KUCINICH, 2008!!

[Nikki Stone 1]

Hey, why not?

[still_one]

1. He meets my main litmus test

he was against the Iraq war

boxer, feingold, dean, clark, and others also fit into that category

I could easily support any of them, but not someone who gave bush the authority to go to a war based on a lie

[Nikki Stone 1]

6. Good point.

And Boxer/Feingold would be ok with me too.

[still_one]

20. I hear you

[woodleydem]

25. He doesn't meet my main litmus test: an ability to win.

[Imagevision]

28. If Dennis had the financial backing he would be a shoo-in!

[inthebrain]

34. I'll toss him a few dollars.

Besides, I'd rather run a candidate that doesnt reek of Coorporate cash.

That's been a major problem in election cycles when candidate discuss policy with the voters. Its always framed in a manner so they dont piss off Wal Mart and Home Depot. I'm sick of being the one walking away and having to eat shit because these asshole are able to buy out my candidates.

FOr a change I'd like to see them walking away pissed off intead of me. THe day Scaife and Murdoch have to go the polls trying to elect the lesser of two evils, I'm going to dance a jig. As people we have been doing that for far to long.

People are now dying because of it as well.

Dennis in 08'!!!!

Hell yeah!!!!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

39. .

[mikelgb]

91. yeah

no dem has the ability to win w/o fair election might as well just support the repug... at least he'll be "electable"

[LWolf]

95. That's a tired, useless old detour.

We did that already in the '04 primaries. Kucinich supporters supported him because he owned the issues, he tells the truth, and he doesn't back down. All those people who labeled him "unelectable" helped nominate the so-called "electable" candidate.

That worked really well, didn't it? :sarcasm:

I think I'll stick to supporting people based on the issues and their records, since the folks determining "electability" have been proven wrong.

[woodleydem]

206. Not only would Kucinich not even come close to winning a general election,

he wouldn't even win a Democratic primary. (Did he win any in 2004?) He's a good Congressman, but he has about as much personality and charisma as a mailbox.

[GreenPartyVoter]

197. Too bad we don't have ranked voting. Then we could find out for sure

if he has a shot or not.

http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[rhett o rick]

84. I agree with you 100% nt

[pstans]

2. Any chance for Kucinich running for Senate?

Ohio has 2 Republican Senators. Any chance that he could beat them?

[Fovea]

5. I'd love to see him in the Senate

Or Gov. of Ohio.

[NEOBuckeye]

9. Ohio isn't ready yet for Dennis Kucinich

He'd do quite well in Oregon or Washington state, and maybe here in Northeastern Ohio, if we were an independant state. But Ohioans throughout the state in general are not yet open-minded enough to be receptive to Kucinich. The sad thing is, maybe 10 or 15 years ago, they might still have been. This state, which was once the economic and social envy of so many others, has regressed so much that it's a shame.

On Edit: I think Kucinich would be great for any state that would give him the chance to govern or that would elect him to a senate seat. He'd have my vote.

[inthebrain]

12. Not the electability arguement again!!!

Not as out in the open but its the same thing.

Democrats need to learn how to take bold steps. Running Kucinich for governor or a senate seat in ohio would be a brilliant move. Its one that's bold and tells people where this party is going.

Kucinish is not like most Dems who are addicted to trickle down economics crack. ANd yes, looking at some arguments on this board there are many that still are. It's an evil theory that has to go.

Looking at Ohios economy I'd say there are many that are sick of it.

We wwent with an "electable" candidate in 04'. Kerry was the "safe play"!!!!

Don't let the right wing scare you away from taking risks.

[WI_DEM]

46. well electability does mean something

If Kucinich can't win his own state it's doubtful he can win too many other states either. It is worth remembering that he came in fourth in his own states presidential primary. Kucinich should try for the Senate or Governor it would give a future presidential bid more credibility if he won statewide in Ohio first.

[inthebrain]

57. What does it mean?

Obviously he won a house seat and has been elected a number of times.

Everytime I hear the term electability it stinks of democrats nominating a guy who's afraid of his shadow. Obviously if they alreasy have a seat somewhere they are electable.

Alls I heard when Kerry ran for the nomination was a bunch of people screaming for an electable candidate. He lost!!!!

[ISUGRADIA]

59. Yeah 1/435th of the nation, that's what DK has won

Big difference between a seat in ongress and a statewide race, which Kucinich has never won.

Kerry got 252 electoral votes. Kucinich would have been lucky to break 50 so that's what is meant by "electability".

Plus the he could barely break 10% in his own state during the primaries. Oh, an he lost his own congressional district during the presidential primary too.

[mikelgb]

99. Ugh

If people vote for him he is electable...

the arument always sound sooooo stupid.

"I really like Dennis Kucinich and his platform. I agree with almost everthing. BUT, he's just not electable so I'm going to vote for John Q. DLC, a moderate with 'broad' (aka msm) support"

sigh... with these defeatisit attitudes we will NEVER get a deacent guy like Dennis to lead this country out of FEAR

[ISUGRADIA]

135. "If people vote for him he is electable" well people did not in 2004

when people had the chance to vote for him. He had a chance in a state like Iowa or NH where money is not as much of an issue to appeal to people. He did not there or really in any state. Just may be there are not as many Democrats who agree with the DK approach as his supporters think.

And also, issues are not the only factor that make people decide for a candidate. Most primary voters don't study the candidates for endless hours, go to meetups, watch debates. The reasons for selecting a candidate can be pretty shallow.

[LWolf]

158. My mistake.

Getting 252 electoral votes and losing the general election to George Bush is what is meant by "electability." I thought it meant that the candidate could win the election, and therefore be "elected."

If I'd realized that you didn't have to be elected to be "electable," of course I would have been satisfied with the eventual outcome, as long as the "electable" guy got nominated and lost. :sarcasm:

[fujiyama]

169. Yeah I'm sure Kucinich would have done much better

He came in FOURTH in his own district in the primaries, which shows that his district may like him as a represidentative but don't have the confidence he could win nationwide.

It's funny, but you dismiss my suggestion he should run for statewide office and instead just insult Kerry, offering no evidence Kucinich could have done any better.

I'm not expecting you to offer evidence that Kucinich could do better. It's impossible to show an alternate reality, but Kucinich has yet to prove he could even win one state primary or election, let alone an actual nationwide election.

[inthebrain]

170. Kerry did an awful job of taking the fight to Bush

He dissapeared for weeks at a time after he won the nomination. I remember people asking in the weeks leading up to the convention, "Where the hell is this guy?"

On the issues and in the debates, Kerry still beat Bush. His major problem was arguing that he could do Bush's Job Better!!!!!! ie Continue the war in Iraq and do a better job.

That was a bad move when so many in this counry thought the war was already going sour. I thin any other canididate other than Gephart and Lieberman would have done a better job.

Sharpton would have mopped the floor with him!!!!

Kerry was to weak in calling Bush on his lies. That hurt.

I voted for Nader in 2000 and supported Kerry in 04'. I felt like I fought harder for Kerry, than Kerry fought for himself.It really was embarassing in that regard.

Kucinich would not have backed down from Bush. That man would have taken Bush for a ride on the rails and I was really looking forward to it.

I would love to unleash him on McCain in 08'. Those debates would be ripe for pay per view.

[LWolf]

186. I'm not going to bash Kerry to engage you.

While I wasn't happy with his candidacy or campaign, I supported the man.

The bottom line is that my choice of candidate is based on issues and work on issues; other people choose according to the supposed "electability" formula. I don't think that's the way to go, so arguments about "electability" simply won't go anywhere with me. I think politics, and campaigns, should be about issues. If it's not about the issues, I'm not there. While I've always voted, if I don't feel represented by the candidate, my vote will go to the independent or 3rd party candidate who stands for me. On the other hand, crunching "electability" numbers also leaves out a huge number of Americans who don't vote at all, because they don't feel that any of the choices represent them. I know some of these people, and I've spent considerable time and energy trying to convince them to participate. A candidate who stood for them would have a better chance than a candidate they perceive as "status quo." Again, just my small, inconsequential, non-political opinion.

I don't have to guess who WOULD have done much better according to my criteria: issues. Kucinich beats Kerry on the issues hands down, from my perspective.

[ISUGRADIA]

171. Key words if you read your own post: "could win election"

That doesn't mean "will win election". Kerry made mistakes with the responce to the swift boat ads, his advisors, etc. but could have won with a better campaign. As it was, he kept an incumbent to the closest win in almost 90 years.

No way in hell Kucinich would have come close. His past connections to transendental meditation and the maharishi folks alone would have driven the flake factor though the roof. Christ, the Dems in Ohio did not even support him.

[inthebrain]

180. Most of the crap you mention

belong in the tabloids.

You think the electorate gives a crap about that stuff? Bush claims "god talks to him". Therefor I dont think people care as much about that stuff as many would think.

Come election time, all counts of voter fraud aside, Kerry still lost that state. Kerry was selected all in the name of finding an electable candidate. They were wrong.

THe primaries were held in such a way so that there would be as little debate as possible. In the end, come time for the RNC, many of those that selected Kerry already knew it was a huge mistake. Kerry and the rest of the DNC did a crappy job of taking on Bush. THis was an election that was theirs for the asking. A politician couldnt have requested an easier candidate to beat than GWB!!!!

Yet still, when it comes to selecting candidates, Democrats do so on the defensive. Why is that?

Most of the tabloidy gossip qualities you brought up belong in the same dumpster as the swift boat garbage. It's about the issues!!!!

[ISUGRADIA]

182. "tabloidy gossip "? Sorry, but a large portion of the electorate

has god talking o them in one way or another, they are called fundie Christians so Bush's religion is not out of the mainstream to a large chunk of ppl in this country. The TM stuff is still on the flaky edge of politics, like it or not, and Kucinich's best county in Iowa was that because of TM practitioners.

Like it or not, most elections are very minimally concerned with real issues. Most people pay little attention to what goes on in the world on the left and the right. So commercials and image make up a hell of a lot of modern campaigns. The issues are what the 30 second spots make them to be. It's the horse race rather than stances. If there's a way to change that, I'd be glad to hear it.

DK is a good Congressman but as a presidential candidate he's out of his league. That said, he should run in 2008. If Democrats vote for him as the nominee, that will say a lot about a change in the party. I don't see that happening though.

[mikelgb]

96. beacuse

the media was in love with howard dean if Dennis was ever methioned it was preceded by "dark horse" or "long-shot" even when he was one of the only dems in the race.... the establishment is terrified of DJK and his Dept. of Peace.

[dansolo]

184. I never understood the idea of the Department of Peace

If you want to promote all of the issues that Dennis wanted to be covered by the Department of Peace, then all a President needs to do is staff the State Department with people who will promote peaceful ideas. The notion of a Department of Peace seemed to me to be a foolish attempt to pander to the anti-war crowd, and served no purpose that couldn't be accomplished with already established institutions.

[LWolf]

188. Then again,

the notion of a Department of Peace might just be this:

The reality is that whatever direction we are spending your time, attention, resources, and action on is the direction the nation will take.

Spend our stuff on fear, aggression, greed, sanctimony, and proving our "bully" crown to the world, and look what we've got.

The DOP demonstrates a clear, concrete focus on non-violent solutions, both domestically and abroad. It is a shift in national consciousness that would make our nation wholly a better place to live in and engage with the world from.

It's kind of like a universal concept; what goes around comes around, etc.. Or, in other words, to "put our money where our mouth is:" a chance to regain some integrity by walking the talk of freedom and civil rights. Or...I could go on all day. The positives are many.

Dennis will be reintroducing the bill next month. In 2004 he had 53 congressional cosponsors. The campaign for the DOP has gained some traction since then, and I'm excited to be a part of it. To really understand the idea, go here:

http://www.dopcampaign.org/

[Imagevision]

30. 3 more years of Bush and Ohio will be beggin for a Democrat!

[YOY]

79. Never underestimate the stupidity of Ohioans in large numbers...

At least those below Cuyohoga Country (I am originally from Medina BTW.)

The fundies, hillbillies, and gun kooks down there aren't too keen on him.

Remember some of the negative factors in the big picture (to mainstream Americans):

-Non-Anglo saxon last name (Croatian actually)
-DIVORCED! (although I believe on decent terms)
-Shrub's nickname for hims is 'the Mayor'...demeaning
-Vegetarian
-Liberal Catholic

Of course most of those are positive or negligible in my book. But the Rovians would have a field day.

[Hippo_Tron]

196. Leave the Gov race to Ted Strickland

He's not as liberal as Kucinich but he's certainly a good dem... against the war, anti "free" trade, pretty good on most economic issues, and really is only votes with the GOP on gun control.

I would love to see Kucinich run for US Senate, though, and I think that he could do very well raising grassroots money and support with his national name recognition.

[Fovea]

3. I'd vote for him

with Dean, Edwards, Boxer or Clark.

[Imagevision]

85. Would like to see a debate between Hillary & Dennis

that I think would bring out exactly what Hillary has or hasn't the ability to do.

[Imagevision]

87. Dennis has a lot on the ball - not the strong financial backing

Hillary has....at least not yet. But, you gotta be real, you try to install a people President and big biz just says, that ain't gonna happen, they want wars, tax cuts and understand where their coming from.

vicious circle.

[inthebrain]

4. He may be the only Dem

I'll support for the ticket. He's one of the few politicians that willing to take a punch for working people.

He is a REAL Democrat!!!!

[Mojambo]

7. I'd LOVE to be able to vote for Kucinich. n/t

[serryjw]

162. You are all forgetting ...that HE would WIN 40%

of Americans that don't vote because NO ONE represents them. IF we raised the money we did in 2004 which would give DK the ability to reach these people they would come out and vote for him. He is the PERFECT labor party candidate. Yes, we would lose some of the middle but would gain the disenfranchised, all ethnic minorities & certainly 90% of the Gay vote.......They are great numbers in my book

[SteppingRazor]

8. I'd rather see him run against DeWine for the Senate...

He's already had his brand marketed to the nation in the last presidential election. People see him and immediately think commie socialist pinko. At least in Ohio, people are actually familiar with the man, so he can run a race without constantly defending himself. Plus, he could actually beat DeWine. And I'm not positive of his national electability.

[MuseRider]

10. Whatever he decides to do

I am there.

[GracieM]

11. Voted for him in Ohio primary

In fact, he was winning my precinct for a moment....I was the first person to vote.

[Nikki Stone 1]

32. I voted for him in the CA primary.

Even though I figured by that time it was Kerry's election.

[Wetzelbill]

13. voted for him once, would be proud to do so again

I haven't decided who I want to support in '08, I'll wait until they start officially getting into all of that stuff. But DK is a great man.

[timtom]

177. I voted for him and I'd do it again.

I believe in voting one's conscience. His platform statements were clear, concise, and unequivocal.

By the way, did anyone notice how he was marginalized during the debates? I remember his peeking out from behind one of the speakers, and they switched to another camera. He'd look out from the other side, and they'd switch cameras again. Make him invisible. Bah! They don't believe it could happen, but if there were a populist groundswell for Kucinich, it would be like Vesuvius reaching for Pompeii.

[zalinda]

14. He wouldn't win..........period

It doesn't matter what his positions are. Here is is the unvarnished truth..........he doesn't exude strength. If we were in a time of peace and prosperity, he may be elected, but not in these times. People are going to look for a hero figure. And, I know Kerry had it all over the Bush, but people remembered his tough talk after 9/11 and that's all they cared about. And of course, he's a "Texan", just like John Wayne, so of course he's strong and can take care of us.

Sorry, but no offense, Kucinich comes off like some stereotypical gay uncle. In these days of TV, you REALLY have to look the part more than have the brains to be president.

zalinda

[inthebrain]

15. I'm sorry but.......

Kucinich has more balls than Kerry, Bush, MCcain and Dean combined.

He not one to back down to the bullies in corporate America. Say what you will but Americans have been dying (no pun intended) for a guy of his calibar to come along for decades.

I knw the tree hugger stereotype comes to mind but Dennis really doesnt exude the tree hugger characteristics. I'll take a whole party of Kucinish's over anyone.

Besides, politics is about issues NOT playing tough guy. YOu want to elect a bunch of people who play tough guy in the sand box? You will contiue to lose elections you should win.

Besides, Republicans have the lock on "cowboys and indians".

[zalinda]

21. It doesn't matter what he DOES

it matters about what he looks like to the middle Americans who swing vote. We can say what ever we want about him, but the truth is he will still be equated with Dukakis and the too large army helmet that was put on him. He will be thought of as a little boy. I really don't care what my guy looks like, I think about what he can do. That is me, though.

But, the fact is, the Americans that don't pay attention to much will vote against him because of the way he looks. He doesn't look commanding, and in a time of war, they will not vote for him. Why do you think Bush parades around in those John Wayne get ups?

Sorry, but that's life in these times. I wish it was different, but it isn't.

zalinda

[inthebrain]

27. Bush looks like an idiot whenever he dons....

those get ups. Bush didnt win based on playing get ups. Bush won mostly becuase of the media thats behind him and the fact that Kerry did so poorly taking on the Iraq war. Outside of voter fruad in Ohio and Fla, those were two damning factors.

And based on looks I dont think Bush I, Bush II and Reagan were great looking candidates. As a matter of fact look wise and rhetoric wise, Bush II is the weakest of the lot.


ANd speaking of middle AMerica. Kucinich is a great candidate who speaks to them. He at least votes and lives his politics. I dont see him voting for CAFTA,NATA and the Iraq war and then claiming he can do a better job. He is a progressive candidate that takes a stand on principle.

Something that is sorely lacking in this Democratic landscape. Trust me, you nominate Kucinich and nobody is going to give to craps as to who looks better in an Army Helmet.

As a nation at war we havent been acting as one anyways. DK may not be a millitary drama queen but at least he knows the sacrafices that take place when you involve yourself in these wars for empire. Something that Kerry never really took on the way he should have.

This party keeps thinking the way they do about candidates it's going to continue losing elections. Acting like a Republican party and playing dress up does little to inpire people. In case you didnt notice, Kerry tryed that with his duck hunting routine and looked like an idiot.

It's candidates like that who are the reason why we have so many swing voters in the first place. YOur better trying to convert them to democrats, and going after non voters, than nominating uninspiring candidates who act, talk and walk like the uninspiring candidates in the other party.

[LWolf]

157. Agreed.

I believe the difference here is between substance and marketing. An aura of supposed "strength" can be marketed, but that doesn't make it so. For God's sake, look how many people out there think GWB exudes "strength." He's like the school yard bully who struts his stuff as long as his gang is there to back him up, but who couldn't keep himself from tripping over a marshmallow on his own.

Anybody could exude more strength than Bush without much effort. I don't know that Kerry did. I felt like he was tip-toeing around, trying to win without any real confrontation, and counting on marketing his war record as evidence of strength to appease the masses.

Real strength? The media doesn't like to report it, do they? People don't know, or don't hear, because it is under a blanket "ignore or deride" by the msm. Who consistently backs what is right no matter who, or how many, he faces in opposition? Dennis. Who is not intimidated by any opponent, or by the size of the opponent's bankroll or army? Dennis. Who has the courage to stand up for us when others cave? Dennis.

[goodhue]

40. Strength is a BS strategy, that has and will lead to chronic losses

Don't believe the DLC hype.

Strength at home and all that jazz is a snoozer which the Repukes will always trump with being stronger still.

[bvar22]

16. Lets take a look:

*AGAINST Iraq Occupation.

*FOR Universal HealthCare

*AGAINST NAFTA/CAFTA/SHAFTA WTO (withdraw)

*FOR Protections for American Workers

*FOR Equal Protection and Rights for ALL Americans(Choice, privacy)

*AGAINST Patriot Act (Repeal)

*FOR Guaranteed Quality Education

*FOR Clean Energy and Environmental Renewal

*FOR Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms

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

Sounds like a Democrat to me!

[inthebrain]

18. YOu're forgeting something

He doesn't come off like "tough guy".

Maybe we should nominate Wes Clark so we look like we'remore addicted to the millitary industrial complex than the Republicans are. After all, everybody loves it when their nation is run by a four star general.

We really need to beat the Republicans by nominating people look and act more like Republicans.

(sarcasm)

[FrenchieCat]

64. That was so necessary to make your point in promoting Kucinich?

Geeze, bring down others, why don't you? No real reason....just cause ya can. How brave of you! :sarcasm:
I'm so not impressed!

Being a 4 star General is not an easy feat. So you can try to diss it if it helps you and your personality out. But, I mean, some of us just need to put others down to elevate others and feel bigger while doing it. Of course, it's not for everyone....but a little mean spiritness can so go a long way for one's ego....I guess.

I mean....just a plain ol' first in his class, intellectual Oxford Masters Rhodes Scholar southern multi lingual married for 36 years telegenic self made intellectual articulate leader. Hey, I know! Let's just diss him and feel superior. Why? I don't know. cause there can only be one good Democrat out there at a time. And it would be so "distasteful" that, My....oh My, we would respect someone who gave service to this fucking country for 34 years. I mean, why? Earning less than $50,000 per year until attaining the rank of General...and then being retired still not making more than $89,000 as a 4 star who got retired for arguing the the saving of civilians.....

Sad, sad....and one of the many reasons that we are losers.

Guess if Kucinich ever becomes President, Peace will break out all over the world anyways. So we would no longer need a standing army. At that point, being a 4 star General will be a bit like being a janitor or something. Right? :shrug:

[inthebrain]

70. Your just a fanboy

You still havent answered my question at to whether or not you thought Clarks plan to expand the Kosovo war to Russia was a good idea.

Your a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Clark don't exactly have all his eggs in a bundle. Face facts, you can't claim one minute that the Iraq war is immoral and the next minute be the one advocating exanding the war to Russia.

Wes CLark aint the progressive you paint him out to be. A real liberal, which you claim Wes Clark is, would have gone against the order to drop cluster bombs and stopped it. Even Michael Moore, who endoresed Clark wasnt a fan of the Kosovo bombings.

Perhaps you should watch "bowling for columbine".

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[Crunchy Frog]

125. You still haven't explained how occupying an airstrip in Prisina

equates to "expanding the war to Russia". Maybe you could try explaining that enormous leap in logic. While you're at it, maybe you could try to explain your hijacking of a positive Kucinich thread for the purposes of attacking another Democrat.

And I have watched and very much enjoyed "Bowling for Columbine". I guess Michael Moore may be one of those people with the maturity to realize that you can support someone without necessarily agreeing with them on everything, or maybe he learned more and did some reassessing, another mark of maturity that you might learn from.

Anyway, I will leave you with this thought.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

17. "Hey, Why Not?" That's not much of a slogan...

[Nikki Stone 1]

23. I'm not much of a sloganeer. Maybe there is someone out there who is

[NoPasaran]

19. Yeah, I'm so sick of these close elections

Some of you young DUers have never seen an authentic landslide.

[LittleClarkie]

43. Oh, you mean like McGovern and Nixon?

That kind of landslide?

[NoPasaran]

44. Hey, McGovern got 17 electoral votes

I think we should aim for single digits!

[LittleClarkie]

45. Indeed. How many electoral votes does Minnesota have?

We could try to Mondale ourselves to death.

[NoPasaran]

47. I'm going for DC only!

Three big ones, baby!

[LittleClarkie]

48. Don't forget that even they went for Reagan

Maybe we can dream the impossible dream... a big fat goose egg! Sigh. That would show them our ideological purity!

[NoPasaran]

49. The Big Nada! Almost too much to hope for!

That would show those repub-lite bastards!

[WildEyedLiberal]

145. We can measure our ideological purity through our lack of real votes!

There is a negative correlation between being LIBERALLY PURE and actually winning elections. Clearly, if we care about progressive values, we must lobby to win only the DU vote. Those DLCers better not mess with us!!!!

:sarcasm: in case it wasn't evident :P

[bornskeptic]

54. Mondale didn't lose DC

He got 85% there. The worst a Democrat has ever done in DC was Carter in 1980 with 75%.

[LittleClarkie]

55. That's what I get from listening to a Conservative

who said that Reagan even won DC. Stoopid, stoopid monkey!

[fujiyama]

150. I think VT would be the new MN

Hey, they're about to elect a socialist-independant to the senate. Unfortunately MN seems to have shifted rightward over the years.

[QC]

107. Mondale/Dukakis 2008! n/t

[Desertrose]

22. He may be the only Dem who keeps me Dem...plus he's the best choice

DK rocks!!!!!

I worked on his campaign ...voted for him ....and would do it all again if he decides to run!!!

[aspberger]

24. He needs the hair club for men or something

that hair piece of his is hideous.

[rucky]

90. dude, that's his hair

it's unruly Eastern European hair. i oughta know, because I'm "blessed" with the same outcropping on my noggin.

[aspberger]

142. he should get it styled or something

n/t

[goodhue]

26. You Betcha!

Dennis Kucinich - kucinich.us - Insight and Action


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: August is for Organizing
From: "Dennis Kucinich"
Date: Wed, August 3, 2005 2:08 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Activists and Supporters,

Congress is now on recess and I am back in my district in Ohio for the
month of August, where I am finalizing plans for a major organizing
effort. As you know if you follow the news on http://www.kucinich.us, I
have been relentless in Congress this session. I will be asking for your
help on these issues and more:

* I have been continuing my challenge to the war in Iraq, and helped to
develop a bi-partisan withdrawal Bill to hasten the return home of our
troops without partisan wrangling, deadlock or defeat.

* I have developed a detailed response to the Administration's attempts to
privatize Social Security, which we will see build to full steam when
Congress reconvenes after Labor Day.

* I am continuing to shine light on the positive benefits of - and the
critical need for - national single-payer health care which, along with
universal coverage for citizens, offers significant economic advantages
for employers.

* I continue to spearhead positive alternatives to destructive and
misguided policies which set America apart from the rest of the world's
aspirations for peace, harmony and a sustainable planet.


We are beginning a nation-wide organizing effort which will focus on
issues as they are slated to come up in Congress. Our initial focus for
August and September will be Iraq, a Department of Peace, and Social
Security.


1. The tragedy of the war in Iraq continues to be compounded by increasing
casualties of US troops and Iraqi civilians. I need you to contact your
congressional Representative and ask him or her to join in co-sponsoring
H.J. Res. 55, which will require the Administration to submit to the
Congress a plan to withdraw from Iraq by the end of this year and to begin
the withdrawal no later than October of 2006. Congressmen Walter Jones
(R-NC), Ron Paul (R-TX), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), and I have organized
this effort which will be instrumental in the United States taking steps
to finally end the war.

2. The readiness to go to war in Iraq points to a larger problem in our
society, one which the creation of a Department of Peace is intended to
address. In September, thousands will travel to Washington in support of
legislation to create a Department of Peace, to make nonviolence an
organizing principle in our society. We will focus on the domestic
purposes of the legislation: programs to address domestic violence,
spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in the schools, racial violence,
violence against gays, police-community disputes and more. I have gathered
more than fifty members of Congress to support the legislation. Help us
gain more. The bill will be introduced in September.

3. The leadership of the House plans to bring up Social Security
legislation in September. The attempt to privatize Social Security is
theft, pure and simple. I spent a considerable amount of time studying
this issue and have produced a 55 minute DVD which is available for house
parties, town hall meetings, or broadcast on local television. This video
is the definitive response to privatization. Order your copy from
http://store.kucinich.us.


We will soon deliver tools on kucinich.us to help you organize town hall
meetings, house meetings and teach-ins on these issues, but don't wait for
us. Organize events now and write to us at [e-mail] with event
details and, if appropriate, we'll help with publicity. I will participate
as my schedule allows by calling in to meetings or, where I can, arranging
to be present to speak.


We must ignite fundraising during August as well. I have not bothered you
with frequent fundraising pitches. But I need your help to fuel our work
on these and other important matters such as universal prekindergarten,
fair trade, sustainable energy, stopping weapons in outer space, and more.
Help us. Please hold informal fundraising gatherings in your home and
forward this email with a personal appeal to your friends asking them to
contribute. Our online contribution form is at
http://www.kucinich.us/contribute. A downloadable form to print and mail -
for use at house parties and for those who prefer to contribute by check -
is at https://www.kucinich.us/contribute/donation-form.pdf.


Remember when we began this journey a few years ago? That same vision
which animated my involvement on the national scene is more important than
ever: Peace and social justice. Peace and economic justice. Peace and human
rights. Peace and human freedom.

You are an essential part of everything I do in Congress - thank you. I
work for you, but I can't do it without you.


Dennis



Watch http://www.kucinich.us for updates.

Please support Dennis's work by making a contribution at
http://www.kucinich.us/contribute and by forwarding this message widely.

Order Dennis's Social Security Town Hall DVD and other videos from
http://store.kucinich.us .

[MuseRider]

37. WOW!

"I work for you" what a novel concept!

[goodhue]

29. www.draftkucinich2008.com

http://www.draftkucinich2008.com/

[Mairead]

33. Yep, that's what we did last time--drafted him. And then let him down

because we didn't have an organisation on the ground waiting to go. He nearly killed himself trying to overcome that deficiency, but it wasn't enough. And it won't be enough next time, either!

How saddening that we don't seem to learn from experience.

[Nikki Stone 1]

35. What exactly happened?

And is there anyway to prepare this time around?

[Mairead]

36. There was no well-constructed organisation to support his candidacy

Everything was run out of Cleveland in an ad-hoc way, very often by people more concerned with exercising power than in understanding what they needed to be doing.

The key problem was no organisation to do the plodding upfront educational outreach about his history or politics, so when Media Inc trashed him--as they did from day zero!--they had a clear field. All anyone heard about him was 'vanity candidate', 'unimportant', 'a joke', and so it's not precisely surprising that nobody took him seriously except the people who should have formed the cadre...and of course the people who would rather have opened an artery--someone's artery, anyway--than see him elected.

As to this time around, yes, there is a way, the same one as last time: commit time and energy to create an organisation that will do the necessary preparation upfront. There's no rocket science involved, all it takes is commitment.

But that apparently seems too much like work; so far there's been no action except a few sparks from genius, desertrose, and me that flickered and died in the absence of anyone else adding fuel.

If I sound jaundiced, it's only because I am. Too many of DK's supporters appear to be members of the Concerned Couch-Potatoes of America, whose slogan is 'Caring, By Itself, Should Be Enough'. Everyone wants to eat dinner, nobody wants to cook or clean up. Not a receipe for success.

[goodhue]

38. Not everything was run out of Cleveland.

MN4DK did relatively well despite failings of Cleveland office. Rather than wait on national to get its act together, which would have been futile indeed, MN4DK plowed ahead and organized on our own here in MN. With no paid staff, MN had one of DK's best showing. One of the most active organizers is now Associate Chair of the DFL.

[Mairead]

50. Yes, there were spot efforts that were well up to a useful standard

And Minnesota (the Twin Cities, really) was one of them.

The problem was that the Twin Citieses and the Honolulus were few, and far between.

[MuseRider]

41. Some of us

are working our asses off doing other things right now. It is not fair to say that. He has not indicated his intention to run, if he does many of us will be more than willing to do what needs to be done but it really angers me to be considered a "Concerned Couch-Potato". There are many, many things that need doing and some of us are very busy doing them.

[Mairead]

51. I'm sorry if you feel offended, MR, but I'm really not up for making nice

about this. The problem was real, and will be real again unless enough people take responsibility and do something to change things.

Saying that you're ready to act once he 'indicates' sounds fine enough, but if we wait til then it will once again be too damned late to start anything. That's what happened the first time--he caught everyone on the hop, and it was too late to do anything effective.

If we want him in office, then we have to be there with an organisation built, tested, and greased by the time he does decide. In fact, whether we have such an organisation will --if he has any sense!-- by a big factor in his decision. He doesn't need to half-kill himself again.

As to 'many, many things' yes, I'm doing a few of them too. But getting him into office still feels important enough that I'm willing to back-burner those things, if there's a chance. If you aren't willing to do the same, okay, you're entitled to your own priorities and there's nothing more to be said. But please don't claim you want him in office if you're not willing to do the work it takes--that's where the CCPoA motto comes into it.

[MuseRider]

56. Just to respond

I have not been in the best mood today and I realize that my initial reply to you was snarky and for that I am sorry but this one may not be much better after that reply to me. Gay rights in my state are about as bad as they can get and there are precious few of us working on it. I myself do not know very much about the things we are doing state wide so I am learning on the fly and it is taking me almost all my spare time.

I guess I resent the implication that I am not somehow serious about this just because I don't quit my jobs or give up on my friends and other obligations. Yes, I do resent that. We all have things in our lives and having someone tell us we are just not serious enough is insulting. I think 20 hours a week or more doing other political things is important and if it isn't enough for you, well then that is simply is not my problem.

So please do not claim that my priorities are not where they ought to be or that I am not serious enough for you or that I have put DK on the back burner. That is insulting. Frankly I find it a time waster to give up the important work I am doing now to set something up for something we don't even know if it is going to happen. Please, if you want people to help, telling them they are less serious than you are and that you do not have the time to bother with them is NOT the way to do it.

I will do everything I can to see him get elected if he does indeed run. Is that OK? Serious enough?

[Mairead]

62. It doesn't seem like a complicated proposition, to me.

We saw what happened last time. I think we can all agree why it happened: the corporate media didn't even begin to play fair, and we had absolutely nothing on the ground to counter it.

Fast forward to now. Do you see any reason why the corporate media would play fair next time, if there is a next time? I don't. Do you see anyone trying to build something to counter their unfairness? I don't.

If we got a bad result last time, and the same conditions apply this time, what do you suppose the likelihood is of our getting a better result? Me, I'd say zero.

If you want to put your time and energy into civil rights or whatever, that's your absolute right. I'm not going to complain about your choices; everyone has the right to their own priorities.

But don't kid yourself about the value of your commitment to a DK presidency. Being willing to do all you can, but only after it's too late to matter, falls into the category of 'meaningless gesture'.

I'm going to continue working on my non-DK laundry list, too. The main difference between you and me is that I've publicly said I'm willing to back-burner my stuff and do my part to get DK into office if there are enough other people willing to do their part. I'm not going to sacrifice myself trying to get the CCPs off the couch, but if there are enough non-CCPs willing, I'm willing.

I'm sorry that you find me harsh, but the reality of what's going on is lots harsher and less forgiving than I am.

[Nikki Stone 1]

201. What exactly is needed at this stage, Mairead?

It sounds like the issue is media handling, and that sounds more like professionals than volunteers to me. So would fundraising be the issue now, with an eye to hiring some extremely able folks to badger the M$M and to correct it publicly when it throws out its propaganda?

[eridani]

61. That's because almost none of his supporters were active Dems--

--until they joined his campaign. In my state, most were independents or Greens with no experience at all with the fundamentals of the caucus process of the Democratic party. We had maybe four people in the whole state who knew how the process even worked. After the first caucus round, the people who did not want to stick with the Dems dropped out. Those of us who stayed are committed to promoting the progressive agenda within the party, and we now know a hell of a lot more about how things work.

The current situation is that we don't know if he wants to take another presidential run, go for Ohio state office, or just stay where he is now and use that position for national agendas, a la Conyers and Waxman. I'm not being a couch potato--I am extremely involved in local politics now. Being a geek, I'm not a suitable potential officeholder, but I'm working hard on the progressive farm team that we will need to back Kucinich or anyone else who is carrying our banner. (Have we learned nothing from the Rainbow Coalition and its major strategic error of tying its organization to the presidential aspirations of Jesse Jackson?)

[Mairead]

63. I find that explanation hard to believe; it seems cart-before-horse-ish

My microcosmic experience out here in western Mass was 'Dennis who?'. Ordinary people didn't even know he was alive--thanks to Media Inc. They'd no slightest information about him, his history, or his politics. But once they started reading the handout, their attention abruptly sharpened: his politics were what they were looking for.

In '72, McGovern's machine focused on getting him the nomination, and succeeded brilliantly...or perhaps 'brutally' would be a better word. They were a real steamroller, very very effective.

But they didn't do anything in terms of edu outreach, so when election time came around, McGovern was mashed flat.

So the idea that what's needed to put DK into the WH is 'active Dems' doesn't seem right to me. What's needed is VOTES, and it doesn't matter where they come from. The only time 'active Dems' come into it is the nomination, and if we do a good job of edu outreach, they'll be convinced along with everyone else.

[eridani]

65. It has to be about building a progressive base of active Dems

Increasing the numbers of people who can do the outreach.

[Mairead]

67. Why do you see it as partisan?

Which would you prefer: to get DK into office right away via coalition politics, or get him into office only when it can be done by partisan Dem politics?

[eridani]

68. Because Dems have PCOs, and third parties don't

People who won't organize to do electoral politics will never get progressives elected at the state level, let alone nationally. Besides which Kucinich is a committed Democrat, and is not about to run outside of the party, so the only possiblity would be for him to be a Dem nominee.

[Mairead]

69. PCOs? What're they, besides polycystic ovaries?

Your explanation about people who won't organise, etc, doesn't seem to relate to anything I know about. COuld you expand?

[eridani]

71. Precinct Committee Officers

And by organizing, I mean working on a structure that can put out candidates for every public office from dog catcher to president, not just issue agitation.

[Mairead]

72. So why must it be a partisan structure? DK, as perhaps you'll remember

was in favor of coalition. Do you regard that as having been only a policy of expedience on his part, or what?

[eridani]

74. Coalition with whom?

People who basically aren't interested in electoral politics, and refuse to do the requisite organizing?

[Mairead]

80. With people who share common goals.

Take me, for example. I'm interested only in getting certain policies made law. I don't care who does the work. So I have no interest in 'building up the Socialist/Green/Democratic/Vegetarian party'.

In this case, because of what I think I know about DK's politics and integrity, I'm interested in getting him elected President. I'm happy to work with anyone and everyone toward that goal. Since he'd need a supportive Congress, I'm happy to work with anyone and everyone toward that goal, too. But the litmus test for my support is policy, not party.

[eridani]

81. You want certain policies made into law--

--but you don't care about the organizational structure necessary to elect lawmakers?

[Mairead]

82. Electing people to Congress takes VOTES.

Why would you imagine that an organisational structure to turn out those votes has to be bound to a party?

[goodhue]

124. Missionary work.

I'm with eridani on this one. I'm focused on working through local party structure. I believe it to be what Dennis told us to do. Missionary work. Certainly outside organizations can and do play an important role, but the grassroots party structure is key--at least in states like MN where we in fact have a grassroots party structure.

[Mairead]

127. That's fine; you're entitled, as is eridani, muse rider, and whoever else.

All it means, though, is that getting DK elected President is not even potentially your top priority.

How sad.

[goodhue]

132. It's not a mutually exclusive thing.

Last time DK was not taken seriously by those in MN party structure. Next time, if there is one, he will be because we will be there.

My top priorities include bringing our troops home, promoting single payer, and getting party to actually challenge corporate interests.

I'm focused on issue advocacy within the party, and electing progressives to office in 2005 and 2006. Nothing sad about it from my perspective. As DK always said, it ultimately is not about him, it is about us and the issues.

If Dennis runs again, which I kind of doubt he will do in 2008, electing him president would certainly become my top priority. But my energies are going elsewhere at the moment. And the scolding seems unfair, but I certainly respect your opinion.

[Mairead]

136. I bet it is. (nt)

[MuseRider]

137. What you said.

I am amazed and sick at being called out by someone on the same side. I sure wish I could be more serious about our country and the drastic things that are being done but 20+ hours a week on top of life and jobs is just not enough. I guess we do deserve the title Couch Potato Activists. :eyes:

[eridani]

149. Because I've never seen any other kind that has worked

Greens think of themselves more as a social movement than an organization whose purpose is to get people elected to public office.

[serryjw]

163. It's not the same

We were fighting an incumbant with strong numbers, and ungoing war and too many kool-aid drinkers. It will not be like this in 2008.....I promise you!

[hippywife]

42. I signed the petition! n/t

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

53. signed!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

31. again YES YES YES!

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

52. Hell yes!! I'll support him again in 2008, absolutely no question.

I'm a diehard Kucitizen, what can I say?

[goodhue]

58. Kucinich: War Hits N.E. Ohio Hard

http://www.kucinich.us/archive/report/display.php?r=38&d=2005-08-03+15%3A01%3A26

War Hits N.E. Ohio Hard
August 3, 2005 3:01 pm ET

In the past two days we have received word that 20 soldiers connected with the 3rd Batallion, 25th Marines based in my district have died in combat in Iraq. This is an immense tragedy. Our hearts go out to the families of the soldiers as well as to all of the reservists who serve from the Brook Park unit. This is a time for us all to come together in support of those who have lost loved ones.

I will be contacting family members and working with local officials to plan a memorial. I want to thank each and every person who has contacted me indicating concern.

[burrowowl]

60. I knocked on doors for him last time

and I will do it again!

[bowens43]

66. He doesn't look like a president..that would sink him.

The majority of Americans really don't care what a presidential candidate does , promises or says. They care about whether or not he's likable. Whether or not he's attractive. Whether or not he look like a president. Kucinich is a funny looking little man. He will never be president.

[Pacifist Patriot]

75. Odd...

I think GWB is a funny looking little man. ;)

I understand your point. In this age of mass media, celebrity worship and a horrid preoccupation with youth and beauty an attractive candidate definitely stands a better chance. Not fair, not what is best for the country, but sad reality. I think Kucinich is an attractive man, but can certainly see how he does not conform with our societal standards for handsome.

[Strawman]

105. That's because they see politics as being about as relevant as a TV show

Which character do they wanna listen to and watch for another four years. Who is more entertaining?

You see, I think that just reinforces the case for someone like Dennis. Lets make politics have actual meaning for people rather than accept the fact that it is a farcical game and try to play that game better than the other side.

[Pystoff]

73. Yes and no

As much as I like him and he is one of the few truly honest ppl in politics...

I heard his ideas last campaign and they sounded like hippie authoritarinism for lack of a better term. Too many programs and would have cost the government tons to put into action. Don't get me wrong I think he is good and honest but I would prefer him to be head of a gov. dept. like HUD or something of that nature where his ideas would be fresh and really change something that sorely needs it.

[eridani]

76. Re universal health care--

"We are ALREADY PAYING for universal health care' we just aren't GETTING it. Also, he'd save tons of money by cancelling ridiculous programs like missile "defense," the cost of which could put all college students in the country through school without them having to pay tuition.

[Pystoff]

86. Okey dokey

We aren't paying for healthcare with fed money...they gutted medicare already. The states are paying for that healthcare now and Kucinich wants to make that part of the budget bigger true...and that is a good thing yes. A fed healthcare program would be a redtape mess considering the feds ALWAYS fuck things up tho. Make it a state run program with fed oversight to watch for corrution only and maybe just maybe it might work to a degree.

Yep missle defense is garbage I admit that. I really doubt with the inflationary cost of college that killing it off could pay for college tuitions for all now.

Lets be honest we can't expand the government like this anymore. Infact government needs retraction and alteration more than anything now then start from there and make these kinds of changes. If we just add and retract without putting ourselves back to where it is fiscally doable it'd be just as bad as what BushCo has just done to it with the gutting of Clintons work and adding his own bullshit ideas. Little steps to make gov. solvient first then move forwards to make government work for the ppl and infact by doing it that way would make the Pugs look even more like children and the Dems look like the adults and beter managers of the gov. thus ensuring the publics approval for a longer period.

Btw I don't punctuate so sorry if that wrankles your nose LOL.

[Strawman]

92. hey people, you can have health care when the gov't is solvent

keep voting for incrementalists who tell us they're going to give 95% of people (oh wait, that's just 95% of kids) health care and keep watching more people go without it. The reason they are incrementalists is because they don't give a shit. It's just an empty campaign promise. Later on they know they can blame the failure on the lobbyists and the Republicans and get away with it. There's no real sense of urgency at all from them.

I can live with the states administering the program, and I'm not an expert on the details, but what is key is that there be UNIVERSAL GUARANTEED health insurance and a "single payer" and that would be the federal gov't. It should be recognized as a positive right of all Americans. Not a benefit.

Give 45 million people the ability to go to the doctor and see how compelling those people find arguments for smaller government. They might even be inspired to vote because they'd finally seen politics work for them.

[Pystoff]

97. So it's better to...

Go ahead and just slash a bit here and there and instutute universal healthcare and figure out how the budget will work later eh?

BushCo runs it's budget planning that way too.

I said and I will say it again....

Make government somewhat solvient THEN institute universal healthcare WHEN it can be paid for and NOT run massive deficits. Yeesh ppl I didn't shitcan the idea I just want it friggen work right for a change and not leave the gov. in a damn mess like it is right now. Hell the accounting mess that BushCo is going to leave will take 2 years just to somewhat unravel!!!

Healthcare as provided by the state or fed is NOT a right of any citizen...I defer to the constitution on this one. It would be a great undertaking and a moral one tho but I am NOT poo pooing this get a grip ppl and read closer.

[Strawman]

104. Let them eat our balance sheet?

This is a rich country. We can afford universal health insurance just like every other advanced industrial country. What we cannot afford is this stupid war, tax cuts, and corporate welfare. It's a question of priorities, and the incrementalists might as well just say "I'm not going to do shit on health care. I have other priorities."

Health insurance, education, infrastructure. This is not wasteful, irresponsible spending. Those are social investments. We need more of those kinds of investments in this country, but instead we let the rich hoard too much of our national wealth and piss it away on self serving speculative investments.

And sure you won't find a right to health care in the Bill of Rights. Maybe you are a constitutional originalist, but I'm not. In a just society, people should have a right to health care. Imagine that you were creating a society, but you had no idea what your place in that society would be (you were behind Rawls's "veil of ignorance"), wouldn't you want that society to have universal health insurance?

[Pystoff]

115. Balance sheet? since when is it balanced?

The balance sheet is as unbalanced as it's ever been in US history and that's my major complaint.

I wasn't arguing against health insurance, education, or infastructure at all re-read again. Yes we are geared towards the rich and corporate masters I argue for populism within the party all the time here.

Exactly you won't find it in the constitution or bill of rights. And no I am not an originalist but I'd like to stick to it as much as we can within reason as well. It'd be nice to have it but it shouldn't be a right since we live in a capitalist society and things cost money that for a long time the government won't have. Which go's back to what I am saying....financial balance then move forward when our system can handle it not danm the torpedos full speed ahead. That's how we sink the damn ship.

[Mairead]

110. Many organisations, including by the CBO iirc, have run the numbers and

concluded that taking the profit and excess overhead out of healthcare would provide healthcare for the people who don't now have it for the same money we spend today.

There are a number of variant plans that twiddle this or that, but the bottom line is that it's basically a no-brainer. The biggest problem would be taking care of the folk who'd lose their jobs because of the conversion. The Labor Party has the best idea for that (much better than Dennis's one): see http://www.justhealthcare.org.

[Pystoff]

116. The CBO

Yeah and the CBO gave false numbers about the debt when Clinton entered office and he had to revise it and came back with a much large debt. I don't trust them to balance my checkbook.

[Mairead]

119. Sorry, my mistake: it was the GAO, not the CBO.

But if you have some complaint about them, too, then there are other organisations that have run the same numbers and come up with the same results, including the pioneering Woolhandler & Himmelstein study.

In fact, the only people who claim we can't afford universal healthcare are those who assume the necessity of allowing the wealthy to skim profit.

[Pystoff]

121. Ok

The GAO is a bit better but not always that on either. This idea would be massive though and take a year or 2 just to get the cost right barring inflation changing during that time even.

Oh yeah and also fighting the pharmesuitical companies and HMO's you would have to regulate them to hell and back and that'd cause a HUGE fight in congress.

[Mairead]

123. If you want to look at financial chapter and verse of one alternative

see http://www.justhealthcare.org/f_index.html

When the LP first test-marketed this proposal, it pulled around 80% approval, iirc.

[AJH032]

101. Agree

Universal health insurance is a good goal, but let's get our fiscal house in order first. Otherwise, exploding deficits will hurt people a lot more than federal health insurance would help them. Anyone who promotes universal healthcare via deficit spending seems to ignore that little problem.

[Strawman]

102. Wrong

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=7595

[AJH032]

108. Really?

I'm supposed to believe an article written by one person on an obviously partisan website over hard evidence, and the word of several economists, even very liberal ones?

And actually, if you read that article, he actually does promote fiscal discipline despite the first sentence, because he explains how to pay for things. That, by definition, is fiscal discipline. The author of this article does not promote exploding our deficit to unsustainable amounts; he merely says that small deficits are okay, which may or may not be true.

I know we can afford universal healthcare, it's just a matter of setting our priorities straight so that we can actually pay for it without generating huge deficits.

[Strawman]

111. Fiscal discipline is not a bad thing

But when it comes to us being the only advanced industrialized country without universal health care, it's a red herring. We could certianly afford it if we had the right priorities.

Irrational fear of making social investments for fear of running deficits is bad public policy. What Galbraith would say is that running up huge deficits for tax cuts for the rich or the war are not a good way to stimulate the economy out of a recession. Maintaining structural deficits for the benefit of the top 1% and defense contractors and big oil and other corporate interests at the expense of future generations, that's bad.

Deficit spending to provide health care, education, fix infrastructure, etc. is not bad policy. The return on that investment in terms of the social good and economic growth justifies deficit spending. Deficit spending is not inherently bad. It depends on what it's for. Without deficit spending this country would have went down the tubes in the 1930's. Sometimes you have to make social investments. Think of how much stronger our economy would be when a company like GM didn't have to pay for health care?

Galbraith has another atricle which I can't find entitled "Why Deficits Don't Matter?" that I think is really good also. I think Galbraith makes a good argument. Saying he's one guy (I suspect there are others concur) doesn't answer the argument in any substantive way. Why are you right and why am I wriong to say that it would be worth it to deficit spend to provide universal health care?

[Mairead]

112. Any number of organisations have run the numbers: we can provide

full non-profit healthcare for all for the same amount of money we're spending today. The only change would be that the wealthiest 15% of the population who own something like 95% of all stocks would no longer be putting money in their pockets every time one of us gets sick.

[Pystoff]

117. The goal by some

The goal is to ram through agendas regardless of the consequences and clean it up later because they are afraid they won't get enough time to do them and I disagree with that completely. That's politcally self serving like trying to imprint a persons "legacy" on the presidency type thing like the Chimp and pull off something big without regard to tomorrow. This has to be done right or it will never last I say take slow thoughtful steps on this and you see ppl jump out and try to knock me down for this right? Well this is where I part ways with radical idealism and say walk and get to the finishline rather than stick it into the wall....what's wrong with that? We need many many ppl's input economist, government officials that know how it works, and medical system experts to even get an idea if this can be done and done right before we say healthcare for all then check the cost later. I would like it to happen I support it but not if it is a haphazard affair.

[eridani]

174. Universal health care does not require any extra spending at all

The money that is now going to private insurance profits and bureaucracy could be directed toward paying for actual health care instead.

[eridani]

148. You are overlooking the huge pile of money wasted on private insurance

Canada's entire health care system is run with fewer bureaucrats than are employed by a single insurer, Blue Cross, in Massachusetts alone. There is vastly less red tape there than here. The secret is global budgeting, in which capital and operating expenses are assigned by region, thus leading to local control. Any fraud by practitioners takes money directly out of the pockets of their colleagues, who tend to notice such things.

It's like solving the problem of controlling the movements of a herd of cattle by building a fence around them and allowing free movement within. That's what Canada does. In the US, both public and private insurance do the equivalent of hiring a ridiculous number of cowboys with individual reins attached to each cow. Now tell me which system is more bureaucratic.

Universal health care will not cost any more than what we are paying right now. Why would people give a flying fuck whether money taken out of their pockets is called "taxes" or "insurance premiums"? We are ALREADY PAYING for universal health care; we just aren't GETTING it.

[Pystoff]

153. Yes and in my post after this one....

I explain what controlling the insurance compnaies entails.

Regualtion and we know what that would do...make Pugs go apeshit crazy.

Regualtion is what the insurance companies need but those companies own many a Pug and Dem and would cause a HUGE fight in congress that might last years. I loathe the bureaucracy (spelling?) and think that needs to be brought back to ground as well. But the politicians are the problem and the only solution is outsiders from the real world in government and a good does of Teddy Rooseveltism. Teddy Roosevelt style populism would be an awsome change for the Dems to make and would draw away so many Pugs from the middle their party would be a smaller group than the Dems at their lowest level thus ensuring some kind of movement by the fed.

Either that or a tax revolt by the public untill things get changed.

[eridani]

160. Whatchu mean, "control"?

We need to abolish them, except for those few who will want to provide bells and whistles for those who want policies for things not covered by the public plan. Of course the Repugs will go apeshit, but why should that stop us? I, for one, am sick and tired of Dems not saying things that need to be said for fear of how Republicans might respond.

[Pystoff]

173. Fear what?

Well you got a problem there.

Since we live in a capitalist society and it is quite legal to sell insurance you are gonna have to explain how to make that illegal because I don't accept that nor does the average citizen. Unless you think all the jobs lost is going to be a good thing for the country or replace it with a very bloated government run system employing those ppl. And if you want a bloated government system you aren't going to get that past either party or the american ppl considering there won't be much trust in our government to run anything after the past oh say 200+ year track record.

[eridani]

175. Government insurance is absolutely NOT bloated!

No way shape or form. Selling private health insurance is the ethical equivalent of selling crack on school playgrounds. It's legalized theft. Canada has a tiny, tiny fraction of people administering health care compared to us. If government can run fire departments, it surely can run health care.

[Pystoff]

191. Ok then here just for you

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20050808/wl_csm/ocanadarx_1

[eridani]

192. Seems that some people are willing to kill their fellow citizens in order-

--ahead in the queue for non-fatal illnesses. Not having a hip replacement won't kill you, and I don't think anyone has the right to effectively deny care to people in life-threatening situations, or to force them into bankruptcy. Anyway, that's irrelevant for the US, since we spend 50% more per capita for health care than Canadians to begin with. All we need to do is to direct most of the money to actual health care, and we will be able to afford to staff for peak patient loads rather than average loads.

From the article--

For many Canadians, private healthcare wears the scarlet A - for America.

"There is no political support for American-style healthcare," says Michael McBane, coordinator of the Canadian Health Coalition, a healthcare advocacy group. He says he hopes provinces will toughen laws to prevent private insurers from entering the market.

Allowing people to buy private health insurance violates fundamental rights, McBane says, because not everyone will be able to afford it.

"You can't discriminate based on the size of your wallet on something as important as healthcare," McBane says. "I would say this is an aberration and the democratic process will correct it."

The public appears ambivalent about the ruling. A new poll conducted for the Canadian Medical Association finds that 52 percent of Canadians view the decision "favorably," and even more said it will reduce wait times. But when asked if the ruling would weaken the public system, 54 percent agreed, saying it was "a bad thing."

Allyson Lange, a federal government employee, says she would support a parallel, private health system but doesn't expect dramatic changes.

"There would be too much opposition," Ms. Lange says. "We see a lot of what goes on in the US - people go broke because they have a health issue."

[Pystoff]

193. Since you convieniently overlooked this

"In a split decision, the Supreme Court in June found that waiting lists for medical treatments were unacceptably long, causing some patients to suffer or die. The judges struck down a Quebec law banning private health insurance for procedures covered by Medicare. Patients like Mr. Zeliotis should be allowed to go outside the public system and pay for timely medical treatments through private insurance, the court said."

Waiting unacceptably long causing some patients to DIE and even BANNING them from using private insurance for procedures covered by state health care...wtf!!! is that going to fix????? Tha's nothing but pure bureacracy in action.

But your complaint is..."Seems that some people are willing to kill their fellow citizens in order ahead in the queue for non-fatal illnesses." Very convienient of you not to notice the Canadian SC there.

Also I want to ask you if you've ever needed a hip replacement and if you think that is fair to a person that might be inchronic pain to wait. Another thing chronic pain can be life threatening and reduce ones other abilities thus compounding their health problems by not being able to stay active. You know since you care so much about the average person and all.

And I also noticed you passed over the fact that Australia and New Zealand have universal health care AND private along side it and have for a long time and nobody is complaining there.

I AM FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE BTW...just fix the fucking country's messes first then go forward yeesh. I hope you read this because I have been saying it SINCE THE FIRST POST. There maybe that was easier to read.

[eridani]

195. My mother waited ***5 years*** for a hip replacement

That's how long it took the family to save up to help her pay for it. Pardon me if I can't get terribly upset about someone who had to wait 1/5 of that time and had no out of pocket expenses unless he wanted a private room.

I seriously doubt that Canada has anything like the 18000 people (very conservative estimate) per year that die here because they can't pay for health care. The SC of Canada obviously has higher standards than we do, and maybe that will result in public pressure for more funding of the system. Note that Canada actually does have private insurance for things that aren't covered by the state system. I'm betting that private insurance for things that are so covered won't have many takers, because very few people will be able to afford it.

Maybe we should actually consider planning a two-tier system from the start in the US. Line jumping allowed for anyone who wants to pay a 500% surcharge. People in high income brackets might go for that.

[Pystoff]

199. Nice passion play

Your mothers situation here in the US doesn't even make sense considering I was pointing out an article about Canadian healthcare which you had reffered to. Stay on target and quit jumping around for passion points...we aren't keeping a score. I already said before and apparetnly I have to say AGAIN I am for universal healthcare...got it this time? You apparently didn't read that article without letting your emotions get the better of you. Canada is having trouble paying for their system and is considering allowing private insurance is what the article was saying but you missed the whole first half of the article to target anything I said you didn't agree with. And when you aren't allowed to purchase insurance in Canada for a hip replacement then yes that's totalitarian medicine and BULLSHIT that would never be accepted in this country thus insuring universal healthcare wouldn't be accepted.
Line jumping??? wtf are you saying??? You mean we have to wait in line for healthcare here if we get UHC????? That spounds a alot like some old broken down soviet style bullshit and exactly what the opponents of this idea would say and they would defeat this idea easily.

Call me evil and nutty but fiscal balance then UHC would sell alot better. The apperance of adults running the system sells ideas better and pays for them without running shitloads of deficit gets votes and doesn't wreck the ship either.

[eridani]

200. Private insurance will not help Canadians pay for their system

The reason for that is that the entire purpose of private insurance is to take money from healthy people and give it to shareholders instead of to sick people.

Line jumping??? wtf are you saying??? You mean we have to wait in line for healthcare here if we get UHC?????

Whatthehell do you mean IF we get UHC? Plenty of us are waiting in line right now, for far longer than Canadians have to wait. That the better-off get to the head of the line by weight of wallet rather than medical need changes nothing for those of us who are not better off.

[Pystoff]

202. No but freedom to choose is better

You know freedom right? Freedom should exsist in our economic system as well and not be limited by a governemnt.

Yes I do not like insurance companies either nor do I defend them. But making them illegal is bullshit as well. A little insurance reform would do the trick quite well and is much better than making hundreds of thousands of unemployed insurance company workers right?

And the issue of shareholders don't even get me started...I find the single most damaging instituion in the last 200 years to the world economy to be stock markets.

The rant I did was as if I were joe blow voter and an example of how the average person would react.

The reason we have wait times and high cost health care are many nor could we even come close to hashing them out in this series of posts. Frankly an investment in medical schools and nursing schools and incentives to follow that path is what we need. UHC might have to wait a bit untill that first problem is solved because the shortage of medical professionals and insurance reforms would have to be solved or UHC would fall flat on it's face.

And that doesn't even scratch the surface on medical malpractice insurance oh geez that'd be a fight even Dems in congress would take both sides on.

[eridani]

204. I don't care about "freedom to choose" among competing fire departments

And I don't think there should be "freedom to choose" among health insurance plans for exactly the same reason. You don't get the choice of not contributing to the public good of having firefighters on call, and you should not have the choice of not contributing to the public good that consists of spreading health care expense risk.

What most people would prefer is the actual freedom to choose doctors, a freedom which is flat out not available to anybody but the rich here. In Canada, there is completely unrestricted free choice of physicians and other providers. (Though there, just as here, that means little to rural people who are 100 miles from any doctor, let alone one that they like.)

I don't think that having a job that mainly consists of telling other people they can't have health care is a legitimate occupation--we should retrain them to help provide actual care. (BTW, all single payer legislation that I am familiar with include retraining funds for obvious reasons.)

[Pystoff]

207. Ok this is over

You went nutty as a neo-con with your reasoning.

Authoritarinism by the far right or far left is not much different and you have slipped down the slope to the far left.

I've tried reason and keeping things in the realm of reality but you keep going off into some weird worldview of ramming your issue home without regard to doing it right or backing it with what steps might be done first.

Telling me I have no choice and I have to accept your system is simple fucking communist/faschist drivel. "you should not have the choice of not contributing to the public good that consists of spreading health care expense risk. " Oh really???? well guess what I am joe blow taxpayer and I vote and I sure wouldn't ever vote for anyone that said that to me....you are making a damn strong argument for social libertarians with statements such as that. No politician that dares utter something like that and expects my vote we aren't talking about clean air or water here we are talking about something people that abuse their bodies use and I'm expected to make sure some moran that might be doing meth gets to use my forced support for UHC incase they tweaked themselves into a vegetable of their own free will which I no longer had?????

It's a good thing you don't want a career in politics because you'd never get many votes with authoritarian policies like these.
This discussion is over because you went beyond reason and I will not debate this with someone that wants to deny my freedom to choose how I live.

And choosing is the thing the authoritarians want from us the most....As the state motto of New Hampshire says....live free or die.

[eridani]

210. So, you've stopped paying property taxes to support your fire department?

Yeah, it's over all right. Why should I debate with someone who thinks that he has the "freedom" to kill other people for his convenience? That's what "free" choice among various privatized options for insurance automatically implies, to the tune of 18,000 (bare minimum) of Americans per year.

[Pystoff]

211. Hop off your cross

Like I said it's over and your self righteous posturing only makes you look more whacked out when you accuse me wanting to kill ppl because I don't think your way.

Only an ass of major proportions would make that comparison...kinda like the old if you aren't with you are against us and the terrorist win line but with you it's this over the top crap that I want to kill ppl shit.

Wow a far left fundy neo-conish attack...I'm amazed.

[eridani]

213. Denying lifesaving health care to people on financial grounds--

--is murder.

[Pystoff]

215. When it gets written into the constitution you got a complaint

Till then you are just a whackjob with an axe to grind if someone doesn't drink your particular brand of coolaid.

And nothing to say but over the top rhetoric from your hip.

[eridani]

216. It is in the Constitution

It's called providing for the common good, just like fire departments, which are also not specifically named.

[mopinko]

77. because the election was stolen in his state, and he didn't

really do shit. that's why not.
clean elections is THE.MOST.IMPORTANT.ISSUE.
get it through your heads, people.

[LWolf]

98. Actually, DK was the first,

possibly the only, Dem candidate in '04 to speak out about BBV. He put something (sorry, I can't remember what it was at this point) on his website to keep it public when another site investigating it was shut down.

Do you know what he actually said or did about the vote count in Ohio, or are you assuming that "he didn't really do shit" because he didn't single-handedly do what the entire rest of the party couldn't accomplish?

[mopinko]

103. i actually remember very clearly

many, many threads here in november saying, where the hell is dennis? including one very angry one from our favorite angry man and friend of dennis, will pitt. he didn't even sign conyers original request of a gao investigation. my rep, jan schakowsy did. aside from a wimpy 2 minutes on jan 6, and one lousy press release he was invisible. i asked the question several times then- where is mr superclean. never got an answer besides- dunno.

[LWolf]

130. For the record

Objection to the counting of Ohio electoral votes
for President and Vice President

Dennis Kucinich speaking from the Floor of the House

<snip>

"Let us review just one of the very serious concerns with the Ohio election: voting machines were misallocated, causing voters to stand in line, in some cases for 10 hours. That denies voters equal protection of the law. In the State’s capital, a shortage of voting machines in predominantly African American communities was created, even though the Secretary of State knew far in advance that 102,000 new voters were registered in that county alone. The misallocation of voting machines was estimated to have denied at least 15,000 people the opportunity to vote. Furthermore, the Secretary of State, who under Ohio law has a constitutional duty to ensure election laws are upheld, failed to issue guidelines under the Help America Vote Act for 2 years. Contrary to the spirit of HAVA, which is to encourage voting and to have every vote count, Ohio’s top election official conducted the activities of his office in a most partisan manner, undermining public trust in the election. He sharply restricted the ability of voters to use provisional ballots. He endeavored to make it more difficult for lower-income people, who are more likely to move, to vote.

"We know who won the election, but what the American people do not know is the extent to which voting irregularities in the State of Ohio deprived tens of thousands of my fellow citizens of their 14th amendment right to equal protection of the law and their constitutionally protected right to vote. The right to vote is expressly protected by the 15th amendment, the 19th and the 24th amendment, and the 26th amendment to the United States Constitution. It is that right which has produced our very presence in this Chamber. It is that right which binds us as a Nation, which creates the unity of States, which legitimizes the government, which enfranchises not just the people, but in which reposes the treasure of the American people, a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

"People have marched for that right, have put their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor on the line for that right, have died for that right; and the least we can do is show our commitment to protecting that right.

"The outcome of the election will remain unchanged, but what must change is a system which denied citizens of a great State their opportunity to change the outcome. Election reform is our solemn duty. Our statements today show whether we intend to do that duty."

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H110&dbname=2005_record

Voted yea on the objection to S.CON.RES. 1, "A concurrent resolution to provide for the counting on January 6, 2005, of the electoral votes for President and Vice President of the United States."

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll007.xml

On electronic voting, addressing the issue before the general election:

<snip>

I am strong supporter and co-sponsor of H.R. 2239, otherwise known as the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accountability Act of 2003." If enacted, this bill would:

* Require all voting machines to produce a voter-verified paper record for use in manual audits and recounts.
* Ban the use of undisclosed software and wireless communications devices in voting systems.
* Have required all voting systems to meet these requirements in time for the general election in November 2004.
* Require that electronic voting systems be provided for persons with disabilities by January 1, 2006.
* Require mandatory surprise recounts in 0.5% of domestic jurisdictions and 0.5% of overseas jurisdictions.


http://www.kucinich.us/issues/e_voting.php

<snip>

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, who has been sounding warning alarms regarding electronic voting systems since he began his campaign last year, today called on federal, state and local election officials “to suspend immediately the implementation of any voting systems that do not provide a 100 percent reliable paper-trail back-up to corroborate results.”

A decision yesterday by the eight-member California Voting Systems and Procedures Panel that 15,000 electronic voting machines in four counties be banned in the November election because of “glitches” in the March primary election “is more than enough evidence that these systems could undermine the integrity and affect the results of November’s general election,” Kucinich said.


Especially in terms of the Presidential election, Kucinich said, “we cannot entrust the future of our country to technologies that are flawed, suspect, and proven to have failed, especially when those technologies have been developed by companies that have their own political agendas.”

http://www.opednews.com/kucinichpr042404_electronic_voting.htm

Where was he in November? I don't know. Maybe he figured it was Kerry's call. Where was the rest of the Democratic Party when he tried to address this issue before it happened?

Come to think of it, where was KERRY in November? Wasn't that Kerry I remember, conceding the election without contesting the irregularities in Ohio, just 24 hours later? Who should have been the FIRST person to cry foul? Who should have stood firm? If the candidate himself had wanted to dispute the votes, I'll bet Dennis would have been there.

[mopinko]

131. the votes don't belong to the candidate

they belong to the voter. i am just as pissed at kerry, and wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher. ]
big whip, he issued a statement. did he even attend the conyer's hearings?

[Mairead]

128. You're thinking of the Diebold stuff.

He put all the Diebold stuff on his site because Diebold was threatening people. Seeing it on his site, they suddenly shut up.

[goodhue]

139. Kucinich on Ohio from November 10, 2004 . . .

Published on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
A Note On The Presidential Election in Ohio
by Congressman Dennis Kucinich

The 2004 presidential election was determined by the results of Ohio. The unofficial result, as reported on November 3, had George Bush with approximately 136,000 more votes than John Kerry. Senator Kerry conceded the election to President Bush. He also said every vote would be counted.

I have been vigilant in monitoring Ohio's election in 2004. Attorneys from my party closely monitored the election before and during election day. While there were some incidents of voter intimidation noted by the attorneys, most if not all cases were resolved at the scene because of quick action by challengers, witnesses, the Kerry campaign, and volunteers from other campaigns including my own.

The unofficial count gave Ohio to George Bush by approximately 136,000 votes. The official count by county Boards of Election will begin on Saturday, November 13, 2004. It is due at the Secretary of State's office by December 1. The Secretary of State must certify the election by December 3.

During this interim period, attorneys from both political parties, and those representing me, will be watching the procedures by county Boards of Elections carefully. Among the most important issues to note is the counting of the overvotes. Overvotes occur when more than one candidate is indicated on the punch card. Another issue relates to whether all properly cast provisional ballots will be counted.

My constituents have also brought other issues to my attention. In an effort to provide appropriate government oversight, I am reviewing every issue and bringing them to the attention of attorneys, congressional authorities, party officials, or Boards of Elections, as appropriate. I want to assure my constituents and others who have contacted me with their concerns, that I am paying c lose attention to this important period of time between the initial results and the official vote tabulation and will not hesitate to take appropriate legal action where supported by facts.

Serious problems surfaced in this election that must be addressed at the state and national level. Some were inefficiencies in handling the massive turn out. No citizen should have to wait for hours to vote, or worry whether their vote was actually counted.

Glitches in electronic voting in the Columbus area should move all legislatures to demand paper receipts for voting machines. Without such a paper trail, no true recount can ever be done. Note that no Diebold electronic voting machines were employed in Ohio.

Clear efforts at voter suppression and intimidation were well handled by the courts and election officials. Dirty tricks occurred across the state, including phony letters from Boards of Elections telling people that their registration through some Democratic activist groups were invalid and that Kerry voters were to report on Wednesday because of massive voter turnout. Phone calls to voters giving them erroneous polling information were also common. Attempts to subvert our right to fair elections must be investigated and prosecuted when possible.

With passion running so high in this country and specter of Florida 2000 still hanging over the presidential voting process, it is important to gather hard evidence prior to disputing the legitimacy of the election.

Meanwhile, it is obvious that the Help America Vote Act of 2002 needs to be refined. Arduous voter identification rules unfairly penalize the poor, lead to a violation of rights and defeat the intent of the act.

The official tabulation of votes for Ohio will begin on Saturday and will include four categories not reflected in the unofficial count: provisional ballots, late absentee ballots, overseas military and overseas civilian.

If the difference between George Bush and John Kerry is less than one quarter of one percent after the official tally is completed (about 16,000 votes) an automatic recount occurs under Ohio law.

If the margin is greater than one quarter of one percent, a candidate can request a recount at an expense to the candidate of $10 per precinct. Because there are approximately 12,000 precincts in Ohio, the recount would cost about $120,000, before legal fees. A recount would entail a visual inspection of every punch card ballot.

I believe we must pursue every lead which raises questions about the integrity of the electoral process. Our work may not change the outcome, but it will demonstrate that beyond our commitment to our candidates, we have a higher commitment to our democracy.

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) is Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

###

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1110-31.htm

[mopinko]

143. a note, he issued a note.

wow, that puts a stolen election under his nose right up there with "pick up the dry cleaning"
hope he didn't hurt himself issuing that note.

[LWolf]

222. He issued a statement

itemizing what he, and others, had done before the election and during the election to monitor and handle disruptions, and what he, and others were doing after the election to respond to the vote count.

He also pointed out that Kerry conceded, which, in my view, limits how much action can be taken other than work to verify counts. If the candidate doesn't want to call foul, it makes it a little difficult for his supporters to do so without him.

[Catchawave]

78. Kucinich is an amazing speaker.....

I really like him alot.

[Strawman]

83. If the primary were held today, Dennis would have my vote

This time I'm going to give my vote to the candidate who deserves it based on policy and ideology, and that's probably Dennis. If he's not electable, then fine, he will lose the primary election. Fair enough. But why should liberals always concede that their candidate is unelectable before the primary election even happens?

No more backing the most "electable" candidate in the primaries for me. I did that last time when I switched my support (as a volunteer and a donor) from Dean to Kerry (even though I had voted for Dean already). If a candidate win the Democratic nomination, he or she is electable. If someone like Dennis wins the Democratic nomination it entirely changes the national perception of what is possible in terms of social justice in this country. It might even facilitate a conversation with actual relevance to the lives of working people during the presidential campaign.

After reading Spanking the Donkey by Matt Taibbi, it became clear to me who the best candidate was last election: Dennis. Voting for Dennis seems alot less pointless than buying into the farce that these other campaigns are. There's a quote from Dennis in that book that really sticks in my mind:

"Unless we're motivated by principle in our voting, we walk into a mirrored echo chamber, where there's no coherence."

Sounds about right doesn't it? I can't endorse that any longer with my vote. When you vote for the candidate who is obsessed with focus groups and polls and looking good on TV, that's ALL you're getting. However well intentioned they may be, they end up becoming prisoners to that bullshit.

[goodhue]

140. Now I want to read that book.

I had actually been avoiding it for fear that Taibbi (whose writing I like) may be less than kind to Dennis, if he deals with him at all. Glad to learn that Dennis is portrayed in a positive light.

[Mr_Spock]

88. I like him even though the Romulans used to be an enemy of the Federation

:rofl: I'm not sure a Romulan can muster enough suport from the shallow people...

[MadHound]

89. Quite frankly, he is the only Dem whose name is being tossed around

That I will vote for. The rest of them, Hillary, Kerry, Gore, etc. are more than willing to take that corporate lucre, and thus sell the rest of us down the river.

And if Kucinich doesn't get the Dem nod, then I will be voting Green, for the same reason. No more corporate candidates for me.

[Mattfor9747]

93. I'll tell you why not

Plain and simple...Dennis Kucinich flat out cannot win a red
state.
You libs need to start evaluating your prospective candidates
on this scale: Which one can win a red state. 

Name one red state Kucinich can win that Kerry could not.

[Strawman]

94. the one where there are poor people who don't vote

because they don't see a dimes worth of difference between the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate. The one with people who know that whoever is in there it won't make a damn bit of difference to them.

The one that has working people who are pissed off about seeing their jobs outsourced to Mexico and China.

The ones who used to vote for Democrats when they were real economic populists who would like to finally see someone fighting for the little guy/gal who is struggling to get by.

[LWolf]

100. DingDingDing We've got a winner!

:applause:

[QC]

109. Is there any evidence for that hidden liberal majority?

It's an article of faith here at DU, but frankly, I have never managed to get anyone to offer any evidence for it. I wish it were so, but I'm skeptical.

[Mairead]

113. For years now I've made a point to chat to people around election time

People like shop assistants and other 'unimportant' people. I ask whether they're going to vote. Easily half say no, and a shockingly large number quote Emma Goldman (not by name) back to me: if voting could change anything, they'd make it illegal.

It's only anecdotal evidence, but it persuades me. Try it for yourself--perhaps it'll persuade you, too.

[LWolf]

126. Hidden liberal majority?

I don't know. I don't think the reference here is to a hidden liberal majority. I think it is to the huge numbers of people who don't vote. I think you could find some evidence that many eligible voters don't show up at the polls. I believe it is suggesting that many of those people, liberal or not, are poor people who would support someone who champions things like keeping jobs in America, universal health care, etc., that would make a difference in their lives, rather than a candidate who is just another one of the "haves," who is part of the current status quo.

[fujiyama]

151. I never knew why it was assumed the half that don't vote are liberals

It's something Nader also claimed...and in the end we would have seen that hidden majority appear last November if it existed.

The scary thing is there may have been a hidden non voting majority out there - but they may have been right wing fundamentalist evangelicals.

[goodhue]

118. like Ohio, for instance . . .

eom

[WildEyedLiberal]

146. You libs?

Odd way of phrasing things... :hi:

[meppie-meppie not]

114. ITA Nikki!!! It's time to have substance over style!!!

[The HL]

120. New Political Comic at The Hollywood Liberal

Hey,
Check out the new Political Comic at The Hollywood Liberal.

Bush Talks Politics With Jefferson.

www.thehollywoodliberal.com

If you like it there are lots more at

www.thehollywoodliberal.com/comic_feature_links.htm

Thank You

[Zorra]

122. Done.

Kooch is the "Great Red White and Blue Hope".

He gets nominated and I go door to door campaigning, even if I have to live under bridges and eat cottontails and catfish to do it.

[Mairead]

129. You're safe, Zorra :-) He's not going to get nominated.

The folks who have 'other priorities' will see to that.

[Zorra]

144. Other Priorities?

Like keeping the Homeland safe for fascism?

[catabryna]

133. I did vote for him

in the primaries, and I would vote for him again should he choose to run. Unless something significant happens that is totally outside my line of sight right now, when general election time comes, my vote will, most likely, be for whatever Dem is running.

Dennis Kucinich is the politician whose views are most in line with mine and I think he's fantastic :loveya:

[AtomicKitten]

134. LUV the Kucinich

but he's too far left to be electable. Sorry. I'm wearing flame-retardant clothes so have at. The truth is neither a far-leftie nor a far-rightie can be elected, and that really does make sense. The majority will be found right down the center of our country. That's the cornerstone of democracy, as much as that pisses off some people. I LUV Dennis, met him in Santa Cruz a couple times. He's a man for the people and definitely should be in government.

[eridani]

176. Whatchu mean, far right can't get elected?

The Psychopath in Chief is about as far right as they come, and he got elected, sort of.

[LWolf]

221. LOL

Good point, and one that should be made more frequently.

:hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

138. He was the first presidential candidate who

moved me to tears.

I moved to Minneapolis in August 2003, and it was my intention to see every presidential candidate who came to town.

Dennis happened to be the first, and dpbrown and a few other MN DUers urged me to go see him.

I was blown away. He doesn't come off that well on TV, but he's phenomenal in person, super smart without seeming aloof and intellectual, able to think on his feet, and able to turn hostile questions to his advantage.

Above all, he was talking not about the issues that no one else talks about--health care, our over-spending on weapons systems and wars, the plight of the rural areas, and the pernicious influence of corporations in politics. He was also the ONLY candidate I ever heard urge people to vote for Dems in all races--something that should be Campaigning 101.

Having worked on the campaign, I know that his Cleveland headquarters wasn't made up of the sharpest people on the planet, but I also know that there seemed to be a deliberate press blackout on his activities. The NY Times would print everyone's campaign schedule, including Al Sharpton's, but not his. Of the four Minneapolis TV stations, only one covered ONE of his four appearances for about ten seconds.

Well, I suppose it's "kinder and gentler" than what has happened to other populists.

However, where there were dedicated people from all walks of life (gatherings of campaign workers felt like, "Look, we have one of everything!"), as in Minnesota, Dennis was able to get 27% of the vote in Minneapolis and 17% statewide with almost no media attention on Super Tuesday, when only Kerry and Edwards were left in the race, and Edwards dropped out while the Minnesota caucuses were going on, and DFL leaders were telling caucus delegates that a vote for anyone other than Kerry was "wasted." When he spoke at a dinner on his last visit, the kitchen staff all wanted their pictures taken with him.

I have to wonder what would happen if he or someone like him actually got some decent publicity. I also have to wonder why so many people feel compelled to jump onto Kucinich threads and make remarks about "greasy hair" (I saw him close up and his hair was not greasy) and "the Keebler elf" and "shrillness."

[ChiciB1]

141. If Other Liberal Parties Would Band Together...

maybe he could garner more support. But right now, he has been overlooked far too much. I think he's a fighter, but I doubt it will ever happen.

[DemBones DemBones]

147. YES! Hell, yes!!! nt

[fujiyama]

152. Let him win a statewide office

Winning one relatively liberal district in one state would give me no confidence in his ability to win NATIONWIDE.

I'd like to see people in Ohio try to recruit him to run for the senate or governor. I know I'd donate.

But in all honesty, I'd be skeptical of his chances of winning. Ohio is still a relatively conservative state. And likewise, if he couldn't win OH, that leaves a very small number of states he'd have a chance at winning the presidency with. It'd still be worth a shot. Even if he lost by a small margin I'd give him a better chance of winning the nomination.

[LWolf]

156. That's a conundrum.

Do I vote for the right candidate, the man who has the issues, the energy, the integrity, the passion, and the commitment to work towards the best that this nation can be? I might lose, and the conservative/religious right might win.

Or do I vote for the candidate who has won a state-wide office and is perceived to be "electable" by the status quo? I might still lose. If I win, I still lose, because the candidate who won is not the candidate who "has the issues, the energy, the integrity, the passion, and the commitment to work towards the best that this nation can be."

I'd rather work for the right candidate, to make him electable, than to work for the wrong candidate, so I could have the dubious satisfaction of putting the lesser choice in office.

[fujiyama]

168. Have fun trying

That's very naive believing there's much of a possibility to jump from winning one house district to winning the presidency.

I'll look to history as a guide. I don't recall the last president to come directly from the House of Representatives. Who was it? Abraham Lincoln?

Kucinich is a good guy. I agree with much of what he says, but saying the right thing is rarely enough to get elected. Getting elected to a statewide office shows he might have enough widespread appeal to get elected nationwide.

Right now I have seen absolutely no indication Kucinich could win nationwide or even statewide for that matter.

[LWolf]

185. Currently I have no indication that

the Democratic Party can achieve a majority in the house, the senate, or elect any non-DLC-corporate shill to the whitehouse, either. That doesn't mean I'll give up. I will, as you say, "have fun trying."

[fujiyama]

187. I don't intend for you to give up

I just think it would be more effective to have Kucinich win a statewide office before going national. God knows Ohio, as a whole needs some real leadership. The republicans have created a mess of the state. It would also be a good way to show that he can win more than just his own district.

[LWolf]

190. I'll support DK in whatever office he chooses to run for.

I couldn't vote for him in a statewide office, but he'd have my support. To be honest, he doesn't have to show what he can win; he just has to be willing to run to have my support, because he's shown me what he's willing to do as a representative.

[Algorem]

154. tomorrow-ABC's "This Week" -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Ohio resi-

dents Jim Boskovitch and Rosemary Palmer, parents of Marines who were killed in Iraq;

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/wire/sns-ap-news-shows,0,7073768.story?coll=sns-ap-tv-headlines



BROOK PARK MARINES
Nation joins Ohio in mourning loss of slain reservists; community service set for Monday

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050805/NEWS28/508050469/0/NEWS10

...The biggest message I've heard is, 'We want them to come home. This has to end,'" Mayor Elliott said.

"They shouldn't be there. President Bush should pull them out and declare the war over," said Gretchen Fullard of West Park, Ohio, who stopped to drop off flowers while lugging her sleeping 17-month-old daughter on her shoulder.

"It's too many. We've lost too many kids," said Mike Liegl of Cleveland as he wiped away tears. "The hardest number for me was when the total there went over 1,000 . It just becomes numbing."

A couple of miles from the Marine Corps center, in the basement of American Legion Post 610, Paul Joyce, a Korean War vet, sipped a beer and shook his head...

http://toimages.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=TO&Date=20050805&Category=NEWS28&ArtNo=508050469&Ref=H7&MaxW=240

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

155. Well YES of course...I will support him in 2008 again, no doubt.

Dennis by far meets my litmus test, and then some. I love this guy.

[wiley]

159. What is his stance on a woman's right to end a pregnancy

if that is an option that must be considered?


BTW, I do think Ohio is ready for a Senator like Kucinich.


:beer:

[LWolf]

189. Hear ya go:

<snip>

7. Right-to-Choose, Privacy, and Civil Rights

A woman's right-to-choose must be protected as essential to personal privacy and gender equality. Only those who agree to uphold Roe v. Wade should be nominated for the Supreme Court. Civil rights (and voting rights) enforcement must be intensified. Lesbians and gays must be afforded complete equality throughout society, including in marriage. Affirmative action must be maintained as a tool for racial and gender equality. Drug policy should emphasize treatment over criminalization, and not a rampaging war that erodes Constitutional freedoms, privacy, and law enforcement resources. An end to capital punishment must be sought.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/#key07

[serryjw]

161. I'd be his Colorado State Chair...........FOR FREE!

n/t

[zulchzulu]

164. Unfortunately , it's about electable marketability

I love Kucinich, his nessage and the passion that is followers brought to the table in 2004.

Unfortunately, there is this thing called electability. No, it's not a problem with his base or those with an open mind. It does get down to marketability....on a grand scale and with the idea that the average American looks for the Presidential Candidate to appear...presidential.

So far, Kucinich does not fit that bill.

While age and a new wife may bring him some new look, I fear he will always look more like a candidate running for the Czech Republic...and not the US.

He'd make a hell of a Secretary of Labor or Trade in a Kerry Administration.

:->

[wisteria]

165. I agree with you! n/t

[nickshepDEM]

166. Hey, he'd carry DC.

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

167. kick for the Kooch!

[illbill]

172. No.

Look at how many members DU has. Although I'm proud to belong to such a great community, 40-some thousand is nothing compared to the general voting population. You want to know why we mean little to the overall voting society? More than 95% do not follow politics that closely. They work, go out for dinners, play with their kids, and vacation at popular spots. Although most members here do the same, their forms of relaxation differ from ours. Instead of coming on DU and other parts of the internet to talk about politics and research, they choose to watch comedies, dramas, and other general fiction.

Kucinich is a no-go for the Democratic Party in 2008 because of three things:

- He's a very little man. Although he may stand for some very good points, imagine how many idiotic people would dislike the man because of his appearance. We all know about the typical Republican voter who openly vocalizes his opinions yet is and sounds stupid while doing so. Dennis K. would just make life that much easier for idiots of the such.

- So called "Hippies" support Kucinich. Republican media would jump all over this.

- Kucinich is too far left. Unfortunately, because most liberals have put their tails between their legs, the term "liberal" has become attached with a negative connotation. Personally, I tout being a liberal proudly but in mainstream America, us liberals are "elite" or "out of touch with reality". The fact is that we are "elite" and conservative Republicans are sorrily mislead. Apart from our dominant grammar skills, well natured personalities, and general sense of class, we liberals are still a minority in this country. Kucinich would be destroyed by a loud talking, gun supportin', Southern boy.

[mvd]

178. I'm a big Kucinich fan

I'd like to see him run again and get more exposure/attention. If he still doesn't catch on, so be it, but he deserves a chance.

179. Kucinich

I think he is excellent, though I think he is too un-moderate and too open with what he wants to actually do, to be elected. Plus he is a little much on the too cute side. He is very photogenic, more so that the others I think.

[Douglas Carpenter]

181. If not Kucinich--at least a REAL progressive like him

At the very least we need a genuine progressive--someone who:

Rejects the insane militarism that is assumed by large parts of the Democratic Party establishment

Committed to single-payer universal health care

Committed to fair trade that looks out for ordinary people in both the U.S. and the developing world

Strongly committed to workers' rights with teeth and enforcement

Committed to the eradication of poverty; first in a America and then with a long term global commitment

At the very least, we need a REAL progressive like Kucinich for progressives to have voice and the progressive message to be heard.

(At the very least in the primaries)
_____________________________________-




http://www.iwtnews.com/

[AtomicKitten]

183. Dennis Kucinich is wonderful human being

but ... (I apologize in advance)

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

194. the man is awesome, but he'll never capture the hearts of Americans

[eridani]

198. He would if he could talk to enough of them n/t

[paineinthearse]

203. Subscribe to Dennis' weekly newsletter

http://www.kucinich.us/signup

[MisterLiberal]

205. Why not? Simple

Because the leadership wants someone else in the primaries, so our votes no longer count.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2002388

208. praise for kucinich

Maybe someone could start a "Praise for Kucinich" thread, and we could post what he would stand for and why we like him. I'm a newbie, so I don't think I am able to start my own thread.

[jbane]

209. Won how many primaries in 04?

How will it be different the next time.

[eridani]

212. Way fewer people satisfied with how the Iraq war is going n/t

[The Blue Knight]

214. I'm a HUGE Kucinich fan. He's one of my favorite Democrats in the world!

But, god damn people. He would get fucking crushed in a National election. He would not win statewide in Ohio.

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

217. Go, go Dennis!!

[Algorem]

218. Kucinich's Gas Price Spike Act Will Lower Gas Prices

Gas Price Spike Act Will Lower Gas Prices

WASHINGTON - August 11 - With gas prices skyrocketing out of control in Northeast Ohio and nationwide, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), today, renewed his fight to pass HR 2070, The Gas Price Spike Act of 2005. The legislation, introduced by Kucinich in May, currently is co-sponsored by 37 Members of Congress.

The bill will address the spike in the price of gasoline by placing a windfall profits tax on oil companies; giving tax credits for the purchase of ultra efficient vehicles; and provide federal grants to reduced mass transit fares.

“Consumers in Northeast Ohio, and nationwide, are being gouged at the pump,” stated Kucinich. “The only thing rising faster than the price of gasoline right now is the skyrocketing profits of the oil companies.”

“Congress can no longer sit on the sidelines and watch as skyrocketing prices continue to take a heavy economic toll on consumers and risks further harming our economy,” continued Kucinich. “Congress must act immediately upon returning in September, and I am renewing my efforts to pass HR 2070, and bring immediate relief to consumers.”...

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0811-12.htm

Will re-introduce Dept. of Peace bill in September

http://www.dopcampaign.org/endorsements.htm

[SunDrop23]

219. Why not = he'll get beaten like a drum

[G_j]

220. Yes! btw, one of DKs biggest obstacles has been fellow DEMS

playing the "pass it on, he is unelectable" game.