Dennis Kucinich is a pretty cool guy. He passed health caer and doesn't afraid of anything.

[LoZoccolo]

Believe it or not, I'm not too strongly against people advocating progressive positions, even though I'm rather centrist. We have some pretty smart Democrats who will moderate untenable or unfeasable positions, if those two words even mean different things from each other. Mainly my contention with people is over strategic issues and how to get what you want, or more of what you want, rather than less, or getting the popular consensus necessary to get something done rather than insisting on an ultimatum and epic fail. I think that you shouldn't diss Kucinich even if he backtracked on his position, because he basically saw what his two choices of an action could do and then decided to get more rather than less. With Kucinich, we are ushering in a new era of progressive pragmatism. It's like game theory crossed with new ideas for government.

[leftstreet]

1. ...is a shit statement

:-)

[sandnsea]

2. After reading his Esquire comments, I'm impressed

It seems to me Dennis has finally decided that the best way to get your voice into a conversation is to be part of the conversation, not stand outside the circle and scream at everybody.

[LoZoccolo]

4. I think I see what he did thar with his brinksmanship, but people here should be smart enough..

...to know that that's a strategy and not take it literally and parrot it, and get in arguments with people here with people here who aren't engaging in posturing and just want to talk about things as they are.

[sabrina 1]

5. He thought there was a circle when 70 Democrats

declared that they would never vote for a bill that did not have a PO. The reasons for the need for a PO should be obvious to everyone by now. The tragedy of not getting it, should also be obvious.

But one by one those Democrats backed down. I call that cowardice, not pragmatism. And Kucinich was left to fight off the rabid supporters of the Private Insurance by himself. He outsmarted them when he decided to stay in the game. He will continue to be a thorn in their sides, while they were hoping to get rid of him.

I will never forget the vicious attacks on him by people on this forum. It revealed a lot to me about them. He represented what progressives said they stood for. The attack on Kucinich separated those who only claim to be progressives from real progressives. That's always good to know.

[sandnsea]

9. That comment goes for most of them

I just do not think the way to move your agenda forward is to tell those with the power that they're spineless pink tutus.

[sabrina 1]

3. Kucinich was always 'pragmatic'. I think you don't understand

that word at all. What he knew all along was that the Insurance Industry has more power than Congress and that to fight them would mean Democrats not caving and sticking together to get what the majority of the American people want. This IS a democracy, it is not a Fascist State run by Corporations. The people hire Reps to go to DC and get done what is in the best interests of the American people. The few Reps. who try to do that are extremely pragmatic.

But the money and threats from the Insurance Industry worked on those Kucinich needed to back him up. They all caved, fearful that if they didn't, the threats of no support and anti-Democratic ads, a campaign against them, would work.

Had they been pragmatic, they would have known what most sensible people know, that bullies will always back down when they are confronted. Democrats should have stood up to them and revealed the private memos, the threats, the arm twisting to the public. But they do not have the confidence to do so, so they caved.

Caving is NOT pragmatic, not even close. Kucinich saw what was happening and he had a choice to make. He played the cards his Democratic colleagues left him with. He decided to stay in the game rather than allow them to exclude him. That was his choice in the end because cowardly politicians would not stand up to the bullies.

Anytime you want evidence of how this worked, it is available. This was never about providing health care reform. It was about saving, bailing out a failing industry. Just like Wall St. and rather than let them sink as they deserved Democrats saved them, as they saved Wall St.

Look up the history of 'pragmatism' sometime. I am so tired of that word being used as a cover for cowardice.

[LoZoccolo]

10. Caving is pragmatic if it gets you more of what you want.

Law #22 of The 48 Laws of Power is "Use the surrender tactic: transform weakness into power." It is difficult to tell whether or not you are praising or criticising Kucinich.

[pampango]

11. Oh, please. All 79 members of the Progressive Caucus "caved" to "the money and threats

of the Insurance Industry"? Most of them come from districts where they are never going to have a serious challenger and don't get and don't need Insurance Industry money.

But all 79 of our most progressive congresspeople are the biggest wimps in the world. They have no confidence to stand up to anyone so they cave as soon as someone says "Boo" to them. (You must be proud of the republicans who stood up to industry pressure and voted the way you wish our progressives would have voted.)

I might give your theory some credence if 178 republicans had voted for the "insurance industry bill" and Obama had leaned on Kucinich and a few other progressives to vote with the republicans to pass the bill that Obama wanted, but that is the exact opposite of what happened. You are the one that wishes the DK and a few more Democrats could have been influenced by Boehner to vote with all the republicans to kill the bill. (I know, I know the republicans are playing political chess. They really secretly support the bill voted unanimously against it because they are smarter than we are. All their frothing at the mouth, support for teabaggers and unanimous voting is just a clever ploy to outwit simple Democrats who will "cave" the first time anyone says "Boo" to them anyway. Do the republicans sometimes wish they were faced with a more competent political opposition? They don't even have to break a sweat to get us to pass "their" bills for them, while they sit back, smile, vote "No" and reap a perceived political windfall in November.)

I don't share your disdain for the principles of the members of the Progressive Caucus nor your apparent admiration for the political skills of republicans.

[sabrina 1]

12. Did they or did they not completely flip flop

on their original position of stating that they would never sign a bill if it did not include a PO? Deals were made by the leadership of this party, behind closed doors. It is pointless to deny that. And, yes, cowardly members of Congress, no matter how safe they think their seats are, can find themselves with a primary challenger and no funds from the party if they persist in going against what the party wants, which in this case, was NOT to include a PO.

As for this brilliant declaration, no doubt backed by evidence:

You are the one that wishes the DK and a few more Democrats could have been influenced by Boehner to vote with all the republicans to kill the bill.

Some day someone is going to compile a collection of these ridiculous internet attempts at 'debate' and turn them into a 'what not to do if you want to make a point' self-help manual on how to draw attention to the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.

It's right up there with 'Kucinich is trying to kill 45,000 Americans'.

That talking point gives the rest of what you had to say about the same amount of credibility.

[LoZoccolo]

13. They were engaging in brinksmanship to begin with.

It's a manipulative tactic. I'm not criticizing that, because it happens all the time in politics. But when it failed to work, people cut their losses and tried to get something rather than nothing.

[sabrina 1]

15. So, you are saying they were lying?

That's the kind of 'change' we can believe in.

You are then, saying that the whole thing was a farce. A pretense to bailout the private insurance industry.

While it has become clear that the WH made deals behind closed doors with Big Pharma, Republicans and Insurance Corps lobbyists, while excluding progressives, I do not agree with you that all those members of Congress were just playing games with their constituents.

The fact that you think that would be just fine, is simply stunning to me.

[LoZoccolo]

17. No, I am saying they were manipulating.

They do this to a particular end. When the strategy no longer gave them any progress to that particular end, they abandoned it for another strategy. Now they have some of what they want instead of none of what they want.

[hisownpetard]

6. I likes health caer and I doesn't afraid of anything neither.

[Oregone]

7. The only thing better than watching Oasis live....

Is watching Oasis get laid out by a Canadian

[Political Heretic]

8. I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

[Mike 03]

14. Well, I think I see what you are saying, but I ardently disagree.

Yes, he finally agreed to pass health care.

But please watch him on the committees he serves on in order to decide whether he is "fearless" or just damned foolish and ignorant, or relying on the ignorance of his staff that writes for him the questions he asks but either does not understand or does not care to have answered.

[Fumesucker]

16. It wasn't health care that passed, it was health insurance..

And an obligation to purchase health insurance does not necessarily imply access to health care.

Edited for speling.