Has any note been made of Kucinich's current stance on Hardball last nite?

[Armstead]

Those who rail against Kucinich for daring to vote against what he saw as a bad healthcare bill ought to take note.

Kucinich actually defended and almost supported the latest version of the Senate bill. He said it is a step in the right direction by expanding eligibility for medicare.

Personally I don't agree with him, because it sounds like the expanded medicare eligibility is going to be a fig leaf. But I'm not going to "throw him under the bus" because I can see his point, and recognize that he is being consistent with his overall effort for a single payer system.

However, he IS owed an apology from those who have castigated him for not being a "real" democrat because he does not blindly going along with whatever the official plan of the day is.

His (cautious and conditional) support of the Senate plan shows that he really does have principles on nthis, and when he believes the Democratic Party is doing something positive he will certainly support it.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emulatorloo]

2. Kucinich's statement doesn't fit the narrative that the Senate Bill is "worthless," so I doubt

it has been highlighted much.

I appreciate you bringing it up though. I saw it live and was pretty interested to hear his analysis.

I don't always agree with DK, but I was VERY UPSET with the vilification of him at DU after the house vote. He is a man of principle, and those threads were awful.

[JVS]

3. Dennis is awesome and there are too many haters out there that knock him

[vaberella]

5. I could say the same about Obama. n/t

[JVS]

6. Criticism of policy is not being a hater or knocking. Calling someone crazy is.

I don't see much substantive criticism of Kucinich. I see a lot of shit flinging.

[vaberella]

10. Give me a damned break. Seriously.

You seriously think that when people equate Obama to Bush3 or Obama=Bush, or that Obama has done nothing--really. That they are debating policy?! You've got to be kidding me. One personally finally broke out of that stupid excuse and actually said that HRC would have done this or that better.

There is going after policy where people actually form decent arguments. And then you have people who scavange solely on "would-be negative" articles---most of which come from Right Wing blogs, use terminology like "Obamacare" and "Messiah" on a Democratic board, or just plain come out with the right wing tp's---and you want me to believe this is a valid critique of policy?! Give me a break---I wasn't born yesterday.

At this point on this board, that excuse has been debunked by the posters who use that damned excuse. There are posters here with valid problems with policy and ONLY attack policy, ruggers and depakid come to mind. However, there are very well known posters who do nothing but post negative posts or go on spamming hunts to post the same negative content. Once within 15 minutes I saw 4 posts on the same topic---Obama doesn't support reimportation. When I publicly saw the man support it. And then it was post after post after post that he was this or that.

Right...whatever---even the article they qouted provided a retraction but the clowns were still posting on it as though it were fact and many on here believed it.

This crap about attacking policy is a crock at best. Don't get me wrong for some it very much is. However there are some I'm seeing and this is the majority are using that as an excuse to bash the President and basically nothing he can do will ever be right in their estimation. This is what that is about. If there are people who are really going after policy they're basically clustered to 2-3 people---the rest have a damned agenda and that excuse you're touting won't hold water.

[JVS]

11. You're mistaken. Just look at this thread.

Post #1 is a simple bash of Kucinich. Where is Obama being bashed?

[vaberella]

14. I'm not talking about this thread.

I'm speaking on this board and this secton---GDP in particulars remarks towards Obama. This thread actually demands people who disagreed with Kucinich's actions to apologize. I don't see the same consideration for Obama nor do I see people demanding the same when information has come out by the WH to dispel continuous attacks. Your post was also saying that people attack policy---and I'm assuming that was in the general sense. And I'm telling you that is not the case or not 100% in relation to Obama.

[Armstead]

16. As I have said many times -- I hope I am wrong and have to eat crow

First of all, I didn't "demand" anything. (I wish I were powerful enough to make demands.)

Secondly, I am not staking a position just to stake a position. If a health care bill that actually is beneficial is passed I will happily eat crow and apologize for being too hard on them.

I want Obama and Congress to do the right thing. But it is frustrating and angering to see it steadily devolve into a meaningless gift to the insurance companies that will perpetuate the underlying problems.

I hope i am wrong and will apologize profusely, if they actually decide to do something that is real -- not just a corporate gift wrapped in a fig leaf

[vaberella]

20. To insinuate the first bill, if we're talking about the House Bill, wasn't good is wrong.

Sure it was not perfect, far from it. But it did a lot of bloody good. As I said, I and millions of others would have insurance starting in January----not months later. I woud be able to buy into the PO. Secondly, children woud be able to stay on their parents health plan until 27. Something my siste would kill for since she ended up losing her insurance and her cobra was way to expensive when she turned 24. And millions, upon millions of students would benefit from that. It mandated that ALL companies that make a certain amount must provide insurance for their workers. It mandated that. To say that this original bill was a crock and to see Kucinich vote against it---annoyed me. Again it did a lot of good---no where near brilliant but this one Kucinich may support isn't overly brilliant either. So far the only plus is that it expands medicaid from 65 to 55; with a possibly weaker PO. I don't know how that's so stellar.

[Armstead]

23. It wasn't Kucinich who killed the House Bill

If you want to get angry, direct it at those who are doing everything possible to undermine the public option in the Senate right now, and those in the past in both houses (and the White House) to take a perfectly good idea and weaken it beyond recognition.

Unfortunately, people like Kucinich, who actually fight for progressive principles and policies (like single payer), often to inspire more anger from some Democrats than those who do everything to remove any trace of liberalism and progressive policies from the process.

[vaberella]

24. Actually no one killed the House Bill---it passed the House.

I'm talking about Kucinich's vote against it when it went to vote. And that is where all the criticism has been, if you were paying attention. People on this board were mainly criticizing Kucinich's vote against the House bill when it went to vote with in the house. This wasn't about anything else. What you're arguing is completely different from why many of us had problems with Kucinich's vote. We're not talking about it's evolutionary merge in the Senate. Secondly, again no one can tell me what makes this bill---excluding this one measure we've heard of (without much details)---so much better that now Kucinich might get on board.

[Armstead]

27. What I am saying is that Kucinich hasn't really affected anything

His vote in the House was not a deal killer, because it would have passed with or without him, and he knew it.

My point was that Kucinich stirs up so much vitriol among some, while they are perfectly content to let slide those who are undermining the much larger process from a corporate, right-wing direction. Much bigger negative impacts have been made by Democrats who either are deliberately gutting reform or who are kowtowing to them. They, not Kucinich, are the problem.

[vaberella]

34. Actually he did play a strong role.

Don't marginalize his position in this. If we didn't get lucky enough to get two extra people in the House about a week we were to go in to vote, most likely the House Bill would have been scrapped---especially if Kucinich went through with his apparent decision. So if his decision remained the same and we didn't get the people we did in NY and I believe Maine---there would not have been a House Bill and most assuredly we would have seen as major backpedaling in health care reform if not it being done completely. So there would have been nothing.

Kucinich---a man you and so many others deems to be a progressive for the people would have sided with Conservadems (bluedogs---whatever)and the Republicans to completely derail health care. I'm surprised your ignoring this and this is really what the issue is about. It's about the vote that could have been detrimental if it had to play a fundamental role. The other clowns were definitely a gimme---but considering Kucinich to stand as he does---his position would have been helpful. He chose against it.

[Armstead]

35. He was partially angry because a compromise he tried to get in was shot down

He wanted to remove one obstacle that prevents states from implementing their own form of single payer on their own if the state chooses to do so. That would have been a good thing, because it at least would allowed states to do something, while still letting the federal government off the hook for -- God forbid -- actually implementing a meaningful national health plan.

He tried to get a small progressive change as a compromise and was shot down. I don't blame him for being pissed.

Again my original point is that IMO those who go after Kucinich so angrily -- while giving a pass to the conservaDem opponents of any real reform -- is symptomatic of what is wrong with the Democratic Party. It is so busy "protecting" itself from so-called "leftist" associations (including mainstream moderate liberaslism) that it empowers the conservatives far more than Kucinich could ever do.

personally, I'd rather see more like Kucinich who err on the side of the real interests of real people than those who blatantly or timidly empower the oligarchs and other opponents of real reform, such as we are seeing happen in health care.

The conservatives and corporations already have a political party, the republicans. The rest of us deserve one too.

[vaberella]

37. You're trying to tell me that Kucinich allowed his personal feelings to get in the way.

Then he's more whatever.

[Armstead]

39. yeah whatever....Just cheerleadf the Democrats as they eventually...

bargain away the help you are hoping for.

[sabrina 1]

41. Thank god for Kucinich and those like him

who fought so hard to prevent a complete capitulation to the Private Insurance Industry. If it wasn't for them and those who supported them, the Bill that did pass, bad as it is, would have been much, much worse.

I cannot believe the objections on this board sometimes, to members of Congress doing what they are supposed to do. Especially when they are fighting for US. I am beginning to hate party politics. I think parties should be completely abolished and individuals run for office based on their own merits. The Founding Fathers were right about this.

Party Politics causes people to lose sight of the issues and to feel obligated to root for the 'team' no matter what. It has become all about winning, regardless of what it is we are winning.

The fact is that Kucinich was RIGHT. And we all know that if what is happening with this health care debate were happening under Bush, it would fiercely condemned on this board, and we would ALL be demanding
what Kucinich has been demanding. It's sickening to realize that when the guy in power has a 'D' after his name, people are so willing to compromise their principles. And that is why we never get what we voted for.

I hope more Independents like Bernie Sanders runs for office from now on. That is where they majority of Americans are anyhow. This partisan politics is bad for this country. I really never thought that Democrats would demand loyalty to a political party over the good of the people. But that's what has happened, with apologists willing to keep compromising whenever the party caves. Well, I'm not, and I support Kucinich's principled stand on Health Care so far. Because he is right.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

26. Breaking the DU rules?

[SIMPLYB1980]

28. Nope. Exhibit A.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x50030

[spiritual_gunfighter]

29. I wasn't aware posting an article was breaking the rules

thank you mod.

[SIMPLYB1980]

30. LoL!

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[spiritual_gunfighter]

33. "regardless of the recs" n/t

[tekisui]

36. Not much of your tripe hangs around these days.

You notice?
:rofl:

[dionysus]

19. come on, that cult/ dear leader/ messiah/ kool-aid/ corporate whore bullshit

that goes on here every day is not "criticising policy".

[mkultra]

38. +1 this kind of centempt is actually against the board rules

and show a pretty serious level of ignorance as well.

[vaberella]

4. Should I ask every DUer who castrates the President over speculation to apologize when proved wrong?

Give me a damned break. In this case we weren't proved wrong over anything. He went against the first bill because he chose to disregarding the amount of good the first bill could do in and of itself. Many "liberal" Dems other than Kucinich supported the original version and I personally have nothing against the original version although it could be better. And many liberal bloggers actually lambasted rather scathingly this version until people like Dean, Weiner, and now Kucinich came out in support of it. Most of whom called it Obamacare or that Obama failed on health care reform. I don't see thread after thread of people demanding people to apologize to Obama.

For god's sakes. You're killing me with this. At first I was a bit appalled of the "Saint Kucinich" remarks because it smacks of the "Messiah" shit towards Obama----but when people come on DU demanding apologies they can kiss my ass.

Once again, I supported the first bill and to me Kucinich in his vote---decided to vote against me and I'm not apologizing for that. As an inidividual with a pre-existing condition which is genetic, who makes too much money to get medicaid but too litte to to pay for insurance, and who is about 25 years under 55...I would have greatly benefited. So you can kiss my ass aout an apology.

[Armstead]

7. Kissing you anywhere would be kissing your ass because you are being an ass

Sorry for the low-minded reply, but it is in the spirit of your post

[vaberella]

12. Whatever---You're demanding people to genuflect at some damned Kucinich alter.

As though we in some way were wrong when Kucinich because he was unhappy he got nothing he wished for decided to vote against it. He'd rather pass nothing and let the status quo in this country exist, when the original bill did a lot to alleviate the needs for many people. Only because he had issues with it.

And you find me talking about how I personally would benefit me from the original bill that he shot down, and I was glad still passed without him----to be low-minded. Hah, whatever. You can apologize to Kucinich for us since you think it's so warranted.

[Armstead]

15. I was not referring to the part of your post explaining your reasons

We all have a stake in the outcome, no matter what our personal situation.

It's your "kiss my ass" portion that I objected to.

And I have never said that DK should be sanctified. certain things about him bug me too. But the over-reaction against him from the "blindly support anything the Democrats ram through, no matter how bad it is" has been over the top.

[vaberella]

18. I don't find the reaction to be OTT.

In many of those threads people listed the many other times he's actually voted against legislation tat would help the people and sided with the republicans. To me this was another one.

[Armstead]

21. I have no quarrel with your opinion

In fact, I actually agree that sometimes DK can be annoying, and I don't agree with everything he does.

However, the extent of the demonization over this has been over the top, especially when the legislators who are truly undermining health reform (Nelson, et. al.) get a pass.

Again, I was responding to "kiss my ass." It's possible to disagree strongly without being personbally disagreeable about it.

[vaberella]

22. The kiss my ass was a general statement.

Ie..to say the idea of giving Kucinich a pass is not worthy of kucinich---it isn't against you as a person. I would have worded it much differently. Lastly---no one has given Nelson a pass....actually I don't think we've given any of those guys a pass. I know I've been after many of those Congressman and later Senators for being Republicans desguised as Dems.

However the KMA is a problem, I can edit...although I prefer not too.

[Clio the Leo]

9. Heh. NT

[Clio the Leo]

8. We took note....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=50095&mesg_id=50095

[Armstead]

13. Please note

I hope you will note that in order to be "consistent" in my opposition, I could have been expected to toss DK under the bus.

Instead I noted my disagreement with him, but kept an open mind.

[high density]

25. I take note of his votes. NM

[grahamhgreen]

40. The public option always sucked. Medicare for All is better, I think, devil is in the details.