Dean vs. Kucinich?

Dean v. Kucinich

This is done by a Dean supporter... just curious as to whether the information is accurate. It was made in retaliation for the Bob Harris site.

Did Kucinich vote in favor of invading Afghanistan?

Also, this site claims that Kucinich "Scorns medical findings on drug issues. No accomplishments, original ideas or practical experience on issue, as far as we can tell." but that Dean "Respects science. Understands addiction is medical problem. Knows War on Drugs is a "failure." Will lead nation to rational policies."

I'm so confused!

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BC032003#Civil+Rights
He gets 100's from the HRC.
Also many democrats got a 100 from that family research council. I dont know where their rating is but many democrats got high approval ratings. I cant explain it but that blog is bs.
Also If I remember reading right, Barney Frank campaigned for him when he ran for congress.
Yes DK did vote for the invasion of Afghanstan, and when he criticized how things were conducted there he brought it up. Also that blog knocks him for liking kielbasa despite being a vegan :eyes: thats so trival, its not even funny.

I'm so confused, I no longer know or care which Dem to vote for.

I'll just wait for the primaries and complain or cheer then.

I already know we're doomed the way things are going, so so freakin' what who gets into office? They're all bought and paid for, anyway... except the Greens, but they're sooooooooo evil because, unlike the Supreme Court or republicans, they contrived to take votes away from Gore and prevented people from voting using sneaky, underhanded tricks! *GASP!* :eyes:

Who bought and paid for Kucinich?

That's probably why he's way behind. :cry: (I support Kucinich and hope he's nominated. Dean is waaaaaaaaay too centrist for my liking.)

"Since he brought up his bio as a reason for us to support him, we should consider all aspects of Kucinich's childhood. Some aspects are troubling. Why did Frank and Virginia Kucinich have to move their enormous family so often - more than once a year? Why were they homeless, living in "a couple of cars" some of the time between 1946 and 1963? Why did they have so many children - seven - when they couldn't maintain a stable, secure home life?

"How have his first seventeen years continued to mark Kucinich's attitudes and actions as an adult? Has this rootlessness contributed to his willingness to discard lifelong fundamental beliefs and adopt irreconcilably contradictory positions? These questions are important because we much know now - before supporting Kucinich for President - how turmoil throughout his entire pre-adult life affects and directs Dennis Kucinich's current behavior."

On edit: Inserted quotation marks.

My grandparents came from like Kucinich, big Roman Catholic families. Thats pretty low I think, to insult his parents like that. I would have used protection but thats their choice. Pretty low I say honest.

My own parents had 8 children. I had to share a bed with my younger sister. Traumatic! But I am neither bi, nor a bi-basher.

I have no idea why his parents moved, or why they lived in a car, but Dennis Kucinich clearly had no choice in the matter.

I daresay he's more stable in his fundamental beliefs than any of our candidates.

Edited because (oops) I didn't realize Jersey was quoting from the link. I'm sorry about that. The rest still stands, sorry for the confusion.

Thanks Don, I am pissed too. He talks about his childhood because it does indeed give him perspective. That site is just the biggest bullshit, it gives him a hard time for being a big fan of kielbasa while being a vegan, maybe because he is celebrating his culture you morans. His parents moved around in car because they were too poor to afford permanet housing.

I edited the post and apologized to Jersey.

If I could wave my magic wand and make anyone I wanted President, his name would be Dennis Kucinich. You're one of the best advocates he has, JohnKleeb. Good for you.

I cant believe that site is just so sleazy to insult his parents like that, these assholes are as bad as that ass who runs Kucinich.com.

I wanted to be sure before I spoke, since the Dean supporters on DU like to do satire and parody.

This is absolutely the worst piece of garbage I have EVER seen. Whoever is responsible for that site, how dare you ridicule poverty and need. How dare you think you are better than Dennis Kucinich. How dare you think you even KNOW the first thing about it?

Ignorance is no excuse for cruelty. I am so completely disgusted I could throw up and if I had you here, well, probably it's against the rules to say what I would do, so I won't.

And you have the brass to call other people "repukes" -- how fucking hypocritical. Earlier today it was "farting geriatrics" to describe the elderly. Now this. If your guy gets the nomination and you are expecting decent people to vote for him in the GE, I would put an immediate stop to this vile and revolting attitude.

That is true. They obviously were nitpicking. Classic bullshit.

It's repulsive. Even the filthy GOP wouldn't stoop this low.

So Dennis isn't what they want but to diss his upbringing how very republican lite.

on any candidate I've ever heard. My god, whoever wrote this calls themselves a Democrat?


NO one support Dennis! His parents were poor and had lots of kids!!!
:eyes:


I too thought this was Jersey. sorry.

and other traditionally right-wing voters... because of a platform that appeals to ALL of us

But then again, look at Dean's supporters, celebrating with the power of money. Same trick as Bush. How different from Bush is Dean?

I'm a Dean supporter.
I don't celebrate the power of money, although I'm glad his campaign has some of it.
And your last question doesn't merit an answer.

I respect your choice in candiate, this site is just typical bs. I admit Kucinich isn't perfect but that site just nitpicks at everything, he cant help how he was brought up, and etc.

regarding abortion: he stands for protecting the life and health of mother and child, during and after pregnancy. Hard to disagree with that.

Universal health care: a single-payer system, which only he and Braun are advocating. Who doesn't want this - except, that is, insurance companies.

Scrapping Nafta, withdrawing from WTO, renegotiating trade agreements so that it's not "a race to the bottom"... Merely amending trade agreements is better than leaving them as they are (amending them to include provisions for worker's rights, for example). Redoing it all would be better.

Support Dean. That's fine. I'm sure you have your reasons. Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my youth. I just don't see what Dean has that's so special, aside from "electability". No offense, but it kinda reminds me of stock values that go up, not because company values go up, but because demand goes up. If there's not something there to support such demand/support, then we're all screwing ourselves in the long run.

I have nothing but good things to say about DK. I just want others to realize that there are progressives who have chosen Howard Dean, and that doesn't make them any less progressive at heart. Thanks for moderating your comments; not all Dean supporters are the same, nor are all Kucinich supporters the same.

And sorry. My comment really was uncalled for.

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis J. Kucinich said yesterday that U.S. military action against Afghanistan in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was not justified and has proved to be a "disaster" and a "nightmare."

Kucinich, a four-term House member from Cleveland and a former mayor of that city, made the assertion in an interview with editors and reporters of The Washington Post. But two hours later, he called a reporter to clarify his remarks.

He said that he had voted for the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in response to the attacks. "On the philosophical question as to whether it was justified, the answer is yes," Kucinich said. "The record on that is clear. . . . I misspoke."

Kucinich said his disagreement with Bush was over "tactics" and he believes that Bush should have involved "the intelligence agencies of other countries" and the United Nations in the hunt for the terrorist suspects. Asked whether he still considered the outcome of U.S. military action in Afghanistan to be a disaster and a nightmare, he said: "I see the Taliban regaining strength and all these conflicts with warlords. The question is: What have we won? Where's the victory?"

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63537-2003Nov19?language=printer

His position has changed since he bacame a candidate. Just like abortion.

why dont we call it even?

"His position has changed since he bacame a candidate. Just like abortion."

No, he didn't switch positions. Are you intentionally being dishonest? Just trying to smear?

As the record shows, he misspoke. He, himeself, called the reporter to clear it up. It wasn't as if he let it sit out there and didn't challenge it. It wasn't as if he had to be challenged on it and lie about what he said, and then later clear it up. :eyes:

Dennis doesnt deny that he did but he has questioned our conduct there.

Dennis is a little more nuanced. He points out that the vote took place on Friday September 14th, 2001 and was hardly a vote to attack Afghanistan.

Here is press release from that day with his statement from the house floor:

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr010914.htm

I will support this resolution authorizing the President to defend our country. Whatever forms of action we choose must reflect our democratic principles and distinguish us from the mentality of terrorists and destructive violence. Our actions must pursue a path towards reducing violence, not escalating violence. Launching weapons of mass destruction or collateral attacks against innocent civilians would be no different than the terror we have already had brought upon us. An eye for an eye mentality is unacceptable. We are a nation with civil and moral values and we must show the world that. These terrorist attacks were clearly a crime against humanity. What does a democracy do to punish criminals? We put them on trial, if found guilty, we imprison them.

U.S. military action should be centered on arresting the responsible parties, and the governments should place the suspects on trial. That is how we win this. This is how we should show the world that we are a humane and democratic nation. That is what gives us the moral high ground. That is what we need to do to prevent future attacks. Future attacks will not be prevented because terrorists fear our military. To kill them does not scare them. That is an honor for them to be killed. But for our democracy it is important to rise above their violent attacks and punish them with unquestionable moral superiority. That will vindicate our highest principles. Violence is reciprocal in nature. Peace is also reciprocal. The direction we take will speak volumes about our democracy. We must and we will defend our country. And we must and we will pursue and arrest these criminals. We must do so in a manner that upholds democratic principles.

DAMN he's good! :D

Kucinich has always been prolife and who knows, perhaps he might have stayed that way if he wasn't running for pres. Some people would say that is flipflopping or weak, but it's also possible he wanted to get his message out on other issues -- the war issue, the free-trade issue.

If he had stayed prolife, his entire campaign would have been used simply as a wedge on the abortion issue. The big issues that the media and the powers-that-be want to stay away from -- military-industrial complex, free-trade, corporatized government -- would have been utterly dead in the water while all questions directed at him focused on abortion.

and that's what matters. It ticks me off someone would feel need to attack Kucinich when he's not even anywhere near a frontrunner. All it does is take the wind out of the sails of would-be Dems.

for the presidency. Look at the timeline..... he changed his stance on abortion BEFORE he was
drafted to run for the presidency.

BEFORE.

Has nothing to do with all your suppositions.

Kanary

Kucinich 2004!

Well, its obviously innaccurate and inflamatory but mostly just absurd. Some of it just kills me in its kookiness. The statement that DK "Supports those who ran against Wellstone in last campaign" is rather hilarious. I must have missed the Kucinich endorses Coleman press release. My memory is that Kucinich came to Minnesota to door knock on Wellstone's behalf.

With regard to "support outside home state" check out this amazing paragraph:
"Not much. Most don't know who he is. Many supporters can't pronounce his name, don't know he's radically anti-choice. People who know his record doubt "litmus test" flip-flop, don't trust him to appoint Supreme Court justices. Last in polls. Far behind Dean in every contest. "Spoiled" MoveOn primary with distant 2nd place. Bashes Dean more than he says what he'd do for America."

I assume Dean campaign and Deaniacs in touch with reality would disavow much of this stuff.

...a sense of humor like yours.

*sigh*

<snip>

I assume Dean campaign and Deaniacs in touch with reality would disavow much of this stuff.

<snip>

Or perhaps I don't have your confidence in Dean's fans. Looking back and thinking about it, I realize that my initial disgruntlement was a reaction to past discussions. I gotta quit doing that!

"I assume Dean campaign and Deaniacs in touch with reality would disavow much of this stuff."

I know you're right about that.

that site is a fucking joke...

Some Dean supporters...little off their rocker.

I understand the criticism that the Bob Harris site is slanted, but to put this out there in comparison is indefensible.

This site is pure, unadulterated, 100% horse pucky.

Makes me sick. I didn't even finish it.

First and foremost, Dean is on record saying he didn't support single payer health care. He never tried to get it passed in Vermont. The comments about Dean and single payer coming out of Vermont are right wing rhetoric to attack the health care plan altogether. It's the slippery slope rhetoric that we're all used to. It's the same stuff that killed Hillary's health plan.

That's what most of what I did read in the link was, distortions and hyperbole.

I posted this above in response to posts but I thought I'd place it here, front and center. The vote took place September 14, 2001.

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr010914.htm

For Immediate Release
September 14, 2001

Statement of Congressman Dennis Kucinich

Kucinich Statement On Authorizing Force On Those Responsible For Recent Terrorist Acts Against The U.S.

On Friday, September 14, 2001, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland) spoke on the House floor explaining his reasons for supporting the resolution authorizing the President to use force on those responsible for the recent terrorist acts against the United States. Following is the text of his statement.

I will support this resolution authorizing the President to defend our country. Whatever forms of action we choose must reflect our democratic principles and distinguish us from the mentality of terrorists and destructive violence. Our actions must pursue a path towards reducing violence, not escalating violence. Launching weapons of mass destruction or collateral attacks against innocent civilians would be no different than the terror we have already had brought upon us. An eye for an eye mentality is unacceptable. We are a nation with civil and moral values and we must show the world that. These terrorist attacks were clearly a crime against humanity. What does a democracy do to punish criminals? We put them on trial, if found guilty, we imprison them.

U.S. military action should be centered on arresting the responsible parties, and the governments should place the suspects on trial. That is how we win this. This is how we should show the world that we are a humane and democratic nation. That is what gives us the moral high ground. That is what we need to do to prevent future attacks. Future attacks will not be prevented because terrorists fear our military. To kill them does not scare them. That is an honor for them to be killed. But for our democracy it is important to rise above their violent attacks and punish them with unquestionable moral superiority. That will vindicate our highest principles. Violence is reciprocal in nature. Peace is also reciprocal. The direction we take will speak volumes about our democracy. We must and we will defend our country. And we must and we will pursue and arrest these criminals. We must do so in a manner that upholds democratic principles.

Sorry to see this coming from a Dean supporter, primary season notwithstanding. Part of me is still behind Dennis.

and I think :evilgrin: we are all behind Dennis in some way or another. Teasing honest :) but hey 50% agree with him on the issues, like it or not :) thats cool.

we were supposed to get Osama.

Kucinich is NOT a pacifist, will support necessary, and just, wars. He has said he would not hesitate, as Commander in Chief, to use military action if needed. But he also believes in working toward peace, and opposed invading Iraq for more than a year before the invasion began.

Another outspoken advocate of peace, Pope John Paul II, also supported the American invasion of Afghanistan because of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., but opposed the war against Iraq.