Op/Ed: Kucinich Voters should take another look at Richardson.

Via "Mugsy's Rap Sheet":



Read the full article on "Mugsy's Rap Sheet".

and he was a 2nd for me for a time

but his debate performance has been atrocious imho and he just hasn't seemed like a strong candidate to me

and I strongly feel he is running to be Hill's veep

speaking Clinton very much needs someone like that in Iowa. The nature of the caucus leads to a sort of double teaming for which Vilsack was once considered, but collapsed faster than Gephardt. Even later someone who will bleed her rivals will be someone good for the veep spot indeed, especially with his credentials. He is also perfect as someone to explain as better than Obama to slip past any bad blood.

Many of the "second tier" people are unconsciously in this possible situation whether they want to be or not. Is Richardson getting any actual help from the Clinton campaign? That would be more interesting news. All of the top contenders are actually light on governing experience and could very well look down to some rising presence behind them.

Even if he loses, the more impressive his showing, the more clout for his policies.

I wrote the column because I think that if all those Kucinich supporters wants to see a significant number of his policies actually make it to the White House, they should look at the candidate with the best chance of winning with a platform very close to Kucinich's, and that's Bill Richardson.

is the only reason I am motivated. Kucinich's issues. All else pall in comparsion. some care more about policy than polls. that is us. It has to be coalition politics or else nothing. No reason why the limited number of Kucinich delegates and when in agreement Richardson delegates, join forces when it comes to issues.

"But even if you agree with all that, one other thing to consider: If you vote "Republican" during the primaries, you can't vote Democrat in the General Election no matter who the candidate ends up being. That's right. Even if the candidates turn out to be Dennis Kucinich vs. Rudy Giuliani, you can't vote for Dennis. Why? Because once you vote in the Republican primary, you MUST vote Republican in the General Election. This prevents people from a rival Party from trying to influence who the opposition will be. Voters can't turn out in droves to nominate the candidate they think would be the easiest to beat only to vote against them in November. So if you vote for Paul in the Primaries and he loses, you can't vote against the Republican nominee come November. Keep that in mind when choosing your candidate!"

I only summarized the opening. The full report is quite lengthy and addresses every comment posted so far.

The quote above refers to the paragraph about Paul above. Please read the full article.

the recount in 2004? Now I know why, couldn't figure it out before. He wants to be Clinton's VP, and he wouldn't have been able to if Kerry won.

zalinda

that Kucinich is "unelectable." He is only "unelectable" because of nay-sayers -- some of whom agree with his platform and admire his courage and apparently would vote for him if more corporations donated to his campaign. Uhhhh, isn't that what we're trying to get away from???

Read the article. It is Kucinich's proposed policies that I address as for why he can not (nor should) win, not just "electability".

Dennis' top platform promises are potential disasters in the making.

Hope a long time DUer/Dennis supporter will pick this up and post the article here on DU . . .

Be bold with your vote. Vote your conscience, not your fears.
By Donna Richards
December 4, 2007 | 01:46 PM
I have wracked my brain, burned up my internet connection, read every piece mailed or dropped off, talked to and corresponded with representatives from numerous campaigns, and listened very carefully to the insights and logic of my fellow Americans near and far, related and unrelated, Republican, Democrat, and independent, young and not so young.

In considering the themes, qualities, and propensities important to me as a voter, an American, there is only one candidate that I cannot rule out, and that I can feel good about in terms of the following:

--Who will never lie to me?
--Who will uphold and protect with passion my rights and the rights of all people?
--Who can I trust dealing with foreign and domestic friends and foes with a level head and not a heavy hand?
--Who can think for themselves without depending upon a cabal of politicos with varying agendas and act according to the heart and mind that I trust with my vote?
--Who understands, respects, and is most passionate about what American really is, means, and should be?
--Who has demonstrated political courage, rejected partisanship, spoken and acted boldly and wisely without worrying about personal political fallout?
--Who is in it for us, for all, and not for personal ambition or power appetite?
--Who really cares enough about the people of the world and our country to actually champion the issues espoused during the election and not abandon vital causes hoping nobody will notice, claiming they were too big to tackle and it was everybody else’s fault?
--Who is the only candidate who has stood in the Capitol and fought for impeachment (of political dictators who have perpetrated crimes and trampled on the Constitution, international law, and individual rights)?

Do not tell me that Dennis Kucinich is not electable. If you give him your vote, he most certainly is.

We need to break away from the Washington, DC status quo and the fear instilled in us by parties, the media, and the current political and geopolitical climate and choose to hire a President who cannot be bought, bullied, or puppetized—*and who will listen to us*. If we support an effective leader who builds an effective team, we can reclaim what has been lost here and abroad. Do not forget that “of the people, by the people, and for the people” demands participation and vigilance. We elect our leaders, but do not hold them accountable. Shame on us. Let’s get it right this time, and then follow through.

Once you vote for in a parties primary, your stuck in that party and can only vote in their PRIMARY until you formally register into another party. IT HAS ABSOLUTELY LESS THAN NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO YOU CAN VOTE FOR IN A GENERAL ELECTION. You can even vote for a dead guy in the opposing party. Ask John Ashcroft. He knows all about that. The whole op/ed piece is predicated on a falsehood.

You state: "Once you vote for in a parties primary, your stuck in that party and can only vote in their PRIMARY until you formally register into another party."

That makes no sense. You can only vote once in the Primaries. "Once you vote in a parties primary", you've voted. Period. There is no second "Primary" vote. You can't change your Party affiliation the same year you voted. If you vote in a primary and then "change your Party affiliation", it won't take effect until *after* the General Election.

And in many states, you do not "register" a Party affilliation. When you vote in a primary, the Party you voted in gets stamped on your ID card so you can't switch parties in the General.

I'm a registered Republican. I can only vote in Republican primaries unless I go to town hall and fill out the paperwork to switch parties. You are correct that it is a once a year thing so you can't vote in the Republican primary, switch parties quickly, and then vote in the Democratic primary for the same year. However, I've voted Democratic in the General Election since 2000, when the Nazi faction took the party over. You can vote for whoever you want at the General Election, so I could vote for McCain or any other Republican in the primary and then vote for who I really want, Kucinich, in the General Election. The primary will affect the list of names I see at the General Election, but it in no way limits who, among the survivors, I can vote for. This op/ed piece states that voting in a primary limits your choices to that parties candidates at the general election which is flat out wrong and anyone who has voted at a general election would know that.

...if you could vote in the Republican primary and then Democrat in the General Election.

If this were the case, Republicans could vote en mass for the Democrat they consider the most beatable (and vice versa) to ensure any easy win for their Party's candidate.

This obviously is not the case. Have you ever tried this to confirm your assertion?

First, have you not noticed at a general election that candidates of all parties and a bunch of independents you never heard of are listed on your machine or ballot? You can vote for anyone you want. You can even mix it up, vote Democrat for some offices, Republican for others, Libertarian, Nazi, Fascist, Skinhead, anyone that strikes your fancy.

As I stated, I have voted Democratic in the last few elections because I'm not happy living under a Nazi regime and I've been trying to put some legs under the opposition party so we can get our country back. Just waiting for the Democrats to start opposing. Any day now. Any day.

Theoretically, all the Republicans could switch to the Democrat party, vote for Hillary in the primary, then vote for their real candidate at the General Election but then maybe the Republican candidate isn't one they like because they gave up their Republican primary vote. Also, it's a pain in the ass to switch parties. My state used to make you wait a year. Not sure if they still do. Also, don't forget local politics. The reason I'm still a Republican is that my county only has 2 or 3 Democrats in it. Whoever wins the Republican primary, will also win the General Election. So, in my county, if you want to have anything meaningful to say about your local government, you have to be Republican and vote in their primary. If I switched to the Democratic party, which I'm still thinking about so I can vote for Kucinich, I'd be giving up any voice in my local government for at least a year.

That's a lie. Period. You sould be ashamed. Period.

Why would we listen to you when you tell an out-and-out lie?

Show me a state where you can vote for one Party in the Primary any another in the General?

Here in Texas, when you vote in the Primary, they stamp your Voter ID card with the Party whose race you voted in to prevent you from switching come the General Election.

If you vote 'pub in the primary, you can only vote in 'pub primaries, until you send in the card to change your party again. I've always been a Dem, and mostly vote my party. I have voted for McCain as my Senator (never again!), and for Ron Paul (L-at the time) for Pres in '88, and several Libs for local office.

I am sure most of DU knows this.

> have voted for McCain as my Senator (never again!), and for Ron Paul (L-at the time)

You can vote across Party lines "in the same election". No one has ever suggested otherwise. But you can't try to manipulate who the opposing nominee will be by voting for them in the Primary and then vote for an opposing Party in the General.

We've also strayed FAR off topic. The subject here is not Ron Paul. There are serious reasons why Richardson should be considered over Kucinich for voters that support those policies. I direct you again to my article.

Or it may understand your fundamental misunderstanding of how general elections are held (or we've really had the wool pulled over our eyes as to what actually goes on in Texas). You see, for most of us, we're given a choice in the general election between a Repug, a Dem and maybe one or more independent/3rd party candidates. They're all on the same ballot and you choose which one you want. No one (supposedly) other than yourself should know who you voted for unless you tell them.

Period.

I guess the other thing is that you've never voted in a general election yet.

I still don't see how anybody will listen to you.

It is sad that you must resort to Ad Hominem attacks.

Texas: Home to Molly Ivans, Bill Moyers, John Hightower, Dan Rather, Barbara Jordan and Lloyd Bentsen (to name a few).

And if you are suggesting my Voter registration card is not stamped with my Party affiliation when I vote in the Primary, no one has reason to listen to you either.

Even if your voter registration card is stamped with your party affiliation, when you vote in the general election the ballot has both the dem and repub candidate listed. No one then inspects your ballot to make sure that your presidential vote matches the stamp on your registration card. So please explain what would stop you from voting for a republican in the primary and then a democrat in the general.

Not sure how other states handle it, but before electronic voting, you were provided a different ballot depending on your Party affiliation. Today, with electronic voting, the ballot is changed automatically when you sign in.

I once voted in the Republican primary because the polling place was next door, only to find to my disapointment that come November, there wasn't a single Democrat on my ballot.

I'm telling you that unless Texas is really fucked up in how it runs elections, which hasn't been reported, they you are either 1) woefully misinformed, in which case you should study up on how elections work, or 2) lying. Either way nobody should listen to you. Period.

...to reflect the conflicting information suggesting such a limitation is not consistent across all states.