How many excuses to not vote for Kucinich are there?

[subsuelo]

Wondering if we could get a count going, starting with some of the more popular excuses:

1) He's just there to move the discussion

2) He's not electable

2) Question his practicality

3) He's too liberal

4) Not enough financial backing

5) Who's Kucinich?

[LoZoccolo]

1. 6) He could spoil for someone who actually could win.

Say you really don't like Hillary Clinton. How would you feel if the Kucinich vote tipped a primary to her?

[rjones2818]

25. Since I don't like any of the front runners...

Not bad at all.

[robinlynne]

2. I only have one reason to not vote for him. My dislike of Hillary. I just don't want her

to be the nominee. I will vote for any of the others if we all get together to block her.

[flvegan]

3. Don't omit desperation: appearance and UFO experience.

[JuniperLea]

6. Jimmy Carter had UFO experience too...

And I love Jimmy.

You can't prove they DON'T exist, so, I'm going to stick with all the astronauts and other highly educated people who say they've seen them.

[flvegan]

8. Right, but the desperate always run to those two things to discredit him.

[JuniperLea]

11. We should start saying...

He's the kind of guy I'd like to have a beer with.

Humans are so freaking shallow. There's no way brains will win over 'beerability' or good looks... and that sucks most of all. There is not one single candidate who comes as close to believing the way I do as Kucinich. I don't give a rat's ass what he looks like.

[flvegan]

16. I agree.

[JuniperLea]

12. deleting DU's stutter!

[JuniperLea]

4. I hate #2, 3 & 4 the most...

I'm leaning toward him in the primary. It's a process of elimination for me. At this point I only know who I am NOT voting for.

I'm not voting for Hillary or Obama in the primary. They have eliminated themselves from my short list.

Unless Gore gets in, it's between Edwards and Kucinich in the primary.

[slick8790]

5. He's shown no leadership in the house.

He hasn't shown he can even win a statewide race, much less a nationwide race.

He's show his ability to be unable to compromise for the sake of getting things done.

[flvegan]

9. No leadership? Forcing an Impeachment resolution on Cheney tomorrow

sounds like leadership in the face of spineless hackery to me.

[slick8790]

13. He's been yammering about this for months.

I'll believe it when I see it.

[flvegan]

17. Tune in tomorrow.

[LWolf]

19. Of course, the rest of them won't whisper a word about impeachment.

I believe his record stands for itself. When he says he's going to work for something, he does.

Will you come back and acknowledge being wrong when he forces the vote?

[slick8790]

22. Yes, I will.

I will acknowledge being wrong if this vote happens tommorow. He's been talking about this for months and I feel it's become increasingly unlikely that it'll happen.

[LWolf]

65. Here's your chance. n/t

[slick8790]

69. Hey, I give him credit for trying.

He did do all he could.

[LWolf]

70. He could do more

if more of his fellow Democrats were interested in supporting and defending the Constitution.

Still, he doesn't avoid tough fights.

[fed-up]

18. he can't control other Dems that are too scared to Represent US-I want someone who speaks for me nt

edited for spelling

[Basileus Basileon]

24. Then he belongs where he is, representing you

in the House of Representatives. A President's job is accomplish, not to simply advocate for any particular faction.

[rjones2818]

27. He stands for principle

and not caving just to get along.

[Basileus Basileon]

28. That is a fantastic quality in a Representative, at times.

That is a horrible quality in a President. See: Bush, George W.

[rjones2818]

34. Yeah...

FDR didn't stand for principle with the New Deal, did he? He just went along with the business folk and did nothing.

[Basileus Basileon]

39. Standing for principle and building a consensus are not exclusive, despite

what Mr. Kucinich believes. FDR is a fantastic example of someone who stood often for principle, but who compromised when building and maintaining political support was necessary in order to preserve that which he believed to be more valuable. FDR retreated many times during his Presidency, and had his nose bloodied more than once. But he is remembered for his successes--which were realistically only possible because he understood when to retreat and when to compromise.

[rjones2818]

41. The thing that Dems have forgotten

is that they are not mutually exclusive.

[slick8790]

37. And where does principle get you?

When you vote no on SCHIP because it doesnt' cover everyone, no one gets covered. That's better? He can have his ideological purity, i'll take results, thanks.

[rjones2818]

40. I'm glad you think legal immigrant kids should have been thrown to the curb.

He voted for the House version of the bill, which include the kids. The leadership and conference committee kicked them to the curb in the hopes of building a veto-proof majority (but not counting to be sure they'd get it). Dennis voted against the compromise because it kicked those kids to the curb. The compromise passed and was vetoed. Guess what? He voted for the override. Guess what? There still weren't enough votes to override.

SCHIP is a really bad example for what you're trying to prove.

[Basileus Basileon]

43. And I'm glad you think that no children should have healthcare.

We can play the distortion game all day long.

[rjones2818]

46. I don't think it's distortion.

I'm for HR 676, which is coverge for all americans, including the legal immigrant kids. What you don't seem to understand is that Dennis' vote didn't change the outcome either way. The worthless leadership didn't get their veto-proof majority, period. It wasn't Dennis' fault that the worthless leadership f'd up.

[Basileus Basileon]

48. I agree with you that

the problem was that the leadership was unable to build a consensus to pass universal coverage. Unfortunately, that is a skill that Dennis Kucinich profoundly lacks.

[rjones2818]

52. I actually don't think so...

that's the point about HR 676 and the Dept. of Peace. They haven't passed yet, but there's a good chance that they will. You make the mistake of thinking that being out front and making a principled stand doesn't lead to getting stuff done. People have to come around on many issues, and if a principled stand is the bedrock of an issue, they're more likely to at least look at it and consider what's at stake.

[Basileus Basileon]

57. And I agree with you again there.

DK's rock-solid support of issues is an incredibly, incredibly valuable asset. I'd rather have him in there than any five pleasant-tempered empty suits. Hopefully he will legitimize those issues eventually. And that is, in a way, a form of leadership.

But it is not the same form of leadership that leads to successful Presidencies. What we call idealism in ourselves, we call fanaticism in others, as the old saying goes. And an idealist/fanatic does not govern well for that reason. I think he's a brilliant man and a inspiring figure. I think he's a great Representative, and a wonderful force on the debate stage. I don't think he'd be a good President.

[youthere]

56. Lots of idealogues on DU.

I'm looking for results myself.

[tritsofme]

7. I don't like him.

And the way I feel about the issues most important to me are better represented by Senator Clinton.

I guess that's my excuse.

[JuniperLea]

15. Clinton was the first crossed off my list...

And when she stood up for taking money from lobbyists, I tore her crossed out name off the whole damn page.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[tritsofme]

33. That's exactly it.

Thanks for summing up my position.

[silverojo]

10. I think of two off the top of my head

1) He's voted for anti-abortion legislation. No self-respecting feminist can stomach that.

2) He wants to stop people from carrying handguns, even those people who feel their lives are in danger...yet when HIS life was in danger, HE carried a gun. Walk the walk, or don't talk the talk, Dennis.

[bobthedrummer]

14. I don't care-I voted for him in 2004, and assuming elections are held will do so again.

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST-IMPEACH CHENEY NOW!
:patriot:

[Basileus Basileon]

26. For the general or primary? nt

[stuartrida]

20. 6) He'd be a mediocre President

I'd hold my nose and vote for him if he is our nominee, but he and Clinton are my last picks in 08.

[fed-up]

21. because the trolls on DU tell us not to vote for DK??? nt

[Basileus Basileon]

23. 6) He'd be an ineffective President.

When has he ever been able to build a consensus?

[rjones2818]

29. More than 80 co-sponsors for

Universal Health Care. More than 70 co-sponsors for the Dept. of Peace and Nonviolence.

[Basileus Basileon]

30. Well, I'm glad those passed.

Oh, wait.

[rjones2818]

35. Ahhh...

Only passing things, like say the FISA capitulation, is building concesus!

No wonder the party does so well in national elections.

[Basileus Basileon]

38. Perhaps you are confused as to what "consensus" means.

It means "an agreement reached upon by a group," or "an opinion held by a majority among a group." 18% of Congress is not a consensus; it is a minority.

[rjones2818]

44. The FISA capitulation

was passed by (gasp) a majority! Maybe you don't get it.

[Basileus Basileon]

47. And the bill passed, once a consensus was reached.

You will notice, that by offering a few token compromises to conservative Democrats, the Republicans were able to get a bill passed. If they had played Kucinich and refused a compromise, no FISA bill would have passed.

What's the lesson? Oh, it must be that consensuses are bad, and we should govern by minority :crazy:

[rjones2818]

50. And if the week willed Dems

would have stood on principle, the FISA capitulation wouldn't have happened.

[Basileus Basileon]

53. Not really. Many of them did vote according to their beliefs.

The problem is, you're saying "if they stood on my principles." Which is a nice thought, but which never happens in politics.

[rjones2818]

55. Then they're DINOs.

Which is fine, I suppose, if you're principles are that we should by spying on our own people. I'd hate to think that's what the Dem party is supposed to be standing for, although I have a feeling it actually is for most Dems.

[Basileus Basileon]

58. Unfortunately, when you reject a substantial portion

(you suggest most) of your own party as being unworthy of dialogue, and reject the opposition for the same reason, you are unlikely to ever build a coalition greater than the 20% or so DK seems to top out at.

[subsuelo]

31. not his fault others are less principled

[Basileus Basileon]

36. Certainly not, and he ought be applauded for his courage.

On the other hand, electing Kucinich will have entirely predictable results--he will veto anything that he finds remotely unacceptable, as his habit of protest votes (most recently voting against S-CHIP) and his record as mayor would suggest. Nothing will be accomplished in his four years.

As a Representative, well, I would rather be represented by Kucinich than anyone else. As a President? Give me someone who has shown an ability to put up with the bad guys to get good legislation through.

[subsuelo]

42. Have you considered the possibility

That with a Kucinich as president, other Dems might just be willing to take the more liberal stances on issues?

[Basileus Basileon]

45. Some would, probably.

Do I believe that 51% of the House (and 60% of the Senate, to override filibusters) would suddenly turn into mini-DKs? Not really.

[subsuelo]

49. Let me ask you something

First I would like you to know that I appreciate your point of view although I strongly disagree.

The question is - which candidate is most closely aligned to your own views on the issues? (Is it Kucinich?)

[Basileus Basileon]

51. On some issues, Kucinich. On others, Gore.

Gore is quite moderate. Some DUers think they're the same, but other than Iraq and the environment, they're really not.

[subsuelo]

59. So, among the candidates currently running

Kucinich is the one expressing views most closely aligned to yours.

See, this is what I just don't understand. Shouldn't voting for the president of the United States be about voting for the person who you agree on the issues with? No, that doesn't mean voting for your friend or the local barber just because you and he/she share similar views. But it does seem to me that there are an awful lot of Dem voters that on issue after issue would be in agreement with Kucinich but then have this laundry list of excuses why they would vote for somebody else. There's just a logical flaw there to me, somewhere along the way. To me, this is the guy I agree with almost across the board ... on Iraq, on gay marriage, on health care coverage, on nuclear disarmament ... the one guy actually moving on impeachment.. the list goes on. There's no flip flopping on Iraq or Iran, there's rarely any diplomatic political speak, just straight talk honesty and decidedly progressive viewpoints. Kucinich truly 'gets it' when it comes to having a progressive outlook in general. And that's not just a personal view, I think a lot of Dems feel that way about DK, but for different reasons they are taking their vote elsewhere, and I just don't understand that.

To me, you should vote for the candidate that stands for the things you believe in. That's always the trump card for me.

[Basileus Basileon]

61. No, it shouldn't be.

It should be about who I believe will best lead this nation. Who will be able to confront and solve the problems that face America in 2010? Who will be able to achieve real results for Americans?

Dennis talks a great game. He votes well. But he doesn't lead. He protests. I don't think he'd be a good President, because as much as I agree with him, I don't believe he'd get anything good passed.

That's why I believe a true progressive reform movement has to start locally and work its way up. With Green/Progressive Democrat city councilmen, progressive mayors become a possibility. With progressive mayors and progressive state legislators, a progressive governor becomes a possibility. With a progressive state infrastructure, progressive Congressional candidates become a possibility. With a large progressive wing in Congress, a progressive President becomes a possibility. Any time the only progressive voice has the veto pen, well, all that can occur is gridlock.

[subsuelo]

64. I guess I still fail to see how others would better lead the nation

A leader, to me, exhibits the characteristics that Kucinich exhibits, at least more than the others. So, take the Iraq war issue for example. Here's one guy that stood his ground throughout the entirety of this horrendous tragedy, and now the others are coming around - but they've only come around when it's more politically acceptable to do so. Who's the real leader on that issue? How about gay marriage as another issue.

Kucinich - openly and honestly says all the right things and voices support for all the right things, while the others wallow in political smooth talk. Who's the real leader? Have you seen the forum on LGBT issues hosted by the Logo channel a couple months back? Kucinich was in stark contrast to the others.

In fact, isn't Kucinich in stark contrast to the others on most of the issues? On the one hand, with Kucinich, you get direct and honest support for most things progressive, while with the others, you get political fencing of the issues, and centrist 'positioning'.

What I see with Kucinich is someone that isn't afraid to take a stand for progressive and humanitarian principles, often obviously at the expense of political gain. That, to me, is leadership.

[Cronopio]

72. "It should be about who I believe will best lead this nation."

Where? Doesn't the actual direction matter?

Hitler was a leader, and an amazingly effective one. He confronted and solved a lot of problems, and he was an incredible consensus builder. And he achieved real results.

Sorry, but if that's your only criteria, you don't have much in the way of criteria.

Support Kucinich or no, but don't blame him for the fact that most of his party is complicit in corruption and that he's just one person. No amount of "leadership" will convince people to act against corruption when they're being bought off by it.

[K8-EEE]

54. I prefer Edwards

That's my "excuse!"

[riqster]

60. Piss on all of them, I am voting DK in the Primary

He has been an effective representative, was a gusty mayor who stood up for his constituency, had a contract on his life for pissing off the mob. We've known for years he's got a huge pair, (and his new wife proves it). We don't need Caspar Fucking Milquetoast, the people are sick of that shit. David slaying Goliath is more in tune with the times, and that is DK's specialty.

Consensus in DC these days means nothing, since the Reeps won't abide by the rules, or even the law. Why bother?

DK can and will call Rudy out on every bullshit story he tells, and the same with the MSM. We run DK and the whole PNAC/MSM/MIC charade is out in the open because the attacks will be so extreme and obvious.

[nancyharris]

62. Dufus

The biggest excuse to not vote for Representative Kucinich is because the man is a complete “dufus”! He was thoroughly rejected by the Democrats in all 50 states in 2004 (including Ohio) and will be thoroughly rejected again by the Democrats in all 50 states in 2008 (including Ohio).

Too stupid to get out of the rain….

[Basileus Basileon]

63. I don't think that's fair. Many good, principled men have run and lost.

There are reasons to support him, and there are reasons not to support him. Calling him a "dufus" is not one of them.

[polichick]

66. What strikes me is the eerie parallel between DC Dems & online Dems...

Both know what/who is right, but continue to cast their votes/support against their own best interests.

Perhaps Republicans are not alone in their fearfulness.

[2rth2pwr]

67. He sees flying saucers and he acts like one, too. nt

[cuke]

68. You only need one

[ileus]

71. 24,000??? I don't know.