Kucinich is "unelectable"- a question.

Ok, those of us who support another candidate because Kucinich "has no chance", I have to ask- How many of you will spend the next 8 years wondering "What if...?".

WHAT IF we all fought for right and just, instead of the "winning side"?

WHAT IF all those who say he's the best were to vote for him now, in the Primaries and donate money?

WHAT IF he had been elected President?

WHAT IF we had just believed for once?

WHAT IF WE ALL HAD FEARED NOT TRYING MORE THAN WE FEARED DEFEAT?

So I ask, what do you fear? Defeat or apathy? Dennis John Kucinich does not fear defeat. Never has, and there's a reason for that. He knows if you never try you're always left with "WHAT IF", and that is the BIGGEST and most profound defeat one can suffer.

Will you try or will you go down in flames because you didn't dare?

must have felt later. Or imagine the people who failed to vote for JFK in 1960. If we don't vote for Dennis, it is like giving the middle finger to our children. If we love our children and want to make a better world for them, then we have only one choice: we must vote for Dennis.

I know I've spoken against some of your posts about Dean, but overall, I think you have a very strong grasp of what is happening in this country. And you definitely have a clear understanding of why Kucinich is the only rational choice.

Peace and Kucinich for President

When Franklin Roosevelt ran for president he was the two-term governor of our largest state. When John Kennedy ran, he was a two-term U.S. Senator and a war hero. It's absolutely laughable to compare Dennis Kucinich with these giants. Kucinich will be lucky to place in the top five in the primaries.

well, actually i have here a Time magazine from 1977 with a good article on Dennis Kucinich, and how he is the "new" face of the Democratic Party...funny how 25 years goes by

Dennis is from another era, and maybe not well known to some, but those people in the Steel Belt know who he is...and many remember

the media pays no attention to Dennis becaues Dennis is the Corporation killer, and there is no bigger Corporation than the media

The question I have is how have the thousands of Green Party voters in Florida who supported Nader over Gore in 2000 felt for the last 4 years? I do understand that many of the people on this thread will unite around the final Democratic Party nominee, but I think it does matter, matters a lot, whether that person is Lieberman Clark or Dean. I am thinking ahead to the 2004 election, seeking a candidate who I can feel good about, who will defeat George W. Bush.

Of course I was in Pennsylvania and not Florida...but still I have no regrets about supporting Nader over Gore, and I'll run through this again. I'll break it into catagory this time though.

THE PATRIOT ACT- severely curtails civil liberties. Why would Al Gore, who's pro-censorship Senate hearings on "obscenity" in music were responsible for shutting down at least one independent record label, have a problem with that?

The AFGHANISTAN and IRAQ WARS- Gore had no problems with Clinton bombing the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Why would he oppose as president these wars, especially considering the post 9-11 environment?

THE TAX CUTS- Gore wouldn't have done those, true. But he'd still have lined the wealthy's pockets with his developer-friendly "Liveability Agenda"

In 2002 I was faced with a similar choice. Democrat Ed Rendell or Green candidate Michael Morrill. That time I went with Rendell. That is a decision I regret. After a Supreme Court Commission gave compelling evidence of racial bias in capital sentencing, Rendell who had pledged to support a moratorium if such evidence came to light said he didn't see the evidence in the Commission's recommendations, even though they directly recommended a moratorium. His budget has been a disaster for the working poor, social services, and college appropriations.

think that we did the wrong thing. I myself just voted for a canidate I actually liked rather than voting for one I didnt but thought could win.

Bush in the White House, right?

I try to get this across to people. We may not have another chance to elect someone with his ideas and and vision in our lifetime. If not now, when? It's time to have courage and conviction and don't be afraid, we will win, the country will win, the world will win, the people will win! May peace prevail.

When sufficient ground work has been done, that's when. I agreed more with Ralph Nader than I did with Al Gore. I voted for Al Gore instead, and I sure as Hell wish a few thousand more people did also.

A candidate can help grow a movement through a losing campaign, that's what happened with Barry Goldwater, but that movement took years to mature into a potent political force. Rightly or wrongly, when a candidate is perceived to be way out of the mainstream, or when a candidate is pushed out of the mainstream by self appointed mainstream gate keepers, it is extrordinarily difficult for that candidate to win in a first attempt. It's like there is a 100 meters race with world class Runners, except some of the racers don't get to start their race at the starting line, they have to start out from 20 yards behind it. It's blatent, it may be unfair, but it is none the less obvious that those racers will not be the first ones across the finish line as a result.

Dennis will emerge from this campaign with some national recognition. If he wants to play the game, he can have "talking head status" as a result of this run. If his supporters build on the connections forged through his campaign, they can increasingly become a force in the Democratic Party. But he will not be elected President in 2004. Unfortunately, in my opinion, 4 years of a Bush Presidency has already put our nation so much at risk that we simply can't chance another 4 years. We have to get it right the first time this time, none of that positioning for 2008 crap. Sure, position for 2008, but we have to get Bush out. I support Wesley Clark. He's thoughtful and brilliant, he can turn everything Bush throws at him back against him. He has the personna and background that will enable him to unite the nation rather quickly around a dramatically new agenda and vision for our future. It can't happen a day too soon.

And that one thing is 'give up, he can't win'. There's always some handwaved theory behind it ('his healthcare will never pass because it's too radical', 'he doesn't look presidential', etc.), but it ends up being only the personal, unsupported opinion of the detractor, though it's always put forward as if announcing a newly-discovered physical law. And when, as yesterday, the naysayers end up with egg on their faces because, e.g., the abc/wp poll says there's broad support for that 'too radical' healthcare plan of Dennis's, we never hear any 'hmmm...perhaps I should re-think'. All we get is dead silence.

It'd be funny if it weren't so sad and dangerous.

Broad support for a policy does not equate with practical political support for a candidate. The American public opposed the Bush Tax cuts as a matter of fact. The American public consistently advocates stronger environmental protections yet Bush still has a positive job rating despite his dismal record in that area. I don't say that Dennis can't be President someday. I said it won't happen in 2004, and it won't. He did not start out with sufficient public support, a broad enough organizational base, and the bare bones minimum amount of funds needed to win a highly competitive national race. He started out so far behind that even if he and everyone who supports him doubled their efforts, and redoubled them again, he would not hit critical mass in time this time. That does not mean that any of the efforts made are wasted. That is how you lay the foundation for creating in the future sufficient public support, a broad enough organizational base, and the bare bones amount of funds needed to win a highly competitive national race.

I believe we can change the world with the right leader and I believe Dennis is the right leader and now is the right time.

...I'm being brainwashed by orbital mind-control lasers?

:hi: ever think about that, btw peace and even if we dont win, one thing is for sure is that history remembers people like Dennis. I proudly will support the man with the Gandhi award.

Seriously, do you honestly think the US Government has abandoned research it's been carrying out since the 50s and 60s? Come on, think about it! They don't hide the fact they looked into ways to alter human behavior and thought, and with the advent of new technology, I'd personally wager they've stepped that research up of any changes have been made.

Look, you can laugh about it all you like, but there may come a time when it's a very real threat, and would you rather a man who had the foresight to prevent it running things or someone who dismissed it altogether?

More than that, have you read the entire text of the Space Preservation Act? If not then you look a fool because that was only two sentences in a very comprehensive bill to ban space based weaponry. Moreover, those two sentences were removed and the bill resubmitted at a later date.

that the best and most certain way to defeat Bush* is to offer something totally different to the voters. I know that many here do not agree with that assessment and are fighting it strongly. I think that the majority of people can look at Dennis and see him as different, hear him as different and when he speaks, really speaks (not the debates) he leaves people with the feeling that they ARE essentially good and that they CAN be safe and financial security IS possible. He points out the flaws and mistakes in the current admin without fear and with a choice to make things better. Maybe it is just me but I can't see this in the other candidates, at least not as strongly. They are all good but Dennis is better IMO. If not now, when? This is the best and the right time.

My very first campaign was for Eugene McCarthy in 1968. But when it comes to defeating someone like Bush, I'm very pragmatic. I've taken those political tests which show which candidate you should support and Kucinich always comes out on top for me. And make no mistake, I admired him for being the only Dem to stand up against Bush's war hysteria last fall.

But the truth is that he is NOT electable, and given a choice between a candidate whom I really like and will give Bush another term and one I sort of like who can win next year, I'll take the latter every time. Bush must be voted out of office -- everything else is secondary.

Bush out and a status quo Dem in isn't going to change anything, is it? I can respect what you're saying, I just can't agree. I think we've passed the point of no return and it's do or die right NOW. We have to change, and RADICALLY, not just a little, not part way, and not by compromising. CHANGE, REAL change.

blackcat you know the man you first worked for 35 years ago is alive and kicking for DK? That man in your avatar, Robert Francis Kennedy who is one of my greatest heroes talked about simliar things that Dennis does. FDR said 70 years ago that the only thing we had to fear was fear itself and he was right and still is.

Is that what you're saying? If not, where do you get this noise about "isn't going to change anything"?

There's a lot of folk who suffered through Clinton/Gore, especially those who are victims of "welfare reform".

You talk to the person who's working TWO minimum wage jobs just to keep the kids fed and a roof over their heads, and you ask them how much "better" things were four years ago, when they were doing about as well.

The only difference with Bush to many working folk is that now the middle-class is getting hit with the same shit they've been putting up with for years, even during the so-called "boom years" of Clinton/Gore. But now "we" choose to "do something about it" because the laid-off white-collar workers can't make their house payments. :eyes:

And you're limiting the cases to worst cases for the Clinton/Bush comparison. You know that unemployment is rising rapidly, right? You know that the stock market is in the toilet, taking people's pension funds with it, right?

And gosh-a-mighty, let's not even talk about the war in Iraq, civil liberties going to hell, attacks on the environment, judicial appointments, foreign policy, or the national debt! Certainly there's nothing in any of that that would illustrate the difference between Clinton and Bush! :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Having medical, housing, schools, and other services cut affects low-income people as much or more than most. They see what's happening under Bush. They see there's no hope of a raise now, where just a few years ago they thought there might be. They see there's no job market and hope to get some education and move up either. I think people who don't get it have just never lived through the Reagan years. Because things aren't as bad now as they were then. I just heard the first report on homeless children last night. Maybe we'll have to go through that for another 4 or 5 years before we get together and vote the assholes out again.

And this time they're coming for all of our rights, environmental protection, equal justice, everything. This Administration isn't like any we've had in 100 years. If we don't stop them, it's tenament housing and third world poverty like folks can't even imagine. Things were much better for everybody under Clinton and if Gore were sitting in the White House, things would have continued to improve.

99 elections out of 100, you'd be right. Not this time. George Bush is different. I could just pull my hair out when I hear people say status quo Dem isn't going to be any different than Bush. After 8 years of Clinton and just a short time of Bush, anybody ought to be able to see there's a HUGE difference. And as long as we're a country with the basic belief that our founding principle is the freedom to earn our own way with limited government interference, the kinds of changes Dennis wants to implement aren't going to be embraced. He can't win, although in many, many ways, he is right. Getting rid of George Bush this time around is too important to mix up the ideas of radical change and survival. We have to survive before we can even think about radical change.

I'll grant you I should have been more clear in what I mean by that. It isn't that there is no difference between the way they'd handle things at all. What I'm getting at is that a status quo Dem isn't going to undo the damage Bush has done in any sort of timely manner.

Look, as of Friday this nation is basically completely bankrupt. Whether people face that fact or not it is a FACT, and Dean isn't going to fix it no matter what he promises. Kerry isn't going to fix that, Gephart isn't going to fix that, and Clark isn't going to fix it. Now that's not to say any one of them wouldn't make fine Presidents under more normal circumstances. These are NOT normal circumstances, you all have said so yourself!

The ONLY candidate with the guts to say "If we repeal all(someone correct me if he's said only part, please) the tax cuts, get our butts out of Iraq asap, cut the bloated Pentagon budget by 15% and institute a new WPA system, we can get this country back on track and out of the red.", and he's RIGHT! Just about everyone I've ever spoken to about him admits he's absolutely right about almost everything he says....and then BAM...that assinine "unelectable" crap pops out.

Explain this to me because so far it's never made any sense. You don't vote for the guy who can and will change the situation rapidly, you vote for the guy who will leave the national debt where it is...on the backs of our children and grandchildren?! WTF???

First, I honestly believe immediately repealing all the tax cuts would create economic harm, not anything good. We just can't pull that money out of the consumer part of the economy. In addition, many low income people, like senior citizens, either paid for that surplus through payroll taxes or paid for it through Medicare cuts. Then we took the bulk of it and gave it to the wealthy, giving the low-income a few crumbs. So NOW we want to take away their crumbs to pay for robbing them of the sacrifice they already made???? Bullshit. The wealthy GOT the tax benefits, let THEM pay it back.

Second, I have no personal problem with cutting the defense budget. Personally, I think we ought to cut the damn thing in half. It's completely outrageous. BUT, the rest of the country would have a total shit fit if someone like Kucinich dare mention cutting defense at this particular point in time. Wesley Clark, he can get away with it and I think has actually proposed some cuts. Kucinich just can't.

Third, Iraq is more than Iraq. It's the jump off point for the entire ME. Without a stable, prosperous and free Iraq, we have no real hope of making further change in the region. I don't even think we should be in there trying to make changes, but the cold fact is that we do need the oil. The U.S. without ME oil is an economic situation I don't even want to contemplate. Does Dennis' Iraq plan take that into consideration? Or does his world view have him believing that any country will create a peaceful government if the U.S. just didn't interfere? I don't believe that, although it seems to me Dennis does.

There is more to getting our country back on track than just retreating from the problems around the world. Those days are gone and we need someone who knows that and is ready to move forward with a world view that recognizes the reality of dangerous groups but also recognizes the interdependence of all countries. I really believe it's Kerry.

I don't even think we should be in there trying to make changes, but the cold fact is that we do need the oil. The U.S. without ME oil is an economic situation I don't even want to contemplate.

Dennis is someone who sees the total picture and unlike the current regime, his ideas & plans mesh...but please, we are so dependent on OIL in this country...it ain't gonna be easy to wean us off it but the way we are going- sooner or later it has to be done!

So you feel its OK to take another country's oil and use it while we sit on our own- just because WE NEED IT HERE?

Sorry...can't wrap my thinking around that idea any longer....we are a greedy nation and we don't care if others suffer as long as it doesn't mess with our lifestyle...(I am not making this personal to you sandnsea-I don't know you)
....this just seems to be what this nations stands for anymore...just gimme mine first and turn the TV back on......I keep asking...How did we get here?????

:shrug:
Peace
DR


BTW Dennis has been working for quite awhile on plans to mesh the whole world together in wasy to benefit not just the US but the world...we need to make some big changes & its true that change is not always easy.....

I didn't say it was ok to take another country's oil at all. I said the reality is that we need ME oil, in fact the entire world needs ME oil. Unless you want to revert back 200 years and cut down the few remaining trees for heat, or burn coal. The ME needs to sell oil, or they won't have an economy; and the world needs to buy it. Anybody who doesn't acknowledge that true fact, isn't looking at the world realistically. Having the ME in constant turmoil isn't good for anybody in the world, because of the oil. We need a President who is willing to tell the truth about that AND has a plan to engage the ME in a different way and move towards energy independence as well. Since Kucinich doesn't seem willing to admit the simple truth of the ME oil, I don't think he's really the candidate to handle these particular times. John Kerry is telling the WHOLE truth about energy and the ME, which is why I'm supporting him.

You're presuming there's no other choice in the short term. But there really are other choices. If all the ME oil vanished tomorrow, we'd get by. It would mean changes such as no unnecessary commuting, no private vehicle can be driven with more than one empty seat, etc., but we'd get by. It's the other candidates who're hiding the simple truth, not Dennis.

regarding the refusal to sell Muny Power, the vote against the Patriot Act, and the vote against the IWR, shows me that his vision is keen and far-sighted. I trust him to see the long term ramifications of what he plans to do because, historically, he's been shown to be correct when others either scoffed or shuffled to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Shrub. He doesn't fly off and make irrational decisions.

your post because you're one of the people on this board who typically provides civil discussion. If I came across as b*tchy, it was honestly not intentional, but I was a little aggravated when I composed it(tried not to take it out on you).

"We just can't pull that money out of the consumer part of the economy. In addition, many low income people, like senior citizens, either paid for that surplus through payroll taxes or paid for it through Medicare cuts. Then we took the bulk of it and gave it to the wealthy, giving the low-income a few crumbs. So NOW we want to take away their crumbs to pay for robbing them of the sacrifice they already made???? Bullshit. The wealthy GOT the tax benefits, let THEM pay it back."

What you've overlooked with the above response is that we aren't just taking away the crumbs. The intent on Kucinich's part is to replace the crumbs with a whole loaf of bread. I also did point out that I could be mistaken about him wanting to repeal all the tax cuts, however my personal opinion is the economy is in the toilet, the deficit is so high it will take decades to bring it under control under anyone but Kucinich, and I'm one of the people who got crumbs. I'd rather give those crumbs to Kucinich and let him get me decent health coverage, or my kids a school worth going to, or bring the soldiers back from Iraq asap. That's my position and I stick to it. He can have the $800 child-care refund I got with my blessings.

"BUT, the rest of the country would have a total shit fit if someone like Kucinich dare mention cutting defense at this particular point in time. Wesley Clark, he can get away with it and I think has actually proposed some cuts. Kucinich just can't."

He can if people knew he's on the Ways and Means Committee and knows where the waste is. He can if he can ever get enough coverage so that people actually HEAR what he plans to do with the Pentagon budget. Yes, he most certainly can. Yes, Clark has proposed some cuts, which is one of the things I like about him. He's talked about the bloated Pentagon budget before he chose to run.

"Third, Iraq is more than Iraq. It's the jump off point for the entire ME. Without a stable, prosperous and free Iraq, we have no real hope of making further change in the region. I don't even think we should be in there trying to make changes, but the cold fact is that we do need the oil. The U.S. without ME oil is an economic situation I don't even want to contemplate. Does Dennis' Iraq plan take that into consideration? Or does his world view have him believing that any country will create a peaceful government if the U.S. just didn't interfere? I don't believe that, although it seems to me Dennis does."

Can I point out to you the fact that oil is in limited supply all over the world? Seriously, you don't think that this country has any sort of real future if we don't do something about our oil dependance do you? I'm not trying to be nasty, but the way you composed the response above, it really seems like you aren't concerned with reducing it at all.

As far as the ME, yes, Iraq is the "jumping off point" for the whole ME, especially with the PNAC crowd running the show. The ME WAS stable before we went lumbering in there! No, I'm not kidding. Your definition of "stable" and theirs are two different things.

Dennis' Iraq plan takes into account that we won't get th ME's oil support by invading country after country, and that this is the course Bush has put us on. His plan takes into account that the US is ENTIRELY TOO dependant on ME oil, and we need to act on that before it's too late. See I have kids, and I think about their future and the generations that will follow them. I've imagined the horror of a global oil shortage, and if we keep this stupidity up, lemme tell ya it's coming sooner than anyone thinks.

As for what the ME needs from us, it certainly isn't invasion after invasion and instituting OUR choice of Government for them. The way your comment reads it's as if you believe there's nothign wrong with our Government setting up dictatorships as long as it benefits us. And yes, no matter how much they claim it's democracy, if it ain't chosen by the people, it ain't Democracy. Kucinich wants the people of Iraq, with a little diplomatic assistance from experienced peace-makers, to form the government THEY want. What exactly do you see wrong with that?

"There is more to getting our country back on track than just retreating from the problems around the world. Those days are gone and we need someone who knows that and is ready to move forward with a world view that recognizes the reality of dangerous groups but also recognizes the interdependence of all countries. I really believe it's Kerry."

Kucinich has never proposed retreating from the problems around the world. I'm not sure where you get that idea. Kucinich is the one insisting that we MUST reconcile with the UN, the World Court, and other international organizations and governments to facilitate peaceful coexistance. Kucinich is the guy who wants to confront the worlds' problems.

sandnsea, you're not under any obligation to defend your choice of candidates to me, and that wasn't what I was suggesting with my starter post. I LIKE Kerry! I LIKE Clark, and Edwards, and there's plenty enough good to be said about all of them, yes, even Lieberman! If things weren't what they are now, and Kucinich wasn't running, I'd be fumbling around all over the place. If YOU believe John Kerry is the best man for the job, then support him. I disagree, but that's Democracy. That's why we have Primaries and Elections. So you support John Kerry because you believe he's the best man for the job, I'll back you on it 100%! If you're sure he's the one you want in there then the message was never meant for you. It's for all those who outright SAY over and over "I agree with everything Dennis Kucinich says. BUT he's *unelectable*."

First, on the oil, obviously I agree that we have to get off of fossil fuel, that's one of Kerry's main policies. And I certainly don't think he believes we should jump around the ME invading country after country. I sure don't, or I'd be on FR.

Second, the ME hasn't been stable since Israel became a nation in the 1940's and somewhat before that.

But, to forming the government 'they' want. That's fine with me. But because the entire world IS currently dependent on ME oil, I don't think we can just retreat out of the situation and totally trust the UN to be able to handle the transtition. The reason being, they haven't handled anything in the ME, ever. Certainly alot of that is our fault. But not all of it. At what risk to the security of the rest of the world do we turn over the ENTIRE Iraq situation to the UN. Don't forget what would happen to the rest of the world if we were suddenly thrown into a life with no power source. NOT just the US, the WHOLE world. Complete chaos and definitely wars and probably localized fighting as well. If something were to happen in the ME, say Iraq and Saudi Arabia went to war and both countries oil flow was disrupted, what then? When you take into full account the imnplications of an unsuccessful government in Iraq, do you still think they should be able to do whatever they want? And on a side note, do you believe we should sit back and allow regimes that are slaughtering their people, purely on a humanitarian basis?

Lastly, on the tax cuts. If we were going to get TRUE single payer health, yes, I'd support reapealing the tax cuts in a second. We're not. It would never never pass.

And I DO like what Dennis has to say. I just don't think it's practical when it has a little nasty reality stuck to it. I like hearing other people's views on their candidate and really enjoy reading your clear and well-thought out reasons for supporting Kucinich.

It's another reason I genuinely like him.

"But, to forming the government 'they' want. That's fine with me. But because the entire world IS currently dependent on ME oil, I don't think we can just retreat out of the situation and totally trust the UN to be able to handle the transtition."

Well clearly the US can't withdraw completely. We are a member nation of the UN and have a responsibility to assist in UN efforts. The difference is we won't be rogue invaders which is all we are now. What we mainly appear to disagree about is whether Dennis Kucinich has the negotiating skill to get things resolved in a reasonably timely and safe manner. I firmly believe he does. I don't know with any certainty Kerry couldn't do it just as well, I just don't get the sense of confidence in him for it that I do for Kucinich.

As to the governments slaughtering their own, no I don't think we should "allow" it, but then just how do we stop it? Attack them all? Somehow I don't think that's the answer.

"Lastly, on the tax cuts. If we were going to get TRUE single payer health, yes, I'd support reapealing the tax cuts in a second. We're not. It would never never pass."

You know, people keep saying that, but the thing is we don't know that because it's never been tried! Everyone wants to compare it to the Clinton plan and it isn't even in the same ball-park.

The best he can do is turn control of reconstruction over to the UN but they won't accept that unless we maintain a military presence to protect our joint efforts and offer to pay most of the tab. (As they should insist since we stirred up this hornets nest)

That sounds speculative, to me. Do you have evidence?

(edited to remove the unintended harsh tone)

why would the United Nations fund to the tune of billions of dollars a reconstruction effort for a war they were against to begin with? Why would France or Germany or Spain send their sons and daughters to die in a country they never supported going into in the first place? And even if the did, Are their militarys staffed sufficiently to make that commitment?

My "speculation" is based on the evidence that every UN peacekeeping mission has been staffed disproportionately by the United States. And those were missions the UN desired often over U.S. relunctance.

Why would the UN want to do it? Money and regional influence would be my guess. Why don't we find out?

No, the United States. The troops came disproportionately from the United States, Mai. For a UN-supported operation. Remember, you wanted evidence that U.S. troops would have to remain in Iraq even if the UN was handed the mission.

And this was evidence of what? That the US has always stuck its oar in and therefore it can't not do it? What would prevent other nations clubbing together to do it without the US?

and that was for a war they supported.

What makes you believe that there is only one possible solution?

I never suggested there was only one solution, just that whatever solution we came to would involve a commitment of U.S. troops, so Kucinich must be being disengenious (sp?) when he says he'll pull them out.

I base that belief on past UN missions that have always involved a disproportionately greater commitment of U.S. Troops. The leadership and worldview of the UN will not change even if DK would be elected. I'm also basing it on the fact that the U.S. is the only country with a military large enough to commit a sizable number of troops.

I like most of Kucinich's policies fine, but if I were dreaming the impossible dream it would be Carol Mosely Braun for me. She seems more practical, more realistic and yet just as liberal as Kucinich and she didn't have to switch on choice. But she's not going to win the election, so I'm not supporting her in the primary. I do hope to see her in Clark's administration somewhere, though. That would be wonderful.

about her is that I don't see her hard edge. I know she has it, she had to to be an Ambassador, but I don't see it much in the debates.

Kucinich has never wavered for most of his policies, and that's what I want. That and flat out, unreserved TRUTH. Tell me who and what you are and stand for, period. I don't give a flying f*ck about corporate America, Enron, Halliburton and the rest can kiss my purty pink rear. I want facts, no more BS, no more made-up threats, no more preemptive strikes, no more hate! I'm sick of it all. I want total change. Braun could help with it, but I'm not convinced she could instigate it happening.

If I had to pick on policy alone I'd pick her. But I can't pick on policy alone. EOM.

I'd gladly vote for him, too.

and in a left-liberal direction. But I don't think the numbers are made up. It's telling us all SOMETHING.

Dennis Kucinich 2,314 (51.0%)

Howard Dean 1,482 (32.7%)

Wesley Clark 299 (6.6%)

http://www.potuspoll.com/email-thanks.htm

But that's just how the cookie crumbles.

But just think: what if it were Mosley-Braun who was really electable?

I like CMB, once again. I have my reservations, and so what? Are you fighting or are you settling? That's the real question.

Take your post. Substitute "McGovern" for "Kucinich" everywhere the name appears. Read it again. Think about it.

Your name substitution changes the equation entirely......

Peace
DR

could have been said with equal justice about McGovern in 1972, before he was nominated. Look how that came out.

And Wellstone went on to become the soul of the Senate.

People who have decided for themselves that Kucinich should be marginalized should keep that in mind.

Kucinich belongs in the White House where he can inspire all of us.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

What year did Wellstone run for President and win? I'm so forgetful about these things.

But he was diagnosed with MS, and didn't think it would be good for his health to run.

But just think if he would have run against Shrub in 2000? Can you image how he would have shredded Shrub's sorry ass in the debates? How he would have inspired so many non-voters to vote that it would have offset any Repub-lite votes for El Arbusto?

Let's put it this way: this country would have been MARKEDLY different under Wellstone than under bush, and much different that under Gore for that matter, too.

are two completely different things, so I don't think that they are comparative here.

With heartfelt respect to the late Mr. Wellstone, he wasn't in any position to win the Presidency.

Thats what Dan is getting at. My opinion is anything can happen. On gun control, Kucinich has the mainstream democratic position, Gephardt and him are sponsoring a bill. Who knows guys he could win, just because you may not like him, the public could like him. I will support the candiate of the party but I really like Kucinich a lot.

But national elections aren't as volatile as statewide elections. "Anything can happen" isn't a viable strategy. I think we need Kucinich where we've got him - in Congress.

and btw may be hard to believe the bulk of us aint Kucinich or bust, I like Kerry and Edwards the most after Kucinich. Dan among some other Minnesotans was in Minnesota was Wellstone won. I know it wont be easy but I think he could win. I will for sure support the democratic nominee.

"I will for sure support the democratic nominee."

:toast:

I have 3 big democratic heroes: FDR, RFK, and Wellstone. You gotta understand that we may be Green like in politics but we do see the good in other candiates, I can say I do.

But, if Minnesota can't even elect Mondale, I'm not sure how Dennis could win the Presidency. Wellstone won in Minnesota because MN is still pretty liberal and is open to a candidate like him. I think Dennis faces a tougher crowd in the US public.

And, actually, I do like Kucinich, so I'm not sure where you may have gotten an impression otherwise. He has impressed me in the debates, and I have done a lot of research with regard to his positions on the issues.

But, my point had nothing to do with liking him or disliking him. I think that Kucinich has some stances that just wouldn't work well on the national stage, taking into consideration the current political atmosphere.

I'm sure we have different perspectives, because I'm out here in the middle of the red states, but realistically, I don't think the American public is ready to elect him President.

What happened with Minnesota imo was the media spinning. Look I am sorry I overreact but I think he could win now would it be a Rooseveltian landslide, I hardly doubt it but we dont know what its gonna be like. I dont mean to overreact but its ad naseum honestly, he could have a bigger chance if more gave him one. I dont like to lose my cool but I think we cant be afraid, who knows the public may really like him honestly. I think hes likable.

I think we all get a little defensive about the candidates, so it's completely understandable. It's very easy to assume that everything is posted in a negative way - I do it myself!

I think what Dennis is fighting more than anything are labels. He's labelled a liberal or a populist or unelectable or whatever and people then discount him without understanding that many of his positions are right in line on traditional liberal issues.

I used to live in MN and still have a lot of relatives there. I agree - Mondale's cause certainly wasn't helped by the media. The whole media storm surrounding the memorial service was unbelievable. It was just another opportunity for the Republicans to senselessly bash the Democrats. Now, they're stuck with Coleman - how they couldn't see through him, I'll never know. Just like Bush!!

Thanks though for understanding. Yeah one of my best friends here is from Minnesota. Coleman and Pawlently sound like your typical republicans. Even if he doesnt win, if he can get the party back to the left I will be happy. I am no Green but my politics are indeed simliar. We cant let fear conquer us, remember what FDR told people. thanks for understanding.

Mondale was slaughtered by a combination of the national right-wing media attack, the fact that his opponent (Norm Coleman) was hand-picked by BushCo to run against Wellstone-- and received piles of RNC money to help him.

And then there's the simple fact that no matter how you slice it, Mondale is not Wellstone.

Wellstone appealed to more Republicans than you can imagine-- even though they didn't agree with him on a number of issues, they trusted him to be honest and do the right thing. You'd be amazed by how many Repubs were going to vote for him over Norm Coleman because they knew he was a man of character; unlike Coleman, who not only jumped parties while he was mayor of Saint Paul, he also broke a promise he made in his mayoral re-election campaign that he wouldn't run for US Senate or Governor while serving as mayor.

But, once Wellstone was out of the picture, it became a race between two politicians, and the better politician won. Sad but true.

besides having only 13 days to campaign, was that he'd been out of politics for 17 years, which meant that no one under 35 could possibly have voted for him last time. With younger voters it was, "Fritz who?" At least that's the interpretation of my youngest brother, who was living here at the time (I was out in Oregon).

Thats true too.

try telling some of the people in those red states about what kucinich stands for, you could be in for a real awakening. much of kucinich's positions transcend the traditional left/right mold. Take trade for instance, his anti-nafta/wto stance is one that's shared by pat buchanan, now buchanan is a nut-ball on other issues, but it's the trade issues that many republicans like about him and it's here that we could win some votes. There's also the issue of Pentagon waste, believe it or not, there's a lot of people aware of the Pentagon's 'lost' $1 trillion dollars, all you have to do is point out that Kucinich isn't against the military but against these defense contractors bilking the tax payers of billions and you've won a friend.

I think a lot of people just get freaked out by DK because he's saying things that most politicians wouldn't dare to say, because they're more worried about winning than doing what's right. Not that winning isn't important, but seriously what kind of person should be running our country, one that only cares about winning power or one that cares about doing the right thing and making people's lives better?

And once again I challenge you, not to go out and give your money and time to Kucinich immeadeatly, but if you truly like Kucinich but are worried about his how he'd play out in the general. Study up on his issues and ideas and go out and talk to people about those ideas, you'll find that more support them than you'd think. I was much the same way, until I talked to my Rush listening, Bush loving grandfather about him. At first he just dismissed him as another 'ultra-liberal', but when I got into the details, especially trade, I won him over. His exact words were, "you've become so liberal that I think you've come around the other side and become conservative, this Kucinich guy sounds like someone I could support.' And it's the truth, Kucinich could win, not because he blindly follows ideology, as many mistakenly say about him, but because he doesn't. He uses common sense and creates common sense solutions to many problems, and the people who see that agree with it. Why else do you think that Kucinich gets ZERO coverage of his ideas in the mainstream press? Of course they cover him, but it's always limited to a joke about him or how he was there, but NEVER about what he thinks. It's because if regualar people actually KNEW WHAT HE WAS ABOUT they would support him.

haven't you been canvassing in Iowa on weekends?

What kind of response are you getting there?

(Or do I have you confused with someone else?)

My weekends have been full of other stuff, but I'm going to be at Roosevelt tonight!

:hi: Dan

Its gonna be great for you guys in MN! wahoooo!!!!!

Please give us a first hand report...time permitting of course....:)

:hug: Peace
DR

DK cannot win in the general for the same reason he is popular here at DU: his stance on the issues. A quick look at his website reveals the following:

1) DK supports gay marriage (not just civil unions, but full blown gay marriage). (http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_gayrights.htm)
2) DK supports cutting the military budget by 15%. (http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_militaryspending.htm)
3) DK is opposed to the death penalty in all cases. (http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_death.htm)
4) DK wants to change the retirement age from 67 to 65. (http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_socialsecurity.htm)
5) DK wants to grant permanent legal status to all illegal immigrants. (http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_immigrant_rights.htm)

All of these positions are ones that a majority of American voters disagree with. I couldn't find his position on gun control, but I suspect that he is in the minority on that issue as well. Now its perfectly possible to hold a minority position on one or two issues and win the presidency, but the simple fact is that Dennis holds a minority position on numerous issues.

This makes Dennis Kucinich unelectable. Its that simple.

Nothing....

....not even this......

...we hear these are minority positions.....but who do we hear this from.....?? I 'm not so sure that I believe anything the media says...or polls....how do we find out what people really belive if they are not given the full facts & information to base their choices on??


Peace
DR

I am in favor of all the positions listed above, there are others that I disagree with Dennis on, but I look around me... and really I DON'T have alot of reason to disbelieve the poll numbers surrounding those issues.
Now we can ask why all day, because I really do have more faith in mankind than that, but it doesn't change the situation as it stands... and we won't anytime soon.

But I don't think america is prepared for Dennis just yet. But if things continue the way they are I'm sure he is going be appealing pretty soon!

Saying DK's not likely to win isn't a personal insult to either DK or the people who support him, which is something DK's supporters need to become less prickly about. If I go to a horse race and there are nine horses in it, and say "I don't think #7 there can win this race", I'm not saying #7 is a 'nag', I'm not saying #7 is an UGLY horse, I'm not saying #7 is a crazy horse, I'm not saying #7 is not an intelligent horse--- what I'm saying is that #7 doesn't look like a horse that can win this race, and that's ALL I'm saying, so quit looking for hidden meanings. We have as many legitimate reasons for thinking DK won't win as his supporters do for thinking he can. :shrug:

day after day ad nasuea, people dont like being told that because we think he can win honest and many of us are working our asses off for his vision. Its not an insult but it is shoved down. I got a bad temper for a reason, basically saying that over and over again makes it seem like its futile, maybe its not an insult but is it kind of disrespectful to the people who believe in his vision, yes it is, and thats why people get pissed. Just fightin for what I believe in is all and if someone tells me basically I should give it up, I am gonna get mad. Well anyways if he doesnt win, the truth of the matter is that its the people like him who are remembered. I dont like losing my cool but I can tell you I dont like having this shoved down my throat constantly. Thats why many of us are defensive, we feel like people are telling us hey your guy is great and all but he doesnt have a chance so give it up, I say to that no way, and get mad. I bet you would react the same way.

We're told at least as often why HD can't get elected; if you have any natural allies on that score, it's us. LOL :P

If you have it happen to you, look at your experience and dont do it to others. Ok I will use a comparsion here I guess, its not the best but Ive used it in the best, its like seeing descedants of immigrants look down on others, I am aware of you being Irish, well I got a couple of friends 3rd or 4th generation Irish and Italian respectively, I get really pissed when I see them look down on "Mexicans" because I am aware knowing history that their ancestors were treated like crap, "Irish need not apply" and etc. Its not the same I know, but its simliar in a way being that they have in a way been there yet once they start getting more assimliated they become more anti newcomer. My point is something like this, you deal with the unelectablity question all the time and god willing it pisses you off, clearly you should understand why others react the way they do. Just my opinion as a nut.

But I also, in my quiet moments, consider what his critcs have to say; most of the criticisms are petty--- most--- but not all. He does have a temper, which worries me; he does lack foreign policy experience, which also worries me. Those are two examples of things I just can't dismiss out of hand, no matter how much I believe in Howard.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this, John: differentiate between the criticicms that are superficial and petty, and the ones that may have some 'meat' to them. :hug:

On the temper, one of my heroes is Truman and I myself have a rotten temper and on lack of foriegn policy experience cliche lol he was a governor. Well I try to be fair be its not the fact that there could be some truth to them, I dont think it would be easy but it is shoved, hence people get mad.

The sheer repetition does get annoying as all hell! I'll tell you *my* single-biggest 'beef' about Dennis: now you need to accept that I honestly don't think he'll get the nod, so with that in mind, what gripes me most about his run is that with the House so closely divided, he's giving up a 'safe' Dem seat and 3 terms-worth of seniority. We need all the good Dems we have in the House to stay there, if we wanna pick it up in '04.

Now, is that such a bad thing to have 'against' DK? :)

in to better terms than people wont get mad but they choose to shove it down and people do not like that one damn bit, and honestly that makes me easily frustrated. I accept your belief that he wont get it and I know myself it wont be easy, I dont think it will be but people say oh Rove will smear him, catch it Rove is gonna do that to everyone, "too liberal" everyone will get that label. I hate losing my cool but I am bound to lose it, it seems thats the only issue with most people and him here, it really does that they think he cant win, lets have him win. His vision si probably the one that closely resembles what the country should be about.

if those positions are really "unpopular," or if they've just been demagogued by the right wing so long that most voters have never heard the other side. In any case, I certainly cannot see most people, especially blue collar workers, objecting to the idea of allowing full retirement at 65.

So we should really get behind a nice "Moderate®" who governs by what the polls tell him, as opposed to what is right. It's time for this party to further abandon its longtime loyal constituency and reach out to that fickle 10% of the electorate known as the "swing vote", who have done SO MUCH for this party over the last century.

Because, we need to WIN this time. Even if it means running a candidate who has more in common with the Republican platform than the Democratic party platform. Because if we WIN, maybe, just maybe, this mushball we've elected might do something remotely progressive, like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or "The end of welfare as we know it".

Yes indeed, we must do ANYTHING to win. Including selling our souls and selling out our constituencies. Because when we WIN with a non-Democratic Democrat, we'll be SO MUCH better off.

As a matter of fact, we should all just vote REPUBLICAN, because they've been winning more than we have lately. That way, we'll WIN, and we don't have to hope for anything remotely progressive to come from the White House. And all the cash we'd save on campaigns, too!

(Can you tell I'm getting really pee-oh'd with that tired "we need a moderate to win" meme that's being pushed around again?) :eyes:

From Jim Hightower, who says it much better than I can...
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15440

So let's blow the foam off this beer. The "Big Mandate" that the Bushites are claiming for themselves comes down to a puny 17 percent of the people.

That's the Republican base, not a juggernaut. It's the same 17 percent that they won twenty years ago in the midterm elections during the Reagan infatuation, and it's nearly three points less than they got in the '94 midterms when Newt Gingrich surged to power.

<...>
But what are the Democrats going to do to break - dare we dream? 15 percent? The group now controlling the party apparatus calls itself the Democratic Leadership Council. It's corporate-funded, has a Republican-lite agenda, and practices political minimalism. Forget the party's base, is the DLC's message - instead appeal to a narrow strata of conservative-tilting Soccer Moms and Office Park Dads. The strategy is to appear not to be scruffy, working-family Democrats, but to dress up as the moderate wing of the Republican party, hoping to siphon away two or three points from the GOP's 17 percent plurality. It's a loser, as was forcefully demonstrated in the '02 elections, but it's also a cowardly strategy that's unworthy of a party that has been known in the past as The People's Party.
----------------

As for me, I don't trust polls. Even the hallowed Zogby was off by as much as 14 percent in 2002... 14 percent!

Also, I think people in the middle of the road vote for who they like, and I think Dennis is a likeable guy. I think his optimism and his message of hope will get a lot more people on his side than his views on gay marriage.

Jim Hightower is the gold standard of political realism. He's called every election since Truman vs. Dewey. He's led us to victory again and again. :eyes:

I enjoy reading Hightower and own several of his books, but he is NO guide to what actually works in politics. He got elected to office in Texas once, by mistake, and got booted out as soon as his constituents figured out what he was about.

Hightower was elected Ag Commissioner of Texas TWICE. He lost on his third go-round after a political operative named Karl Rove went to work for his opponent and started spreading lies and falsehoods about Jim.

In other words, Jim was "bushwacked" before it even became the term we know and love so well.

Also, look at the 2002 congressional elections. All the Dems who got loads of DLC $$ for being Bushlite went down in flames. The Dems who stuck to their principles overwhelmingly won re-election.

Who says the people want an "electable moderate"? Oh, that's right, <25% of the elegible voters who bothered to vote for the Repubs and their reactionary agenda.

Never mind that other 75%. They obviously don't matter. ;-)

I'll just go run and change them for you, shall I?

That attitude ain't getting CRAP done and you know it.

MLK didn't sit around and whine about how most whites didn't want blacks to have equal rights... he got up and DID something.

Now go sit down and think about that for a bit, then come back and tell me 'bout the FACTS and how much we should all just lie down and accept defeat.

:D and then act like this great man Kucinich never existed. The least we can do is try.

I don't usually lose my temper easily but I'll be darned if that post didn't do the trick!

but damnit I just wanna yell.

Read the post I was replying to (#46), which was also 100% pure attitude and nothing else.

And what has Dr. King got to do with it? We are talking about politicians running for office. If you want to start a nationwide protest movement about - what was it again? Democrats who probably won't nominate Kucinich? - then have at it! Go be Martin Luther Snoochie and show us that nationwide outrage at our injustice.

We are not lying down and accepting defeat. We are trying to WIN. We are trying to win in ways that actually give us a CHANCE to win. What part of that do you have a problem with?

Dr. King has everything to do with it. He was brave enough to take a stand and got himself killed for it.

I don't want to 'start a movement' -- the movement has already started. It's not about Dems who won't nominate Kucinich... it's about peace and justice, and it's catching fire. Even if naysaying Democrats like you have their way and support the corporate media's marginalization of Dennis's ideas, all the people who (like me) had previously given up completely on politics -- both the corrupt, fascist Republicans AND their sold out Democratic enablers -- have found that there is hope for politics -- that there are people up on Capitol Hill who still believe in Government of, by, and FOR the people.

You can make fun of me all you want, doesn't hurt me. It shows something about you, though, and I wouldn't be proud of it, were I you.

Yes, you're trying to win... you're trying to win by jumping on the first bandwagon that shows any promise, despite knowing full well that we have an unelected leader who is presiding over the most widely-ridiculed, most abject failure of an excuse for a presidency. You're carrying on the proud tradition of the cowardly Dems, displaying your lack of principle for all to see.

We can all get behind the candidate who wins, and I trust the vast majority of Dennis's supporters will do just that, as he is a DEMOCRAT first and foremost, and will implore us to if he doesn't get the nod.

The problem I have is not that you're trying to win, it's that you're giving up hope for anything other than business as usual, and it's way too early for that.

You're not just trying to win, you're trying to win by risking as little as possible on a hopeful future for our country. That, in my opinion, is lying down and accepting defeat.

That's all. You think you can win just by saying "win" a lot. You don't understand what the electorate as a whole (not just your activist friends and a few people you've either persuaded or taught to say what you want to hear so you'll leave them alone) will and won't go for.

It's easy to call reality "business as usual" as a reason for rejecting it. A quick glance at the difference between the Clinton years and the Bush years would tell you how much is actually available for us to win under "business as usual" (aka reality), but you don't want to see it. Easier to be pure and righteous and pretend that it's going to make a difference.

An advocate and a president aren't the same thing. That's the reason Dr. King has nothing to do with this. Quick question - name any U.S. president who has ever been elected who measured up to your ideals when he was in the White House. If you can't, then you might want to rethink your understanding of how politics works.

is that on purpose?

FDR was great, as was Bobby, before he was shown the exit.

If it weren't for scaremongers from the Repug AND Dem parties, maybe people would get behind better candidates more often. But they're always given some reeealy scaary boogeyman to get them to 'fall in line' behind the 'electable' easy winner.

Great job! The country's in fine shape!

And was elected mainly to not be Herbert Hoover. In office, the first thing he did was to bail out private bankers, refusing to nationalize the banks as the liberals of that time wanted, and he cut $500 million from public servants and veterans' paychecks. He blocked civil rights legislation and the racial integration of the military throughout his administrations. He compromised repeatedly on taxes, spending, and monetary policy. Check an encyclopedia (I got all this from Encyclopedia Americana) if you don't believe me.

Don't get me wrong. FDR was far-and-away the greatest President of the 20th Century, arguably the greatest altogether so far. But he did compromise, he did wheel and deal, he did work with the Republicans in Congress. He didn't run as an unapologetic liberal and he wasn't elected on that basis.

As for insulting, gee, read the posts you've written me if you want to talk about insulting.

... a 'humane pragmatist', and said that peole who view him as a 'liberal' are mistaken... and Simon IS a liberal.

And bless your heart for continuing to take Mairead seriously.

:hi:

Were the Japanese internment camps great? And he never seemed to have a problem with the Dresden massacre, or the crematoriums of Auschwitz, Dachau etc. being left off the list of military targets.

http://www.econop.org/sspublic.htm

Americans are unaware that the age of retirement has already increased. Most people are unaware that the normal retirement age for Americans under 30 has been raised from age 65 to age 67 (as decided by Congress in 1983).

Americans support a reasonable retirement age. Sixty-nine percent oppose gradually raising the retirement age from 65 to 69.

These aren't Zogby numbers, or Gallup, or another of the other poll-a-minit groups. These numbers come from the 1996 edition of the nearly-3000-item General Social Survey run by the world-famous National Opinion Research Center at U/Chicago. These are 'gold standard' numbers.

When asked whether they believe the US has a good socioeconomic system
07% believe we have the best possible system
44% believe it's basically sound but needs some work
37% believe we need major, fundamental changes
08% believe we need to scrap it and start over

70% believe our rulers don't care what we think, want, or need

Note that the number of people who believe we at least need to make major changes is the same number as those who don't bother to vote.

50% believe that our kids will have better lives than ours
23% believe that their lives will be worse

In other news,

64% believe that the rich/poor gap has grown too large
86% believe that business should be prevented from harming the environment
66% believe international bodies should have the power to prevent damage to the environment
68% believe that our right to privacy is seriously or very seriously threatened
66% believe that business should be compelled to give us complete and accurate product information
66% are in favor of socialised housing programs
71% are in favor of socialised medicine
83% are in favor of socialised education
90% are in favor of socialised old-age pensions
66% of lower-income working people are in favor of socialised unemployment benefits

Interesting, huh?

loved em!

:silly:

70% believe our rulers don't care what we think, want, or need

No one can listen to him and think he is just another talking head Dem that doesn't care.

The actual language was that 70% believe that 'we have little or no influence over our elected leaders'. I think my paraphrase is accurate, but....

First, that 1996 numbers are any use after 9/11. Second, that all the people who think the "system" needs to be fixed, changed, or scrapped want to see it made more LIBERAL, that certainly none of them are making CONSERVATIVE objections. Third, that unhappiness with "our leaders" doesn't translate directly into apathy and the absolute unwillingness to vote.

Fourth, that the laundry-list of issues at the end of the post is valid. 71% in favor of socialized medicine? Where were they during health care reform? I think that between the way the questions were asked and the way the numbers are labeled, there is some SERIOUS misrepresentation going on here.

Can I prove it? Look at electoral politics! Look at any recent poll! Talk to people outside your political clique, particularly in a "red" state! This country is NOT surging to the left. Wishing it was so won't make it so, and it won't make Kucinich electable.

But I'm not going to do that again. You seem to think the healthcare reform attempted by Clinton was anything like what Dennis is offering... well newsflash -- it ain't. The media played fast and loose with that fight and the people didn't like what they saw. Dennis' plan is much different and you might be surprised to know that even the conservatives I talk to (these are working class conservatives that voted Bush, here, ok?) are desperate for real healthcare reform. They know we're losing jobs due to skyrocketing costs... they're not all idiots.

And another thing... I'm IN a red state, okay? Texas... Dallas to be exact, and let me tell you, real conservatives (as opposed to Bush party loyalists) actually LIKE what Dennis has to offer.

They may not agree with the social agenda, but they for the most part seem to just blow right past that and jump on the anti-NAFTA bandwagon.

I'm not 'wishing' for Kucinich to be electable. I'm working to make his policies known, because I KNOW he's electable, if only more people knew what he was about.

You go on ahead and follow those polls, if that's what suits ya.

Pardon me if I don't follow you over that cliff.

The Clinton "managed care" plan was bad news from day one. It proposed a "managed competition" system comprised of the four or five biggest healthcare insurers, who were able to block out the small- and medium-sized insurers, and STILL did not cover 100% of the population.

Wellstone spoke eloquently against Clinton's corporate health care plan in 1993, for the same reason so many don't support the plans of the other candidates: it does nothing to fix the current system, but puts a few band-aids over the hemoraging wounds in it.

Anything short of removing the profit motive from health care is NOT going to fix the system. It is REALLY that bad for most Americans. Now that businesses are getting fed up with rising costs, they too will want a plan that does not burden them, as well.

Dennis's plan is almost half as expensive as what we're paying now, but with more coverage and freedom to choose providers, to boot. As Dennis has said, "we're already paying for Universal healthcare, we're just not getting it".

But you miss the point. People in favor of change will back a smaller change that moves in their direction. Abortion foes don't oppose a partial-birth ban on the grounds that it's half a loaf. Gun control advocates didn't oppose the Brady Bill on the basis that it didn't get the job done. If there was a nationwide thirst for socialized medicine, the Clinton plan would have had the support it needed, even if only as a first step.

is fine for Congress-members. It's not fine for the President. Look half-measures that have to be negotiated are supportable in the interim, and nobody here has suggested otherwise. As long as NAFTA is in place, I support the efforts of Senator Kerry to make changes to the agreement. I don't expect them to be successful, but by damn I support them as long as Dubyah holds down the Oval Office.

I guess I tink there's a difference in the battle strategy of Congress-Members and the battle strategy of the President. More than that I want specific things from each elected position. In the Presidency, I want the guy who DOES FIGHT for American safety, lives, jobs, peace, etc. etc. I don't want a wishy-washy fool in there for that job, I want a fighter for US. And YES, I thought Clinton was a wishy-washy fool. I despised the ass, but these days I'd give my right arm to have him back.

That doesn't change my view of his efforts in office, they were pansy-assed catering to the conservatives, period, and I hated every second of it. Generally speaking he wasn't running around hinting that he'd start WWIII, though. BIG difference there. THAT'S why I'll vote Dem over Repub every damned time. That does NOT mean there's a vast difference between the two candidates. If you're fool enough to believe that, have at it.

Yeah, bandaids are fine for gushing wounds, as long as they are temporary. I know, my kid just slashed her foot open a few weeks ago. We slapped a few huge bandaids on it and a rag wrapped around ice until we got to the ER (it was 11pm). Think that would have been ok treatment? Nah, she needed four stitches just to make it stop bleeding. Same thing here. Keep up with the bandaids and think it's all good, but don't complain to me then when the infection finally knocks you out. Make NO mistake. We ARE infected.

Get past all the invective and rhetoric and we're basically in agreement that any of the probably Democratic nominees (might as well leave Lieberman out of consideration) is preferable to Bush and worth our vote. In short, ABB.

My point was not that the Clinton plan was sufficient for dealing with health care, any more than the Brady Bill is sufricient for dealing with gun control, but that if the nation was really gung-ho in favor of socialized medicine they would have embraced the Clinton plan as a step in the right direction. They definitely did not.

The point on which we differ is the issue of electability. You seem to believe either that it is unimportant or that a candidate can be electable if we just agree that he/she is electable. But wishing or asserting won't make it so. I'm not afraid of Kucinich, because there's no way in Hades he's going to get the nomination. Nor do I need to insist I'm right on that - I'll wait for the primaries to bear me out. We need him more in Congress anyway.

You actually have the roles of Congressional reps and the President backwards, IMHO. It is very useful to have loud and largely uncompromising advocates in Congress, alongside the wheelers and dealers. They can play bad cop. They can also articulate your position and "say it like they mean it." Kucinich is great at this.

But the President MUST wheel and deal. He must be able to work with both sides of the aisle. He can't be a rigid, one-note advocate. A President like that could never get anything done. Even his own party wouldn't support him. That's why Clinton was such a good President and Carter, for example, was a bad one. Clinton knew how to wheel and deal. All the effective presidents have been like that.

what people want in healthcare. The reason Clinto's plan failed, as stated by those who voted against it, was that it was too complicated. Those people said the idea was fine, but the plan itself wasn't so fine. Then ~Jim Hightower asked President Clinton why he hadn't put forward a "simple, straightforward" single-payer plan "instead of all this bureaucracy." Clinton replied, "I thought it would be easier to pass" a bill that left the insurance industry in place. "I guess I was wrong about that."~(copied from the Kucinich page on Universal Healthcare to illustrate the point)

Kucinich's bill has a much better chance of getting passed than Clinton's ever did, and it's what the people want.

"You actually have the roles of Congressional reps and the President backwards, IMHO. It is very useful to have loud and largely uncompromising advocates in Congress, alongside the wheelers and dealers. They can play bad cop. They can also articulate your position and "say it like they mean it." Kucinich is great at this."

This, I guess, is a simple difference of opinion. Or maybe it's just a case of greeed on my part, because I admit, I want it all. I want the White House and Congress back in Democratic hands again. Then again who says Kucinich is going to be "largely uncompromising" if elected President? I've certainly never said that and I've never heard him suggest it either. Will he refuse to compromise on specific issues? Certainly, and I'm pleased with that. Some specific issues doesn't necessarily equate to "largely uncompromising".

"But the President MUST wheel and deal. He must be able to work with both sides of the aisle. He can't be a rigid, one-note advocate. A President like that could never get anything done. Even his own party wouldn't support him. That's why Clinton was such a good President and Carter, for example, was a bad one. Clinton knew how to wheel and deal. All the effective presidents have been like that."

And you think after almost 8 years in the House, Kucinich hasn't learned how to "wheel and deal"? I have news for you, Congress-members wheel and deal just as much, except it's not openly talked about very often. There's a very keen strategic edge to writing legislation that most people never notice. I've watched a while now, and I see it even in the mess we call Congress right now.

Everybody knows that the art of politics involves compromise in order to get anything done.

If we are going to elect someone who we know is going to have to "compromise" with the right-wingers on some things, wouldn't we want to elect a candidate who's going to start farther left?

Think about it: a comprise between the far-right and the far-left is much more likely to yield a result somewhere near the middle. However, a compromise between the far-right and the center-left will more than likely lead to a compromise that's center-right or right.

If we somehow nominate and elect another candidate who's for "smaller change", don't be suprised if things don't get markedly better.

of Dennis's 'Medicare-for-all' plan.

Just as we've been saying all along.

But that won't slow you down at all, will it.

Why do you cite polls from 'the corporate media' which support a DK position, yet ridicule those same corporate media polls that show him with 1-2% support among Democrats?

Just curious, is all...

while the other is not. It's the same reason I'd believe them if they came out with a poll saying people favored socialism 2:1, but not if they said people favored capitalism.

After the primaries are over, we'll have a clearer idea of which one that is. Best of luck. And by the way, I will cheerfully vote for Kucinich if he's nominated.

Keep praying to your God, "Reality".

IMO this is one of the most destructive tactics we can use.

Saying that 'reality' dictates what we can hope and work for.

I hope if you have kids you don't pollute their minds with that kind of garbage. Let them dream for a while, at least, before shackling them with the limitations you've so obviously accepted.

I will cheerfully vote for whomever is on the ballot against Bush. At least just this once more, I will do my duty as a Democrat and back their business-as-usual candidate, should they defeat the principled one.


feh... 'reality'. Reality is what we make it.

'Electable' is who WE elect.

No amount of pedantic castigation is going to change Kucinich supporters minds and make them 'get in line' behind the yes-men for the corporatocracy. So you might as well stop posting your 'no he's not' nonsense on these threads. If you come up with any real substantive issues, then by all means please do contribute those.

Name me an election - when has this "screw reality, Electable is who WE elect" ("we" being a handful of activists) ever resulted in a candidate being elected president?

I'm sorry if I've been hurting your feelings, but this election is too damn important to piddle away on righteousness and youthful enthusiasm. The kids are going have to dream somewhere else or some other time. There are a lot of places where kids are dreaming of getting enough to eat or a let-up in the shooting, and it's no help to them for us to hand another election to the Republicans because we wanted to "dream." Because we thought we could just make up reality.

"Substantive issues?" If saying it's so makes it so, then everything is a substantive issue. But then I guess that's only true for you and people that agree with you - issues are substantive only if they agree with what you say.

if it weren't CLINTON that cut welfare for single mothers.

if it weren't CLINTON that signed the Telecom bill allowing Ailes and Murdoch to rape everyone's minds...

Wake up!

I wonder what post you were replying to. It sure wasn't mine.

But as long as I'm here, I'm so sorry Clinton didn't do everything the way you wanted him to. I'm sure he's sorry too. George W. Bush has been a huge improvement, yes? :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

since he did this over the objections of many people, and three of his senior aides resigned in protest (on that note, I seem to remember Democrats citing Bush's aides leaving as a HUGE indication of how horrible his policies were / are :eyes: )

Why do you think he did this? The results are clear to see. And wiser people saw it coming at the time... so... you seem to think 'he's sorry now'... why do you think this? Was he 'fooled' by conservatives? Or what?

Here is my exact statement (smileys and all):

"But as long as I'm here, I'm so sorry Clinton didn't do everything the way you wanted him to. I'm sure he's sorry too. George W. Bush has been a huge improvement, yes? :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:"

Apparently, you're one of those people for whom the <sarcasm off> bit is necessary.

on the spectrum, though? Is it really either/or? I'd suggest Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, and Edwards are all solidly to the left of Clinton.

and dismissive reply which begged for me to point out WHY kids are showing up malnourished at free clinics...

"There are a lot of places where kids are dreaming of getting enough to eat ..."

You're just waving that around as a rallying cry for Democrats to give up on any substantial change, and just to get in line behind more centrists so they can keep stabbing these 'poor starving kids' in the back, then?

In the actual world, a moderate Democrat in office would be a necessary start toward improving the lot of the kids I described.

of a moderate Dem who tried to act like he was a liberal Dem. It's time to have someone who says what he means and means what he says. DK is the ONLY one of the Dem candidates that I will trust to do this.

that you're effectively saying you'll work to see that he's NOT nominated. So you'll excuse me if I give you no credit for your willingness to vote for him if he gets past your voting against him in the first place.

Have you decided to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it turns out to be? Otherwise, I'm somewhat ahead of you in the credit department. You seem to think that Kucinich is more important than defeating Bush. You'll find precious few who agree with that on DU.

Is that 'ABB' isn't good enough.

Here's a little parable to illustrate that. You need $10K minimum to pay for the op that will save your life. You don't get it? You die. You've got $1000.

Each of the candidates tells you what they're going to do if they are elected. Bush says he'll take your thousand, but in a 'compassionate' way. Lieberman promises to only take $500, and to say Kaddish if you die. Gephardt says he'll only take $250, plus he'll get you a good union job if you survive. Clark (or maybe Dean, or Kerry) says it's a damn' shame and he'll guarantee you another $2000, out of his own pocket if need be. Dean (or maybe Clark, or Kerry) tells you to keep your chin up, that the op is overpriced, and offers you $1500. Kerry (or perhaps Clark, or Dean) tells you that he'll give you $5000, and if you can keep from dying until his second term, he'll see you get the rest. Edwards says he'll give you $5000. CMB and Al both say sure, but what are the odds of a Black person getting that office next year? Kucinich just says yes, if he's elected, you get it.

If you need $10K, nothing less will do. Fine words mean nothing. Small generosities mean nothing. Opinions mean nothing. Offers of post-crisis goodies mean nothing. Only the 10K means something.

It's meaningless to elect someone better than Bush if they're not better enough. If you're drowning, it doesn't matter whether the water is 3m deep or 300m deep--the net result is the same.

You put a necessary threshhold on a constellation of issues that doesn't have any such threshholds. Not better enough for what, exactly? If we can put most things back where they were during the Clinton years (civil liberties, the budget, environmental protection, foreign policy, etc.), then where is the threshhold value that says that's not better enough? Not better enough for what? Not better enough for whom?

I have a horrible suspicion that I know the answer here. It's not better enough for Mairead. Mairead is the measure of all things. Mairead is the standard before which we must all bow.

Not.

About the fact that it was one of your 'good enough' candidates who signed the Welfare Reform Act which has resulted in kids showing up in free clinics malnourished?

Pretty please?

Think we will?

in posts 96 and 101 above.

As long as the people we elect continue to allow wealth to concentrate, continue to sacrifice the lives of children to increase the privilege of the already hyperwealthy, continue to strip our Constitutional rights from us, continue to reduce our options and bring us closer to outright serfdom....

That's been going on for over 25 years now, very much including during Clinton's time. That is Not Acceptable and it must be reversed before it's too late. Nothing less will do!

Would you rather go down in a glorious, flaming defeat with your ideals intact, or would you rather eject that group of crypto-fascist swine from Washington and at least have a chance to do the things you want? It's quite that simple in 2004.

We already know there is no 'chance' without Dennis or Al. Dean has already come out and said so. Clark keeps dancing around, and is a Clinton ergo DLC protegé. Gephardt has repeatedly sold us out just as Lieberman has. Kerry, for reasons perhaps known only to himself, decided to drink the DLC koolaid after decades of decent vanilla liberalism. Edwards and CMB are 90% vanilla corporatist Dems.

If we want to escape The Pit, Dennis and Al are the alternatives. Everyone else is pushing the same old koolaid.

(edit) And we DK people aren't the problem. We're not the ones planning to vote for more koolaid.

Aw, darnit, I had the water thing almost figured out, and now there's koolaid? Is that supposed to be aid to Iraq, or Farm Aid, or L.L Cool J? Am I close? Oh, and there's vanilla too! Is that Vanilla White or Millie Vanilla or . . .

I know nothing of the sort, and would suggest that it is you who are not 'getting it'.

Couldn't resist throwing out the 'Kool Aid' crack, could you? :eyes:

"...It's meaningless to elect someone better than Bush if they're not better enough. If you're drowning, it doesn't matter whether the water is 3m deep or 300m deep--the net result is the same.

It's not meaningless if it means removing the person from office who's holding your head under the water in the first place!

'All right, I've done my part: nobody is holding your head under water any more. So now you're free. Your part is to discover how to determine where land is and swim there. I'm not going to give you a lift, because I'm a nautical conservative who believes in balancing the boat, and I've already rescued 2 people who were down to their last case of champagne because no one refueled their yacht for them. Don't worry though, the water is only 3m deep. If it turns out you haven't the self-respect to make it to shore, well, that's a price we're willing to pay.'

The water is conservatism and the land is the "promised land" of liberal perfection, which we can attain by clapping if we believe in Kucinich. The boat is the Democratic Party, right? And the two people who got rescued were the McCain-Feingold bill and the Environmental Protection Agency. Right? But I'm not sure whether the last case of champagne is supposed to be NAFTA or the PATRIOT act, and as for the yacht, is that Bush v. Gore or Jim Hightower or the Agricultural Reform Act of 1947?

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Something is 3m deep (and getting deeper) around here . . .

your fingers in your ears.

It's not rocket science. Dennis and Al are the only ones not planning to give us more of what got us into this fix in the first place. The others have all either said they're going to, or have said/done things that give good evidence of their intentions.

It really is not rocket science. Nobody needs an MIT doctorate to understand this.

... drown in a bubble burst of ideological purity, so that we can die with the satisfaction of knowing we were 'pure' to the grave...

...find your soul, wherever you left it, and start supporting the candidate who best represents the traditional ideals of the Democratic Party. If you won't do that, why should we even believe you're a Democrat?

As defined by WHOM?

You don't even know that much?

I'll let you look it up for yourself, so that you can't accuse me of bias. Be sure to cite your sources, though.

The 'everything changed' meme is a GOP talking point, used to justify their increased predation. Why are you putting it out here?

That most of the people who want to see changes made are liberal/left is borne out by their opinions on the other issues. That should be clear to you: it's not two different groups being surveyed.

The unwillingness to vote comes from the well-founded belief that there's no point. The Census surveyed people for their reasons for not voting in 2000, and most cited something that boils down to 'nothing in it for me'. As Saul Alinsky demonstrated with the Back Of The Yards community--a community written off by everyone as hopelessly apathetic, apolitical, and conservative: when people feel their actions can make a difference, they stand up.

Dennis and we are doing our best to get them to stand up. You're doing your best to keep them hoodwinked, passive, and oppressed. Why should ANYone listen to a word you say?

What part of the country were you in that DIDN'T change after 9/11? All the fascist crap we've been dealing with got kicked off then. It's ridiculous to call an obvious fact a "meme".

I call you on distortion and you repeat the distortion as if that was an answer. You pretend to speak for about 50% of the electorate when you know nothing about them except some numbers you twisted from a survey. Are you aware that the same survey places self-identified liberals at less than 20% of the population and self-identified moderates at about 40%?

If you think you can repeat Saul Alinsky's very limited, very localized, very labor-intensive results on a national scale, go do it. Simply saying "it can happen" won't make it happen.

And yeah, right, it's me that's keeping people hoodwinked, passive, and oppressed. I'm really Rupert Murdoch. And my other head is Karl Rove. Boo!

No part of the country changed. The change was IMPOSED by SmirkCo. I simply don't believe that people have undergone within themselves the massive shift to the right that you seem to be salivating over.

The numbers I 'twisted from a survey' come from the gold standard of surveys. There is none better. And I didn't twist them, I simply reported them. They are there for anyone to see. Anyone.

But you do 'twist' numbers when you trot out the '40% are moderates' meme. You ignore the fact that some large fraction of people also think they are in the top 5% of income. People have a hard time placing themselves on some continuum when those in power have hidden its true characteristics and put out disinformation and propaganda about it for decades.

But it's fairly easy for someone to say whether they support such 'liberal'/'left' policies as decent housing, jobs, medical care, etc. That doesn't take anything more than self-consultation. And those numbers you try to sneer at tell a clear story: people do support such 'liberal' policies, sometimes by majorities that approach consensus.

As to Alinsky's principles? They work. He proved they work. Whether we lefties are willing to put out the energy required to make them work in a given instance is a completely different issue. The real point is that, if people do put out the energy, the principles do work. If we choose to, we can pull some large fraction of that hundred million disaffected people to the ballot box. Will we choose to? I don't know yet. But there is no doubt that we can, if we choose to. Alinsky proved it.

As to you, no, you're far from being Murdoch. But you are someone whose message can be boiled down to 'give up, give in, it's over, they won, everyone is against you, it's dog-eat-dog, take whatever you can get, forget your worn-out hippie dreams, give up your useless ideals, resistance is futile, drink the koolaid'. It's a poisonous, defeatist message that serves the wealthy elites well, but no one else at all. I reject it.

Have fun in that fantasy world of yours. And don't drink any vanilla koolaid that's over 3m deep.

Maybe in New York and Washington, but the rest of the country has largely forgotten about it.

The only thing that has changed is that it takes a lot longer to check in at the airport. We have not had any noticeable domestic terrorist incidents since 2001. It's just not at the top of people's concerns. There's more concern about such day to day matters as not being able to afford housing or health care, even in the middle class.

Besides, the idea that some unproven "fear of terrorism" should make people prefer conservative domestic policies simply doesn't hold up. Look at Israel. It still has a generous social welfare system, despite having had dozens of large-scale terrorist incidents in a tiny country in the past three years.

Besides, we don't live in Israel. And I don't live in Washington or New York, but in Texas, where the inevitable answer to any suggestion that foreign policy should be humane and/or rational is, "Hey, have you forgotten 9/11???"

Just curious, do you ever watch TV at all?

I read newspapers. I use my computer to track news stories from sources around the country and the globe. I occasionally listen to NPR.

Every once in a while, I hear someone refer to "9/11." I usually respond with a respectfully phrased reminder that this administration's policies haven't made us any safer. We haven't obliterated the Taliban, we don't know where Osama is, etc.

Why would I watch TV? A mind numbing exercise in frustration and propaganda?

Because it's where most people get their ideas about what is what. Watching a cross-section of TV is the best way to find out what the country is thinking and what the basis for that thinking is. Depressing, but informative.

If you follow only the media that agree with you, you're like the dittoheads and Fox News enthusiasts.

Where the Mind is Without Fear

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection:
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is lead forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action--
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.


--Rabindranath Tagore, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1913.

especially during the pre-primary season, I'm completely ignoring the issue of "electability" (by whose standards?) and just advocating the candidate who I believe has the best policies for the country.

I'm not going to let preconceived notions of what other people might like prevent me from promoting the candidate that I prefer.

I may have to compromise later, but I'm not going to start out by compromising. That's where I went wrong in the last Oregon Dem primary. That's where Bill Clinton went wrong in his dealings with the Republicans and DINOs in Congress.

You may have to compromise and take half a loaf, but if you start out by asking for half a loaf, then you are guaranteed to get half a loaf at most, and maybe even just a quarter loaf, or maybe even just a few crumbs, or maybe nothing at all.

At this point, I'm still asking for the full loaf. If other people say "no," well, then, at least I will be able to say that I have tried. I'm not going to start out this political season by saying "no" to myself.

This is an excellent point. The electability canard should not even be an issue until next summer. We most support the candidates who articulate our world view. Luckily, Kucinich not only shares my world view, he is also the most electable. Amazing.

... we're screwed.


Time to start recruiting candidates for 2008 everyone!

If we all stick together with Kucinich, we have 30% lock'n'step Democratic voters voting Kucinich. While 30% of voters will always vote lock'n'step GOP, people believe Kucinich cannot tap into the 40% swing vote due to his issue positions, which are ALL liberal. Kucinich also does not come off as a dignified future world leader, but as an activist.

Kucinich also does not come off as a dignified future world leader, but as an activist.

...like it's a bad thing. Many world leaders were activists before they lead their countries. An activist rather than another no-action, inert Dem leader would be such a refreshing change. That's part of the reason DK is gaining more and more support all the time.

He IS a man of action, not just empty rhetoric.

... where is the evidence that DK is 'gaining support'? I see poll after poll after poll placing him in the 2% range, which is where he has been all along.

Sorry Padraig, but can you tell me how that's at all rational to continue to believe that he's remained at the exact same level of support while the campaign keeps growing, adding staff, and we get new volunteer sign-ups every day?

You're not that easily suckered, are you? Do you know how many polls I've seen online get dumped because Kucinich was winning them? At least 8 different times that I can thinkof Kucinich was at 50% or better, so the people running the poll would restart. Each time Kucinich jumped into the 50% and each time they restarted. Eventually they managed to end the polls showing Kucinich with 2% again. Now if they're doing this on the internet where it's glaringly obvious, would you really be stunned to find out these so-called unbiased private pollsters are doing the same thing where it ISN'T so obvious?

I don't subscribe to the theory that Harris, Zogby, et al, are part of some huge anti-DK conspiracy, so my original question remains. Further, as anyone who has belonged to DU for more than a week knows, online polls can be "DU-ed", and there is every reason to think that it's possible that those polls can also be "DK-ed"; in fact, I have seen actual requests here at DU for DK's supporters to go support DK by voting in some online poll, so online polls are automatically suspect. Finally, other than anecdotal evidence, I see no massive groundswwell of support for DK or 'growth' in his campaign, either here at DU or in real life; were someone to provide me with some verifiable, objective evidence of that, I would change my mind.

all they have to be is part of the 'new Democrats'.

Look at us, we're the NEW DEMOCRATS! Same familiar 'D' after our names, but less caring. So support us today! You can enjoy all the liberal prestige won by FDR while still being greedy like the GOP. It's the best of both worlds!(tm)'

... why am I to ignore their votes? Your line of reasoning is very similar to the sort that leads to schisms in churches, with each faction preaching that only they know 'the truth'. This election is not about some abstract 'heart and soul' battle involving the Democratic party (a specious argument, even so); it is about recapturing our sovereign right to self-government. That will erquire a majority of the electoral votes from 51 separate elections.

It isn't? Since you're RC, I'll offer you a quotation with which you should be familiar: 'How does it profit someone...' (or, if you'd prefer the KJV: 'What doth it profit...').

Tell us: in what sense have we won if to 'win' we must become what we oppose? Who has really won, then? That's not an unimportant question.

I'll offer you another quote, from the late RC Archbishop Dom Helder Camara of Brasil: When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.

Woytila didn't like Camara much, but if I were to choose someone for sainthood, Camara would be miles in front of Woytila.

Why did you not address that statement? Is it not important?

One of the ways to get a toddler to be more cooperative is to provide choices that are meaningless from the parent's perspective, but important to the child at that developmental stage. Such as 'would you like to have your bath first, or brush your teeth first?' The toddler feels very empowered, but it's a factitious power.

When we're told that our only real choices are Right and Far Right, I'm irresistably reminded of toddler choices.

So no, it's not important in the way you mean it. If we recapture the soul of the Party, we'll have rights a-plenty. If not, we'll only go on having toddler choices.

Not every Democrat agrees with you, so they do not therefore accept your premise that the 'soul of the party' has been lost.

By this argument, is the 10% or less who agree with Mairead. Might as well throw in the Greens who've abandoned the party altogether. So, being extremely generous, we're talking about less than 20% of the electorate.

Yes, once we've recaptured that less-than-twenty-percent, we'll have rights aplenty. We'll be kicking lots of sand in the faces of Bush's forty-plus percent and the part of the remaining forty-plus percent who gravitate toward him for lack of a credible alternative.

At least, by golly, "we" will be able to boss "our" totally irrelevant far-left-wing party as we like, and that'll be something to comfort us as our sons and daughters invade France.

The tail wagged the dog, and many long-time Democrats voted for Nixon, Reagan and #41, handing us one electoral defeat after another.

No thanks!

On edit: The party of 2003 is not the party of 1963, which was not the party of 1933, which was not the party of... Parties evolve.

So are you saying that the people who voted for people like HHH, McG, and LBJ and who would have voted for Bobby are no longer Democrats? If you're not saying that, then your 'evolve' claim is meaningless.

You are like arguing with a stump! The party has changed! It changed from the time of Andrew Jackson! It changed from the time of Grover Cleveland! It changed again from the time of Roosevelt! You cannot venerate it as though it were some sacred insect frozen in amber! :eyes:

Show us the numbers. And don't bother with self-labeling, because people also claim to be in the high income brackets when they're nowhere close.

Show us the numbers. Until you do, it's all hot air.

http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/toptable/tab3_1.htm

Liberal-Conservative response--- graph:

http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/graphs/g3_1_1.htm

Self-labeling against an undefined continuum might be interesting, but it's not meaningful.

There's no point in attempting to show you anything that doesn't agree with your personal interpretation of that 7 year-old survey of yours.

CYA!

Kucinich is polling under 5% of Democrats. Or are those people only "self-labeled" as supporting someone other than Kucinich?

Add Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, and Sharpton together and you have less than 10%.

Eagerly awaiting your spurious reason to reject these numbers too.

A man who worked in family planning clinics while Dennis Kucinich was still keen on denying women the right to choose and the man who brought Iraq the global gag rule a choice between right and far right? How is a choice between a man who signed a civil unions bill and a man who wants a "marriage protection amendment" a choice between right and far right?
how is a choice between two men who voted against an 87 billion dollar appropriation that includes funding a Pentagon-led newspaper and TV network and the man who proposed the appropriation a choice between the right and far right?
Why don't you try addressing the real issues instead of using goofy water/kool-aid/vanilla/child-rearing comparisions? Could it be because the issues show a marked degree of difference between most of the candidates and George W. Bush?

Watch the money instead. That's where the real action is.

No rights are worth anything without the money to instantiate them. It doesn't matter if a woman has the nominal right to Choice if she's so poor that she can't get the money together to travel to the nearest free clinic that hasn't had to close because of lack of support.

So a politician who works in a clinic has a nice photo-op and story for campaign time. But if he has also helped keep the concentration of wealth on-schedule, he's no friend to working women.

A choice is no choice if you can't make use of it. Today, money is key to having real choices. When politicians create laws that take money and stability from us, they undermine the reality of choice completely.

You're reducing years of service before he was a politican to a photo-op? And many women CAN utilize their reproductive rights, not everyone is mired that deeply in poverty...but I guess those people don't matter in your estimation. And a lot more of those free clinics recieve the support they need with a President who is dedicated to reproductive rights, which Dean, Kerry, and Edwards would all be while Bush is not. And all would expand health care coverage to cover people Bush is not interested in covering. For instance, By repealing the Bush tax cuts and offering tax breaks to small companies who expand or implement coverage a woman can afford treatments such as RU-487 which leaves travel moot.

No right exists except when you can use it. Did the people who were illegally rounded up (http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/01/17/bosshogt.html) in DC have rights? Sure, in theory. But in practice they had none at that point because they couldn't avail themselves of them.

The same is true of poor people. And if you think there aren't many poor people, then you need to look at Prof. Wolff's economic trend analysis. If you think they don't matter as much as the better-off, then there's nothing more to be said.

Wealth is the key to rights today. Until we change the underlying system, that will continue to remain true. Nominal rights are needed, but they're nowhere near the whole package.

Go ahead. Gamble the rights of women and gay people on the impossible chance America, who has rejected radical redistribution of wealth before when Norman Thomas and Eugene Debs ran for President, will suddenly embrace that agenda.

I hope you never need an abortion. I hope you never have to learn how important even "nominal" rights are.

Denying gay people the right to marry denies them over 1050 rights-including economic rights- heterosexual people can enjoy. And it stigmatizes and dehumanizes a community, cultivating a climate more permissive to crimes like the murder of Matthew Shepard.

In what way is it progress to gain the right to marry but be reduced to living hand-to-mouth because your wealth has all been hoovered into the pockets of the predators? How is that progress?

If you think John Kerry or Howard Dean or Dick Gephardt will reduce Americans to living hand-to-mouth, and will not lift more Americans out of poverty, than you're even more delusional than your kool-aid and water analogies make you seem. It is progress because it helps make homosexuality seen as more acceptable. It's progress because maybe in ten years we might not see sh*t like the Shepard murder happen. But then Matthew Shepard wasn't living hand-to-mouth so I guess he's a distraction.

If you think John Kerry or Howard Dean or Dick Gephardt will reduce Americans to living hand-to-mouth, and will not lift more Americans out of poverty

Really? Then why have we continued our slide toward third-world concentrations of wealth and increased poverty during every administration since Carter. Very much including both Carter and Clinton? Why?

I'm not defending Clinton. But Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt and Dean are not Clinton. Lieberman maybe, but not the aforementioned four.

If they weren't Clinton-wannabes or worse, their policies would be more like Dennis's. But they're not. Their policies would keep corporate hands in our pockets, and they've already admitted as much (though of course not in those words).

If you think they're not Clinton, then call out some policies of theirs that do not keep the hands of the wealthy elites in our pockets. The wealthy elite own 85% of all stocks, which means they get 85% of the profits from the military-industrial complex, the insurance industry, the prison-industrial complex and drugs war, and all the other siphons. Call out some non-profit policies.

Dick Gephardt: An ROTC-modeled teaching corps to provide college funding for future teachers, an international minimum wage, and expansion of pensions.

Howard Dean: negotiating trade agreements that create quality-of-life in the third world under threat of withdrawal, a balanced budget (over 80% of savings bonds are bought by the wealthiest 2% so most of the interest on our debt and deficit lines their pockets) funding federal education mandates and reducing reliance on standardized testing (the company that produces most of the tests is a major Bush donor btw)

John Kerry: an energy plan that would create possibly as many as 500,000 good-paying jobs, increased federal contracting for small/peripheral businesses, expanding early childhood education

John Edwards: universal college education, eliminate tax breaks for CEO pay, proscecute insider trading (the sort of trading that has in part led to 85% of stocks being held by 1% of Americans)


This list is by absolutely no means extensive.

And they'd better not be self-positioning numbers, because as we know from people trying to position themselves on the income continuum, they err on the side of the propaganda and disinformation they've been endlessly fed (and no wonder).

And tell us who was the last strong candidate with truly 'liberal' policies. The last one I know of was a guy named Kucinich, who at 31 promised Cleveland voters he'd protect Muny Light from being sacrificed to predatory Capitalists. They elected him on the strength of that promise--the youngest mayor ever of a major city.

(and to save having to come back and respond to the Standard Fairy Tale which I'm sure you'll trot out, I'll respond now: he kept his promise, which so outraged the elites whom he thwarted that they mounted a massive and successful campaign against him for re-election. He lost his job, was blacklisted, damn near lost his house, and spent 15 years outside politics. Finally he was elected state Senator, people woke up to the fact that his integrity had saved them over $200M already, he was given a vote of thanks by the city council, and the people have now re-elected him their Rep with increasing margins, the latest more than 3 out of 4 I believe)

Nope, I don't. I'm one of an apparent minority here who refuses to blame Nader voters for this mess. At least you got out there and voted with the guy you wanted in office.

Now if everyone would just do that with Kucinich, he'd win by a landslide.

I fear that voting for Kucinich would be the same thing. Yes, I DO fear, and each and every one of us has a right to fear!

You would not believe, Diamond, how often I have sent information to the DNC, to various democratic representatives and senators, telling them of my desire for some truly democratic principles to be displayed. I heard on the news tonight that Dean said he would shine a spotlight on Washington and chase out the cockroaches. Kucinich just doesn't have that kind of statement to make, because he isn't a video, computerized, saleable, marketed, subservient, bought and paid for, and he seems too nice, just too nice, to be able to deal with the filth of running against Bush.

I will vote for Dean, if I have to, or Kerry. But, if it were a dream come true, it would be Kucinich. Maybe, if we all get together with a little bit of money and a lot of e-mails, we can give him the realization that truth is not enough to get elected. Decency is not enough to get elected. Either he has to get meaner, or we have to get meaner on his behalf. I am willing to go for the second proposition. Hope you feel the same.

But, at this point, I am constructing my own bumper sticker, "ABB."
Anybody but Bush.

My vote for Dennis in the Minnesota caucuses will be a statement that I'm tired of business as usual, which is way too tilted towards the desires of the big business elite.

I'm tired of conventional wisdom, which typically has a lot more to do with cowardly refusal to think outside the box than with wisdom.

I'm tired of trying to heal compound fractures with pretty-colored band-aids.

I'm tired of saying, "We can't wake the public out of their rose-colored dreams, so we'll just advance towards the edge of the cliff more slowly instead of turning around and heading where we need to go."

I'm tired of being part of a party that has bureaucratic-sounding programs galore, but doesn't have an overriding vision to counter the Repiggies' illusion of taking the nation back to the days of Leave It to Beaver.

That's why I'm supporting Kucinich.

If one of the yes-men gets the nomination, I will vote for him reluctantly in the general election, but I will concentrate my energies on getting people with courage and vision elected in the down-ballot races.

Kucinich, who has no chance in the general election, will be our nominee. Where does that get us?

I can't recall even one of your posts in this thread that has included anything beyond your unsupported opinion, yet you go right on emitting those pronunciamenti just as though you were reciting physical law.

It's tiresome.

The numbers have been pointed out repeatedly showing DK at about 1-2% *among Democrats*--- poll after poll after poll after poll--- but you handwave whenever they're shown. :shrug:

consider the implications?

(It's like your claim of the Dem Party having 'changed'...you made that assertion without apparently even looking at the very data you yourself found and repeatedly refloated. I get the feeling you're not very good at details)

... that there is *no* proof you would find acceptable that doesn't fit with your pre-existing bias.

Ball to you.

Since your reply to an earlier post of mine shows that all issues except redistribution of wealth are secondary to you, when has the U.S. ever elected a candidate who embraced that agenda? Norman Thomas lost. Eugene Debs lost. Ralph Nader lost. Dennis Kucinich will lose.

But lest there be a mistake, that's not why I'm not supporting him. I don't think he'd make a competent President. I think the Department of Peace is a vanity project that would waste billions of taxpayer dollars and resources and be hijacked whenever the pendulum swung the other way and a staunchly conservative president is elected. I don't want Dennis to win because I don't want to see his Department of Peace installing gun turrents on the Israeli Palestinian wall in 10 years or funding Israeli purchase of rohypinol(sp) gas(a project a U.S. defense contractor is working on, btw), all in the name of peace. And yes, I know he'd fund his wasteful Department of Peace with cuts in the defense budget, but that is STILL money that could go to funding better, more important projects.

When you said:

"I don't want to see his Department of Peace installing gun turrents on the Israeli Palestinian wall in 10 years or funding Israeli purchase of rohypinol(sp) gas(a project a U.S. defense contractor is working on, btw), all in the name of peace."

Were you serious? Do you really think there's any reason to believe he is being duplicitous in his support for peace and implementing initiatives for peace? I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm really wondering if this is something you truly fear or if you're just being facetious yourself, because when I examined Dennis's history with respect to his call for peace as an organizing principle of society, I found nothing to make me think that he had ever advocated such militaristic types of initiatives in the past.

And if there's one thing I've learned about Dennis, it's that he's one of the very few politicians I've come across that speaks sincerely and forthrightly.

Oh and regarding the other topic, that being the other candidates losing in the past, I would just point out that things are very different now (case in point - wealth gap!) You could even say that we're living in a different America than we were then -- many people know this already -- and most others are now realizing it.

I have no doubt that under the Kucinich administration the Dept. of Peace would have worthy goals. But Kucinich has at most eight years, and at some point in the future a pro-war Republican or even democrat would be appointing a Secretary of Peace and setting the department's agenda. That would be when the Dept. of Peace takes on a militaristic approach to policy.
I see how it isn't clear, since I refer to "his" Dept. of Peace, but I use "his" only in the since that he would've created it. Sorry for the confusion.

apparently mean nothing to you. But then, it's unreasonable to expect a deaf person to appreciate music.

You remind me of certain prolifers and creationists I've talked to. They get some bundle of what they uncritically accept as facts, usually prepackaged by some professional propagandist, and they insist that their opinions are "proved" correct. When you poke logical holes in their arguments and point out that their "facts" don't mean what they say they mean, they have no answer except to get angry and repeat themselves.