In 1996, Dennis Kucinich was anti-choice. Where is the outrage?!

[apples and oranges]

And that stance was from his own words and platform, not a questionnaire!

Kucinich also possesses one of the most anti-abortion voting records of any Democrat in Congress.

During his eight years in the House, Kucinich voted with abortion-rights advocates barely 10 percent of the time. Twice in the past three years, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America, gave him a rating of "zero."

On the stump this past week, and in an interview with The Chronicle, Kucinich now describes himself as "pro-choice." He said he has undergone a slow evolution that has led him to the conclusion that legal abortions are not only constitutionally sound, but also fundamental to a woman's equality.

Yet his candidacy poses a test for the Democratic Party that has made abortion rights a top-tier issue that it believes will be instrumental in its quest to unseat President Bush, a longtime abortion foe.

Can liberals embrace a candidate who as recently as 2001 voted to support Bush's decision to withhold international family-planning money from organizations that perform, or even discuss, abortions? Will the Democratic Party, let alone the Bay Area, open its arms and wallets to a presidential candidate who, during 1999 and 2000, sided with the National Right to Life Committee on 19 of 20 votes?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0223-05.htm

[Ramulux]

1. I was unaware of that

Weird

[pnwmom]

2. As recently as 2001, according to the linked article. Just 10 years ago. n/t

[REP]

6. In 2002 as well; here's a link to Katha Pollitt's piece, "A Regressive Progressive"

http://www.thenation.com/article/regressive-progressive

He changed his position once it became uncomfortable for him, blaming his Catholic upbringing on his anti-abortion votes. Funny how that upbringing didn't stop him from divorcing two wives. I guess those "values" only apply to other people and are quickly discarded once they hurt his larger political ambitions.

[Number23]

133. Excellent post. I'm surprised folks don't get physically exhausted in this forum

I get tired just READING the non-stop outrage and twists and turns to pretend that one fellow is fabulous and the other is the Devil Incarnate when there's only a hair's breadth of difference between the two. (The main difference of course is that one ran for president and actually won and is actually able to pass legislation.)

[dsc]

3. He changed positions shortly before announcing in 2004

and yes, I and many others pointed that out both at the time and when he ran in 2008. I will say that since he has run several times for his house seat as pro choice I am willing to call him that now, when I wasn't in 2004.

On edit It should be noted that he admitted then and admits now to having changed his mind. That is rather different than what has happened in regard to the questionaire. The spokesman told a bald faced lie claiming that Obama didn't write them when he signed both and wrote one.

[apples and oranges]

19. Unlike Kucinich, Obama has never voted against civil rights

Kucinich's past votes set women back decades.

[flvegan]

26. Really?

You wanna check his track record on gay marriage?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. There was a vote in which Obama voted against gay marriage? Which vote was that?

[flvegan]

At least you're clever.

Might as well have, shame he wasn't a Californian.

"I've stated my opposition to this. I think it's unnecessary," Obama told MTV. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

48. And yet, Kucinich changed his mind. It's possible for people to grew and change, no?

Or, is it because there is such disdain for Obama, that he can't be given the benefit of the doubt, but Kucinich--who I supported over Obama, by the way--can?

[flvegan]

53. You're crossing swords.

I made a point about Kucinich changing his opinion. I reflected on Obama's opinion in the past in regards to civil rights, which have evolved a bit vs. his past opinion. See, I'm running a parallel here. Kucinich on abortion, Obama on gay rights. I think that if you read the whole exchange again, you'll see my point.

I have no disdain for Obama that doesn't give him the benefit of the doubt, just for the record.

[Number23]

130. wrong place/person

[cheapdate]

120. What is the full context?`

An isolated quote without the complete context can easily be misconstrued to mean something different than the speaker's intended meaning. Not being in favor of gay marriage is not necessarily a policy position, anymore than not being in favor of abortion is an affirmation of support for anti-abortion legislation.

[slipslidingaway]

55. Obama's position on gay marriage is evolving, obviously a process that is ...

reserved solely for him, at least in the eyes of some people.

[flvegan]

59. Please see post #53

I wasn't faulting today Obama. I was replying to a poster about prior, un-evolved Obama in regards to prior, un-evolved Kucinich.

[slipslidingaway]

77. Although you give Obama the benefit of the doubt on his evolving stance on gay marriage ...

several posters do not afford Kucinich the same courtesy.

[flvegan]

96. So you see my point?

[slipslidingaway]

98. Yes definitely :)))

I surely do not see the original poster's point.

[flvegan]

99. Thank you.

And cheers. I don't either, and that's why I question it.

I had a feeling we were in the same camp.

[slipslidingaway]

110. It is hard to tell sometimes just by typed words ...

should have used the sarcasm tag, or some tag :)

:hi:

[Very_Boring_Name]

113. Actually it's devolving. He supported gay marriage before he ran for president. n/t

[Divine Discontent]

117. :)

[KG]

27. decades?

:rofl:

[apples and oranges]

30. Yes. Bush's anti-woman crap passed with Kucinich's help

[dsc]

36. that is just plain false

he voted against the 2003 ban and I have posted a link to back me up.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll530.xml

[KG]

37. which ones?

[dsc]

35. that is baldly false

Only one piece of legislation restricting abortion passed in the period he was in Congress and voting an anti abortion record. The Partial Birth Abortion bill of 2003, and he voted against it.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll530.xml

His vote didn't cause the removal of anyone's rights it is just plain fantasy to say it did.

On edit that isn't to say he wouldn't have if he could have, but that just puts him in Obama's position where he has a stated policy preference that would, if enacted, cause harm. Obama clearly would vote to ban gay marriage if he could, he has said as much, he just doesn't have to since it already is banned. Similarly, Kucinich would have voted to ban abortion if he could have, he couldn't so he didn't.

[fishwax]

42. thanks for that info n/t

[apples and oranges]

78. Wrong. Check his 2001 votes against international family planning groups

that had any ties to abortion.

[dsc]

84. that didn't last decades

and also didn't pass the Senate. In Jan of 2009, Obama came in and by executive order undid the global gag rule, which is what you are referring to. The rule never became law and thus Kucinich's vote never impacted anyone at any time. So, no I am right, and you are wrong. I will concede his votes to not permit poor people's abortions to be paid by public funds did impact people but not for decades and more than a few Democrats also have voted for those amendments despite being otherwise pro choice.

[KG]

115. so, it's just smear job by the OP. thank you.

[slipslidingaway]

49. Obama looked the other way on the war crimes of the Bush administration...

how many dead, homeless and orphans in Iraq?

Clue - a large percentage of the population of Iraq. Post the numbers of who has been harmed by their votes.

Obama gave one speech against the war and then voted to fund it when he was elected to the senate.

[apples and oranges]

63. So you think his first two years should have been focused on, not the economy or DADT,

but putting Bush behind bars? I'd like to see Bush pay too, and hopefully another nation will bring charges against him. Right now, Obama has to focus on other things. Prosecuting Bush would stop everything else dead in its tracks.

[slipslidingaway]

108. Wikileaks: Obama Pressured Spain Into Dropping Bush Torture Prosecutions

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/wikileaks-obama-pressured-spain-dropp

"I remember when this story first came out, and it really looked as though Spain would carry through on a war crimes prosecution of Bush and his administration officials who authorized torture. So now we know what really happened, thanks to Wikileaks: The Obama adminstration applied pressure to shut it down.

I suppose it's premature to speculate as to motives, but the continuing reports of torture at Bagram and the Obama administration's seeming indifference probably had at least a little to do with it. They wouldn't want to set a precedent that might be used against them: ..."

[mmonk]

4. Probably because we knew what his views on it used to be.

It wasn't a secret. What's the agenda?

[EFerrari]

5. Wait -- we're supposed to be outraged because he changed his position for the better?

[REP]

7. Once the harm was done.

[slipslidingaway]

11. Such as those who voted for the IWR and continued funding? n/t

[EFerrari]

18. What harm was that?

[KG]

46. none, apparently.

[EFerrari]

97. I really don't have the kind of attention span you need to be pissed

at people for what they USED to think.

lol

[apples and oranges]

Same here. That's why I'm wondering why a 1996 questionnaire is getting so

much outrage, year after year since 2008.

[Fumesucker]

118. Because apparently Obama moved *backward* and not forward on gay marriage.

1996: Obama supports gay marriage..

2008: Obama has religious objections to gay marriage.

Note that Kucinich moved toward a more progressive position while Obama moved away from a more progressive position.

[EFerrari]

119. Because Obama's position didn't move to the progressive one.

Because he is still today on the record opposing gay marriage. So, your comparison doesn't work.

[WinkyDink]

139. What harm? Roe v. Wade is yet the law of the land.

[peace4ever]

24. exactly. you would think that should go without saying that that is a GOOD thing, and

going from a progressive stand to a conservative one is a BAD thing.

and that it would be OBVIOUS that that is where the controversy lies.

:shakes-head:

but DK is a favorite wipping boy for conservatives.

[sabrina 1]

106. Lol, that's what I was just thinking. It didn't make sense.

Don't we usually jump for joy when a Repub crosses over and becomes a Dem. But Kucinich, who said it was after he got married that he changed his mind, that his wife helped him with that.

I thought this was old news and everyone was aware of it already!

[flvegan]

8. What outrage are you looking for specifically?

"I've always worked to make abortions less necessary, through sex education and birth control. But the direction that Congress has taken, increasingly, is to make it impossible for women to be able to have an abortion if they need to protect their health. So when I saw the direction taken, it finally came to the point where I understood that women will not be truly free unless they have the right to choose."

"I've had a journey on the issue . A year ago, before I became a candidate for President, I broke from a voting record that had not been pro-choice. After hearing from many women in my own life, and from women and men in my community and across the country, I began a more intensive dialogue on the issue. A lot of women opened their hearts to me. That dialogue led me to wholeheartedly support a woman's right to choose."

I mean, if you're an enemy of enlightenment, then please state you are as such.

[scarletwoman]

12. Thank you for posting this. I heard him speak in person about his journey to being pro-choice.

He changed because he listened and was willing to evolve.

sw

[slipslidingaway]

16. Thanks n/t

[girl gone mad]

9. I'm never outraged..

when someone becomes more liberal and enlightened. Are you?

[scarletwoman]

13. +1,000

[apples and oranges]

17. The damage he did with his votes can't be erased

He may have changed his mind, but the fallout from his prior actions remain.

[slipslidingaway]

20. Throw many of the Dems out then for the damage they did in Iraq...

by going along with the bush lies and then not holding him (and themselves) accountable.

:puke:

[flvegan]

23. This should get REALLY good now.

:popcorn:

Though I predict nothing but crickets.

[slipslidingaway]

39. Yes, predict crickets as well :) n/t

[apples and oranges]

52. I'm all for that. Clinton is gone; Weiner already resigned, how many more to go?

:shrug:

[WinkyDink]

142. Keep voting "R".

[peace4ever]

29. that may be so, but of course all his votes since his change of heart has had a positive impact

that continues to this very day.

[apples and oranges]

54. Too little, too late. Anyway, my job is done

Just exposing more anti-Obama based hypocrisy at it's finest!

[Union Scribe]

62. Yes, I think your smear job against a Democrat should be done.

[apples and oranges]

66. But smearing Obama daily is A-OK?

[Union Scribe]

73. So you think you're battling hypocrisy by being...a hypocrite.

You either believe in that Dem solidarity thing or you don't. You clearly don't, so you have no right to complain when others don't either.

[peace4ever]

76. criticism is vital for progress

FYI

[apples and oranges]

80. Cool. But it appears some folks can dish it, but can't take it

when one of their heros is taken to task.

[peace4ever]

88. actually i think folks are just trying to point out that DK moved to a positive progressive position

which is a good thing.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[peace4ever]

72. very cynical attitude, however it doesn't negate the positive contributions he continues to make

with every vote

[scarletwoman]

34. What was the fallout? If you can dredge up old news from 1996, then surely you can dredge up which

votes were taken by DK that damaged the course of abortion rights for all time.

[WinkyDink]

140. Well, you don't need to vote for him, then.

[slipslidingaway]

10. A 2003 article ... Should you post this in LBN?

:eyes:

[xfundy]

14. Yes, 15-yr old info is GREAT to distract

Divide & conquer! Asshole.

[DeSwiss]

15. This is BS.

[EFerrari]

28. It would have to be fertilized, perfumed and stacked to rise to that level

lol

[LeftyMom]

21. Let me know when he or his surrogates start lying about his prior position.

[KG]

22. c'mon, surely y'all can do better than dredge up this...

[peace4ever]

32. not likely, as this is a popular, and perpetual refrain, zzZZzz

:hi:

[fishwax]

25. the outrage is in the past, along with that particular position

Why am I supposed to be outraged now?

[Odin2005]

31. He magically became pro-choice when he started running for President.

He's an oppertunistic attention whore.

[scarletwoman]

40. Et tu, Odin? I'm really disappointed that you'd want to join this stupid smear effort.

I campaigned for Kucinich in 2004, I listened to him speak about how he came to evolve his views. Would you prefer that no politician ever grow and change?

[slipslidingaway]

43. If the party had adopted half of his ideas we would be in a better place. n/t

[flvegan]

44. Odin has likely never has his mind changed, I guess.

Maybe he's never gotten input that caused him to think and consider that he might be wrong. Then, upon that consideration realized that his stance was archaic or stupid and stepped up and taken up the fight.

But then, I don't know.

[Odin2005]

86. I never changed my mind for political convenience.

[flvegan]

94. I never suggested that.

I don't think Kucinich did either.

[dsc]

45. I will conceed his change is permanent

but get real. He changes his position on abortion literally months before announcing his candidacy for President in a party which won't nominate a pro lifer. He served with women his entire time in Congress but it just so happened to take until right before he ran for President for them to get through to him. Sorry, but that doesn't pass the smell test. Again, I think the change is now a permanent part of his political life, but the timing was way too convenient.

[scarletwoman]

51. Or maybe it happened just like he said it did, that after all the years of sticking with Catholic

doctrine on this issue, he listened to the women around him, and realized that he could no longer in good conscience continue supporting the anti-choice side.

Since he's been a solid pro-choice advocate ever since, what difference does the timing of his awakening make?

[apples and oranges]

57. He didn't listen to the Church regarding divorce, why only with

regard to choice? :shrug:

[Union Scribe]

64. Have you brought up UFO's yet? A proper smear of Kucinich must include UFO's.

[flvegan]

And that he's short. AND married a younger woman.

[LeftyMom]

71. Dude, you left out the best part.

[flvegan]

81. Ixnay on the eganvay.

This is DU.

[apples and oranges]

69. Why bring up his cuckoo personal beliefs when I can bring up his actual voting record?

[flvegan]

83. FAIL

I'm calling it.

You've gotten a ton of feedback but you're clinging to bullshit and not addressing anything that matters. Agenda fail.

[LeftyMom]

85. Well of course.

The whole point is to distract from Obama's shitty record on gay equality.

I'm going to start linking to a thread on that issue every post I make on this one. I bet they'll stop replying. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4888705

[apples and oranges]

90. I don't get some people. When new information about someone you admire

comes out, why would you bury your head in the sand and try not to see or hear any facts? I would have a ton of cognitive dissonance right now if I were you.

[scarletwoman]

93. What new information? I knew all this in 2004 when I supported him the Dem primaries.

He TALKED about being anti-choice and why he changed his mind when he made campaign speeches, for cripessakes!

Your OP is NOT "new information".

[apples and oranges]

100. Wow. You KNEW this and still supported him? I didn't trust Clark because

I knew he was a republican in the past. I trust him more now, but you can't just blindly believe someone when they say they've changed. I voted Dean: another person who actually had a good record on rights all along, not just in time for the primaries. People should vote using logic, not using their emotions.

[flvegan]

95. NEW information? (facepalm)

Back to the dugout with you.

[dsc]

61. I think he should be looked at like we would look at anyone else

Since he changed his position the logical question is what changed to make him change his position. He was Catholic both before and after the change, he had women around him both before and after the change, the only thing which did change was that he decided to run for President. As to any practical difference now, that is probably limited.

[Ikonoklast]

79. I remember the Dennis Kucinich that is vastly different from this version.

I remember the Dennis Kucinich that played racial politics when he first ran for city council, and continued doing so as mayor of Cleveland, and kept his political rivals at bay by accusing them as giving in to the black voters.

The Dennis Kucinich that supported Republican Ralph Perk for mayor of Cleveland over Democrat Arnold Pinkney, who just happened to be black. The Dennis Kucinich that started the "Democrats for Perk" campaign, yes, he started it, and helped get a Republican elected mayor of Cleveland over a Democrat.

I remember the Dennis Kucinich that complained about a low-income housing project that was going to be built in is all-white, Southern European ethic-descent ward, as they didn't want 'those people' moving into their neighborhood as it would upset the 'social fabric' of that ward.

The Dennis Kucinich that was against busing of black children to decent schools.

The Dennis Kucinich who was steadfast against gay marriage, in any form.

So many here don't know too much about Dennis being an opportunistic political chameleon who will change his views if it gets him votes. He knew that ethnic Clevelanders would always vote for someone just like them, before anyone else. He made sure he was just like them.

When he first ran for a congressional seat, and had to represent voters of a broader spectrum than the Poles, Slovaks, Croats, and Hungarians he represented as a councilman, he changed his political views drastically to more closely conform to his potential new, less racist, less socially conservative, more politically liberal constituents.


I posit to you that Dennis Kucinich didn't change his politics for some higher reason, whatever political subdivision he ran in dictated the change to him, and he conformed accordingly.

Not many of you lived in NE Ohio at that time, and know much about Dennis Kucinich' early political career.

I remember.

I don't trust him.

I never did.

I don't think I ever will.

[Ramulux]

112. Wow

I didn't know any of that.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

124. Damn

Not many replies to that....

[tishaLA]

125. I'd never heard any of that before

If true, it's a pretty astonishing re-invention job he's done.

[Number23]

144. Ikon, you know that you killed the Kucinich love in this thread, don't you??

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Not ONE DAMN RESPONSE refuting anything you've said. I'm actually trying to find a way to bookmark your post. This is fascinating.

Although if this is true (and I'm certainly not doubting you on this) Kucinich is no where near the first or last person, not even the first or last Democrat, to play racial politics. But it is incredibly interesting to note that someone with such an ugly racial past is considered such a "liberal lion" by a handful here. Very interesting indeed.

The Dennis Kucinich that started the "Democrats for Perk" campaign, yes, he started it, and helped get a Republican elected mayor of Cleveland over a Democrat.

I find this almost as odious as the racial stuff. Good Lord.

[myrna minx]

47. *Sigh* this place makes me weary, my friend.

Thank you for all the vitamins that you contribute here. :hug:

[scarletwoman]

68. I regret that I contribute very little of anything anymore. But I'll be damned if I'll keep silent

when someone posts such purposely toxic crap as this OP.

Anyway, good as always to see you, friend. :hug:

sw

[apples and oranges]

56. Voting for decades against choice, fine. A voting record that is 100%

pro-choice and pro-GLBT is horrible! Words don't matter as much as actual votes, when it comes down to it. At least, that's how it works around here.

[KG]

58. kindly cite DK's votes against choice during the bush admin.

[apples and oranges]

60. 2001 voted to support Bush's decision to withhold international family-planning money

from organizations that perform, or even discuss, abortions.

The link is in the OP.

[KG]

67. how does that set women rights back decades? abortion is still legal in the US.

[apples and oranges]

74. Women in other countries don't matter? I see....

[slipslidingaway]

92. And these women and children, do they matter?

Where is the outrage against those who turned their backs on this illegal invasion.

http://rescue.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/04/first-annual-sicf-orphans-conference-in-baghdad.html

"...One U.S. military report I read disclosed that during the height of the conflict more than 100 mothers were dying every day.

When looking for the statistics on the number of orphans in Iraq, one can find numbers from one million to over 5 million. No one really knows, the social fabric of life has been so disintegrated over the past 10 years through war and sectarian strife that the normal information structures have been all but destroyed.

The point that one member of the conference brought up was that the total number of orphans, though not clearly known, does not really matter. The important thing to keep in mind is that one orphan is too many, and whether it’s 1 million or 5 million, the fact is, Iraq is facing perhaps the greatest orphan crisis that has ever been seen in a Middle Eastern country throughout all time..."

[dsc]

82. and that policy got reversed

in 2009 so it didn't even last one decade. Plus it was an executive order since it never passed the Senate.

[Odin2005]

89. No, the timing of his conversion is just really suspicious.

It's as if he realized that his anti-choice beliefs would not endear him to primary voters so he "converted".

[EFerrari]

102. And if he'd announced it at any other time, he would have been accused

of attention whoring.

[scarletwoman]

103. But what difference does that make? He's already proved that it was a genuine change, he hasn't

gone back to his earlier position, he's stayed strongly pro-choice. How can that be bad?

[Taverner]

38. Sooner or later, he'll be thrown under the bus

Some say he already has, along with Feingold and a few others

Of course that would never happen in the Democratic party :eyes:

[slipslidingaway]

41. Feingold was a major loss, Kucinich will be as well :( n/t

[KG]

50. kindly cite which votes DK made that set womens productive right back 'decades'

or retract the statement.

[flvegan]

65. I'm going to ask for a second time...

What's your specific issue with Kucinich? From my prior post:

"I've always worked to make abortions less necessary, through sex education and birth control. But the direction that Congress has taken, increasingly, is to make it impossible for women to be able to have an abortion if they need to protect their health. So when I saw the direction taken, it finally came to the point where I understood that women will not be truly free unless they have the right to choose."

"I've had a journey on the issue . A year ago, before I became a candidate for President, I broke from a voting record that had not been pro-choice. After hearing from many women in my own life, and from women and men in my community and across the country, I began a more intensive dialogue on the issue. A lot of women opened their hearts to me. That dialogue led me to wholeheartedly support a woman's right to choose."

I mean, if you're an enemy of enlightenment, then please state you are as such.

Once again, if you're against enlightenment and evolving as a progressive candidate, please state you are as such. Or at least produce your agenda.

[apples and oranges]

87. My point is, the purity Gods some DUers have imagined in their heads

quickly become tainted when people actually learn the facts. Kucinich has a very troubling past, as did IWeineR, and a host of other people who are hailed as heros while Obama gets slammed.

I'm no enemy of enlightenment, but I'm not convinced that Kucinich is who he says he is. I think he just wants a paycheck. If you compare Obama's entire voting record against Kucinich's, Obama is leap years ahead of him in attempting to advance progressive policies.

[flvegan]

91. I'm floored.

Really?

A paycheck? Did you notice that Kucinich has stood his ground and gained nothing? He ran for president and lost, he's being gerrymandered out, but still stuck to his beliefs. You want sellout? Look elsewhere.

As far as attempting to advance progressive policies, let me know when Obama stops bombing Libya in our...hold on, 1, 2, 3, 4th war. Especially since Obama didn't get approval from that little speedbump we call Congress.

If your agenda is to poison the well of Kucinich support on a democratic website, then I question your agenda to the third degree. Explain yourself, please.

[LeftyMom]

101. He's cashing in!

He has a boring little townhouse and a little (hybrid) car, ffs! Can't live that kind of high life in the private sector! :eyes:

[flvegan]

105. He's an older dude with a young, hot wife.

Automatic hate for some folks. Oddly enough, those "some folks" will be the first to say...nah, this will get deleted. Nevermind. Callouts are against the rules.

[JVS]

116. OMG! Soon he'll be sending pictures of his penis over twitter.

[apples and oranges]

104. If DK is progressive, why did he want Ron Paul to be his

running mate?

[LeftyMom]

107. Wow, this is a textbook Gish gallop.

You're just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks. Have fun with that.

By the way, why is Obama such a heterosexist? He used to support marriage equality.

[flvegan]

109. I don't know. Ask him.

Maybe because at the time, as an anti-war progressive he found Paul to be in the same mindset. Maybe it's time a dialogue was opened about our real interests versus party v party interests.

Just maybe.

[WhiteTara]

75. I didn't vote for him in the primaries for that

reason. He's "evolving" as are we all.

[Desertrose]

111. Flying flamebait, batman!

Amazing how deep some people have to dig to slam DK.

And on a Dem website no less.....


So it's not OK for him to change his view but it is OK for Obama to change his?

[Zorra]

114. If you had any idea how silly your post is to long time DUers,

you would make every attempt to self delete it ASAP.

[bvar22]

121. Well, Weiner's gone.

Feingold is gone.

Grayson is gone.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!
:party:
Who needs dirty stinkin Libruls anyway?


Next target:
Dennis Kucinich.

The New Democrat "Centrist" Party campaign against mainstream FDR/LBJ "Democrats" has been very successful so far.
You must be very happy.

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will stand up for working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone


"By their WORKS you will know them."

[bvar22]

122. I actually gave this a rec. I would LOVE to see it on TGP.

The agenda is soooo transparent,
now that Weiner, Feingold, Grayson, and Wellstone are gone.
"By their WORKS you will know them."

[TriMera]

123. Self-delete.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

126. What's going on among the conservative Dems that you are trying to foment

outrage against Kucinich?

[G_j]

127. get a life

DK has explained his change in position many times over.

Why this 'out of the blue' attack?

[tnlefty]

128. He evolved since then, and yes I know this before...

:shrug:

[TheKentuckian]

129. I didn't think "outrage" was a practical or even a sane response to changing to the correct position

I tend to be more likely to be upset by a devolving change in positions or one that starts shitty and stays there or even gets worse.

Do you trust the evolved position is the real question when dealing with a convert. Of course the person that comes naturally or instinctively to a belief may fold or convert with a successful challenge if the person doesn't have thought out convictions, so when dealing with people you can only ever be so sure.

To be honest, I think you are performing a bit of a backfire technique to soften support for liberal politicians and one might theorize, the positions they espouse.

Fortunately, unlike Turd Way politics the person doing the selling is only as good as the gusto put into pushing good policy.
A good liberal pol need not have a great smile, or a terrific looking family, or any bootstraps fables to be effective, just passion, vision, and a worldview that puts the poor and working folks first.

Be right now counts a hell of a lot more than being wrong yesterday and sometimes a convert can relate to others that he once shared ideas with and knows how to make such people think or re-think.

No sale on this muckraking. I reckon you are shooting for young folks with passion but soft ideology and twist them into another generation of collard Turd Way drones, think themselves brilliant for parroting beltway talking points and cheering a slipping stature quo.

[Poll_Blind]

131. Maybe YOU'RE outraged he went from anti-Choice to Choice.

But not me.

:shrug:

PB

[Shagbark Hickory]

132. His job is to represent his district. If he was elected here, he'd go back to that position.

It's called listening to your constituents. More politicians, such as Rick Scott and Scott Walker can learn a thing or two from that.

[Number23]

134. Rec'd. This is an interesting perspective. Too bad that some folks feel that this cannot

be discussed here.

[scarletwoman]

135. "Too bad that some folks feel that this cannot be discussed here." That's ridiculous.

Notice that the OP is calling for "outrage", not discussion.

Since anyone who's been on DU since 2004 or earlier already KNEW that Kucinich changed his abortion stance, it's absurd to expect us to be "outraged" about something that's been common knowledge for years.

Furthermore, it's completely illogical to be "outraged" over a politician who has moved to a MORE progressive position on an issue -- isn't that something we WANT to see happen with our politicians?

Lastly, the OP has directly admitted that the point of his/her post was basically to get back at those who were criticising Obama over his position on gay marriage by attempting to smear Kucinich.

In my book, that's not "discussion", that's just a crap tactic of misdirection and distraction.

[Number23]

136. He/she probably called for "outrage" since outrage is on display every minute of every day

in this forum.

They were probably just trying to be consistent.

[scarletwoman]

137. And? Does that mean you think it's a good thing? Does that mean when people refuse to bite

on the "outrage" bait, in your view that means that they're not willing to engage in "discussion"?

[WinkyDink]

141. Is this thread locked? Did I dream the above posts? Oh, you mean "agreed with"!

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

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

[Number23]

143. Kicked (already rec'd)

I think it's interesting that the people in this thread who are most vehemently minimizing Kucinich's damaging votes/attitudes in the area of women's rights also appear to be the same ones pretending that the president has not "done shit" or has a "shitty record" on gay rights. Much remains to be done but pretending that he has done nothing is the height of stupidity and dishonesty.

While it's great that Kucinich finally joined the 20th century on women's issues at some point, it's really interesting to see folks burying their heads in the sand on this issue. (And usually the same ones accusing Obama supporters of being part of a "cult of personality," blithely unaware of the cultlike behavior their exhibiting themselves.)

[Fumesucker]

145. Kucinich moved to more progressive position on abortion..

Obama moved to a less progressive position on gay marriage from the one he held in 1996.

Therein lies the difference.

[Number23]

146. Why do people respond to posts they don't bother reading?

Is your post supposed to have anything to do with mine?

[Fumesucker]

147. Yes.. I read your entire post and what I wrote was in reply..

Kucinich became more progressive, that's a good thing.

Obama became less progressive, that's a bad thing.

The OP wanted us to be outraged because Kucinich became more progressive, it doesn't work that way.

[Number23]

148. My comment referred to the

hypocrisy of certain people who are breaking into a sweat "explaining" Kucinich's damaging votes on women's rights being the same ones saying that Obama hasn't "done anything" on gay rights. My comment was not about Obama or Kucinich but about the hypocrisy. Apparently that flew over your head -- twice.

And I commented that I was "I'm glad that Kucinich eventually joined the 20th century regarding women's rights" so I've acknowledged his politically convenient enlightenment which finally gave him the ability to recognize that women should be able to control their own bodies.

[Fumesucker]

149. Meanwhile Obama is going backwards..

In 1996 Obama supported gay marriage, today he does not support gay marriage.

And the Obama boosters are doing backflips, just like the OP, in order to deflect from the indefensible position Obama has *right* *now*. Keep in mind that neither Obama's former denomination nor his current one have a problem with gay marriage so his religious objection to such marriage is a little hard to comprehend.

I don't have a dog in either fight, not a woman and not gay, but I can see which way the two politicians are moving and I prefer Kucinich's direction to that of Obama.

[Number23]

150. Perhaps President Obama just needs a couple of losing campaigns to have the same

"enlightenment" that Dear Mr. Kucinich has had.

[Fumesucker]

151. I don't know about you...

But I've always learned more faster from what I've done wrong than what I've done right.

Experience is a hard teacher, first comes the test and then the lesson.

Edited for speling.