Why should our leaders care what we think?

[genius]

Dennis Kucinich has been the leader who always fights for what we say we want. We said we didn't want USA-PATRIOT. He led the opposition and is working to repeal it. We said we didn't want the war. He led the opposition to the war in Congress. We said we didn't want Halliburton to get the $87 billion dollars. He led the opposition against it, even when Dean said in the CNN debate that he (Dean) would give it to Bush. We said we didn't want the Medicare bill. There Dennis was fighting against it. We asked our leaders to fight Diebold and paperless electronic voting. He's the only candidate who is. Back when we said we didn't want nuclear waste being transported across America to Yucca Mountain in Nevada, Dennis fought for our environment and opposed Bush's plan (something Dean actively supported). Dennis Kucinich has stood up and fought for us on every issue. Many, perhaps even most, of those working on other campaigns admit that Dennis would make the best President. If we fail to support him, why should anyone in Congress ever trust us or support us?

Even worse, I have seen many people in the DU classifying him as too left because he did what we wanted. Does that mean we are out of the mainstream? What is mainstream? The Free Republic?

If we back someone who called for a re-evaluation of the importance of our civil liberties after 9-11, someone who wants to sock the middle class with a payroll tax, someone who has cut services in his own state to help out the rich, someone who has sealed his own records, someone who supported giving Halliburton the $87 billion dollars, someone who has taken donations from Halliburton, someone who pushed to create a nuclear dump site where it could contaminate California's water supply, aren't we telling everyone in Congress that they will only get our support if they do things we don't like?

If Dennis fails to get the nomination, it will tell everyone in Congress not to listen to us because we will punish them if they do.

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. It will tell them that the voters want a nominee that is electable.

They are looking forward to a campaign, not a jihad.

[sandnsea]

2. It's very bizarre

I think that way in varying degrees about Kerry & Gephardt too. Gephardt was fighting NAFTA and the Medicare Bill when Dean was supporting it. Kerry fought the $87 billion, introduced legislation to fix the Patriot Act, and was against Yucca Mtn and Sierra Blanca when Dean was supporting it. Dean hasn't been on the right side of anything and yet he's the candidate of choice. I have absolutely no idea where this party is going, it's completely crazy.

[helleborient]

3. The party's headed back to majority status nationally (n/t)

[redqueen]

4. Is that supposed to be a joke?

:eyes:

[helleborient]

6. Yep, and I'm talking about the Democratic Party as a whole...

The party has always been a big tent when it's at its best.

It's never been at its best when those on the left end try and whip people into line by insulting their personal integrity...and falsely claiming that the history of the party is a far left one.

[bread_and_roses]

7. The "history of the party"

is hardly "far left" but does includes whatever progress we've made on social and economic justice...SS, Medicare, Voting Rights Act, Workier's Rights, Progressive taxation. These principles are now "far left" according to the rhetoric of the Neo-Cons.

These are the issues that made the Democratic party the party of the majority; if they are now too "far left" for the Democrats then I see little matter in which party gets the White House.

[helleborient]

8. And you may have noticed I didn't say any of that...

But seem here insist on a litmus test that if you don't support Dennis Kucinich or if you don't support only what the far left of the party believes, you are not truly a Democrat.

I've not seen any of our candidates advocating opposition to any of what you mentioned. Those are mainstream Democratic issues.

[redqueen]

9. Not opposition...

but you can tell they aren't big on workers rights if they support the WTO and NAFTA. So ... that alone says something pretty clear right there.

Also, some have advocated 'limiting the growth' of Medicare (which is code for cutting it).

And one more example, just off the top of my head -- when Clinton wisely vetoed the Securities Litigation and Reform Act (or something like that), Liberman and Mosely-Braun voted with Republicans to override his veto.

And I'm sure there are more examples of other Democratic principles that some candidates have folded on.

So yes, several candidates ARE against fundamentally Democratic principles.

[sandnsea]

5. By being compromising centrists?

That's what we had with Clinton. Same old shit, new day. Makes my stomach turn.