Because your blatant smearing is sure indicative of your lack of touch with reality up until now.
The voting record I reproduced is Kucinich's voting record.
Check it out yourself, if you like. I'm pretty sure you're more comfortable in your dark cave of innuendo rather than the bright light of reality, though.
Kucinich voted against every single article of impeachment.
You're lying.But then again you already knew that, didn't you.
Kucinich's "conversion" as you put it
wasn't, but you don't care. He voted for making contraception and sex-ed available while being attacked by right-wingers as deluded on the issues as you apparently are.
As to electability, let's be clear here. Every Democratic candidate is electable. It's an overstatement, but not by much: A rock could probably beat Bush in 2004. Electability is not the issue. We are being tasked with choosing the best President we can get from the choices before us.
(Only creeps and cynics want us to believe otherwise.)
We should probably be grateful to George Bush for giving us this opportunity. Bush, the loser of the popular vote in 2000, got something like 50 million votes. Gore, the winner, got closer to 51 million. Eighty million eligible voters sat the election out.
The year 2000 was the neocon Waterloo. The Republican base of homophobes, gun nuts, uterus-enslavers, and corrupt corporatists is tapped. And since 2000 Bush has done his best to alienate every voter who crossed over to vote for him from the Libertarians and from the centrist Democrats.
All Bush has is fear.
All the Republicans have is a hope that their efforts to screw voters will mean they will be able to steal the vote in 2004 through: a) screwing the voters in Colorado through redistricting, b) screwing the voters in Texas through redistricting, c) screwing the voters in California through recall, d) screwing the voters in Florida by refusing to reinstate 50,000 voters wrongfully purged as felons, and e) screwing all the people of the nation by implementing Diebold's "black box" voting system with no paper trail (having eliminated the VNS watchdog and its exceptional record at predicting elections).
The Republicans wouldn't be working so hard to steal, screw, and deprive voters if they thought their message was going to carry them in 2004. They know they're screwed, and they're scared.
(Disruptors, on the other hand, will do and say anything to move forward their agenda - including lying about the records of other candidates.)
We own the issues, but we don't own the media (Podesta - get busy!) and we have to diligently guard against the destabilizing of the electoral process the Republicans have been engaging in with "black box" voting and redistricting and recall mayhem.
It's the overfunded extremist machine and its grip on the lapdog media that we must take care not to underestimate. But it only runs on one thing - fear. There are three constituencies that are mobilized by the BFEE (that's Bush Family Evil Empire): Extremists, the fearful, and cookie-cutter patriots.
(Disruptors use Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.)
Bush got the highest number of votes he's ever going to get "on issues" in 2000. (Billion dollars a week on military adventurism while the energy grid fails at home - who thinks we need another tax cut?) Since he can't win on issues any longer, that's why we're seeing such a rush to fund-raise, a glut of electoral destabilizing moves from Republicans, and a blind and wholehearted embrace of "black box" voting technology forced on states by federal legislation.
Since Bush has literally driven Libertarians, Reduced Governmentists, Conservative Democrats, and most Independents away with his embrace of neo-conservative extremist positions on nearly everything since being appointed in 2000, and he has no respectable positions on anything that will be attractive to those constituencies or that he hasn't already debunked by his subsequent actions while in office, he'll win absolutely *zero* votes with his "compassionate conservative" hogwash this time around.
Bush has no issues, that's why he's running on extremism, fear, and cookie-cutter patriotism.
What that means, for every one of the candidates, is that all the positions belong to the Democrats. It should also mean that if the "fear" and "cookie-cutter patriotism" legs of the Bush campaign are neutralized, that Bush will be left with nothing to run on but extremism.
I'm not saying it will be a cakewalk (although given our advantage on issues it should be). But what should happen is this: All of the nearly 51 million voters who voted for Gore will reject Bush again this time (unless they're a) immobilized by fear, or b) turned into cookie-cutter patriots by the Evil Fairy Bushmother). Some of the 80 million who didn't vote should be motivated by restrictions on civil liberties or other heinous Bush policies to vote this time around. And Bush definitely won't get as many votes from the 50 million or so voters who voted for him last time, because he's alienated so many of those voters.
Issues will be the key, because Democrats own all the issues, except for, as I mentioned, fear, extremism, and cookie-cutter patriotism (but we *will* own or neutralize them by offering a candidate with a clear vision). Because Democrats own the issues, I believe we'll be in the best position to pick up all those votes (those of the 51 million Gore voters, the 80 million nonvoters, and the disenchanted from Bush's 50 million), by offering the candidate who is the best on the issues.
So, in my opinion, while the ability to competently elucidate coherent positions on the issues is and will be a means by which to distinguish the Democratic potential nominees from one another, to the extent that electability is an issue as it relates to Bush, the only thing that will matter is that the nominee is sufficiently *the opposite* of Bush's position on all the things that count.
Other than whether the candidate is "like Bush" or "not like Bush" on issues that resonate with voters (other than the three I mentioned: fear, extremism, and cookie-cutter patriotism) I still think the whole electability bugaboo is a red herring when used as a tool to distinguish one potential nominee from another.
We should nominate the candidate who is the best on the issues, and the election will take care of itself, the money will flow, and we'll evict the Poseur Prince from Al Gore's house.
The key for Bush will be to convince enough of the Gore voters, Independents, non-voters, and Democrats to a) vote for him because they're afraid, or b) give up their duty to think for themselves and buy into the cookie-cutter patriot hype machine.
I think it's a shame that this Fortunate Son and his sick cabal of neo-conservatives have been able to reduce the national dialog to these essentially ignorant and disrespectful issues (fear and fake patriotism), but as long as our candidate neutralizes one or both of these neo-conservative pathways to power, we win.
That's why whomever we nominate is going to be the next President of the United States.
Has Lyndon LaRouche won many elections? I didn't think so. Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, beat a Republican incumbent to become Mayor of Cleveland at age 31, beat a Republican incumbent to become Ohio State Senator, and beat a Republican incumbent to become US Representative. He was re-elected last time with a 70% take of the vote
Dennis Kucinich is the best candidate, he's a pragmatic politician who wins the fights he gets into, and he'll make the best President of the United States.
No matter what disruptors who prefer to lie about the candidates choose to say about him.
Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota