Kuchinich is a great guy, but he will never win ... can't happen. Forget it.

[99th_Monkey]

..."DK would never win, no way" ... nice idea, but nada .. never in a million years ... :thumbsdown:

.."it simply ain't going to happen, nope" :thumbsdown:

So what if Dennis DOES do more than just talk about saving the US Constitution and all that, and he IS the singular figure on Capitol Hill calling loudest for impeaching our Criminals-in-Chief .. but hey we gotta face reality here ... Kucinich just can't win, absolutely not..can't happen.

...nevermind that that's what Primary Elections are for, to CHOOSE the VERY BEST candidate in you own party, Dennis will never ever win, nope..

So THIS is all anyone's got on DK? ... his seeing a UFO, his height and the fact that the M$S has hung a "can't win" turd the size of Texas around his neck?? That is it? Where's all his skeletons? Where's the closet dirt? .. oh nevermind .. he'll never win..

No wonder the powers-that-be are running :scared: feverishly away from DK's candidacy and working overtime to totally ignore him, asking him absurd questions about UFOs, excluding him from debates, etc.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I think in the case of the "can't win naysayers" it's more that they don't want him to win,

:shrug:

[melody]

3. Oh, please, I'd love for Dennis to win, but idealism is what gave us Bush

I gave up all dreams of a true liberal in the Presidency a long time ago. We have to play the game
with the cards we are dealt.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. Voting fraud gave us Bush

both times.

Idealism had nothing to do with him stealing both elections.

[truedelphi]

14. Thank you for saving my sanity with your response.

Seven years of Bush have pretty much eaten it up.

And whenever I hear anyone mention the "means" by which Bush "won"the election, I go into a nose dive of madness.

[melody]

89. Where did I say that Bush fairly won the election? n/t

[Occam Bandage]

43. And 90,000 Nader voters in Florida. If just 1% of them had been less "pure," Gore would have won.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

57. Or Bush would have changed more ballots

the fix was in for Florida. It would have taken a major landslide for Gore to stop the Bush plan for stealing the election, IMHO.

[Occam Bandage]

58. Bush changed ballots in FL? I think you're mixing up your conspiracies.

In FL, Bush purged voter rolls, destroyed batches of ballots, etc., etc. The butterfly ballot took votes away as well. Finally, he stopped the recount. That was the extent of his abilities at the time; we had paper ballots and not e-voting. It was down to the wire as it was; had a few hundred Naderites managed to come to their fucking senses, Gore would have won the final pre-recount tally. Really, if Bush were capable of rewriting votes in 2000, why would he have let it gotten so close?

There are many things that had to break right for Bush to win. A halted recount was one. Voter suppression was another. And liberals voluntarily removing themselves from the election by voting Nader was one more.

[reggie the dog]

65. I have to say

telling people to "come to their senses" is a hell of a way to build a big tent.

Who are you to say that folks were not being sensable when they voted for Nader?

How do you know these folks would have even voted had Nader not been in the election????

How do you know some of them wouldn't have voted Libertarian???


The 2000 election was stolen, Gore won. Thats all there is to it.

[Occam Bandage]

68. Oh, not *all* of them would have voted Gore. 1% is sufficient.

[reggie the dog]

71. if you are looking for such a small number

why not pick on the people that did not bother to vote????

[kenfrequed]

140. Uhm

"Really, if Bush were capable of rewriting votes in 2000, why would he have let it gotten so close?"

Like most crimes it is easier to steal a little bit than a lot.

[reggie the dog]

64. Gore won Florida

the recount that happend after the Supreme Court ruled that W. was president proves that Gore won Florida.

[melody]

90. Precisely n/t

[DutchLiberal]

136. Yeah, how dare they vote for the candidate they believe in?

[melody]

87. Voter fraud and Nader gave us Bush

If there had been a clear majority, we'd have President Gore right now.

[stimbox]

105. No, ELECTION fraud gave us bush and cheney.

Gore really won the recount. Had he won Tennessee, Florida wouldn't have been a big deal.
Nader wasn't an issue.

[melody]

129. Vote fraud is the term that is generally used. And Nader was an issue.

If you look at the numbers, it's clear. If Nader voters had opted for Gore, the numbers would have
been big enough that a recount wouldn't have even been necessary.

[stimbox]

133. Get the definitions straight.

Voter fraud: The voters commit the fraud.
Election fraud: The powers that be commit the fraud.

It was election fraud in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.

[melody]

135. My definitions are straight. "Vote Fraud" comes from the original book of many years ago

It's the term that was used for both Election and Vote Fraud, largely for language parsimony reasons and it's easier to type four letters than eight.

This nonsense of more narrowly defining the terms than is needed is useless. It takes energy and time away from important matters. "The Vote" is roughly the same as "the Election". Ergo, either term will suffice.

[stimbox]

137. Too lazy to type 4 more letters to be precise. Ok, whatever. n/t

[melody]

145. Tell that to the New York Book of Style n/t

[99th_Monkey]

8. Hello? this is a PRIMARY election, which by definition is to pick BEST Dem.

what part of that don't you understand..

this is no third party Nader situation and you know it.

[melody]

92. And you've just repeated roughly word for word another post I made

You should check the author of posts you quote before quoting them.

I didn't say a thing about whether or not someone should support Dennis. I merely made a sociobiological observation on who I'm voting for and why I am. You're the one telling us who to vote for.

[kestrel91316]

21. Idealism didn't give us Bush. Fascism gave us Bush. And theft.

[Occam Bandage]

41. And 90,000 Nader voters in Florida. If just 1% of them had been less "pure," Gore would have won.

[melody]

91. A big enough counterwave would have given us something like 2006

NADER and vote theft gave us Bush.

[riqster]

111. You left out the Supremes and a Reep-controlled media

...but, yeah, it was a perfect storm of sorts. The PNAC crowd worked diligently for decades to bring it off.

[superkia]

109. But when the game table is slanted, your way we lose everytime!

This is what is wrong with our country, too many sheep have decided to give up on what is right and have decided to go play a game the way the corrupt want us too. In my past, I never heard so many people talking about giving up on what is the right thing to do and going along with the bad side, makes no sense to me, I can only think its most Americans are brainwashed sheep and think they aren't. If we continue to ignore good candidates because the MSM tells us they are unelectable or any of that bullshit, we are guaranteed a loss and will continue to destroy our country. We need enough people, not sheeple, to vote for who is right for us the people. Until then we lose by playing a fixed up game, just ignorant!

It is not the government or corrupt politicians killing our children's future, its people like you that have given up or given in to the corruption. If people like you would stop spreading the MSM's talking points and start voting for what is right, our children would win. Sorry to point a finger at you but with the amount of people like you that don't stick with your beliefs and conscience, our country will continue on its path of destruction.

If its not too late, maybe one day the American sheeple will realize they are being duped and go back to voting for the right person for the people and guess what...we win. I'm not sure why so many have decided to go along with what ever the MSM throws at us, its doesn't make sense to me. I think we have allot of sheeple that are very intelligent but seem to lack common sense and its killing the country.

Good luck to us all!

[melody]

127. The game table is slanted but it's a matter of survival ... it's the nature of the game

Our owners split up two issues. The left took abortion and the right took gun control. Ever since then, they've
been able to control us with them. The only problem is they're now bringing in such vicious right-wingers that
we're compelled to fight for the little liberties we have. It's not the ideal, it's not the USA of Kennedy and our
ancestors, but it's the one that was stolen from us and it's the situation we must deal with.

Change is incremental. As soon as the EU emerges dominant in the world (which is the whole point of this anyway),
the USA will sink back into nominal status. We won't be that important anymore and then we can finally reshape our
country.

[99th_Monkey]

6. That's my take too. It shows a lack of anything more substantial to say

to discredit Dennis' candidacy.

[rAVES]

125. you're dead right, DLC stooges would plotz if he won.. princess Clinton must be victorious!

[melody]

2. We are primates. Most humans think like primates. Primates want Alpha Males to lead them.

It's a loooooooooooong period of evolution to work against.

Dennis is wonderful, but he has zero chance of winning unless we do what Bush's people did and steal the election. That's the only way Bush won against Gore and Kerry. He was NOT the Alpha in either of those contests.

[99th_Monkey]

9. Dennis is offering Democratic voters an opportunity for a bloodless revolution

and all we have to say is "oh he can't win. next!"

this could be America's moment to save itself from itself, but will we take him up on it?

[TheModernTerrorist]

49. I'm beginning to feel

that this country as a whole doesn't deserve someone as awesome as DK.

Its a bit sad

[melody]

88. I don't believe that much in any politician however ...

No, we won't take him up on it. We won't. That's my point.

[Union Thug]

25. Wow. I guess I'm not a primate. I tend to work against the whole

alpha male thing. If we believe in democracy, we would do best to discard that evolutionary turd and reject that kind of fatalist thinking. If not, we may as well just join the conservative powerworshipping authoritarian party and be done with it.

[melody]

86. Where in my post did I speak out in defense of the alpha male concept?

I was observing what is, not what can be or what I want to be.

[Union Thug]

121. Well, I didn't say you defended it.....

but I did take offense to the conciliatory tone of your post. Maybe it was unintentional, but I interpreted it as saying that this is just an attitude we have to live with. I don't think it is.

[melody]

130. I think it's an attitude that is here ... it's a reality for us to fight against

Ignoring it and pretending it's not there will not help us. Dealing with it will.

[Union Thug]

144. On this we agree! n/t

[katadin706]

46. On the contrary . . .

Chimps are patriarchal -- not all primates are, in fact some live in PEACEFUL matriarchal societies.
When you have a chimp as president . . .

[melody]

85. I said most humans think like primates. The human primate is patriarchal, like our brother chimps

Peaceful matriarchal societies are few and far between and a matter of interpretation and conjecture.
There's a lot of Clever Hans going on in anthropology where the Goddess Society theories are concerned.
That said, there's a lot of Clever Hans going on every time Bush opens his mouth.

I'd like to think we'll eventually evolved to a place where DK had a chance to win. Do you really see
the majority of Reagan/Bush voters crossing the line to vote for Dennis? I can't. I can see them
crossing the line to vote for Edwards and Obama and even Hillary.

[Libface]

94. I'm curious about the numbers

How many progressives would replace Reagan/Bush types? I wonder if there are really that many more of them to court and I personally would like the focus to shift away from getting that piece of the pie, but if the numbers back you up then they just do.

[melody]

98. Change is incremental, over time

The problem is the rate and degree of change. Each generation is more liberal than the last. It's going to take us about twenty years (given that we continue to have available education and open information sources) to progress to where most modern liberal folk are.

[Libface]

102. Hmm, that may be the case

but I've always considered Reagan/Bush to be pretty right-leaning rather than center. Maybe I'm just in a bubble.

[melody]

128. I said incremental and it is the case

Reagan/Bush were right-leaning but contrast them to the conservative of one hundred years before.
Abolition, women's rights, desegregation, voting rights were all liberal ideas. Now the vast majority
of conservatives accept them as absolutes. Even at that, Reagan/Bush were a hiccup for another reason
and that force will be gone as soon as the US is flat broke. lol

[Happyhippychick]

4. I think he has the same problem, in reverse, as Richardson

Both men are absolutely qualified but they don't have very good "stage presence". I know that sounds shallow but neither one is very "Presidential" in their presence. DK is too unpredictable and Richardson is too bland.

I love both candidates and if it wasn't the information age with youtube videos constantly blaring, it might not make such a big difference but unfortunately it does. Mitt Romney would never be where he is politically if not for his presence, it's his best feature. It's his only feature.

Disclaimer: I don't judge candidates based on this but I think it is the reason why they are not doing well.

[99th_Monkey]

13. Personally, I think Dennis looks quite "presidential" .. deports himself with wit, intellegence,

and often makes insightful comments along the way. .. but that's just me.

[Happyhippychick]

19. I agree that he deports himself with wit, intelligence and often makes

insightful candidates. But I disagree that he looks at all "presidential". I'm not justifying that this is a good or right thing, I'm just answering your question as to why he isn't doing better and I think it's the same reason Richardson isn't doing better.

Don't confuse the message with the messenger - I happen to like the guy and wish that he had more traction. He makes eminent sense and he is the only candidate that I know of who is pro gay marriage.

[Union Thug]

31. What the hell does "looks Presidential" mean? Like doddering idiot RayGun with a Slicko grease-do?

Like the snearing baboon Bush? Like the comic parody of a face that was Richard Nixon's? Or the liver lipped Jimmy Carter? Maybe it's the expense and cut or color of the suit they where? Maybe it's the presidential seal embroidered on the socks. Maybe it's whether one has shaved his face, or hell, pits for that matter. I hate phrases like "looks Presidential." If that is the determining factor in choosing our representatives and presidents, then we'd better just give up on the whole democracy thing.

[Happyhippychick]

34. Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was the determining factor

I said it was one factor.

[Union Thug]

37. It shouldn't be a factor at all. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

56. Shouldn't isn't isn't.

[kestrel91316]

22. Just remember Abe Lincoln. He weren't purty. But he was a hell of a President.

[Happyhippychick]

27. I agree but I think before the age of constant video stream it was a differentt

standard. I'm not so sure that a president with polio would ever be elected today.

Not saying it's right, just saying I think it is.

[kestrel91316]

32. We are the poorer for this sort of thing. Americans are way too

materialistic and hung up on this fleeting thing called "beauty". It disgusts me.

We get the leaders we deserve when we vote for the most physically attractive over the most intelligent or the most progressive or most caring.

[Happyhippychick]

35. Couldn't agree more. Thanks for getting what I am trying to say!

[Kucinich4America]

51. So how do we fight that?

Can you imagine this country without FDR as President? I don't think there would be a country to imagine, actually.

The whore media must not be allowed to choose our candidate. Kucinich is correct on all of the issues. Richardson has the best resume, and seems to be coming around on most issues himself. Both are ignored in favor of a former first lady & barely over one term Senator who is the darling of the corporations. Where is the SANITY, people??

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Kucinich has my vote

Had it in 2004, will have it in 2008. The number of folks who vote for him is important. The more who vote for him, the greater the chance that the next President will take a serious look at Kucinich's ideas.

Strength Through Peace!

[99th_Monkey]

15. I love how he often uses the word "Imagine..."

and follows it with something like "..what it would be like to have a President who gets it right the FIRST time"

[flvegan]

10. I think that even with all the bellyaching, many folks don't really want change.

Not drastic change, anyway.

[sniffa]

12. yup

i laugh when people say that DU is not an accurate picture of the public on whole, but the population here is a good mirror of much of the population.

[Libface]

62. I think you're correct, however

if you take a look at what's going on with Ron Paul, it seems to me that many democrats are worse in this regard. In fact, many progressives have given money to RP instead of DK (not myself). I'm not quite sure why dems can't seem to stick together in the same way that anti-poor bigots can.

[skipos]

11. He is low on my 08 list, and it has little to do with electability. nt

[99th_Monkey]

16. So it must be his height? or the UFO thing? which is it?

[skipos]

30. No, but good luck with your candidate

and good luck converting others with your condescension.

[99th_Monkey]

40. It was a genuine question, no condescension intended.

sorry if it came across that way. I'm just not seeing any very defensible reasons for Lib Dems to not be supporting DK, other than the ones
noted, oh and the "he's so disorganized" that one too.

I am genuinely curious about your reasons for not voting for DK in the primary.

[Bicoastal]

17. Here's my thing on Kucinich....

The majority of Americans aren't liberal enough to elect DK.
The majority of Democrats aren't liberal enough to elect DK.
Sometimes, I think I'M not liberal enough to elect DK.

I respect the guy and everything, but logic says that the effective politican must be one who most clearly represents the people who elect him or her. DK may represent what we'd like the Democratic party or the country to look like, but in reality he just doesn't come close.

[99th_Monkey]

20. This is much less about "liberal v. conservative" than it is about saving America

from the jaws of it's own self-destruction.

most or all of the old rules don't apply much anymore. imagine if everyone woke up on election
day and decided to take their country back .. it could happen if only we can imagine it.

[Bicoastal]

24. No, it won't fucking happen if we fucking imagine it.

That's not really how politics work or ever has worked.

The only good accomplishments in history have been achieved through fighting, in either the literal (war) or figurative (diplomacy) sense. We need a President that can fight the opposition, and has enough people behind him NOW to make a difference NOW.

End of story.

[99th_Monkey]

36. it's a terrible waste of a great candidate

ya "end of story" indeed. end of America you mean.

[Bicoastal]

39. Well, if you imagine it...

...perhaps America really will end, and you can be the one to say "I told ya so."

[99th_Monkey]

42. I'm imagining the revival of America, and have a candidate who is too

I guess for that, I should be very grateful.

I'm frankly worried that this opportunity will pass us by and we'll all be sorry later.

[Libface]

96. It's funny

that's exactly why I support him.

[cali]

18. Unfortunately, just as in '04, Dennis has run a lousy campaign

You simply can't ignore Iowa. He should have done what JE is doing; focus like a laser on Iowa and to a lesser degree on NH. He's largely ignored Iowa. You can't blame the MSM for his tactical errors.

[99th_Monkey]

23. I can blame the M$M all I want to.

for invoking some arcane "rule" to deliberately exclude a "controversial" voice from the debates.

[dantyrant]

28. Absolutely.

I think Dennis has done a great job of gaining exposure given the extent to which the media has tried to marginalize him. Kucinich has been right on all the major issues, and I for one think that should MEAN something. Lets reward candidates who speak to our values and not buy into the media's memes of 'electable' -- it doesn't serve us well.

[cali]

60. Sure, but that's now what I'm talking about n/t

[Radical Activist]

50. And that's just the tip of the iceburg

From his poor decisions about hiring staff to his lackluster personal fundraising effort. Why should I take Dennis seriously as a candidate if he doesn't act like he takes his own campaign seriously?

[ClintonTyree]

26. How many of these posts must we endure?

It's Dennis against the world. :eyes: He's the only one that can save us. :eyes: Everyone is an idiot if they don't support Dennis. :eyes: He's the only candidate that speaks for us.... yada, yada, yada. :eyes:

Kucinich supporters: we get it. We know how you feel about Dennis. Posting stuff like this 20 times a day isn't going to change a darned thing. I have more of a chance winning the lottery than Kucinich does of winning the Presidency. Fact. Deal with it.

[99th_Monkey]

33. Well, excuse me!!

I haven't top posted for 3-4 days on anything, Dennis or otherwise.

What? is you back-button on the fritz?

[LWolf]

84. Get this:

Many people who profess to support social and economic justice don't. They don't walk the talk. They vote for candidates who will not stand for those things either.

I'm glad you "get" what we are saying about DK.

I hope you "get" what I've said, repeatedly, since BEFORE any candidate announced a primary run:

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY DLC/CORPORATE/CENTRIST/3RD WAY/APOLOGIST/STATUS QUO/ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. IF MY PARTY CHOOSES TO NOMINATE ONE, MY PARTY CHOOSES TO LOSE MY SUPPORT AND MY VOTE, AND IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE RESULTING LOSS OF VOTES.

[Dark]

108. Then you will have no room to bitch if Mittens or Hucky win the election and we're stuck with

Dubya v 2.0

Just like those idiot naderites.

[LWolf]

124. I've always known better than to blame Nader for 2000.

The selection happened because of election fraud.

I'm not going to blame other citizens for exercising their right to vote. It's the candidates' job to earn the votes. If my party fields a candidate who can't do so, assuming a clean election, any "blame" is laid squarely at the feet of those who nominated the candidate, and the candidate him/herself.

If a republican wins in '08, I'll blame the Democratic Party for not fielding a better candidate and running a better campaign. In the current climate, just about the only way to lose outside of election fraud, which Democrats have not satisfactorily addressed YET after 2000 and 2004, is to take the left wing of the party for granted.

Again.

[DutchLiberal]

138. Excellent! Can I recommend your post?

Finally, somebody who doesn't restort to fake, phony 'arguments' like "blame Nader" or "enjoy the Repubs"! Finally, someone who get's it. :applause: :yourock:

[LWolf]

149. Of course you can, lol.

Notice how those that are always looking for someone else to blame never see how their own choices are also connected to outcomes?

I just want some honesty. If Democrats choose to abandon the left wing of the party in a quest to capture centrists and right wing votes, that's fine. Just be up front about it, and cordially wave goodbye to the left.

It's the pretense I find too hypocritical for words. The propaganda labeling of centrist and corporate democrats as "liberal" and "progressive" while the party continues the march to the right, and the attacking of the left for "disloyalty" when they protest exactly that.

[Desertrose]

142. Bravo, LWolf...

again!!:)

You would think that in 8 frikkin years, SOMETHING would have been done about election fraud, wouldn't you?

But they are the first to complain about third party this & that and yet the dems are pushing most progressives out telling us we do not represent dems. What do they expect?


:hi::hug:
DR

[LWolf]

150. My hat is on:

:tinfoilhat:

Eight years with no action leaves me more than suspicious. Why would the Democratic Party be willing to allow corrupt elections to continue, unless they are part of the corruption?

Perhaps the powers controlling the process don't really care if it is an "R" or a "D," as long as the R and/or D stay within the assigned corporate-friendly territory.

:hi:

[Not Me]

29. DK has my vote in the primary.

If he should not get the nomination and chooses to stay in the race, I will have to decide what to do at that point.
I may likely vote for him then as well.

[99th_Monkey]

47. I don't see any other choice really

I mean, Edwards is probably my second choice and I'd actively support him in a General Election... not sure I could
say the same for BO or HC. but I would VOTE for them grudgingly instead of supporting a third party.

[Occam Bandage]

38. Kucinich is last on my list. It has little to do with "electability." He'd be incompetent.

He's an inflexible ideologue with few allies on the Hill, no political finesse, and no ability to compromise. He'd get nothing done, nothing accomplished, nothing anything at all.

The fact that he has the lowest net favorable rating and worst vote-for/against split of any candidate from either party barely figures into it.

[99th_Monkey]

44. So where have our "allies on the Hill" gotten us so far? No where, that's where.

yes. DK's cut from a different cloth than the "insiders", so to speak ... and for that I am grateful.

[Occam Bandage]

45. 67.

60.
51.

[Kucinich4America]

52. If you're going to keep throwing those numbers out, don't forget the unlucky 13

13 DLC Senators who vote as Democrats less than 50% of the time on REAL issues.

[Occam Bandage]

55. "real" defined retroactively, of course.

It is fortunate for the DLC-phobes that the Constitution does not prohibit ex post facto opinions on the importance of laws.

[99th_Monkey]

61. Yes, only conspiracy-prone nutcases doubt the sound judgment of the DLC

that has given Bush everything he want's and more in some cases... like Pelosi cheering on the harshest forms of torture..

[Occam Bandage]

63. 67.

60.
51.

[99th_Monkey]

66. 42

[whosinpower]

53. What have your allies on the hill given you?

Two wars with no end in sight. No oversight. An erosion of constitutional powers. Please tell me where compromise has given you anything? Democrats hold the house and the senate - and they have been compromising your rights out the window. They have continued to fund a war even though they threaten to not to, even though there is no oversight, and no exit strategy.

At every single turn, when democrats propose a bill that would uplift the lives of the middle class - it is vetoed. And so, they compromise, and lose anyways. So, what is this accomplishing?
It is accomplishing an erosion of the american dream, an erosion in the seperation of powers, a rising fascist model where corporate power trumps public needs.

Perhaps getting nothing done IS better than accomplishing what they are doing right now.

Dennis Kucinich actually reads the bills before he votes on them. Horror of all horrors! And he doesn't follow the party path. There needs to be more Dennis Kucinich's around - not less. Yes - he would shake up the establishment in a radical way. It NEEDS to change. What you have right now is precisely why you are where you are - a nation that argues for the need of torture, invades nations for no just cause, spies on its own people, arrests people without charge and holds them indefinately.

Stepping off the soapbox now.

[Occam Bandage]

54. 67.

60.
51.

[Kucinich4America]

79. 867-5309

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqUPApCUt90

[stuartrida]

59. You should have seen him as Cleveland's mayor. Big drama, little results.

He did a couple things that were good, but he was ultimately voted out because of all the reasons you state.

[reggie the dog]

70. didn't he

keep their electricity company public owned????

[Kucinich4America]

78. Yes, but that was "wrong" of him to do so....

Our friends from the DLC would have preferred to have another ENRON bankrupt the entire state of Ohio instead.

[riqster]

82. Speaking as an expatriate Clevelander, your post is incorrect.

Kooch vetoed a crooked deal that would have stolen a valuable asset (Muny Light) from the city of Cleveland, and enriched bankers and CEI bigwigs who sat on Muny Light's board. The bankers were pissed and chose to call their loans prematurely, forcing the city into default as a last-ditch effort to steal Muny Light. Still didn't work, even with the Plain Dealer providing propaganda cover.

So, the bigwigs ran Kooch out of town-the man was blackballed, and had a Mob contract on him for a time. Later, of course, Cleveland realized that Kooch had saved the city's only material asset, and gave him an award for having done so. And he still lives in the same little Cleveland house he bought decades ago, and chooses to serve the city that once shat all over him.

Of course, for people to remember that would require too much thinking-it's far easier to regurgitate right-wing talking points.

[Libface]

95. I can understand

where people are coming from in some of their criticism of his campaign for sure but I don't understand what seems more like disgust or scorn by people who call themselves at all left of center, especially if they really think he's not any kind of threat.

[riqster]

101. It's laziness IMHO

...people just repeat what they hear. "Boy Mayor", "Dennis the Menace", "Default", and so on.

It takes work to go find out the back story, and not enough people are willing to do it.

[rAVES]

126. DLC are right of centre.. they are the ones who continually shout down real progressives

they are party frauds, and should GTFO

[reggie the dog]

69. inflexible

Hell, at least he has ideals, who was the last president that had ideals that he fought for???? Also why would he get nothing done if the party he is in controls the house and the senate?

[Occam Bandage]

74. Two reasons.

1. DK is not well-liked in the Democratic party, and many of his proposals would be difficult sells. He has a habit of no-voting anything that is remotely offensive to him (like when he voted against S-CHIP because it didn't cover illegal immigrants); he simply can't compromise.

2. The Republicans can still filibuster all they like. Odds of DK ever negotiating anything with the opposition? Not good.

[reggie the dog]

148. So you insist

that the Democrats currently in congress would work more to block the actions of Kucinich, a fellow Democrat, than Bush, a Republican???

Also why the hell aren't the dems using the filibuster????


Do you really think a Democratic controlled congress would not go along with the ideas of a Democratic president?



How often do Republican congresspeople ever vote against a Republican president in a large enough number to block a law from passing?

Do Democrats really have less party loyalty than the Republicans???

[Radical Activist]

48. If he can't run a campaign

why should I believe he can run the country?

Another candidate with same positions on the issues would do much better than Dennis.

[99th_Monkey]

72. Now DK "can't run a campaign"? cuz one newspaper sez so?

that's rich. you need to watch that 7 minute video by Iowa Kucinich staff of their interviews with the two-faced
newspaper people and party hacks.

[Occam Bandage]

73. How's he doing in the polls again?

1% support (ranging within MOE all the way up to 4%)? 24%/47% approve/disapprove? 8%/46% would vote for / would vote against? No Iowa office? No Iowa campaigning? No Iowa support?

Yeah, sounds like he's running a great campaign.

[99th_Monkey]

77. so who's you candidate in the primary? do you let polls influence your vote?

[Occam Bandage]

80. Biden's my intellectual choice. I may well vote strategically for Obama.

However, I won't make that decision until Super Tuesday.

[99th_Monkey]

110. I like Biden too, and Edwards as well..

i actually think Edwards would do the best against all GOP comers... and at least one poll confirms this.

[Occam Bandage]

112. Edwards has been surprising me in his polling vs. the GOP.

I wonder how much of that is his avoidance of the Obama/HRC war, and how much is his actual electability. Either way, he's doing very well, and I"d be very happy to have him be nominated.

[Libface]

116. I could feel okay about

an Edwards/Biden ticket. Better than many others at least. Not giving up on Kucinich without fighting first though.

[Occam Bandage]

118. No need to accept inevitability until it's actually here, eh?

I can respect that.

[Radical Activist]

75. Because he hired two campaign managers who had never worked a campaign before.

That was last time. I can't find any information about who is campaign manager is this time so I suspect he's making the same dumb mistakes. I know a lot more about how Kucinich runs a campaign than what's on a video he puts out.

The next time you see DK at an event why don't you ask how much time he personally spends on the phone asking for money from large donors? That's what a Presidential candidate is supposed to do if they're interested in winning.

[Desertrose]

99. So THIS is how they win,eh??

"The next time you see DK at an event why don't you ask how much time he personally spends on the phone asking for money from large donors? That's what a Presidential candidate is supposed to do if they're interested in winning."


Are you serious? I sure as hell don't want yet another presidential candidate who owes his soul (& then some) to BIG $$.

[Radical Activist]

104. Yes, you win by raising money.

That's something you should expect to do if you want to run for President, US Congress, Senate or any other major office. It doesn't mean you have to sell out but you have to make the personal effort to call major donors. There are progressives who will give large donations that don't require a candidate to sell out if they make the phone calls. If you can't do that then don't run for office unless you want to lose. That's how it works.

Obama is doing what it takes to win by raising money and staying progressive like he always has been. Its a shame that his hard work and effort immediately causes some progressives to turn their back on him because they would rather play the righteous martyr.

[Desertrose]

106. Gotta remember Dennis has a day job

and he actually shows up to cast votes...

Honestly don't know about Obama cause I, well I just don't pay much (any) attention to him. Does he tend to miss votes for the job he currently is "hired" and getting paid to do or is he on top of that?

Just wonderin.....sorta.

[Yukari Yakumo]

67. SCHIP. 'nuff said. {nt}

uguu

[riqster]

83. But not enough thought

...Kooch voted against it the first time, when it was assured of passage, because the committee had ripped thousands of childrens' coverage out of the bill. It was a safe "no", and allowed him to raise the issue for leverage in later negotiations, since the bill was going to pass without his vote.

When it came time for the override, he stood with the party and voted for the bill when it counted.

[Libface]

93. Yeah but if you go around

talking about facts and details it makes it harder to bash him.

[riqster]

103. What WAS I thinking?

:eyes:

[FtWayneBlue]

76. Any who do not believe that DK can win,

do not believe in democracy. Your vote counts, use it to vote for who you think expresses the direction you want our country to go. Vote your heart. If you never vote your heart, your heart never wins.

[Occam Bandage]

81. Or, rather, believes America when 46% of it says would vote against him, while 8% would vote for.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

[99th_Monkey]

122. rasmussen sez it, so it must be true.

why vote anymore? We may as well assign the task to pollsters and be done with it. At least that would be more honest.

[Occam Bandage]

123. There are many good reasons to vote for Dennis Kucinich.

1. You want to move the party to the left.
2. You want to send a message to the DNC.
3. You want to support Dennis for his hard work.
4. You want to show the world he has a support base.
5. You want him to send a few delegates to the DNC.
6. You want to protest the frontrunners.
7. You want to bring him up with the people you're caucusing with, and spread the word face-to-face.

There is one bad reason to vote for Dennis Kucinich:
1. You think he has a shot at winning the general election.

(Polls are reliable, whether you like them or not. They're just as reliable when they say that Hillary Clinton has a favorable and vote for/against handicap.)

[99th_Monkey]

134. I never said Dennis would be a shoo-in, did I ?

of course he's a long-shot, probably a no-shot, but I prefer to use my primary election vote as it was intended: i.e. to select
who I see as the best candidate with the best positions that are best for America, period ... not based on perceived 'electability'
as determined by others, and especially not by the M$M.

[Politicub]

97. He was alright until his Paul embrace

I mean, seriously. Other than an outsider status, what does Dennis have in common with Ron Paul?

[Libface]

100. Ending the war

and an ideal of a more "pure" adherence to the constitution, plus thinking outside of the big money interests. I mean Ron Paul definitely thinks a "free market" is the solution to everything but he also wants to get rid of what he and his followers think is the problem of subsidies for corporations, so they think he'll be the one to end corporate welfare. Kucinich and Paul both seem to stand by what they say, as well. The right and the left who support the two "fringe" candidates diverge on their social agendas but they have more in common in their ideals than you might think, and I assume that's why K and P are friends. I myself have some libertarian leanings but of course I can see that LF capitalism is a fantasy.

[babylonsister]

107. They are both anti-war. nt

[Occam Bandage]

113. They're both anti-war, and both committed to ideology over practicality. In fact,

I think both take positions that are sometimes more exaggerated then they actually believe, simply because they both believe that the nation is healthiest when there's a full range of debate. As Kucinich likes to say, the country is like an eagle; it needs a strong left wing and a strong right wing to fly.

[Libface]

115. Yes they are both

strongly idealistic. I don't actually find Dennis's idealism to be all that impractical (at least in other countries I guess). Funny that Ron Paul is raising so much money and DK doesn't have the same numbers. I am very curious why that is.

[Occam Bandage]

117. Ron Paul can draw a lot of support from a disillusioned Republican party.

There are plenty of smart Republicans who are sick of pointless war and sick of corruption and sick of big government, and who think the entire party has sold out. They're more than happy to donate to a guy trying to return the party to its pre-Reagan ideological roots.

In addition, he's been very, very smart about appealing to the wave of Internet kids (high school/college age) who are just having a political coming-of-age. They're still young and kinda spoiled, and don't like the notion of being regulated. Ron Paul is very anti-authority and anti-establishment, and supporting him is a type of political rebellion against both the parent state, symbolizing rebellion against the actual parent. They're not very many, but they have enormous presence on the Internet, and have given him unprecedented levels of free advertising. And more and more Republicans are thinking, "yeah, you know, why the fuck can't we just shut down welfare and medicare and all that shit? If we're talking small government, why not actually start fucking cutting up the government? And what the fuck are we doing in Iraq, anyway?"

Small-government types are coming in. Anti-war libertarians are coming in. And they're willing to give, because they hate their party and their candidates. Ron Paul is "none of the above," personified.

Meanwhile, Kucinich is a lone voice in an otherwise-satisfied party. Democrats feel good about '08 and, by and large, like their candidates. Republicans don't. And that's why Ron Paul is making out like a bandit, and DK is sitting where he usually is.

(I don't think DK's idealism to be actually impractical; just politically impractical. I think his healthcare plan is wonderful.)

[Libface]

119. You might be right

and RP is just at a tactical advantage because of the level of dissatisfaction in the RW but there's more crossover than progressives want to admit, IMO. Many RPers seem to agree that his policies are nuts but they are able to overlook a LOT and still support him, and it seems to be based on enthusiasm rather than really understanding his stances. Whereas a populist like Dennis has "no chance"? I think there are some deeper reasons (although I'm sure that the insulated, young, white, male with disposable income donations are very helpful), maybe fundamental differences but I'm not sure what they are.

[riqster]

120. Ron Paul is very pro-corporate

...we wants to de-regulate all industries, starting with the energy industry.

Kooch, OTOH, isn't exactly loved by those interests, and said interests have more money to burn than the working-class Joes that are Kooch's supporters.

[DutchLiberal]

139. They both voted against war with Iraq, something that can't be said about HRC.

[SunDrop23]

114. He can't win. I agree. We've covered this a thousand times.

[messiah]

131. The media reflects the views of the public in regards to DK very well

People fear change and fear taking a chance.
There will be no incremental change things will either get worse or stay the same, power will not change hands.
It's pointless to argue but I like to amuse myself sometimes.
People don't seem to realize that the power structure hasn't changed since the beginning of time (The few controlling the many) .

[crawfish]

132. Of course he can't win.

Do you think the powers-behind-the-power are going to allow someone with ethics and courage into the White House? No way! They prefer candidates who can be bought and sold.

[Fire Walk With Me]

141. We can't live without the "Swift Boat" dynamic in the elections. We're addicted to the struggle.

A candidate that no one can smear is too boring to endorse.

It just wouldn't be dramatic enough. :shrug:

(Vote for Kucinich)

[Capn Sunshine]

143. STOP Bringing UP Nader

Last I checked, the RNC hasn't given any money to Dennis. Unlike Nader. Dennis is a Democrat. A really good one.

I just think he would do better in a Cabinet position. My own organization voted overwhelmingly to endorse him based upon his values and what he brings to the table.

He can't win because like other candidates mired in the single digits, he's not resonating with enough voters. Why is another question.

[Libface]

146. So Kucinich raised a total of $131,000

according to www.december152007.com and Ron Paul raised over $6 million.

I want to know why. Why can't a populist dem in this political climate raise half what this nut RP can?


Edit: Maybe a big chunk is corporate cash but still...wtf

[Karenina]

147. Whatever "leader" America gets in November

she will have richly earned.