Kucinich and the PL- PC switch

[diamondsoul]

Since this thing just keeps coming up and since someone else posted a thread showing when the Draft Kucinich movement began, adding still more credence to my argument, here we go.

Recently this issue was brought up yet again at Delphi Forums. The poster doesn't ravel much outside her own forum as far as I can tell so I didn't hesitiate to clarify things for her. I did so by going to C-span.org and looking up votes on abortion issues during 2001 and 2002. Here's what I found-

In Sept of 2001, there was a vote on an abortion related issue, the last mention of it I find in the 107th Congress, First Session.

"Rejected: Sanchez amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 107-218 that sought to allow abortions to be performed in overseas military hospitals (rejected by a recorded vote of 199 ayes to 217 noes, Roll No. 357)."

Kucinich opposed the Sanchez amendment. Shortly after this vote would have been the winter recess of Congress. In looking again, through the Library of Congress to check the session dates, I see that the House didn't adjourn for winter break until Dec.20th, 2001, reconvening Jan.23rd for the Second Session.

Ok, so now we're looking at when the next vote on an abortion related piece of legislation comes up. We know there wasn't anything after Sept. of 2001, and my search shows the next vote coming in March of 2002. At this point Kucinich appears to have revised his political position on abortion because he voted in favor of that legislation-

"Rejected the Jackson-Lee of Texas motion that sought to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report it back to the House forthwith with an amendment that exempts an adult sibling, grandparent, minister, rabbi, pastor, priest, or other religious leader from provisions prohibiting the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion by a yea-and-nay vote of 173 yeas to 246 nays, Roll No. 96."

In the time span between these two votes, 6 months time have passed, no abortion related legislation has crossed the floor of the House, and Kucinich has had numerous opporunities to speak to women close to him and most likely plenty of others on the subject. Given that my own change of heart took considerably less time, like about three weeks, and Kucinich had a full 6 months with which to ruminate on the subject, plus plenty of input from other sources, I'd love for someone to explain what is so suspicious about it.

Taking all of this, along with the fact that Kucinich wasn't even mentioned as a Presidential candidate until AFTER his Prayer for America speech which took place at the onset of the war earlier this year, I'd have to say the assertion that his change of positions was a political ploy is wholly unfounded and unsupportable.

[cherryperry]

1. Yes, I agree with you; this really is a red herring!

I believe DK was voting his religious beliefs up until being confronted by some realities women face and, after reflecting upon those, he chose not to impose those on other people. This is actually a good sign because rather than expedient I see it as a person who cares more for others than his own religion teaches.

DK really is the best, most human, most heartfelt candidate. I wish we could have had a DK/Wellstone or Wellstone/DK ticket ...

Thanks for going into the issue in such detail!

:hi: :kick:

[TheBigGuy]

8. yes, that is a plausible explanation.

Ive always thought the focus on Kuciniches abortion votes was really suspicious, an early attempt to discredit probably the most genuine left-liberal candidate running.

[dansolo]

13. It still doesn't explain his vote for a flag burning amendment

His anti-choice history isn't the only matter of concern about Dennis Kucinich. I have yet to hear anyone explain that one away.

[revcarol]

14. DK wants to take back the flag symbolism from the fake patriots.

It's OUR flag too, not just the administration's flag. His vote was against flag desecration.

Maybe his patriotism burns you, but I will be damned if anyone will take the flag that covered my husband's coffin and desecrate it!!

And he IS for free speech. He will take the Justice Department and have them get after all the monopoly-media. He says there has not been so much restraint of trade and monopolization since the Robber Barons Era.

[Desertrose]

2. it would be sweet to put this behind us for good, wouldn't it?

Other politicians and candidates can change what they say from day to day, but let Dennis do it and well....

It would be nice if this would clear things up...DK had an epiphany...a change of perspective...before he had any plans to run...he has been consistent since that change and has not flip-flopped back....

DK is an honest man in every other way...why not this as well?

Peace
DR

[JohnKleeb]

3. you know even if he was pro life which I didnt like

its not like he was against helping the imporvished or supported the death penalty, its like the pope I disagree with him on abortion but hes consistent at least.

[tlcandie]

4. RE: Gatekeepers and the, 'He's not electable' quote....

<snip>
The gatekeepers of conventional wisdom would like you to believe that I cannot win. These big shot media types, of course, are the same crowd that didn’t understand the worldwide web, thought the Beatles were a fad, never believed Jerry Brown, Jesse Jackson or George McGovern would win any primaries, and laughed when a rumpled, unknown, progressive college professor climbed onto a green bus in Minnesota to challenge a popular, well-funded, experienced conservative incumbent. They laughed; but the voters responded—and Paul Wellstone won the upset victory of 1990 to take his place in United States Senate history.
<snip>

<snip>
The big pundits will also tell us that the only way we can win is to be cautious, to run to the middle. But that’s not what the Right wing did—when they were in trouble, they turned to their champion, Ronald Reagan. The conservatives ran on their issues, stood fast on their principles and ideas, and triumphed. Now it’s our turn.

The truth is, the so-called experts never see the change coming beforehand. They never see the paradigm shift. They’re too busy explaining the old habits, while a new world is being born.

A year ago, they would have told you MoveOn.org was declining. A year ago, they would have told you there was no peace movement in America.

The pundits never saw the “Teamsters & turtles” coalition coming together against the WTO in Seattle in 1999; but I was there with 50,000 blue/green protesters as we changed the way the world looked at corporate globalization.

And the pundits never, ever predicted that on a cold Saturday in February of this year, millions and millions of people around the world would gather together at one time, to speak in one voice, to say no to a destabilizing, aggressive, unjust war.
<snip>

<snip>
One final point—if you help my campaign strike a strong blow for peace and justice, you will not just gain a candidate for a year—you will gain an ally for your causes for a lifetime.

I am running to be President, but I intend to struggle for a better world for the rest of my life.
<snip>


Honestly, in all due respect, I'm sick and tired of hearing, 'I would, but he's not electable'. IF everyone who said that just DID what they feel in their hearts is the right thing to do, we COULD take AMERICA back w/o even blinking! IT IS NOW OR NEVER!

I refuse to accept less than the best!

EDIT: forgot the link for quotes..
http://www.moveon.org/pac/cands/kucinich.html

[Magical]

5. I completely agree!

The whole flip-flop thing is totaly (1000%) unfounded, and :crazy: :dunce: :puke: :thumbsdown:

[tlcandie]

7. Well, ya know ....

People who don't want to vote for him have to have an excuse, right?

So far, there are three...correct me if I'm wrong, please:

1) Flip-flop (easily refuted for those who truly care to read)

2) Utility deal (easily refuted, again, for those who truly care to read)

3) He's not electable and all it encompasses (easily side-stepped if anyone cares to step out from WHAT they have been in-grained to believe is true)

EDIT: Maybe on #3, it shoudl read if people CHALLENGE what they have been taught by the well-oiled political machine

[JasonBerry]

6. I agree! 100% N/T

~

[diamondsoul]

9. Kick

Just because I'd like to keep this visible for a bit.

[revcarol]

10. The one thing both PL/PC-ers can respect about DK:

He wants those mothers who decide to have and keep their babies to be SUPPORTED by government policies and programs so that they are not just condemned to a life of poverty, just because they made a mistake at 16 and decided not to have an abortion.

Quality child care
REAL job-training programs, not just make-work to get welfare, or counting getting a job as a maid in a motel for $5.00 a room a real job that can support two people...

HE REALLY SUPPORTS FAMILIES, no matter what the makeup of the family is. Both PL-ers and PC-ers ought to respect this.

[LWolf]

11. I for one

would rather have a candidate who listens to people and grows. Anybody expect bush to change his mind if we talk to him? Or if millions of us talk to him? Oh, we did that. February 15. How about the rest of the dems? I don't get to hear all of them, of course, but I can't remember noticing any of my dem (or other) reps showing me how right I was to communicate a concern by acting on it.

I also think it's important to have a candidate who will walk his talk and not flip flop after making campaign promises. I've spent time browsing Dennis' vote record, and I haven't found a flip-flop yet. I found 2 votes that I didn't agree with. 2 is negligible next to the rest. I doubt I'll find a 100% candidate. If Dennis says it, he does it. Which of the rest would you feel comfortable making that statement about?

[diamondsoul]

15. Funny, I think I've found 2

as well, that weren't related to a personal stance. I disagreed with him about abortion prior to his change of position, but it wasn't hard for me to see his sincerity in it even before I looked up the voting records and time-frame.

[holyworrier]

12. Thanks, diamondsoul

Bump.