Imagine No Kucinich

DENNIS SAYS: LET'S MEET
Our MeetUp campaign is surging. Over 10,400 folks interested in supporting Kucinich have already signed up for the Sept. 4 MeetUp. Dennis issued this statement: "Congratulations on what you've accomplished in a matter of weeks, making our campaign the second largest on MeetUp. If it weren't for my debate that night, I'd be joining you." It's not too late for you to join. If you are signed up, try to RSVP. If you can't make it this month, sign up so you can make it next time: http://kucinich2004.meetup.com

If you're already part of the MeetUp effort, make sure you publicize your Sept. 4 MeetUp in your local media -- community calendars in print, radio, cable TV and internet. Some of you will be able to attract local TV news crews, since you're offering a local angle for a story on the presidential debate happening that same night.
For publicity ideas:
http://www.kucinich.us/meetup.htm


IMAGINE
Imagine the current presidential campaign without candidate Kucinich. Some might find it pretty depressing. With Howard Dean saying that universal health coverage is "tilting at windmills." With Dick Gephardt and others still supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Thanks to Kucinich, the Democratic debate is broadening. Everywhere he
goes, we see mainstream media headlines like these from recent days:
"Kucinich: Less Soldiers, More Schools"
"Kucinich Campaigns for Universal Health Care"
"Kucinich Says Blackout a Symptom of Problems Caused by Deregulation"
"Keene Crowd Keen on Kucinich"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0823-04.htm


Spread the word about the Kucinich campaign: http://www.kucinich.us
Make a donation: https://www.kucinich.us/contribute.php

Please forward this email.

:kick:

I am always in need a morale booster.

"Imagine the current presidential campaign without candidate Kucinich. Some might find it pretty depressing."

Let's not get carried away here! "Depressing" is four more years of George W. Bush. "Slightly less than ideal" is if Kucinich (or any favorite candidate, including mine) were not a potential nominee.

And, for the record, Dean did not say that universal health coverage is "tilting at windmills." He did say that Canadian-style single-payer universal health coverage is, because no Congress -- Democratic or Republican -- will pass it for several years, if ever. His point being that we can keep complaining about lack of a single-payer healthcare system -- and get slammed by "Harry and Louise" ads again -- or we can actually do something positive that'll help people who are suffering now, hopefully, maybe as one step toward that ultimate goal. I'm with Dean on that one. People are dying, and if we can save lives, let's do it. If that makes me a "constructive progressive," I guess I'll live with the label.

Times are different now than they were in 1992. 8000 doctors came out for it in JAMA. It's less fiscally responsible to claim that the money from Bush's tax cuts (including the "good" tax cuts for the people who need them) can go to pour more money into a broken system, without explaining what is going to happen to the programs that were funded "before" the tax cuts. While any of the candidates may be able to reap the benefit of this new energy toward publicly funded single payer universal coverage, Dennis Kucinich deserves a whole lot of credit for coming out for it first and strongest.

:shrug:

I'm completely new to the political system. If there was no Kucinich, I wouldn't even PLAN on registering to vote and much less get to the polls on election day.

On edit: With each passing day, I find the prospect of voting for any of the "electables" less and less attractive. I'm considering not wasting my time and just skip going to the polls again.

....If Bush wins by one vote.

Kucinich is the ONLY candidate that has talked about an exit strategy from Iraq. It's not enough to say "I was anti-war". I'm a service member, I want NO PART of Iraq and I will be leaving the military in March.

Howard Dean, for example, has a very clear exit strategy: get the United Nations involved (and eat plenty of Bush-cooked crow if need be), support the U.N. fully (financially, logistically, etc.), and get out. Graham, Sharpton, and Braun would likely pursue similar strategies, and I've heard at least Braun talk about the same.

Look, my favorite candidate may lose. (It's still a long time until the nomination is decided around March, and then there's the big battle in November, 2004.) If you just go by the math, any individual Democrat has about a 5 to 6 percent chance of becoming the next President. So, with those odds, you (and I) better have a backup strategy. Otherwise you're shipping over to Iraq, pal. Or maybe Syria. Or Iran. Or...

On edit: Hang in there! Work for Kucinich, certainly. Join me to help get him elected if he's the nominee. Join me to help get the Democratic nominee elected regardless.

http://www.talkleft.com/archives/004121.html

Supporting anybody that supports a long term stay in Iraq is like saying "Bush has already done the dirty work for me, now I can get rich, Bush can get rich, Bush's pals can get rich and my pals can get rich".

FUCK DEAN!!!

What's it tonight, beer? Vodka? Sounds fun.

If you're cogent, keep reading. Bush totally screwed up Iraq, quite obviously. So what are we going to do about it, now that we're in a grand mess? We could just yank everyone out of Iraq, leave the landmines right where they are, let thousands more children die due to lack of sanitary water and food, keep the hospitals understocked, leave the electricity grid in a shambles, and generally let the place rot. Or we could, through the United Nations, try to do the right, humane, progressive thing and help Bush's victims recover from the pre-emptive attack on their country, sending (and funding) plenty of food, medicine, building materials, reconstruction experts, and international peacekeepers under United Nations aspices.

Now, which plan is the more ethical and the more sensitive to Iraqi human rights? I would argue, without hesitation, the latter. And that happens to be the Dean plan.

Now, if you're saying that isn't Kucinich's plan, I really have a problem with your preferred candidate, because he then wouldn't seem to mind letting thousands more Iraqi men, women, and children die. But, despite your description, I know that Dennis Kucinich is a decent and honorable man, as is Howard Dean and as are all the other Democratic candidates. And I know D.K. would never abandon the Iraqi victims of Bush's war.

Whatever happened to American human rights?????
human rights don't exist. If you don't happen to notice, the Iraqi people do not want the US over there. The current "leadership" has stopped elections in Iraq and stolen elections here, what makes you think that they are going to place in a democracy????
I spent some time in Bosnia and I've talked to plenty of Bosnians. "Nation-building" is a crock of shit. I saw not one new building in Bosnia in the handful of times that I got to tour the cities surrounding the camp. Let me add that I saw plenty of buildings that were in need of repair from the artillery rounds they received. After Carter, we have gone from supporting dictators to "free trade" to outright looting nations.

Dean: We ought to internationalize the occupation of Iraq, bring in NATO and then bring in the United Nations.

Q Do you have any qualms about being portrayed as the candidate of the left?
Dean: I don't think it's accurate, but I don't worry about it.

<snip>

Q. In the postwar period in Iraq, could you estimate in round numbers how many billions of dollars, how many thousands of troops, and for how long, you would commit the United States to Iraq?
Dean: There needs to be a foreign presence in Iraq for a long time-at least 10 years. We have now gone into the swamp, and if we leave prematurely, Iraq will become a dangerous nation to the United States. Should a fundamentalist theocracy arise in the south of Iraq, in the Shia region, that will be more dangerous than Saddam to the security of the United States because the possibility of having a fundamentalist terrorist group set up shop there would be significantly greater than it was under Saddam. So we're stuck there now.

http://www.deminfo.com/default.asp

It will be interesting to see this subject come up during the debates so a few things can get clarified. Dean's stance on the Iraqi occupation seems very imperialist to me. will become a dangerous nation to the United States.... more dangerous than Saddam to the security of the United States. And NATO? Why bring in NATO? This is not NATO's mission and I am sure our allies will point this out.

Dean was not anti-war and he wasn't even anti-this-war. Dean's position was that Bush should delay the attack by 60 days to get the UN and allies on board. This was not being anti-war- this was merely asking the Bush administration to get its ducks in a little bit better order before attacking. I'll remind you that Dean was for attacking Afghanistan and has expressed support for attacking Iran and Syria.

Dean position is for the US to lead the entire thing whereas Kucinich wants the US to fork the reins over to the UN and only play in a supporting role. There is a big difference there- a big difference dealing with future contracts and the continued rape and plunder of Iraq for US corporations.

If you care, please examine this issue closely and seriously to make sure Dean reflects your standards. If he does that's fine but please look closely. America's future depends on informed votes.

I am trying to warm up to Dean but it is very difficult for me. I would appreciate if instead of slamming me, you would think about what I said, look for information and engage me in a genuine dialog so that we can both learn.

Thanks

And you're right about abandoning the victims. We have no right to do that and Kucinich never once implied that but Kucinich's vision is totally different than Deans. Please remember also that US soldiers will NEVER be welcomed or trusted by the Iraqi people. We cannot go from rapist to therapist.

FUCK DEAN?

You have problems.

No I don't.

There, I said it. You seem incapable of accurately representing the positions of Democratic candidates. Thank goodness Dennis Kucinich has some decent supporters and that I can look past the vitriol.

I'm sure you know full well that Senator Graham voted against the PNAC's Iraq Resolution. Yet you lumped him into that category. I think you owe him (and us) an apology.

To pick another example, John Kerry is not a DLC member, and the DLC's leadership (e.g. Al From) does not favor his nomination. He's considered too liberal by the DLC leadership. I think you owe John Kerry (and us) another apology. (I could also say the same thing about Richard Gephardt. The DLC isn't particularly fond of his healthcare proposals and his stance against free trade.)

go here and look up Kerry:
http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm

As far as Senator Graham goes, his reply for the nay vote was that the resolution wasn't strong enough.

You may see it fit to give somebody a free pass just because they have a (D) next to their name, I do not.

They certainly are not going to get an apology from me and they are certainly not going to get my vote.

Kerry is DLC and has never denied it. You can check it out right on the DLC's web page.

http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir.cfm

You're right about Graham; Dennis Kucinich and Bob Graham are the only two of the candidates who actually voted against the measure.

I disagree with you about the DLC not favoring Kerry's nomination. The DLC is favoring the nomination of any Dem who has ties to them either now or in the past because they are frantic at the prospect of losing their power.

The DLC has even set up the entire Draft Clark movement with a Democrat and Republican co-founding the movement (another great indication of the DLC being nothing more than Republican-lite) and I am fully expecting them to pair Clark up with Dean, who used to be DLC and whose relationship with the DLC was never totally severed in my opinion.


“The main theme of the next election is going to be national security,” said Chris Kofinis, a political consultant who attended the DLC gathering and is advising the campaign to draft retired Gen. Wesley Clark as the Democratic candidate.
Dean, he said, “is in a difficult spot. He ran a smart campaign; he has done an incredibly good job. But the way he energized his message was on an antiwar platform. He’s trying slowly to change it. But once you get framed, it’s very difficult to get re-framed. If he wins the nomination can he beat George Bush? As of July 2003 — it’s still early and he can change his message — Howard Dean loses and loses badly.”
But, Kofinis said, Bush is vulnerable on the security issue — because U.S. troops are overstretched and because “there was little or no thought given to how difficult the job would be after the war. This is unacceptable.”
http://www.msnbc.com/news/945273.asp?cp1=1 (You should read this entire article as it addresses your candidates relationship with the DLC)

Your last sentence that is... but the rest is accurate and I wish more people understood this. The war against Iraq was supposed to begin under Clinton but because he didn't have enough US support (google "Sandy Berger" Albright OSU Iraq ) and had a better brain than Bush's he didn't. But he was ready to and would have. Democrat Reps were writing him unsolicited letters pressuring him to attack Iraq pronto (Lieberman was one of those). Our government was intent on attacking Iraq for corporate profit. Anyone who gives one hoot about the Iraqi people should NOT be supporting a continued occupation under which US companies will move in and benevolently pilfer what those people have left.

Just wanted to tell you that I fully support you. As a soldier you understand the implications of occupation a lot better than most people here. I really feel for you... If there's anything this ex-soldier can do for you, please PM me.

Peace

is a campaign to reach out to the huge number of people who don't vote and bring them back in to the fold. I always vote, even if I have to hold my nose to do so. But I really relate to people who have just turned away, convinced that candidates don't relate to them or care about their issues. Dennis is the first candidate in 25 years of voting I've ever gotten excited about.

At the meetup I attended last night, bringing in the disenfranchised was one of the bigger topics we discussed and centered plans around.

see

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank08122003.html


In a 1997 Vt News Bureau interview, Dean admitted his desire to appoint
judges willing to subvert the bill of rights. Now the fallout from Dean's
appointments are before the US 2nd Circuit at Foley Square, NYC in two
outrageous cases. Docket #s 03-7036, 02-6150, 02-6199, 02-6201 One case is
being prosecuted by Washington, DC first amendment attorney Robert
Corn-Revere against two of Dean's judges for their banishment of a Vermont
"citizen-reporter" for life from all state courthouses because he criticized
one of Dean's judicial appointees. The other case features Dean's judges
violating Double Jeopardy, First Amendment, State law and the State
constitution. See Docket No. 99-445 (Vt. Dec. 13, 2000), aff'g, Docket No.
167-1-99 WmCr (Windham D. Ct. Aug. 30, 1999) Both cases have been briefed
before the Manhattan Court awaiting oral argument. Also filing a brief in
federal court against Dean's appointees is the Thomas Jefferson Center For
The Protection of Freedom of Expression.

Below are links regarding Dean's voicing his problem with the Bill of
Rights. He constantly complains about "legal technicalities" (i.e. the Bill
of Rights) as he did in the June 22 meet the press interview.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/government.shtml

http://www.txtriangle.com/archive/1049/coverstory.htm


A link to a story regarding the courthouse banishment case.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//news.aspx?id=5354
or…
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13300


A commentary on Dean's subversion of the public defender system.

http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003681.html#003681

Dean's statement on "re-evaluation" of our "civil liberties".

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html

Criminal sentences doubled during Dean's tenure as a result of his
appointments. I wonder how many of those serving these inflated sentences
were also subjugated to constitutional deprivations at the hands of Dean's
Judicial appointees leading to their convictions? How many of those serving
inflated sentences were prejudiced by Deans' subversion of the public
defender system mandated by the 6th amendment?

In the Meet the Press interview with Dean while discussing the death
penalty he stated,

"So I just-life without parole, which we have which I actually got passed
when I was lieutenant governor- the problem with life without parole is that
people get out for reasons that have nothing to do with justice. We had a
case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted,
then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new
trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the
second trial. "

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1

Now, according to Dean, the Bill of Rights (ie. legal technicalities) has
"nothing to do with justice". In the above quote, is he saying that if
someone was unconstitutionally convicted it is better that the government
kill them before they can point out the constitutional problems with their
conviction?


A further commentary on Dean's death penalty stand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1907-2003Jul2¬Found=true

and, noting the "anti-due-process" Dean message,

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/930194.asp?0si=-&cp1=1#BODY

See 1994 Yale Law School commencement discussing the danger of our leaders dismissing the "provisions of the Bill of Rights as mere technicalities.".


http://www.schr.org/reports/docs/Yale%2094.pdf


Scott Huminski
Cary, NC

IS DEAN A CRIMINAL TOO?

Dean's appointment of Vermont Attorney General Sorrell and Sorrell's criminal violation of civil rights law and bribery cover-up.


Dean is quite impressed with Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell. He appointed him Attorney General in the late 1990’s to fill a vacancy and then Sorrell was his # 1 choice for CHIEF JUSTICE of the Vermont Supreme Court. Sorrell was removed from consideration because he had no judicial experience. Good try Dean. A google search on "Howard Dean William Sorrell" speaks volumes. A vote for Dean is a vote to appoint William Sorrell to a very high federal position as Dean will take this unusually close associate with him. US Attorney General maybe?

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean0702/freyneint.html

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/68525.html

http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/66910.html

http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102%257E8860%257E1089066,00.html

http://www.state.vt.us/atg/vtag.htm


After Dean’s judges had been enjoined for 2 years from interfering in my access to Vermont Courthouses, Sorrell engineered a plan to re-banish me. The banishment lasted one month before the federal court woke up and re-placed an injunction on Dean’s judicial appointees once again. Google search on "Scott Huminski First Amendment". The story is all there from the Associated Press, the Freedom Forum, First Amendment Cyber Tribune and many others.

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/Stories/0,1413,104~8678~831060,00.html

Courthouse access is a first amendment right according to US Supreme Court Precedent. See Press-Enterprise cases. Sorrell’s conduct last year constitutes criminal violation of federal civil rights law. See federal law below. They say birds of a feather flock together. Is Dean a criminal too, or just a very poor judge of character. Either way there should be concern.

By the way, Sorrell is currently busy covering-up the acceptance of a bribes by two Vermont Prosecutors, William Wright and John Lavoie. This fact stands undisputed before the United State Second Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC, # 03-7036. Unfortunately it’s not online, but, I will email court pleadings to any interested parties.

Another Dean item….

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html



Scott Huminski

UNITED STATES CODE Title 18

Sec. 241. - Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death

Sec. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death

for later reading as I don't have the time right now. Can you please check your links. The link to the Thom Hartman site isn't working.

Thanx! :)

Information like this is what really worries me about Dean having his records sealed and is why I can't, no matter how much I hate Bush, give him the benefit of the doubt.

It is too easy to SAY things- and much easier if you have sealed records which could contradict what you're saying today.