Can We Stop the Madness of Settling for Less?

[dpbrown]

Can We Stop the Madness of Settling for Less?

In the Common Dreams article, "A Case Against the Case Against the Case For Howard Dean: Can We All Stop This Madness?" Lisa Eriksson and Ryan Harlin ask me to give up what they say is my madness of not supporting Dr. Howard Dean's nomination because, they say, he's "setting the record for fundraising, grassroots turnout, and media coverage."

My answer is, in a word, no.

And frankly, I'm tired of people telling me to rally around Dr. Dean because he looks popular right now.

First of all, this isn't France. If Dr. Dean doesn't win the Democratic primary, or Rep. Kucinich doesn't win the Democratic primary, we're not going to be stuck with a Jean-Marie LePen. We're going to have a John Kerry, liberal and war-hero, or a Dick Gephardt with a union pedigree, or a John Edwards everyman.

Secondly, polls are showing Bush trailing an unnamed Democrat right now, more than a year before the general election. Polls are showing his re-elect numbers under 50%. Outside the United States, he's often called the most hated man in the world. John Ashcroft is breaking federal law combining politicking with pumping up his heinous U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and trying to set the stage for his V.I.C.T.O.R.Y. Act to follow to repeal even more of the Bill of Rights. The only way Bush will get his first elected term in the White House will be if the Republicans successfully implement Black Box Voting and screw enough voters in Florida by keeping non-felons off the voting rolls illegally, in Colorado and Texas with redistricting fiascos, and in California with their tried-and-failed impeachment, oops, recall, of the legitimately elected governor there.

Third, there is a legitimate case to be made, that must be made, defining the candidates by their positions and how they will bring us a world truly different than the one forced on us by Bush. Do the Democratic candidates differ on the death penalty? We need to know, because we already know where Bush stands. Do the candidates differ on an exit strategy from the illegitimate occupation of Iraq? We need to know, because we already know where Bush stands. Do the candidates differ on keeping people out of Social Security by raising the age of elegibility? We need to know, because we already know where Bush stands. Do the candidates differ on making the Pentagon more accountable and reining in bloated costs? We need to know, because we already know where Bush stands. Do the candidates differ on supporting Universal Health Care, now supported by over 8000 doctors in JAMA? We need to know, because we already know where Bush stands.

Our nation suffered, during 15 of the last 23 years, from crushing trickle-down deregulation and forced redistribution of wealth to the upper classes while our infrastructure crumbled and our public education and social safety net was shredded. Only under the Clinton administration did we come close to repairing much of the damage done by Reagan and G.H.W. Bush. And in the scant not even three years Bush Junior has been at the helm, all of the advances and more made under Clinton are gone or in danger. I don't need to be told to settle for a primary candidate who's temporarily popular because that's as good as it's going to get. I demand more.

I expect my candidate both to resonate with the smoldering anger this nation should be feeling from 15 years of Republican oppression, and to have a plan for turning it back. I expect my candidate to turn on its head Republican military adventurism that at once fuels bloated defense contractor salaries and makes us less safe at home and abroad with its resentment-causing swaggering braggadocio. I expect my candidate to reaffirm our national commitment to our elderly workers, our working mothers, our uninsured, our environment, our legal system, our civil rights, our children, our public education system, our unions workers, a living wage, fair trade, and international cooperation.

I reject the mind-numbing mantra of "settling" for someone, because he's popular, or because "all that stuff is nice but you know it'll never pass." I'm not brainwashed. I know that the Democratic Party, the unions, liberals who fought the status quo, and politicians who bucked the system brought about all the great advances of the 20th Century. I expect my candidate not only to eat, sleep, and breathe core Democratic principles, I expect that candidate to speak to a rejuvenation of our nation based on the core Democratic ideal that ALL our lives are bettered when the lives of the least among us are bettered. I...expect...change.

This is not a popularity contest. I don't have to like who you like for prom king. This is about the fate of our nation. This is about an energy grid that's already failing due to utility deregulation. This is about real people who are bankrupting our Treasury to fuel military adventurism. This is about the fundamentalist creeping encroachment on women's equality. This is about the privatizing pirates about to descend like vultures on what's left of our public education system. This is about a secret government bent on oppressing its citizens in the name of "security." This is about multi-national corporate corruption that's already rotting the highest levels of our government.

This is about a candidate who is ready to turn back the tide of history. And right now, that candidate is Dennis Kucinich.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[renie408]

1. But Dan...

that is the sure path to nominating a fascist!! Can't you READ, man??


BTW...I thought this was a very good post and an excellent point.

[tsipple]

2. Mostly Agree...

...But wondering if you have an inclination to vote for the Democratic nominee. The thing I think many Democrats fear is that we won't come together to beat Bush.

A lot of (all?) Dean supporters say, "He's my first choice, here's why, and I can support any Democratic nominee." (Some will add "except Joe Lieberman," but let's not dwell on impossibilities. :-) ) And we'll put that in every other post it seems. There's a positive love-fest among Dean supporters for maybe-a-candidate Clark, for example.

Do you feel the same way, that your second choices (Dean included) are ones you can support and work to elect? That's all we're asking for, I think.

[dpbrown]

3. I intend to work my ass off for the best nominee

And then vote for the Democrat.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[tsipple]

17. Hate to Be Pedantic, But...

...That's what has more than a few people concerned, statements like the one you just made. Maybe it's too many years of parsing Bush, but there's a lot of wiggle room.

Do you mean that you would work hard to try to get your preferred candidate to be the Democratic nominee, then you would work hard for the Democratic Party's nominee for President? Because that's not what you said, and I'm just trying to clarify.

I'll say right now that, if Dennis Kucinich is the Democratic Party's nominee for President, I will work hard to get him elected.

[dpbrown]

34. I'll work harder for a better candidate

I'll support the candidacy of the candidate who receives the nomination, but I intend to put my money and support in first at the nomination stage.

This presents a quandary for people around another candidate. Those who believe their candidate is a foregone conclusion have no reason to consider a switch, if they think that their candidate will both become the eventual nominee and pick up, by default, all the energy supporters are giving to their own candidate.

I will work harder for the eventual candidate, if that candidate is Dennis Kucinich, because I believe he more truly espouses the core principles I believe made the Democratic Party great in the 20th Century.

If the candidate is another of my top couple, the energy I put forth to that candidacy may approach that which I would have put forth for Kucinich.

If the candidate is someone other than my top picks, then I'll respond to a call or two from the local Democratic organization to help out, and perhaps do some door knocking. It would be unlikely that I would contribute money to this candidate.

I continue to believe that Dennis Kucinich represents the best opportunity for Democrats to get back to their roots, and to clearly and forcefully repudiate the damage Reagan, Bush, and Bush have done to this nation.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[CWebster]

4. We don't get lePen , we get Bush

that was the damn point!

And if you want Sell-out soldier boy patriot act sponsor Kerry or loser Gephardt or "They'll be cheering in the streets" Edwards why don't you just vote for them in the first place instead of ranting on in later paragraphs about how you want to set the clock back on the military-industrial complex.

The candidates who rally the Left are Kucinich and dean. Kucinich has a limited audience, Dean has broader appeal. You do the math.

And heaven forbid Kucinich ever hit that critical mass of popularity--after all you just couldn't consider him then because you would feel pressure to participate in some popularity contest.

[renie408]

5. Ummmm...

It seems to me that if the essence of the article was that we need to band together behind a candidate when the time comes, it would be directed toward people who write things like "And if you want Sell-out soldier boy patriot act sponsor Kerry or loser Gephardt or "They'll be cheering in the streets" Edwards"

Hey, I kind of like "They'll be cheering in the streets Edwards". That should be his campaign slogan.

[CWebster]

8. You are right

it has something to do with your reading comprehension. Not to be rude, but if you can't understand the article, what is the point?

The quote attributed to Edwards was regarding the Iraqis who would be cheering in the street upon their liberation. Considering the soldiers dying everyday, I don't really think it would be in Edwards best interests to remind the voters.

[renie408]

33. Well....

since I apparently didn't read the whole thing and didn't catch the reference, in this case it is due more to my negligence than my comprehension.

Hey, at least I got that obnoxious name calling rhetoric was not helping anything, so I am one up on you.

[renie408]

36. Intentionally being rude...

Can you tell me where, exactly, that 'cheering in the streets' reference is?? I just read both this post that you, I guess, THOUGHT you were replying to and the article it cites and couldn't find it. No wonder I didn't recognize your bitter allusion.

Gosh, maybe I am not the one with the problem.

[dpbrown]

39. You're not the one with the problem

As has been more than adequately demonstrated by the person to whom we both refer.

[CWebster]

40. Someting he stated on tweety's show

before the war.

I will never forget. From that moment on he was out of consideration in my book.

Hey dbrown or whatever your name is, no need to be catty. ;-)

[renie408]

55. YOU are calling ME catty?

>>it has something to do with your reading comprehension . Not to be rude, but if you can't understand the article, what is the point?<<

Jeez, man, you make a reference to something not even on the board like I am supposed to read your mind, which, thank god, I can't and then make the above obnoxious comment and I am the catty one? Then you make another reference to it in a completely different thread.

I don't think you work and play well with others.

[w4rma]

76. It doesn't appear so. CWebster: "Hey dbrown … no need to be catty." (n/t)

[renie408]

81. It was in reply to my post...

I thought it was to me.

[Desertrose]

6. Your assessment may or may not ...

be accurate ...but this attitude gets us all NOWHERE- fast.

I am not enamored with Dr Dean...or as a matter of fact any of the others either...but I will do what it takes to get Bush out...and that means voting Dem- til then I am going to focus on my choice....who as I see it offers us the best chance to undo all the crap * has laid at our feet. I am gonna do my utmost to see DK has a fair shot at teh nom and that as many people as possible hear about him.

Its about the journey as much as the destination. I'd like to see folks get along and not cause more anger & bad blood between Dems...There's enough to heal without adding this negative garbage, too.

Peace
DR

[CWebster]

10. dream on

because I am on the Left, so where do you suppose your audience is coming from?

[tsipple]

18. Desertrose, You're Exactly Right (Er, Left :-))

That's exactly the spirit we need here and through the entire campaign. My favorite candidate may or may not win the nomination, but Al Sharpton's little finger would make a better president than the current one. I don't know why it's so hard for some (a few?) people to say that they'd support the eventual Democratic Party nominee. Anybody know?

[dpbrown]

7. You missed the point, then

The article pointed out that the French were left with a Hobson's Choice because of what happened in the primary. Not only will that not happen here, but as polls show, whomever is the Democratic nominee is likely to wipe up the floor with Captain Unelected the Poseur Prince (unless BBV and other Republican corruption takes away our ability to vote).

I'm sympathetic to your apparent, though misplaced, understanding that by lecturing or talking down to someone you're likely to win them over to your side, but I continue to disagree with your well-hidden re-affirmation of the original article's point, that we should get behind Dr. Dean because, well, he's "popular" right now.

I will continue to support the candidate who is the best on the issues, and who has outlined real, not aspirational, goals for rolling back the humiliations our nation has had to endure under Reagan, Bush, and Bush.

And I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you think that at least some of Dr. Dean's support comes from people who think the same of him.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[JohnKleeb]

9. Dan thanks

I do have other motives for supporting kucinich other than the issues but that said issues are important and why not. I think our problem and I hate to be whiney is the MEDIA, Dennis is seldom mentioned and dont deny it people its true. I tell you this, I got my dad to support DK. We can do so much if we want to. We are coming from the heart Dan, and thats why I support Kucinich. I just wish god forbid we got some attention, its only august. I tell you this if we win I will be one happy person if we lose, thats life but hopefully Dennis will go other places and be big.

[renie408]

11. I can't stand it any more...

Sorry, but am I the only person who thinks that Kucinich looks like Alfred P. Neuman in the picture on everybody's avatar? I still like him and he is my choice after Edwards (and no, I don't like Edwards because he is good looking. I like him because I think he is bullet proof and iminently electable), but that has been driving me crazy since I joined here and I finally just cracked.

[JohnKleeb]

15. thats fine that you support Edwards

for economics I presume, I support populists like DK, Edwards, and Gephardt, and Braun and Sharpton, I can deal with Dean or Kerry but populists on the economic level not centrists are what we need.

[Desertrose]

23. actually to me, sometimes he looks a bit more like

a Keebler elf in that particular photo...but see, to me ...thats good...Keebler.... cookies ...chocolate...:loveya: Get it ??

Actually...Dennis has mentioned (Daily Show) that he really likes Edwards- they hang out sometimes-I'm guessing at the debates) and the other day I spoke with some Edwards supporters & told them that story...they were all happy about that.

Edwards supporters have actually been some of the nicer folks I've met so far!
-next to the DK people of course;)

Peace & cookies
DR

[JohnKleeb]

24. and when he sings he sounds more Irish than Croatian

I think its cool about Edwards, hes another selfmade guy. I think Edwards would make a great VP. DR do you have the link to DK on the daily show I was on vacation and gasp we had no cable. Still I like Kucinich, Edwards, Gephardt, Braun, and Sharpton the most because they are like populists, and thats what we need not centrists.

[dpbrown]

38. I think the Bush "The Nation" cover looks the most like Neumann

The "What, me worry" cover of The Nation with Bush as Alfred E. Neumann is priceless.

[diamondsoul]

43. (laughing) Noooo, not Alfred P. Neuman

a bizarre cross between a Vulcan and an Elf!

I like Edwards 'cause he's better looking than any of the others, which means it's enjoyable to watch him as well as to listen to him.;) It's a nice little bonus to what he has to say.

Honestly, though, once I got past my initial surprise at Kucinich's appearance, I actually think he's an attractive guy. It's his smile that made that possible I think. It's very genuine and very clearly heart-felt. You know, "a smile that reaches his eyes." kind of thing?

[dpbrown]

44. If you've ever seen Kucinich close up

He's got warm eyes that look right at you, without flitting about, and the smile creases in his face give his face what seems like a deep-seated peacefulness while holding an enormous compassion.

All-in-all, it's a very reassuring visage.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[diamondsoul]

52. I haven't, as much as it pains me.*sigh*

However he has that quiet strength. The creases are made by living and accepting blessings as they come. The warm eyes is just what hit me most about that avatar...never-mind the rest of the appearance, look into that mirror and tell me yu don't see a man of great vision and determination. A man with a good heart and soul dedicated to improving the lots of everyone all over the globe. By God if that's not enough to mke you thnk, then maybe we ought to bury you.(because you're likely dead!)

[renie408]

56. I have to say...

he does have a very sweet smile.

[CWebster]

12. No you miss the point

The fact that you act as if we had the luxury of assuming Bush will lose, just clues me in on how it doesn't seem to register how serious this is. \Tthat was the same lacsidasical attitude the French took. i mean people have fire in their bellies about this election, it is so important. Unity matters. And again, the primaries select not only our best chance to win the general election, but it sets the tone for the future of the party.

Who has the best shot to win, who will steer and lead the party.

Weigh it.

[dpbrown]

22. The person who should lead the party should symbolize it best

And the person who symbolizes the victories of the Democratic Party in the 20th Century, who symbolizes the importance of fighting for union rights, fair trade, a living wage, the equality of women, the unfairness of the death penalty, and an accountable Pentagon is Dennis Kucinich.

Your assumption that the nominee, whoever it is, will lose against Bush is unfounded and needlessly fear-mongering. Bush is failing, has jumped the shark, lost his groove. The only way the Republicans will win is if they can co-opt the electoral process, which is what they're trying to do with BBV, recall, felon purging, and redistricting.

At this point, neither Clinton nor Carter were in double digits. A call for "unity" at this point, therefore, is a call for ignoring the issues and going for popularity.

I choose to stay with the candidate I consider the best Democrat, and I will continue to encourage others to do so.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[CWebster]

25. yeah and if it was a perfect world

they wouldn't have crucified Jesus.

one must be stoic about the universe.

[CWebster]

14. and btw

speaking of talking down.

[diamondsoul]

28. You are really something.

I see the exact same theme to every post you make on the 2004 election and I find it disgusting. I would find it equally disgusting no matter who it came from.

That theme is "Shut up, support Dean and suck it up you fool, or we're all DOOMED!"

Well my answer is NO to all of the above. This process is as much about preserving our democratic nation as it is about getting * out, and if you can't see that, then we really ARE doomed. If you don't like democracy then move to a nation with a system that suits your political tastes. DO NOT presume to tell me how to determine where my vote goes.

There is currently one man in the race who speaks MY thoughts, my dreams, my views and my aspirations much more effectively than even I can. As long as that man remains in the race I will continue to support him so that MY voice, MY stand in this DEMOCRACY is heard loud and clear. I am not alone in that, nor should I be. Others have chosen a different person to be their voice. That's democracy in action, and to hell with you if you can't handle it.

I WILL NOT allow you, the press, corporate America with all their dollars, Chimpy & Co., the GOP or anyone else silence my voice and the man I choose to speak for me. I WILL NOT allow anyone to brow-beat me into supporting a candidate who does not speak for me. I WILL NOT allow you to spread an utter declaration of war on democracy itself unchallenged.

This race, at this time is NOT about popularity. It's about democracy.

This race is about WE THE PEOPLE and our voices. It's about who WE THE PEOPLE want to lead us, not about who gets the most attention. THIS RACE is about what WE THE PEOPLE want our country to be. THIS PEOPLE wants a true democracy, with a complete democratic selection process, a clean and clear election in the end, and progress toward a better life for every citizen of this nation.

The man who best represents all those things in this race is Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich, and that man will have my undaunted, absolute support until the race is finished. YOU do not get the right nor the power to dictate my vote to me or to anyone else in this democratic nation. You want that kind of power, find another country because I won't allow it to happen here. To borrow from Will because he said it so clearly-

"WE STAND OUR GROUND!"

[JohnKleeb]

29. thank you again diamond

Its like a school election to some people I guess. You know I think Dennis is probably not only the best on the issues but he knows how hard the poor really work not saying the others dont, but he has a terrific work ethnic, and understanding of life. He not only talks about how Bush does illegal stuff but he does stuff that are immoral too.

[diamondsoul]

41. The work ethic thing-

and the knowledge of the plight of the poor is simple, really. Dennis has been in survivalist mode. I think very few people go through that and forget it. John Edwards has a bit of that in him, and so does John Kerry. All of them have had to utilize survivalist thinking to get by at one time or another.

I don't think Howard Dean ever has, but I could be wrong about that. The thing is it has a VERY powerful and lasting affect on most people who live it. Actually, now that I think about it, Howard Dean probably has as well. Med school definitely breeds survivalist thinking and behavior.

It seems most of the candidates have faced one situation or another where there really is no choice except to struggle their way through it. That being the case, it would seem that where poverty is the root cause of the survivalist thinking, there is a connection forged for the person who manges to escape the poverty. Not always of course, but that seems to be the case with Kucinich and Edwards at least. The work ethic is a necessary part of surviving and defeating poverty itself.

It's in Kucinich and Edwards that I see the most striking knowledge and understanding of the plight of the poor even today. Granted it's a little better now than when Dennis grew up, but not by much, and that's what he fights for.

I'd like to see a similar piece on Edwards as the Cleveland Magazine piece on Kucinich. The one where they talk about his childhood and some of the crises his family endured. I'd like to see that on all of the candidates.

I think part of Kucinich's appeal is the fact that most people can identify with at least one of his experiences along the way. I know I read the bit about him being this little 12 yr old and trying to use one of those old, monsterous, rotary floor scrubbers and recalled my own experience with one of those beasts!*laughing* There's not much that's as comical to see as a little person trying to handle one of those things and running like mad trying to keep a grip on it. You're too young, probably, to have even seen one of them but they are deceptive from the start. They are HUGE and they weigh a good few hundred pounds, so you think the sheer weight would make them slow, only it doesn't! You start that sucker up and it GOES whether you're big enough to steer it or not! It's an experience nobody ever forgets. I read that piece and just cracked up over it because I knew exactly how Dennis must have felt when that bad boy kicked into gear and started moving!

Anyway, some will relate to that, some to being constantly on the move, some to poverty itself, still others to have been living in a car. I think he's come close to having been through almost anything a human being can go through and still remain sane and decent-hearted. The only thing he hasn't faced is war itself, and that's through no fault of his own.

[JohnKleeb]

42. I dunno

I know Gephardt does too. Kucinich grew up the poorest of all these people, his parents never owned a house, and young Dennis lived in a car at one time. He doesnt forget those days. He didnt go to war probably because he didnt believe in it and I think he has a heart problem, but his brothers are vets as was Frank his father. Can you show me that Cleveland magazine piece.

[diamondsoul]

45. Here's the link to my referenced piece-

http://www.clevelandmagazine.com/editorial/thismonth_features.asp?docid=363

[CWebster]

30. Did you read the article

That was the point of the article.

But hear this - Democracy is also my right to call you a fool. You can take all your high and mighty language and your holy words and your indignant juvenile posturing, it don't amount to a hill of beans when there is less Democracy than ever to exercise...while you are off chasing rainbows.

[diamondsoul]

31. Pot, kettle, black, my friend.

Your browbeating, YOUR posturing, YOUR juvenile assaults on those of us who defend our principles and the foundations of this country do nothing to assist Dr. Dean in gaining more support.

Indignant, you're damned right I am. Call me every insulting term you like, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans either, except to push me just a little bit closer to catching my rainbow. By all means, carry on. You do nothing but strengthen the resolve of principled people to do the right thing and shock this nation out of it's slumber.

SHOCK THE NATION, MY FRIENDS, CHOOSE THE MAN WHO SPEAKS FOR YOU AND LET NOONE DISSUADE YOU FROM YOUR COURSE!

[CWebster]

37. Hey

go for it.

[renie408]

71. Folgers makes a great decaf....

[dpbrown]

35. Extremely well put

Thank you for sharing these thoughts, diamondsoul.

[Upfront]

13. Ah, Dan

do you still beleive in the tooth fairy as well. I think the artical is saying there comes a time to get real, and it is close. Support who you want, as I well, but when it is time I vote for the democrat, will you?

[JohnKleeb]

16. I would if I could but I am too young

so yes I would vote for the democrat.

[dpbrown]

32. The idea that the time is "close" is an illusion

Neither Carter nor Clinton, eventual winners, were showing substantially in the polls at this point. The drive for "unity" is not much more than a recruitment drive by the supporters of one particular candidate. I continue to believe that the nominee should be the candidate who best espouses core Democratic principles, and that candidate is Dennis Kucinich.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Gingersnap]

95. Right on!

Dan,

Thanks for taking the time to eloquently spread Dennis' message and defend his candidacy. It really is disheartening that a very vocal minority of the Dean supporters do not seem to want people to back Dennis. You have much more patience in responding to them than I do!

As I think someone else pointed out--it's disturbing they are using the doom and gloom Bush tactic to get people to support Dean. I suppose we'll be seeing more of this sort of rhetoric in the future.

:toast:

[bread_and_roses]

19. Well said!

And I fail to understand the motives of those who belabor us to "get behind" any candidate who does not represent our positions at this early stage in the game.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

20. I can simpathise with Mr. Brown...

I am sick and tired of hearing from the posters of DU about how we should all go out and support Howard Dean. Maybe some of us would prefer John Kerry or Dick Gephardt or Bob Graham! How about Wesley Clark. For everyone here who supports him should remember that he is a fiscal CONSERVATIVE!!! That's right, a fiscal CONSERVATIVE. He supports welfare REFORM!!! As a governor he made no apoligies when he cut spending on social programs when he had to balance the states bugdet!!! I think that the Dean supporters should think carfully before they make their choice. This does not mean that Dean is not a good, and I would consider supporting him, but let's not all get gung ho on one candidate!!! Some of us here would prefer someone else!!!

[JohnKleeb]

21. its economics that has me on Kucinich's side

social issues with Kucinich and Dean are about equal, but its economics that determines things for me at least, call me a dreamer, I get frustrated but I try me best to hold it in but I firmly believe Kucinich's problem is he overshadowed by Dean in the media thus you hardly hear about him. That bothers me and it has me sad.

[dsc]

46. They aren't about equal on social issues

Kucinich backed DOMA while Dean gave gays equal rights in his state. That isn't the same.

[dpbrown]

47. This is just plain old false information and propaganda

The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996.

Dennis Kucinich did not take office until 1997.

When Kucinich did have a chance to vote, in 1998, on something related to domestic partners, he voted in support of the use of federal funds to implement San Francisco's ordinance requiring organizations that have contracts with the city to provide benefits to unmarried domestic partners.

And in 1999 he voted against banning adoptions in District of Columbia by gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.

In contrast, Governor Dean simply signed into law a recognition of domestic unions that was mandated by a ruling by the Supreme Court of the State of Vermont. He didn't even have a choice in the matter.

Rep. Kucinich is the only candidate who has said that he would support a federal law recognizing gay marriages. That's the strongest stand in support of civil unions of any of the candidates. Dr. Dean has said that it should be "up to the states."

So not only is your information false and misleading, it doesn't even match up with history. In other words, it's entirely made up.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[diamondsoul]

66. Nice catch here!

I did not realize that myself. I hadn't gone back to see when the DOMA was passed and whether Dennis was in office yet.

Another rumour bites the dust. :-)

[diamondsoul]

48. Excuse me, but Dean ALSO backs DOMA.

Nice try but no cookie or cigar. Dean gave gays "civil unions". Ok, a good step, and I'll never deny that. Was it a good thing? Of course, but was it superior to Kucinich in Congress? Hardly. They were neck and neck, thanks. Never was there an HR to allow gay civil unions Kucinich voted against. He voted to support the DOMA which Dean also supports. Marriage is and should be defined as one man, one woman, according to Dr. Dean.(I don't happen to agree)

Further, Kucinich has had the honesty and integrity to admit he has altered his perceptions on both "gay marriage" and PL vs. PC views. Dr. Dean, otoh, flat out "mis-spoke"(read lied) when he claimed never to have supported raising the retirement age. Now do I KNOW Dr. Dean lied? Nope, and I don't contend that. He may well have forgotten the interview shortly before he made that assertion, and I'm inclined to grant him that benefit when it comes to determining if he's the best candidate.

I believe Dr. Dean is a good man with the best of intentions. I simply cannot support those intentions for the simple reason that I don't believe they are the wisest courses of dealing with the situations. Kucinich supported the DOMA. Dean signed the civil union law in seclusion. Where is the difference, really? Except that kucinich himself has said "The time has come for same-sex marriage." on his own blog. Dean has not and will not say the same.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

57. Dean says DOMA is unconstitutional

and that he would try to have it overturned.

Furthermore, if Kucinich supporter DOMA back then then he has a lot less credibility regardless of what he says now, becuase when push came to shove he did the politically popular thing, whereas Dean risked his political career to do the right thing.

[diamondsoul]

59. Evidence?

If you have some for any of it I'll be happy to look. Kucinich didn't have the luxury of being the main power in local politics at the time, Dean did. Does that excuse it? No, not at all, but prove your implied motives before you ask me to dump Kucinich.

[gottaB]

62. Why does Dean say DOMA is unconsitutional?

At the Human Rights Campaign forum, Dean offered his thoughts on this:

MR. DONALDSON: Thank you. Governor, you have said that you can't force civil unions on the other states. If you were president, what would you do then? Just talk about it and then take no further action?

MR. DEAN: No, I -- first of all, as president I would recognize the rights of all same-sex couples who had entered into civil unions. Right now there are approximately 1,400 rights that are available to married people that are not available to people who are not allowed to get married. I will change that by recognizing -- we are asking Congress to recognize those rights. We can't tell -- marriage is not a federal business. That's why I think DOMA is unconstitutional. It's not the federal government's business who gets married and who doesn't. That's left to the states. What is the federal government's business is equal rights under the law, and that it will provide.

Well, as you know, there's another side to that. DOMA is unconstitutional because it allows and one could say even encourages state governments to discriminate against non-heteros; it is not in the first instance unconstitutional because it it infringes on states' rights. It sounds like Dean would agree with that, but I can't be sure. If he does agree, why doesn't he support gay marriage? Braun, Kucinich, and Sharpton all support gay marriage on what I believe are essentially the same grounds. As Braun commented in her response to the HRC questionnaire:

The concept of "separate but equal" was properly rejected as inherently problematic by the Supreme Court in the landmark school desegregation case, Brown v. Board of Education. While I applaud the Vermont civil unions law, I am convinced that ultimately inequities will arise if there is one set of laws governing marriage commitments for heterosexuals and another set of laws governing marriage commitments for homosexuals.

Dean's support of civil unions strikes me as genuine, and I can accept that he sincerely feels good about the principle of equality before the law that he speaks of. I'm not at all sure, however, that the Constitution represents a wellspring of his thinking about government. Nor am I overly impressed by his courage, not while there are three other candidates who have gone the distance and supported gay marriage, and there are a couple of other candidates who share Dean's outlook on civil unions. At heart Dean's basically fair-minded, not legal-minded.

So, what does it matter whether a candidate for POTUS is mindful of the law? It shows a couple of things: (1) It gives an indication of the candidate's fundamental approach to government and the exercize of power; (2) It establishes a basis for connecting with grassroots advocacy groups, who, given our system of Constitutional checks and balances, fight many of their most important battles through the courts.

Sharpton and Kucinich, I think it's fair to say, arrived at their postitions by being in touch with citizen activists. So a law degree is by no means a prerequisite for coming to the right conclusion here. Gephardt and Kerry I'm sure know which way justice lies, but are timid about making a commitment. Dean? He too, whatever he believes in the deepest fiber of his being, is taking a politically safe course.

On DOMA, Kucinich, regardless of any positions he supported in the past, has come around to the most progressive view on gay marriage, and he is unequivocal about it. Gephardt, although he's managed to duck that one a few times, has surely evolved in his thinking since then. When we're looking at what to do with our country over the next four years, the fact that people change their minds does not destroy their credibility; the fact that politicians compromise and seek popular support does not destroy their credibility (an argument btw which Dean is wont to make in his defense). We need to know the reasons politicians change their minds, or bend to the popular will on this or that occasion. Otherwise it's just empty rhetoric. Because Dean is right when says that politicians have to compromise, and sometimes failure to make compromises can have unwelcome consequences. You have to look at the whole picture.

Big picture. All of the Dems will do more to promote gay rights than the GOP. All of them. Most of them are pretty liberal, and three of them are unabashedly progressive. On the issue of gay marriage, Dean is in the pretty liberal camp, Kucinich is in the progressive camp. Credibly. The truth is that the Party has come a long way on gay rights. Many minds have been changed, many positions have shifted, but the Party as a whole stands for positive change, and opposition to the far right.

[Nicholas_J]

121. THis is where Dean is

At his most contradictory...

Civil Unions do set up a sort of apartheid situation for gays.
It quarantines them by creating a special set of government rules that apply to them, making them second class citizens by creating a special set of laws governing their union, from the non-gays.

Deans action of supprting Civil Unions in Vermont, while statinmg direcly that he was uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriages, as well as his attempts to define marriage as a "RELIGIOUS" rite rather than a subject for civil laws is in direct opposition to the actual legal situation. No matter WHAT your religion is, you MUST have a CIVIL marriage license to be considered married. If you are married by a Church, you can't go to your employer and have your spoiuse placed on your insurance program as family without prrof of civil marriage. But you do not need to have a religious marriage in order to be civilly married, so Deans arguments were gobbldy-gook at the time.

His opposition to DOMA stands his earlier reasoning for opposing gay marrianges on its head. If DOMA is unconstitutional so are Civil Unions because as stated, with Black and Education laws to set up "SEPARATE BUT EQUAL" situations in public education under civil law, so settting up separate but equal in setting differing legal status for two differnt groups of citizens based on sexuality would ALSO be unconstitutional. Both Straight and Gay citizens are EQUALLY citizens and the constitution mandates that all law be equally distributed. SO To oppose DOMA means that Dena is stating that he committed an unconstitutional act by signing Civil Union into law, rather than simply requireing that the government issue the same marriage license to gays as they do to non-gays.

I do not know if Deans support of Civil Unions was because he was fair minded, as it is indicated in many places that Dean refused to actually tell anyone how he stood on the issue for all the years it was being fought in Courts. HE gave lip service once or twice to gays not being persecuted and their civil rights upheld, but when this ONE innstance of civil rights came to him, unasked for and apparantly unwanted he too what he viewed as the lesser of two evils that the court offered hin in its mandated decision. The courts said he had to either allow gays the right to marry, or set up a parallel set of laws to allow them a similar legal union.The court did not give Dean the alternative of NOT allowiing anything. And the court, who were aware of other states simply amending their constitutions to prevent civil union, worded their decision in such a way to indicate that no one had better try to amend the constitution or they would render that amendment unconstitutional. They stated that it was constituional for gays to be married in their wording, and this was a clear legal hint that they would not look kindly on anyone trying to make it unconstitutional.


Many gays DO take the stance that his decisaion was not the best, as they do feel it created an apartheid for them, but pragmatically, many simply state that half a loaf is better than none.

It seems that Canada may be getting the gay tourist dollars now that they allow gays to get married, even though it holds no legal water in the U.S., Which is not much different for gays who have civil unions in Vermont. Unless other states acknowledge the civil unions if you live outside of that state, civil union bears no more legal weight than Canadian marriage.

Only if ONE STATE, creates a right to MARRY for gays in that one state, will there then be a legal precedent to challenge discrimination based on sexuality. THat is they key to making it illegal to prevcent gays from marrying in other states.

This is where Dean lost the chance to LEAD. If Vermont had simply stated, we will take the court decision to allow gays the same right to marry as non-hgays, which was one of the courts options offered. The Supreme Court of the U.S. would probably be hearing cases right now that demanded that the federal government and other states recognize the law of that one state, as is required for most laws in the U.S.

[dpbrown]

65. Kucinich didn't support DOMA, that was a lie

Read post #47 for response to this lie.

[JohnKleeb]

58. I didnt mean exactly the same

So he changed I guess, if you are gonna call him a flip flopper when Dean is notrious for it fine. Other than that on social issues they are equal but on economics me and my too economically liberal self are at ends with Dean.

[Nicholas_J]

123. If a person changes their mind on one issue

That can be acceptable, but on EVERY issue, thats a problem...

But thats Dean.

[ErasureAcer]

118. ahahahahahaha

I gotta give this a kick just for this person making this stuff up...

good catch Dan. :)

[AnAmerican]

26. Excellent post Dan

You said it better than I ever could have.

[msanger]

27. if you are so inclined...

to support whatever dem gets the nomination, and want to go on record, just take the pledge in my sig line.

[indigo32]

49. Not all of us consider ourselves to be settling

I like Dennis... but GD it I'm NOT SETTLING. I'm happy with my candidate.

[dpbrown]

50. Please expect no less from us, then

I'm happy with my candidate, too.

[indigo32]

51. I don't

eom

[diamondsoul]

54. Can I ask you a couple of ?? without meaning offense?

"Civil union" is an ok distinction for you? No offense meant because I think "civil union" is what everyone should be entering into. We aren't, and my gay friends and family damned well ought to be able to "marry" just the same way I did. The pretending that civil union and marriage aren't the same is my objection.

2nd question, and again no offense meant just offering food for thought, assuming you want equality as a gay person, how is it not "settling" to accept and support a man who won't even let you say you're married?

I'm straight and have always been straight. For that reason maybe I'm ignorant about a gay person's perspective, which is why I asked. Thanks for your time and considerations.

[indigo32]

67. I can't speak for all gay people

in any way shape or form...we all have our own perspective on the issue. What I want is to have the legal benefits offered within a marriage... which Civil Unions as described should be offering. Beyond that marriage is an odd semi-religious (today) construct that I really don't care that much about. I can have a ceremony with my family and friends outside of marriage.

I have seen Dean react at an Iowa forum to questions on this issue. He is completely serious about my civil rights as a lesbian. That was all I needed to see.

BTW what I said previously carries. I respect your decision to support Dennis, as I'm sure you'll respect mine to support Dean. I have made it a practice NOT to go on offensive against other candidates, and if you check, I think you'll find I'm pretty good about that. Well at this point I've had it up to here with being on the defensive for not supporting candidate A, or for being a Dean supporter in general (I will continue to defend Dean against attacks)... and will be very selective in the queries I answer. Dean is who I want...period. BTW I'm not trying to single you out on this... just taking the opportunity to reiterate it.

[diamondsoul]

70. Thanks for your response.

I absolutely respect your decision to support Dean.

I think I mainly asked because I have a habit of trying to put myself in other people's positions and consider what I would do, then act accordingly. I thought about what sort of support I would want if I were lesbian, and I think I'd choose Kucinich for that reason, too.

Because he's outright said on his weblog that "It's time for same-sex marriage.", and that's the position I support. I keep wondering why DOMA hasn't been challenged in the USSC, actually. It seems to me there's a valid case to be made thatit violates the separation of church and state by making Judeo-Christian spiritual definitions a part of legal definitions.

I think for me, as a straight woman even, the DOMA is disturbing. I want a President who will toss it on the garbage heap where I'm convinced it belongs. I guess it sometimes surpises me that some gay people don't feel the same way because of the direct impact on your lives. In my case I keep thinking it doesn't directly affect me at this point, but it could certainly affect my daughters, should one of them determine they are lesbian, and I don't want to see their happiness affected by this law.(I say determine because I firmly believe sexual orientation is something we're born with, and yet it takes time to figure out where you are in the spectrum of orientation. I know it can be confusing for most kids when the issue first springs forth because I went through it myself.)

Let me clarify, I absolutely understand what you've said, and I can respect the desire to just have your indivdual rights acknowledged and made equal to the rights of straight people. Maybe I am an extreme idealist after all. I don't much care for half-measures, and I think that's how the civil-union thing strikes me.

[renie408]

72. They aren't always the same thing.

'Marriage' can be a religious institute, also. You cannot force religion to acknowledge homosexuality. It either does or it doesn't. Some 'marriages' have religious as well as civil components. Personally, my own 'marriage', even though we were married in a church (due to parents), is a civil union. Neither my husband nor I believe in traditional religion. (Ok, to make that clear, my husband doesn't believe in anything. I am messing about with Buddhism and I do sometimes think that there has to be something out there bigger than us. But I do not subscribe to the traditional Judeo-Christian...anything.) We stay married because we love each other and because we have made vows to each other. No vow to god involved. Therefore, to some religious people, we are probably not technically 'married'.

I think that is why there is a distinction.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

53. It is not a question for me of "settling for less"

If I could choose right here and now to make either Dean or Kucinich president, I would choose Dean, no questions asked. Kucinich is a genuine progressive on most issues and I know he means well, but his prior executive experience raises serious questions about his ability to govern responsibly. One of the biggest things I am angry about is the deficit this administration is running up, and I would be hypocritical if my solution were be to support a man who let a city go bankrupt. I know he did that rather than sell out to a big electric company and that is admirable, but why was the city in such bad shape in the first place, and didn't a lot of people lose their jobs and a lot of others get hurt in other ways due to the city defaulting? Kucinich seems like an idealogue - someone who is so unwilling to compromise that he would allow an entire healthcare plan to fail rather than compromise one bit to get the thing through, for example. While that is admirable to an extent, at the end of the day the people who lose are the ones who would have benefited from the healthcare plan. I am not so sure any Democratic president will be able to pass a sweeping healthcare plan, since Clinton could not do it when his party overwhelmingly controlled Congress. But there is no chance that we will succeed in making any progress toward covering the uninsured with someone in power who is unrealistic and won't compromise.

I wish Kucinich would run for the Senate...he seems like the kind of guy who is destined to lead some historic filibuster against some horrible legislation like deregulating the energy companies even further or overturning labor laws. I think he would make a great senator, and that he makes a great Congressman...I just don't think executive leadership is his strongsuit.

[diamondsoul]

60. Back up-

"If I could choose right here and now to make either Dean or Kucinich president, I would choose Dean, no questions asked. Kucinich is a genuine progressive on most issues and I know he means well, but his prior executive experience raises serious questions about his ability to govern responsibly. One of the biggest things I am angry about is the deficit this administration is running up, and I would be hypocritical if my solution were be to support a man who let a city go bankrupt. I know he did that rather than sell out to a big electric company and that is admirable, but why was the city in such bad shape in the first place, and didn't a lot of people lose their jobs and a lot of others get hurt in other ways due to the city defaulting? Kucinich seems like an idealogue - someone who is so unwilling to compromise that he would allow an entire healthcare plan to fail rather than compromise one bit to get the thing through, for example."

And no offense meant or takent but how was Kucinich responsible for things dumped in his lap except as he acted? Why was the city in such bad shape? The previous administration, or did you think it will be a "cake-walk" for the next Dem to resolve. Will you blame them for *'s mistakes, because if so you're a sucker, and if not I gotta ask should they be the fall-guy for the bad stuff or defend US?

[JohnKleeb]

61. You know what the city council gave to Dennis for the stand

a commendition. He saved the tax payers 200 million dollars and we had a Clevelander here one day telling us, tell him Dennis was wrong to stand up for what was right. It is a bitter irony that Dennis cant win due do someone who imho got support in opposing the same action Dennis worked so hard in Congress to stop. The war you betcha and you can bite in to me on this all you want but it is bitterly ironic.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

98. Was the city about to default when he came in?

I am not sure about this...I don't know how long he was mayor before he had to make that decision...so if I misrepresented his role I apologize.

[JohnKleeb]

100. no it was not but UaL

He did save the taxpayers there 200 million dollars and he received a commendition by the city council for it. May had screwed him in the short run but it blessed him in the long run. It also says he doesnt give up. It was a tough decision he made, but he made the right one ethically and finacially. He had a tough decision and he made the right one. It was like Frost's The Road not Taken, and Dennis took the road not taken and that made all the difference. :) Its true and I appreciate the stand Dean made as governor on civil unions :) Dennis had to wear a bullet proof vest too.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

104. When did Kucinich have to wear a bullet-proof vest?

Was it after the city defaulted?

[JohnKleeb]

107. Yes because it made him heavily unpopular

But you can see they have realized he made a great stand, that was his finest hour or you can count as his other fine hour leading or being a member of the anti war coalition of congress. Dean I hear almost lost reelection because of his decision but were these the right decisions, you bet.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

109. Okay, then I apologize

I have to look more closely into Kucinich's decision regarding the electric companies before I make a judgment on whether his decision was the right one. And in any case, I give him credit for sticking to his convictions and not giving in, just as Dean did with the civil unions bill.

[JohnKleeb]

110. Forgiven for remembering your campaign's humble roots

and forgiven for that as well. You got class :) I can see that. Dennis was not liked for what he did but a Clevelander DUer told me personally here that it has benefitted and it had to be had been pretty good look who represents them. Also another arguement that I think you guys use that is a little misguided, some say he was only a mayor right, Cleveland is the same size population as Vermont.

[diamondsoul]

111. No the city wasn't in default at that moment,

but it was heavily bogged down with debts left behind by the departing Mayor's administration. Kucinich was elected in 1977 and the city was in default by 1978.

Kucinich had won the election by making a promise to the people of Cleveland he would NOT sell Muny Light, a sale which he was instrumental in blocking while serving as Clerk of the Cleveland Municipal Court(a City-elected post). In his own words this is what happened-"I ran for mayor of Cleveland on a promise that if elected, my first act would be to cancel the sale of Muny Light. I won the election. I cancelled the sale. CEI immediately went to court to demand that the city pay 15 million dollars for power which it had purchased while CEI was running up charges to the city. The previous mayor had intended to pay that light bill by selling the light system and simultaneously disposing of a 325 million dollar antitrust damage suit. My election not only stopped the sale, but kept the lawsuit alive. CEI went to federal court to get an order attaching city equipment as a means of trying to destabilize city services as still another desperate effort to try to try to create a political climate to force the sale. I moved quickly to pay the bill by cutting city spending. The Muny Light issue came to a head on December 15, 1978, when Ohio’s largest bank, Cleveland Trust, the 33rd largest bank in America at that time, told me that they would not renew the city’s credit on 15 million dollars worth of loans taken out by the previous administration unless I would agree to sell Cleveland’s municipally owned utility to CEI.

On that day, by that time, the sale of Muny Light was being promoted by both Cleveland newspapers, virtually all of the radio and TV stations in town, the entire business community, all the banks, both political parties, and several unions, as well as a majority of the Cleveland City Council. All I had to do was to sign my name to legislation and the system would have sold and the city credit “protected.” The chairman of Cleveland Trust even offered 50 million dollars of new credit if I would agree to sell Muny Light."

<snip>

"When I was in the board room with the Chairman of Cleveland Trust Bank, I was thinking about my parents counting their pennies and I could hear those pennies hitting the enamel top table. So, I said no to the sale of Muny Light to CEI. At Midnight, Cleveland Trust put the City of Cleveland into default. Later, it was revealed, that Cleveland Trust and CEI had four interlocking directors. Cleveland Trust was CEI’s bank. Together with another bank, Cleveland Trust owned a substantial share of CEI stock and had numerous other mutual interests. Public power was saved in Cleveland. I lost the election in 1979 with default as the major issue. Cleveland Trust changed it name to AmeriTrust. The new mayor changed the name of Muny Light to Cleveland Public Power."

So what REALLY happened was that he fought a major corporation and won. Yes, the city went into default, but not because Kucinich refused to sell Muny Light. Because that was the only way out the bank offered him. There were other things that could have been done to avoid default, but clearly Cleveland Trust had a vested interest in that sale. It was corporate greed that plunged that city into default, not Dennis Kucinich keeping his promise to the people who elected him.

[JohnKleeb]

112. exactly what I needed to read

his personal analyis and he made the right move. God bless him :).

[dpbrown]

64. Cleveland Mayorship is a win for Dennis, not a loss as you say

I know you call it his "executive" experience and you buy into the "bankrupt" buzzword, but this is just hype, really.

Dennis Kucinich was elected the youngest mayor of a major city in America on the promise of stopping the impending sale of Cleveland's municipal power utility to corrupt monopolists.

When Kucinich refused to sell Muny Light, the banks took the unprecedented step of refusing to roll over the city's debt, as is customary. Instead, they pushed the city into default. It turned out the banks were thoroughly interlocked with the private utility, CEI, which would have acquired monopoly status by taking over Muny Light. Five of the six banks held almost 1.8 million shares of CEI stock; of the 11 directors of CEI, eight were also directors of four of the six banks involved.

By holding to his campaign promise and putting principle above politics, he lost his re-election bid and his political career was derailed. But today Kucinich stands vindicated for having confronted the Enron of his day, and for saving the municipal power company. “There is little debate,” wrote Cleveland Magazine in May 1996, “over the value of Muny Light today. Now Cleveland Public Power, it is a proven asset to the city that between 1985 and 1995 saved its customers $195,148,520 over what they would have paid CEI.”

When Kucinich re-launched his political career in the mid-1990s, it was on the strength of having saved public power. His campaign symbol was a light bulb. “Because he was right!” was his campaign slogan when he won his seat in the state senate in 1994. The slogan that sent him to Washington two years later was “Light Up Congress.”

In 1998, the Cleveland City Council issued a commendation to Dennis Kucinich for "having the courage and foresight to refuse to sell the city's municipal electric system."

And let's talk about constituencies. Dennis Kucinich's Congressional District is made up of about 600,000 people, coincidentally the same number of people in the State of Vermont.

Dennis Kucinich saved Cleveland Public Power customers $195,148,520 over what they would have paid a monopolist under privatization.

Compare Dean, who "balanced the budget" in part by cutting essential services, and who calls himself a centrist.

These are two people who take handled "executive" responsibilities differently, and Kucinich handled his to make sure his people were taken care of.

Kucincich is the better "executive."

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Mairead]

90. "why was the city in such bad shape in the first place"

Because CEI deliberately sabotaged Muny Light, causing the city to have to subsidise it to a total of $16M.


Until 1968, Muny Light enjoyed success, generating $31.5 million in profits. But between 1969 and 1977, things went downhill: Poor service, frequent outages and a marketing blast by CEI on its weaknesses caused it to lose customers and money: $31.1 million in the hole, the city's general fund was forced to subsidize the utility.

...

Meanwhile, in 1975, the Perk administration filed a $330 million antitrust suit against CEI based on charges that the company was trying to undermine Muny as a competitor. Then, in January 1977, a ruling of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission all but saved Muny Light. Stating that CEI had "deliberately rigged the interconnection policies to cause Muny Light's power failures," {the aforementioned 'frequent outages'} it demanded CEI "wheel" power from the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) to Muny over its lines - a condition to its granting CEI licenses to operate nuclear power plants. This action was a huge Muny Light victory: Prior to this, Muny couldn't purchase electricity from outside sources. Because PASNY power was cheaper, the ruling was Muny's ticket to getting out of the red.

Furious, CEI took the city to court. During Carl Stokes' and Ralph Perk's mayoral terms, Muny had built up a $16 million debt to CEI, and the company wanted its money. After city council's attempt to raise property taxes to pay the debt failed at the polls, community pressure mounted to sell. In May 1977, city council approved the sal of Muny Light to CEI for $150 million. That's when a 5-foot-7-inch, 135-pound obstacle stood in everybody's way.

From Cleveland Magazine, May '96

[LWolf]

63. Excellent post, Dan.

I can't say it any better, so I won't.

I too choose to support the candidate that most closely aligns with me on the issues, that offers the strongest hope for a fundamental change in direction for America.

I know that any dem we nominate can beat bush.

Supporting a candidate you don't really want is, at this point, conceding defeat before we've even gotten to the voting booth.

[genius]

68. Bush is popular and he's raised more money than Dean

By this philosophy, we should all fall in behind and settle for Bush. Bush isn't that much different for Dean and we wouldn't have to worry about working hard to win the White House. We could all just relax.

Good post Dan.

[JohnKleeb]

69. I kinda see your point

but heres what I dont, I will not support someone in the primaries just because they are "popular". Yes I know what Dean has done, and thats great for you all but issues are important to me, I am not gonna fall in and support someone who would be the antithesis of what I believe on economic issues, that said I am a big economic liberal and its Dean's economics that make him a centrist, and economics is important as foriegn policy to me and social issues, I think that we need someone who understands the people because of his experiences or seeing others, Dennis can say the former way better than Dean, no offense but I doubt Howard Dean knows poverty well. Kucinich was right in that poverty is a weapon of mass destruction. Look well I prefer self made candiates I dont have a problem with people born rich, the kennedies and FDR big heroes of mine but they were also economic populists and no offense to Dean but thats not him.

[DemBones DemBones]

73. When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil.

Excellent post, Dan.

Dean may be "setting the record for fundraising, grassroots turnout, and media coverage" but it's still very early days. Moreover, there's a troubling gap between his rhetoric and his record that should concern Democrats.

[genius]

74. You're absolutely right.

The last thing we want is a race between Mussolini and Hitler.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

101. That is precisely why I support Dean

Because I feel that if Dean were the nominee, than for once it would not be a question of settling for the lesser of two evils.

[gully]

75. Dean is not "LESS"....

Dean is the total well balanced package we need to lead our country.

[diamondsoul]

84. Gully, we know many of the Dean supporters

support him because they believe exactly what you've said. Unfortunately Kucinich supporters have heard this statement repeatedly for months now- "I like Kucinich but I don't think he has a prayer of winning, so I'm backing Dean.". Those are the people referred to when we talk about Dean supporters "settling for less".

Them and the people like CWebster who try to brow-beat us into voting they way they want us to because "Kucinich can't win", etc. etc.

[JohnKleeb]

85. it used to kill me but allow me a quote for those like Webster

"I found one day in school a boy of medium size ill-treating a smaller boy. I expostulated, but he replied: The bigs hit me, so I hit the babies; that's fair. In these words he epitomized the history of the human race"
Bertrand Russell
embodies our struggle
Thanks Bertrand

[UnapologeticLiberal]

99. It's funny that you mention that

Unfortunately Kucinich supporters have heard this statement repeatedly for months now- "I like Kucinich but I don't think he has a prayer of winning, so I'm backing Dean."

It's funny, because Dean supporters frequently hear the exact same thing from Kerry supporters...that they really like Dean and in their hearts they would like to support him but they are supporting Kerry because they think he has a better shot at beating Bush. I have never figured out why people think Kerry is more electable than Dean, but I know that is the CW and I am ashamed to say that based on a conversation I had with her this morning, it appears that even my mom is starting to buy it. I guess that is partly a result of me being gone for the last few weeks...when I was living at home she seemed to be leaning toward Dean in part because she thought it was great how much enthusiam he inspired in me and some of my friends. I knew I should not have waited until Rosh Hashanah to come home...argh. I have only been in college for 2 1/2 weeks but for some reason I miss my family a lot already. :(

[JohnKleeb]

102. So you can identify with us?

I trust that you wont snoop low. Just remember how you guys came together and dont look down on us. I trust that you wont.

Remember this quote and I must repeat it again but it empathizes our struggle and your early on and now it seems current struggle as well.
Here it is again

"I found one day in school a boy of medium size ill-treating a smaller boy. I expostulated, but he replied: The bigs hit me, so I hit the babies; that's fair. In these words he epitomized the history of the human race"
Bertrand Russell

[UnapologeticLiberal]

103. Something like that

The Kerry people look at Dean and say he is unelectable and look down on us as liberal elitist activists. We do the same thing to the Kucinich people (though I would like to point out that I have implored other Dean supporters NOT to look down on the Kucinich supporters or dismiss Kucinich as a fringe candidate, because I remember how it felt when the establishment and the DLC did that to us.)

So I do empathize with you, as I find it very frustrating when people say that they like Dean better but are supporting Kerry because they think he is more electable. I happen to like Dean a lot better than Kerry or Kucinich, so supporting either of the others, which I will do should they get the nomination, would be settling for less.

[JohnKleeb]

106. Not all you do that but please for our sake try to avoid it

I remember your thread and I thanked you. Thanks for that though I had been infering to that, it reminds me of people forgetting their immigrant roots and then being anti immigrant. Thanks if more and more can follow your example, then I will be less likely to be down like I have been in the past. Besides you never know Kucinich could catch some fire and be neck and neck with you all come soon. You never know. Thanks for acknowledging the problem, nothing other than Kucinich getting a momentum push would be for you guys to respect our campaign and to be honest about him. BTW what I told you about him refusing to sell the city's power is absolutely true. www.kucinich.us if you wanna go there.

[loyalsister]

77. Achievable Progress

To me, a good candidate is one who can identify the achievable that is closest to my larger dreams. A great candidate is one who is smart enough, and gutsy enough to lay out a plan. Dean started the dialogue on Universal health care this time around. He has been the leader, and has a plan that liberal Republicans just might be able to live with. Achievable progress.

I posted this on another board. Don't want to overdo it, but I think it's very relevant here, too.

It took women more than 80 years to get the right to vote. The idea was first connected to the abolition movement. In fact the women's suffrage movement wanted women's voting rights included in the amendment that finally recognized blacks as human in this country. During those times, it was very clear that the country was ready for abolition before it was ready for an amendment that allowed women the right to vote. Was it fair for women to demand that they be included in the abolition amendment anyway? That question caused terrible conflict.
Some were willing to compromise and work for a separate amendment to gain voting rights for women. Others angrily held on to trying to push for inclusion in the abolition movement, and there was a terrible split in the women's movement.
Fortunately, there weren't enough votes to sabatoge the abolition movement. I think the best solution was compromise. I don't think that women should have denied the benefits of humane treatment to a huge portion of the population in pursuit of their interests to be recognized as equal? I really think that pursuing a separate amendment was the best way to go. Particularly because the split reduced their numbers enough that congress could close their ears to some of the less drastic measures. I bet it's possible that women could have gained voting rights earlier if they had united in the pursuit of their other stated goals, and a seperate amendment.
The fighters laid the groundwork, but the realists were probably best suited to implement strategy from there. An evaluation of the political climate is essential in determining the most effective means of achieving the goal. It is also fair minded and ethical for allied groups be practical to ensure that political objectives do not slow progress when it is possible (think about that in light of my handle!)
My point is don't give up hope when you see people compromising. Sometimes they are actually being unselfishly practical.

[diamondsoul]

78. Compromise

How does one compromise with pure evil? I'm not referring to the Democratic candidates, but of the current administration.

So much damage has been doen to the average American, the poor, the soldiers, anyone who isn't in the top 5% income bracket has been horribly wounded by the policies and actions of this administration. Half-way or compromised repair strategies aren't going to undo that. That's my view of this situation. We no longer have room for compromise when we have women killing themselves and their children because they have lost all hope of ever being able to raise them with basic neccessities, and it isn't just women, there are men who do it as well. How do you tell these people to be "practical" and "compromise" when they are losing their homes, their jobs, everything they've struggled so hard to gain and provide for their children?

I'm sorry but I don't have that sort of callousness in me. I can't look at a family living in a shelter and tell them to compromise. I can't look at a homeless veteran and tell him to compromise. I can't look at my elderly neighbor living on a fixed income with precious little prescription coverage and tell her to compromise. There is no room left for compromise. For many of our citizens it IS all or nothing. Every last one of us should be saying "There but for the grace of God go I." and raging angainst this horror, yet instead we sit back and talk of compromise.

Is there compromise for the 22 year old soldier who died in Iraq just a few days ago? Is there compromise for the soldiers who have died from dehydration?

I hope you'll forgive the angery tone of this post. At the moment after being in the center of my city for Labor Day events and seeing homeless people, little children with obviously worried parents, people passing out literature on a living wage, after seeing all the evidence of the sickness within my beloved country, compromise seems like a disgustingly cold-blooded word to me.

[loyalsister]

80. I wasn't refering to compromise with Bush

I was refrring to compromising with people who will work towards some of what you want. For example, is it preferable to put forth something that has a chance of passing that WILL provide health care for the people you refer to, and free up money for states to enact programs that will provide housing, or to demand things that have no chance whatsoever of passing right now? This is not something that anyone in government who advocates single payer health care denies. Who is being callous? The person willing to cooperate with business and get people insured ASAP, or the one who knows damn well things have to get much much worse for people before their reps and senators will entertain the possibility of their plan?

[diamondsoul]

83. I understand what you meant, so let me clarify

What you're suggesting is changing a little bit of the pure devastation * has wrought on this country and her citizens. I can't accept that. That would be like putting a "swamp-cooler" in hell. Life is hell for the downtrodden in this country, and I don't mean just a little bit of hell. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

Dean wants to insure approximately 30 million of the 40 million uninsured citizens of this country. Fine, except that's on the presumption that some of those 30 million who are eligible for his program would actually choose to or be able to buy into it. What if they can't afford it? Then I have to ask what does he intend to tell the other 10 million? Tough crackers, we don't have enough for you?

Dean wants to leave American troops in Iraq for an unspecified period of time. He says this knowing full well American force will NEVER stabilize that country. So hundreds if not thousands of our soldiers will die for no good reason at all. It is not possible for the US to stabilize Iraq. Why? Because we've destroyed whatever trust there may have been between Iraqi people and Americans. Until we get the hell out of their country they will kill as many of us as they can.

Others here have used the term "Bush-lite". I don't but, I'm telling you, compromising in this election equals comprimising with evil incarnate in my eyes, and I WILL NOT do that. I have to do everything in my power to see the man elected that I firmly believe is capable of turning back the clock on this mess, or as close to it as anyone can. That man will not compromise on the needs of the people who elect him, he hasn't before and he won't now. That man is Dennis J. Kucinich.

[loyalsister]

91. I know what it's like to be downtrodden

I have a disability. Eventually, I might be able to work if I had access to healthcare that wasn't connected to employment, but not as things are. DK offers me no hope of getting any. His demand for single payer is not going to get me or the children of single mothers insured. Dean's plan would insure all children people at 3x the poverty level. That would probably include people who don't have any income, don't ya think?
If any president especially a self professed highly religious president abandons Iraq, we could expect horrifying results. Evangelical fundie or mainstream Catholic, invoking it is invoking it and making it a part of public persona is dangerous for any president to do in our current situation. DK would be a disaster of a president for many reasons. The current situation there is our responsibility. We need to bring the UN in, before we withdraw. Only caring about Americans is a worldview I expect from hateful, xenophobic, ethnocentrics not Democrats.
If you really believe that compromising with a Democrat who isn't going to make the world perfect and heal all your wounds is evil, then you are very politically naive.

Should all of the liberal women who were involved in abolition and the women's movement have demanded that African Americans put them "on the ticket" for the abolition amendment even though they knew it wouldn't pass that way? Should they have asked those African Americans to abandon the progress that was at their fingertips so that they could push for what they wanted but knew the country wasn't ready for?

[diamondsoul]

114. If I've offended you in any way, I am sorry for that.

I'm sorry also for your troubles.

"DK offers me no hope of getting any. His demand for single payer is not going to get me or the children of single mothers insured. Dean's plan would insure all children people at 3x the poverty level. That would probably include people who don't have any income, don't ya think?"

No, honestly I don't. I'm sorry if you find that offensive somehow, but I find it somewhat upsetting that you don't appear willing to fight even for yourself much less anyone else. That's ok, though, because I'll fight for you. So will Dennis Kucinich. Do you want to know why I put my trust in Dennis Kucinich? Because every single time that man has been told he couldn't do something, he's turned right around and done it! I don't trust Dr. Dean, and there are reasons for that. He's deliberately and purposefully vague about his plans. I don't trust that. When I read the Kucinich platform, I know exactly what he intends to do about any given issue. I can't say that for Dr. Dean's plans. I read lots of promises, hear lots of promises, but there's no answer to "How are you going to do those things?".

"If any president especially a self professed highly religious president abandons Iraq, we could expect horrifying results. Evangelical fundie or mainstream Catholic, invoking it is invoking it and making it a part of public persona is dangerous for any president to do in our current situation. DK would be a disaster of a president for many reasons. The current situation there is our responsibility. We need to bring the UN in, before we withdraw. Only caring about Americans is a worldview I expect from hateful, xenophobic, ethnocentrics not Democrats."

Number one, Dennis Kucinich has NEVER advocated abandoning Iraq. He's said the exact same thing you've said. Unlike Dr. Dean he also comprehends that the Iraqi peope despise American's now so much that there will NEVER be peace or stability in that country as long as American soldiers are on their soil.

Number 2, Dennis Kucinich does NOT "only care about Americans". Somehow I don't think you've bothered to examine the Kucinich platform thoroughly. If you had you'd know that his objections to NAFTA and the WTO are the poor treatment of both foreign workers and our entire ecology. Do those things apply only to Americans? Hardly. You'd also know that he's posed the radical notion of clean drinking water as a human right- do note that's HUMAN right, not American right.

I will apologize for the angry tone of my statements above, however I absolutely take profound offense to the portrayal of Dennis Kucinich as some sort of religious-zealot/jingoist. Both suggestions are patently false and provably so. As for your assertion about Kucinich's spiritual beliefs, funny, it didn't seem to be a major problem for John F. Kennedy. George Bush, fundy little creep that he is, certainly has run HIS spirituality through the public eye plenty, along with jamming it up our noses and down our throats. Do not attempt to compare evil personified with a man who poersonifies all that is good in humanity. The two are apples and oranges.

"If you really believe that compromising with a Democrat who isn't going to make the world perfect and heal all your wounds is evil, then you are very politically naive."

I believe any compromise that involves leaving any of *'s destruction unrepaired is a compromise with evil, yes. In all honesty I think those who disagree with me are politically naive. Why? Because compromise is what we've done for decades. Look where it's led us. This is not a time for compromise, my friend. This is the onset of a peaceful revolution. A low rumble in the bellies of those who have been sleeping through the past few decades. That rumble is going to grow into a royal roar of outrage as more and more people come out of their apathy. Will you be one of those people or will you stay resigned to the fate that Bush and his predecessors have heaped on you?

[JohnKleeb]

115. You handled that with class diamond

That said Kucinich is lucky to have you. It just sucks that more dont see like we do.

[diamondsoul]

117. Ego aside, I think Kucinich IS lucky to have me, the

same way I'm lucky to have him. There's a reason I feel safe in saying that, though. My determination to fight to get him heard comes from his determination to speak for me and millions like me.

I have one goal in all this, win or lose. That's to be a heroine to my biggest Hero. Deep down, I think he already views everyone working on his campaign that way, and that's all I need to keep going.

[loyalsister]

125. I will agree with that

I am oriented towards the issues and making sure we get an administration that can get it done. My opinions have been formed after gaining direct experience working in\with government in a swing state. A state that has chosen the presidents since 1942.
I can understand idealism, and the ideas of things suddenly changing for what a person thinks is the better seems wonderful, however one the thing you learn quickly working with government is that people don't like the idea of radical change. You also learn that what seems like utopia to you is often not important, or doesn't even seem all that great to some people. Rule of thumb: Not everyone agrees and most people seem to be most comfortable with incremental progress.

[loyalsister]

124. Me not fight????

I'm an appointed public official for a Governor's advisory council on Disability issues. Health care advocacy, and legislative tracking is my area. I am working on this thing nonstop, and know a lot about it- from actually being there. My council includes the leg because, guess what, the executive branch isn't that powerful. Neither federally nor at most state levels.
DK is making promises he can't keep. The things he's proposing are going to have to be enacted\dealt with by statute, and he's going to need two chambers of Wellstone Democrats to do it. Do you see that happening anytime soon? Is that where the majority of this country sits? The answer to both questions is "no." And, I don't want to keep telling people with disabilities they have to wait while their president tries to dump NAFTA. Do you know that people who need to have attendants care for them receive that care via state program? Do you know that Dr. Dean plainly stated that he wants to make that a part of the federal medicaid program? Just like DK, Dr. Dean would have to enact his plan by statute. He wants to create a strong advisory council like the one I sit on.
Does DK have a sponsor and votes? John Conyers has sponsored legislation requiring a form of Universal Health Care. Breaux has done something similar. A southern Democrat has done this! With a business friendly plan, Dean could pull Chaffee and the Maine sisters over in the Senate. There's something IN the pipeline for Dean!
Sorry if I implied you only care about Americans. Your preceeding comment referred only to getting our soldiers out of Iraq. I really feel a strong sense of obligation to the Iraqis because I think we made an unecessary mess and it's up to us to do whatever we can to help. I hear people talk only about our troops very often, and it really bothers me, because I think that we owe the Iraqi's any help we can provide. The mess we have created is our responsibility and I want to feel like we've done the right thing and at least provided for them after all of the unecessary damage we have done.
Sorry, but DK does come across as a religious nut to me. Clinton and Gore were a little too outwardly religious for my taste sometimes. They really would have done us a disservice in this particular climate had they felt it necessary to discuss their prayers constantly. I would like a president who presents himself as very neutral so that we can heal some of this my god can beat up your god stuff. It has felt terrible to me ever since the crusade remark. I would like to see that corrected with as much abandonment of the whole business from the public presentation of government as possible. I think it is certainly fine for anyone to have whatever personal belief system they have. The problem is display. "Prayer For America"?
I work mostly with very compassionate progressive legislators. I have some very good ones on my side who have the greatest ambitions for improving the public's well being. They have been there, argued it on the floor, and they know what it's like. When the other side is in charge, work with bargaining chips and all you can do is your best and hope the pukes will find their conscience as the bills are passed between House and Senate.
I am there fighting for the things I'm complaining DK disregards. This isn't just coming from me. Legislators who have been in the thick of the fight agree with me. Getting it done and getting people covered is the priority.
If you want to see Dean's detailed plan, it's on his web site.

[dpbrown]

126. Thanks for the excellent argument for "lowered expectations"

If I were to take your tone toward Dean, I'd have to say things like, "I'm sorry, but Dean sounds like a hollow, washed up politician who would say anything to anyone at any time to get elected" but we already know that doesn't get us anywhere, does it?

Kucinich's plan for universal health care with a single payer system is the only fiscally conservative plan out there. Every single other plan by every other candidate uses mythical savings from "rescinded tax cuts" to pour more money into a corrupt and failed private health insurance system, ignoring that the tax revenue went to fund other programs before it was reallocated by the BFEE to fund forced wealth reallocation to the upper brackets. Kucinich finds the funding in the bloat of CEO pay and the waste of excess administrative costs.

Perhaps that sense of real, pragmatic fiscal responsibility is why Kucinich gets 50% of the Republican vote in his district, where he won his fourth term in the House with 70% of the vote.

As for Iraq, every one of the other candidates is proposing some version of, "You broke it, you bought it." Only Kucinich (and to varying degrees other candidates try to say theirs is like this but it isn't) says we need to end the occupation, turn Iraq over to international authorities while the Iraqis set up their own government, and that the US must give up all the illegal contracts that Halliburton and other vultures are feasting on, while remaining liable for the economic cost of rebuilding a nation illegally invaded.

It is worth noting that of all the candidates, Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate to vote BOTH against the USAPATRIOT Act and the invasion of Iraq. He took more than half the House Democrats with him on opposing the use of force resolution. To me, that shows real leadership, not just "found" leadership when one decides that one is running for President and better look good.

The "it'll never pass" arguments are at once a tribute to the success that Reagan, Bush, and Bush have had in beating down our nation into a level of gray nothingness ceaselessly distracted by shiny baubles, and a symbol of the insidious means in which supporters of one candidate chip away at a candidate with a better vision, a better message, and a better vision for America.

I'm tired of lowered expectations. I'm tired of a nation of exploitation. I'm tired of forced redistribution of wealth upwards. I'm tired of CEOs making thousands of times what line workers make. I'm tired of jobs being shipped overseas. I'm tired of family farmers getting the shaft from electric companies and distribution networks. I'm tired of paying for Universal Coverage and not getting it. I'm tired of innocent people being put to death by a justice system that doesn't work.

There will be plenty of time to "settle for less" along the way.

This nation needs someone who is willing to aim high, shoot straight, promote a greater vision, and bring us all together to make our nation great again.

We do not need "tweakers" whose campaign platform can be summed up as, "Don't get your hopes up."

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[diamondsoul]

127. I apologize for underestimating your

fighting spirit. It didn't come across to me in the post I responded to. It came across as you'd given up on battling for waht you really want and need, and that's what I meant by it.

I disagree with you about what most of the population wants in the way of change. I genuinely sit here convinced that the reason for the low voter turnout is lack of inspiration. People are so used to same ol' same ol' compromise and incremental change that they don't care anymore. It won't happen fast enough for them no matter what we do so why bother at all. That seems to be what you're saying to, and I think you're underestimating the people who have sat back and given up.

IOW, I think from what I read here, you've given up on them the same way they've given up on our system. The trouble with that is when we all give up on each other that way, we're destined to keep going the same way. People won't have to wait while he repeals NAFTA. Why? Because he's researched it. It can be done by executive order, period.

You want to change things? REALLY change things? Keep doing what you're doing with the Disability issue, but at the same time, REACH OUT! Don't sit back and say I give up on you because you don't care anyway. In essence you're accusing them of not being willing to fight the same way I did to you. You didn't like it, right? They aren't unwilling, they just don't see anything to fight for right now. Dennis Kucinich can change that, HAS changed that in a large number of people!

I have a friend who hasn't voted in a single election. He's 34 years old, pissed and so depressed he didn't think there was any hope left. I told him about Kucinich's platform. He got excited for the first time in his life about politics, promised me he was going to look into Kucinich and register to vote. Why? Because Kucinich's platform speaks to EVERYTHING he wants changed in this country, and changed in a hurry. Nevermind this compromise and increments crap, just CHANGE IT! That's how people feel. Stop it and stop it NOW!

I don't know what the difference is in the people you and I are talking to but wow is it ever dramatic!

Tell me, what's so awful about "Prayer for America"? He doesn't demand anyone pray to a specific God. He doesn't even demand that anyone pray at all, he just offers his prayer and hope for the country. He very rarely mentions his spirituality, and usually does so in quoting God Bless America, the National Anthem, and the Pledge of Allegiance. Those aren't his works, they're accepted works for generations of Americans. Presentation you say, ok, but why does the very mention of the word "prayer" seem to offend you? If you're atheist, or hold to a different spitiruality than he does, then don't pray! Whether you call it a prayer or something else, doesn't alter the message. That message is we're all in this together, and it doesn't have to be this way, let's change it.

I submit to you that perhaps you're one of the people afraid of radical changes. If you aren't, why not help unify others who are ready for it instead of calling on us to alter our view to compromise?

[loyalsister]

129. I want someone electable

I know the MAJORITY of voters is afraid of radical changes and they want to get things done. I have campaigned door to door, and people describe themselves as "conservative" when they vote for Democrats and agree that things like health care, and education are very important.
You may be right about the inspiration. The trouble is only a tiny minority favor what he wants, and even if by some bizarre circumstance he were to get elected he would not be able to deliver his agenda. How would those inspired people feel then? Many people who agree with him but who have had to get elected themselves know that the worst possible scenario for us in the upcoming election is a presidential candidate offering a pipedream to the radicals when that isn't where most of the country is. It's a sure way to lose. The only people behind his agenda ARE radical and do want radical change. The people who want their lives to not be disrupted while positive changes are made that will effect them get done are what make up a larger percentage of the population. It's about plurality, and if any of this damage is going to be repaired we have got to get this administration out.
I've been talking to legislators and former legislators and noone sees anything in DK but a pipedream. Nothing of real substance will get done. Or maybe- NAFTA reversed. People still uninsured. We have a new Republican president in 2008 to keep it that way. Thanks DK.
I have seen him talk about us being a nation "under God" and he says it like a fundamentalist preacher. I swear it gives me the creeps. It grates on my nerves when I hear it from him as much as it does when I hear it from any other politician. The point is he is outwardly religious, and I really think we would be better off with someone who is more quiet about it. That's one of the best changes we can make with a new administration, IMO.
The thing about Dean is he offers practical people hope. People who have been there in the thick of the fight. I know a legislator on his steering committee, and there are others who I suspect may cautiously support him.

[dpbrown]

130. They're all electable, and Dean only offers lowered expectations

There's plenty of time for compromise after the election.

I have plenty of real trouble however, with a politician who tells me (and who has his supporters mimic him) that I have to have lowered expectations even before the election.

Lowered expectations on Universal Single Payer Health Care.
Lowered expectations on the death penalty.
Lowered expectations on fairness to farmers.
Lowered expectations on NAFTA and the WTO.
Lowered expectations on medical marijuana.
Lowered expectations on an exit strategy in Iraq.
Lowered expectations on saying no to the inevitability of violence.
Lowered expectations on a nation safer from gun murders.
Lowered expectations on taking on the energy monopolists.
Lowered expectations on repealing the whole USAPATRIOT Act.
Lowered expectations on protecting our civil liberties.
Lowered expectations on protecting public education.
Lowered expectations on protecting the middle class tax cuts.
Lowered expectations on making the Pentagon accountable to taxpayers.
Lowered expectations on ending "Star Wars."
Lowered expectations on demilitarizing space.

Frankly, I find nothing more likely to keep voters at home in the next election, than in running a candidate about whom it can be said "he doesn't differ from Bush's position on "X." Maybe that "X" is the death penalty, maybe it's medical marijuana. Doesn't matter. The candidate who will bring out the voters and energize the base will present a clear and compelling difference from Bush.

For people who don't think radical change can occur rapidly with the right President, look at what Bush has done to: Clinton's roadless rule, withdrawing from the ABM treaty, eroding workers' rights, allowing arsenic in water, declaring the nationalization of Iraq's resources, awarding contracts in secret to Halliburton, and with "recess" appointments of criminals like Negroponte, all outside the legislative process and hence unrelated to "who runs Congress."

We need to elect the President who best inspires our dreams for a better nation, not a "tweaker" who counsels us to have "lowered expectations."

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Mairead]

89. Not every 'compromise' gets you even a part of what you want

Apropos your healthcare example: who says a same-old plan 'has a chance' while a single-payer has 'no chance whatsoever'? Dean? Is that a bit self-serving, perhaps? Could the Clintons' experience be relevant, do you think? They tried a Dean-style keep-the-elites'-hands-in-our-pockets plan...and it sank without a trace. When Hightower asked Willy why he didn't go for a simple, easy-to-explain single-payer plan, Clinton said 'I thought it would be easier to get {the complex, insurance-company-based one} passed. I guess I was wrong'.

Perhaps you should be a bit less certain about what's doable and what's not?

[loyalsister]

92. Look at how it has panned out in the states

Hawaii and Vermont have pulled it off since Clinton. Ya think maybe that makes a bit of a difference???
I have talked to state legislators about this at length. That's where I've gotten my education. The fact is, it's getting to a point where insurance companies know something has to be done, and they don't want to be blamed, so they want to be part of the solution. They're ready to actually help so that the entire industry doesn't fall apart.

[Mairead]

93. Your logic doesn't work

Do you really believe they weren't blamed last time? What price will they pay if they sink it again, and how do you know that? And if they're so keen this time, why aren't they out in front?

[loyalsister]

113. What last time???

What I'm talking about is as our country and health care industry fall apart over it this health care disaster we have brewing (the worst hasn't happened yet!), health care insurance doesn't want to get blamed. The blame for Clinton's "failed health plan" (it's hard to say it actually "failed." Doesn't seem to me like it got far enough to fail.) fell squarely on Hillary's shoulders.
I've been looking for an old NY Times article where some insurance companies had endorsed Gephardt's plan. It's similar to Dean's, only I think Dean's is a little better. The main difference is that Dean allows it to be separate from employment. Gephardt wants to insure "working Americans" under his plan. Not those who are too sick to work.
Checkout www.kaisernetwork.org and see if you believe yet if insurance is serious about thinking something needs to be done. I have a report from a Health Policy Conference for State Legislators from Nov. of last year. The legislators I've been talking to were all there, as well as a number of insurance companies showing support for the conference.

[Mairead]

128. "a number of insurance companies showing support for the conference"

Where better to be, than in the enemy's camp and councils? That's a priceless way to get competitive advantage.

The Clintons' plan failed because of Hillary, yes, but not for the personality reason you seem to be implying. It failed because it was a frankenplan -- unrelated bits unnaturally glued and stitched together into a monstrosity that couldn't be understood, explained, or defended. So when the insurance companies realised that, they got out a torch and pitchfork (those 2 actors) and put paid to it. The Clintons didn't begin to have the juice needed to keep faking the appearance of animation and life.

As DS has said: we can't be having with patches and bandaids any more. We're past that point. Long past. We have no margin left! We are already on the damned edge! We have to TURN AROUND NOW, not twiddle and massage and tweak. The time for tweak is over. The time for lick-and-a-promise half-measures and quarter-measures and let's-see-how-little-the-fools-will-accept-this-time-measures is PAST AND GONE.

Please don't be part of the problem.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. There are a lot of scared Dems out there right now

About a week ago, I wrote a mass e-mailing to my friends in Portland bringing them up to date on what I've been doing, and that included attending the Kucinich rally in St. Paul.

I got an almost hysterical e-mail from one of my friends, sounding much like some of the posters on this thread, scolding me for supporting Kucinich and telling me that I must support Kerry, because only he could win. She went on and on about how she voted for Dick Gregory in 1968 (she's a bit older than I) to protest the Vietnam War and how that probably helped Nixon get in. (Actually apples and oranges, because Dick Gregory had no political experience and was simply a protest candidate.)

But she has reason to be scared. She has been unemployed for over a year.

I think a lot of the more adamant and insistent Dean supporters are voting their fears instead of their hopes. Some of them come right out and say that they really prefer Kucinich's ideas but are "settling."

Hey, people, it's too early to do that.

Back during my teaching years, an older faculty member gave me some good advice about grant writing. (Nearly every academic ends up applying for research grants at some point in his or her career.) I was discussing an upcoming application for a research trip to Japan, and I said something like, "I need $3,000, but someone told me that the average grant was only $1,500, so that's what I'll ask for."

"No," this other professor said. "Ask for the full $3,000, as long as you can justify it as necessary for your research. Never, ever ask for less than you need. Don't say no to yourself. Let THEM say no."

With some trepidation, I sent an itemized request for $3,000--to cover airfare, two months' lodging and meals, and purchase of reference materials (this was 1985, so prices were loewr).

And do you know what? I got the full $3,000. If it hadn't been for the advice of that older professor, I would have unwittingly denied myself $1,500. I would have "settled" if I had only gotten $1,500 after asking for $3,000, but I'm sure glad I didn't "settle" before making my case for the full amount!

All of you who say, "I really like Kucinich's ideas, but he can't win, so I'll support someone else," are asking for $1,500 when you could possibly get $3,000.

At this point in the process, I'm asking for what I want.

At some later point, the electorates of the various primary and caucus states will say either "yes" or "no." But none of them will say anything binding for another five months.

That's five months to put a truly progressive vision of the future in front of the American people. They may say "no" to it, but they may surprise all the expounders of conventional wisdom by liking these ideas as they hear them for the first time.

In the meantime, I'm refusing to say "no" to myself.

[JohnKleeb]

82. didnt know you were a Kucinichite

"I think a lot of the more adamant and insistent Dean supporters are voting their fears instead of their hopes. Some of them come right out and say that they really prefer Kucinich's ideas but are "settling."
I think you may be on to something there. My Kucinich support stems from the heart.

[Mairead]

87. What a SUPERB post, Lydia! Thank you!

Anyone who didn't hear a 'click' in their head when they read that....

[LWolf]

88. Refusing to say no to myself!

A wonderful way to express we support Dennis.

If I say no to my real hopes, dreams, and aspirations before they are given a chance, I'm embracing failure.

If I give them a chance, I make gains whether the final goal is realized or not. There is no failure.

[Gingersnap]

96. very well put

it is very early in the game for those of us who support a progressive platform to compromise.

[JohnKleeb]

97. yep and I am not ready to either

[dpbrown]

108. I want the whole $3000!

And then I want interest added, for the damage Reagan, Bush, & Bush have done to my country.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[deek]

86. kick for an awesome thread!

:kick:

[Nicholas_J]

94. Read this if you are interested:

Alexander Cockburn
Creators Syndicate

Anybody but Bush? Watch out, Dems!
Let's aim higher than pro-death penalty, pro-drug war Dean


Take Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont. Right now, he's enjoying a boomlet. Across this great land, ambitious Democrats are hopping from foot to foot in an agony of indecision. Kerry, Graham, Dean, Gephardt: Which way to jump? Dean! Clinton without the satyriasis, Carter without the Baptist sanctimony; a simple country doctor (albeit with Dean and Witter armorial bearings) who ran Vermont through the Nineties, and who, somewhere in the mid to late 90s, began to set his compass for the White House. Progressive, but not radical; against the war, but no peacenik.

I'm a realist. I know that anyone hoping to win the Democratic nomination has to achieve acts of political prestidigitation equivalent to, though harder than, guiding a herd of rampaging Gadarene swine through the eye of a needle. No matter that a candidate might have the idealism of William Morris, the conscience of Philip Berrigan, the moral clarity of Robespierre or Ralph Nader, he'd still have to act as ruthless swineherd. I know that. But I'll confess it. The more I look at Dean, the less I like him.

The death penalty? Yes, Dean evolved into a pro-death penalty position just when he was debating a White House run. For heinous crimes like killing kids or cops. Now, with his eye on the primary in South Carolina, he's added "terrorists" to those into whose arms he would stick the needle. Isn't that the posture of Ashcroft or of W. Bush, who signed more death warrants than any other governor in U.S. history? It is, but be reassured by the Dean campaign. In a Dean administration, those consigned to Death Row will know, even as the needle starts pumping the poison into their veins, that President Dean went that last half mile to ensure fairness.

Medical marijuana? Is the Democratic candidate wholly owned by the pharmaceutical companies, the blue-nose lobby? Dean says, "My opposition to medical marijuana is based on science, not based on ideology." Oh, yeah. Dean's opposition is based on 200 percent proof political calculation. He looked in the crystal ball and decided he didn't want to be pilloried by Tim Russert and the other telly-pundits as a friend of the herb, so Gov. Dean headed off a really good medical marijuana law making its way through Vermont's lower house, the same way he headed off a pioneering health initiative in Vermont. Recently, he called Gephardt's health proposal "pie-in-the-sky radical revamping." He was gung-ho for welfare "reform," which he has called an "incredibly positive force." He's a "fiscal conservative," which is kiddy code for serf of capital.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15211

Yes I agree with the premise of your thread....Lke Cockburn, I agree, we should aim MUCH higher.

I support Kerry, as a pragmatist, but We should be aiming for a Kucinich, ans Raplh Nader Chose Kucinich as the candidates most like him as a greeen, but Kerry as the candidate most like him, of the most electable candidate.

WE should stop this popularity contest, open ALL of the candidates FULL records, Dean and Bush, and then publish them...


A Dean nomination will certainly result in a Bush win, because Dean was more highly alighned with Repubicans during his tenure as governor, opposing liberal demcrats and progressives.

Recently Republicans in Vermont have called for Deans record to be opened, and stated if he did not agree, they could reconstruct a good part of it themselves.

Most of the same Republicans who backed Dean as governor in 2000 also backed Bush for president in 2000. And still back Bush for president. Vermont polls show that if Dean runs against Bush in Vemront, Dena will lose Vermot by a large margin...
It is more than certain, that Bush will know what Dean said might be "Embarassing" to his future political career in his records when he had them sealed for so long ,due to Deans close ties to Vermont Republicans while governor.

I do not doubt that this is why Karl Rove stated, this is the guy we want on July 4th.

[dpbrown]

105. Thanks for the reminder that Dean is also less on Medical Marijuana

Less on the death penalty.
Less on getting out of Iraq.
Less on Social Security.
Less on NAFTA and WTO.
Less on Universal Single Payer Health Care.
Less on gun safety.
Less on making the Pentagon accountable.
Less on fiscal responsibility.


Just....less.


Haven't we been settling long enough?

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Nicholas_J]

119. I was sure I would be flamed on posting this as I am always

Flamed for even simply POSTING articles that do not support Dean, even if I make no statement about Dean myself.

I have been accused of posting articles that are merely opinion and not fact, but the facts about what Dean does or does not support are also included within the articles and from this point people are entitles to have opinions on Deans positions.

Many Dean supporters are of the opinion that only their opinions about Dean are valid, and all others false....There is no such thing as a FALSE opinion.

[diamondsoul]

132. Nick, I'll support your right to express you thoughts

and opinions every single time. You have your flaws about it, though, like the Kucinich thread about him "attacking Dean". That was BS, and we both know it. It's not an attack to invite open and honest debate and anyone with half a brain cell knows the difference. You aren't an idiot, at least I don't think you are, so stop trying to play both sides against the middle.

Seriously, Nick, do us all a favor and be a decent upstanding guy. Use your talents for something besides division, won't you?

[Nicholas_J]

120. Couldnt agree with you more...

THe democratic party has been settling TOO long for including TOO many republican ideas in order to get votes. In particular the current confusion Dean is injecting by trying to equate FISCAL CONSERVATISM with FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

The Democratic Party Platform equates fiscal responssibility with Fiscal Progressiveness. AND that is where Dean greatly deviates from the democratic party and is one of the prime movers attempting to get the party to become MORE conservative.

As Voltaire said...

In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other."

As governor, Deans policies actually moved money from the poor and middle class to the rich. All economic statistics from the period he was governor bear this fact out.

[diamondsoul]

116. ooookaaaay! Sorry Dean supporters, but your guy

has just managed to piss me off.

Opposition to medical marijuana has that affect after watcing my mother die much sooner than she had to because she couldn't freaking EAT! I never considered medical marijuana a major issue until that happened. I gather the good Dr. hasn't treated a whole lot of cancer patients recently or compared the results of people who smoke marijuana (or even better vaporize it) while undergoing chemo or AIDS treatments. Based on science my butt!

[Nicholas_J]

122. He also

was brutally repressive regarding opiate addiction and treatment, fighting and vetoing all attempts to set up methadone maintenance treatment, stating that he remembered how it ruined the neighborhood in New York when he was younger.

But this opposition also later extended to his complete opposition of it in prisons, and he was at his best when he indicated that they should just suffer through it.

[dpbrown]

131. My second ever thread to go past 100

Thanks, everybody.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[corgigrrl]

133. I'm not SETTLING for anyone

I am supporting Howard Dean because I agree with most of his positions and I admire the way he is taking on this administration successfully and he talks about issues in terms of what he can make happen with the Congress we're likely to have, not positing positions that have no possibility of getting passed.

I'm getting a little sick of being told by Kucinich or Kerry supporters that I'm "settling" because I'm not backing their more "morally correct" guy.

I don't think anyone who does a total flip-flop on something as fundamental as reproductive rights deserves my vote. I will vote for Kerry if he is the nominee, but his vote for the war resolution and his missing many crucial votes does not endear him. Nor does his riding a Harley helmet-less do much for me.

To me, choosing Kerry or Kucinich would be settling. The moral superiority of the DK camp is getting a little weary. This was the guy who wanted to tell me what I could and couldn't do with my uterus a very few short seasons ago when he wasn't running for president.

[Doomsayer13]

134. Settling for less? Of course not. That's why I'm voting Dean.

Dean is the most in tune with issues that are important to me.

[goodhue]

135. Achilles, Tennyson and Decartes

http://www.msnbc.com/news/952444.asp#September8

Monday, September 8

KUCINICH FACT OF THE DAY:
The Thinking Person’s Candidate? During his talks before various U.N. groups Monday, Kucinich quoted or made reference to Tennyson, Browning, Achilles, Descartes, Francis Scott Key, and George Washington.

Kucinich addressed the United Nations NGO Committee on Spirituality, Values and Global Concerns. The topic was human security, particularly before the 9/11 anniversary.
“At this very moment in our nation’s history we are presented with a kind of hall of mirrors, distorted images of what constitutes human security,” Kucinich said. “We’re being told that we’ll find our security only through the strength of arms. We’re being told that we find our security by separating ourselves from each other. That we find our securities in philosophies that reflect dichotomous thinking of ‘us vs. them.’”

SEIU EVENT: LOOKS CAN BE DECEIVING
Kucinich received a huge ovation before and after his speech before the SEIU Monday night. He was sure to note that he’s still a card-carrying union member (IATSE radio/TV union of stagehands) and said later that the attention, signing autographs and taking snapshots, made him feel like a rock star. Once again, the most recent polls belie the following Kucinich has attracted. The post-debate rally in Albuquerque, the Labor Day crowd in Des Moines, the ovations at SEIU — Kucinich has a heckuva lot of believers for a “dark horse.”
Rep. Kucinich told me that the campaign is building at a rapid rate. The campaign, he reports, now has presence in 40 states. And, he notes, as communications director Jeff Cohen noted last week, the campaign has done all of this building without the help of the national mainstream media.