Suspending my support for Kucinich because of Ron Paul

Someone gave me a link of DK's comments on another thread. It's not just a single phrase, it's over a minute, and he is not kidding. It is not his wife, it is him. It is heartbreaking and infuriating.

Batshit Crazy

No way I can support someone who might bring an anti-American motherfucker like Ron Paul into the White House.

Listen to the clip, all the way through, and tell me what you think.

The audio clip demonstrated an appalling naievete on DK's part which absolutely convinces me that he is unfit to lead us. I carefully wrote down, as best I could, the pertinent parts of this audio clip that I found the most disturbing. Here is my personal transcript:

"When you walk into the people's house in Washington and I... you look at the canopy over the House of Representatives it has an American eagle with its wings spread. And something occurs to me, I'm looking at the American eagle when I'm in Washington and that is... that eagle needs two wings to fly. It needs a left wing. It needs a right wing."

That's an anaolgy demonstrating the simple-mindedness of a first-grader.

A little later in the transcript, speaking of the possibility of choosing Ron Paul as his running mate:

"Think of how he could unite the country, you know, having a Democrat and a Republican on the ticket. I know it's probably heresy... but I want people to know I'm not going to be just any kind of Democrat. I want to restore this country, I want to make sure that we are people who are in the country who are helpinig to run the country who have the kind of understanding, the broadness of this country, not just a narrow view. I want, I want to appeal to everyone. I want to widen the potential of Americans to be of service to the country. So yeah, you know, you asked, I'm giving an answer. He's one person that I like. You know why? He has integrity. That goes a long way."

Sorry, Dennis, integrity or no, he is our polar opposite on domestic issues. On domestic issues Ron Paul aligns himself with all the right-wing whackjobs out here. That's virtually the last thing we need in the White House. Thank you, Skipos for providing this link to demonstrate where Ron Paul stands on the issues of abortion, the environment, immigration, civil rights, gay rights, church-state separation, international relations, peace and military issues, taxes, workers' rights, campaign reform, social security, medicare, consumer protection, universal health care, and privatizing everything: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/193414/2787. As the author of the dailykos article states: "'But he's against the war!' Yes, he is. So is Pat Buchanan. So is David Duke."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

John Edwards just became my first choice. Joe Biden just became my second.

...and why. He needs to be told that he stepped on the crank.

Remember, he used to vote anti-choice until he was educated. Now he has a strong pro-choice voting record.

How do I e-mail him the post I just put up? Will someone at his campaign actually receive it, read it, and communicate it to Dennis?

I like virtually everything else about Dennis, but that audio clip is a huge nail in his poltical coffin, and I am not about to contribute to the walking dead.

BTW, I think I know what you mean by "stepped on the crank", but I've never heard that expression before. Is that a colloquialism somewhere in America? What's a "crank" in that context?

...the "Contact Us" page. Their reply (a polite blow-off, but at least they did reply) came from: info@kucinich.us The good news, if any, is that somebody reads the emails.


"Stepping on the crank" refers to stepping on one's own penis-an act of colossal clumsiness and idiocy, far beyond the ordinary. (You'd really have to WORK at it to do something that foolish.) Some people add certain footwear for special cases-golf shoes, work boots, football spikes, etc: an increase in the pain and injury inflicted on one's self. If DK does not repudiate this statement, for example, I'd say he stepped on the crank while wearing crampons.

will ever actually read any e-mail sent to its campaign headquarters. I think the most it ever accomplishes is that someone sits there counting positive and negative comments and at best gives someone up the food chain a brief summary of the statistics on at best, a few issues. Whether even that actually ever reaches the candidate is beyond my capacity for speculation.

Perhaps I should just print everything pertinent out, including what I wrote in my original post in this thread and snail mail it to Dennis Kucinich, either care of his campaign headquarters, or far better, to his home or office address in Washington. Does anyone know what those latter two addresses are?

That's quite a descriptive phrase you used, and quite apt in this unfortunate instance. Do you mind if I download a copy of what you wrote for future personal use? :)

BTW, I just hit the "Recommend" button. I think people on DU need a final resolution on this DK/Ron Paul brouhaha, and need to hear it in Dennis' own words. Prior to reading your thread and listening to the audio clip I had convinced myself that the stories that started flying around after Dennis' wife's comments about Ron Paul were bogus. This is quite a rude awakening for me.

:-)

I am not the originator, of course-it was common in NE Ohio when I was growing up, so need to attribute.

Kooch's DC Office operates under security restrictions, so he recommends ending mail to his local offices:
14400 Detroit Avenue
Lakewood, Ohio 44107
Phone (216)228-8850
Fax (216)228-6465

or

Parmatown Mall
7904 Day Drive
Parma, Ohio 44129
Phone (440)845-2707
Fax (440)845-2743

I think I'll try communicating with DK by all three vehicles.

My good friend and business partner is Dennis K's California Volunteer Coordinator, and speaks with him regularly. All I can say is that I passed along DUers' concerns to her in a telephone message; I have not, as yet, heard back. I'll let you know when I do.

I would like to hear the man himself explain this. I'd love to find out out it was an error of some sort, but only DK can tell us that.

DUers will be the first to know!

nutty right-winger into the white house. Because he had "integrity"
I don't like Ron Paul either. If he wants a right-winger to balance the ticket, why not Edwards or Obama?

Hillary is a neocon's wet dream.

Gore learned the hard way what the Clintonesue DLC'ers did to his 2000 campaign, and there's no way he would repeat those mistakes or allow Lieberman (who had not yet entirely shown his true colors) onto the ticket if he had it to do all over again.

If by some utterly unlikely miracle he comes out tomorrow and announces a 2008 candidacy, his campaign staff and eventual running mate would bear no resemblance to his 2000 team. And you can take that to the bank.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I know which to do.

*Snicker.*

I'm really liking him a lot.

picking any of the other Republicans. Ron Paul at least has enough sense to get us out of the war and wasting blowing our money and our soldiers' lives by interfering in almost every conflict in the world (and starting some others). He's also not a right-wing religious nutjob who wants to impose his warped sense of what Christ would want on the rest of us. He's also right with Kucinich on protecting American jobs and American security by not kowtowing to the Chinese anymore.

And at least on choice he wouldn't sign a federal bill outlawing it if Roe v. Wade were overturned. Romney would (what a hypocrite).

That's why the Republican party won't let him be their nominee. He goes against their party line too much. Kind of how Kucinich goes against the Democrat party line too much.

for corpgov candidates 1 and 2 <dempublicans> or corpgov candidates 3 and 4 <republicrats> both same sides of the coin...

Kucinich/Paul in O8 at least they're not owned by the corporations or media

And he's corporate as hell.

I have said repeatedly that I will NOT vote for a Reep.
Any Reep.

If Paul's on the ticket, it's voting for a Reep.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Of course, this may be something you can accept, but may be you are one the wrong website in this case.

Thanks for that link Mass. That is one scary list. If Kucinich feels that having this lunatic a heartbeat away from the POTUS is a good thing, then he pretty much lost any chance he had with me.

I'm still undecided, but Kucinich just dropped considerably in my list of potentials. :(

Here is some info you probably won't read:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/193414/2787

Because Paul is extremely anti-corporate, almost as much as Kucinich. The disconnect is that people on our side of the aisle tend to assume that if you want to lower taxes you want corporations to do whatever the hell they want, which isn't the case in Paul's case.

but he is willing to eliminate all govt regulation, income taxes, and the social safety net which are the same goals of the corporations

Just get government out of the way, stand back and let us do it all.

You'll suffer, but a few of us will do very nicely, thanks.

Yeah, Kucinich just showed that he's nuts, himself with this move.

"Why is Ron Paul a good choice for VP" with anything positive, you'd be a Ron Paul supporter.
2. I wasn't asking you. I have already read your thoughts on Ron Paul, and I disagree with them almost completely. I am really not intersted in your thoughts on him anymore. Feel free to post whatever, wherever, but I doubt I will take the time to read it.

If you want to post something, tell me all of the things that you really, really can stand about Ron Paul. I already know what you like about him.

on the audio - and I thought his answer was great.

He still has my support 150%!

It's called Bi. Par. Ti. San. Ship. It's all fine and dandy for Hillary and Barak to get all bi-partisan cozy with their fellow corporate American Empire Republicans. But let Kucinich speak well of a Republican who, like him, also challenges the bi-partisan imperial consensus and the hyenas howl away.

Hell, Paul opposes American imperialism and he tells the truth. Those are the two most important issues to me.

So the Party Uber Alles crowd doesn't like it. Boo Hoo. I must've missed loyalty oath day at my Legislative District meeting. Damn.

Bipartisanship is why Clinton and Obama both suck.

Now that Dennis is on the same bandwagon, FUCK HIM.

Such an example of bipartisanshit could not be more egregious.

It would be like Malcolm X enlisting George Wallace to help him out. Like Gandhi seeking sponsorship from Remington.

Kucinich merely confirms once and for all that he is not only a whacko but the consummate sell-out.

I beg to differ. Malcolm X made racial justice his primary issue of concern. Wallace did not. Kucinich makes the suicidal American Empire, the Constitution, and the corruption of our political process his central issues. On these Paul is in agreement. On other issues they disagree. A better parallel would be Malcolm X choosing an ally who shared his views on racial justice but with whom he disagreed about tax issues.

but if one bothers to get to the very core of the very real social issues, your claim falls flat.

Sure globalization and the wars it requires are critically important, but to dismiss the other truly vicious aspects of the false ideology that is Ron Paul's "LIEbetarianism" is quite simply to be a FOOL, as DK has shown himself to be yet again.

On the reaich wing roots of libertarianism:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1989989
5000+ views and nearly a hundred recs

I suggest you read up on the concrete hard foundation of the 'ideals' of Mr. Paul.Your hair splitting is especially, deviously misguided.

edite - spelling

So now you're questioning motives? Shall I then suggest that supporters of other Dem candidates must be "deviously" working for the HMOs and military contractors? Or can we all agree that we're on the same team here and simply have different ideas about how to win?

"bipartisanship" had some meaning that had something to do with reality, perhaps as recently as the Truman or Eisenhower administrations. It had something to do with hammering out realistic compromises between polar extremes.

But at least ever since Ronny Rayguns took office, the RNC and the Republicans in office have utterly refused to compromise about anything in their cultural war against the Constitution and the American people, and their xenophobic imperial war against the rest of the world: it's "my way or the highway" for them - as in "If you Dems don't bend over, lay down, roll over, submit, obey, heel, cave in and utterly sell out, we'll run you over leaving tire tracks on your stinking, rotting corpse."

I don't think DK is a "sell-out", but rather a bit of a space-cadet. I understand in a mystical/spiritual way that I think he intended what he was trying to say about the American eagle's wings, balance, and appealing to everyone, but it is so utterly unrealistic in today's political world that you'd think someone with his experience in Washington would automatically know better. His comments on that audiotape demonstrate a thoroughgoing naievete and lack of sound judgment that may cause his candidacy this year to go down in history as the laughing stock of all time.

Dems and Independents are my choice. But even if he felt he had to pick someone from the wrong-wing he should have picked someone sane. I'm dropping my support of Kucinich...looking at Biden or Dodd now.

because he suggested he'd "consider" Paul? :eyes:

Hard to imagine you were even a supporter to begin with, or that you cared about DKs issues, especially if you'd consider a DLC, American Empire, AIPAC, Credit Card Company, NAFTA Democrat like Biden as a replacement. Sheesh.

:eyes:

Haven't you done enough for democracy?

My little eye rolling thingy meant I was rolling my eyes at the notion that the dem candidate and the repuke candidate are the same. I do NOT believe that is the case, and I DEFINITELY did NOT believe it in 2000.

Sorry if I misled.

My bad, not yours.

I can totally see how it was misinterpreted. Sometimes my sarcasm doesn't come through very well. :evilgrin:

Small-d democrat, that is. As in: the kind that counts.

Have you written any environmental reform legislation, brought any lawsuits against malevolent government and corporate officials, saved any lives, won protections for any workers?

I think we all know the answer. You write message board posts of the short and unimaginative variety. Can I just say, like, er, "wow"?

a right to privacy, civil rights, seperation of church and state, against illegal wire taps, against government sanctioned torture which violates the geneva convention, along with preserving social security and medicare.

Incidently, most of those issues that I mentioned will come up before the Supreme Court in the next several years. I do NOT want ron paul involved in those decisions thank you

Joe Biden believes that the Roe v. Wade decision should remain intact

from the article:
'Biden the sole Constitution defender running for president'

"In the Des Moines (Iowa) Register last summer, the headline of a column by Richard Doak, a former Register editor, zeroed in on the fundamental issue of the presidential race:

“Who will defend Constitution?” a presidential litmus test."

read it here:
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/325-11142007-1440635.html

good luck

If they don't give a shit about the laws that MADE this country, do you REALLY think that Roe v Wade is their priority??

And if they did, would they have allowed Roberts and Scalito to be confirmed?

If you don't like the New Deal: legislate, legislate, legislate - and call it libertarianism.

Goddamn, you Hillbots are really stretching this one, aren't you? :eyes:

I am not supporting Hillary. In fact if that is the kind of reasoning you use, then your thought process speaks for itself

I WAS REFERRING TO RON PAUL!!!


but that choice, i.e. ron paul, in itself reflects bad judgement on DKs part to EVEN CONSIDER him a running mate

How about considering david duke as a running mate, he isn't for the Iraq war either?

If Dennis aligned himself with a progressive, including Nader I could respect that, but not this choice

Keep going around calling people names, and see how quickly you convience them on the merits of your position

Just kidding.

I mean, this is three decades worth of disillusionment in one night.

I feel your pain and will have a vodka tonic in your honor.

At least you know you have a strong foundation of moral principle.

Kooch has always seemed like someone you could count on to do the right thing. I remember Muny Light and the Mafia contract.

First of all, on economic issues, the right-wing DLC candidates are FAR closer to Ron Paul than Kucinich is. Kucinich is the complete opposite, he is basically a social-democrat.

Secondly, why do you feel that Ron Paul is "anti-American"? I hate his views on economic too, but he definitely isn't "anti-American."

...wants to abolish almost the entire government, and on and on. He would further enrich the rich, rape the environment and enslave the rest of us.

Hell, King George didn't suck THAT bad, and we threw him out.

like just prior to the civil war, when individual states could determine civil rights


In case you may not realize it, I am being scarcastic, and am agreeing with you

Hell, let's go back to ancient Rome. Watch the slaves feeding the lions! Great fun for the whole family.

The capitalist class is never going to dissolve the current government anyway. Why would they want to dissolve something that they already completely control and use for their own benefit? This is why they only target certain things for elimination (such as welfare, social security and public schools) - certain things that do not directly benefit them monetarily. And the threat of that, (i.e. more neo-liberal "reforms"), comes from both the DLC and the GOP.

Kucinich is still, by far, the most economically left-wing and anti-imperialist member of the entire Democratic party. He was probably just talking about RP to get votes from RP sympathizers who are currently registered Democrats. And I see nothing wrong with that at all.

A Paul presidency is too damned likely in these RW-crazy times. No thanks.

Anti-establishment right-wing movements often end up even more terrible than pro-establishment right-wing movements (and will become the establishment if they win). Look at the British Union of Fascists; its many descendants including the current BNP; Le Pen's National Front; Pat Buchanan; etc. Or the forerunners of the Taliban, who seemed at one time like those courageous people standing up to the power of the Soviet Union.

Being anti-establishment, even when the establishment is bad, does not in itself make someone a good thing.

And I hope Paul gets the repub nomination in the primaries and I support Dennis above all, but also realize Edwards is a good horse to saddle here.

Glenn Beck says Ron Paul and his supporters are terrorist. Also people who like the Constitution are a terror to the current government. ;)

not even close. and if you can't see that Paul is a racist, xenophobic fundy creep, well.....

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

He is only anti-american if your a woman or an immigrant.

:sarcasm:

You know.... the candidate using Blackwater's PR guy who wants warmonger Colin Powell to restore our countries image that he himself helped destroy when he blatantly LIED to the United Nations.

And you can't vote for Obama, because he has homophobic closet cases singing at his events.

John Edwards meets with the global fascist Bilderbergers.

Richardson thinks sexual orientation is a "choice".

Biden is a tool of MBNA.

Dodd is friends with Holy Joe Lieberman, who is WORSE than Ron Paul by far.

Really.... how are any of these people worth your support if Dennis isn't??

That is why you never see the DLC hacks here bashing Joseph Lieberman, because Lieberman is right-wing AND pro-war.

it. I won't vote for Clinton in the primary, but i will if she's the nominee. And I've marched in DC against the war 3x, can't stand Lieberman- and never could.

I think anyone defending Paul, like YOU, is tolerant of racism, xenophobia, hates environmentalism, doesn't believe in climate change, wants taxes lowered on corporations, doesn't mind OSHA being dismantled, and is thus tolerant of union busting thugs, etc.

Either that or you're just blind as a bat.

But you will vote for Hillary, the war proponent.

Excuse me while I snicker.

With war opponents like you, who needs neo-cons?

Yeah, no one here goes after Liebermann. Nope, not at all. :eyes:

I find it funny that someone supporting a right-wing libertarian is busy calling supporters of Democratic candidates DLC supporters. Think about it...

I hate Lieberman with all the passion of someone who lived under his clone (Blair) for 10 years.

I hate Paul because he is against the welfare state and against minorities. Being against the war is the only good thing about him.

As far as the constitution goes: there are parts of the country that became a true democracy relatively late (c. 1964); much later than much of the USA; *and he still seems to think that it was a bad thing and against the constitution that the federal government forced this representation of African-Americans*. I wouldn't trust someone like that to preserve democracy.

Aren't there other anti-war people around, without considering far-right-wingers?

It's a deal breaker.

Even so, he didn't vote to sell out this country, like the DLC'ers did.

Given the choice of Ron Paul or Joe Lieberman, I probably WOULD go with Paul.

Paul's a racist? Yeah, well so is Holy Joe.

Ron Paul is closer to David Duke than he is to Holy Joe -- in fact, Ron Paul is David Duke's candidate of choice.

vote for Nader.

but he's not a racist

"Joe was part of the Martin Luther King, Jr. march into Washington in August 1963. He's said that Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech was a moment "that really did transform my life."

Inspired by the Washington march, Lieberman went to Mississippi to work for civil rights. It was the first time he felt and witnessed the emotional impact of racial segregation."

-------------------

You are making a fool of yourself. Have at it.

such as last year's attacks on Lebanon, that is a form of racism.

:eyes:

That's not racism, that's Biblical determinism. You can't be against Israel's complete ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from the land God gave them. That would make you anti-Semitic.

of a lesser god, didn't you get the memo?

:sarcasm:

just a quick point of order, MBNA does not exist anymore.

"MBNA Corporation was a bank holding company and parent company of wholly owned subsidiary MBNA America Bank, N.A., headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware, prior to being acquired by Bank of America in 2005. It was the world's largest independent credit card issuer, specializing in affinity cards.<1>

MBNA was founded in 1982 as Maryland Bank, N.A., a subsidiary of Maryland National Bank. The name MBNA is an initialism that was derived as an abbreviation or acronym of Maryland Bank, National Association. In 1989, Maryland Bank was renamed MBNA America Bank. MBNA Corp. spun off of Maryland National and became an independent company in 1991"


--as for Joe Biden being a 'tool'

well, yes. He represents his state and their interests, so yes, that is in fact what congresspeople are supposed to do...represent the interests of your state.

Aside from that, Biden is probably America's best hope of restoring the constitution.

But knowing that MBNA is now part of Bank of Unamerica doesn't make me feel any better. I despise BoUA and I have about 10 years worth of good reasons for that.

Who wants to shut down most of the federal government and hand it over to the "private sector"?

No?

Then no Hillary supporter has to apologize to YOU.

That doesn't make them interchangeable with a whackjob like Paul.

I don't care if Hillary is a DLC corporate whore, I already know this. Paul is a racist and a fruitcake and I couldn't care less that he is "against the war." So was Pat Buchanan for chrissakes.

She voted to label part of Iran's military a "terrorist organization".

Then so does Durbin and Levin. It's not a proclamation of war.

She wants to be the president. Which means she needs the support of people who really, really, really want to see Iran blown up.

So she'll do it.

Paul is worse on a larger number of issues, not that I'd vote for either of them (and my original party of choice was led by someone like Lieberman - Blair - for many years, and I didn't vote for him ever).

Hillary Clinton's consideration of Powell counts against her in my view - but even Powell, awful as he is, is not AS RW on as many issues as Paul.

ron paul wants to move everything back to states rights, and that includes civil rights

Sorry Dennis, but you are hurting the cause big time if you want to run with ron paul

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html

"I'm not trying to be Ron Paul's advocate but, still, outright distortions and smears are distortions and smears. In an otherwise informative and legitimate (and widely-cited) post today about Paul's record in Congress, Dave Neiwert claims:


...UPDATE IV: The aforementioned Bruce Fein is legal counsel to the Ron Paul campaign. Liberal pro-choice feminist Naomi Wolf recently sang Paul's praises, hailing him as "the outsider Republican presidential candidate who has long upheld these values and who was an early voice warning of the grave danger to all of us of these abuses."

Have Bruce Fein and Naomi Wolf been concealing a neo-Nazi agenda which they are finally able to express through the Ron Paul campaign, or are they simply impressed by the obvious convictions and intense (though rare) passion he brings to issues which they seem to think are of vital importance -- restoration of our constitutional framework and the rule of law, along with principled opposition to America's imperialistic and militarized role in the world?"


I'm currently listening to Kucinich on a variety of topics.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3766221


"Kucinich Town Hall on Impeachment Televised Live Tonight
Broadcast available throughout New Hampshire and nationally

MANCHESTER, NH - Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has been crisscrossing the state of New Hampshire for more than a week, but tonight he'll be reaching hundreds of thousands of citizens all at once when Manchester Community Access Media broadcasts a live town hall meeting here beginning at 8 pm ET.

The special broadcast from the MCAM studios, 540 Commercial Street, is being made available to community access channels throughout the state and will be streamed live at www.mcam.org so viewers from all over the nation and the world can watch Kucinich take questions from an audience of about 200 area residents. It will also be simulcast at www.KucinichTV.com"

When Paul speaks he is BAD NEWS. He's against everything American. DK can't be very smart even uttering his name.

read most of his statements from his website pre his current candidacy.

He is not against everything American, unless you think protecting the Constitution is unAmerican.

I have not researched the racist statements nor do I agree with him on abortion and probably some other issues as well. I'll look more closely now as I do respect the judgement of Kucinich and have a few ideas of why Kucinich mentioned his name as one possibility.

I take it you are a white male. Why are you so unconcerned about everyone else?

I had in pegged 1929, but I'll have to go back to the history books.

Certainly hasn't changed my opinion of Kucinich one bit. I wonder if he and Paul would attempt to run an Independent ticket should neither of them get nominated? If so, I wonder which mainstream party would such a pairing hurt most?

I never knew much about Ron Paul previously to this, but judging from the way the MSM and blogs are attempting to paint him as a dangerous, anti-Semitic race-baiter, he's probably just as dangerous to the corporate-driven Washington status quo as Dennis seems to be...

I will certainly have to find out more about him, even though he is a RePuke. After all - he may be President Kucinich's VEEP!

Dennis Kucinich still has my support (I can't change now, I've already bought Kucinich 2008 sweatshirts!).

Anti choice, racist, pro-corporate, anti-environment, and so on.

(On edit-there's a link in Post 5)

and more shit.

not exactly progressive, is he?

to hell with Ron Paul.

still supporting Kooch, however.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=nominate&forum=132&thread=3768945

After you read it, tell me what you think.

He could say he is thinking about Cheney as a vice president and still probably maintain many supporters.

Step one: call anything you don't want to hear about Kucinich bullshit/boolsheet
Step two: when it is verified as truth, say it doesn't matter anyway (don't admit you made a mistake or apologize to everyone you were raging on)

Until then, I'll be disappointed with this news.

At least now he is. He was in favor of it for Clinton.

constitution, none of this shit matters, its just back and forth nonsense. When we lose our constitution, we lose our rights and that would include a womans right to choose. I see allot of bickering and trash talking and people bringing up some of the smaller issues and I rarely see anyone talking about how the constitution and their rights are what they are voting on. What the hell is wrong with America when everyone follows the MSM's lead and is ignoring the most important issue we face today. Do you all not see what is taking place? I would rather vote for someone that will protect the constitution and our rights and if we don't like them, we can vote them out in 4 years. If we lose our rights, we may not have a choice in 4 years. At that point the American people would have spoke and the next run of candidates would have to be in support of our rights or they wouldn't stand a chance.

Its time to go out on a limb and take a chance at saving our country, we may not get another chance with the assault that is taking place at a quick pace on our constitution. SO, either continue to fall in line with the other sheep and follow the controlled MSM's lead or make an attempt at saving the constitution so our children can live free. Whats important to you?

..what does that tell us about Kooch? Nothing good.

None of those throwbacks on the other side do ~ that was perfectly clear in tonight's debate.

Kucinich must be feeling very frustrated to have done this (and who can blame him?), but Ron Paul is not the answer imo.

correct.

I'm pro choice so I disagree with RP on this issue, but I also see that ALL citizens have lost many rights and that should be a concern as well.

...never seen a situation where an abortion was necessary.

he's introduced both that and federal law that says the same thing. that is not leaving it up to the states. and that's just one issue.

It's not a deal breaker for him.

right to choose, although he would like to decrease the number of abortions through education and available health care.


Also...

Kucinich Introduces Bill To Give All 3, 4 and 5-Year-Olds High-Quality, Full-Day Early Education

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=77712


"Today Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced legislation to ensure all children ages 3-5 years-old will have access to quality early education programs.

The Universal Prekindergarten Bill would ensure that all children ages 3-5 have access to high-quality, full-day, full-calendar year prekindergarten education.

“By providing students with early educational opportunities we can help lay the foundation for future academic success,” Kucinich said. Kucinich is the only Member of Congress from the state of Ohio on the Education and Labor Committee.

“Our country has great wealth. Yet, we are constantly selling the youth of our nation short. Unfortunately, there is a drastic shortage of affordable and accessible early childhood education programs.

“We must make the education of our youth a top priority. This bill is a large first step in that direction,” Kucinich said.

The bill, funded by both state and federal money, will be free-of-charge and completely voluntary for families who choose to participate. The bill will supplement existing federal and state prekindergarten programs and will also provide for professional development of early childhood educators.

The bill was introduced with 37 original cosponsors."

the reason he is considering Paul is that for him, anti-abortion is not a deal breaker. He understands the rationale. It was his position 4 - 5 years ago. He does not find it repugnant.

our nation is in serious trouble and have spoken out on issues that nobody else will touch.

Both parties have moved away from their core values over the past few decades and sacrificed our liberties and our financial well being with unnecessary wars.

We are losing our nation while those in charge keep us busy arguing over 'trivial matters.'

IMO there is a larger issue than just the abortion issue.

is the way to do that to end Federal regulation of the economy. That is at the heart of Paul's version of Libertarianism. Yes you get rid of the Patriot act. You also get rid of the EPA. Liberty and environmental disaster don't mix. Economic catastrophe is sure path to tyranny.

we can't do away that Federal regulation of the economy, Bernanke is doing such a swell job over at the Fed.

When was the last time the Fed was audited again?

Last I checked it was neither Federal, nor was it a reserve of anything but our debt.

"our nation is in serious trouble and have spoken out on issues that nobody else will touch."

I think the point is this kind of courage and clarity is rare, and they recognize it in each other.

Two people who agree to work together as a team, even if they begin with opposing viewpoints, but who both respect honesty & integrity above ambition; who are committed to the constitution and rule of law, the right of the people to determine the future of the country (as opposed to a massive big brother federal government) -- two such people are capable of working creatively together, learning from each other, and evolving.

Ron Paul is not evil and Dennis is not an idiot. I think most people who are reacting so violently to this are missing the point of what both Kucinich & Paul actually are about.

the lies of the previous administrations, really challenge the MIC and the 'big money.'

Those are priorities in trying to regain some of the original principles of our nation.

I appreciate your voice of reason & sanity here, thank you. If human beings can't learn from each other, and grow, and shift their perspectives as they learn, and keep on learning, then surely there's no hope for humankind... but I do think there is lots of hope, and that ultimately it hasn't got anything to do with politics.

"...but I do think there is lots of hope, and that ultimately it hasn't got anything to do with politics."

It's about caring for others, period.


As long as people remain trapped within an unwavering D or R divide it will be difficult to move forward. Some friends and relatives of mine have seen the cost of just voting for the nominee of their party (Bush). Some defected before '04 and others voted Democratic in '06 as they were hoping someone would hold this administration accountable. Unfortunately, we're all still waiting for that to happen.

Welcome to DU :hi:

He is even more prepared to trample on the poor, the ill, the elderly, minorities and women than most right-wingers are. And that's saying a bloody lot.

And he has supporters (e.g. the Stormfronters) even more evil than he is.

He changed his position a long time ago. Be happy with your victories of character assassination.

so i could never vote for them.

If that's what you mean, it bothers me too ~ good grief, what are they so afraid of??

Still, the marriage thing is something we have to move toward (quickly I hope). But women already have the right to choose ~ I'm not voting for someone who would take us backwards.

why don't dems use the same litmus test for their candidates with full equality?

gays are constantly marginalized, told to wait, and then usually blamed when an election/poll goes sour.

withold support for anti-choicers, but withold support for those against full equality.

no votes, and no money.

...until someone they know well is being discriminated against. For me, it's always been plain as day that gays should enjoy the same rights as anyone else ~ but I came from a background where I got to know lots of different kinds of people at an early age.

For me it's hard to be thrilled about this Dem field ~ I just posted elsewhere that this should be a paradigm-changing election, but it probably won't be with these candidates.

candidates standing for accountability and our Constitution, if we lose that we lose everything else.

Still listening to Kucinich here talking about nobody willing to reign in the abuse of power...

http://www.kucinichtv.com/

just two more questions now

Kooch can talk all he wants, but he has got to repudiate this.

he could get from his service in the congress is just a way of luring us into a false sense of security as to his integrity?

Seems like a pretty lame way to disguise one's intent to loot the treasure and sell us into slavery. If it was working at all, wouldn't all members of congress follow his lead?

No, they don't (pretty obvious).

It really sounds like he's demonstrating a willingness to listen to ideas without regard to where they come from, it's about being open minded. While he's explaining everyone laughs at Paul's domestic policies.

Remember also that the source has a habit of presenting info about Dennis in the most possible unfavorable light. They would never useany clever edits to put something out of context, whould they?

I'm remaining skeptical about the source of this.

-Hoot

...and it sounds like Kooch is willing to run with a Right-Wing nutjob, anti-choice, racist libertarian.

Completely anthithetical to any Progressive voter.

Ha-Ha LOL- 3 minutes of Dennis himself!

it will be just one party with two flavors in the US.

Fine. Paul's your man. Scrap the New Deal - excellent. HR300 (and tons of others) deny Federal Courts jurisdiction to hear discrimination cases, Superb. Abolish Income Tax, Estate and Gift duties - Why didn't I think of that?

huh?

Hoover's first year. Paul wants to end government intervention in the economy, the very policy stance that nurtured the Great Depression. Ending public education however goes further bit further back.

The Federal Reserve had been in place for almost two decades before the Great Depression, and the actions of the Fed led directly to the same cycles of inflation and deflation that both caused the Depression, it's length and depth, as well as every downturn since.

Supreme Court interpreted the constitution, not the executive branch.

I have to question Dennis Kucinich on this. But before I condemn him, I am going to have to study Ron Paul some. I've heard what he has to say, and I seriously do not like it. It, being his privatization. A running mate who hates government programs is a big flaw in my mind. Other than that, he does have a lot to offer.

However, I will begin opening my horizon now. This is the kind of thing that gets me searching. Up until now I was total Kucinich all the way. So, I begin to open my mind and eyes.

I love him, still. But maybe he's not perfect. So is any of our candidates perfect?

This is what makes this process so valuable. Oh well...

and thanks for being an informed voter.

I got two thirds of the way through that list before I realized I already knew these things about him. It just confirmed what I knew.

He's a mess. One we don't need.

I can't believe Dennis Kucinich. I can't believe it. But then, I got over my first girlfriend, too. Sometimes something seems too good to be true.

We'll see...

...I agree that we should look with a jaundiced eye at the source of the article.

I've met Dennis; I've met Ron Paul. I share the concern others have about some of Paul's ideas, while saluting him for having the courage to speak out on others.

My take on this, knowing how Dennis Kucinich looks at the world, is that he is trying project an image of someone who is willing to work on certain issues with people who are "on board" with him on *those* issues.

Unfortunately, when I think of Hillary Clinton and her corporate coziness, I hear as many alarm bells as I do when I consider some of Ron Paul's stances.

What's a voter to do?

That page of Google searches has a lot of very positive stuff on him. But what I've seen of his domestic policies is more extreme than the Bush administration. I would say he's on par with Gover Norquist. I can see why Dennis Kucinich would be attracted to him. He has some good stances on some very important topics. But privatizing everything is one of his policies. He'd let the corporations go wild. I don't know how Dennis could legitimately say what he did. We have enough time to see how things play out. But as in love with Kucinich as I've been, this has me looking to other candidates. It's something I should have done in the beginning in order to make a responsible choice.

(I have no idea who Roger L. Simon is):

I think both of these men became highly-rigid narcissists decades ago. Their entire public personae ... and the attention they crave... are totally dependent on maintaining an inviolable public image. You can invariably predict everything they are going to say, every attitude they take. There is never a surprise, because they are playing roles they have chosen for themselves and for which they were rewarded with public and media attention from years in the past. If they changed their positions and became more reasonable, even in a few areas, they would simply disappear because they no longer fulfilled their roles.

This disappearance, of course, is intolerable to the narcissist. The point - for both Kucinich and Paul- is not to win, but to bask in that reflected glow that justifies their existence. This is also an indication why both do not appear to listen when others talk. To do so would be to have their thought processes challenged and to risk change. What fascinates me in this, however, is that, unlike in national polls where they barely register, a large number of people in their home areas actually voted for the Congressmen.

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2007/06/separate...

as the right-wingers who suggest that people want to be gay in order to get special rights.

Both Kucinich and Paul take more abuse than you can imagine for daring to speak out about the corruption and lies of their fellow politicians on a regular basis. They each do it because they truly believe in what they say, unlike the shit-head corporate stooges running both Parties and our Nation into the ground.

I sent my 1st donation to John Edwards today after making up my mind earlier. Edwards was always my second choice anyhow. He now is my number 1.

otherwise you wouldn't fall for this scam.

To each his own, no doubt there are some Dems who do support the Iraq War. At least it helps to know who they are.

M'kay.

But, yes.

just like in the 19th century? In America itself, and even more in the developing world, to which the already insufficient aid would be cut? And the withdrawal of all protection for minorities?

I know you don't really; but it's as logical an accusation as the one that you made.

that's what mentioning Ron Paul says to me: Friendship and 'respect' overriding judgment. It's an almost fatal flaw.

cabinet

In some ways, though he is not saying it in so many words, if he won... he will pull a Lincoln and appoint people to the cabinet that are polar opposites

Has Kucinich fallen from the wagon? Or is he trying a brilliant move and signal that politics as we know them are over?

Reality is... his chances of winning are next to nil, and I will still vote for him in the primary.

I agree with your assessment.

I think Kucinich knows what he is doing.

I agree with your assessment.

Keep you friends close, keep your enemies closer.

this sound bite?

Kucinich believes this country is deeply divided and in need of a kind of political transformation and healing. He is talking about trying to bridge the gap between right and left.

I'm reminded of a couple sayings: "A house divided can not stand," and "You'll know you're over the target when you start to catch the flack."

“Bridging a divide” would be reaching out to Susan Collins, or Joe Lieberman even. People who at least are not looking to dismantle the majority of our government, institutionalize racism and sexism, and so on. Ron Paul is too far Right.

The VP is a President-in-waiting, that is the job. Granted Kucinich is healthy for a 61-year-old, a vote for that ticket is still a vote for Ron Paul as President. No, thank you.

As to respect and personal loyalty over ideology: personally, yes. I have Reep friends, in fact a few libertarians and atheists. We have great discussions (even arguments), but then none of us are in a position to dismantle post-1929 America. Kucinich should be friends with Paul if he wishes; he should certainly respect him for remaining true to his principles; but he should not be inserting him into the line of succession.

He must like being on the fringe to make a statement like this just as he was actually gaining significant traction. Ron Paul is a lunatic who posesses the courage of his convictions which I admire, but I certainly don't support any of them. His lone attraction to any Democrat is his anti-war stance, but that doesn't begin to compensate for his views on almost ANY other issue you want to name. Libertarians are anarchists in reality or Social Darwinists. Bleeccchhhh! Dennis, what could you possibly have been thinking?

important and now I don't know what to do. I can't stand Hillary. I like Obama's optimism, but I dislike his pandering to fundies. I like Edwards, but like Hillary and Obama, I don't like his healthcare proposal. Biden is probably the most qualified, but I'm still upset over the bankruptcy bill. Richardson just doesn't do it for me. Maybe I need to investigate Dodd.

Wish I could say the same.

But I agonize with you ~ none of these candidates is the leader that we really need at this time in history imo. It should be a paradigm-shifting election, but with these candidates it probably won't be.

...for me, Kucinich was a potential paradigm shift agent, and now that's gone. The other candidates are nothing but subtle variations on SSDD.

I keep hoping someone else will step onto the stage, but it's getting pretty late for that. It's also getting pretty late for restoring democracy in the U.S. and saving the planet ~ I have to believe that this is the darkness before the dawn.

Why not say that Kucinich is batshit crazy... or as I've pointed out several times on DU, he's just simply stupid.

...I'll support him again, albeit with less enthusiasm. Over the decades, Kooch has been remarkably consistent WRT progressive Populism, and because of that I'd give him a second chance. But he has to rule out including Paul on the ticket, that is so bad for the country as to be beyond belief.

He has shown capacity for growth-the choice issue for example. I want to see that here as well.

It's especially funny coming from supporters of Rupert Murdoch's favorite "democrat".

but I understand the context. I wonder how that would play out; DK is consistent and reliable on issues that affect people every time, and I don't see him giving an inch anywhere there.

I don't have the same perspective that most Democrats seem to; I was an independent for most of my voting career, and the only reason why I finally registered with a party was to help combat the 2000 takeover. While I voted for many Democrats, it had nothing to do with furthering party politics, and everything to do with picking the best person on the ballot. My votes, from within the party or without, STILL have nothing to do with furthering party politics. My votes are still about issues. If we elect the people best on issues, the party will be just fine, but that's not the primary goal. The primary goal is to elect people who will continually work to move the issues forward.

From that perspective, he still has my vote. He's still the best person on the ballot according to my criteria: issues, platform, record.

I'm sure, on DU, that will play differently. Here, "unity" means party unity. It means holding your nose, gritting your teeth, and "getting behind" a bad nominee. It means supporting and enabling the political polarity that has crippled our nation. Many of the same Democrats who think we ought to support someone just because he or she is a Democrat, regardless of their platform or record, so that we can "win" votes, don't want to win Republican votes if that means that a D candidate will actually work with Republicans anytime common ground can be found.

Remember that within the party, it's ok to win some crossover R votes with a DLC/centrist/third way candidate. It's ok to win R votes by nominating an R-lite candidate, but not with a populist or libertarian candidate. That, in my book, is pure hypocrisy.

It is no surprise that DK would work with Ron Paul on ending Iraq, since they both hold the same positions. The same positions for different reasons, of course. While they hold radically different positions on most other issues, they are both determined to support and defend the Constitution. Ron Paul is a staunch defender of the Constitution, which is more than can be said of the rest of the Democratic pack.

Perhaps that's why DK would consider him. DK puts peace at the top of his priorities. Too many of his fellow Democrats, while spouting plenty of noble rhetoric, have not been there when it counts. DK also puts Constitutional protection high on his list, and too many of his fellow Democrats are not with him on that effort, either. He mentioned Ron Paul's "integrity." I believe he was referring to his willingness to walk his talk and cross party lines to do so. I don't like it, but I can understand it.

I guess it depends on your campaign goal. If a candidate is campaigning on being able to reach across the aisle and bring people together, then supporters promote that as positive, while those supporting someone else use it as a "them vs us" talking point. Accomplishing goals by getting bipartisan cooperation is viewed as great as long as it is your candidate that does it, and not someone else's.

In the end, I don't want to see Ron Paul on my ballot. I don't know if that's what DK said; he may have been referring to cabinet positions, since that's the way the question was framed. There is certainly precedence for that. Bill Clinton appointed a Republican to be defense secretary, for example.

In my perfect, ideal world, no republican would ever win any election or appointment, ever again. I guess we all have to make up our minds: Do we choose a candidate who stands against republicans and their agenda in congress, and works constantly to forward a progressive agenda, but is willing to work with Rs to do so, or do we support a candidate that hasn't mentioned any possible Rs as cabinet members, but who has enabled the R president and the R agenda by voting for it, in congress during the Bush residency?

how that meme got such purchase here, I'll never know.

...I wouldn't expect you to get many honest answers seeing as there is clearly a "right answer" and "wrong answer" given the rules of this site. Still, even without answering, it is an excellent question to be posed. Blind political brand allegiance vs. actual legislative performance.

managed to push their agenda fine, thank you very much, without the help of ANY bipartisanship. Indeed, weren't even some of their own party treated as supernumeraries.

IN FACT, the Republicans pushed their agenda with probably less opposition from the (virtual) Opposition than at any time in your history - as though, indeed, the more despotically they acted, the more supine and helpless the Democrats became. Reid's recent initiative regarding Bush's recess appointments were a welcome respite (I was almost going to say, "fight back") from the moral Abu Ghraib suffered by the Dems. I hope the Democrats on the panel of Leahy's latest inquiry are not going to be pyramided again, like the all the previous ones.

I actually agree with your general thrust, but feel that this is a special case.

I am not, nor ever have been, a member of any political party-to me, parties are power centers with no fixed ideology or clear principles over their lifetimes. I started voting exclusively Dem during the Reagan administration, when I realized what the Reeps' ends were, not because I saw myself as a Democrat. To be blunt, I view party membership as a lemming-like activity.

I have absolutely nor problem with, and great respect for, bipartisanship. As a Centrist, that is my preferred way to go, in fact.

However, Ron Paul, as an extremist Libertarian, is the wrong man to have a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Kooch called him out as a possible Veep, and that is too dangerous. Cabinet post? I'd swallow that. Ambassadorship, informal adviser, any of these things would be OK with me. But the idea of "President Ron Paul" is a risk we cannot afford to take.

interviewed on Mark Germaine's radio show.

Same thing I did here. Until I heard the man saying it myself, I supported him.

site, if you want to contact them to try to get a copy or a transcript:

http://www.ktlk.com/pages/On_Air_Hosts.html?feed=119597&article=1779382

...he can darned well make it known. Not my job to help him make his own case.

his choice for VP clinched it.
If Dennis wins the nomination, and ends up choosing Paul, i would not support him. But he has not chosen Paul, he only said he would consider balancing the ticket (hell, wouldn't Edwards or Obama be right-wing enough for anyone?) So i might still vote for Kucinich.

support him in order to make a statement to the corporo-Dems but I've been rethinking that stance. I already knew about Paul's record and, other than being a thorn in the side of Republicans, he's pretty much a douchbag. The fact is, the poster above who said Kucinich's possible choice reflected sophomoric thinking was correct. Now I have absolutely NO one to vote for in the primaries. Looks like write-in time again. x(

but I never questioned his judgment or motives before and now I have to. What a disappointment.

:thumbsdown:

Calling either one of the two and "Anti-American motherfucker" demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about. They are politically and idealogically from very different places, but they are both honest and they both love this country. What distinguishes them from their peers is that they love their country above their own careers and fortunes, and most of all, they are honest men.

Along with Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel, that pretty much guarantees that they won't be nominated. No honest man could possibly get past the motherfuckers who are the gatekeepers in DC.

that he might not be able to attract a reasonably high-profile VP, but it almost sounded as if he was talking about extending a hand of friendship "across the aisle".

In the intense politicians' bubble he must live in, as a thrusting "young Turk", it seems that he hasn't caught on to the absolute phobia of things Republican, all things Republican, on the part of the general public, and the natural descent upon them of a mood of extreme wariness as regards allowing access, any avoidable access at all, to a Republican Trojan Horse even in the remotest foothills of government.

I will now be sending all my contributions to Biden.

and thought that aliens were talking to him. I'm convinced that if he made it to the White House he would be as unstable as W. or Reagan. When Republicans are batshit crazy, I criticize them. I can't hold Democrats to any less of a standards. The Ron Paul thing is upsetting, but I had already dumped Dennis.

would provide gratuitous ammunition to the twisted propagandists of the Republicans. Remember Governmor Moonbeam? And that was because he suggested the launch of a satellite to provide emergency communications for California - an idea that was eventually adopted.

DK is a real person. He thinks about things, says what he thinks and doesn't conform to the political mold we are used to. Even so, he will never be president because corporate America wants candidates in their pocket. No free thinkers can apply.

of Hollywood writers on strike right now, maybe he was winging it.

I'm sure no others would allow themselves to be caught on tape without a prepared response.

NO... all speculation from many DUers trying to spread speculation as intent. He what he had said (per the audio recording) to make a point, not an announcement to run with Ron Paul. I also noticed many claiming to have been supporting Kucinich up until this point. I seriously doubt they were ever considering Kucinich.

Until last night, when I heard the recording, I was defending Kooch. Loudly and clearly. I have been a Kooch admirer for decades and a supporter for months.

And if he repudiates this nonsensical notion, I'll support him again. But I'll require the same sort of evidence I did to make this shift-the man's own words, verifiable as such.

based on what they have done, not what they say. None of them have integrity. If ending the war immediately is your number one item and your looking for a running mate who's number one item is also ending the war immediately and has integrity so you can believe him, there ain't much out there to choose from. What other names come to mind who have promised to end the war cold turkey?

me too. I could never support anyone who remotely considers Paul as a legitimate candidate. What the hell was he thinking?

keep corporations from stealing everything from us. Therefore, Libertarians don't care if corporations steal everything from us.
I read Ayn Rand in high school and thought Objectivism was the greatest. Then I got into the real world and learned that there are a lot of dishonest people out there that need control (laws). Corporations are not human and have no morals. And we shouldn't expect them to. Corporations have to be given regulations or they will all turn into Enrons.

DK yes Ron Paul, NFW.

We all know getting someone as progressive as DK into the highest office in the land is dangerous for his health. The best protection of course would be to find someone even further to the left than he is as his VP, which is impossible, so that's out. Anyone more moderate as his VP would just make him a bigger rifle target, so that's out. Choosing someone on the right would just be asking to be shot at, so that's out. But what about choosing a Libertarian that even the Republicans wouldn't want as President? They'd be so scared of Ron Paul taking over after an assassination, that they'd probably even actively protect DK's life.

So with that in mind, batshit crazy? Or crazy like a foxbat?

seriously though, I don't think that was Dennis' plan.

Americans interested in peace, a return to a moral foreign policy and a just future in the Middle East don't need the NJDC or AIPAC to tell them what to think.

These two admirable anti-war politicians deserve every progressive American's support. They are the anti-Hillarys, the anti-Giulianis. They're the ones who actually stand for something better.

both of them deserve no progressive support, one being the ultimate new age whacko who cannot, despite years of public association, discern the ultimate reactionary he is praising.

They are both At Least as dangerous as the ruling class cabal now spreading the cancer of capitalism over the globe at gunpoint.

can freeze in the streets! Go Ron Paul!