A plea to my fellow Dean supporters

[UnapologeticLiberal]

I have been noticing something these past few weeks that I find disturbing. I see many of us dismissing Kucinich as a "fringe candidate" and calling his supporters delusional and what not. I am no fan of Kucinich, and not all of this has been coming from Dean supporters, but none of it should be, and here is why: a few months ago, the establishment dismissed Dean as a "fringe candidate" and us as "liberal activist elitists" who were "not real Democrats." I don't think liked that very much, and I think that it only made us angrier and therefore more determined. So now that we have kind of "made it to the big leagues" or whatever you want to call it, I would hate to see us looking down on the Kucinich people and treating them the way the establishment treated us. There are plenty of valid reasons to be against Kucinich - his flip-flop on abortion, his letting Cleveland go bankrupt, etc...but attack him on the issues, and don't write him off as a fringe candidate, because it was not so long ago that many in the party circle regarded Dean the same way.

-----------------------------
Buy my grassroots Dean merchandise:

[ProfessorPlum]

1. well said

.

[Pronsack]

2. Kucinich

I'm relatively new to the political scene, since the War really forced me to begin paying attention. Kucinich seems to stand for things I can support, but I have a hard time arguing with the drones around me at work. They dismiss him as a kooky leftist who has little hope. They mock things like the 'Department of Peace' and the White House being 'Local Union #1'. I guess there's just no reasoning with these morons. Kucinich has the guts to say what he believes in and to stand by it. We need to support him.

And I need to learn how to actually speak to the repukes and argue with them. I'm learning! Thanks to the DU.

[Desertrose]

6. welcome Pronsack...here's DK website

that has lots of info & downloadable stuff...also tons of links!
:hi:
Its nice to find another new Dennis supporter...be prepared for his campaign to really take off in the next few weeks....things are getting ready to pop!!!
peace
DR

http://www.wewantkucinich.com/wewantkucinich.htm

and more links as well from the same website....

Online - National:

Official Kucinich For President website:
www.Kucinich.us

Official Kucinich Volunteer Action Page
www.Kucinich.us/volunteeraction.htm

Kucinich Blogs:
www.denniskucinich.us (official)

The Kucinich Network:
www.Favors.org/KNET

Kucinich4President Yahoo Group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Kucinich4President/

Kucinich Connections
www.KucinichConnect.us

We Want Kucinich:
WeWantKucinich.com

National Kucinich Discussion Forum
http://us.denniskucinich.us/phpBB2/index.php

Kids 4 Kucinich:
www.Kids4Kucinich.org
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Kids4Kucinich/

Students for Kucinich:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/studentsfordennis/

Greens For Kucinich:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GreensforKucinich/

Muslims For Kucinich
http://muhajabah.typepad.com/muslims4kucinich/

Spanish Translators for Kucinich
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spanishtranslators4kucinich/

MeetUp:
http://kucinich2004.meetup.com/

[Pronsack]

17. Thanks Desertrose

This is good information. I'll read through it.

Can you help me? What is the one thing I should be pushing when I have to argue with my friends? I'm still learning all the details, but I need something to start with. I always seem to not have the right thing to say when they blast Kucinich about his war position.

Trying to learn....tired of being trampled upon.

[JohnKleeb]

22. welcome aboard

the workers white house I love that, and I think he would push my workers memorial idea too. He's a humble man who knows that poverty is a terrible thing growing up poor he knows better.

[jos]

3. "Letting Cleveland go bankrupt"

It was the banks who did that, because Kucinich would not give in to their demands.

As for your main point, I would hope your attitude is reflected by the bulk of Dean supporters. I support Kucinich for now. But, unless Kucinich runs stronger than I expect, I plan to switch to Dean after Iowa and New Hampshire.

[demnan]

4. Yeah . . .

I'm very glad Kucinich is in this race. He and Sharpton represent the liberal wing of our party that needs to be represented. When we all come together to build our party's platform, I hope that their input will make it a stronger platform.

Our liberal wing makes us stronger, not weaker - we're the inclusive party after all.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. The liberal wing must be pretty small

because Kucinich and Sharpton are doing so poorly.

NH:

Kucinich 1%
Sharpton 0%

Iowa:

Kucinich 1%
Sharpton 0%

These are the states where the candidates are spending the most time, so presumably the voters there are more familiar with them then the rest of the country. Whatever Kucinich are Sharpton are selling, the voters in NH and Iowa aren't buying.

[jos]

10. Pragmatists

Voters, even those on the left, can be pragmatic. Choosing to support, say, Dean even though a voter may agree more with Kucinich is a pragmatic decision made by a lot of voters. I have wrestled with it myself.

And please don't lump Sharpton in with Kucinich. Sharpton's just a self-promoting clown who neither has the record, not the fully thought out positions, that Kucinich has.

[dsc]

11. I honestly doubt

that Sharpton has been spending a whole lot of time and effort on those stats. He has a Southern strategy due to his appeal in the African American community.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. I didn't lump them together

demnan did in the post that I was responding to. I agree that Kucinich is much more credible than Sharpton, but he is not doing that much better than him.

[Le Taz Hot]

5. I agree and would like to add a couple of things . . .

First, it's important that we ALL support the Democrat nominee and it's going to be difficult to do that with all the campaign vitriol I've read here on DU -- from supporters of ALL candidates.

I think I'm going to make this my new mantra -- LET'S POLICE OURSELVES. Don't add to the already overwhelming number of posts that do NOT add to the debate of legitimate issues. Whether it be Howard Dean's shirts, Kerry's hair, Kucinich's height, whatever, avoid posting to the threads in order to ensure they'll die a quick death. We miss FAR too many really good, informative threads because so many are quick to jump into the blatently stupid ones while the good ones sink like a stone.

WE make DU what it is. I'm sure the vast majority of us joined in order to keep informed and engage in meaningful debate on MEANINGFUL ISSUES. We can't control posters who choose to start idiot threads but we can control our responses to them. Don't post to the damned things and let them die the quick death they deserve.

Taz<--Needing a "climbing down from soapbox" graphic.

[Trajan]

15. Yeah buddy ...

Well said: .. the vitriol is ugly and mean ... and NOY necessarily from supporters of a candidate, but from detractors who have NO apparent candidate too ...

I intend to vote for ANY Democrat who emerges from the primary process .... bar NONE ....

Even Liebermann, whom I like the least, will get my vote in the end ..

Because I am a Democrat, I will vote for the Democrat nominee ...

And I will do so without cutting any candidates supporters or insulting their mothers ....

[dajabr]

7. I hear ya... From: Tue Aug-26-03

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=26223&mesg_id=26382&page=

and..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=26223&mesg_id=26402&page=

[CWebster]

8. Don't coddle them

fighting for it is what it is all about.

When Tweety tore Dennis a new one, he came back with stronger resolve. It is no cakewalk. Being right on the issues means nothing if you aren't heard.

[dpbrown]

12. Kucinich didn't "flip-flop" and didn't bankrupt Cleveland

Kucinich supported sex ed, contraception, and a social safety net while voting to restrict federal funding of some abortions, being roasted by both conservatives and choice advocacy groups for his attempt to find a way to empower reproductive choice, educational opportunity, and a social safety net while facilitating a decrease in abortions. His position evolved to encompass the panopoly of "choice" positions as he came to understand the fuller implications of the fight over choice and its impact on gender equality in this nation.

He now has a stronger position on ensuring that nominated judges will uphold the law as written in Roe v. Wade than any other candidate, and has made clear that he has never been "anti-Roe."

Similarly, Dennis Kucinich's stint as Mayor of Cleveland is a win, not a loss, for him, despite what his critics would imply.

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."

So not only is Dennis Kucinich's position on choice a re-affirmation of his belief in personal liberty and empowerment, his stint as Mayor of Cleveland put him in the unique position of standing up to, and winning againt, the Enron of his day.

Kucinich's Congressional District of nearly 600,000 is basically the same population as the State of Vermont. Kucinich saved Cleveland Public Power customers $195,148,520 over what they would have paid a corrupt monopolist. Governor Dean, on the other hand, balanced the budget of the tiny State of Vermont in part by cutting services. In my mind, this makes Kucinich the more pragmatic "executive" in ensuring the well-being of his constituents.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[dsc]

16. You are wrong on sex ed

he opposed it. He had a 95 rating from the Right to Life people and only disagreed with them on CFR. They do not support funding for contraception and neither did he. You are also wrong that his position on Justices is stronger. Due to his preannounced litmus test they won't be confirmed by a Senate that has at least 40 Republicans which is a certainty. The other candidates will certainly appoint justices who will uphold Roe v Wade but they will be confirmable due to not having had a litmus test.

[dpbrown]

18. You are 100% wrong on sex ed and Kucinich

During the period of time when Rep. Kucinich received the worst rating by groups that monitor pro-choice votes he:

1. Voted against requiring counselors to notify parents and impose a five-day waiting period when minors entered family planning clinics to buy contraceptives.

2. He voted to force federal health care plans that include drug coverage to include coverage for contraceptives.

3. He voted against creating a new crime of assaulting a pregnant women based on causing harm to a fetus.

4. He voted against a measure that would have banned the use of US Population funds to advocate abortion as a family planning measure.

5. He voted against banning "partial birth" abortion when the health of the mother is not specially protected as an exception to the ban.

Rep. Kucinich's votes are votes of empowerment. His votes, even during this time, were focused on putting more control over reproductive choice in the hands of the person making that choice. Since that time, he's come to a fuller understanding of the gender inequity ramifications involved in the pro-choice movement, and is the only candidate who has declared his intention to make judicial nominations subject to a litmus test on Roe v. Wade.

It should be noted that Antonin Scalia has expounded that judges should "quit" if they're not pro-death penalty, because that is the "law of the land." In just that way, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and no candidate has embarked on so bold a policy decision as to plumb from each potential judicial appointee their position on upholding that "law of the land." Rep. Kucinich's movement from personal empowerment to broad, full, and deep support of the positions of the pro-choice movement put him in the unique position of being the best candidate on choice, because he came to his position not through an examination of what would be the politically expedient choice, but through a natural evolution of his deeply held belief in personal empowerment and the responsibility of society and the government to play a healthy role in the development of that empowerment.

Candidate Kucinich is the best candidate on choice.

Your inability to discuss Kucinich's actual voting record makes your other contentions regarding the effect of the "litmus test" position on getting judges through (a test obviously being used now by the other side), suspect at best. In any case, Scalia's assertion that judge's can't serve if they don't support the death penalty (also the "law of the land") is at least as rigid as a litmus test and seems to cause no one concern. And the point, actually, is the "support" of the choice positions, not that the sole criteria for nominating a judge will be their position on Roe, also lessening the effect on potentially successful judicial nominees.

Bottom line is "choice" is a non-issue when deciding to support Kucinich or not, unless you're willing to buy into hype or outright fabrications of Kucinich's voting record.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[dsc]

28. I want dates on those votes

If they are, as I strongly suspect, from late 01 or 02 they are from after he got those ratings I mentioned. The violence from fetus act is for sure from that era.

[dpbrown]

36. Look them up yourself, I did

http://www.vote-smart.org

You're the one who is lambasting Kucinich. And even if they show a trend, they completely erase the "flip-flop" comment that started this, because he didn't flip-flop, he trended toward more complete support of the "abortion" part of "choice." But he always supported the social safety net, education, being able to make an informed choice about engaging in sexual behavior, along with the rights of people to find work, get a living wage, have child care support, and get public education - all positions opposed by "conservative anti-choice" people.

No one should be using half-baked information and innuendo to sabotage Democratic candidates in here. I don't do it to Dean, and I expect Kucinich critics to behave in the same way. Where there are legitimate differences to be made between candidates, I'm all for sharing them.

[dsc]

37. I posted links to my stuff

which show you at best disembelled. The partial birth abortion vote and fetus rights vote you site fall outside of the time frame you put them in. The gall of it all when you accuse me of falsifying. I didn't. I was correct in that he did cast voted against contraception and against sex ed at least in foreign countries. I backed up what I posted the fact you won't speaks volumes.

[dpbrown]

48. I wasn't the one who "dissembled"

You made a bold and false claim that Kucinich was against sex ed.

I presented facts that countered that claim.

You found some tangentially related data (not even tied to Kucinich, but from a scorecard that you then implied votes from based on a rating), that showed that Kucinich voted to restrict some international use of domestic tax money from flowing overseas.

Because nothing you offered countered any fact I presented related to Kucinich's support of the rights of his constituents to get education and contraception materials, you didn't even meet the burden of showing that Kucinch ever stood against letting those people have birth control and get educated about sex.

Nevertheless, I outlined the other votes that I know of that earned Kucinich his low rating from groups that monitor the choice/anti-choice issue.

You, on the other hand, having failed to counter the assertion that Kucinich supported the rights of his constituents to be educated, have a full safety net, and get contraception for themselves, went on to try to impeach a different aspect of my statement, hoping to do with an attack on my credibility what your lack of facts failed to do.

Those who think it's more telling that Kucinich once voted to restrict some family planning money going overseas, voted to restrict federal money for abortions at overseas military hospitals, and voted to restrict "partial-birth" abortion only if the health of the mother was protected (knowing that one of the main reasons this extremely rare form of abortion is practiced is to save the life of the mother), may be swayed by your inadequate arguments.

Those who are able to take in context the votes of a man dedicated to maintaining the social compact between citizen and government, who has fought his whole life to improve the lot of ordinary people, and who has voted consistently to force insurance plans to carry coverage for contraceptives, fully fund schools, and to let people get into family planning clinics to get contraceptives - a man who has completely come around to the "pro-choice" position over time - may be persuaded by mine.

So be it.

[dsc]

49. I have shown a direct link

to Planned Parenthood which shows him VOTING AGAINST INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACEPTION. You flat out lied when you stated he hadn't done that.

[dpbrown]

53. 1998 vote requiring health care plans to cover contraceptives

Bill Number: HR 4104
Issue: Abortion
Date: 10/07/1998
Sponsor: Recommital motion introduced by Hoyer, D-MD; bill introduced by Kolbe, R-AZ.

Representative Dennis J. Kucinich voted YES.

Vote to send the bill back to conference committee with instructions to add language that requires health care plans for federal employees that carry prescription drugs to cover contraceptives.

HR 4104: Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

Vote on a recommital motion, to send the bill back to conference committee with instructions to add language that requires health care plans for federal employees that carry prescription drugs to cover contraceptives.
Recommital motion introduced by Hoyer, D-MD; bill introduced by Kolbe, R-AZ.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=2131&can_id=BC032003

[dsc]

56. and planned parent hood has him voting the other way

You basicly called me a right wing liar for saying he did but I showed that according to planned parenthood he did exactly that. I am still owed the apology though now I will admit he began his change on that earlier than I thought now that you have provided a date. But again he voted the way I said he did and I am owed an apology from you for saying that I lied when I said that.

[dpbrown]

61. I didn't say you lied

I said:

Bottom line is "choice" is a non-issue when deciding to support Kucinich or not, unless you're willing to buy into hype or outright fabrications of Kucinich's voting record.

You then demanded an apology, which I am not going to offer.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[dsc]

64. Just what does fabrication mean

in your dictionary? It is not fabrication to say he voted against contraception when Planned Parenthood says he did.

Editted to remove an attack which I now don't mean. If you read it sorry I posted it before I read the other post you did. If you didn't read it cool since I was wrong to have posted it.

[dsc]

29. I demand an apology

This took me one, count it one, google search to find. It proves that I am 100% correct in regards to contraception. Here are three of the 20, ie 15% of his 95% rating, from 1999. Remember this the NRLC's characterization not pro choicers

10 - United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) participates in China's coercive population-control program and has promoted abortion in a variety of other ways. During budget negotiations in October 1998, pro-life lawmakers were able to cut off U.S. funds to the UNFPA for 1999. However, on July 20, 1999, pro-abortion Congressman Tom Campbell (R-Ca.) offered an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2000 State Department reauthorization bill (H.R. 2415), to authorize resumption of funding of up to $25 million to the UNFPA in 2000 under certain conditions, including that the money not be spent in China. NRLC opposed the Campbell Amendment, but it was adopted 221-198, a pro-life loss (roll call 312). This funding was part of the final bill that was signed into law by President Clinton in November 1999.

11 - Mexico City Policy (Smith-Barcia Amendment)
On July 29, 1999, the House approved, 228-200, an NRLC-backed amendment offered by Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and James Barcia (D-Mi.) to the Fiscal Year 2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill (H.R. 2606) to cut off U.S. population-control assistance to any private organization that works to weaken foreign abortion laws. (Roll call 349) This was a version of the pro-life "Mexico City Policy," which had previously been nullified by President Clinton. In November, 1999, after extensive budget negotiations with Congress, President Clinton reluctantly signed a somewhat weakened version of the Smith-Barcia Amendment into law.


12 - Mexico City Policy (Smith-Barcia Provision)
On July 13, 2000, the House considered the Fiscal Year 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill (H.R. 4811). As approved by the Appropriations Committee, the bill renewed the pro-life Smith-Barcia language approved by the House in 1999, to curb funding of organizations that promote abortion overseas. On the House floor, pro-abortion Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.) offered an amendment to remove the pro-life provision. NRLC opposed the Greenwood Amendment, and it failed, 206-221, roll call 396. As a result, the bill passed the House with the pro-life provision intact

All three of these votes had the effect of denying women abroad access to both sex education and contraception. Even the pro life people admit that. Again this took me one search. You owe me a big ass apology.

Here is the link

www.capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard/descriptions/?session=106&chamber=H

And if you look at the first vote it shows it is you who don't know what you are talking about. It states plain as day that Kucinich voted for a ban on PBA without the health exception. Again you owe me a big ass apology. You were an insulting smart ass and just plain wrong.

[dpbrown]

38. You're wrong again - these are international funds

No one has debated that Kucinch cast votes restricting funds for international groups that advocated abortions. In fact, that, and, let me save you some time, voting to restrict federal money used to pay for soldiers abortions in military hospitals overseas, and voting to allow some restriction on "partial-birth" abortions as long as the health of the mother is protected, is why Kucinich got a low rating from groups that monitor these votes.

But Kucinich also voted to force health plans to cover contraceptives, and he voted to keep the government from meddling when women went into family planning clinics to get contraceptives, and other votes - that are not listed under "abortion" or choice, but which, when taken together, show a concern for the full spectrum of "choice" and not just the allow abortion no matter what part of choice.

And Kucinich moved away from thinking that there was a way to "socially engineer" a way to empowering society towards fewer abortions, because his eyes were opened more fully to the gender inequity ramifications of putting specific restrictions on abortion.

All you've shown is that there were votes related to restricting international aid money that went into Kucinich getting a low rating. You didn't even find the other votes that earned him that rating.

You came off with a half-baked lie about Kucinich and you got called on it. Feel free to apologize to yourself. You were a shoot-first character assassin with no facts, and you should apologize to Rep. Kucinich for mischaracterizing his position on choice.

[dsc]

44. Take it up with planned parenthood

Here is what they say his record is:

Funding For Family Planning NIO
Insurance Coverage For Contraceptives ANTI
Global Gag Rule ANTI
International Family Planning ANTI
Confidential Access To Family Planning For Minors PRO
Mifepristone (Formerly Known As RU-486) ANTI
Minors' Access To Abortion ANTI
Abortion Access For Military Service Members ANTI
Medicaid/Hyde Amendment ANTI
Bans On Abortion Procedures ANTI
Fetal Rights ANTI

Note what they say on family planning NIO means not in office. And about insurance coverage for contraceptives he was against. You owe me a big ass apology. And BTW I do think foreign women count evidently you don't.

Here is the link:

www.plannedparenthoodvotes.org/site/FrameSet?style=User&url=../cgi-bin/build_scorecard_search.cgi&JServSessionIdr011=nq07ad5nx6.app2a

You will have to type his name in and then you will be shown to his scorecard. You can then get a table of his individual votes. I can't get back to that page without going thru the steps but since you haven't provided even one link yet you can do some work.

[dpbrown]

58. 1999 vote for letting int'l funds be used for advocating abortion

Bill Number: HR 2606
Issue: Abortion
Date: 07/29/1999
Sponsor: Amendment introduced by Greenwood, R-PA, Bill introduced by Callahan, R-AL

Representative Dennis J. Kucinich voted NO.

Vote on an amendment ensuring that U.S. Population funds are not used to advocate abortion as a method of family planning.

HR 2606: Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2000

Vote on an amendment ensuring that U.S. Population funds are not used to advocate abortion as a method of family planning, or used to lobby for or against abortion in foreign countries. The amendment would also ensure that organizations that receive U.S. funding for family planning commit to use those funds to reduce the incidence of abortion, and that organizations are not to advocate or pursue law changes that alter government policies regarding abortion.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=2409&can_id=BC032003

[dsc]

60. again

he has a mixed record here. I may have overstated but you called me a liar and owe me an apology as well. I gave you one you owe me one.

[dpbrown]

62. I will admit he has a mixed record here

You said: I will admit he began his change on that earlier than I thought and I will admit that some groups that monitor his voting record portray it in a way that can be construed as strongly anti-choice.

I'm glad we've had this discussion.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[dsc]

65. I am too

I am pro life so I actually liked his votes which actually restricted abortion. But I split with pro lifers on sex ed and on contraception and thus disagreed with the anti contraception vote that I cited. I still think he cast an anti sex ed vote or two but I can't find any sex ed votes at all. Evidently no group specificly monitors them. In any case it was a good discussion.

[JohnKleeb]

67. wait a tic you are pro life

Are you just playing devil's advocate at times because you really confuse me. His past view on abortion is actually something I disagree on. That said, if you were to switch your view from pro life to pro choice, I think I would forgive and understand.

[dpbrown]

69. I couldn't find a sex ed vote either

But here's part of Kucinich's statement on reproductive rights:

"I want to work to make abortions less necessary, which means sex education and birth control. I want to work to make sure that, when life is brought forward, we have prenatal care and postnatal care and childcare and universal health care and a living wage."

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_rightsreproductive.htm

Cheers,

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[dsc]

30. One other thing

I know that in the past he cast the opposite vote on item 5 (same list from whence I posted) and that item three is currently being advocated on the front page of the NRLC website and hence he couldn't have voted against that and still got a 95% rating (it also is absent from the 105 and 106 Congress lists).

Again you owe me a big ass apology.

[dpbrown]

41. You're even more wrong

I pointed out votes cast that blew your "anti-choice" slam out of the water. You found out why Kucinich got a low rating. You continue to ignore the fact that Kucinich, while voting for some restrictions on abortion (please recall no one said he didn't get a low rating), he also cast votes that were the opposite of the "conservative" position - on contraception, on health insurance, on fair wages, on child care, on education, and on a full range of issues that go to the foundation of giving people a choice over what to do with their bodies, and their minds, and their jobs, and their families.

You continue to owe Rep. Kucinich an apology for mischaracterizing his voting record and his stand on giving people a choice over what to do with their bodies.

[dsc]

45. No you didn'

You provide a list of votes, at least two of which, HAPPENED AFTER HE CHANGED HIS POSITION. Votes 3 and 5. You REFUSE to provide dates for them so why should I assume the other ones ARE FROM WHEN HE WAS PRO LIFE? Again I have now shown that he cast a vote against insurance for contraceptives and against the position you claim him to have taken on PBA. Again you owe me A BIG ASS APOLOGY OR AT LEAST DATES FOR EACH AND EVERY VOTE YOU SIGHTED.

[dpbrown]

55. 1998 vote protecting the right of minors to contraception

Bill Number: HR 4274
Issue: Abortion
Date: 10/08/1998
Sponsor: Substitute amendment introduced by Istook, R-OK; amendment introduced by Greenwood, R-PA; bill introduced by Porter, R-IL.

Representative Dennis J. Kucinich voted NO.

Vote to replace language in the amendment with alternative language that would require counselors to notify parents or to have written parental consent when a minor enters a family planning clinic to obtain contraceptives.

HR 4274: Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999

Vote on a substitute amendment to an amendment, to replace the language of the original amendment with alternative language that would require counselors to notify parents or to have parental consent when a minor enters a family planning clinic to obtain contraceptives. If notification is sent to a parent, contraceptives cannot be dispensed for five days. (The original amendment would not require parental notification or consent.)

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=2134&can_id=BC032003

[dsc]

59. again thanks for the date

that wasn't so hard now was it. He clearly has a mixed record on this. He also voted against insurance coverage for contraception during the same general time. I think at worst I took some votes and slightly overstated his position but you called me a right wing liar. I think I am still owed an apology since his record is mixed but I do owe one as well since it is mixed. So I am sorry to have exaggerated the extent of his anti contraceptive record but I do say he still has a mixed record. Again you do owe an apology.

[dpbrown]

63. Again, thanks for the discussion

I apologize for implying that you were engaging in hype, since you've shown that groups that monitor these records do portray them in a way that can support a claim that Kucinich is more "anti" choice than he actually is.

I appreciate the dialog.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[dsc]

35. One more thing

on this law of the land stuff. Plessy v Fergerson was law of the land. Dred Scott was law of the land. Bowers v Hartwick was law of the land. I am glad that Presidents from FDR to Clinton didn't use the law of the land standard to decide on nominees.

[dpbrown]

42. Your ego is apparently impervious to irony

It is as unsupportable, if not more so, for a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to instruct aspiring judges that they should "quit" if they can't deal with the death penalty as the law of the land, as it is for conservatives to insist that a judge be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, or, in the instance of the point you're trying to make, for Kucinich to "insist" that judges uphold Roe.

Nevertheless, it's a cruel commentary on how beat down we are as a society to let comments like Scalia's through, while taunting Kucinich for pointing out in similar fashion that both he, and aspiring future judges, ought to (and do) understand that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.

And ultimately, it is this easily plumbable understanding of the philosophical basis for Kucinich's voting record that is part of the foundation of the rebuttal to your original claim that Kucinich is "anti-choice." Whether he evolved to his current pro-choice position, experienced a spiritual awakening, or was visited by the ghost of Christmas past, his current position shows itself to be well-founded in the personal and social empowering stances he's fought for up until now - stands that have come also to encompass the full range of those of the abortion-rights warriors, due to his evolutionary awakening to the gender inequity ramifications of trying to legislate a social lowering of abortion rates.

[JohnKleeb]

43. Hey Dan at least he wasnt cutting services

and supporting the death penalty.

[dsc]

47. With all due respect

Dean didn't cut services (you need a link to say he did) and supports the DP in three cases and made no effort to establish it in VT. OH and BTW how do we know that Kucinich is against the DP now? The very same reason he had for opposing that is the one he gave for opposing abortion. If he changed on abortion what is to stop him from doing so on the DP?

[JohnKleeb]

50. actually dsc I wasnt infering to Dean!

I was infering to those so called pro life republicans. Look I am not trying to get in a fight and I wasnt even talking about Dean so cut me some slack ok, also no offense but if you are gonna imply that my guy is a flip flopper you want me to be an asshole and say your guy is notorious. You know what I wont you know why because maybe he changed too. How do we know hes against the death penalty? simple read his platform. He always has. I wasnt even talking about Dean so please give me a break. Again on budget cutting and the death penalty I didnt infer to Dean I infered to the GOP so please try to understand my inferences. No I think he has a diffrent reason for opposing the death penalty and you and I both know what that is, its wrong. So please I wasnt even talking about Howard Dean I was talk about conservative right wing assholes who claim to be pro life yet dont give a damn if those women suffer Dennis wasnt perfect but he had his heart in the right place.

[dsc]

51. Sorry

I did think you were saying that about Dean but even so my point still stands. While I don't honestly thing he will abandon is anti death penalty position it was founded on the very same idea of what is right and what is wrong that his anti abortion view was. He was very clear on that and he was hardly unique. The consistent life ethic is a valid, recognizable philosophy which Kucinich did hold. I do think people should be way more troubled than they appear to be about his conduct on this issue.

[JohnKleeb]

52. he has many reasons for opposing it as do I

I have heard many people most of them religious folk say they personally oppose abortion but to ban it would be wrong. Well I tell you this, I think he genuinely changed. Look hes not perfect and if you are gonna accuse our guy of flip flopping, I could be an asshole and do the same but I realize things, I dont wanna fight and the fact is that I am a clear minority because most of DU according to our polls supports Dean, and above all I try to respect Dean. If the consistent life ethic is respectable why did so many have a problem with this past view. I know many who share that view that he once had. I think he was wrong in opposing aboriton but I do see that he has changed. People cant change you may say but I admire the late Robert Francis Kennedy a ton but he once worked for McCarthy which was worse than what Kucinich once thought on abortion yet RFK is my hero as is Kucinich.

[dsc]

54. To be honest

it is his explanation that I couldn't buy. If he had said that for some scientific reason he didn't think fetuses were life then maybe I could have bought his change. But to say that he just now recognized the implications to women of restrictions on abortion doesn't cut it. Full disclosure I am a proponent of the consistent life ethic, and as you point out many do have problems with it. But I can't see someone who holds that opinion honestly changing his or her opinion of abortion for the reason he gave. I just really can't.

[JohnKleeb]

57. I dont know

You are trying to say if someone doesnt listen to people in particular women that cant influence change. Well I didnt like his past view but I cant judge him on abortion and boom I wont support him I am not like that, the fact of the matter is, the changes he proposes are great ideas, and I agree with him on a lot. People change if he cant change on abortion in your opinion what do you say do all the former republicans who became democrats. He talked to women about it, and well you dont trust him there are plenty of pro choicers who do and I count myself as one.

[dsc]

66. His change may well be for real

or at least good enough. I also suspect the elder Bush changed is position for political expediency but he went all out once he did. I don't say women can't change things but he has been in public life for three decades and I find the timing a little suspect. He had to have known women before 2002. Again I do think he would be hard pressed to turn back now no matter what.

[JohnKleeb]

68. well if we are gonna call Dennis a flip flopper

People could have a field day with Dean's flip flopping and sometimes confusion on his views. I dont wanna do that.

[dsc]

70. I really don't see that

He did change on SS from some 7 years ago. He also did on the DP from around the same time. His war position has been consistent. And finally he changed on Yucca Mt which is a real flip flop.

[JohnKleeb]

71. I never said anything about the war

I dont call it flip flopping but I do think if you wanna be an asshole about it and I know I dont want to, you can charge that Dean is just as guilty as Dennis Kucinich is if not more but I wont because I am in no mood to fight and I dont think its right.

[dsc]

72. I didn't mean to imply that you did

I was listing all of the 'flip flops' I had heard on this forum of which that was one. Any politician is going to change position from time to time. Dean is no exception. I do think the Yucca Mt thing is a legitimate flip flop charge even though I agree with Dean's logic. Again I was just trying to list as many as I could think of.

[JohnKleeb]

73. then if politicans can change their posistion whats your beef with DK

doing it. Of course I havent called him a flip flopper but Ive some of y'all call my guy Dennis of the flip flop, well thats kinda iffy because one could accuse Dean of doing the same but its ok with me as long as he means it. Look me and you both know that Dean isnt Kucinich on economic issues, its that why I am more prepared to support Kucinich than Dean.

[dsc]

75. I think there is a massive difference

between Yucca Mountain and abortion. The other Dean changes are much longer ago and thus are much less suspect. Kucinich changed basicly two days before announcing and on an issue he had thought before then in moral terms. I do think that is very different. I wouldn't not support him solely on that nor am I advocating that you not support him solely on that. But it enters into the mix for me and I think that is justified.

[JohnKleeb]

76. yea

I dunno but he seems to change a lot Dean does which is a ok.

[dsc]

46. So you have read everything

I have ever written and know I '"let Scalia's comment thru" Wow you are good.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. He did a 180 on partial-birth abortion

In 1997, he voted to make partial birth abortions illegal

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=1997&rollnumber=65

That doesn't jive with his current pro-choice stand.

[dpbrown]

20. Some second & third trimester restrictions are allowed under Roe

He voted for a restriction on this extremely rare form of late term abortion, if the life of the mother were excepted from the ban (the danger to the life of the mother or a severely damaged fetus are virtually the only reasons this form is practiced). When Republicans got the protection of the life of the mother taken out, he voted against it.

It's consistent with Kucinich's previous record to uphold protections on the life of the mother, while allowing some restrictions that were acceptable under the Roe guidelines. And since then his position has evolved toward full protection of gender equality.

In any case, he previously voted to uphold all manner of choice and education empowerments pre-conception, and all manner of social and health and education supports post-birth, positions that in and of themselves do as much or more to support "choice" as does fighting for the single-issue Roe-only, no restrictions on abortion position, when taken out of the context of social justice that it must be viewed within.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[diamondsoul]

24. When I first started defending choice-

I didn't know anything about the so called "partial birth abortion". I supported that ban also until I learned what it actually banned and what that meant for women and babies. Dennis having been a good Catholic had plenty of reason to support that ban if he didn't know what the procedures are and what they are used for. Most people don't know those things, and it requires active research to find them out.

I would say it's likely that Kucinich didn't understand the procedures being banned and when they are most commonly unsed, as is true of most average people all over the country. The PL factions have played up these procedures, indeed combined them into one and claim it takes place in the third trimester a grusome and horrific means of killing a term or near term fetus.

Unfortunately they managed to get a lot of press and a lot of circulation of these false and outright ludicrous claims and a large portion of the population believes the hype rather than doing to research to find out that it doesn't really happen that way. Our legislators are no more immune to being mislead than any of the rest of us.

[JohnKleeb]

25. hey diamond

even while he was pro life he opposed the death penalty. Also I dont think he supported at the same time to cut services to the poor.

[CWebster]

32. You can't use that as an argument

"...had plenty of reason to support that ban if he didn't know what the procedures are and what they are used for. Most people don't know those things, and it requires active research to find them out...I would say it's likely that Kucinich didn't understand the procedures being banned...Our legislators are no more immune to being mislead than any of the rest of us."

It's his damn job to know what he is voting on. cover like this only serves to fuel the flame.

[diamondsoul]

77. I'm well aware of what the Congressman's job is.

That wasn't the point. The point was that there are large groups who have made it their life's mission to fabricate abortion scenarios which do not happen outside the realm of their fantastical imaginings. Those same groups have been lent some air of legitimacy in the political arena by a handful of Pro-Life physicians. It isn't an excuse, however for me because I've been both PL and changed that stance, and I struggled with being PC and opposed to the mythical procedure known as "partial-birth abortion", I can understand and forgive the Congressman's changes in both areas.

I see no reason to beat up on a Congressman for something I myself have been guilty of. Quite frankly I think when our legislators are lied to and the lies go unchallenged even by those who KNOW they are lies, we bear some responsibility. Why isn't the public paying attention to what our lawmakers are being told in order to make our laws? How can you blame Congressmembers when some buffoon tells them an incredibly convincing and horrifying lie to justify taking away a choice from women and nobody stands up to refute the lie? That's not a Congressman's fault, that's the fault of the medical establishment which doesn't respond to the lies people are told in any meaningful manner.

[dsc]

34. That is absurd

Sorry but he was adamently pro life when he cast that vote. He has since changed his position but that doesn't alter what his position was when he cast that vote. I am quite sure that people on the pro choice side made sure the same arguements you had to search out were readily available to members of Congress.

[diamondsoul]

78. Not if the transcripts I've read of congressional testimony

are any indication. For whatever reason, the PC side of the argument seemed to stress the sadness of a wanted pregnancy gone awry rather than addressing the sheer absurdity of a woman 8 months pregnant suddenly strolling in and saying "I want an abortion right now!". That's how the procedure is portrayed by the PL movement and it's utter lunacy. Even if a woman were to do such a thing, I sincerely doubt there's a physician in their right mind who would do it.

They also failed to point out that this "partial-birth abortion" is a procedure that cannot be used in a third-trimester abortion unless the fetus is so severely deformed or damaged it's survival even at term would be in question. I could explain all of it, but this isn't really the place for it. Congress-members were not informed that the procedures covered by this ban could easily be made to include every standard method of abortion that exists today, and could easily be used to force women carrying dangerous pregnancies to go to term even if they're lives ARE threatened. They were not informed that the two most gruesome procedures are used only in very extreme cases and typically take place when wanted pregnancies will not result in a live birth or may kill the woman.

The ban is pathetic on it's face, but even I didn't know that until I looked into the procedures being villified and realized that they could not possibly be used on a healthy near term fetus without substantial risk to the woman. No physician who works in the field because he/she wants to help people would ever do such a thing without a dire emergency precipitating it.

[blm]

14. So, you just attacked Kucinich unfairly, yourself.

The corporate powers pushed that Dennis "let Cleveland go bankrupt." You pick and choose which powers to believe and further their words?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. Who let you in here!?

JK, love ya.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

31. Whatever, it is not the point

I said that I believe he was admirable for not capitulating to the electric company (or maybe I said that in a different thread), but I think whether he made the right decision is debatable. My point is, attack Kucinich on the issues the way you would any other candidate, and don't simply write him off as a fringe candidate who can't win. I think he and all the other candidates deserve the respect of being challenged on their records and not simply dismissed as having no chance.

[JohnKleeb]

33. the city of Cleveland can tell you he was right

he saved them a lot of money. He got a commendtion. I do agree with you he deserves respect. I cant tell you how many times Ive been told he doesnt have a chance, I dont wanna give up my fight, I believe my candiate best represents me on many levels and when people tell me my cause is a losing one, I will get defensive maybe not mad but it makes me not that happy, and my morale goes down. I also get when people like you said forgot that Dean was once regarded as a joke. I tell you this, win or lose the primary Dennis will always be my candiate in my heart. In the words of Bob Marley's redemption song "minuites after they took I from the bottomless pit but my hand was made strong by the end of the almight weve followed in this generation triumphly wont you have to sing these songs of freedom" That song and other represent why I support Kucinich and in that same song Marley mentions not to fear atomic energy, Kucinich wants to get rid of these weapons. He talks about fear like FDR did. He has a combo of the great people of the past in him. He really makes me think, and he can make me laugh or think about something, he mentioned the human side of war at Imagine America, how the souls of the dead were watching over us as the path to war became. Maybe some dont like that but I do.

[JohnKleeb]

21. thanks umm

but Kucinich in the long run made the right move for Cleveland, on flip flopping, Ive seen my heart change on issues before too. However I do agree with one thing you said, and its knowing that you were once regarded as a joke too. Anyways, this movie explains what hes all about
http://www.kucinich.us/thisisthemoment.htm
Needless to say it inspired me. More people love and admire Dennis then you think. Remember your roots but UAL not alot of you have but exceptions are you and some others. That said while I do think Dean made a great stand on the civil union thing, I think Kucinich has made more stands, and seeing him with his constiuents was really cool.

[helleborient]

26. No problem with Kucinich

I'm one of those who wrestled with which to throw my support behind - Dean or Kucinich. My gut has taken me toward Dean so far, but if DK's campaign catches fire and something goes south with Dean, it's possible to be swayed.

I will be there fully supporting whomever the eventual nominee is.

[deutsey]

27. I like a lot of things about Kucinich

You won't hear me knocking him.

[DianeK]

39. i agree, but why stop at kucinich?

seems to me, i have seen much more bashing of kerry supporters...i think when we are discussing issues..go for it..that is what a democracy should be about...but to bash supporters of any candidate is useless...from what i have read here, dean supporters are top of the list to be bashed...next comes kerry supporters...

[JohnKleeb]

40. I thought Dean supporters were the majority here

I've seen good and bad done by all sides really. I do like Kerry and Dean but I definely like Kucinich.

[luigi8888]

74. I concur.

I really, really do.

[Logansquare]

79. Alienating fellow liberals seems incredibly stupid

But I've seen several hundred bridges burned by people here who, dare I say it, love their candidates a little *too* much. Folks, when that certain man or woman gets the nomination, a lot of us are going to be disappointed. But it's going to be very, very bad for this great country if some of us are so embittered by the hating that we can't bring ourselves to support the nominee. Go back to adoring your wives, husbands, boyfriends, girlfriends, cats, dogs, fish..whatever..and try to view these candidates with a cooler eye. </lecture>

[JohnKleeb]

80. you know heres something that I think those who do this should think about

I am not trying to flame you all but damnit I think this guy was on to something. BTW this guy happens to be Bertrand Russell and I love this quote and a special thanks to Ein for sharing it with me


"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"

Not all of you Dean supporters do this, but for those who act like Kucinich is nothing and that we are wrong for our support of a noble man, take a look at what Mr. Russell said, I find it to be truthful.