Forget "electability"....If Kucinich actually became president, could he govern?

I don't care about electability. I don't care about haircuts. Bad suits. Weird ears. Or strange beliefs. Forget all that.

Somehow, against all odds, Dennis Kucinich is President of the United States. Now, here is my question: Could he govern?

1. Who would be in his cabinet? I can't imagine he would go for the usual group of ex-Senators and governors. Would it be qualified people? When he was mayor in the 70s, one of the chief complaints was that he put unqualified people in position of power. (And, yes, before you answer: anything would be better than the current Cabinet. Yes, I get the point. But that's just about getting to 2008. I am thinking beyond that).

2. Does he have any actual allies in the House and Senate? In two presidential campaigns, I've never heard of anyone who actually was worked with him on legislation. (In fact, I've never actually heard of any real legislation). Does he have any relationships on the Hill that could lead to any victories. More importantly, what kind of enemies does he have? I've never got the sense that any Democrats trust him.

Here is why this is important. Bill Clinton began building relationships in Democratic circles in 1972. By 1998, when his presidency was in trouble, he had 25 years worth of relationships to fall back on. He had friends. More importantly, in 1993, he was actually able to get legislation passed that Reps knew was going to hurt them in elections. He had people who were willing to sacrifice their own ambitions for him. Does Dennis have that? (And to be fair, this is one of my concerns with Obama too. I'm worried if he would be able to keep the House and Senate in line if things ever got rough for him. In his favor, though, is public magnetism. Clinton had that too. Dennis...not so much).

3. Would world leaders give him any respect at all? W had his dad's Rolodex. Clinton had scads of personal charm. I just don't know what would happen in a summit with Dennis and Putin. I could imagine it going very very badly for some reason.

4. Could he keep the public behind in bad times? W has found out that once you lose public support, it's every man for himself. Clinton (and Reagan to some degree) always managed to keep the electorate behind them when times were bad. Carter and both Bushes are examples of what happens when the public abandons you.

5. Does anyone actually like him personally? Kucinich is a fairly remarkable politician in that he seems to have gone extraordinarily far with very few allies and friends. In every article, the word "difficult" eventually appears. Again, I'm thinking of the Carter years where eventually even Tip O'Neill abandoned him and Ted Kennedy challenged him in a primary. It's not easy in Washington if no one has any personal affection for you.

a recall. Howevere, that was many years ago. His 100% pro-life rating was more recent and bothers me a bit more.

....and would be far more effective in restoring effective representation and addressing issues that are important to the working people of America, so I have no problem supporting his candidacy:kick:

I didn't realize George W. Bush was running for the Democratic Candidency. Guess I should pay more attention, but you are certainly right. In a choice between Bush and Kucinich, I would pick Kucinich in a heartbeat?

So what happened to Obama, Clinton, Richardson, Edwards and the others who were running for the Democratic Nomination? Did they all drop out or something?

Cause Edwards or Obama or even Clinton would probably be better at winning and governing than Kucinich.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Call me crazy, but I want a good President, not a "less bad" President.

If the argument is that Kucinich's Presidency would only be 75 percent as embarrasing as George W. Bush's presidency, that does not exactly inspire confidence in me.

I want a man dedicated to helping the country he serves, not a politician. I'd follow Dennis into hell but he'd never ask us to go there. He'd find a different way.

How does that work? And does that mean that Henry Kissinger should have been president?

So he could veto bullshit legislation. isn't his job to get it passed just sign or veto. Dennis could get the people behind him.

Actually, I think he could be an effective president, assuming he's able to be flexible. History's pretty clear on this--ideologies are anathema to good government in this country (Hoover, Buchanan, Reagan at his worst) and flexibility in achieving goals--even to the point of violating previously held principles--is the road to greatness (Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR).

You need emotional intelligence and pragmatism. I don't see those as strengths in Kucinich.

He's far from bat-shit crazy. The man in office NOW is "bat-shit crazy." DK isn't even flea-shit crazy by those standards. I think the op makes a good point, though, which is why it's so hard to actually back the guy...he's not an alpha-male, and he doesn't have the connections nor the gravitas to command respect. The right wing, being who they are, would treat him like the wimpy kid who gets picked last for the dodge ball team. But his policies, his knowledge, his ideas...he is so much in line with most of DU and America, it's too bad he'll never gain any traction.

.

Because frankly, that would be an awesome bumpersticker.

Um, I don't mean for the Kucinich campaign.

... inclines me to write in 50-page segments, so it's been a battle. Thanks for noticing!

LOL

:)

I think she is tougher than her husband.

I've found my bitches are tougher than my males anyway (dog reference - not a Imus-style put-down. ;) )

he could govern. That's the beauty of our system. He'd bring more than enough support along with him . . . if he happened to get elected.

Then not a chance!

And certainly Mrs Clinton has learned something from the spectacular fuck up in the way she mangled the health care initiative in the early 90s. Of all the candidates running, Sen. Clinton is the last one to condemn others for rookie mistakes in politics.

Clinton had 4 or 5 (I forget) more terms as Governor.

Hillary was reinvented herself at least twice since the Health Care Initiative.

Dennis...I'm not sure of. No one has ever proved to me that Dennis is anything more than our Party's Bob Dornan.

But he seems to have learned a thing or two since getting his ass handed to him by the electorate. He's actually come around quite a bit. He still sucks, but he sucks way less. Dennis, otoh, doesn't have Arnold's star power. Or a tenth the body mass! LOL! I just don't think a guy like Dennis could be treated fairly in the US. Remember all the Al Gore "wooden" joke. Kerry's patrician jokes. The media and the right will focus on all the most trivial aspects of any candidate in order to "bring him down a peg" and attempt to make him seem like a joke. Dennis just has too big a soft white underbelly for such a little guy.

.

Clinton didn't appoint teenagers to important state posts...

Clinton didn't appoint a 24 year old with 6 months as a stock broker as Financial director of the state

Clinton didn't fire his State Chief of Police on Television

Clinton didn't alienate every Democratic member of the state legislature

Clinton didn't nearly get recalled

And most of all, Clinton learned from some of the mistakes he made, and came back to become one of the most effective Governor's in Arkansas' history

For the record, I think Dennis is perfect in the House. Each party needs a few fringe characters in safe seats to act as the id for the base. But as an actual executive...no.

How can you question any one else's credentials. We have had low key presidents in the past. Even if he did nothing but piss off republicans for 4 years, that would be good enough for me.

And I want a president who does more than piss of the opposition. I want things actually accomplished.

and not too worried about his historical legacy, which seems to mean a war eventually. maybe dennis just loves his country and wants to fix it.

nt

I actually posted them because I am curious.

Feel better?

I give you permission.

But you are certainly asking the right questions. These are good points to talk about. My gut says Dennis is a very passionate liberal legislator and a good person, but not an effective executive leader with the pull to get things done.

I don't detect (even on DU) as much enthusiasm for him that I saw, here in Madison, among certain people, that I did see in 2004--and if he can't equal that he won't get very far in 2008 either.

The important thing about supporting Dennis in the primary, is that the more support he has the more power and influence he will have in any future government. He has been right on just about everything including the idiot repuke wars on everything and everybody, but mainly about bringing the troops home and ending the repuke drug war and putting these unimaginably vast and totally wasted resources where they belong, building bridges. I can see him in the position of VP, AG, SCOTUS (wouldn't that be a hoot) or drug czar or any no of cabinet positions. If Gore enters the race the jig is up....imo he will win in a landslide.

i do not think he could, mostly for the wrong reasons. he would be much like carter- not really in charge, because big business and the cia/executive army/octopus/whatever you want to call it, won't let him. maybe he has an idea how big and vicious this cabal is. i don't think carter did. but i agree with you that no one seems to like him, or want to work with him.
although he speaks very bravely, i do not think that he acts bravely. after all, 2004 was stolen in his state, including his district, and what did he do? a week later, he issued a statement. he lost me right there.

He's been in Congress ten years and he's on three committees. No leadership positions, no initiative to go for higher office until he started running for president. He can't work with people in his own campaign. And despite the fact that his strongest fans seem to be "purists" (I don't mean that as derogatory in any way), he's not been pure as a liberal. Since 2003 he's been changing his views and ideals on some key issues to get votes.

Having said that, I think he would gain the respect of world and domestic leaders if they were forced to work with him. I have a friend who worked around Kucinich on a major project once. This friend is cynical of most politicians, but he was impressed by how seriously Kucinich took the project, how involved in the details he became, and, in general, how smart he is. This friend walked away a fan of Kucinich. He won't vote for Kucinich, though.

I don't believe Kucinich can work with his enemies, though, and that's a bigger issue. And, he just hasn't shown any pattern of upward mobility, that I've seen (Please correct me if I'm wrong, I may well be), which strikes me as lazy or uncreative or unable to work with others. Not sure which, but it doesn't matter, since none of those are good qualities for a president.

You make good points about Clinton's network and likability. That worries me about Kucinich, and Obama and Edwards. Although, I've seen a charisma in Obama and Edwards that might compensate for their lack of history. Just when I give up on one of them, they impress me with something. In 92, I was torn between Clinton and Harken, for different reasons. I finally decided on Clinton during a four way debate (Tsongas and Brown were included). The four sat at a table and had a casual debate/discussion, moderated loosely by (I think?) Jennings. Watching the four together, it was obvious who had the leadership skill, and the command of his own ideals. Brown was all over the place, throwing scripted accusations at Clinton. Tsongas was smart, as always, but responded weakly when challenged. Harkin and Clinton were clearly the most in control of their ideals, positively jumping on objections as though they were positive opportunities to better explain themselves. But Clinton just took control. At one point, he began to moderate--he cut off Brown because Brown had interrupted Harkin (or Tsongas, one of the two), gave the table back to Harkin, let Harkin finish, gave it back to Brown, then responded on his own. And EVERYONE let him, no one protested. Even the moderator yielded. That's a type of leadership you can't learn. I am waiting for that type of moment between the big three now, to see who has what. I have an idea of who will win, but I want to see it first. Until then, I won't decide on a candidate. All ideas and policies will meld together once the winner is in office. I want to see who can actually lead the others to get it done.

That's my opinion, anyway. Go ahead, anyone who is still bothering to read it. Show me where I'm wrong. :)

I don't recall that debate. But I remember the effect he (and Gore) actually had on my mother at a rally on their first "Bus Tour." My mom did not like Clinton at first. Between the Gennifer Flowers thing and everything else, I don't think she thought he was a good person. I think she started to warm to him during the primary, but after that rally, she was hooked.

There were probably about 5000 people in front of the city building of the little town. And he simply owned the crowd. Every question was answered directly and intelligently. It didn't matter if it was steel tariffs, emissions standards, or hemp. He could make a joke, tell an anecdote and cite a study in the same paragraph. Even Gore he was stiffer than stiff at that point was obviously feeding off his charisma. By the end of it, Clinton could have said, "What say we all head down to the train junction and roll some hoboes" and the crowd would have followed.

I'm not sure Dennis could get three old woman to cross the street.

He almost had me signed up for his spouse's campaign! He's a tremendous force. I remember him speaking before the Viet Nam Memorial his first year in office. There was veterans group protesting him. He stepped up to the mike and they did an about face, to protest him. Clinton started off saying "To those veterans who are protesting me--I have heard you. I have heard you." After the speech, several of the veterans said he had impressed them by saying that.

What are you worried about anyway? He's guaranteed to lose because he's so bad and a joke, right?

I could honestly be persuaded to vote for Kucinich. His platform is great.

My issue is: I don't think he could get one page of it through Congress. Tell me how he could.

to go to bat for some of it. I think the fact that he won would be quite enough to force members of Congress to give his ideas due consideration. But of course, he would be coming at these issues from a totally different position as well (President vs. a lawmaker). I know of very few presidents that can get everything they stand for through congress (unless they command both houses and they march in lockstep such as we've just been through). One thing for sure, the people won't be worse off in my estimation even if all he does is push the overall agenda of government into a little more of a progressive direction.

or one of those thugs, back in 2003 or so. After that I knew I had to get behind someone else... someone more forceful, like Dean.

for all the reasons you mention.

Having positions on policy is NOT the same as actually being able to institute those positions. The President is not a dictator - Kucinich would not be able to just automatically implement his agenda - he'd need a willing congress to do it.

People like FDR, Lincoln and even Washington.

Yes Kucinich could govern effectively, and frankly do a hell of job once he's there, since he wouldn't be beholden to the corporatistas that our corrupting the rest of the Dem candidates. Let's put him in and let him do the job. There is nobody better.

(1) He has a record of being anti-choice.

(2) He has a record of being anti-stem cell research.

(3) He just announced he wants to ban all handguns.

(4) He realizes the War on Drugs is a miserable failure.

Well, 1 out of 4 isn't bad. I guess.

The man is a remarkable advocate for progressives.

He is principled and not for sale.

President Kucinich? Absolutely not.

Congressman Kucinich? God Bless You, sir.

But world leaders would probably be falling all over him as his diplomats would actually have the art of diplomacy down.

Regarding your points:

1. He's an idealist, not a pragmatist. Quite frankly, I've had enough of that in the last seven years. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say, whether they're left or right.

2. Few. Very few. Mr. Kucinich is not very highly-regarded; he has a tendency to say things others find out of place. Whether he's speaking truth to power or out of his gourd, he has few allies.

3. As President of the United States, he commands a base level of respect. However, tact is not his forte. He says what he thinks, which is dangerous in world affairs.

4. Probably not. He's too easily smeared.

5. Quite a few people here do. However, that's more a result of his proud, unflinching liberalism. Personally, well, I find him a bit grating, but I can't speak for the general public.

DK has integrity. To me it's the # 1 qualification for governing.

Dennis Kucinich would be ineffective because too many Democrats are on the Corporate payroll and would not support legislation that beneifts Working Americans?

I see. Well, lets elect MORE Corporate OWNED Democrats. Then we could get lots more legislation passed! :party:

NAFTA :thumbsdown:
CAFTA :thumbsdown:
Welfare Reform :thumbsdown:
Telecommunications Act :thumbsdown:
No Insurance Companies & HMO CEOs Left Behind :thumbsdown:
More "Free Trade" :thumbsdown:

*DK is the ONLY candidate that supports Single Payer Universal HealthCare.

*DK is the ONLY Candidate who is CLEAR & CONSISTANT about his opposition to the Iraq Occupation & US Imperialism.

*DK is the ONLY candidate who is CLEAR & CONSISTANT about his support for Working Americans

*DK is the ONLY candidate who is CLEAR & CONSISTANT about the NEED to cut the budget for America's War Machine.

*DK is the ONLY candidate who is CLEAR and CONSISTANT about his opposition to the offshoring of Amercan Jobs.

*DK is the ONLY candidate who is untainted by LARGE SINGLE SOURCE (Corporate CEOs) contributions


DK was the target of the entire Madison Avenue (Corporate Owned Propaganda Network)when he REFUSED to privatize Public Utilities. He is NOW credited with saving $MILLIONS$ for Working Americans. I call that LEADERSHIP!

DK also has support in the CBC and the Progressive Caucus.
http://www.pdamerica.org/

You are absolutely CORRECT that DK has a lot of opposition within the Democratic Party.
You are absolutely WRONG about the solution. The Solution is NOT to elect more corporate sponsored Democrats who support the status quo.

These are the issues that the other candidates refuse to even discuss. With the help of the Corporate Owned Media, the other candidates will try to keep them off the table by marginalizing DK.

I support DK because he works 24/7 to bring them into public awareness.
THAT is LEADERSHIP!
Following the script handed down by Big Business is NOT leadership.

Those who say DK is not a leader have been watching too much TV.
Go see DK live before helping to catapult the propaganda!



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

Actually, it's more like activism.

I guess that's the crux of my question: Is he an activist or a leader?

that supports full marriage for everyone, not separate but equal civil unions like the others uneasily support, but full marriage.

DK supports the legalization of marijuana.

:hi: Just adding two others that I see discussed here but never is it mentioned that he supports these two things while the lack of support for these two things by the others is discussed ad nausem.

...it would have been with massive support.