KUCINICH!

[AngryAmish]

[Aramchek]

1. Self-Righteous!

[Sebastian Doyle]

21. Look who's talking

shill

[Cha]

34. "Shill"? We're Democrats supporting the Health Care Bill and you

your name calling is not going to change that.

[Aramchek]

39. his Democratic Party is very small, only those who oppose Obama

[galloglas]

61. Hey Stasi!

There is only ONE Democratic Party and neither you or Obama own it, despite what you seem to think.

[Kdillard]

2. The answer for everything while doing nothing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Dennis Lieberman!

[Faygo Kid]

18. LOL

I don't know why, but that hit me as funny. In a sad sort of way.

[watercolors]

58. Good one, !!

Perfect example, maybe they are joined at the hip.

[Ineeda]

4. Doom. n/t

[LWolf]

5. The best Democrat standing. No competition. nt

[Desertrose]

9. I second that. Absolutely.

:hi:LWolf

[LWolf]

31. Hi, friend!

I got an email from you a (long) while back that I was saving until I had leisure...

then an electrical storm fried my 'puter and everything was lost.

Email me again soon; it's been too long.

:hug:

[Aramchek]

14. What is the difference between Dennis' vote and Joe Wilson's vote yesterday?

Not a damn thing.

[jonnyblitz]

23. they voted the same for different reasons , assclown.

THAT should be obvious to anybody with half a fucking brain. using your reasoning we can say DUers that supports Obama's war in afghanistan are the SAME as the freepers and wingnuts who support the war. :crazy:

[Aramchek]

25. his vote was just as harmful as Wilson's despite his reasoning

[RetroLounge]

69. You were just schooled by superior knowledge

and are too stupid to know it.

Hope your shill-paychecks are worth it.

RL

[BklnDem75]

32. He didn't have to vote at all...

but since he voted with his friends, it makes him an ass. He's a maverick like John McCain. A loser

[dionysus]

47. i have never seen you post anything civil. you're a nasty, angry person.

[NorthCarolina]

75. +1

[LWolf]

28. Their goals are different.

Not that you didn't understand that. :eyes:

[quiller4]

42. His vote is just as harmful. I'm sick and tired of that sanctimonious pr**l

[galloglas]

64. No, 'tis not!

Both you and Aramchek (beginning to think that is short for a RAHM EMANUEL SOLIDARITY CHECK) claim DK's vote is as harmful as Joe Wilson's. Please explain how Wilson's vote kept the bill from passing.

And why don't you start looking to blame the Congressional disasters where they belong? On lack of leadership!

[quiller4]

70. I'm happy with the bill and extremely pleased that Pelosi was able

to shepherd it through. I've read numberous criticisms of the bill on this board but none of those critiques were echoed at my union hall or at my local Democratic barbeque. I think this bill, while it will not please many of you, will make many of the rest of us happy indeed.

[galloglas]

62. And what is the difference between

your goosestepping rah-rahs for Obama and Ari Fleischer's, as Press Secretary, for GWB? In both cases, the truth, and any real balance, is sacrificed strictly for political posturing.

You really should go to work for Faux News, ya' know? Wait.. don't tell me...

[karynnj]

37. Could be true if a lot of Democrats are sitting - not likely otherwise

[LWolf]

49. I disagree with that.

Then again, I could easily argue that there aren't too many Democrats standing these days, as well.

Either way, he's the best.

[Highway61]

55. I third

n/t

[Raine]

77. TOTALLY on point! nt

[Scurrilous]

6. The only brave Dem!

Or so I heard.

[Bumblebee]

15. At his constituents' expense but purists rarely care about minor factors like that

He really has lost his way -- and you are enabling him.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Playing Nero with ideological principle while million of Romans burns.

[grantcart]

8. The great progressive votes with Michelle Bachman and loses cred in the

caucus when he wants others to support his bill.

[Scruffy1]

53. They already screwed him

when they dropped his amendment that was passed out of committee. This whole vote rant is based on info we don't know, because the speaker wouldn't bring it down until she had the votes, so will never know how many agreed to switch their votes, if needed.

[Aramchek]

10. a Democrat's Ron Paul

[galloglas]

66. And you are Obama's Cat's Paw

Why not have Rahm or Barack post here and defend themselves? You've convinced no one, so far, except the cadre you brought with you

[S_E_Fudd]

11. USELESS, INEFFECTIVE

[Bumblebee]

13. DITTO.

[Orsino]

50. If there were a hundred Kuciniches in Congress...

...we'd be applauding them. Instead, he is an unwelcome reminder of everything that we should be doing, and aren't.

His principles are not completely compatible with the sort of compromises we're forced to make with the most corrupt legislators.

[suzie]

73. If there were a hundred Kuciniches in Congress, each willing to

vote only on legislation that would benefit themselves by showing them to be the "Best Democrat", no legislation whatsoever would get passed.

[KansasVoter]

12. Not a "blind Support" type of guy. We need more like him!

[Aramchek]

16. blinded by his own self-importance

this is bigger than you, Dennis!

[galloglas]

67. Gee, your profile

shows you here since Jul 10th 2009.

Could it be that the only reason you are here is as an Administration Enforcer?

[Bumblebee]

17. The opposite of Cao. Cao's act was courageous

and principled. Kucinich's just plain narcissistic and stupid.

[azmouse]

19. Hold his feet to the fire!

Dissent is patriot!

[msallied]

20. Methinks he was wearing his peril-sensitive sunglasses...

[PATRICK]

22. Are there no legislative students here?

You can never expect the media ever to parse the meaning of votes. If the progressive Caucus had complete control it would have kept the margin as close as one vote. It is likely that this was a0 a vote of conscience b)done with full knowledge it would not defeat the legislation. As such it sends the message, stands for the principle and does not kill reform. The ones who would and have tried to kill it by any means available are on the GOP and Blue Dog side.

The vote is for the continuation of reform, real reform to its real goal. Submissively making it a super majority would send the wrong message to everyone and thus do its part to kill the future in precisely the manner the corporatists intend. Whether the caucus was purposely split to NOT kill the bill is not even being speculated. Instead the damned and double damned NYT is wrongly characterizing the motivation and description of the no votes, albeit less simplemindedly than some enthusiasts of the old compromise crawl.

For example, my guy Eric Massa(D-NY) will not benefit from, his constantly repeated stand for total health care reform. Not OWNED by any special interest he has been beset since the primary days by threats and coercion from various sides to "team up" sell out and recognize his vulnerability in this gerrymandered horror show of a district. The only thing he had to gain was probably to satisfy his Dem base by voting yes, since as here in DU many think this bill must be passed as is. As has been commented, without good media info most people have no proper understanding of the bill and many misconceptions which Massa addresses likely in vain. He did not have to vote for "some" reform and throw many future victims into their graves. The bill was going to pass anyway but the stupid, idiotic thirst to destroy Dennis or Eric will enforce the blemishing of this bill, all future legislation and the make-up of the Congress away from corporate control. It has been noted too how the pushing of most good effects of this baby step against tyrants will deny most Dems and any progressive any boost from the electorate.

The reason for ALL of this continues to be as it was always easily foreseen is the miserable makeup of the Congress including corporate Dems and a corrupted system. Passing laws and bickering about a warped playing field as if we had "arrived" does no good unless you keep that fact in mind. ALL reform is small, in constant jeopardy and insufficient. We must be dissatisfied, resolute about the truth, and move forward or it's Palin and the Apocalypse for the American Century of Total Shame.

[vaberella]

26. You assume a lot.

Please don't think because we had a problm with Kucinich's vote that we think the bill is perfect. NOT A SINGLE DUer has said such a thing. And yet, in your post you assume as much. If this bill failed, much the way if Baucus' bill failed, it would be ridiculously hard to fix it and getting it moving again. Anyone who's looking at the legislative process currently can see that.

We have Teabaggers trying to get seats. They're loud enough and powerful enough to take down the Republican party that one step further towards utter stupidity. We already have teabaggers in my eyes in the house...called Foxx, Bachmann, Blackburn, and a few clowns from Alabama, NC and so forth. So don't sit there and assume that if we let the bill drop for something more perfect----it would survive. As the WH even said, NEXT year is election year, we need something to show for it or there's a strong chance Dems could lose the seats. The seats are not kept for infinity and demographics are bloody fickle...many Dems couldn't hold on to their seats and with the shot economy and so much more the Republicans are gunning for the Dems. We lose even 1 seat in House or Senate and we're really done for. Then you'd never see health care reform----NONE OF US would for a long ass time.

Most of us here, actuall all the ones that support the bill, want changes to be made. We have a lot of demands, but we want the option open to make those changes----ie hence the point of Conference. We want the chance to still be able to contact our people and get things put in, language changed, and amendments like Stupak of Stupidity removed. So don't think we all sit here wanting this bill as is. We don't want it to get any worse and want a lot of changes.

However, we are also fully aware of the bloody political climate. We have conservadems/bluedogs in Congress who will join hands with the Repubs who want us basically to die. Unfortunately Kucinich last night did that. He could have added a rider. Said, fine, I'll help this along but push his position in conference. Something but not vote against this. I realize there are people here who are all or nothing. But not everyon in the Nation can live for all or nothing when this is about health and survival.

[PATRICK]

30. My only point

is that Kucinich did not have the agonizing power to kill the bill nor did he work with complete tactical options to do anything more than get deal to get the better options on the table. We still have another vote on the reconciled package to go. The Senate is a whole other story and progressives there will not kill a bill either. It is the blue dogs who have said and done the outrageous things, anything at all to spoil this. The price of not employing all means to advance the best reform is that the caucus hardly has the clout or the ability to have even their ideas taken seriously. Only a no vote can do that. The no vote does not hurt the bill, Obama or reform, but it certainly incurs the wrath of people who should know that a Congress minus principled Progressives is a threat to everything.

The presumption that is clung to is that reform has begun and can advance. That is not a sure thing, nor is undoing the miserably false representation we have that makes progress uncertain and murderously , stupidly slow. If no political capital comes from the bill it is because all the good things people need and expect might not even be visible in limited fashion for years. \

Nor is this yet THE bill. I might be wrong in assuming it will be further degraded and threatened by the Senate?

[vaberella]

24. He's whatever...I can't even think about it. n/t

[Oregone]

27. Ted Kennedy's predecessor

Kennedy led a charge early in his career against the same type of subsidized and mandated private insurance system. Although, then, he had true Democrats behind him for support, and a different America to live in. Now, we only have the residual wastes of liberalism in a corporatist wasteland

[SemiCharmedQuark]

36. Dennis Kucinich is Ted Kennedy's predecessor?

[Aramchek]

40. I thought that was a bit odd as well

[SemiCharmedQuark]

41. He's better than I thought.

88 miles per hour Denny!

[Oregone]

43. LOL. Successor

Not enough coffee

[suzie]

74. Ted Kennedy was known for passing legislation, for working well

with others, including those across the aisle, to craft compromises that would get bills passed.

Dennis Kucinich is known for not working well with anyone and not getting anything passed.

Successor? Maybe you left out the sarcasm icon.

[Oregone]

76. No sarcasm

Ted Kennedy historically fought subsidized & mandated private health insurance just as Kucinich attempted to do. Unfortunately, the party has drifted so far to the right that there is no one left to lend support

[Egnever]

68. And it was one of kenedy's biggest regrets as he lay dying

I wonder if kooch will be anywhere near as introspective when its his turn.

[Vidar]

29. The best of the Democrats!

[NoPasaran]

33. CRACKPOT!

[MilesColtrane]

35. Maybe we'll have to change the old saw from...

"The perfect is the enemy of the good."

to

"The Kucinich is the enemy of the better."

[zulchzulu]

38. Sounds great, does nothing n/t

[HughMoran]

44. Grandstand

[ClarkUSA]

45. Votes With Republicans On The Climate Bill, HCR, and The Stimulus Plan aka. Useless Democrat... nt

[dionysus]

46. travelocity gnome.

[Odin2005]

48. Attention-seeking, grandstanding nitwit.

[Jennicut]

51. Boring.

[madmom]

52. Dare I ask this??? What is the difference..

Kucinich supporters are saying he voted no "on principle" against the needs of his constituents. How is this different than what jindal did with the stimulus money? He voted against it on HIS principle that we didn't need a larger debt, but his constituents needed the cash flow in their state.

I know I'm going to be flamed for this but it is out of honest curiosity, why couldn't Kucinich just vote present or not at all?

[zulchzulu]

54. Kucinich clearly voted against what the constituents he represents want for his own ego

I like Kucinich on many issues and am glad he is in Congress, but sometimes he strays off into the weeds on issues. He was correct in his support for Choice even though he declared himself "pro-life" in 2000.

I doubt that the people who he is supposed to represent wanted him to vote with the Republicans on health care. By playing the Purist, he voted like a Neocon.

[Algorem]

56. you know what his constituents want?

how do you know what his constituents want?

[Bleacher Creature]

57. NADER!

[mkultra]

59. pure ideologue

[Fire1]

60. PALIN!

[NJGeek]

63. no love for him here

time to get real

[Egnever]

65. Grayson!

A true warior! not just a screaming ninny.

[reggie the dog]

71. one of few true leftists in the American government at any level

he would pass for a moderate socialist here in France, the socialists being our main left wing party.

[rudy23]

72. See my journal for a chronicle of the DLC's orchestrated attack on DK

Or just go to this link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6022082

One more reason to hate Rahm and his DLC thinktanks

[SoFlaJet]

78. ...has a hot redhead for a wife with a tongue stud

other than that...useless twerp