Is Kucinich Electable?

[goodhue]

Is Kucinich Electable? Can He Beat Bush?

http://www.kucinich.us/electable.htm

If any Democrat has a history of attracting swing voters and "Reagan Democrats" in winning elections against better-funded Republican opponents, it is Dennis Kucinich. He has repeatedly defeated entrenched incumbents. He beat a Republican incumbent for mayor in 1977, for state senator in 1994 (overcoming the national right-wing tide) and for
Congress in 1996.

His Congressional district includes the suburb of Parma, Ohio, described as "one of the original homes of the Reagan Democrats." An Ohio daily calls it a "conservative Democratic district," which he carried by 74% in 2002. Being a success there may be a better predictor of national success than holding statewide office in a liberal stronghold like Vermont or Massachusetts.

Kucinich is a winner because he builds Wellstone-like grassroots campaigns against bigger-spending opponents. He is a winner because of his blue collar roots and populism, reflected in his battles for heartland voters against unfair, corporate-friendly trade deals.

He is an unabashed progressive who wins because swing voters who don't agree with him on every issue still see him as a fighter for their interests, as someone who will put the interests of workers and middle-class consumers ahead of big-money interests. No Democrat is better positioned in 2004 to attract 'Reagan Democrats' and swing voters with a frontal attack on how Bush policies hurt them and favor the rich.

Republicans use "wedge" issues to pry away traditionally-Democratic white working class voters -- a tactic that has not succeeded against Kucinich. In '96, for example, Republicans used his support of gay rights as a wedge, and he stood firm and triumphed.

On the other side of the spectrum, no other candidate can attract disaffected voters, 3rd party voters and Ralph Nader supporters to the Democratic column like Kucinich. Across the country, Nader 2000 voters and Green Party sympathizers are joining his campaign, as are other 3rd party supporters.

It's been a long while since progressives and the Democratic base have been so motivated, and so angry -- over manipulation and deceit that began in the 2000 election and continued through the Iraq war (now finally catching up with the Bush team). No candidate can better tap into and mobilize the anger of the Democratic base than Kucinich, who has never wavered in his opposition, who has courageously led the way in exposing war manipulation, and who speaks with passion to the big issues that animate Democratic and progressive activists.

Kucinich has been a winner in a swing district in the swing state of Ohio. And Ohio has 20 electoral votes. It is the state that is key to national victory; only two candidates in the 20th century won the presidency without carrying Ohio.

Al Gore lost Ohio in 2000 despite the Herculean efforts of Kucinich, as vividly described by journalist James Ridgeway in an article written days before the election: "Kucinich is a shoo-in, but hauling Gore along will be a daunting task. Shuttling back and forth from Washington, Kucinich has put together an old-fashioned canvassing operation throughout Cleveland and its suburbs that is one of the largest such efforts in the nation. By election day, 400 to 500 people will be on the streets...

"Day after day, members of the laborers, electricians, plumbers, and steelworkers unions crowd into Kucinich's tiny office on Lorain Avenue, piling signs into the backs of cars and pickups before hitting the neighborhoods. The general approach is for volunteers to use Kucinich's name to get a foot in the door, then ask for support for a Democratic judge before uttering the vice president's name."

Kucinich's best efforts couldn't win Ohio for Gore in 2000, but Kucinich can win Ohio himself if he is the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate. And in presidential politics, as Bush-strategist Karl Rove knows well: As Ohio goes, so goes the nation.

[Maple]

1. No

Next question

[sabbat hunter]

135. history shows

us that a candidate for president coming straight out of the house of representatives isnt a viable candidate. only one person has ever been elected as a sitting representative.

although in the electronic age names and their policies get spread far quicker than in the past.
but still a person in the house of representatives has an immediate disadvantage. often he only has name recognition in his own home district.
gephart (spelt wrong i know) has a slight advantage over DK in the respect that he was the minority leader and was seen more over a nationwide basis as a result of that.
senators and govenors tend to have more name recognition.

although it SHOULD be solely about policy and where they stand on the issue, it is hard to get your ideas out there when people say WHO? when your name is mentioned.
people in the northeast know the name of kerry.

New Englanders know dean.
southeasterners know edwards and knew clinton and carter.

this of course isnt 100% true, but they do have greater name recognition to start out with.

so that is why i think DK is not electable. the name recognition isnt there and by the time it is, it is likely to be too late, because although the early primaries dont have a lot of delagates at stake, they do have an importance. do well early and the name recognition goes up as does the funding.

dont do well and the funding doesnt go up and you cant get your name out there.


peace
david
:hippie:

[dpbrown]

140. Gephardt: 10% Attendance Kucinich: 100% Attendance

Kucinich has won contested elections in a district the population of which is the size of Vermont. He's beaten Republican incumbents for three separate positions.

His fundraising is still going up, unlike several of the other aspiring nominees.

A President rarely if ever wins without carrying Ohio.

Massachussetts has more electoral votes than Vermont, and so the argument that Dean's "well-known" in the NE actually works better for Kerry (and Lieberman is also from the NE).

In the only large-scale vote of likely Democratic voters, at MoveOn.org, Kucinich came in second with a quarter of the total vote. Other local or national polls were taken of far fewer people than voted at the MoveOn.org primary.

Kucinich's name recognition is climbing. Don't forget, Dr. Dean's been on the cover of national magazines. That's helped his name recognition a lot. Kucinich gets known through word-of-mouth, and for the most part, it's all good.

Funding is still going up, and Kucinich nearly doubles his $1.5 million this quarter and $1.5 million last quarter by adhering to matching public funds - so that puts him at close to $6 million - and that's not chump change.

Once the nominee is chosen, other funds will flow from Democrats eager to unseat Bush, so the moneys raised now are only going to the nomination process.

Kucinich is doing well.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Brucey]

2. Yes, he has credentials that should beat chimp, but

he does not have a charasmatic image according to many, so that would make it more difficult.

[Mass_Liberal]

3. I like kucinich a lot

and a world with him in a position of power would be great. But (this is not an attack) I don't think he is electable. He doesn't have much of a state-by-state strategy which shows something of a lack of confidence.

[bahrbearian]

4. I sure hope so

He was the first to stand up to this nonsense....

[MuseRider]

5. YES!

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. He's neither a criminal nor a scumbag and doesn't support Sharon 100%

Therefore he is neither qualified nor suitable for any role whatsoever in American politics.

[NewJerseyDem]

7. No

He is way too liberal. Nobody calling for a reduction in defense spending would win anything.

[Imajika]

8. Not a chance

"Kucinich's best efforts couldn't win Ohio for Gore in 2000, but Kucinich can win Ohio himself if he is the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate."

Oh please. Kucinich could not win Ohio. The only place Kucinich would win would be DC. He'd most likely lose nearly every other state (if not all of them). We are talking about America here.

Imajika

[Kolesar]

9. Is Bush electable? The last election showed he was not

He reached a level of electability in Texas and that is as far as he ever should have tried.

[AnAmerican]

10. In response to all the naysayers in this thread.

If you do not think DK is electable, you are wrong.

His campaign is swelling under the radar of the media. The support is there, the grassroots are there.

Go ahead, make your pronouncements that he is not able to win....those same pronouncements will come back to bite you.

The first primaries are still 3 1/2 months off. Nobody can be counted out at this stage.

Keep watching folks, this race is just now kicking into high gear. It is a marathon, not a sprint.

[piece sine]

13. no

but his message resonates with some voters and while there are still 8 or 9 other candidates also slicing the pie, he should be heard. Dennis, Al, Carol and Bob could all step-aside, and we'd still be divided as a party between Howard and John and Joseph and Dick. And then there's Wesley.

I'm growing less certain the early primaries are going to clarify the emulsion. There are ten Dennises in this race, and only Dean has a pulse.

[AnAmerican]

14. Yes...Currently Dean has the...

mojo, the edge, the "pulse", as you say. Will this be the case in October? November? December? January 2004 and beyond? Time will tell.

I will say though that fortunes can change on a dime.

[LWolf]

11. Absolutely.

Evidence? He's been elected. Many times. The rest is opinion, speculation, or wishful thinking. And DUers sure loves to weigh in with grand proclamations about electability, as if they were already facts in the book. Is he electable in the current election? Time will tell. We're all wishing our own candidate will be elected and the others won't...that means 8 out of the 9, or 9 out of the 10, aren't "electable" in this round, since only one of them will be elected.

[Prodemsouth]

12. No. has some bizarre notions, and I am not talking about his politics

n/t

[diamondsoul]

24. What "bizarre notions"?

I have a mission to take the bizarre part off that description, not just for Kucinich but because I've espoused many of the same things for decades. What's interesting is that since Kucinich has come out with them in this campaign, some of those closest to me are seeing the sense in them. Particularly when you stack them up alongside Bush's ideas.

[HPLeft]

15. Not in my opinion, at least in 2004

I think Kucinich may be ahead of his time. He has some very interesting ideas, but I personally wouldn't trust him with the car keys in 2004, not with the world having gone completely insane.

[AnAmerican]

19. The world having gone insane.....

is precisely why a man like DK is electable. People are freaked out at the arrogance and the imperialism of the BFEE. People are freaked out that "oh my god...you mean other cultures actually don't like us???". They are freaked out that the economy is taking a major crap.

They are also ready for a new direction, a direction which has very good chance at restoring our standing in the world, a direction that will make concrete steps towards defusing the hatred other cultures feel for us, a direction that will bring the American economy back to health.

They are growing tired of the same old same old. They are growing tired of putting a band aid on a gaping wound.

They are beginning to see that a major shift IS needed. Not just some minor adjustments.

As I said in antoher post in this thread, the nomination is a marathon, not a sprint, and Dennis has the stamina to last the distance. Things are happening in the campaign...good things. The media will not notice until they are forced to. They are strong advocates of keeping the status quo.

The American people are finding out who Dennis Kucinich is, what he stands for. His campaign is on the verge of surprising all the pundits. Stick around...it is just about to get really interesting.

[Mairead]

16. He's completely 'electable' -- he was born in the US, is over 35, and not

barred from public office. Those are the only requirements.

Now: will we elect him? Only if enough of us are smart. Me, I'm in favor of our being smart...but there are a lot of people around who are counting on us being stupid. Many of them are at DU, spreading FUD. We can see more than one in this thread alone. It's pretty sick.

[renie408]

20. Okay, that's it

I am sick of never understanding half the slang on this place.

What is 'FUD'? And what is a 'freeper'? Somebody keeps using that word and I don't know what it is supposed to be, but I didn't want to ask because I kept thinking I would figure it out and I didn't want to look like a potatohead. But I give, I can't figure it out.

[Mairead]

26. sorry, renie :-)

'FUD' is Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. It was IBM's prime method of holding onto their customers during the '70s and early '80s. If a customer seemed to be interested in some other company's products, the IBM sales guy would would make such points as 'nobody ever got sacked for buying IBM', 'what will happen to you if they can't deliver on time', and suchlike. I.e., no substance, just promoting fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

'Freeper' means a denizen of the FreeRepublic.com site. In general, they're the far-right equivalents of the more lunatic DUers.

[renie408]

17. Over all, No.

I have qualms about Kucinich's electability. I think Edwards has the most over all appeal with the only drawback being his 'inexperience', which becomes a non-issue against Bush, especially if (don't freak out Kerry people) if he could get somebody like Kerry on the ticket with him. Then Kerry, who is a proven statesman who understands beltway politics and who I really do have to say would probably be our strongest foreign policy choice. After that Dean, just because he can get people cranked up. Then everybody else. I think there is a difference between nominatable and general electable. Gephardt might pull off the nomination, he will get killed in the general election. He is a stuffed shirt that looks like he hasn't seen sunshine in this decade and I think Republicans would love to hate him. I don't see Lieberman as a factor, but that might be because I think he is the devil and I am in denial about any chances he might have.

Kucinich is a bit of an odd man out to me. It is weird, because I truly like him when I hear him, but some of the things he says give me pause. I think he would have a hard time in the current atmosphere getting elected because he is going to be percieved as being too much of a pacifist. Whether that is an accurate perception, I am not offering an opinion. Also, I think every single time he has said something about troop reduction will get blown into 'he wants to abandon Iraq'.

I think you have to really look at where a candidate can get 'got' and try to figure out if they have good defendability in that area. I also truly believe that we have to have a candidate that satisfies the MAJORITY of Democrats...without pulling the Repukes out of the woodwork to vote. I think Kucinich would get painted as a weak pacifist who wants to turn us all into bisexuals AND HE ISN'T EVEN MARRIED!!! And people like my mother, who is wavering right now because she thinks Bush is an idiot, would end up voting GOP again. I also don't see Kucinich holding much appeal for southerners.

[Old and In the Way]

21. Not married?

How come? Why haven't I read about this in People magazine?



I like Dennis and I will happily support him if he wins the nomination....but I don't think he has the horsepower to get it done.

That said, he'd make one hell of a Speaker of the House.

[diamondsoul]

25. Kucinich has been married twice in the past.

Both marriages failed and I suspect it caused him to decide he's not suitable for that particular partnership. Instead he has a long-time lady friend whom he refers to as "my best friend". I love that, buck traditions and still have the relationship everyone on the planet seeks. The other possible explanation for the decision not to marry is that the lady is Jewish and Kucinich is Catholic. To marry, according to their respective faiths, one of them would have to convert. He also has a daughter from one of the previous marriages who has just entered college.(Which I suspect has had some impact on his PL-PC change of position.)

The "horse power" huh? I like that! Unfortunately I disagree, I think he has plenty of horse power by way of his organized volunteers. People don't seem to realize Kucinich's is no ordinary campaign. It isn't what anyone is accustomed to, with television coverage all over the place, soundbytes galore, photo-ops taken advantage of and lot of hem-hawing about HOW to fix what is broken in the country.

Kucinich and his campaign and volunteers are having to fight the system- Gee nothing new there, though. Kucinich has been doing that from day 1! We're doing it, only we're not after the middle-of-the roaders because we already know where they are going. I keep trying to explain, polls are not going to give you any sort of accurate count of Kucinich's support, and that's just a fact. I have yet to meet a single one of us who have been polled to date. In my own measly little Republican dominated state, we started, STARTED, with 300 volunteers. The number is growing every week. This is a state no candidate except Bush has bothered to vist because we're not a vital primary voice. (Bush only came to collect his dough from the sheep who follow him)

If we can start with that many, here in traditional Republican territory and gather strength on a weekly basis, I have no doubt it's happening all over the country.

[rucky]

32. I used to think this...

"Kucinich is a bit of an odd man out to me. It is weird, because I truly like him when I hear him, but some of the things he says give me pause. I think he would have a hard time in the current atmosphere getting elected because he is going to be percieved as being too much of a pacifist. Whether that is an accurate perception, I am not offering an opinion. Also, I think every single time he has said something about troop reduction will get blown into 'he wants to abandon Iraq'."

Now I think this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=43414&mesg_id=43414

Try it. Feels good.

[LWolf]

33. That is an awesome post, Rucky.

It does feel good, doesn't it?

:grouphug:

[Tinoire]

18. Absolutely!

There's not a candidate out there who speaks more to the issues or has done worked as tirelessly for the American people with a track record to prove it.

Kucinich speaks to issues that affect and concern all Americans. He is definitely electable! His main problem is the corporate machinery supporting both the Democrats and the Republicans- they have no desire to see such a populist in power and will do everything they can to marginalize him.

Corporate America- always on the Republican or Centrist band-wagon. Too bad so many people here are willing to follow suite bit it doesn't really matter what internet yuppies like most of us think or want. Kucinich is going straight to the people like he did in Ohio and I think the people are tired enough of double-talk and lies to recognize the real deal when they see it.

Kucinich activists have a special advantage found only in one other camp and that's the one I'm banking on to carry him through.

[FluxRostrum]

22. yeah

http://www.fluxrostrum.com/MindFlux/DennisKucinich/electable-candidates.htm

http://www.mamoveon.com/danielpwelch/0306ftt.htm

[Tinoire]

48. Wow! This confirms the other 3 polls I've been tracking.

Awesome. Thank you... Internet yuppies is what we are, I think... and a little out of touch... Great news~!

[corgigrrl]

23. No, and it's not just about being too progressive

I think DK is too far-left to gain the nomination of his own party, let alone the election.

Aside from that, as a member of his own party, i would have serious questions about his donations to religious organizations and his past record on reproductive rights.

[goodhue]

27. media hype

http://www.fluxrostrum.com/MindFlux/DennisKucinich/electable-candidates.htm

This tactic of telling U.S. who is electable and who isn't electable is straight up propaganda in hopes of narrowing the selection in the minds of voters by weeding out candidates that our corporate sponsors deem unacceptable. In other words, if a candidate has the intention of putting people over profit... they are unelectable. If candidates have the intention of really doing something about corporate fraud.. they are unelectable. If candidates will not need to spend 50 million dollars brainwashing the masses with endles lies in the form of commercial advertising... they are unelectable.

[Egnever]

28. NO

a vegan has no chance in the curent political climate.

[Mairead]

31. Another content-free bash

[Egnever]

83. Not a bash

and it had content

[Mairead]

103. Sorry that you're unable to own up

[Egnever]

108. if thats how you read it

Be my guest

[diamondsoul]

37. Um, Eg? I love ya dearly but

what the hell do his dietary choices have to do with his chances of being elected?!

If anything being vegan should be a testament to his ability and willingness to live up to his own principles. The man gave up some of his favorite foods because he believed it was the right thing to do. How many people can say they have that kind of personal strength or will-power? I sure as hell can't.

People who know something about the way our food animals are treated will admire him for having gone vegan, even if we don't do it ourselves. For myself, I see it as a personal failing on my part. I know what happens to the animals we eat, and I don't like it a bit. Some of it is so horrific most people can't even talk about it, much less think about it. That should tell you something. Do you know that egg hens typically have part of their freaking beaks cut off?! I mean WTF, people?!

Do you know what is done to produce veal? Do you know how cruelly these animals are slaughtered? Do you realize that it's difficult to find good people working in a slaughterhouse anymore because most of us just can't stomach the cruelty involved?

Being vegan today is an asset, not a detriment.

[Egnever]

85. Back at ya

I know what your saying. I really just didnt want to get into the whole subject that is denis. I like the guy really I do, but he comes across as a fringe lunatic in a lot of ways. The vegan thing was just a short answer to try to point out that the far left has no shot in 2004 and denis is the far left. I love a lot of the things Denis stands for but i also see the lunatic fringe in him. Being a vegan is by no means a bad thing but society as a whole here in america sees it as odd and its just one thing they will see as odd in denis. Mind control legislation is another and there are more.

I really dont want to bash kucinich I think he is definately a man of strong principle. I just dont think america is ready for a few of those principals and it would prevent him from beating shrub. Something that can not be tolerated.

[diamondsoul]

92. Ok stepping away from Kucinich himself,

that's something that just blows me away, this "lunatic fringe" thing. Most of the stuff that seems to be viewed that way by people is taken totally outside the context it's presented in, know what I mean?

It's a lot like people saying Clark had something to do with how the Waco incident shook out when he was never there to have anything to do with it.

Or here's an example from my own past- Once, and only ONCE in my life, I used the foul word "n*gger" towards a classmate. Taken out of context and without knowing me, and my mindset in that moment, anyone would conclude I'm a disgusting racist. I am not, by any stretch, and only used that word to respond to a racial slur hurled at me by the same classmate. It was an effort to point out that no matter ones race, a racial epithet is wrong, without exception. Observers of the incident understood (including the African-American teacher), and I was verbally admonished for giving in to the urge to reciprocate, but that was all.

Anything can be pulled totally out of context and used to discredit the person behind it. That doesn't mean the discrediting is accurate, does it? Am I a racist because I showed an obnoxious classmate that racial slurs are harmful no matter the color of ones skin? No, but it certainly could be presented that way.

*FTR, for anyone wondering, he called me a "honky b*tch", I wheeled around and called him an "ignorant n*gger" then said "Do you like being put down because of your skin color? I sure don't, and I would never do that to someone with the intent of hurting them!". After that I walked away and sat down to the applause of my classmates, of varying races, and the shocked but impressed gaze of my teacher. This guy was notorious, mind everyone, for treating people badly because of race. I just took a rather hardline position in showing him how and why it was wrong. The word that I used is banned from use in my home and anyone using it gets escorted straight to my front door. I've never used it before or since that time, and I'm incredibly ashamed that I EVER spoke it. The only good thing that came of it was that I got the message across, and he never treated people badly based on race after that.

[Egnever]

100. I understand what you are saying

And i agree with it to a large extent. Problem as I see it is perception is everything and too many get that perception right or wrong about Denis.

It may be posssible for him to change that impression theres still a ways to go. So far however he hasnt been able to do it.

[genius]

29. Absolutely. He's the most electable candidate.

Half of the Republicans in his district feel he is centrist enough to vote for him. In a fifty-fifty district, he regularly wins re-election by 74%.

[rucky]

30. What Can * Beat Him On?

Defense? I guess, if you think the best defense is a good offense - and even that's not so good w/ boosh. Diplomacy is at the crux of national defense.

free trade? one word: hegemony okay, another word: jobs

looks and charm? anything insincere about DK? how about chimpy?

economy? it's all about jobs.

healthcare? no contest

Israel/Palestine? the ONLY consistent view - and inline with the rest of the world.

[Wetzelbill]

34. Put DK straight up against Bush in a debate

that the whole world would see and one hour afterwards everybody on earth would be wondering what Shrub has planned for the rest of his life in exile.

[cyclezealot]

43. Against DK, Shrub would not have a chance!

And one of my favorite columnists Studds Terkel agrees. The rest is media hype. Studds rules! The rest of those who are apologists, who call themselves Democratic presidential candidates; I sincerely doubt they can win..

[Kenneth ken]

35. YES

If we vote the candidate we truly believe has the best interests of the nation as a whole as the basis for their candidacy, then Kucinich is far and away the most electable.

If we give in to fear, doubt, apathy, then no, he isn't.

[ButterflyBlood]

39. we may do it

but you're fooling yourself if you think the majority of Americans do.

Come on, Department of Peace? That's just fodder for late night comics.

[diamondsoul]

42. What's this "we" stuff?

If you support Kucinich, you've got a funny way of showing it.

The "majority of Americans" don't vote at all, and attitudes like yours are the reason for that. No hope, no point, why bother. If you support the man then damned well support him vigorously otherwise you're wasting your time and his.

[ButterflyBlood]

46. by we i meant DUers

and no I don't support Kucinich. He should stay in the House and do the good job he's doing there instead of chasing this pipe dream.

[Desertrose]

36. absolutely YES!

I must agree....that Kucinich has a better chance than most give him credit for.

I remember thinking after Gore lost...that the next person to win ( assuming things are not already fixed) would be someone to win by a totally new way...figuring Gore would be the Dem who ran again, the internet seemed most likely.

I think Dean proved that it is an exceptional tool....and the DK campaign campaign is also using it most efficiently as well....but I see now that Dk takes it way beyond and this is the most important part...he brings it to the people...yes, the internet is our means of contact and passing information,for the campaign to communicate, but it is the man himself, Dennis Kucinich, who's ideas and vision have touched and continues to touch so many just "everyday folk" as well as "personalities and celebrities"...that is the crucial difference IMHO.

Dennis Kucinich has been consistent in holding a vision for a better America...he is a candidate worth fighting and working for because he is doing that for us! Peace has a place in the hearts of all...we have forgotten or never knew what it feels like - its time we remember. DK reminds us peace is possible.

I am just a small cog in the campaign but it is exciting to know that maybe my small effort could make a difference....

The time is now to vote your highest dreams and hopes....what do we have to lose by hoping for the best??...and what could we gain

Peace will prevail....
DR

[ButterflyBlood]

38. No

there are actually people here who think someone calling for a Department of Peace will be taken seriously?

[rucky]

40. Peace: What a horrible idea

:sarcasm off:

Ya know. Before the US actually attacked, it may have been cool to trash the peaceniks. But ya got to admit, given the state of the world, that those "looney activists" out there may have a point. We had the chance after 9/11 to garner the world support and use our leadership to make an unprecedented positive impact on the world. We all know what happened instead.

What other candidate has pledged a concentrated effort to prevent further war? That's #1 on my list - not more troops/less troops/UN/NATO. That may help minimize the damage done in Iraq, but it doesn't really lay out a plan on how the candidates will approach foreign policy to prevent future wars. Other candidates have felt the need to show that they would not hesitate to go to war if necessary. Is willingness to go to war a good thing? Haven't we learned anything? As we know, "necessary" is pretty damn subjective, and nobody really says where they draw the line, or what they'd do to avoid getting to "necessary." That's what the Department of Peace is all about - and if there's ever been a need for it, it's now.

[ButterflyBlood]

45. horrible idea, no

but the average person thinks having a department for it is riduculous. not neccesarily the way it should be, just the way it is.

[LWolf]

55. I wonder if the average person has read the plan.

It's not "just" a department to promote peaceful international relations. Although how a focus on negotiation and building of partnerships and relationships could be worse than demanding, threatening, and smart-bombing countries to get our way escapes me.

The focus, both domestically and abroad, is on learning how to negotiate, cooperate, and solve problems and disagreements in a respectful way. The domestic piece addresses domestic violence and the tendency toward violence in our culture. It promotes the teaching of peaceful conflict resolution from childhood on.

The idea here is to put our focus and energy on what we value. If we value being bullies, then the dept of war and the bush strategy for domestic and global conflict resolution is what we should stick with. If we want something different, we put our vote, our money, and our mouth there.

[ButterflyBlood]

64. no they haven't

and they won't either.

if having good ideas was what won elections, Bush wouldn't be able to get more than 30% of the vote, and the Republicans would have around that percentage of seats in Congress.

[diamondsoul]

41. Yes, there are. Especially if people are educated about it.

People who have read the bill, comprehend the full scope and purpose and are sick of wars being waged for no apparent reason think it's a very serious idea.

Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?

[ButterflyBlood]

44. how many people who vote are going to read the whole bill?

not even 1%

[diamondsoul]

50. That would be why I and several others

are currently busting our backsides to write up a decent laymans explanation. They won't have to read the whole bill, just our smaller and less complicated description.

Also, I think a better queston would be how many people who hear of him are going to vote for him, despite not having cast a ballot in years?

[ButterflyBlood]

51. It appears the Kucinich supporters appear to think...

that the 50% of Americans who don't vote are ultra-left wing idealogues who are just waiting to vote if a more liberal candidate comes along. The fact is, they are mostly people who just don't care. Someone like Dean with his firey rhetoric MIGHT be able to bring them in. Kucinich calmly describing the Department of Peace won't.

Can you imagine the Rove campaign against Kucinich? First there's the whole 9/11 thing, no way a dove will get elected now, second the fact that he bankrupted Cleveland isn't going to help him much either.

[MrPeepers]

52. Amen to that

[Mairead]

53. Perhaps you should stick to facts?

I know you're not simply ignorant, because the 'bankrupted Cleveland' lie has been exposed as a lie over and over and over and over again, here and elsewhere. But you're still trying to get some mileage out of it. What does that say about you?

Let me expose it one more time:

• Dennis was elected on a promise to save Muny Light.


• The city was already in debt when Dennis took office.


• The city's debt had been incurred either by mismanagement or by the need to bail out Muny Light -- or perhaps both, it's a little unclear. What's not unclear is that Dennis had nothing to do with it: he inherited it.


• Muny Light needed to be bailed --according to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission investigation-- in part because its for-profit competitor had been sabotaging it for years.


• All banks save one agreed to roll over the city's debt. That one, in bed with the for-profit power company, demanded that Dennis sell Muny Light as a condition of the rollover


• Dennis said No. He refused to sell. That bank refused to roll the note, and the city was in default (i.e., it was tagged with not making a payment on time)


• The 'business community' united in painting Dennis as the goat. He lost the next election, was blacklisted, had a hell of a time finding work, and almost lost his house


• Over the years, his not selling saved Clevelanders a documented $200M in reduced electric bills. Goddess only knows what the delta would have been had the monopolists succeeded. Looking at California might provide a hint, though.


• The penny finally dropped for enough people that Dennis won a state senate seat (one of only 3 seats nationally that was taken away from a sitting Republican that year) and he then went on to take his current seat in Congress, also from a sitting Republican.

All this is freely available from third-party sources on the web.

[ButterflyBlood]

62. There's a difference between the truth

and what the media's going to say, and what the people will believe.

[Mairead]

66. Then why shouldn't we all just throw up our hands and drink the kool-aid?

Because it's sure as eggs is eggs that no candidate is going to escape.

Claiming we shouldn't support someone because liars are going to lie isn't persuasive to me.

[ButterflyBlood]

80. they'll lie about all the candidates sure

but Kucinich is the one weakest to the lies (except maybe Sharpton but it doesn't matter because Bush wouldn't have to run a single ad to beat him). They can say "*Democrat* is a dove and soft on terrorism." That should be pretty easy for any of the others to beat except Kucinich. Because he really is a dove. A dove is not getting elected after 9/11. They'll say he bankrupted Cleveland and was the leader of a socialist caucus in Congress. Neither is true, but the explanation is simply too long and complicated to get through. The ads against Kucinich would be Dukakis in a tank to the extreme. Those ads basically made him look weak in the military, in which case Kucinich really is. I don't give a shit, I hate the military, but I know anyone running on a campaing to gut and underfund the military to the levels I want it would never win.

The fact is, the economy is the strongest issue we have against *, so someone with a good economic record (like Dean) is who's needed. Kucinich's executive experience, whether he deserves the record or not, will not help.

[hippywife]

82. Response ad...

"The pentagon used to buy $500 toilet seats. Now they are unable to account for $1.2 trillion (with a "T") of your money. Wouldn't you rather have that for your child's education?"

[no name no slogan]

87. That's what they said about Wellstone in '90-- I WAS THERE

It's this same defeatist attitude that "no wacko liberal can win" that Wellstone faced-- and OVERCAME-- in 1990. I know, because I was there. He energized non-voters as well as Democracts. Hell, even Repubs voted for him because he was a lot more trustworthy than his politician-opponent.

Voters want honesty-- they'll more often vote for an honest politician they disagree with than a dishonest one they agree with.

THAT, my friends, is how we win elections again.

[diamondsoul]

60. Huh. How much talking to non-voters have YOU personally done?

I've done a lot, and I can safely tell you the vast majority (of well over 500 to date) ARE indeed looking for a candidate like Kucinich who speaks for and embodies the best the USA has to offer without deception, hedging or any other nonsense.

In case you missed it, people don't just stop caring about their rights. There is ALWAYS a reason for them to become apathetic.

[ButterflyBlood]

63. I'm a college student. most of the people i know are non-voters

they wish Arnold lived in Minnesota so they could vote for him. They don't even know about his politics.

[diamondsoul]

73. Keerist, then maybe somebody should be

asking some serious questions aboutyour "college". Or better yet, maybe YOU should rethink your "education".

[ButterflyBlood]

81. you think this college is different?

it's basically a medium-tier college, so the kids in it were good enough to get into a decent one, but not good enough to get into a good one, and is mostly a party town.

Actually I know a lot of them will be voting in 2004 just because all the bands playing and professors are telling them to vote against Bush, but it doesn't matter who the nominee is in that case.

[diamondsoul]

93. First, let me apologize to you.

I took a very nasty attitude in that post, and I had no right to act like that.

I'm a mother, and the idea that young people aren't being taught the importance of voting, elections and democracy is pretty upsetting to me. It angers me, and that's my sole excuse for my nastiness.

Getting back to the point, it's my position that this sort of apathy is exactly why you and everyone should support Kucinich. He wants to change that attitude in everyone. He wants to give people a reason to care. So my question to you is, are you convinced that there isn't anything that WOULD give these students a reason to care about voting?

[ButterflyBlood]

96. like I said

a lot of the touring bands I've seen play have told everyone to vote against Bush, and so are the professors.

I think Dean would be better at bringing out the vote than Kucinich. Kucinich is too intellectual and getting people to listen to him can be tough. Dean's already got the young people listening to him. Dean is the candidate who would do best with the youth vote, for obvious reasons Lieberman is the worst.

[LWolf]

78. I know what you're talking about.

I have 2 sons in their 20s. They won't vote for Arnold; they're smarter than that. One won't vote at all, for anybody. He thinks I'm sadly delusional for thinking that a vote can affect the world in any way. But he loves me anyway.

The other is considering Kucinich. As an expression of outrage over business as usual.

[no name no slogan]

88. Let me tell you a story...

..about when I was back in college in SW Minnesota, just like you are now (peaked at your profile-- I'm not a stalker freak). I went to a small liberal arts college about 10 miles north of Mankato in the late '80s/early '90s (you can probably figure out what one I'm talking about ;)). We're talking the tail end of the Reagan/Bush era, the height of yuppie excess.

I was active in the campus peace movement and the Young Dems. And let me tell you, there is no more apathetic campus on earth than that bastion of blahblah conservatism on the hill in St. Peter.

But you know what? We organized the hell out of that place!!!! For the 1988 presidential caucuses, we had OVER 400 PEOPLE in attendance in my precinct-- a precinct which previous to 1988 would be lucky if a dozen turned out!

Needless to say, it was a banner year for us. Not one, but TWO of our people went all the way to the Democratic National Convention that year. IIRC, it was also the first time that this had ever happened.

I know your campus is bigger and you have more non-trad students than we did, but it IS possible to organize them effectively. However, it won't be easy. It will take some work, but it can be done.

A side note-- back in 1988, DFL Sen. John Hottinger's district still covered parts of Mankato. He was also a longshot, facing an opponent with more money and history (his opponent was the guy that "The Happy Chef" character was based on, and he was a founder of the chain). But Hottinger won-- in large part due to student volunteers! And he's still in the state leg, so you CAN MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE!

[goodhue]

175. great story!

The postscript is that State Senator John Hottinger is now the majority leader of the Minnesota Senate and has endorsed Kucinich for president.

http://www.minnesotaforkucinich.com/

State Sen. Majority Leader John Hottinger

"Rep. Kucinich is the only candidate who has been a constant critic of the Bush Administration's overreaching in Iraq...an administration which has an aggressive foreign policy based on a bellicose and belligerent attitude which leads to a path of permanent warfare. Dennis Kucinich will have an aggressive policy of seeking peace highlighted by his Department of Peace."

[LWolf]

89. The DOP will bring in some;

his stand on environmental issues, especially his fight against GMO/Monsanto corporate monopolies, will bring in some.

His unwavering support of labor will bring in many.

His universal health care plan will bring in many, many more. This seems to be a huge issue to everyone around me, repukes included. Too many people don't have coverage, or their coverage doesn't cover what they need, or the assigned doctor their plan allows them to go to won't treat what they have.

His true support for public ed, K-college, with actual support to do the job rather than threats, mandates, and bluster, will draw the teachers.

His actual record on peace issues, as much as his DOP, will bring in the many, many organizations working for peace.

When he's "firey," he's criticized. Now you're criticizing him for being calm. :eyes:

I don't buy throwing 9/11 in as an excuse for why he wouldn't be elected, any more than I think it ought to be used as a tool for * to keep voters scared and compliant. I think right now, it's looking pretty obvious that consensus building with the UN and cooperation with the national community to resolve problems with Iraq may have been a better move than going in with guns blazing. We don't have Osama. We don't have Saddam. We have a quagmire that our illustrious leader's inability to be a team player negotiated for us. I don't think Dennis would have squandered world wide support the way * has in the wake of 9/11.

The bankruptcy of Cleveland is a selling point; he didn't bankrupt Cleveland. The people he pissed off did, to punish him for not privatizing utilities. And he didn't cave to prevent it. With the current debacle in CA, he comes out of that one a hero.

[FluxRostrum]

129. 911 was an inside job

we need a better inside

[many a good man]

47. Maybe, But Maybe Isn't Good Enough This Time

DK has shown really strong appeal to farmers and other typically conservative working class voters. His populist credentials are impeccable. He really might have a chance...but there's an even greater chance he'd get destroyed by the machine (e.g., new age vegan peacenik).

DK's voice is the torch lighting up the darkness on what's been happening in this country and he points to a better way. 4 more years of Bush and you can bet more people are finally going to start picking up their pitchforks and follow.

I've long since given up trying to figure out the American electorate: what with wedge issues, media control, a staggering debt and Republican control of both houses. Can we really afford to gamble?

[sujan]

49. yes

[dusty64]

54. I REALLY like him.

He is closest to my views and I admire his outspokeness and guts. That said, I am afraid he isn't electable on a national basis. Possibly he could run for Governor (latest polls I saw show taft getting unpopular.) or maybe Senate, although I like him in the House. This is unfortunate but true, a Kucinich presidency would kick ass!

[Mairead]

56. If you like him, what makes you sure other people wouldn't?

Presumably you think you and the world would benefit from his policies. Why do you think other people wouldn't see and want the same benefits?

There are posters at DU who don't like Dennis's policies, but that's because they're crypto-Republicans. (And I think most of us know who they are by now, and can discount their inevitable nay-saying.)

[dusty64]

58. I'm sure many would, but

he IS a bit liberal for many. Figure if 37% of voters are rethugs and 43% are a Democratic base (I'm estimating) then the battle over the remaining 20 is the key. Knowing that the rightwing media will be spinning 24/7 against whomever is the Democratic nominee, I think his record as mayor of a bankrupt city would provide them with devastating fodder. Of course Dennis IS correct on most of the issues, his positions that benefit the worker could be the winning formula as Americans wake up to the fact they have been totally screwed by pro-corporate policies over the last 23 years. Who knows, he could win the nomination (I've learned to NEVER say never, who would have guessed a chimp would be appointed to the Presidency by only 5 people.).

[Mairead]

61. I see two problems with your analysis

One is the 'mayor of a bankrupt city' one. Not only is that one easily disproven, but the disproof is actually occasion for pointing out that

• he will do what he promises, even at enormous cost to himself.
• his foresight and courage saved Clevelanders hundreds of millions of dollars so far

The second thing is your numbers. They represent only the 50% of potential voters who currently vote. The rest sit home because--as all those I've ever tried to engage have said--there's nothing in it for them; the choices are Tweedledee and Tweedledum. We can say that isn't true, but it's true enough for them. Yet as Alinsky demonstrated with Chicago's Back Of The Yards neighborhood, even the most beaten-down, apathetic populace will rise up if they can be convinced that they make a difference. Voting for Dennis would make a difference.

[cyclezealot]

57. Department of Peace.

Somwhere on these posts someone was attacking the Department of Peace as an example of a crazy idea the right wingers will attack as such.
This is way too cynical.. After Iraq, you do not feel there should be some last ditch effort to add the imput of diplomats and peacekeepers to have a chance to have their say. Bush's Iraq clearly demonstrates why a Depratment of Peace is vitally needed. For some level headed diplomat to have to have a chance to add his/her veto is quite sane..
Also, Kucinich's Depratment of Peace would apply to domestic conflicts. Example.. New Zealand requires conflict resolution be applied between environmentalits/developers when construction projects are advocated at all levels of government/business. Surprise it has worked in New Zealand.. You lock up the Business Council and the Sierra Club in a room and say no project is completed until you two agree,it is possible to find common ground..
I guess, it does not have to be a whole new Department, but the idea need be applied to all levels of government/business/labor/advocacy groups at all levels of interactions whether federal, state, or local..
Consider the state of disunion and uncivility that rules now- the United States is in desperate need of such reforms.. Kucinich says he wants to be a healer. I say god speed and considering how spirtual he is in his inner self, I say he can do it; and he could turn out to be the one who can save us from ourselves.
and a ps- Sen.John Harkin recently added to Kucinich's request for a Department of Peace, that this idea was originally made by George Washington..In fact adjacent Mt. Vernon is a Peace Academy.. Recall, Washington asked we be leary of foreign entanglements.
and another pss- I am sure his conflict resolution measures is a great part of the Dalai Lama's recent decision to meet up with Kucinich in New York on Sept. 23. Go Dennis go.

[diamondsoul]

59. Two things-

It's TOM Harkin, not "John Harkin". Also it DOES HAVE to be a whole new department. There is NO feasable way to spread all the purposes of the proposed DoP through existing overwhelmed and underfunded agencies.

[lams712]

65. ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

But there are way too many "pundits" and moderates out there who claim that only middle-of-the-roaders are electable.

[Padraig18]

67. Kucinich can win when...

...purple monkeys fly out of my butt. He's a likeable guy and I frankly respect him, but to most of the American people he's Jerry Brown all over again.

The sooner he drops out, the better it will be for a candidate who actually has a chance at beating the Emperor of Crawford in November '04.

[diamondsoul]

68. No, you really don't respect him at all.

Which is why I keep wondering why I replied at all, except that I had to say there is a huge difference between what you did and "respecting" anyone. You not only don't respect him you spit in the face of everyone who supports him.

[Padraig18]

69. Did you get a crystal ball....

... with your psychiatric degree? You have NO idea what's in my head---NONE!

[Mairead]

71. Well, from the emptiness of what you said, I reckon Di has the fine idea

about what's in your head.

[diamondsoul]

74. You're right, I don't "know" what's "in your head"

I do know it isn't repect for my candidate or for me. THAT was evidenced by your words. You don't like the reaction? Don't write the BS to begin with.

[Padraig18]

75. I respect Kucinich, but...

... you are a different matter.

[diamondsoul]

76. Given that this is the very first time I've encountered your name

for all the time I've been on DU, I'd have to say that says something.

BTW, respect is EARNED on BOTH sides. Kucinich has earned it, you have not.

[Padraig18]

77. Born on this board , were you?

If not, YOU had a 1st time just like everyone else! Your paranoia is showing.

Member since Jul 22nd 2003
Number of posts 6
AOL-IM Padraigh18
Avatar Image
Gender male
City Arcola
State IL
Country USA
Hobby Reading

[diamondsoul]

94. VOOOM! There went the point, right over your head.

It has nothing to do with the amount of time either of us have been on this board. The fact is you haven't had enough exposure to me, personally, to respect or not respect me. THAT was the point.

See now I'm a bit kinder than you appear to be. I give enough respect to fit with common decency. You come in, blast my candidate for no apparent reason and then tell me it's personal. You have a VERY odd manner of showing "respect".

[Padraig18]

98. If a realistic assessment...

... of Kucinich's odds of gaining the nomnation OR beating Bush in 2004 is 'blasting your candidate' or 'disrespecting you', you probably need a skin transplant, since the one you have on now is *obviously* paper-thin...

[Tinoire]

111. Well... I've read your other posts

and you're not doing a very good job of showing people that there's much there. Maybe you should try again :shrug:

[Mairead]

70. Another pointless, empty bash

Away you go, then...your mum's calling you. Don't hurry back.

[Padraig18]

72. A juvenile bashing

"The sooner he drops out, the better it will be for a candidate who actually has a chance at beating the Emperor of Crawford in November '04."

If you wish to address a SUBSTANTIVE critique to that comment, go ahead, but spare me your junior-high level, ad hominem attacks...

[diamondsoul]

95. ROTFL Oh, it seems you need a free clue.

When you write posts sorely lacking in substance, you aren't very likely to get a "SUBSTANTIVE critique", but since you want to read something with as much "substance" as yuor statement contains, here-

If Kucinich drops out, there won't BE a candidate "who actually has a chance at beating the Emperor of Crawford in November '04." in the race.

There, now address the "substance" of that. It's the exact same amount of "substance" contained in your comments thus far.

[Padraig18]

97. Hmmmm

Since yours contain only opinion, I assumed that was de rigeur.

[diamondsoul]

105. Keep making things up, it doesn't hurt me at all.

I've had plenty of substantive posts on this thread and others, but since you've clearly got some bizarre, unexplainable personal vendetta against me and my candidate this will be my final reply to you. Do be aware, any and all misinformation about one Dennis Kucinich will be refuted even if the response is not directed toward you.

Just a word of advice, post substance and you'll get substance, post empty rhetoric and you'll get it right back in spades. So far you get empty because that's what you've posted.

[Padraig18]

106. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=41013&mesg_id=44969&page=

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=41013&mesg_id=45024&page=

[hippywife]

79. Most definitely!!

Come this election, we'll see who the majority really are. I say it's the progressives and Dennis is going to carry the day! ;)

[genius]

84. Absolutely

I was just at the Walk for Hope and another event and everyone I spoke with said they would be voting for Dennis.

[loyalsister]

86. I don't see it happening for him

He is not the health care champion people here are trying to claim.
Not only would some people with the AMA vote against him because they don't like his health care plan, others don't like his policy votes. Even * went along with some stem cell research.
I would have to hold my nose to vote for a guy who could have thought for a second that the life of a fertilized cell was a priority over that of a person who is living with Parkison's or a spinal cord injury.

[hippywife]

90. He may not be the darling of the AMA or the DLC

and that's why I like him. Follow the big money people and you won't find Dennis slobbering away at their feet. 8000 doctors came out in JAMA calling for universal single-payer healthcare system that leaves out the for profit third parties i.e. insurance companies. Dennis and Carol Mosely-Braun are the only ones with a single payer plan as part of their platform. All the others leave out millions of people in their plans.

Michael Moore suggests in Stupid White Men that the republicans wouldn't have voted the way they did if not for their beloved figurehead lying ill with alzheimer's and I tend to agree. Hell, I don't know how I feel about stem cell research. When life actually begins is according to one's own perspective, whether you be a scientist or an expectant mother. And that's an argument that's been hashed out here so many times to no avail to anyone on either side of the arguement.

[loyalsister]

91. If you're sitting in a wheelchair

unable to move arms or legs, it influences your perspective significantly. Also, if you care about a person in this condition. These are not people who have anything at all to do with the DLC. In fact, they're dirt poor, on medicaid. Insurance plans don't cover attendant care, and they cannot work. These are the people your hero disregarded.

[Mairead]

99. I'm sorry, that's as asinine as claiming

that Dean 'disregarded' people with spinal-cord injuries by not specialising in neurosurgery.

Get some perspective, would you please?

[loyalsister]

115. Work on your analogies

A more appropriate analogy would be if Dean rocommended that a patient not consult to have a neurosurgery that would offer some hope because he had some "moral reservations."
Actually it's worse. DK wants to make that decision for everyone.

[Mairead]

124. Work on your understanding of analogies

I could substitute a number of other groups into your claim of 'disregarded' with equal truth. He 'disregarded' the desire of researchers to work on a problem that would make them world-famous if they solved it; he 'disregarded' the desire of lab techs to have steady work; he 'disregarded' the desire of corporate stockholders to make money from foetal tissue preparation; he 'disregarded' the desires of city officials and building owners not to have to fund access methods for people using wheelchairs. And so on.

Calling out one group, as you did, implies that he had a specific duty to take the need/desires of that group into consideration in that particular decision. It's exactly analogous to the idea that a physician has a specific duty to choose neurosurgery as her/his medical speciality.

I would not have chosen as Kucinich did. But I don't believe human foetuses have any nature more special than, say, cat foetuses, and I don't represent a conservative RC constituency that does.

[loyalsister]

133. Pardon?

Single group? Stem cell research is a public policy issue. Accidents and diseases are equal opportunity. Anyone can find themselves in a situation where they need to explore options for treatments. Not only that, friends and family members are greatly affected by these things. He denied the value of exploring those options not for a small group- for EVERYONE.
The "someone might make money off of it, it's obviously wrong" argument is lame.

[Mairead]

136. You were the one who brought up the single group, not me

You tried the 'heart of stone' argument, and it flopped. Don't try to foist the blame onto me.

Yes it was public policy, and he voted the interests of his piece of the public. If you want to blame someone, blame his constituents.

[Tinoire]

110. Is it preferable to chase a dream cure rather than address the cause?

Those are people who would all be covered under Kucinich's plan because his plan covers 100% of the people.

Why are people not raging against the things that have been causing all these horrible diseases? Why are people not raging against the free-hand Republican AND Democratic administrations gave to Monsanto?

Why are people not raging against pesticides being spliced into the genes of the foods you eat of against lax environmental standards which allow corporations to dump toxins in the same water you drink?

Why vote for people who just want to put band-aid on the problem as opposed to working to eradicate the problem?

We have new diseases popping up and multiplying rapidly now but no one stops to ask why? I am grateful Kucinich has and has introducted important legislation to halt the madness of dumping UNTESTED genetically modified foods on an unsuspecting population.

Stem cell research is not the be all, cure all and it's sad to see people fixating on that while blindly ignoring all the causes that lead to these diseases.

[loyalsister]

117. The causes?

"Stem cell research is not the be all, cure all and it's sad to see people fixating on that while blindly ignoring all the causes that lead to these diseases." Spinal cord injuries? Ideopathic illnesses? (Where's your research? MS and parkinson's have been around a lot longer than the pesticides you mentioned.

Spinal cord injuries are typically caused by accidents. Car accidents, risky sports adventure accidents, etc. There was a particularly famous HORSE jumping accident. Or sometimes, gun shot wounds.

"Why vote for people who just want to put band-aid on the problem as opposed to working to eradicate the problem?"

You don't think DR. Dean would work to fund medical research?

The FACT is that stem cell research offers a very real potential for relief or even cures for many brain injuries\disorders\diseases. Brain injuries\diseases are what I am most familiar with. There are a number of other diseases for which stem cell research has potential value. This vote excludes existing people. The people who have these troubles would prefer a cure to coverage ANY day.

This is not chasing dreams. DK's vote could have indicated that he thought it was important to pursue research for treaments to help people with devestating injuries and illnesses. That wasn't his priority. The "babies" were too important.
Please take your enviromental issues elsewhere. It's ridiculous to pretend that you or DK are acting for the "greater good" by depriving people of badly needed medical advances.

[diamondsoul]

116. It isn't a "priority", that's a mischaracterization.

You're talking about a man who believes that human life is begun at fertilization, and even as a PCer, I can't deny that very easily. Every existing human being today began life as a fertilized cell.

The point is not that the cell is a priority over an existing ailing person, it's the question of whether it is just to create human life only to kill it.(from Kucinich's and many PLers perspectives) Now I may not agree with it, but I can certainly understand the ethical dilemma posed by this issue. By the definitions of some people both the fertilized cell and the ailing person are human life and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

With stem cell research, the issue is creating human life with the intent of destroying it, and that is not an ethical position for some to take. Right or wrong, there ARE valid arguments to be made for that stand. If it's ok to create human embryos for research why is it not ok to incubate those embryos beyond that point for research? Why is it not ok to research using fully developed human beings? There are dangers to it, and the people casting votes on the subject have no choice but to consider those dangers.

[loyalsister]

120. The legal question comes down to priority

Many of the stem cells are, first of all, not created for research. But are in existance because they have been discarded by people who chose in-vitro fertilization as a reproductive option and didn't need some of the fertilized eggs. DK voted against using even those.
"By the definitions of some people both the fertilized cell and the ailing person are human life and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect."
By not giving the existing person a chance to benefit from the research potential from those cells, he most certainly did prioritize the existance and "lives" of those cells that probably would never have been used over suffering people.
The sanctity of "human life" argument from someone who wants us to get off our high horse when it comes to the environment and animals other than humans?
"With stem cell research, the issue is creating human life with the intent of destroying it, and that is not an ethical position for some to take. Right or wrong, there ARE valid arguments to be made for that stand. If it's ok to create human embryos"
Embryos???????? Again facts please. Even if created for the purpose of treatment, they would not develop past the point of the earliest stages of fertilization, and therefore never have produced a pregnancy. They would never be implanted- remember.
If we reached a point where this were used as a treatment, it would also likely be family members who would donate to produce the genetic material necessary. Once again it would come down to choice. Anyone who has a problem with it would not ever be required to make that choice for treatment.
The legal question on stem cell research has always been "what is more important?" Is it the potential benefits for an existing person or the existing potential for what some people's religious doctrine says is a human life that will likely never even be used?
DK gave it a second thought. Even if he has, it took him far too long to figure that one out.

[diamondsoul]

121. A little advice, paragraphs make your posts easier to read-

No offense meant as you typically do use them, it just struck me as odd that this post was so haphazardly spaced.

"Many of the stem cells are, first of all, not created for research. But are in existance because they have been discarded by people who chose in-vitro fertilization as a reproductive option and didn't need some of the fertilized eggs. DK voted against using even those."

Understood by you, myself and many others, but are you so certain DK knows this? I'm not.


Me previously-"By the definitions of some people both the fertilized cell and the ailing person are human life and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect."

"By not giving the existing person a chance to benefit from the research potential from those cells, he most certainly did prioritize the existance and "lives" of those cells that probably would never have been used over suffering people.
The sanctity of "human life" argument from someone who wants us to get off our high horse when it comes to the environment and animals other than humans?"

No, not really. You assume he knew things not in evidence that he does know, such as where the cells used in this research come from. There are only so many hours in a day, so many days in a week, month and year, and so many staffers to a Congress-person. SEND HIM your research and information, THEN question his decision. Don't assume he had knowledge not in evidence. Oh, and as for the comment about environment and animals, have you EVER heard of "sustainability"? It's kind of important to the survival of HUMAN LIFE on this planet. So yeah, the "getting off your high horse" about ONE human life versus the survival of the entire human species is not such a far fetched request. Not ALL human life needs to continue, and perspective depends on what you've experienced.

Me before-"With stem cell research, the issue is creating human life with the intent of destroying it, and that is not an ethical position for some to take. Right or wrong, there ARE valid arguments to be made for that stand. If it's ok to create human embryos"



Embryos???????? Again facts please. Even if created for the purpose of treatment, they would not develop past the point of the earliest stages of fertilization, and therefore never have produced a pregnancy. They would never be implanted- remember.
If we reached a point where this were used as a treatment, it would also likely be family members who would donate to produce the genetic material necessary. Once again it would come down to choice. Anyone who has a problem with it would not ever be required to make that choice for treatment.

Note you cut off my statement before it was finished to make your own point, totally unrelated to what I was addressing. MY point was that there is a slippery slope which anyone with a moral and ethical concern would be disturbed by, like it or not. Once again, I never suggested I AGREE with anyone's response, but the dilemma DOES exist and should not, indeed cannot be ignored by people of conscience. Likely does not mean designated as legally fact, does it? No, of course not. To people like Kucinich human life is human life and deserves respect, even when it cannot or will not survive. I think different people have differing views on what constitutes respect for life. For me that is respect when life ends before nature itself brings it about, period. I say a simple blessing over my food, animal and vegetable because lives ended to feed me. That to me is respect. I've aborted before, and I cried and said goodbye to the life that might have been if I'd chosen a different course. Life is life is life. One cell or a billion cells, life is life to some and I can't fault consistancy. That's a consistant view. Human life is human life one cell or fifty millon cells, it's all the same.

"The legal question on stem cell research has always been "what is more important?" Is it the potential benefits for an existing person or the existing potential for what some people's religious doctrine says is a human life that will likely never even be used?"

Nonsense. The question is should potential persons be treated with the same respect and reverance as existing persons. Some say yes, I personally say NO. That's me, and my candidate may not have all the facts he needs to make that call. Did you think these legislators were just born with all the facts in hand? Come now, I'm sure you didn't. That being the case you must accept that on occasion the legislators will cast a vote based on personal belief and information at hand, accurate or not, right? So Kucinich cast a vote I disagree with. My response would have been to send his office reference material on the issue and a request to review it before casting his vote. I suppose the difference between you and I is I don't expect Congresspersons to be Gods. They're people, like the rest of us, and sometimes decide based on partial information. So HELP inform them, don't just sit back and whine about the votes! Write, ASK, complain, and be HEARD! If you don't hear back the first time, then write again, call again whate4ver it takes if the issue matters to you. Do NOT just sit back and point accusing fingers if you haven't spoken up to tose who seem ill-informed. INFORM THEM! Be part of the solution, my friend. Speak and speak loud and clear.

"DK gave it a second thought. Even if he has, it took him far too long to figure that one out."

I don't know if he's given it a second thought. I'm sorry to say that for me it isn't a priority election issue. For you it clearly IS, so speak, dear lady!! Speak up, loud and clear, let Kucinich and ALL the rest know how you feel and what you want. Don't sit back and dismiss the man because he may not have all the facts to vote the way you'd like, GIVE him the facts. Help out or sit back and pretend you did something, your choice. Don't assume we ALL know what you know.

[loyalsister]

126. Should be better

Understood by you, myself and many others, but are you so certain DK knows this? I'm not.--

He certainly should have known, it was very well publicized prior to the vote. It is a major public health issue, and thousands of advocacy groups were on top of it. Either way, he's not my congressman, and I'm not interested in advancing his political career. He has learned his lesson about choice too late, and I see him moralizing on stage a little too much.

"getting off your high horse" about ONE human life versus the survival of the entire human species is not such a far fetched request.---

I disagree. DK's position reflects an age old tactic for survivial of the species - propagation and caring for the young and healthy at the expense of the old and sick.


Note you cut off my statement---

I was pointing out that you were referring to an advanced stage of development that the fertilized cells would never reach. Using the word "embryo" to make such a statement is inflammatory.


"The legal question on stem cell research has always been "what is more important?" Is it the potential benefits for an existing person or the existing potential for what some people's religious doctrine says is a human life that will likely never even be used?"

Nonsense. The question is should potential persons be treated with the same respect and reverance as existing persons.---

I referred to the LEGAL\legislative question that was adressed in congress. You are taking it into an existential moralizing realm. Interesting point about that. One explicit point made in the Roe decision was that the moral questions of "when life begins, etc." should be left out of courts and legislature and to clergy and philosophers to argue over. It has nothing to do with the legal question here, either.
It's a matter of what should we consider legal priority when we see a potential benefit for public health policy. When a person allows their religion to interfere, they cross a line for me.
Particularly when it is related to something that could help my friend who is unable to move his arms or legs.

[diamondsoul]

137. Just out of curiosity

"I was pointing out that you were referring to an advanced stage of development that the fertilized cells would never reach. Using the word "embryo" to make such a statement is inflammatory."

How is it "inflammatory" to use proper medical and scientific terms for a fertilized ovum? The term "embryo" covers all development from conception until the fetal stage, that being when the organ systems and general species appearance have developed. If the ovum is fertilized, the term "embryo" applies.

[Mairead]

122. I think Kucinich's vote was a poor one, just like his opposition to Choice

But I feel moderately certain--certain enough that I'd bet $100 on it, which for me is a lot these days--that it was all of a piece: he was representing his constituency, and he would take different decisions with a different constituency (just as he has on the issue of Choice).

I find it very hard to criticise someone for representing the wishes of their constituency, because the moment I do that, I'm stuck -- I have surrendered the ethical high ground. People elected as representatives should represent. Otherwise they're rulers, not agents.

And I can't even wiggle around it by claiming that it's 'obvious' that stem-cell research is the only sane choice. I'm certain that in fact it is, but I'm not elitist enough to believe that I should be able to have my views enforced in an undemocratic way. Because I certainly don't enjoy having someone else's views --the Bush Cabal's, for a pointed example-- enforced undemocratically on me.

So if Dennis votes in a way I disapprove, but he's voting the desires of his constituency, then there's nothing wrong with him. I might have reason on my side if I make some pointed remarks about the low quality of citizen intelligence in Ohio Ten, but that's all.

[loyalsister]

125. I can respect a vote

based on representation. I still have some trouble with this one, though.

He has stated previously that his views on choice were mostly influenced by his views as a Catholic. Since they are closely related (every sperm is sacred is not an understatement), I suspected that there would be a similar root.
Not only that, I know a state representative who only votes against her conscience based on representation if there has been another clear numerical presenation of the district's majority position. That I would see as particularly important when it is an issue related to public health.

[Mairead]

128. Influenced mostly by his Catholicism?

Do you have a cite for that, because I've never heard it before. It sounds odd for a guy who's been divorced twice and is certainly not conventionally RC in any other respects. Not that I'm ruling it out--being an otherwise-progressive man doesn't preclude someone from also being an oinker...I've met too many where their religion-based sexism was as unexamined as their breathing.

[loyalsister]

130. I'm not so sure it's sexist

Just makes him seem like an ill-informed doctrine follower. I really have a sense that he goes overboard with religion. He seems to inject it into a lot of his speeches. It makes me very uncomfortable.


"When I spoke with Kucinich by phone, he seemed to be looking for a way to put some space between himself and his record. "I believe life begins at conception"--Kucinich was raised as a Catholic--"and that it doesn't end at birth." He said he favored neither a Human Life Amendment that would constitutionally protect "life" from the moment of conception, nor the overturning of Roe v. Wade (when asked by Planned Parenthood in 1996 whether he supported the substance of Roe, however, he told them he did not)."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020527&s=pollitt

"DK: My views are consistent with the strains of thinking that created this nation, the thoughts about human liberty of Thomas Jefferson, the American Transcendental movement, the English Romantic poets, certainly my own connection to Catholicism, but beyond that, to all religions. All this results in a kind of synthesis, leading to a world view of the possibilities of human unity and human potential."

http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg10838.html

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it wasn't so much sexist as a sincere misplaced reverence for potential over existing life. Gep has the same problem. I can respect a person's religious beliefs for themselves, but don't want them running the WH. Even if I agree with the end result.
I've had enough of that "gut feeling" stuff with this administration. I prefer reasoning and logic to dictate the largest percentage of decision making.

[Mairead]

132. Is that meant to be evidence that he only voted his own religion?

Rather than the views of his constituents, I mean? Because if it is, you'll have to explain it better, because all I saw was a statement of his personal belief.

As to 'reasoning and logic', there might be no one on earth who values rationality more than I --I've been called 'Ms Spock' by more than one person on more than one occasion. But valuing 'reasoning and logic' above the concern for others that is central to ethical and religious systems is what gets us SmirkCo, Sharon, and all the other psychopaths who exploit us. They are the really 'rational' ones who haven't one iota of feeling for anyone but themselves. They talk religion because it's a useful exploitative tool, but they act out of narrowly calculated self-interest, devoid of any emotion but their pathological hunger. It's the people who share the lives of the poor and try to make them better for no other reason than fellow-feeling who are really religious whether they believe in a personal God or not.

I'd urge you to apply reason and logic to an examination of the candidates who claim that their actions are driven by reason and logic. I think you'll find there's evidence of something else going on.

[w4rma]

101. Is Kucinich electable? Can he win an election for an Ohio Senate seat?

Can he win an election for governor of Ohio?
Can he win a Democratic presidential, senatorial or gubanatorial primary?

[Padraig18]

102. No

All cuteness and snide remarks aside...

I live in downstate Illinois, and demographically speaking, Illinois is the state that 'most looks like America', according to the Census Bureau. To date, out of literally thousands of contacts with both Democrats and Independents, I have heard exactly ONE person say they would vote for Kucinich--- one.

Dennis Kucinich is a nice, decent fellow, but he 'ain't gonna play in Peoria'. Illinois went overwhelmingly for Clinton (twice) and Gore, so it's not as though this is some bastion of Republicanism. DK doesn't stand a chance, in any realistic scenario for the Democratic nomination.

I'm sorry if this is upsetting to DK's supporters, but it's just the way it is.

[Gingersnap]

119. is that because people have heard of him

and don't like what he has to say, or simply have never heard of him?

I don't mean this snidely, I honestly want to know. My family is all in rural Michigan, and they wouldn't have even known who Kucinich was unless I told them. Even the Fundamentalist Christians in my family are supporting him now.

Edited for dumb spelling error

[Padraig18]

142. They know who he is

I network with LOTS of Dems, both locally and statewide. I know exactly 1 who is a Kucinich supporter. Most are either committed to Kerry, Dean or Gephart, some are undecided and some are making tenative noises about both Clark and Edwards. I know a large number who are completely turned off by Kucinich.

I don't know if it's a lack of money, organization or failure to articulate a message, or succeeeding too WELL in articulating a message, but whatever the reason, IL is simply not 'happening' for Kucinich.

I fully expect some of the 'usual suspects' in the DK camp to barrage me with a request for their standard 'facts, figures, citations, extensive documentation in triplicate' stuff, but they can save their breath. The (implied) question in the original post was "Is Kucinich electable?", and my answer is my answer, as far as Illinois exists as of this writing. He would finish 10th out of 10 here, were the primary held today.

[dpbrown]

143. Count me among those completely turned off by Dean

I'm turned off by the way his supporters (some, not all) have gone way over the line in being aggressive. I'm turned off by his co-opting the Wellstone mantle. I'm turned off by his pretending to be an outsider. I'm turned off by his non-plan over health care. I'm turned off by his carpetbagging from his Dean-Witter Republican roots to play politics in Vermont. I'm turned off by his tacking back to the middle now that he thinks he's got plenty of so-called progressives on his side. I'm turned off by how his supporters still seem to be unable to look at other candidates objectively. I'm turned off by the lies and spin I hear from his supporters over Kucinich's courageous stand in Cleveland protecting public power.

I'm just turned off by Dean.

And the one thing, outside of election-stealing, black-box voting, recall, and redistricting, that will cost Democrats the election is nominating someone from "politics as usual" because then people will stay home.

Bush won't get the 50 million votes he got last time, so Democrats will win, even if only everyone who turned out to vote last time votes this time. Bush has turned off enough of the people who crossed over to vote for him, that he can't possibly get 50 million votes again. Can't happen.

So, provided the Democrats handle the black box voting issue, and they handle the other election-stealing techniques Republicans are using, they'll win. Unless people stay home. Then it'll be close again. Close enough to steal? Who knows, but why nominate someone who'll be the cause of that danger?

The surest way to make sure people stay home is by nominating a "politics as usual" candidate.

One who won't make the Pentagon accountable.

One who won't stand up for real reform in health care.

One who won't bring the retirement age back to 65 for Social Security.

One who won't confront the wrongs in NAFTA and the WTO.

People will sit home, rather than vote for "politics as usual."

Unfortunately, that's all Dr. Dean offers, to many people I've talked to.

I can't enthusiastically support a candidate whose platform can be summed up as "don't get your hopes up."

My hopes are up, and I will support a candidate who understands that we've been set back by Reagan, Bush, and Bush, and that we've got a lot of ground to make up.

The mechanism is in place, with all the outside organizations like MoveOn, ActforChange, aflcio.org, the ACLU, etc., to support the leadership of a President who doesn't preach to us about how we have to "settle." The grassroots is there to pressure the Congress to follow the lead of a pragmatic President able to lend his vision to remaking the disasters visited upon us by Captain Unelected, the trickle-down monstrosity that's become our tax system, the Pentagon that's been out of control since Eisenhower, and a privatized health care system that's the laughingstock of the civilized world.

I'm ready to fight for that President. I'm ready to help that President take back our nation from the tyranny of low expecations forced on it by the Reagan, Bush, and Bush kakistocracy.

I'm not ready to settle for a candidate who has nothing to tell me other than "this is as good as it gets, and you'd better just toe the line and get on board."

Hogwash.

I don't believe in the vision Dean is offering. I don't believe that health care is fixable as a privatized boondoggle. I don't believe the Pentagon should just keep getting handouts without having to be accountable to the taxpayers. I don't believe Dean is the one who can take us forward from the darkness of the Reagan, Bush, and Bush years.

I just don't believe it.

No national voting record.

A mixed message, at best, about Social Security.

No message at all about fixing health care permanently.

Few contested elections.

He's just not the one.

If the people who are pushing Dean because he's "popular" succeed in making him the nominee, people will stay home. The Democrat may still win, but people will stay home.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[indigo32]

144. Thats your choice

and those are your beliefs. I could get into a long discussion about those beliefs but it comes down to this. Alot of people MAY be voting (I say may because I'm not going to presume the nomination) because Dean DID inspire them. I've never once heard him preach to me about SETTLING. You may choose to stay home (or maybe you won't) but you'll have to take responsibility for your OWN choice.

[dpbrown]

145. All we learned by being beat down by Bush is to keep our heads down

That's what this says to me.

It says that Reagan, Bush and Bush won on trickle down.

They won on a bloated, unaccountable Pentagon, even after the Cold War ended.

They won on deregulation.

They won on privatized health care as a get-rich ponzi scheme for CEOs.

They won on NAFTA's Chapter 13 over-ruling environmental laws.

They won on creating an unelected shadow council in the WTO to force their economic policies through.

If people are enthused to be voting for a candidate who won't counteract the damage done to us, our nation, and the world by the disastrous policies of the last three Republicans, then what's the use? (Rhetorical question)

I'm glad people are enthused to be supporting Dr. Dean. And I'm also scared. Because it means we've grown accustomed to not setting our goals very high. It means we've been taken in by the government-haters who forced us to believe that the government can't do it. It means we've been persuaded by the "me-firsters" to disregard most, if not all, of our responsibility to the rest of society to try to help everyone, not just ourselves.

And I'm sure that Dr. Dean does actually really inspire some people who have looked deeply into what he says, and what he's likely to be able to accomplish as President and they've said to themselves, "Looks good for me."

That's too bad, because, while it's my choice, I'd rather be fighting for a future that's not just good for me, but that more completely offers a healing way out of the darkness brought to our nation and the world by Reagan, Bush, and Bush, and I just don't see that coming from Dr. Dean.

I see, instead:

"Don't move too fast."

"Let's get back some of the tax revenue, but spend it on something else, instead."

"Let's let the Pentagon, now that we're out of the Cold War, have even more money without asking them how they're spending it."

"Why shouldn't people be working longer, maybe to 68 or 70, for multinational corporations?"

"Sure, NAFTA and the WTO are hurting workers and the environment, but people are getting rich, right?"

I take responsibility for my own choice. But I also understand that I'm making a choice that will affect others. Therefore, I want to be able to make the choice that's going to have the greatest beneficial effect, not one that's just "okay."

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[indigo32]

147. Excuse me

"Lets get back some of the tax revene, but spend it on something else":
what do you suppose he wants to spend it on? Healthcare and Education... he says that repeatedly... it's strange that you would pull that out as a negative.

"Don't move to fast": I've never once heard him say that.

the Pentagon: well I understand your frustration there...but I also think we may have to fight that fight another day

68 - 70: He's made it clear that he no longer favors increasing the retirement age. You know that

Nafta and WTO: The "people are getting rich" comment is nothing but a cheap shot. I understand peoples concerns and I understand Dean has talked about addressing some of those concerns. What I will admit I don't understand is the actual feasablity and/or ramifications of just walking away from those agreements. I'm open to any open minded discussions of that issue.

And obviously, none of us would be here if we didn't realize our decisions affected others. Right?

[dpbrown]

148. It's not convincing to tightly parse summaries of my feelings

"Lets get back some of the tax revenue, but spend it on something else"

A candidate who is advocating for merely reallocating the Bush tax cuts, some or all, is chosing to unfund, or continue to underfund, the programs that were cut when those tax cuts went into effect. Because most, or much, or all, of those tax cuts are going to be reallocated by Dean to handing out more money to private health insurers, he's asking us to choose to move "toward" but not "attain" complete coverage, while keeping the boondoggle that is private health insurance, its rich CEOs, its inefficient administration, and its multiple ponzi schemes still motivated to keep out people who might actually use the insurance - it'll still be broken, but Dean will be cutting other social spending in order to prop it up for a few years more. I think this is a short-sighted and dead-end approach.

Don't move too fast"

Same thing as, "this plan will pass" and he has actually said something like that. In any case, there's not one Dean supporter who won't urge you to come to the conclusion, somewhere along the line, that the more aggressive plans advocated by other candidates are "unrealistic" and that Dr. Dean's a "pragmatist" who wants to move step-by-step, or something like that. I know, Dean people have told me that. So it doesn't matter whether he actually "said" something like that, because he and his supporters all believe that we can't expect big changes. Well, I do. I want everything back that Reagan, Bush, and Bush have deprived our society of. And I think the support structure is there with the outside organizations to move like we moved on campaign finance, filibusters, and keeping ANWR safe, to make sure a Congress under President Kucinich passes the plans that will heal our nation from the damage done by Reagan, Bush, and Bush. I reject Dr. Dean's slow-going method as unrealistic.

Social Security

Dean's thought, and rethought this issue. The fact is, he'll keep the increased age as it is (that's his latest reincarnation on this issue, you'll correct me if I'm wrong), and Dennis has made it clear that 65 means 65. I reject Dr. Dean's fiddling with keeping people out of Social Security as a back-end means of keeping it viable, whether or not his current thinking is that it's "exclusive" enough at the currently increased age level or whether somewhere down the line he'll give himself permission to change his mind again on this issue.

NAFTA and the WTO

It doesn't matter if it seems like a cheap shot or not, it's meant to be glib. The fact is that NAFTA and the WTO have proven themselves a failure, and that even Bush is talking about going back to bilateral trade agreements. Dennis would withdraw from these damaging, massive, multinational trade boondoggles as a first step to making trade healthy again (like Bush pulled out of the ABM Treaty unilaterally). Bush proved that the nation can walk away from treaties that don't work (although he misused it in pulling out of the ABM Treaty). The same can be said of NAFTA and the WTO. They don't work, they're not democratic, they use secret councils to make decisions that have the effect of over-riding state laws, and they let multinational corporations actually sue state governments when the state law infringes on the corporation's ability to make a profit. That's just sick. The first step is pulling out. The second is forging healthy bilateral trade agreements. The third is making sure that workers and the environment are protected. I really like Dennis' position on this.

Yes, obviously we wouldn't be here if we didn't realize our decisions didn't affect others. I want to be able to make the best decision for the most people.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[genius]

104. Kucinich is the most electable.

Read the article that's being posted widely.

[cyclezealot]

112. Stud's knows.

Studs Terkel is one of my favortie writers. I place my faith in Studs. We urge you to read his writing about Kucinch in the Nation- 5-6-02 issue.. He says "Kucinich is the one." Hope quoting three paragraphs is not bending the rules..
I am sick of Democrats' compromising with the media talking heads, eliiminating from consideration what they think is out of the mainstream.. You are taking their poison and unthinkingly running with it. All unfounded name-calling, pigeon holeing hype.
Can't believe educated people fall for this crap from unreliable sources. You have not heard Kucinich speak.. He is the only one who resignates with any degree of honesty with working class people and their struggles.
If he is out of the running, I can go back to more leisurely activities, for the rest are boring as hell.

Stud's speaks...

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020506&c=5&s=terkel

" Now, in the year 2002, Ohio has given us another, of a somewhat different stripe. I doubt whether he'll ever make People magazine's list of the most beautiful people, but the blue-collar Kucinich is the only one who can win back the blue-collar Reagan Democrats, among the other disenchanted, and the disfranchised. He talks the language they understand and, at 55, with a remarkable eloquence.

Imagine him in a televised, coast-to-coast debate with Dubya. Blood wouldn't flow, but it would be a knockout in the first round, and we'd have an honest-to-God working-class President for the first time in our history. It's a crazy thought, of course, but it's quite possible, considering the roller-coaster nature of our times.

Since plagiarism is à la mode these days, let me steal the closing passage from the Rev. William Sloane Coffin's invocation at a Yale commencement during the Vietnam War: "Oh God, take our minds and think through them, take our lips and speak through them, take our hearts and set them on fire." I'll add a brief benediction: Kucinich is the man to light the fire. Amen

[bobthedrummer]

107. Yes

eom

[Doomsayer13]

109. No

If Kucinich can't even generate enough broad appeal to win in the primary, what evidence is there that he can win the the general election? If he can't win over rank-and-file Democrats there's no way he'll win over Republicans and independents.

[LWolf]

113. Good job keeping Dennis kicked.

Obviously, if and when he faces *, he will have generated enough broad appeal to win the primary.

:eyes:

I shook his hand and spoke with him tonight for the second time. He sure wasn't having any problems appealing to a very diverse crowd tonight.

[diamondsoul]

114. Um, the first Primary hasn't even happened yet.

So why are you presuming he can't win it?

[Doomsayer13]

123. I'm not assuming yet

but as of now, the poll numbers speak pretty loudly to the fact that Kucinich is not generating enough appeal to overtake Clark and Dean. If he can win the primary, the more power to him, but if he can't (which is the way it's looking) it will be a testament to his unelectability.

[diamondsoul]

127. I don't put much stock in the poll numbers right now.

And it's mostly because they're so easily skewed to say whatever the pollster wants them to say. I've also noted they aren't polling the staunchest of us DK supporters. I've yet to ever hear of any of us being polled for publicized results. I suspect that a great many of us are just completely beneath the radar of the major polling agents in which case the polls are even more inaccurate.

[LynneSin]

118. Of course he is

All the democratic candidates should have no problem with beating Bush. The only people that can defeat the democratic nominations are us - and our negativity.

[eridani]

131. If you don't vote for the policies you really want in the primary--

--and the candidates who support them, then whenthehell WILL you vote for them? I can't believe the so-called 'first tier' candidates are too gutless to support universal health care, which according to a Pew Foundation survey 72% of voters (including 51% of Republicans)prefer to the Bush tax cuts.

The question is whether or not our below the radar organizing can overcome the media whiteout. It isn't just Dennis with this problem--Physicians for National Health Care was stuck with a link from BLOODYFRIGGIN AL-JAZEERAH!! as their only media link.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/september/aljazeerah_reports_r.php

Bet you didn't even know that the California Senate has actually passed Single Payer. (The sponsor put it on hold for the Assembly until the recall mess is cleared up.) Google Kuehl + California + 'Single Payer' and see for yourself--only health care activist sites come up--not a single report in the so-called 'liberal' media.

[MrPeepers]

150. The reason the 'first tier' candidates don't support universal health care

is because there isn't the money for it. With the way Bush has run up the defecit, there's no possible way to afford it. We can't go about things like Health Care all at once, it's going to take a gradual move forward to get the job done right. For example, John Kerry's plan is both feasable and effective. Under Kerry's plan, 96% of adults and 99% of children will have health insurance. The National Journal ranked Kerry's plan number 1 among those of all the other candidates, including Bush, for its affordability and effectiveness. So I wouldn't say Kerry is 'too gutless to support universal health care.'

Peepers

[cyclezealot]

162. Apathetic for gutless wimps

Reason I might just forget to vote for the first tier of gutless Democratic wimps on General Election Day; the arguments posed by this Kerry backer is just BS.
Democrats are for Universal Health Care or I have nothing to do with them. that is my expectation. Kerry is just too sold off or too gutless to fight for what the Nation needs.
I have had surgery and I am tired of the mindless HMO bureaurcracy- this private system demands. The reason the arguments just mentioned are BS- this present system is far more costly than Single Payer for our employers.. The only thing the present scandalous system can do is deny medical coverage to those in need to cut costs.
Cost cutting is at the expense of patient's needs, not the inherient graft. Employers premimums are a contributing cause to the jobs going offshore. Premimums are approaching $1,000 a month in the near future.
At this rate employers are denying medical benefits to retirees. Is this the best America can do.?
Kucinich's plan would take the known amount of money spent on actual medical delivery and tax us all at the known value. Ending the insurance graft. Yes, we can afford it and end up saving our employers this horrendous expense, they no longer can affort.

Not only has the AMA come out for single payer but business' such as the remaining elements of the once great American steel industry.It would save them money.
Kerry is not against Single Payer because he thinks we can't afford it, but because he has not the b*ll* to take on the insurance companies.I know he knows better. Democrats don't make life better for the American people what good are they.?
I have heard DK talk about choice also. We are adamant Pro choice voters.. DK is convincing on that score. He grew up Catholic and that is to his credit. He is capable of intellectual growth.
Reason for his conversion.. He came from a family of 7. He saw what unplanned families can do to their economic well being. DK is very spiritual. We find that to his credit. He says he can mediate the choice issue. We believe that. He is spirtual and has a pro life history. He convinced us of his conversion and abilities to talk sense over this emotional issue. He is exactly what we need to build bridges over this divisive issue. He says his sisters convinced him of the need for choice. Those domineering women..
ps As we said about those gutless wimps.. Dean said Single Payer is the best solution, but I will not spend my time on it, since it will not pass. If the AMA and US Steel is for it, so should the Democratic candidate.

[MrPeepers]

163. Umm

No. Democrats ARE for universal health care IN THE LONG RUN. We live in something called "the real world" and in this world we can't do everything based solely on how much "b*ll*" we have. I would like you to explain how exactly we can afford Kucinich's plan. Over ten years, it would cost a total of $6,117,000,000,000. Explain how we can afford that plan with a %500,000,000,000 deficit to begin with. Sure, it would be great to have universal health care. The problem is implementing it. We can't just leap in head first. It's far too big of a step! We have to do it a piece at a time, and having 96% of americans covered by Health Insurance is a hell of a step in the right direction. It's not about "gutless" it's about "possible." Might I add that Senator Kerry is also vehemently pro choice. I point to his votes against the banning of partial-birth abortion, banning military base abortions, and banning overseas military abortions. Senator Kerry also grew up a Catholic. He is also very spiritual. And please, let's stop referring to people who have spent the better part of their lives fighting to preserve the things you value in our Gov't in place, like the right to choose, "gutless wimps." Men like John Kerry and Howard Dean have been fighting for gay rights, civil rights, and the right to choose for years. They too are liberals, in case you havn't noticed, perhaps it might be a good idea to stop demonizing them.

[cyclezealot]

164. It is simple

Just apply the premimums that our employers can no longer afford and apply it to a national health plan. Kucinich's plan would require a 7.75% payroll tax on income.. I would suggest it would be equitable if it were shared by both the employer and employee. It benefits us all. We know what we, as a nation,annually pay out for medical expenses.. Just switch it from insurance premimums to income/corporate taxes. Of coure the conversion will take a couple years to complete. So as to feel we all contribute to the plan, I suggest maybe a National one cent sales tax- makes it more equitable and certainly giving us better health care and guaranteed health care is worth not placing the whole tax burden upon income sources alone.
US Steel would not be for it, if this plan ended up costing them more!!!!! It will reduce our national health care costs.
All the nine dwarfs plans just will not cut it.. More bandaide, BS -for the next 10 years and sixty percent of the American people will be without medical coverage. I am sure that will include me.
Don't give me any of the socialized medicine crap.. We have lived in Europe and know better. It costs all far less. Our medical coverage is the most expensive in the world and the plans proposed by the likes of Kerry will only make it more expensive.
Last statistics I saw the US percent of GNP going to medical expenses is over ten percent. In Europe it is under ten percent.

[MrPeepers]

166. If

it were indeed so simple, why hasn't it been implemented yet? If everything were so cut and dry, why wouldn't even the most die-hard conservative have proposed this? No sane person would deny that having affordable health care for everyone would be a good thing. But there is a damn good reason it hasn't happened yet! A 7.75% payroll tax on income is NOT going to cover a 6 TRILLION dollar plan! We already have a 500 billion dollar deficit, it's only getting bigger, and it just isn't possible! If that plan really would be benficial for everyone, then alot more than US Steel would be for it. And by the way, under Kerry's plan 4% of people will be without coverage, not 60%. Sure, they have socialized medicine in Europe. Sure, it's more expensive here. But health care in the US is also of a significiantly better quality. You get what you pay for.

[cyclezealot]

169. Better care here. You must be kidding

My wife had two broken bones in her arm due to a sporting accident in Spain.. She had treatments in Spain and France. I just had rotor cuff shoulder surgery in California.. I would trade the care she had in Spain for the grief I just had in California anyday.. Took 10 weeks for the HMO to get it ok'ed..
In Spain the Hospital in the Valle De Raun region was a very modern hospital.. Took us into emergeny, no wait.. It cost us all less than our US deductible.. Everything.... Service excellant. I had 10 weeks of agony and pain.. Plus lots of calls to the HMO gods,pleading to speed up the surgery, since I was useless for work.
Talked to a French friend from Lille, she had a co-worker have the same surgery I had. Marylenne said he had a MRI three days after his accident and surgery within two weeks.. When an MRI here costs about
1200 dollars what do we expect. Better service here, you must be kidding...
We have no intention of waiting to retire to 65. Our nephew lived in Barcelona, Spain- he bought his own private insurance for two for less than 100 dollars a month.. We concider retiring to Southern France, before we work to age 65- because medical expenses are less there. Even if you have to purchase private insurance. We have traveled to Europe too many times, we do not buy the crapy proproganda we read in our biased newspapers.
As to why we do not have a national Health care plan. Gutless politicains will not take on insurance companies. The only thing that will get us all a national plan, our system is so expensive it is in the middle stages of a complete melt down.
In a book signing, We once heard Gore Vidal explain why we do not have national health care plan. The insurance companies told the powers that be- no one is going to screw around with our piggy bank.

[diamondsoul]

173. I can see you haven't read the financial disclosure

on Kucinich's healthcare plan. I'm going to start a new thread on this subject, and I'm hoping you won't mind if I quote you. I think this is an issue that should be discussed in a thread of its own because it's buried in this one.

[eridani]

171. Stuff and nonsense

The Kucinich plan is the cheapest of ALL the proposed plans.

Establishment opinion says that the Kucinich proposal is outrageously expensive compared to the proposals of other candidates. Of course they fail to mention that we would no longer have private insurance expenses, that out of pocked expenses would be dramatically reduced, and that wewould continue to have the government funding that we now have. The fact is that we are already paying for universal health care-we just aren't getting it. Suppose your electric bill is $400 and you don't have that much. And suppose that you check your back yard and find out that someone is tapping into the line between the power provider and your house, siphoning off as much as they can get by with. All of a sudden the fact that you don't have $400 isn't the main problem any more. Kucinich proposes stopping the theives; the others support giving them more money on top of what we are already paying.

The health care plans of all the other candidates (note that Sharpton andBraun just advocate single payer--they have no specific plans posted ontheir sites) are in fact more expensive than that of Kucinich, because they all assume that we continue to spend what we are already spending, but should add more to that total in order to further subsidize private insurance companies, who would continue to drain off funds in the pipeline flowing from the public to health care providers. For those who like equations, those plans would cost out as

Total proposed health care spending = Current spending + incremental proposal extra expenses - x, where x is whatever unknown amount of savings would be produced by the plan. (Extending preventive care, no matter how incrementally, can be expected to produce some saving.)

Kucinich plan = current spending only - x.

[LWolf]

172. Love it.

"Stuff and Nonsense." Debunked with facts.

:yourock:

[goodhue]

139. exactly

nt

[JohnKleeb]

134. of course

It would be difficult well duh :). Of course, I really dont care honestly, the man has a lot of experience more than most think at first glance. I just wish people would give him a chance and realize that he is one of the if not the best on the issues.

[dpbrown]

138. Hell, yeah!

Beat three incumbent Republicans on his way to increasingly national political offices, took 75% of the vote in his last re-election, and 50% of the Republican vote in his district.

Kucinich will beat the invisible pants off the Poseur Prince as soon as we give him the chance. No other candidate is so clearly the anti-Bush.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Mairead]

141. As Molly Ivins says: anyone who tries to call it this far out is a moron

Dennis is certainly 'electable'. All we need do is elect him.

Now, there are quite a few people --too many of them here at DU-- who wake up sweating at night at the very thought of Dennis in office, because then all their privilege (whether real or fantasy) would start to erode. But I don't think they represent the majority of Americans. I don't know that they don't, but I'm betting money they don't.

[genius]

146. That's a great line and very accurate

The only reason a certain candidate is trying to call it is because he is afraid his own supporters will wake up and dump him for Dennis.

[snoochie]

149. He's the MOST electable.

It is not necessary to convince everyone to vote for Kucinich. All that is necessary is to help spread his message, and let the people decide for themselves. Granny D marched across this country (red states included) and spoke with thousands of disenfranchised people about why they weren’t voting. They told her why – no candidate addressed their needs. Now we have a candidate who has not only the ability to directly address those needs, but also a track record of success, and his own party won’t support him.

If everyone who agreed more with his stance than anyone else’s would simply support the man and help to spread the word that a candidate is appealing for votes in the primaries who stands for the public interest against corporations', for peace against war, for healthcare for people - not profit (etc. etc. etc), instead of dismissing him outright as ‘unelectable’, heaven only knows how many more people would have been moved to support him. Looks like we may never get a chance to find out.

Whether people think Bush is doing an OK job or not, fewer people voted for him last time, and that was before he dug this tremendous hole for us. What do pro-military Dems do? Keep digging. ‘We must approve 87 BILLION for Halliburton and Bechtel!’ Sometimes I wonder if I'm dreaming. These people are hopeless. Americans will vote Republican if they want a Republican. Americans who don't approve of charging this amount of debt to our kids' credit card may have a hard time voting for a Dem that has voiced support for it so far.

I can scarcely believe my own ears when I hear spin about how we can't ‘cut and run’. I wonder if the ones saying that will tone it down now that the tide has turned a bit. What ‘cut and run’ really means is that we let the UN take over, which is what the Iraqis, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Japanese, the Indians, etc. all want, before they will help us. Refuse to hand over that control, and you doom our children to be saddled with monstrous debts and increased terrorism / hatred far into the future.

Cultural revolutions are necessary. Ida Tarbell did it for small businessmen (yes, men only, this was a while back). Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton did it for women who wanted to vote. Mother Jones did it for working children. Jane Addams did it for the poor. MLK did it for Black Americans, and would have done it for the poor, had he not been assasinated by those that keep us down.

What has happened to the spirit of this country? Why can’t we support this person, who wants to ‘do it’ (start the 'peace & justice' cultural revolution) not just for Americans, but for humanity as a whole? Is not killing people that much of a revolutionary idea? Is not allowing corporations to pillage revenues to the detriment of shareholders and employees really that ‘outside the mainstream’?

People do vote in their self-interest. But it’s been a very long time since any candidate truly spoke to that self interest. Dennis does that, and he does it well. Thank goodness the corporate media has Good Democrats to help it convince the rest of us to give up on the candidate who would actually help us the most.

I (at this point) still agree that you choose the lesser evil on election day. But I do not for one second believe that you should spend however many months BEFORE the primaries working to ensure that a lesser evil is the only one available as a (non)choice for Americans.

There are more than 10,000 dead innocent people in Iraq, including innocent children, women and men. Families here in America have lost fathers, sons, daughters, mothers… and it’s all for profit.

Bush is not the problem. Bush is a symptom. He is a symptom of a much larger, and much more pervasive disease. Fail to rid this country of that disease and you may stave off death a while, but you're mostly just extending the suffering.

Getting rid of Bush is not a principle. That is a goal (a very worthy one), which should be founded on principles. IMHO, the waffling on the $87 Billion is testament to which candidates even have principles, frankly.

And lest we forget, if you want to win over ‘red states’, then consider that someone filled with vitriol and rhetoric about how ghastly Bush has been may not appeal to those voters. These are the people that voted for Bush last time. By insulting him you’re insulting them… insinuating (correctly of course) that they’ve made a mistake, which Americans are loath to admit, either to themselves or others.

[hippywife]

151. Bravo and welcome, Snoochie!!

I especially liked:

Bush is not the problem. Bush is a symptom. He is a symptom of a much larger, and much more pervasive disease. Fail to rid this country of that disease and you may stave off death a while, but you're mostly just extending the suffering.

Dead on!! :)

[snoochie]

157. Thanks, hippywife :-)

This is my main message in going out and pounding the pavement for Dennis. I like Dean... originally supported him and signed up for the meetups... was about to hand over the cash when I heard that he thought the Pentagon budget was a sacred cow. That's when all the red flags came flying out. I like Clark too. I think he'd make a fine president.

And though they've been waffley in the past, I really have no grudge against any of the candidates. It's just become clear to me that the military-industrial establishment is out of control, and electing anyone who would appease them may keep us comfortable a while longer, but stability will not last. I trust Dean and Clark both to help wean us off of oil dependence, but the MIE remains in the shadows, which I would rather not support any longer. THAT is the sector of government which deserves to be starved in a bathtub. I don't believe we need no military ... but certainly when they can 'lose' 1.4 trillion dollars, we're WAY beyond the point where immediate action is necessary.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, in a final sense, is a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."- Dwight D. Eisenhower

[GOPBasher]

152. I like him a lot, but I don't think he's electable.

However, if he's the nominee, I certainly hope I'm dead wrong.

[Padraig18]

153. My sentiments exactly

I'm also a little bit disturbed by the absence of any visible campaign organization in my state; this is a 'safe' 21-electoral-vote state for the Dems (usually), and he needs to be here.

I'm puzzled by his absence here, to be honest.

[diamondsoul]

158. There is a very big Kucinich movement in

many parts of Illinois. Maybe you're just not close to any of them? I know Chicago and surrounding areas are doing pretty well, and even my own hometown of Kankakee has a good sized Kucinich support base. I'm hearing good things from Champaign/Urbana area as well.

[Padraig18]

159. hmmm

I'm about 20 minutes from Champaign, and go to school there 4 days a week. I'll take your word for it, but they're not very visible. *shrug*

[Joe Flowers]

154. Nope, prolly not

Probably not... too young, too short... not enough money, not smooth enough...

[JohnKleeb]

155. Hes older than Dean lol

and only an inch shorter. Money well I dont care about "green" really and we went past our goal too.

[George_Bonanza]

156. No

Not to say the man's not a gem, but winning a seat in the House in one thing, PRESIDENT of the United States before a numbed neo-con influenced America in another.

[LWolf]

160. Yes.

Absolutely. Yes, yes, and yes.

It's time to put the "E" myth to bed.

It's been addressed.

[JohnKleeb]

161. Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now battlecry time!
Kucinich!
Sorry I get hyper

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MuseRider]

167. Kucinich is a space cadet?

What is your excuse?

[deaniebopper]

168. What? has he been promoted to 'Captain'?

[sujan]

170. yes

[goodhue]

174. announcement tour rocks

Kucinich will be the next President on the United States.

http://www.kucinich.us/announce-updates.htm