is calibrated to accomodate sweeping ideas in the form of legislation from its members. It can be done, but it's painful, painstaking and time consuming. Kucinich knows this too, but he's never been able to let go of the sweeping ideas long enough to work on important but far more incremental and less glamorous legislation. And yes, there are members of Congress who do that kind of grunt work.

It's true the White House is a better platform to launch the type of things that Kucinich advocates, but it still takes building coalitions and lobbying individuals to accomplish it.

Kucinich can say he's going to introduce a privileged resolution for impeachment, but he knows he can't. People get all excited about it, without realizing that. He can say that he'll hold 9/11 hearings, cancel them, and yet his supporters won't be disappointed or say boo about it. He can say he'll introduce legislation to prohibit American oil companies from operating in Iraq, but this is much like the impeachment thing- without the months and months of grunt work and coalition building, it stands zero chance of being seriously considered.

So you're left with two possibilities: He's cynically using these ideas that he knows appeals to his base and potential supporters, or he's trying to push these ideas into the public domain.

I suspect it's both. But it's not about effective legislating.

Flame away, but it would be nice to see some substantive responses from both his supporters and detractors.

[fenriswolf]

1. well by pushing do you mean

putting bills on the floor the american public would like to see passed but know that no way in hell our representatives will allow it to then yes I agree.

[cali]

6. Well, I don't know that the American public is as unified on what

they want as you seem to feel they are. I'm sort of comparing Kucinich's history in the Senate with Sanders, who is a very effective legislator but has far fewer sweeping ideas- at least as far as legislation goes. During Bernie's time in the House when it was under repuke control, he got more amendments passed than any other legislator. Some later got cut in conference. Others made it into legislation. Kucinich has never gotten much substantive legislation passed.

[sassykathy46]

67. We can't afford a universal 'for profit system' AND

the American people are very ready for health care reform - even "radical" health care reform. Get into a crowd as I have done recently on a commuter train or in line at a movie theater and ask the people around you if they've had any problems with the co-pays & exclusions on their insurance policies. (hint: step back) Here in Portland Oregon on our tram line I had everyone around me chiming in with angry, worried or frustrated remarks. Our politicians are NOT going to lead on this because many are owned by Big Pharma or HMOs. The man who is leading on this issue just happens to be the man who has also demonstrated good judgement when it counted the most!! He voted against the war and The Patriot Act. Many other Democrats allowed idiot boy bush to lead them around like sheep; that includes HILLARY and EDWARDS. For goodness sake - reward the one man who showed enough brains and independence to research the issue for himself.

[cuke]

2. DK voted against SCHIP

IMO, that takes "pushing ideas into the public domain" a little too far.

[Clintonista2]

3. I agree. He voted against childrens health care to make a cheap political point

[cali]

8. I would say that he did it out of conviction

but that letting the perfect be the enemy of the good doesn't work too well, and he has said he'll vote to override the veto.

[Clintonista2]

14. Here's what I see as Dennis' biggest problem

He has all these great, wonderful ideas. I like his ideas, I really do. However, he has no way of putting these ideas into action, and he is completely unwilling to compromise on anything. Believe it or not, Bush's veto power + 49 Republican senate seats is greater than 51 Democratic seats.

[sassykathy46]

68. He has ideas and he isn't willing to follow like a sheep?!

Thank the good goddess he doesn't! He wasn't willing to follow when he voted against the war and The Patriot Act when other Democratic sheep like Hillary and Edwards did. I want a man - the opposite of idiot boy Bush - a man with a brain who can think for himself. He is the ONLY candidate with a plan to convert our war based economy to a peace time economy!!! (Have most of you thought what would happen to unemployment figures if the defense industry were to shut down as the troops began to return home?!) Kucinich has a plan because he seems to be the smartest of the entire lot and his brain is occassionally
graced with an IDEA. Even if the economy does take a dip - at least we may have a chance of passing on the legacy of America's democracy & freedom to our children. As our jobs continue to be outsourced and our labor standards depressed we'd better be choosing the man with some vision.

[Clintonista2]

69. Ideas don't mean anything if you don't have a plan to implement them

America doesn't need a dreamer. It needs someone who can put ideas into action, and that is one trait Kucinich does not have.

[Desertrose]

87. Peacetime economy...you got it sassykathy!

and welcome to DU :hi:

DR

[Yukari Yakumo]

82. He did it because he has zero concept of compromise.

He sees everything in terms of black and white. That alone is a recipe for disaster at any level of government.

[cuke]

9. "Grandstanding" can be more than a "cheap political point"

It can bring attention to a subject that needs the attention. Though I don't criticize DK's desire to spread a message, in this case it was unneeded and unwise

[rjones2818]

13. Would we have known that legal immigrant kids

had been 'compromised' out of the bill if Dennis hadn't voted against it? Probably not, and I would like to think that most Dems would have prefer to have them covered.

It's interesting to think that coverage of legal immigrant kids is considered a 'cheap political poiint.'

I'm glad Dennis brought them being 'compromised' out of the bill out in the light. It tells me a great deal about what our Dems in Congress, and other compromisers, are about!

Go Dennis! :woohoo:
http://dennis4president.com
Choose Peace!

[Clintonista2]

15. What do we have now?

Nothing. It really comes down to, do you believe that something is greater than nothing?

[rjones2818]

27. We have knowledge!

We know that the legal immigrant kids were 'compromised' out. We probably wouldn't have had that knowledge otherwise (yes, it still would have been there, but who would have taken the time to notice). We also have the chance to override the veto, which is good. I think that Dennis knew that the bill would pass and thought that pointing out the 'compromising' out of the legal immigrant kids was wrong. I agree with what he did, and I agree that he should vote for the override and work on getting legal immigrant kids added if the bill becomes law.

Go Dennis! :woohoo:
http://dennis4president.com
Choose Peace!

[Desertrose]

88. and we have nothing because BUSH vetoed the bill.

It wasn't DK's vote that killed it. Please remember that part.

His vote brought attention to the part about the legal immigrant children not being covered.

[radiclib]

17. Who would know

..that the SCHIP bill excluded immigrant children if DK hadn't voted against it? Is that a "cheap political point"?

[Clintonista2]

19. And who woulda thought

That now ALL children are excluded.

[cuke]

20. I would have known

and I also know that now, partially thanks to DK, there's a possibility NO CHILD gets SCHIP.

[radiclib]

23. Do you seriously think that DK cast the vote that killed this bill?

I'm sure he would have voted for it if he thought it would pass.

Oh btw Welcome to DU :hi:

[cuke]

28. Whch part of "partially responsible" do you not understand?

I don't blame DK. I just hold him responsible for his actions

[radiclib]

56. Oh, I see

By your reasoning, since I live in Massachusetts and knew I could safely vote for Nader in 2000, I'm "partially responsible" for electing Shit-for-Brains. Is that it?

[cuke]

64. Yes, that is it

.

[Clintonista2]

31. That's not something you should bring up

Otherwise, we should stop blaming Hillary for her IWR vote, since it would have passed even if she had voted against it.

[radiclib]

57. That's totally different

Voting for something to be on the winning side is NOT the same as voting against something that's obviously going to win. In fact, it's the complete opposite.

[Desertrose]

89. On the one hand,Dennis has no power...and then on the other.....

Some here complain HE killed the bill- even after Bush did exactly what he said he'd do...he VETOED it.

[cali]

24. That's ridiculous. Dennis is committed to voting to overturn

the veto. And his vote made ZERO difference initially. Five other dems voted against it, but even if they'd all voted for it, they needed more republican votes. Your placing the blame for that on Dennis speaks more to your animosity than anything else.

[cuke]

30. I said "partially responsible"

Please don't put words in my mouth. He *is* responsible for his vote. I didn't say it was his fault alone.

[rjones2818]

93. That's funny....

Bwahahahahahah....

Dennis' vote made NO difference as to whether W vetoed the bill or not. The bill passed without Dennis' vote. W was going to veto it anyway. Now we have Dennis' vote on the override, plus we know that the Dem Leadership was willing to 'compromise' out legal immigrant kids. We need something like 12 votes to override (at least two others have said they'll change their votes to yea).

Also, there apparently has been an extension of the current SCHIP that's passed.

[DS1]

33. by that definition, all political poinst are cheap

[Whisp]

45. I think some children were excluded from that

and that is why his was a nay vote.
I'm sure there are peeps here that know more about that than I and can provide backup. I'm not a linker. just a thinker.

[pnwmom]

4. I know he had reasons for it, but I also think that vote was a mistake.

Welcome to DU, cuke!

[cuke]

5. Thank you

Yes, he had his reasons. They just weren't good enough for me. Health care is my #1 issue this election.

[pnwmom]

10. It's a very important issue to me, too. n/t

[Clintonista2]

12. His vote reminded me of something that happened here in Canada

We have one party that favours full withdrawl of our troops from afghanistan right now (NDP), another that favours withdrawl by 2009 (Liberals), and another that favours no withdrawl (conservatives). There was a vote in parliament that would have gauranteed full withdrawl by 2009, but the NDP voted against it because they want withdrawl NOW. Thanks to the NDP vote, the bill failed, and we're now looking at staying in afghanistan until well after 2009. Dennis, like the NDP, decided that if he couldnt get it all, he was going to settle for nothing. That doesn't hurt Dennis too much, but it hurts the children who have no health insurance.

[aquart]

7. I believe he's a genuine hero.

He hasn't a prayer of winning. Because of the reasons you gave. He is staying in because someone has to take the uncompromising moral position, the outside edge of the debate. As long as he's there, as long as he has steady support, the discourse has to move more to his position rather than the more rightwing let's-appeal-to-what-the-Republicans-say-the-voters-want.

He's keeping us Democrats and I thank him for it. And everyone who agrees with him MUST vote for him in the primaries to KEEP the debate where it needs to be.

[cali]

11. That's why I'll be voting for him in my primary.

Because it's important to show the politicians that we like his ideas.

[aquart]

21. Good!

[CTyankee]

43. Well, no way in hell I will vote for him for anything after I read the recent post about his

anti choice stands just 3 months before his "conversion" prior to his entering the Dem primary!

Now this information about his vote on S-CHIP! It's too much for me!

I never really liked his hectoring ways and now I have a creepy feeling about him. I see him as a kind of Savonarola with his flour white face and starkly black hair, and can almost envision him in a monk's hood, burning Botticelli's paintings. Not my kind of liberal...

Go ahead and vote for him, Cali; it's your vote. I can never look at this man in the same way. As far as I'm concerned, he should be out of the Dem primary debates. Let him start his own party.

[slipslidingaway]

46. Many people have truly evolved on this issue when they

realize it is also about the rights of women. I am not happy with the past votes on these issues, but I'm willing to look past them considering his position on a number of other topics.


Another idea for a poll???

Would you support a candidate who delegates their responsibility on sending our nation to war, especially those who did not read all available intelligence?


Senator Byrd on 10/10/02

"The language of this resolution has been touted as a bipartisan compromise that addresses the concerns of both the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress. But the only thing that I see being compromised in this resolution is this Constitution of the United States, which I hold in my hand, and the power that Constitution gives to Congress to declare war. This resolution we are considering is a dangerous step toward a government in which one man at the other end of this avenue holds in his hand the power to use the world's most powerful military force in whatever manner he chooses, whenever he chooses, wherever he chooses, and wherever he perceives a threat against national security...


In the proposed use-of-force resolution, the White House lawyers claim ``the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States.''

It says no such thing. I dare them to go to the Constitution and point out where that Constitution says what they say it said. They cannot do it. I know the job of any good lawyer--I have never been a practicing lawyer, but I know the job of a good lawyer is to craft legal interpretations that are most beneficial to the client. But for the life of me, I cannot find any basis for such a broad, expansive interpretation in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Find it. Show it to me. You can't do it.

Where in the Constitution is it written that the title of Commander in Chief carries with it the power to decide unilaterally whether to commit the resources of the United States to war? Show it to me, lawyers, lawyers of the White House, or lawyers in this body. Show it.

There is a dangerous agenda, believe me, underlying these broad claims by this White House. The President is hoping to secure power under the Constitution that no President has ever claimed before. Never. He wants the power--the Bush administration wants that President to have power to launch this Nation into war without provocation and without clear evidence of an imminent attack on the United States. And we are going to be foolish enough to give it to him."


originally posted here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3602153&mesg_id=3606457

[CTyankee]

54. We are not arguing the Iraq War Resolution vote. I will grant you that.

But it seems that DK supporters ALWAYS default to that vote whenever challenged on his other stances and votes. I am currently undecided in my primary choice, so please don't accuse me of cheerleading for her.

I knew DK was originally anti choice. Well, ok, so was Al Gore once (a long time ago). However, when I read about the breadth of Dk's votes (stem cell, partial birth without exception for the health of the woman, etc), and then hear how recently he recanted those views, I realized it was impossible for him to "evolve" as you say in such a short amount of time, 3 months!). I am a humanist and this is NOT humanist thinking. This is zealotry.

[slipslidingaway]

60. Please note that the IWR was in response to the original poll and

maybe it should be it's own poll...another day.

Again I'm not comfortable with all these votes and have not looked at the wording in the bills because I feel that his current position best reflects my own. When he first stated his change of position, not sure about the 3 months, and when he first began to change his position are most likely two different periods in time.

Issues such as this are not something one changes overnight IMO. We know that life begins before birth and it can be an extremely hard balancing act when deciding the fate of both lives. I really believe that he cares about all life. And yes that can be seen by his careful consideration of the IWR before sending troops into die, his hearing on civilian casualties in Iraq, his visit to Lebanon and Israel after the bombing and his mention of all the displaced citizens of Iraq. If you care to look back you will find a statement from him in March 2003 right after the bombing campaign began in Iraq where he speaks of all the innocent people being killed. Most others were cheering on the Bush administration for their shock and awe campaign, he thought of the people on the ground.


Here's a short video on the abortion issue, worth the 2+ minutes IMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiVKtwS-UvM

[CTyankee]

80. Well, I would question whether ANY life, such as a zygote, has equal standing with a woman's life.

And I disagree that we are just talking about "life." A sperm is living, as is an egg. So we are really talking about what constitutes a human being. The best the SC could do was to measure this by degree of maturity of the fetal life in question. There are other social issues, of course, such as the fact that if abortion is outlawed, it will not go away. It will only harm and kill women, an undesirable (to say the least) outcome but one which the right to lifers seem to ignore.

Thank you for the video. Unfortunately, I have a crappy, rebuilt computer and I can't play it. I hope to get a new computer soon...

[slipslidingaway]

98. Did you look at the votes and bills or rely solely on the

information posted in this thread which, on further inspection, may be suspect? The author of the OP never posted any links for reference :(


Voted for a ban on dilation and extraction (so-called partial-birth) abortions without a maternal health exception.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3602153


For example and the issue currently under discussion...

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Abortion.htm#Voting_Record

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.
The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk.


And on the S-CHIP vote

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27692

"I'm going to give you an example of something that occurred a couple of weeks ago. We had the bill on children's health care that we passed out of the House and it covered all children, including the children of legal immigrants: about 600,000 children. But because of some Republicans in the Senate, who said, "Look, we're not dealing with any immigrants," it doesn't even matter if they're legal at this point, the Democrats wouldn't fight to keep it in the Bill. They took it out. So they brought the bill back to the House, without 600,000 children of immigrants who are legal..."


You're welcome for the video link and hopefully your new computer will not be too far away.

[CTyankee]

100. What I don't understand is his proclaimed 100% NARAL rating, but

votes clearly in contrast to NARAL's position, PB abortion and taking minors over state lines for an abortion. Your second link is quite confusing to me. Also, I do understand his position on S Chip and that is all well and good until you have a family member, a kid who needs health care but whose parents have a smidgen more income than "allowable."

I am going to personally have a conversation with someone at NARAL. I have worked in the prochoice community for my entire adult life and have many contacts. I will satisfy myself and let everyone know what I find out.

[PresidentObama]

16. I ditto the OP. n/t

[seemslikeadream]

18. boy I must be psychic

How did I know you started this thread without looking at the author's name?

[cali]

22. Care to tell me why you disagree, and what's

untrue in my OP? How is this a hit piece or a bash at Kucinich? How is it even disrespectful of him. And btw, in the coming days, you'll get to see a whole "Why I'm wary of..." series.

If you've got anything intelligent to say, by all means, say it. This remark hardly qualifies as that.

Somehow I doubt you'll respond. I suspect you'd rather scurry off to do some net gossiping.

[Ricki]

25. Dennis Rocks

I think he is in the race to move the dialog forward, and that he is a principled man.

[seemslikeadream]

26. I'm kinda partical to that quote of Pelosi's "If they were poor

If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested


"Look," she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. "I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things -- Buddhas? I don't know what they were -- couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk."

Unsmilingly, she continued: "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."

....

Though crediting activists for their "passion," Pelosi called it "a waste of time" for them to target Democrats. "They are advocates," she said. "We are leaders."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

[rjones2818]

29. Bingo!

It appears the leadership are the ones who are trying to score cheap political points.

[cali]

32. You are so cute.

Pelosi's statement was offensive as hell to me. So? That's what's known as a non sequiter.

[seemslikeadream]

34. Dennis would have NEVER said that

and he would have been more respectful to the protesters but then again they wouldn't be protesting in front of his home

[cali]

36. No shit sherlock.

And of course there's nothing disrespectful about him in my OP. Did I compare him to Pelosi? No. Did I say he's a cheap politician? No. And yet you take great umbrage at it. I can only conclude that you dislike any analysis or criticism of Kucinich.

[LoZoccolo]

83. Lame. n/t

[JeffR]

35. Strong Kucinich supporter here, cali, but you raise fair questions

I don't see much from Dennis that smacks of cynicism, IMHO, but he's calculating enough to try to maximize the impact of his positions, which means he's more pragmatic than some of his detractors would insist.

His great service last time around was similar to Sharpton's, and this time around similar to Gravel's: to act as a provocateur, injecting some real debate and serious discussion into a primary process that's pretty much scripted tapioca. For that alone, I'm grateful to him. That's not to draw equivalence between Dennis and the two just mentioned - I think he's smarter and usually more on-point than either Sharpton or Gravel.

He'll have my primary vote unless Gore gets into things, but I think at the end of the day, Dennis can probably do his most important work right where he is, in much the same way that Senator Kennedy has done his in the Senate since abandoning the idea that he should be in the White House.

Sorry if that's incoherent...!

[cali]

38. Not at all incoherent and I largely

agree. I don't think comparing him to either Sharpton or Gravel is right on. He's far more substantive than Sharpton and far all over the map than Gravel. His service- and it's a valuble one- is cutting through the bullshit, providing alternatives and pushing the candidates to the left.

[left is right]

40. pushing the candidates to the left.

a very needed influence. but, is he pushing them to the left or dragging them to the left? Which is the more effective action?

[NoPasaran]

81. I would welcome any evidence that DK is moving any candidates to the left

Whether by pushing, dragging, or hypnotizing with shiny objects. Hillary and Obama's positions are virtually identical to one another as far as I can tell; Edwards has staked out some territory a little to their left but I think that's his own strategy, not a result of anything Kucinich has done. And Edwards doesn't seem to be getting much traction out of it anyway.

[Yukari Yakumo]

84. LOL

If he were having an effect on the candidates, wouldn't his poll numbers be higher than 1%?

[seemslikeadream]

37. Kucinich Will Introduce Legislation To Ban U.S. Oil Companies From Iraq

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2038820&mesg_id=2038820

[cali]

39. That's in the OP.

and as I explained, without putting in the painstaking and time consuming work that it takes to build coalitions and muster support, at best, it's simply getting a good message out there, and hopefully drawing attention to a huge problem.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

41. Why I'm not wary of Dennis Kucinich

Because, though I agree to some degree with everything in your post, the viewpoint he represents will always find a champion and it is so easy to immagine a more destructive champion than Kucinich. He is self-marginalizing.

[ncabot22]

42. I take the less cynical approach

I truly believe he wants to impeach because he knows this administration has commited crimes.

I also think that change can be painful. The reforms and changes he wants to introduce are great changes: universal health care, et al. Most Americans want these changes. If he's elected, Congress will realize Americans want these things and vote accordingly.

[Whisp]

44. oh, yah! you Really Really like him! I can tell....

you keep telling me. but somehow I find that hard to believe. wonder why.

[cali]

47. Because you're

incapable of anything but blind hero worship or vituperative hate?

That's my guess. Or you're just remarkably unable to grasp that one can like someone's ideas, but not think they're a terribly effective candidate.

I'm guessing the former.

[Whisp]

49. and why isn't he a 'terribily effective candidate'?

because he isn't owned by corporate dollars, like much of the rest in the potato sack race are. that's My guess.
If he got half the attention on the massive murder media, he would get much more effective. and that isn't a guess.

[cali]

50. He's not a terribly effective candidate

because he's not run a very good campaign. He has no presence in Iowa and not enough of one in NH. And those states are tailor made for someone like Dennis with their emphasis on retail politics. I don't know who's running his campaign but they're not doing him any favors.

[Whisp]

52. to me his stand on issues Are the campaign.

he is the only one (IMO) who reflects what i hope most americans really feel and if they don't , they bloody well should. but it's almost impossible to go against the war tag team machine - they have vays. so I can't really take his ineffectness as a slight against him, more so a concerted effort not to have his ideas become 'too popular'.

[cali]

53. that's sad. you're giving up to much power.

think back to Howard Dean. He was LESS well known than Dennis when he started. Sorry, Dennis needs a really good, innovative campaign staff and he should have done the retail politics thing, if he was serious about a chance at the nom.

[Whisp]

55. so you believe him essentially being shut out

from the public dialogue is His Ineffectiveness?
you believe there really is a chance for a voice from the wilderness to survive and be heard in this warmongering dishonest political climate?

I'm not sure where you are coming from (maybe), but you don't have to worry about Mr. K. He is not going to threaten the establishment. He can't. The rules are set. Be happy.

[cali]

58. No. I think it's true in PART that he's been shut out and true in

PART that he hasn't taken advantage of what opportunities there are. Are you aware that he cancelled, at the last moment, a chance to debate in Iowa? How is that effective?

[Whisp]

59. maybe he had the flu. hell if I know.

but you sure seem to.

[cali]

61. What's with your paranoia?

It's rather striking.

[Whisp]

62. how is it paranoid of me not to know why Mr. K was a no show?

you seem to think it was a feet of clay, I just wonder if it was something else. that's all.

[Desertrose]

90. Maybe its time to let go of the "retail politics thing"

How sad is it that ya gotta have the big wasted money bullshit campaign to be *serious*?

Media spewing, soundbyte spinning campaign....so anything less is "ineffective"?

Interesting......

[cali]

101. That ddn't make a whole lot of sense

Speaking in complete sentences might help you make an effective point. Retail politics, in case you don't get it, is the opposite of big money politics.

[zulchzulu]

48. Kucinich has great supporters and his message's legacy will be interesting to see historically

If you don't support Kucinich, then don't.

Tell us who you support and why.

[cali]

51. Yes, his message's legacy will be interesting

to see. And I'm actually voting for him in my late and meaningless primary to give (hopefully) a higher profile to his ideas. I know about 25-30 people in my small community who are doing the same thing. And once more, this wasn't a slam at Dennis.

[madrchsod]

63. i`ll probably vote for dennis

and yes he has no chance in hell to get elected. if he can get enough votes to show the candidate that they cannot marginalize the "dennis wing" of the party, then he has accomplished much. who knows, maybe we won`t be.

hey i can dream can`t i?

[SergeyDovlatov]

65. As a commander in chief he can bring the troops home ASAP.

Saving thousands of american lives and billions of dollars is wonderful. Even if it is the only thing he will accomplish.
I also think that he will appoint liberal justices to replace Stevens and whoever else is leaving and will not veto SCHIP expansion.

[defendandprotect]

66. Yeah . . . Kucinich would only have the public behind him -- and all corporations against him -- !!!

What's new?

[cyclezealot]

70. Often reforms make matters worse.

I am not supportive of Hillary's plans engratiating the Demos with lousy health care ideas a sop to insurnce companies from whom she benefits. Bandaids are no improvment. It might make matters worse. Wait for the real thing. It's worth it. Let our present health care system, it's the only way we will get something that works and makes life better for the American people. Often in America, it seems the only way we get true reform is if our problems reach crisis proportions. Otherwise , deadlock prohibits us from getting what we deserve.
As to impeachment. Someone has to speak to what is right over what is expedient. You ever met Dennis Kucincih , you know he speaks from the heart. That's why he would not sell out as mayor to the electric consortiums. A brave man.

[Telly Savalas]

72. And for people who have to sell their homes to pay for medical bills

while we wait for the perfect solution...well, fuck 'em.

[cyclezealot]

78. dont be so sure baby step solutions

will make the situation any better. As long as insurnce companies are in control , we will be screwed one way or another. they are not gonna stand for any degree of regulation. They are much too powerful.

[Desertrose]

91. Exactly...with the insurance companies in control...NOTHING will change

We are already screwed. I have NO insurance. I can't afford to get sick.

I think its got to be a BIG change....

[LWolf]

71. Why I am NOT wary of Dennis Kucinich:

We all know he has the best platform. We all know, ad nauseum, your disagreements with him, because you post them quite regularly.

The reason I am NOT "wary" of Dennis Kucinich stands alone, outside of all of the above.

No corporate/dlc influence, no agenda beyond serving the people. While all people, and therefore politicians, are corruptible to some extent:

he is the least corruptible of the bunch, and has a record of consistently walking his talk. That sets him well apart, and above, the rest.

[cyclezealot]

79. give Dennis Kucinich the national bully pulpit

He'd shame them into action. Those who question his leadership ability have not heard Dennis Kucinich speak unfiltered by the Likes of MSNBC. they'd have so much of a guilt trip, even K street would be all in a fluster. You have not studied how he handled MUNY electric buyout by special interests. Give DK a bone and when it comes to the bully pulpit, he is like a bull dog.

[cali]

86. If that's so, why hasn't he had more success in the House?

He hasn't and not just with run of mill reps, but with progressives.

[spanone]

73. sweeping ideas sounds like the clarion call congress needs...status quo does not work

[cali]

74. Sure. But the ability to

enact sweeping ideas is as important as the ideas themselves.

[Totally Committed]

75. "Flame away..."

Aren't you admitting, with this one phrase, you see your OP as a means to setting off a "flame war"? That would make it "flamebait", and usually threads get closed for that.

I hope the moderators take note.

TC

[Major Hogwash]

76. Wow, great picture you have there. Trying to tell us something?

Like, there's a "conspiracy" going on, eh?

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush

[cali]

77. No, TC, I'm not admitting anything of the kind. Let me explain it

very simply for you: I realize that any criticism of a candidate will bring out the supporters of that candidate and that some of them will get angry and throw out accusations. Just as you're doing here.

This is not flamebait. It's thoughtful, respectful and fact based criticism.

That you can't see the difference between real flamebait and what I wrote, speaks volumes.

[Desertrose]

94. Actually..the OP is clearly skewed against Kucinich

....even though you try to make us think you support him, some of us here can see through your spin.

Criticism - sure, respectful- not necessarily.

You said-"criticism of a candidate will bring out the supporters of that candidate and that some of them will get angry"

Flamebait?? .....well, here's the definition:

On the Internet, flamebait is a "posting" or note on a Web site discussion forum, an online bulletin board, a Usenet newsgroup, or other public forum that is intended to elicit the extremely strong responses characteristic of flaming and active public discussions. To be effective, flamebait should be a bit subtle (but not too subtle) so that potential flamers will "take the bait."
source

:shrug:
DR

[cali]

95. If you think it's flambait

alert. Not that I particularly care what people like you who post utterly vile stuff, at other sites, have to say. I know exactly the kind of ugly stuff you and your pals post when you're all cozy.

[Desertrose]

96. Aha... so that's it.

....."people like me"......"vile things at another site"......"ugly stuff you and your pals post when you're all cozy".


Well, sorry you feel this way, but as I've said before, when I see bullshit, I call bullshit.



"I realize that with any criticism some will get angry and throw out accusations."


Yes, I've noticed that myself.
:)

[cali]

99. hey, you want to post on a

site and spew at a DUer whose wife is dying, with a bunch of other ghouls, why not take credit for it?

As for the spews about me, it's no skin off my back, but it's still ugly crap. And certainly not something I'd engage in.

Oh, and I call bullshit when I see it, and I see it from your crew on a routine basis.

[LoZoccolo]

85. Lame. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

92. Hey TC! Nice to see you but a word of advice.

Some threads are best to be ignored. It's hard for me also, but it ain't worth it. :shrug:

Have a good one buddy. :-) :hi:

[mtnsnake]

97. I'm a little wary of anyone BUT Dennis Kucinich

If he could ever get elected by some miracle to the highest office in this land, it would be the best thing that could possibly happen in the cause of humanity and future well-being of this planet.

[Totally Committed]

102. You are "wary" of Kucinich (he's a cynical opportunist)...

You are "wary" of Edwards (he's a cynical hypocrite).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3610607

I see a new meme forming...

TC

[cali]

103. My, my.

you are getting upset. I won't even ask what "meme" you see.

I actually didn't call either a hypocrite, but in any case, I'm generally of the belief that we are all hypocrites to some degree or another, and that certainly includes politicians.

Do you know who E.M. Forester was, or do you scorn all dead white men on principle? He wasn't only one of the best novelists of the early 20th century, he was a prescient and astute social commentator. He said:

"Only hypocrites can't forgive hypocricy"

Try reading his book "Two Cheers for Democracy". It's possible you'll learn something.