Why Nader if we have Kucinich?

[mdmc]

I have decided to answer this question for the benefit of DU.

DONT WORRY! Most voters have already opposed the things that Nader stands for. If voters supported his cause, Kucinich would have the Democratic nomination instead of 3% of the vote. It must be that progressive beliefs are not that popular, or are less popular than defeating Bush, which seems to be the primary voters main objective.

Some of us really like what Dennis Kucinich is saying, but really like the fact that if his positions are not those of the Democratic platform, he will still back the Democratic Party and their Candidate, John Kerry. His issues are less important to him than unseating Bush.

The problem is that Kucinich has been "contained", and that his message will never get out past his base, because he will already be out of contention before most voters start to pay attention to the campaign.

Most people will never know that there was a Democrat that ran for President, but VOTED AGAINST AUTHORIZING BUSH TO GO TO WAR. Most people will never know that there was a Democrat that opposed the death penalty AND the drug war. Most people will choose between Bush and Kerry.

At least Nader will talk about the issues dear to the left. Nader will have the luxury of being heard, because the field will be down to just three candidates; *, Kerry, and Nader.

FOR SOME REASON, Half of all Americans don't vote. Others feel that the dems and the gop offer too little. Along with the diehard lefties, these are the supporters of the Green party. DU should concern itself with courting these nonvoters that will come out for Nader, but not for anyone else. Nonvoters need to be courted, Greens don't need to be bashed.

[JohnKleeb]

1. I like both of these guys a lot

hence my new avatar.

[mdmc]

2. Your so cosmopolitan, Kleeb

I'm voting Nader in NYS, but as God as my witness, if we have a Kerry Kucinich campaign, I'll go all out to support it.

Kleeb, I was a Dean supporter, but I like Kerry even more than Dean (I was anti war, thus Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton).

[JohnKleeb]

6. well Kerry is against the death penalty, which is big for me

Glad to see you came around on Kerry or did you always like him? I know some Kerry supporters who were once Dean supporters who had a lot of like and respect for Kerry.

[mdmc]

54. My whole life I have always loved Kennedy and Kerry

They my boys.
I am a certified leftie; so is Kerry. I think he is the best leftie out of the top tier candidates, and was my second choice behind Kucinich (if I could choose the next president, it would be Kucinich). I'm satisfied with a Kerry campaign.

[mzmolly]

17. What was Naders position on the war?

:shrug:

I am of course talking about BEFORE the war.

[WitchWay]

31. His position on the war

Nader is not for the war in Iraq, and never has been. Nader is opposed to war and imperialism. He didn't support the sanctions in Iraq, as well, or the bombings such as Clinton engaged in (if that is what you are refering to as before the war???)

[mzmolly]

41. Well...

It is thought that the sanctions and bombings are now the reason we can't find WMD's in Iraq. They are said to have been effective?

I don't like War/Sanctions either and was opposed to both.

However, I would ask you not to bring Clinton into this discussion as it can take things way off topic. And, it is bound to bring up election 2000 and the fact that were Gore Prez. we wouldn't have had another Iraq war etc... It is also bound to bring many of Ralphs old quotes about the *lack of difference between the parties* back to haunt.

[WitchWay]

46. Hmmm...

I don't quite understand the first part of your post, but...

Bombings and sanctions aren't why there weren't any WMD's. The WMD is a red herring as to why to bud into Iraq all the time. The reason we bombed was to keep Iraq bombarded so at any oppurtune time, we could go in there and grab oil, make military/industrial business thrive and create a geopolitical stronghold. WMD is just a convenient excuse throughout all administrations to bomb Iraq.

But, I can't igonre Clinton. He is part of the discussion because he was a democratic involved in keeping and preparing Iraq under Attack, basically. Democrats are also intimately involved in these sorts of wars, so they are not to be left out of the picture. If that brings up old Nader sayings, maybe that's because there's some truth to what Nader had to say.

Also, Kerry now "opposes" Chavez, which is suspicious and telling. Why? Well, there's oil in Venezuela too. Funny how the U.S. only seems to think that international problems exist only where there is oil, mining interests or things like gas pipe-line potential. And both parties tend to agree as to WHERE these "problems" are.

By the way -- look into Progressive Internationalism. If there's a Kerry admin, it will be the new Dem catchphrase for the same PNAC imperialism. It's good to know what to look at to keep Kerry honest.

[mzmolly]

57. Many belive the reason we don't have WMD in Iraq is because of the

unpopular actions of the UN/US.

... *Truth* to what Nader had to say? ...

Lets examine some of what he said shall we?

Regarding Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN), Nader said that he is willing to sacrifice them because "that's the price they're going to have to bear for letting their party go astray." In an interview with In the Times, 10-30-2000

When asked point-blank about the actions of specific government actors, such as George W. Bush and John Ashcroft, Nader has claimed that bureacratic restraints will stop them from being able to effect real change. If a third party succeeds in keeping Democrats out of office, where exactly is this restraint going to come from?

Nader contended that Bush would not damage the Earth and generally remain popular, but he has pushed arctic drilling and other anti-environment policies. "If they continue to pursue a scorched-earth policy, they’ll be defeated in the next election, and the environmental rules will come out stronger as a result. There’s no way they’re going to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)."

Nader said that a Gore presidency "wouldn't have been any different in terms of military and foreign policy, soft on corporate crime. It wouldn't have been any different in ignoring the need to transfer our country to renewable energy and organic agriculture and protecting the small farmer. And it wouldn't have been any different on GATT and NAFTA and the increasing trade deficits and exporting American jobs." -- Green Party USA 1-14/02

"Let's see what really happens. Ashcroft is going to be a prisoner of bureaucracy." -- Common Dreams 4-03-2001

I think I'd be leary of Mr. Nader and his pontifications going forward.

[Hippo_Tron]

61. The Clinton actions are actually quite important...

I'd say that most democrats either supported the Clinton bombings and the IWR until we found out Bush lied or did not support the Clinton bombings or the IWR. On the other hand, Republicans want it both ways and only supported the IWR yet claimed the Clinton actions were a way to distract the public from Monica.

[DenverDem]

3. It's not that progressive policies are less popular with voters,

the problem is that progressive policies are twisted and demonized by the traitorous, prevaricating media.

Properly framed and articulated, progressive policies are the only ones that make sense. In such a bizarro political media culture, the misconceptualizing of progressive policies make it impossible to break through the propagandic hypnosis of the sheeple to reassert rationality into the debate.

As an articulator of progressive policies, Dennis Kucinich is vastly superior to the integrity compromised Nader.

[mdmc]

4. media or Democratic Party?

both, imo

[DenverDem]

5. The Democratic party would maintain progressivism

if they felt that the case could be made. Instead party leadership has cowardly capitulated to the media bullies rather than taking the more difficult, but ultimately more successful and ethical road of fighting the omnipresent disinformation campaign fought by the overlords of the dominant media.

Media democracy is the only way to truly take back America and democracy itself. This will be an unprecedented cultural civil war that must be fought for the hearts and minds of the sheeple and the collective unconscious. It will be the last great war and it will be fought intellectually.

[RichM]

9. Yes, but WHY do you think party leadership capitulated?

I agree with your second para about the need for media democracy - but I'm unclear as to why you think that the Dem party doesn't 'feel that the progressive case can be made.'

[DenverDem]

15. Pro wrestling paradigm.

Real control (financial) of both parties is maintained by corporate globalist Power Eliteists. This is why Dean's peoples campaign was torpedoed by the PE media and the DLC.

In politricks, as in pro wrestling, what you see in "the ring" appears to be a battle between a "baby face" and a "heel" but in the smoke filled back rooms (the locker room) both combatants are showering together and the outcome is dictated by a controlling overlort (the booker). There are true believers (marks) out there that think wrestling and/or electoral politics are "real" but there are those of us who understand the truly Hegelian dialectic of back room control and see wrestling and politics as it actually is, we are the "smart fans".

While there are many true believers in the Democratic Party at the grass roots level and even some of the politrckians (candidates) but admittedly the party leadership is sold out to the Power Elite overlords and will fight any progressivism that will rear its obstinant head. The Voters will have to take back the party somehow, but this may be a naive attack on windmills that has no chance of ever succeeding.

With no ability to counter the Power Elite's globalist agenda politically, the Marxist Dialectic will play out and The People will revolt violently. Will the Power Elite have the military might to genocide the proles? This is the big question that would be answered at that point.

[RichM]

23. Good answer, good analogy.

Dems = "the baby face"
Repubs = "the heel"

[mdmc]

55. wow

There you have it, DU.

[no name no slogan]

51. FEAR is why

Democrats are so damned afraid that they're afraid to stand up for what they really believe in: universal health care, a sane pentagon budget, living wages for EVERYONE, etc.

Who are they afraid of? The media, the Republican Smear Teams, the rich, the corporations (whom they've gotten a little too close to, IMHO), maybe even the American public.

So what do we get in return? Instead of addressing the issues HEAD ON, and getting in the face of the Repubs, they mince around, too afraid to stand up and say things like:

1) Pre-emptive invasions of non-threatening countries is WRONG.
2) It is immoral and wrong to profit off of other people's misery-- especially when it comes to their medical care.
3) Everybody who works full time should be able to afford a place to live, enough to eat, and be secure in their home.
4) There's no reason for a country with the largest military in the world to devote 50% of its budget to weapons and war.
5) Make up your own...

IMHO, THAT's the major reason why only half the eligible population votes. And those non-voters tend to be poorer, who's lives are most affected by government policies.

It truly is a tragedy that this party is unwilling (or incapable) of showing a little backbone where it counts.

[mzmolly]

7. Where was Nader on the WAR? Does anyone have any information?

Am I just not keeping up with the guy? Cuz, it seems like he shows up come election time, but is living the good life in-between?

Why not run for Senate/Congress like Mr. Kucinich did and start making a difference there? This way we can see what he's made of rather then hear a bunch of *hindsight* blather.

[JohnKleeb]

8. Nader lives in DC IIRC

Kucinich has been in politics since the late 60's, and in congress since 96.

[mzmolly]

10. Exactly and Nader should do the same. Run for congress/senate

Governor of X? before running for President.

I made this arguement about Clark also. I wan't to see what a guy/gal is made of before giving him/her the friggin OO! ;)

[JohnKleeb]

11. DC doesnt have state hood tho

Clark could have ran for governor of Arkansas to built experience IMO using your thoughts. I really dont know where Nader would run though, DC does have a representive in congress sorta in Elanor Holmes Norton, a dem of course. I prefer experience under the belt too.

[mzmolly]

14. Run for mayor of palookaville...

;) heck I don't care, just do SOMETHING before expecting to get my vote.

[JohnKleeb]

16. he was a consumer activist for many years granted but

Seriously tho I think the greens should start from the ground up, do some congressional runnings, yes they have I know. I dont have a problem with more than 2 parties.

[mzmolly]

19. I used to watch his show LOL. But consumer activist does not a President

make.

Also, I think he's an Inde this year, not running on the green party. I also have no problem with expanding the political process.

I simply think timing is important. If Mr Nader really wanted expansion he'd approach it like Ventura did and run for lesser office first.

[JohnKleeb]

20. True

I dont know what party hes running on. I thikn Cobb or Camejo will be the green nominee.

[WitchWay]

49. What Makes a President?

Well, some people would think that a consumer advocate would make a good president. But some do not. I respect your opinion.

Nader is running without a party as an Independent, but there are state Green parties who are considering nominating him to run on their line (the reform party in Texas is also looking into having Nader run on their line).

I don't think Nader is going to garner much votes, it's more about being a trimtab candidate. The article I posted explains the term trimtab, and what the trimtab candidacy means.

[mzmolly]

59. Actually I don't trust Mr. Nader, which is why I prefer to see him govern

or vote in the Senate before voting for him.

I'll leave you with a *old* quote from Gloria Steinem that pretty much sums it up for me. This is from 2000, but much of it pertains today.

TOP TEN REASONS WHY I'M NOT VOTING FOR NADER
(ANY ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH)

by Gloria Steinem President, Voters For Choice

10. He's not running for President, he's running for federal matching funds for the Green Party!

9. He was able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the past because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn a majority vote, or otherwise submit to democracy.

8. By condemning Gore for ever having taken a different position - for example, for voting against access to legal abortion when he was a Congressman from Tennessee - actually dissuades others from changing their minds and joining us.

7. Nader is rightly obsessed with economic and corporate control, yet he belittles a deeper form of control - control of reproduction, and the most intimate parts of our lives. For example, he calls the women's movement and the gay and lesbian movements "gonadal politics," and ridicules the use of the word "patriarchy," as if it were somehow less important than the World Trade Organization. As Congressman Barney Frank wrote Nader in an open letter, "your assertion that there are not important issue differences between Gore and Bush is either flatly inaccurate or reflects your view that...the issues are not important...since you have generally ignored these issues in your career."

6. The issues of corporate control can only be addressed by voting for candidates who will pass campaign-funding restrictions, and by conducting grassroots boycotts and consumer campaigns against sweatshops - not by voting for one man who will never become President.

5. Toby Moffett, a longtime Nader Raider who also served in Congress, wrote that Nader's "Tweedledum and Tweedledee assertion that there is no important difference between the major Presidential candidates would be laughable if it weren't so unsafe." We've been bamboozled by the media's practice of being even-handedly negative. There is a far greater gulf between Bush and Gore than between Nixon and Kennedy - and what did that mean to history?

4. Nader asked Winona LaDuke, an important Native American leader, to support and run with him, despite his likely contribution to the victory of George W. Bush, a man who has stated that "state law is supreme when it comes to Indians," a breathtakingly dangerous position that ignores hundreds of treaties with tribal governments, long-standing federal policy and federal law affirming tribal sovereignty.

3. If I were to run for President in the same symbolic way, I would hope my friends and colleagues would have the sense to vote against me, too, saving me from waking up to discover that I had helped send George W. Bush to the most powerful position in the world.

2. There are one, two, three, or even four lifetime Supreme Court Justices who are likely to be appointed by the next president. Bush has made clear, by his record as Governor and appeals to the ultra-right-wing, that his appointments would overturn Roe v. Wade and reproductive freedom, dismantle remedies for racial discrimination, oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, oppose mandatory gun registration, oppose federal protections of endangered species, public lands, and water - and much more. Gore is the opposite on every one of these issues. Gore has made clear that his appointments would uphold our hard won progress in those areas, and he has outlined advances in each one.

1. The art of behaving ethically is behaving as if everything we do matters. If we want Gore and not Bush in the White House, we have to vote for Gore and not Bush - out of self-respect.

I'm not telling you how to vote by sharing these reasons. The essence of feminism is the power to decide for ourselves. It's also taking responsibility for our actions. Let's face it, Bush in the White House would have far more impact on the poor and vulnerable in this country, and on the subjects of our foreign policy and aid programs in other countries.

Just as Clinton saved women's lives by rescinding the Mexico City policy by executive order as his first act as President - thus ending the ban against even discussing abortion if one received U.S. aid - the next President will have enormous power over the lives of millions abroad who cannot vote, plus millions too disillusioned to vote here.

Perhaps there's a reason why Nader rallies seem so white, middle class, and disproportionately male; in short, so supported by those who wouldn't be hurt if Bush were in the White House.

Think self-respect. Think about the impact of our vote on the weakest among us. Then we can't go wrong.

[GreenInNC]

24. Nader and the Green Party

Nader sent out a letter yesterday saying he would not accept the Green Party nomination.

[JohnKleeb]

25. sorry my bad

Hes running as an indy, my bad. Its gonna be Cobb or Camejo right for the Greens?

[GreenInNC]

29. Camejo

Camejo has stated he does not want the nomination either. He will probably release his delegates right before our convention so they can vote for who ever they want.

[JohnKleeb]

30. Than Cobb?

will be the green nominee?

[no name no slogan]

52. I could see no Green Pres endorsement this year

The Greens as a matter of organization and philosophy are really not that organized at anything beyond the state level, it seems. In MN, they're still doing alright, as they're a major party, and have several elected officials on city councils in some major cities (like Duluth and Minneapolis).

I have a couple of active/party-member Green friends, they're not worried about a Presidential candidate: they're more interested in winning local races this year. However, at least here in MN, to maintain their major-party status, they need either a national- or state office-level candidate to get at least 5% of the vote. Otherwise, they lose their status (and the access to state funds for campaigns, too).

[WitchWay]

50. Interesting

That's interesting.

I don't doubt you at all but I'd be curious if you had a link, by chance....just interested.

[WitchWay]

37. Nader is running Independent

Nader is running as an independent this time, not a green. Greens are working with working from the ground up. Nader's run helped to build the green party. Greens might "nominate" nader in some states to run on their line, though.

Third Parties and Independents have played an important role in American history. The republican party was started out of a loose coalition of third parties and others who got together.

You can look at how few third parties/independents are in congress and Senate (I think there's only one in each) to see what a stranglehold the two party system has on the government at all levels.

The stranglehold is, in large part, do to corporate influence/control and domination of our government.

[JohnKleeb]

38. what party? or just plain indepedent

[WitchWay]

40. Just plain Independent

He's running just plain independent. No party.

I think the reform party in texas and some green parties are working to get him on their line, though.

[GreenInNC]

60. Green nomination

Last week Nader wrote a letter to our national committee saying he would not accept the Green Party nomination but there are some state parties that might put him on anyway.

Part of the affiliation agreement between state parties and the USGP is that state parties will place the name of the nominee that is chosen at our national convention on their ballot line or risk disaffiliation.

Nader is driving a wedge in the Green Party and for this reason I am very pissed at him.

[WitchWay]

32. Nader has done plenty...

Nader lives in DC, they have no statehood. He hopes to get DC statehood, and this is something that he is working on. Nader is very busy, all the time. You can read up on him, the list of his accomplishments is extensive and far-reaching. He has a campaign page, with a bio. The media tends to shut out Nader to a great extent. Just like Kucnich, who spoke out against corporatism, Nader gets media black-outs, too. This occurs especially when it concerns the corporate crimes, which nader most speaks of loudly and often.

For more info (this is not his campaign site):
http://www.naderpage.org

Nader is running because organizations such as those he founded found it increasingly difficult and soon impossible to effect political change due to the monied interests and corporate control over Washington. Basically, public groups couldn't influence politics. This became especially apparent with the advent of the DLC, when the Democratic party started getting corporate sponsorship (so to speak) no one would listen to these organizations or Nader. It was all corporate domination, and the politicians soon served corporate interests to the exclusion of the public. Kucinich speaks of the same sort of treatment that he faced from the dem party.

Nader calls his candidacy a trimtab campaign. The Two-party duopoly is stuck, because with only two parties there is no dynamic and the system becomes corrupt and quagmired.

[mzmolly]

44. I am aware of his bio and most of his positions frankly. However, I would

ask again why this man doesn't seek a lesser office before asking the people to elect him to the *highest* position in the nation/world?

[WitchWay]

47. Nader

Nader knows everything about the government backwards and forwards. He began to read the Congressional Records from the beginning as a teen, and has kept up ever since. So, the guy knows himself and is totally qualified.

Personally, I don't have a problem with a candidate not having held lesser offices, if they have demonstrated themselves in their work. In my opinion, Nader has demonstrated, through his work, where he stands, his dedicated work ethic, and his dedicated commitment to the public and the public interest.

However, many people who are running have showed, through their work in "lesser offices" their commitment to corporate interests, and I would find this to be a disadvantage for someone who would serve in the highest position in the world. Just because someone has held office, doesn't mean that they are a good person with good intent who would be good for the country.

I hope that Kerry commits himself to real democratic principles and makes some commitments, especially concerning the war and free trade. Of course, Nader is a Kerry opponent, but his candidacy may help Kerry, if Kerry plays it wisely. If Nader gets a chance to speak/debate/be heard -- Nader can shed light on what is going on in government, the Bush adminstration, and give some solutions for change.

Nader calls his campaign a "trimtab" campaign. It's very interesting and the article below explains the term:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0224/p08s03-comv.html

[mzmolly]

58. Nader showed his committment to "Corporate Interest" when it was his

own corporation.

"Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.
Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."

When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader makes no apology.

According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades…you can’t have work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary" according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day. Remember that Nader's well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these events."

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

[WitchWay]

63. So you found that old article too

I found it in 2000, took it seriously, investigated all the issues and gave it much thought. Nader is obviously a workaholic, and he seems to expect anyone who works for him to be that way too. Chris Matthews, who was also a Nader Raider, also seems to hold a grudge -- he grilled Nader about never marrying or having kids after Nader announced he was running last month. Nader said he decided long ago it would be wrong to be an absentee father -- so obviously Nader is 100% devoted to his work as a "public citizen" and nothing else.

So what kind of President would Nader be in regard to labor?

Nader, unlike Kerry, is a fierce proponent for repealing Taft-Hartley.
He's also for a $10.00 minimum wage, and universal health care.
If the SEIU wants to unionize Public Citizen, they'll find it alot easier under a Nader presidency, than under a Kerry presidency. Even without a union, non-profit workers would be better off under Nader than they would be unionized under Kerry. Nader has spent his career attacking the presumption that workers should need a union at all to have a liveable wage, safe working conditions (he is responsible for the creation of OSHA) and health care. Nader wants everyone to have health care even if they don't have a job at all.

So the fact that Nader is against unionizing small non-profits (have you ever worked in one, BTW?) does not mean he is at all against workers' rights.

Still, I agree that there are good arguments against Nader's position on small non-profit unionization. I would disagree with him here, mainly because he views such non-profit jobs more like internships, and I think they could and should be long-term career paths. This may just be the nature of his organizations' applicant pool, though.

Nader was endorsed by the California Nurses' Association in 2000, the largest union of health care workers in California with 31,000 members, because he had worked so hard to help them on Prop. 216, the Patient Protection Act.

At least a Nader job is voluntary, pays more than $500 for a whole summer of work, and you gain tremendous skills, experience, and prestige, unlike Kerry's National Service (universal youth civil indenture) plans.

For a more extended review of the Nader "dirt" in that old article you linked to, see:
http://www.drivingmrnader.org/chapter7.htm

As for the stocks, Nader advocates shareholder revolts against corrupt corporate boards and officers. He says he never pulls his punches from any corporation just because he is a shareholder -- quite the contrary. And 85% of the profits from his investments go right back into the organizations he's founded to fight the wrongs of those corporations. Stockholder revolt is one of the ten items in his Democracy Toolbox:

The business press is filled with reports of executives of large corporations repeatedly abusing shareholder assets and worker morale with huge salaries, bonuses, greenmail, and golden parachutes (untied to company performance), self-perpetuating boards of directors, the stifling of the proxy voting system and blocking other shareholder voting reforms such as cumulative voting powers and access to relevant shareholder lists and information. The owners of corporations should be able to prevent their hired executives from engaging in what BUSINESS WEEK called casino capitalism that often ends with mass layoffs, loyal shareholder losses and communities undermined.
http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r349.html

[WitchWay]

33. Nader

Nader helped out Kucinich when he was mayor to pass referenda to save Cleveland's municipal electric system.

[JohnKleeb]

34. yes they are old friends

I dont have any problems with Nader, I prefer people supporting the nominee but I dont believe in shove down throat mantra. What Kucinich did as mayor was very brave.

[sadiesworld]

12. Don't hate me here...

but couldn't we at least find a more attractive, charismatic package for progressive ideals. It doesn't matter to me personally, but it seems naive to discount it. :)

[JohnKleeb]

13. ahh looks smooks

Debs wasn't attractive and was great.
Plus personally his looks are part of what hes all about, the regular guy.

[Kanary]

28. You're right. Lincoln couldn't get elected in today's world

of superficial "values".

As a friend of mine says, "It's too bad we're such an adolescent country."

Kanary

Another Delusional Diehard for Dennis!!

Kucinich 2004!

[Hippo_Tron]

62. I disagree, Lincoln looks like a perfectly normal person...

He may have to shave but other than that I think he could easily get elected.

[JohnKleeb]

18. interesting that you mention the drug war and death penalty

Kerry may not be Kucinich on these but he's in the parties liberal wing on them. He called the drug war illegitimate in a RS interview, and has in the past shown not to be a drug warrior. He opposes the death penalty in all but one circumance. So he's not Kucinich but I personally think way better than Gore was in 2000. Al bless his soul was sorta a drug warrior and supported the death penalty in many cases. Not dissing the man just sayin.

[revcarol]

21. Kerry voted for Plan Colombia,

a major part of the drug war and terrible for farmers and government in Colombia. Is that another vote he's distancing himself from?Is he for the drug war as long as it stays in another country?

[JohnKleeb]

22. I told you, hes not Kucinich

Sigh I didnt know that. Thats a shame though.

[WitchWay]

35. Kerry is far from being a Kucinich on most everything

Kerry and the Drug war? I wouldn't commend Kerry on that...I hope that he is changing his mind, and that we hold it to him, but...
Kerry's advisor on foreign policy is Rand Beers. Please read the following article:

The Toxic Career of Rand Beers: Kerry's Drug War Zealot
http://www.counterpunch.org/donahue01262004.html

Kerry is FAR from Kucinich on many issues. The WAR is the big one. On Free Trade, Kerry is all for it -- the free trade he supports pretty much overrides things like enviornmental measures.

Also, look at Progressive Internationalism (Democratic PNAC, same old imperialism)...

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252144&subsecid=900020&knlgAreaID=450004

Please don't trust Kerry too much. Even if you vote for the guy, it doesn't mean you have to like him.

[JohnKleeb]

36. read his platform please

Granite Staffers if that group means anything to you gave him a B+. I would rather have Kucinich but this is the way thing are. I dont wanna argue and debate, DK I would prefer trust me but Kerry is a lot better than most give him.

[WitchWay]

39. I have read Kerry's platform

I've Read Kerry's platform. I'm not saying don't vote Kerry, just to keep an eye out for him and try to pressure him to have a platform more like Kucinich.
I think Kerry's vote record can be tricky, it sometimes looks good but there are some big things that he's bad on. Sometimes Kerry says stuff in ways that are just a little sneaky and legalistic, too.
I just don't want people to feel to comfy with some of the things kerry is promoting (especially because he isn't opposing the war).

[mzmolly]

45. The same can be said of Kucinich..

"I think Kerry's vote record can be tricky, it sometimes looks good but there are some big things that he's bad on."

I think Kucinich's vote record can be tricky, it sometimes looks good but there are some big things that he's bad on.

[WitchWay]

48. The bad things

I am refering to are votes for Free Trade, like the FastTrack that he voted to Bush. Free Trade votes generally override things (like environmental legislation) in the big picture. Kucinich isn't voting for any Free Trade.

As for Kucinich -- You're refering to his abortion votes, I take it?
Kucinich, unlike Kerry on some of his votes, has dealt with this and made a firm commitment to be completely pro-choice. He addresses his issue, the problem of his past votes, and how he came to change his view. I know - because I heard him address it at a rally I recently attended.

But, can Kerry say his IWR vote was wrong? No, he won't. He wants us to believe he was deluded somehow by Bush, but wasnt' wrong in his IWR vote? Well, somethings pretty damn wrong if he feels he was tricked by Bush's faulty intelligence. It means Kerry didn't do his research, that vote was wrong and he should admit it. Kerry's not coming clean. So, yes, that's part of his tricky voting record.

[mzmolly]

56. Bad is in the eye of the beholder. Kerry is better on the environment

then Kucinich, and he certainly is better on choice. Kucinich also voted against civil rights *flag burning* and voted to imprison juviniles with adults!

Yeah he was right about this war, but he's had some questionable positions on others.

Regarding the War.

Kerry was promised by this admin that:

1. War would be a LAST resort.
2. The international community would have a say/part.

Do I wish he hadn't voted for the war, yes. Do I wish Dennis had respected womens rights ... yes.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. How is Kucinich unknown?

He appears on the debates and is talked about in the media. Granted there's not nearly as much talk about him as the others but all people had to do was turn on CNN on a primary night and somebody would mention Kucinich.

[JohnKleeb]

27. he was the least known of all the candiates in a poll I read

Hes talked about now yes.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. He got less time than other candidates

and appeared mostly on cable. He received almost no TV news coverage, and newspapers and magazines pointedly avoided him. Believe me, as a supporter, I watched for news stories about him and didn't see them.

The New York Times was especially bad in this regard. They were capable of writing lengthy articles about the candidates' positions on health care or Iraq, two areas in which DK has distinctive positions, and describe every other candidate's position in detail, and I'm including Graham and Lieberman here, and dismiss DK's position in a sentence or not mention it at all.

DK did far, far better than 3% in states where he had large and well-organized coteries of volunteers. He got 17% in Minnesota, 16% in Maine, 13% in Washington, 27% in Hawaii. What these states had in common was either good press coverage (Hawaii) or dedicated volunteers who knocked themselves out doing guerilla publicity. In Minnesota, we also nagged the local press into providing coverage.

If people found out about Kucinich, they usually liked him. Then, of course, we had to deal with the problem of people who said, "I just love Dennis, but he can't win." Anyone who volunteered for Kucinich heard this phrase a couple of times a day.

I suppose they were right. He didn't win because all the people who "just loved" him didn't vote for him. But his popularity was far greater than the "3%" figure you've quoted.

Publicity

[JohnKleeb]

43. people were afraid to vote their hurts lydia

sigh its sad to say but its true. I hate that mantra you describe: "I just love Dennis, but he can't win."
Its a shame. I will always remember DK though, because he will find his niche in history and he got me inolved, and I have his autograph.

[no name no slogan]

53. Hey Lydia, you'd appreciate this

I heard this from another Kooch volunteer in our state Senate District (Dist. 60):

DK actually got about 45% of the total vote in our Senate District! More than Kerry AND Edwards! That's part of the reason why I'm looking forward to our SD convention next weekend-- I think we're going to do alright!

For demographic purposes: MN state Senate District 60 covers the western part of Minneapolis and a section of the downtown area. It covers both rich and poor neighborhoods, including millionaire mansions by our magnificent chain of lakes and much more humble, WWII-era homes like my own 1 1/2 story bungalow. Like most of Minnesota, it is predominantly white, but also has a large population of African-Americans, Latinos, SE Asians as well as recent immigrants from east Africa-- Somalia in particular.

When people are exposed to Dennis's message, they generally agree with it. Unfortunately, he was marginalized by most of the media (even after we badgered them to cover him and his support here), which made our own job twice as hard. However, we were still able to get him 17% statewide, with almost no money from national, on a purely volunteer-run basis, by people with no significant DFL party experience.

Not bad for a bunch of amateurs, with no support from the party, IMHO.