On Kucinich, tell the truth

[sandnsea]

All you non-DK supporters, how much do you really love this guy? Don't you really wish, just one time in the history of our country, we could actually have a President completely for the people?

Tell the truth now!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

1. saying AMEN

[tkmorris]

2. Yep

I love the guy and will likely vote for him if he's still in by Florida

[roughsatori]

3. If another person tells me they would vote for DK if he could win

I may go on a murderous rampage. :evilgrin: It saddens me to hear that so frequently.

[ScreamingMeemie]

7. Okay, I was going to...but I won't.

:-)

[roughsatori]

17. Thank yo I really do not feel like doing life in prison

:)

[ScreamingMeemie]

109. Funny coincidence-I'm not feeling up to being murdered today.

;-)

[sfecap]

4. Yep. He's a gem....

No doubt about it.

[Clark Can WIN]

5. Do you want the truth or agreement?

Because if this is just flamebait, I'd rather not.

[Terwilliger]

11. the truth is Dennis is the only viable Dem candidate

was there some other "truth" you wanted to offer up?

[Clark Can WIN]

21. Referring to the original post

All you non-DK supporters, how much do you really love this guy? Don't you really wish, just one time in the history of our country, we could actually have a President completely for the people?

Tell the truth now!

First Question How much do you really love this guy?

Well, love is a stronger word then I would use but I like DK very much and I highly respect the fact that he seems unafraid to say exactly what he thinks. Of course I also respect that about my candidate and also Al Sharpton. I expect someone small here (not necessarily you BTW so do not take offense) will find something trite to say about that but oh well. :boring:

Second Question - Don't you really wish, just one time in the history of our country, we could actually have a President completely for the people?

I am amazed that anyone believes that in the 215 years of Presidential succession not a single one of them has been first and foremostly concerned with the benifit and well being of the citizens. Not a single one, really?

Command - Tell the truth now! OK. I like and respect DK very much and I appreciate the contribution he brings to the table. He has interesting ideas that are worth dialoge. I think he would be wonderful for a few different positions in a Democratic White House administration. I do not think that he would make a good President AT THIS TIME and that has mostly to do with the methods and actions he would intend to take in regards to health care. He seems to favor a hatchet approach and I'm afraid the consequences would be disasterous, setting the party back again. His intentions are noble, but in the end the ends and the means would just kill us. I also believe that if he won the Democratic nomination, he would lose the general election in a landslide. We will not be making all the nation in the image of leftern DU in this election cycle. He's a good man, but the words President + Kucinch will not IMO be heard outside of his rallies. I want to win this time.

As for your truth Terwill - "the truth is Dennis is the only viable Dem candidate" you like everyone else here is entitled to your opinions, time will sort out who is right and who will be bellying up to a big plate of crow.

I like Clarks positions on the issues first, I like his amazing and razor sharp intellect and demeanor, I like his masters degrees in Philosophy, Economics and Politics along with the rest of his stellar education, I like his distinguished 33 year record of service to his country, and I REALLY, REALLY like his ability to appeal to swing voters, middle voters and liberal voters, A.K.A. his ability to drive a freaking steamroller right through underbrushes big money pile and take the White House back!
:kick:

I like and respect many of the Dem candidates and don't feel the need to make personal attacks on any of them with the exception of Lieberman who just gives me the red ass. I might not agree with every last one of them and/or their positions but I like them. I will vote for the Democratic nominee, God help me, :scared: even if it's Lieberman.

[sandnsea]

40. FDR, TR, maybe

But I wouldn't say that with 100% conviction. I see Presidents as people who have tried to balance 'business' and the people, not putting people first every time. I think if people are put first, business will do well right behind it.

[sandnsea]

15. Me, flame bait?

Don't think I've ever done that, at least not intentionally.

No, my husband and I were just talking about how much we like Kucinich and how we wished our country had gone in a direction where somebody like him would be considered normal. So often on this board, even in this thread, even myself, it's said "I'd vote for Dennis if I thought he could get elected..." So I just wanted to see how many people would stand up and agree and really see where he stands if we all voted our heart instead of our 'intellect'.

Me? Kucinich.

[XanaDUer]

6. I LOVE DK!

God, I love the guy. I would vote for him in a heartbeat. Can I add his avatar to the one I presently have? Or is it only one avatar per customer?

Who would not love a real Prole President?

The guy is amazing. :)

[Tinoire]

10. You can add it in your signature line

by pasting the link to any graphic of his you like in there...

If you see one in someone's profile (just in case you don't know this), right click, select properties, copy the URL and paste the entire thing in your signature line...

I like your idea!

[XanaDUer]

14. Thanks...

n/t.

[blm]

66. That's why I don't use an avatar.

Because I love BOTH Kerry and Kucinich, and am happy as can be that liberals have two truly great men of progressive accomplishment as candidates.

[Wetzelbill]

96. hey BLM, not only are you not really Tom Delay

but you and I have exact sentiments on this one. I'm a DK guy, but I think highly of John Kerry, too.

[Yaoi_Huntress_Earth]

8. Yep

I agree with a lot of his ideas and I want someone who actually gives a damn or isn't a clone of the other guy. *Starts thinking about that episode of Futurama with the two cloned presidental canidates.*
Love,
Yaoi Huntress Earth

[John_H]

9. he's not my first choice, but I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination

will you vote for a dem if he doen't win?

[sandnsea]

16. Not the question

Are you one of those who would loves him in your heart, but rejects him with your head?

[Mairead]

46. I'm not sure the head/heart dichotomy is what's going on here

Because when people say 'I'll vote for DK if he's the nominee', what they're really saying is 'I'm going to do my part to see he never gets that far, but if somehow he gets past me then I'll vote for him'.

So regardless of what they say they're saying, what they're really saying is that they don't want him in office and they'll do what they can to keep him out.

Sad, huh?

[Nevernose]

12. I would vote for him

If I thought he had the slightest chance of beating Bush. He's too smart and makes way too much sense for most Americans.

[Andy_Stephenson]

13. Dennis ROCKS!

I will vote for him! No reservations!

[Liberalboy]

18. I loved him tonight....

I thought he was the closest to my own thoughts and feelings. Definately in my top three...

[fabius]

19. Sure, Dennis is great!

I'll vote for him if the primaries make it all the way to Oregon.

Meanwhile I'm supporting Dean because he has the Washington establishment scared to death. OMG a non-vetted candidate might get nominated! He might be the people's choice! What could be worse than that!

I think Clark is the Clinton wing rescue candidate. My Mom likes him because he's handsome. Also he speaks well and is very credible. However she's not a liberal as I.

Dennis doesn't generate this kind of fear factor for Rovians yet.

Dean's centrist tendencies are immaterial, because we the people are kicking some DLC butt and that's what counts. No more me-tooism. If elected Dean won't owe his office to the corporations. Which even Clinton and Gore did, as much as I liked them.

Kucinich, Sharpton and Braun are important because they have spread the spectrum of the debate much wider than we're used to. That's got to be a good thing. Even Holy Joe is good for contrast.

[maggrwaggr]

20. Kucinich, the election, and Meyers-Briggs

Okay, how many know about temperment typing and Meyers-Briggs.

Basically this is a psychological profiling that divides humans into four basic temperment types, 16 overall (4 other subgroups within the main groups)

The groups, often known by the letters SJ, NF, SP, and NT, can be translated into "Artisan" "Idealist" "Guardian" and "Rational".

Kucinich is an idealist. A lot of us are idealists. Idealists believe in emotional arguments and think that the best way to appeal to others is through an emotional argument.

Unfortunately idealists only make up about 11% of the population (roughly).

The guardians and the "artisans" make up the lions share, over 60% combined. The guardians believe in heirarchy, rulers, rules, and the like. They are more than likely gonna be republicans. Any die-hard republican is more than likely a guardian. They're something like 38% of the population.

The "artisans" are people who live in the moment, who live for spontaneity. These are the most likely swing voters. They like to go with the crowd. They love crowds. If memory serves me correct, they're about 35% of the population.

The rationals are people for whom emotional arguments are suspect. Think Spock. They can be just about anywhere on the political map. They might be libertarians, greens, republicans, constitutionalists, democrats, anything is possible with these folks depending on how their own personal logic works. For them logic is everything. They are (again if memory serves me correctly) something like 15% of the population.

So. My point is ......... you can't just appeal to the idealists. I am definitely an idealist and Kucinich appeals to me a great deal! But the reason I say he's unelectable is that I just don't think he's gonna appeal to more than just the idealists.

I think Dean appeals to a HUGE cross section of the temperament types. He appeals to the idealists with his emotion, he appeals to the rationals because his arguments are always logical and practical, and he will appeal to the "artisans" because he's popular. He might even appeal to a lot of guardians because he's a doctor and a former governor and he seems to respect laws that they're into, like state's rights.

So there's my two cents.

On edit: I think I'll post this to the general forum. Sorry for the redundancy.

[Clark Can WIN]

22. Oh Dammit.

Im Spock. :o Well thank God I'm not a Guardian.

[gully]

50. ENFP here, what an interesting thought... N/T

[mkregel]

23. Well...government would come to a standstill

nothing would get done...quite possibly the military would pull a Pinochet-style coup (I mean look what they did to Kennedy!)

And say Kucinich got congress to agree with him? The shock on our economy would push us into a huge recession.

Sure...Kucinich would be great when the US is ready...but we need damage control and repair.

[Ein]

31. That's your conslusion

I see it rather different, 4-8 years can accomplish much. In fact, I strongly disagree with your conclusion, Dennis isn't an idiot.

[chadm]

91. Was the US "ready" for Thomas Jefferson?

It is always the right time for great men who stand for justice.

[BurtWorm]

97. Clearly the US was ready.

But just barely. Is Kucinich really a Jefferson, though? I could just as easily ask Was the US "ready" for Eugene McCarthy? Was the US "ready" for Robert E. Lee, for that matter? Was the US ready for Fatty Arbuckle, even? Aren't rhetorical questions a blast!

[chadm]

99. Dennis' positions are very Jeffersonian / Lockian

The current Administration is more along the line of Hobbes / Adams.

[leftofthedial]

24. AMEN!

okay, I'm a DK supporter.

Busted.

He's the best Democratic candidate for President in a long long time.

But I'll vote for whomever the Democrats nominate.

[Room101]

25. This DEAN supporter loves DK

He is the closest to my political philosophy.

[sham]

26. I'll second that!

This is another Dean supporter who loves DK (99% of the time). :)

:toast: Cheers to all.

[rbnyc]

69. This DK supporter loves Dean.

There are a lot of things I like about Dean. And I'm excited by his momentum. I'll be happy to work my ass off for him after the primaries if he wins. But I think the primaries are the time to be an idealist and show the party where your values are, and Dennis Kucinich represents me best on that front.

[ButterflyBlood]

27. yes I like him

but he's chasing windmills

[BurtWorm]

28. Please don't flame me, but

I'm not as smitten with Kucinich as you all are. The Department of Peace idea is just a little too precious for me. And he strikes me as just a little bit self-righteous, even sanctimonious. But of course, if by some miracle Kucinichmania catches on and he becomes the nominee, I will, of course, support him and vote for him.

[Ein]

29. *whips out flamethrower*

Nah, it's utterly cool man.

GO DENNIS, ALL THE WAY!

[BurtWorm]

32. Phew!

You guys really are pacifists!

:toast:

[Ein]

36. Pacifist in an early Lenin way...

No blood... mental battles to the extreme, though.

[sasquatch]

33. WATCH OUT HERE COMES THE FLAME THROWER!!

What do you mean self righteous he only wants to see America succeed in becoming a great society for all of it's citizens. Not just the rich. Come on and jump all over this bandwagon IT'S FUN:party:

[BurtWorm]

35. Okay. Just for tonight.

[REP]

44. BW Said It Better Than I Could

I don't hate the guy, but I fail to see in him what some others so obviously do. I've read his positions, and I agree with the characterizations of "too precious," and "self-righteous, even sanctimonious." If he becomes the candidate, I will vote for him, but I just can't get interested in what he says (or how he says it).

So to tell truth, I don't love him, not even a little. I just don't loathe him.

[chadm]

92. I suppose Thomas Jefferson would strike you the same way

right?

[sasquatch]

30. another AMEN from Sasquatch

O8) :dem: :yourock:

[TLM]

34. I like DK, but I don't want him for president.

He is a bit too far left for me, and his plans seems to lack planning.

He has some great ideas, and some great positions... but as for how he'd get them done, I do not like his attitude.

He's got an authoritarian streak in him, and he wants to really use the executive order power too much. I'm also not cool with his desire to just abandon NAFTA and the WTO, instead of trying to fix them.

[diamondsoul]

37. I think you misunderstand his point-

with the claims he'll use Executive powers. That's a reference to getting the things done that the people need done, over the whims of a Republican controlled Congress. Frankly, if he getsw the nomination, I don't think that's going to be a problem for him.

WRT NAFTA and the WTO, here's the deal, you can't put conditions on NAFTA becuse the WTO makes that illegal. No matter what you do to "try to fix them" you wind up doing nothing but negating your participation in one or both. The only way to change it is to scrap them and start over.

[Wetzelbill]

100. yeah I was going to say that

You can't fix something if it's in the rules that you can't fix it, no matter what. Toss 'em than do it right from the start.

[DemBones DemBones]

38. I agree with Dennis more than I've ever agreed with any other

candidate.

I believe that most Americans want an end to corporations exporting their jobs. Blue collar folks do know about NAFTA and WTO.

I believe that most Americans would support single payer universal health care.

I could go on but I'll stop and say I believe that most Americans would like Dennis's approach to helping the people rather than the corporations. It's time to stand up to the corporations and say "Look, you can make a profit, but we're not going to allow you to do some of the things you've been doing in order to make an obscene profit."

If not now, when?

[Ein]

39. But.. But...

He isn't a centrist.

See, he isn't a centrist, he's a true leftist liberal.... and thats just not how this country works, man GET A GRIP!

The vast majority are centrist (ref: rhetoric) and a liberal doesn't stand a chance because he challenges the whole of the status quo.

It just CANNOT HAPPEN. It's impossible, vote for a centrist, and pray this country won't move further right (ref: historical precedent).

*sarc off*

[JohnKleeb]

41. WoW sand thanks a bunch for this

I wear my Kucinich buttons to school with a great deal of pride. So how did he do tonight? Go Kucinich.

[SweetZombieJesus]

70. He kicked major ass tonight John

I especially liked the way he went after Gep and Kerry for voting for the war resolution.

[JohnKleeb]

82. I was asleep but as Ive been saying you gotta believe

[sandnsea]

105. Yep, ya' gotta believe!!

Just posted this below! While I'll still be pushing Kerry, because I believe he is the most liberal with a chance to be elected, I still know Dennis' vision is the one I'd truly like to leave to my children and grandchildren.

I thought Dennis did pretty good last night. I think he is getting alot clearer with his thoughts and really able to put them across quickly. UN in, US out. How much clearer can you get!!! And if nothing else, he is really making people THINK. He puts up the facts alongside the 'status quo' candidates and it becomes kind of clear that he's telling the truth. But people are odd beings, making such a huge leap of faith in Dennis is a tough thing to do.

[sweetheart]

42. tell the truth

is a powerful campaign slogan.... DK is the right man.

[JohnKleeb]

43. maybe someone could suggest it

:shrug: Go DK all the way

[kentuck]

45. He did great !

I thought he was the star of the night...with Dean and Sharpton a close second... :)

[eyesroll]

47. I like Kucinich, would vote for him in the General with no qualms, but...

He's not my top choice.

He spoke at Fighting Bob Fest this past weekend. Did a great job. Fired up a friendly crowd.

But.

He seemed to present his point of view as though he was the only clear alternative to *. For instance, he mentioned that other Democrats, with the exception of CMB, have proposed health-care legislation that still keeps the for-profit companies involved. * likes for-profit companies. Therefore, everyone but DK and CMB might as well be proposing no change at all and are therefore no better than the current system. (I'm paraphrasing, and I might be making a connection that DK didn't intend, but that's what I got out of it.)

I'm a little wary of all-or-nothing thinking. People who have spent time talking to DK one-on-one (I met him for 45 seconds a few months ago) say he's open to compromise and to discussion, but that's not how he comes off in debates, speeches or position papers. I wonder with DK what a "good enough" health-care plan is. Would he sign something as an interim measure, or would he hold out until Congress sent him single-payer? (I don't know the answer.) I like single-payer, but I'd rather have something than nothing.

I agree with DK on more issues than I agree with any other candidate, but he's not my top choice. There's more to my choice than issues. Decision-making methods count for me too.

[Cheesehead]

48. Dennis doesn't waffle like the stereotypical "politician

He takes strong stands and sticks to them, which gives progressive idealists a candidate of their own.

I was at Fighting Bob Fest, too. What a great day!

I originally was drawn to the notion of supporting Kerry as the "electable" candidate. I would also be very supportive of a Clark candidacy. Of late though, I've been impressed by Kucinich for the strength and focus of his message. It seems to me that it is conterproductive to compromise ideals in the primary in the interest of electability - that factor will certainly shake out later in the process.

The presence of a strong and uncompromising progressive alternative to the wafflers and poll-watchers who tailor their message to some concept of "acceptable to the masses" is very attractive to me. Kucinich stakes out ideological turf significantly left of center that can be exploited by the eventual post-convention Democratic candidate. A strong showing by Kucinich in the primaries will serve to convince Democrats that there is still room for liberal idealism in our society and skew the eventual party platform back to the left where it belongs.

[no name no slogan]

53. Compromise in government...

is always going to happen. It's the nature of our system that you will end up compromising on some things.

The argument I like to use when people call Kucinich too far left is that when dealing with neoCons and other conservatives, it's best to start from a position to the left, because we know for a fact they'll start with a far-right position.

If you start from a center/center-right position with a rightist, chances are your compromise will end up being to the right. You have to admit it's pretty unlikely that your compromise will end up being left, or even center-left.

If you start from the left, your chances of achieving a left/center-left solution are much better than if you start from the middle. It only makes sense in any sort of a situation where compromise is involved.

Many Kucinich supporters (myself included) know that if Dennis is elected, he may not be able to get everything he's asking for in his platform. But why not fight from the left, and end up with a more liberal solution than what you'd get from fighting from the center?

For some reason, Democrats are afraid to embrace the liberals in their party, while the Republicans spent the late '70s and early '80s courting the religious right. Look what it's done for them since then.

We Democrats need to emulate their tactics, NOT their politics. Recruit the heck out of peace and justice groups, immigrants, welfare rights organizations, nominate progressive candidates for office (ANY office, like school board, like the ReligoCons did). We CAN take this country back!

[diamondsoul]

76. Let me try to give you another perspective

The word not spoken here is compromise, and I've posted about this before. Compromise with the disaster * has made of this country is really not an option if we want to recover from it all within a reasonable time. Unfortunately most of the other candidates are campaigning in the traditional "politics as usual" manner and suggesting we do exactly that- compromise with *.

The attitude is we'll change a little bit at a time. My reponse is WHY? * didn't change a little at a time! He got into that office and went completely whacko with his power, right along with his cronies. The only way to get away from it is NOT to compromise and make radical changes ourselves.

Interim measures, yes I believe Kucinich WOULD sign off on them because his sole intent is to help the citizens of this country have a better life. For the first time in my life, I actually TRUST a politician to use good judgement. Good Lord there's a helluva paradox! That's the truth of it, though. I believe Kucinich would be more concerned with helping people than just pushing his own agenda because that's how he's been for the past 8 years. He's tried and tried and tried to help people.

[gully]

49. The people would include 'everybody' and I don't think DK is that guy....

Sorry.

[Mairead]

51. As always, it boils down to 'which side are you on?'

[catpower2000]

52. Completely for the people? Oh, you mean the MALE people...

I will not vote for him. If he gets the nomination, I will vote 3rd party. Luckily, there is zero chance of him getting the nomination.

Cat

[no name no slogan]

55. What are you talking about?

:wtf:

Because Dennis was anti-choice? Hell, Dean went with his daddy to the 1964 Republican National Convention! Hillary Rodham was a GOLDWATER GIRL in 1964! Dennis also will use Roe v. Wade as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees. Will any of the other "pro-choice" candidates do that?

I also think it's presumptious to assume that all women are pro-choice or share one overriding ideology-- I've got plenty of right-wing aunts and female cousins who could set you straight on that.

I don't like the fact that Kucinich voted to make flag-burning illegal, but I'm not a single-issue voter. That's why both my best friend/life partner/wife and I support Kucinich.

[catpower2000]

59. Response:

Dean went with his daddy to the 1964 Republican National Convention

That was in 1964.

Hillary Rodham was a GOLDWATER GIRL in 1964

That was in 1964.

Dennis Kucinich consistently voted to deny women the right to control their own bodies until last year.

Dennis also will use Roe v. Wade as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees

After his politically-expedient flip-flop on the issue, I don't believe a word that comes out of the man's mouth. Why should I believe in his campaign promises?

I also think it's presumptious to assume that all women are pro-choice or share one overriding ideology-- I've got plenty of right-wing aunts and female cousins who could set you straight on that.

Regardless of whether women are pro-choice or not, a vote for pro-choice is a vote for women and their ability to control their own bodies.

I don't like the fact that Kucinich voted to make flag-burning illegal, but I'm not a single-issue voter

I am.

That's why both my best friend/life partner/wife and I support Kucinich.

Support whoever you like. Luckily, your candidate will never, ever get the nomination. I'll be happy to place a wager with you on that, BTW.

Cat

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

80. If Dean gets the nomination, I'll vote Green

we can play that game until Bush wins again.

[catpower2000]

83. I was going to respond to you until I saw your "us vs them" sig line...

Seems pointless.

Cat

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

114. just pointing out your "I won't vote Dem if it's not my Dem" post

Unlike you, I'll probably vote for whoever wins the Democratic primary, even if it is a Rockefeller Republican like Dean or Lieberman.

Yet you did respond ... it would be pointless why exactly? Because I don't like Republican-Lite Democrats? To each their own I suppose.

[sandnsea]

85. That is nonsense

I perfectly understand his position on abortion. As a Catholic, I also understand that Catholicism actually calls for individuals to learn and think and come to full understanding of any teachings of the Church. Dennis has done that. He has rejected the position of the Church and it has taken great personal courage for him to do that.

His conclusion is actually one of the most enlightened for women. He actually gets that abortion is more than a 'choice' issue, it's an equal rights issue. Without abortion, women are much more restricted in the ability to control the direction of their life and consequently don't have a true equal opportunity to succeed. I've actually had liberal women argue this point with me, women older then me who ought to know better. He certainly understands birth control isn't guaranteed 100%, probably because that's part of Church teaching on sex within marriage.

So I don't have a problem with his change of heart on abortion. He probably had someone explain it to him in the right words and finally understood. And if I had to trust my reproductive rights to Dennis Kucinich or the Republican Party, I'd pick Dennis every single time.

[DealsGapRider]

54. I think he's a lunatic.

If he were President he would do more harm to the country and to the world than Bush, if that's possible. The man is a complete nutcase. Last night he said he wanted to completely remove profit from our health care system. Get real!

If he gets the nomination, I will cast the first vote in my entire life for a non-Democrat. I won't vote for the Orangutan, but I won't vote for the Space Alien from Ohio either.

[Blue_Chill]

56. I tend to agree with you

and I think you should have added his idea for wasting tax money - dept. of peace.

sigh.

[no name no slogan]

60. Exactly

Yeah, "Blessed are the Peacemakers" and all that other biblical claptrap, and a Peace Department funded by the elimination of useless military garbage like the revived "Star Wars" system. Feh.

[Blue_Chill]

64. heh

You know that you can simpley instruct your state department to work with a peace only mindset, and as President do the same. There is no need to waste tax money on a department that isn't needed.

"Blessed are the Peacemakers" is something I firmly believe in. However I must have missed the part of the bible that read "Vote ye for the nutcase that seeks to waste money"

[sandnsea]

86. Ooooh, I'm so disappointed in you!

Dennis has the message of Christianity. I don't see how anybody can miss it!

The very idea that stockholder profit is the only thing that motivates a society to create! How brainwashed we are!!! The scientists and researchers work FOR these pharmaceutical companies. Most of them are getting a paycheck. If all pharmaceuticals were nonprofits, the work would go on. They'd still sell drugs and money would still go into the nonprofit, more would be available to do the research. The researchers would continue to get their paycheck, why would they stop doing their work???

And is solving problems through physical violence so engrained in your mind that you can't even fathom the concept of it being eliminated? The State Dept is a department that includes war in problem solving. It would be impossible to take that engrained thinking out of the Dept by a mere directive. A Dept of Peace on the other hand, would be a top down organization that totally rejects war. The entire premice is promoting true peace and peace only. Not peace if there's no natural resources in the country that we need, peace if they run their economies our way, no qualifiers. Just peace. It turns the entire world upside down, but that's what Jesus came to do anyway.

*sigh* It always comes back to a fear of losing money and power that most of us don't have and will never get anyway.

[Blue_Chill]

87. You got me all wrong

I don't think goverment run health care would fix anything. I would have no problem at all having the goverment pay for the medical insurance of those that need it, but to tranfer us all to a goverment program is just not something I see working to well.

As for the deptartment of peace, the reasons given on DK website make it sound great but I have to wonder about it. I don't see it accomplishing anything it sets out to do because congress and state lawmakers would oppose it. Thus it would become another goverment agency sucking money away from those who really need it.

[sandnsea]

104. Ya' gotta believe!!!

Listen, I'm 45 years old, so I'm no idealistic young'n. And I'm not even a DK voter because I am a realist. But....

I've got another post on health care, the insurance solution isn't working. It's better then nothing. I support Kerry because at least his plan gives people the government insurance instead of a Medicaid program. Medicaid programs get cut. And here in Oregon, where we've had the system you're suggesting for about 10 years, people have died. This isn't a solution, but we may have to trip through it for 20 years until people figure it out for themselves.

And being totally rational, yes, it could end up being a big tax sucking agency. But with all the trillions that the Dept of Defense sucks up, I just don't buy these rationales anymore. People don't truly care about how much money the government spends or wastes, they just bobble along with what they're told they should hate. Republicans sure don't, they throw more money around then Democrats ever have. So if we're going to flush money down the toilet, I'd just as soon some of it were flushed into a Dept of Peace. If the fact that we spend $400 billion a year on war and then wonder why we get into wars doesn't ring a bell with you, well, dang man!!!

[no name no slogan]

57. Just like every other industrialized country (except S. Africa)

Last night he said he wanted to completely remove profit from our health care system

...just like all the other industrialized countries of the world (except for South Africa).

It's really a bit more nuanced than that. What Dennis is talking about is a single-payor universal health care system, paid for by the government, but delivered by privately-run medical clinics/hospitals, very similar to the system in Canada.

Our healthcare system in Minnesota is, by law, either non-profit or not-for-profit. Insurers and healthcare providers are not permitted by law to profit off of people's misery. Doctors and medical professionals are still compensated well, but insurace companies and HMOs are prohibited from making outrageous profits off of sick people.

What's so wrong with that?

[DealsGapRider]

65. My understanding...

...of the single-payer health systems around the world is that they're almost universally terrible. My Canadian friends bitch all the time about their shitty health care system. Single payer supporters seem to prefer having everyone covered while accepting a reduced quality of care. Same with wealth. They would prefer everyone to be poor than to have some people be rich.

I don't see why we can't keep the health care system we have (keep it private, that is) while extending universal care to the uninsured through government subsidies.

Honestly, Edwards' health care plan makes the most sense to me, although I'm partial to Dean in the larger sense. Kucinich, meanwhile, is a raving lunatic. A space cadet. A frothing radical with quasi-Marxist views.

[sandnsea]

94. Honestly, it's been tried

They've been doing that here in Oregon for, maybe ten years, I don't exactly remember how long. Our system is broken. The health care delivery is ok, it's the financial part of it. Keeping private insurance and subsidizing low-income people just isn't working. This year they've had to cut, cut, cut. People have actually died because they cut various surgeries and medicines. Costs continue to rise, as Dennis said, premiums have gone up 14% in one year. That means costs have gone up which means taxes would need to be higher to cover the costs. People won't pay. Vermont's system is going to be in the exact same position, they're already discussing cuts and other measures to deal with it.

And as for this ridiculous notion that Americans can get health care on demand, I don't know anybody for who this has been true. My niece, in another state, had to wait 3 months for a surgery. I've had friends with excellent health insurance have to wait similar amounts of time to see specialists. People are already directed to particular doctors and clinics through their HMO's and PPO plans. Seeing a specialist requires seeing a GP first. People have already lost most choice in their health care.

When we hear 'people come from all over the world for America's health care', you have to add, 'yeah, people with money'. We don't have access to that health care, we don't have the same kind of money. Every time you hear this Republican propaganda, it's your obligation to take a look around you and then add the words 'yeah, but we don't get any of that anyway'.

Getting the profit out of health care is going to have to be done sooner or later. Like I said in another post, people are still going to buy medications, the money is still going to go into a company, the researchers will continue to get their paycheck, it's just that stockholders won't make any money from it so the costs will go down and there may be more money available for research in the long run in addition.

[no name no slogan]

115. You're absolutely correct there

another part of the problem with bad universal health coverage is the fact that since the 80s, most countries have completely neglected to fund their systems adequately-- oftentimes at the behest of a conservative government!

Take the UK, for example. I lived there for a time in the early 1990s, so I'm most familiar with its situation. Margaret Thatcher and the Tories took control of the country in 1979, and deliberately set about dismantling the once-excellent Nationa Health system. They cut funding to the bone, and encouraged the establishment of a separate, private healthcare system for the wealthy.

What happened? The National Health system almost fell apart, and is now chronically underfunded, even under the "New Labour" government of Tony Blair. Even though it's a currently a mess, it still provides a bare minimum of care for everyone.

I even got to experience the system when I lived there. I crushed a finger in a workplace accident and had to go to the hospital for x-rays and treatment. Needless to say, the place was severely understaffed, and I had to wait for a couple of hours as my injury wasn't life threatening.

However, I still got x-rayed and treated (no broken bones, just some tissue damage and swelling, and a tetanus shot because the skin was broken). My cost? Cabfare to and from the hospital, which my employer paid.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

58. Would you vote for Bush over Kucinich?

"If he were President he would do more harm to the country and to the world than Bush"

So you would vote for Bush if Kucinich won? Amazing, Kucinich's economic platform is right in the middle of mainstream America, and most people support his stand on the issues.

[DealsGapRider]

61. No, of course not.

I don't know who I'd vote for, but it sure as hell wouldn't be Bush. I might vote for Blue Chill as a write-in candidate.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

71. So if Kucinich won, you would not vote Democratic?

You wouldn't vote Bush, but you'd vote a write in, or perhaps a third party?

You said:

"Kucinich, meanwhile, is a raving lunatic. A space cadet. A frothing radical with quasi-Marxist views."

Can you explain which of his views you are referring to?

[DealsGapRider]

77. Exactly.

I would rather vote for a third party than cast my vote for Kucinich. Not only do I think he is a silly choice because he's totally unelectable, but I think his policies would do grave harm to this country.

Space cadet Kucinich introduced a bill in Congress (HR 2977) in 2001 that would ban "land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations."

Did you catch that -- mind control devices. The guy is a couple sandwiches short of a picnic.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

79. Wow, you must be unfamiliar with military research

My father is a life long Navy vet, who has done research into unconventional weapons and systems. He's told me stories of research done into "mind control" - although that's not the technical term, since the 1960s. Now you can pretend they don't exist, but you would be pretending.

Information war? Check.

Mood management? Check (not only done by the military, but commercial companies as well)

Mind control? Bad choice of words perhaps, but check.

Kucinich is as unelectable as Dean is. Which policies would do great harm again? Because Kucinich's economic platform always polls very high with the American public.

[sandnsea]

95. Space, a war free zone

What a nutty concept. That's what the bill was all about. You choose to believe the Republican talking points instead of checking it out for yourself. Geesh. Maybe there really isn't any hope for this planet. The guy who wins the Gandhi Peace Award, nah, he's no good, he's a kook.

[no name no slogan]

108. Um, no

The bill was introduced cover every possible loophole in an attempt by a president/congress to introduce a space-based weapons program, like "Star Wars".

Also, our understanding of the human mind and how it works is still quite limited. For example, only in the last few decades have doctors been able to diagnose the cause of major clinical depression as a chemical imbalance in the brain.

Having dealt with a major depressive disorder for almost 20 years now, I would not be suprised if there is a future treatment that involves either radiation, ultrasound or something similar that would create a chemical reaction in the brain. They already use electroshock to treat some of the worst cases, and heavy doses of chemicals (drugs) to treat others-- is it really that big a stretch to think that medical science may advance to a stage where brain disorders (mental illnesses) could be treated with ultrasound or radiation?

If you lived 300 years ago and were told that manic-depressives can be treated with a common mineral (lithium), would you have believed them?

[chadm]

90. Right, its the sane position to extract profit from misery...

where poor diet generates profit for both the food companies and the healthcare companies...and so the cycle continues and in many cases the same company is diversified into both areas.

I don't want some jerk off getting rich of my family's misery. Call that wacko if you want.

[buddhamama]

62. DK is my candidate

for exactly the reason you stated "...completely for the people."

[Oracle]

63. FUCK YESSSSS!!!!

I SUPPORT DENNIS KUCINICH COMPLETEY...TOO BAD THE CORPORATE MEDIA PRETENDS HE DOESN'T EXIST--BECAUSE HE'S THE ONLY TRUE LIBERAL RUNNING

AND THE WORD LIBERAL IS NOT BAD, IT MEANS PROGRESSIVE, ACCEPTING CHANGE, ALLOWING OTHER PEOPLE THEIR FREEDOMS...NO MATTER HOW MUCH RUSH LIMBAUGH AND THE REST TRY TO DEMONIZE LIBERALS DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY...THEY MUST BE AFRAID OF SOMETHING!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. Kucinich is my first choice

He looks "extreme" only in comparison with the milquetoast Democrats who, over the years, supported Reagan, Bushdaddy, and Bushboy in the interests of "bipartisanship" and lost the support of the base by refusing to stand for anything except being the unRepublicans sometimes.

He is not as far to the left as Bushboy and company are to the right, but he is the only candidate who is saying, in effect, that the Republicans have brutalized this country so badly that Band-Aids and aspirin won't save the day, that the country needs a complete change of direction.

He is the first Democratic candidate to come out and say things that I and my friends have been saying for years. Tears came to my eyes when I heard him speak in St. Paul because I never thought I would live long enough to hear a presidential candidate echoing my own beliefs so closely.

Sure, the Department of Peace idea is not my favorite, but I do think that twenty years of administrations (including Clinton) who seem to think that sending in the troops is the answer to every international problem has trickled down to the general public to increase the level of nastiness and aggression in everyday life. Putting the Pentagon on a diet (trillions of dollars just plain missing, and we're supposed to keep raising their appropriation?) and actively advocating for peaceful resolution of conflict could very well trickle down into truly making this nation "kinder and gentler."

I would like to remind Catpower and the other single-issue pro-choice voters that in Oregon, it was considered almost mandatory for pro-choice advocates to vote for Bob Packwood, because he had supposedly been such a champion of abortion rights. Even though the Dems were all pro-choice, too, voting for anyone but Packwood somehow made you a traitor. Well, we all know what a true feminist Bob Packwood turned out to be, right?

Anything could happen in five months and throughout the primary season. Some will recall that at various times, Pat Robertson, Patrick Buchanan, and Jesse Jackson have won primaries and/or caucuses. At this point, it's anybody's guess who will be giving the acceptance speech in Boston next year.

Whether DK wins the nomination or not, I want him to keep out in front of the public as long as possible, spreading his ideas among the people. I hope that this will make the public more demanding of their elected officials, no longer just lying back and taking whatever the big boys decide but thinking about alternatives and asking, to paraphrase Robert Kennedy, "Why not?"

[rbnyc]

68. I just gave him some more $$ last night!

I signed up to volunteer, then I got hit by a car, so it will be a little while before I'm able.

I asked the woman who called me for a contribution last night how her calls were going. She said half the people don't know who he is. :( We have a lot of work to do.

[SweetZombieJesus]

72. In a perfect world, he'd be my candidate

Dennis and I are much more in sync politically than my favored candidate Dean, but the political realities, at least to me, are such that I find myself wanting to win more than I want to totally vote my conscience. It's not that I don't believe in Dean, I just believe in Kucinich more, but the ugly truth is that I know the rest of the country would never go for Dennis or my views in a big enough way for him to win the Presidency. As much as I like Dennis, I hate Bush more, and as such I have to support a candidate who can more than likely get Bush out of office.

[Langis]

81. Exactly my feelings

I really wish he was more accepted by the general public. I love his ideas, and would love to see him president. But as John Stewart said on his show last night, if he is elected president we would have to deal with the problem of Monkeys flying out of our asses.

[buddhamama]

84. hello Langis

Welcome to DU!

[chadm]

89. I'm a progressive who HATES Dean and Loves DK

I don't understand why anybody could support Dean. He's as incoherent and artificial as Bush. He's not genuine.

[sandnsea]

101. That's my point

I read this all the time, hell I'm in your camp! Maybe not the same candidate, but the same with my feelings towards Dennis. It's just sort of gotten to me, almost everybody on this board actually has Dennis as their first choice 'in a perfect world'. Maybe we don't have a perfect world because we fail to believe in it. Dennis would be the front runner if we all had the courage to act on our true convictions. And I would bet there's alot more people out there who think exactly the same thing, but are also afraid to act on it. It's sad. What's the worse that could happen, we'd get peace? I mean it isn't like we can't protect ourselves with the military we've got. We sure aren't going to be taken over by the 'brown people' or anything. But no, this 'Christian nation' continues on with the status quo and policies that create war and misery and I have absolutely no idea why.

[Dover]

73. Naked as a Jaybird

Dennis is the guy in the crowd who boldly steps forward to point out the obvious....the Emperorer ain't wearing no clothes. In fact, it seems a whole LOT of folks in D.C. are running around naked. We like Dennis because we see it too! In that regard he's a realist and someone we can trust.

DK is also a dreamer. So was Martin Luther King and many more. Leaders need to be visionaries as well as realists....and they are usually ahead of their time.

[TioDiego]

74. If Dennis won Sean and Rush would flat poop their pants.

I might support him just for that reason. Rush flat pooping his pants would be a sight. Go Dennis.

[BurtWorm]

75. DK-supporters, I'm curious why you're not posting on this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=311259



....when it concerns an idea being promoted by your guy

[uptohere]

78. while it sounds good to say...

... its impossible to be good for all the people as their interests are, at least occasionally, at odds with one another. More to the point, I don't really agree with the premise.

Isolationism as complete as he's talking about would wreck this country's economy.

US out UN in ? Sounds nice but the UN doesn't have hundreds of thousands of workers capable of maintaining order in a large country. And without huge contingents of US soldiers, it can't borrow them from the other member states.

Its odd, you can't help but like the guy but some of his ideas simply are not realistic. And even at that you still like hearing him talk about them. Hes been a paradox to me from the start.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

98. Kucinich hasn't said ONE WORD about isolationism

When did he say that? Oh that's right, he didn't, that's just GOP talking points. Kucinich supports trade, and wants to negotiate bilateral trade deals with our trading partners.

Exactly how is that isolationism that would wrech our economy?

[uptohere]

107. he said he would nix all trade agreements

and then negotiate new ones. Thats either isolationism or extortion or both.

Now I don't think its possible for him to nix NAFTA on his own so the point is moot but to suggest it is not responsible.

If you are not aware that isolationism of this kind would not allow us to export our products thereby bankrupting the companies that export products (we do export more than just jobs) then I'm not sure if I can explain it to you. We may have a trade imbalance (this is the biggest problem we face in trade and the one Bush has failed at most recently) but that does not mean we don't export a boatload of stuff (thousands of boatloads of stuff).

Pull the plug on that and watch the world die.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

116. what are you talking about?

"he said he would nix all trade agreements and then negotiate new ones."

No, he didn't, he said he would get us out of NAFTA and the WTO and return to the trade agreements that gave our country a middle class - bilateral trade agreements.

"Thats either isolationism or extortion or both."

No, it isn't. How is that "isolationism"? It isn't. How is that "extortion"? It isn't.

"If you are not aware that isolationism of this kind would not allow us to export our products thereby bankrupting the companies that export products (we do export more than just jobs) then I'm not sure if I can explain it to you."

That's absurd, what are you talking about? Kucinich NEVER proposed anything of the sort. You're just repeating Republican propaganda, why?

[sandnsea]

102. UN out...

"UN doesn't have hundreds of workers." I thought that too. Now I'm not so sure. I went to check the numbers of troops involved in GW1. Saudi Arabia alone had 115,000 or something like that. Where are they? I don't think they're deployed anywhere. I suspect there's a whole lot more troops available then we think there are if we quit trying to control the outcome. And as a mom, I have learned the outcome is usually alot better if you don't try to micromanage it. I actually think there ARE options available that would come closer to creating a democracy in Iraq with us out of there. I think we can trust France & Germany & the UN to lead the country towards Democratic elections. Americans are really running amok with our gigantic egos in this thing, and I also know that pride goeth before a fall.

And Dennis isn't talking about stopping trade. We had trade before NAFTA and the WTO, it would go on without it. Live in faith, not fear. And I don't mean any sort of religious faith, just faith.

[uptohere]

113. I don't think your numbers are accurate

they may have provided 1,500 or 15,000.

The disruptive element in Iraq has proven itself willing to kill anyone, Iraqi, UN, whathaveyou. The number of troops is not micromanaging, it is a temporary government while a new one is being created. 140,000 is not a huge government in that country particularly given its degree of violent elements.

Mr Kucinich did say he would (try to) stop NAFTA and that DOES stop trade.

I DO have faith and it is religious.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

111. The militarists are the REAL isolationists

The militarists pan everyone who doesn't love to rush into other countries to "advance American interests" as "isolationists."

That's a misuse of the term. It originally described Americans who after World War I wanted to stay totally aloof from foreign affairs in every respect. To use a contemporary phrase, their reaction to the rise of Hitler and Mussolini was "Whatever."

But refusing to see every world leader who doesn't favor U.S. business interests as "another Hitler" is not isolationism, it's thoughtful consideration of the fact that other countries have legitimate interests as well and the right to set their own course as long as they aren't attacking anyone else or committing genocide. The non-militarists seek first to find a "win-win" situation for both parties.

The militarists who call others "isolationists" just decide on their own what's best for the world and send in the troops to make it happen.

I got called an isolationist because I criticized the Reagan and Bushdaddy administrations' subsidies of the brutal right wing forces in Central America. On the contrary, they were the isolationists, because they had their heads made up (their heads, not their minds) that anyone who wanted to experiment with different ways of easing the wretched lot of the average Central American peasant was the enemy, and they would not listen to reason.

Being called an isolationist infuriates me, almost as much as being called "politically correct" because I think that racial and ethnic groups should be called by their proper names, not by derogatory slang terms.

[chadm]

88. Who are you kidding, of course he'd win.

The majority of American voters are just bored. Anybody who is unique and interesting like DK would draw the largest turnout in decades. He'd win by a landslide.

[chadm]

93. A lot of Dems are just sheep, blindly obeying the media

in that one of our greatest visionaries and true leaders isn't electable. Support of this great man would represent a revolutionary shift in this country...making history rather than responding to it...but most of you are just happy with more of the same. Too bad.

[BurtWorm]

103. So you're saying the American people would back Kucinich

but the Dems are sheep who wouldn't. Interesting.

[chadm]

110. No, its a "critical mass" issue...

When he is portrayed as a leader who has a huge following, then people start to see him in a whole new light. But many of you don't want to let him out of the closet.

[Seneca]

106. if time stood still

We couldn't vote for many of the present Democratic candidates.

Gore voted against choice until the 80's. He even put his anti-choice views on his platform when running for Congress in 1976. Since the 80's he has never looked back, being a solid pro-choice politico.

Gephardt once voted FOR a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. He didn't reverse his stance until he ran for president in 1988. He has not reversed since.

Kucinich changed his views 2 or so years ago, long before he even knew he was running for president. Neither what he, Gore, or Gephardt did can be considered a "flip-flop" because you would have to go back to your previously held views after having made the conversion.

Whatever reasons these 3 had for changing their minds, whether out of expediency or principle, only they know. When people assert that they just know so-and-so did it out of expediency, they offer no evidence, other than their own withering cynicism.

Granted, politicians make it easy to be cynical. They often DO what is expedient to get votes. However, there is no reason to condemn Kucinich on his past votes any more than Gephardt or Gore for theirs. I want to know how he will vote from here on out. His past record in other issues does not show any evidence that he votes out of expedience. I see no reason why this would not hold true even for the volatile issue of choice. He will not be likely to flip-flop.

I suppose with some people, they hold a Faulknerian view of their ideology - the past isn't even past. It's the present.

[ulysses]

112. Yup. n/t