What if every Democrat was like Kucinich?

[mudesi]

Would the country be better or worse?

[robinlynne]

1. very very much better.

[Richard Steele]

2. Better, without a doubt. nm

[BringEmOn]

3. The world would be better.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. BETTER

much better.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. much worse

because Republicans would have over 400 seats in the House and probably >80 Senate seats.

[Occam Bandage]

12. I'll agree with the Senate, but I think you underestimate

the effect of gerrymandering on Congressional districts. I bet we can keep a quarter of the House, at least.

[MonkeyFunk]

35. Yes

but if every Democrat were like Kucinich, the Republicans would control just about all of the state-houses, and would gerrymander to their exclusive benefit.

[Occam Bandage]

39. Ah, I had completely forgotten about that aspect of it. Thank you for bringing that to my attention

[Greyhound]

36. You really hate liberals, don't you?

Did you vote for Raygun too?

[MonkeyFunk]

38. Nope

I love liberals - I am one.

And no, I never voted for Reagan - I actively worked against him.

[TheWatcher]

41. "I love Liberals, I am One."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl:

[MonkeyFunk]

43. This is why Kucinichites will always be a very small

minority: they're all-or-nothing extremists. If you don't agree with them 100%, you must be some sort of right-winger. It's ridiculous.

[warren pease]

48. And that's why moderates will always be essentially useless...

...because they're committed to nothing but status quo continuance and scared of anything remotely unconventional -- like a health care template that works for the entire rest of the industrialized world (and quite a few countries that couldn't begin to claim industrialization) and whose outcomes, key indicators and efficacy stats put the US for-profit model to shame.

For details, go http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en">here, then download either the entire WHO study or select the statistical annex. I'd recommend just the annex, where you'll see details on the health care systems of 190 countries, stats on multiple key indicators for each and rankings of all 190 on a range of national health vital signs, including per capita costs, equality of access, availability of key services, and findings on various health care quality benchmarks such as infant mortality, average birth weight and so on.

Read and weep, or better yet, vote for an actual progressive.


wp

[MonkeyFunk]

56. When have you ever seen me oppose

the kind of healthcare reforms you advocate?

[warren pease]

65. You oppose them by default...

... since the only way we're going to get single payer out of the current sorry crowd is by voting for Kucinich. The rest of them are all talking about some for of "universal coverage," which is just code for more involvement on the part of the insurance industry. Now what sane person would try to build a new health care system and start by inviting the continued participation of the single most destructive element wrecking the current one?

Nope, it's Kucinich and single payer, everybody else and more of the same. The GOP is, of course, hopeless on this issue and any other I can think of, so we're stuck discussing the democratic candidates regarding anything more enlightened than a platform of 9/11, terror, terrorists, Sept. 11, torture, WMDs everywhere, new-ku-lur wepns, terror, torture, 9/11... rinse and repeat till November.


wp

[MonkeyFunk]

71. Again

a perfect example of how the left marginalizes themselves. Either I have to agree with you on everything, including a candidate, or else I'm the enemy. It's stupid, and it's counter-productive.

[warren pease]

80. I don't have to marginalize myself...

...that's done very thoroughly by US institutions: governmental, cultural and doctrinal (with a few exceptions like the Unitarians). You don't have to agree with me on anything at all -- candidate, agenda, key issues, color of spouse's hair -- but you do have to acknowledge where those choices place you on the political continuum. Or better yet, where your X- and Y-axes intersect on that Political Compass test.

I'm in the lower-left corner of the libertarian-left quadrant (-8.88x | -8.22y), which is about what I'd expect. So according to that test, my politics when plotted statistically match up with my politics as I think they are: democratic socialist with anarchist tendencies. Almost no authoritarian or right wing bones in my body.

But you consider yourself a "liberal," according to a prior post, which is largely meaningless anymore because liberalism comes in so many flavors and describes everything from the far right "neo-liberalism" to the moderate left. It's also meaningless because the word has been corrupted, redefined and twisted into a bullseye that the right can take pot shots at without consequences, and without having to understand it or even define it.

Still, "liberal" has certain connotations for me, and I would think for you as well. I would hope these include such agenda items as tolerance, fairness and a general concept that government can again act as a force for societal improvement (as opposed to the Norquist view). Also high on the liberal list are promoting an open marketplace of ideas through vastly improved public education; supporting "fair trade" not "free trade;" advocating the use of existing anti-trust laws to reverse media consolidation; adopting non-nonsense environmental protection policies; creating a body of disincentives -- both legal and financial -- aimed at corporations who fire US workers and then ship their jobs overseas; and supporting pro-choice candidates and legislation to keep abortion safe, legal and rare.

Your liberal leanings might also lead you to support penalizing employers who hire illegals, rather than the workers themselves; curbing both overt and covert US imperialism; ending a foreign policy that centers on launching "preemptive" resource-grabbing proxy wars on behalf of US corporate interests; ending the practice of nuclear brinksmanship this administration is so fond of; protecting the US labor force from the bottom-feeding, predatory "free trade" practices of the WTO; improved food and drug regulation and inspection; ending torture as an officially sanctioned US interrogation practice; rolling back the body of legislation and imperial decrees that pose a clear and present danger to the continued survival of the US as a democratic republic...

All this and single-payer, too.

I could go on until my fingers bleed, but I'm sure you get the idea. While liberalism these days is a sort of cafeteria-style ideology with many optional agenda items, there are a few constants that unite liberals. Some of those constants are listed above.

Next time you feel like it, I'd enjoy seeing you describe your brand of liberalism and how your candidate will advance your agenda.


wp


On edit: tpyos an speling agen.

[Skittles]

69. don't feed them, Watcher

hopefully they will just go away

[MonkeyFunk]

72. You want liberals to go away?

How odd.

You think this should be a board solely for Kucinich supporters? That's just sad.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[MonkeyFunk]

75. Now Skittles

lighten up, or sober up. You can't find one issue on which I'm not a traditional liberal. I'm also a realist, and that causes no small amount of grief to some people.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[MonkeyFunk]

78. You're responding to yourself now

You've gone round the bend.

[Greyhound]

51. In all the months I've been aware of your presence here, I've never read

one positive comment from regarding a liberal candidate, a liberal issue, a liberal bill, nothing. You consistently advocate the status quo and deride every poster that has an alternate view from yours.

I don't care about your opinion of DK, but you seem to oppose any progressive stand on any issue.

Just seems strange...

[MonkeyFunk]

55. You're simply wrong

What issue am I not liberal on?

Impeachment? I want Bush impeached - but I want him convicted, too, and that's not going to happen now. And, it's not a liberal/moderate issue.

So which issue? Gay rights? Women's rights? Environment? Voting rights? Civil rights? What issue am I insufficiently liberal on?

You're just talking out of your ass here.

[Junkdrawer]

59. Pay no attention to those polished black shoes...

Really, he's just one of us....

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[MonkeyFunk]

73. I'm a troll

because I don't support Kucinich? That's crazy, Skittles. You should know better than to think that, and to make that accusation, which is against the rules.

[Lil Missy]

44. That's what I'm afraid of too.

[warren pease]

45. Would that be because his ideas are actually progressive and therefore inherently unamerican...

...or because Americans can't resist shooting themselves in the foot when they have the rare opportunity to vote in their own self-interest and, instead, choose the corporatist bought-and-paid-for status quo tool over and over again because mass media told them progressives are "unelectable"?

I keep reading that one of the standard definitions of insanity is repeating the same set of actions over and over and expecting them to produce different outcomes. Seems to me that voting for a GOP-lite, DLC-approved candidate and expecting anything but a continuation of BushCo policies meets that standard rather well.

It also seems to me that letting corporate mass media decide who's electable and who's not is at best, naive and, at worst, delusional.

And so is believing, and/or taking action based on, anything mass media says about presidential candidates who don't do the required corporate suck-up routine, preferring to pander to actual humans instead of bowing before soulless money manufacturing machines.


wp

[MonkeyFunk]

57. No

it's because he only gets the support of about 3% of DEMOCRATS. It's an uncomfortable fact for his supporters, but he's just not that popular.

BTW, how'd his $10,000,000 fundraising drive go yesterday? Did he hit it? His website doesn't seem to mention the results.

[warren pease]

68. His support is actually far broader...

...but because he's been marginalized, ignored or deemed "unelectable" by the swine who pollute network and cable pundit shows, he doesn't poll well.

And by that I mean, when pollsters poll on the issues, Kucinich is the overwhelming winner. The vast majority wants to buy what he's selling. But when they poll by name, he's near the back of the pack. Which means a) Americans remain dumber than dirt about politics and politicians, b) they're more progressive than the DLC cares to admit, or c) height and hair are really the main issues, since if Kucinich were named something like William Simmons Williamson, Jr., stood a trim 6' 3" and had TV newsreader hair, he'd be the next president.

However, he's not named Williamson, Jr., his wife's the tall one in the family and his hair is a lot like mine -- scraggly, unruly, straight and limp. So he's probably not going to win.

But if the people who believe in his agenda decide not to vote for him because he's been successfully labeled "unelectable," it becomes a 100 percent certainty that bilge-spewing pundits and their uniquely obnoxious brand of pseudo-insider horseshit will have succeeded in marginalizing the only true progressive in the pack.

I don't think these pricks deserve to pick my candidates for me, particularly given their non-stop fawning over BushCo from mid-2000 to the present. So they won't. I'll vote for DK in the primaries and see what happens from there.


wp

[Ken Burch]

50. You're assuming the country was ever actually conservative, or is permanently so.

The point is, we don't have to settle for "our candidates aren't QUITE as psychotic as theirs are".

Have some faith in the decency of the people.

[MonkeyFunk]

58. well

in his second run for the White House, he's got support from about 3% of Democrats. I'd say that would be an electoral challenge to overcome.

[Ken Burch]

62. That is true. But Kucinich's views(especially those on the war, healthcare, and trade) are popular

They're more popular than he is at this point.

The man has been starved on campaign donations due to

A)The MSM's insistence on dismissing him as a candidate and

B)The irrational and defeatist notion that too many people have in this party that we can't actually expect the people we elect
to respect our views and carry them out as policy, the view that we have to settle for candidates who think they are ABOVE the base and above the party.

(and before you respond, I'm not singling out any one candidate in that last comment, fyi.)

We need our party to admit that activists and principles matter again. All those corporate donations bland centrist screw-the-poor war-is-inevitable policies brought in in the Nineties didn't do Al Gore and John Kerry one bit of good.

[stray cat]

6. i might consider a moderate republican

[Sam_Smith]

7. Much better.

If all Democratic politicians were like Kucinich then we would have a super majority in both houses, and the Whitehouse for years to come. There would have been no Bush administration and no war.

[Junkdrawer]

8. Better. But there would be a hell of a fight ahead of them....

The rulers, with their media monopoly, their voting machine monopoly and their vast resources wouldn't give up power without a fight.

[Angela Shelley]

9. It would be easier to find a wife

who at one time was in love with Bobby Brady.

[Occam Bandage]

10. The Democrats would have maybe 25 Senators and 160 Representatives, so yeah, I'm guessin' worse.

[cali]

11. Who the fuck would want NO diversity of thought

in the party? And Kucinich, much as I admire him, is hardly perfect.

[mudesi]

15. You mean conservative thought?

Because that's what I see right now in the majority of the Democratic party.

[cali]

21. no. I mean diversity. Bernie Sanders is not like Dennis kucinich

Russ Feingold is not the same as Bernie. Barbara Boxer and Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy and Lynn Woolsey and many others all have varying viewpoints. I don't want to see diversity of thought eliminated.

[stimbox]

27. All of those people are in the minority

I wish we had more Congress people that were like Bernie, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy and Lynn Woolsey
But instead we are stuck with schmoes like Pelosi, Reid, Emmanuel, Bey, and Hoyer.

[Ken Burch]

52. Uh, you're taking "like" a bit too literally.

"Like" doesn't have to mean "a clone of".

And the kind of Dems Kucinich supporters have problems with aren't those with only a few small divergences. There the ones like the last "Democratic" president and the person with the same last name as his who is now running for the job, who base their campaigns on utter contempt for progressives and brag in their campaign ads and stump speeches about how little respect they have for us.

You know, the ones who LIKE having luxury boxes at the conventions and think it isn't a hideously corrupting betrayal to seek out big corporate donations.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. Uh, worse?

I hate to quote Groove Armada, but "If everybody looked the same, we'd get tired of looking at each other."

[stimbox]

14. If every Democrat were like Kucinich?

We'd be better off.

What a great post to identify the enemies of The People!
hahahahahahaha...:hide:
Can already see the usual suspects.

[cali]

22. yes, let's have a clone congress.

The enemies of diversity and free thought are the one in the hallelujah chorus, bobbing there little bot heads.

[stimbox]

25. hook, line, sinker...

:eyes:

[undeterred]

16. The gene pool would be shorter

if the women were like him too.

[begin_within]

17. Meat would go away. War would go away. Pollution would go away.

It would all be much, much better.

[cali]

24. yes, totalitarianism is so appealing- to some of you.

And anyone that thinks that war would magically disappear and pollution would end, lives in a dangerous fantasy world. War is not limited to the U.S. Neither is pollution.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. meat would go away?

How? Would they outlaw it?

[Occam Bandage]

40. This type of Utopian illogic is why DK is not taken seriously.

[napi21]

18. Unfortunately I belive itwould be worse becase we'd NEVER WIN!

You may not lie the idea, but a resident is SUPPOSED to reresent the entire country while in office. To even come close to that,that Prez must govern from the middle.

If I'm even close to right, a Dem like Dennis could never win, thus we'd have a perm. Pub in office! Nobody wants THAT!

[walldude]

29. Why is it a Pug who is so far right can do it twice.. but not a Dem

who is so far left?

[napi21]

33. Several reasons. First, the elections were altered. The country is split close enough

or at least WAS, that a few thousand votes could be lost or chanced in the right states, and POOF! You have a different result!

Second, the Country had Clinton fatigue aftr 8 years. Similar to now with the Bush fatigue now.

My crystal ball is a bit foggy now so I don't know for sure what's going to happen in November, but I have a very strong feeling that the Pubs CAN'T win this time!

[walldude]

37. Clinton Fatigue?

Yeah that budget surplus really had me tired of Clinton. IMHO the only fatigue from Clinton was from all the made up scandals and bullshit the Repugs threw at him, and I was not a huge Clinton guy, he pissed me off a few times, but after 12 years of repuke rule he was a breath of fresh air.

And as I understand it the 2000 elections were not "altered". Gore won. The presidency was handed to Bush by the Supreme Court which ruled that Gore could not have his recount. If I'm not mistaken all post accurate counts of the votes in 2000 made it clear that Gore was the winner.

While we may disagree on minor points I'm with you on the fact that I don't think the pubs can win in 08 either. Unless they steal it again..

[porphyrian]

19. Not only would the country be better, it never would've gotten this bad. -n/t

[readmoreoften]

20. It's be amazing. And if all the centrists became Republicans, even better.

Finally an opposition I can respect.

[TahitiNut]

23. Far, far better. The Congressional Progressive Caucus are the only ones worth voting for.

Period.

[libertariandemocrat]

26. Worse

Diversity is what makes this country great. Especially the diversity of opinions.

[walldude]

31. Well, according to the Republicans we have diversity right now..

And how exactly would Kucinich kill diversity in this country? We've had 8 years of far right neo-con rule and look where that's got us. Maybe far left leadership is what we need for a few years to get back on track... While I concede if things were going well, something in the middle would be sufficient, but right now we're pretty much screwed, and backing down to a middle position isn't going to help anyone.


Welcome to DU :toast:

[warren pease]

34. And so, even though they really ought to be doing life without parole,...

...you welcome contributions to the national marketplace of ideas from people like Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, DeLay, Boehner, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas (as he slowly rubs two axons together in hope of producing a mental spark), Libby, Kristol, Adelman, Addington and Zelikow?

Or how about this bunch: Pelosi, Hoyer, Lieberman, Reid, Emmanuel, Bey, Nelson (pick one), Harman, Feinstein, Schurmer or Conyers?

Or maybe the right wing's mighty Wurlitzer, starting with limpbaugh and including Hannity, O'Reilly, Hume, the entire roster of on-air "talent" employed by CNN and Fux Nudes, with a special spot reserved for Perino, who will be one of them soon enough.

Or maybe that's not what you meant. When somebody says diversity is what makes this country great, I can either applaud their appreciation for multi-culturalism or deplore their willingness to equate stupidity with facts.

The latter is accomplished by including representatives advocating for both facts and junk science in the same discussion, thereby giving intelligence and idiocy equal credibility. The constant clash between natural selection and creationism being a prime example of giving equal weight to science and fantasy. An effort to be "fair and balanced," Fux Nudes style.

So if you think anyone on the above lists deserves equal credibility with, say, Chomsky or Zinn or Moyers or any of hundreds of fact-based US social and political critics, you've got a lot to learn.

Enjoy your stay at DU.


wp

[Occam Bandage]

42. Edit: Never mind.

LD is a Paultard.

[timtom]

30. That goes without saying:

Much, much better, of course.


"What if every Democrat was like Kucinich?"

I used to think they were.

[MrMickeysMom]

32. For one, we'd all have a much higher IQ...

... and ... what, you gotta ask?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. Far Worse.

The presidency and all but 2-3% of the seats in both houses of Congress would be Republicans. That would truly suck lol.

[Ken Burch]

53. How can you know that? How can you not be sure that

if our candidate were progressives and did put the people before corporations, that the courage they displayed in doing this might not actually INSPIRE the electorate to support us? Christ, stop drinking the DLC koolaid, willya?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

54. Oops. My Bad.

I was under the impression that the OP was seeking opinion, and that if a poster presented one it would be taken as such. I hadn't realized that by replying to the thread, I was in essence issuing a decree that is to be widely accepted around the world as fact and taught in our public schools for all future generations to push forth as absolute. Had I have known, I may have taken more time to carefully present as factually solid and impenetrable of an answer as possible. But I didn't. Instead, I just responded with like, ya know, my own personal opinion on the matter and stuff. Like I said: My bad.

[Ken Burch]

61. You have a right to an opinion. I wasn't trying to silence you. I was just responding

to your post with another of my own. That isn't censorship, it's debate. Lighten up, bro.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

67. LMAO!

"You have a right to an opinion."

No shit.


"I wasn't trying to silence you."

Did someone say you were? I must've missed it. Pretty odd that you're imagining things like that as if those aspects of the conversation actually took place.


"I was just responding to your post with another of my own."

Ok captain obvious. But I'm pretty aware how this 'message board' stuff kinda works. See, someone posts something, someone else may or may not respond to said post, original poster may or may not respond to additional post, etc etc. Not sure why you are feeling the need to explain yourself.


"That isn't censorship, it's debate."

What an odd thing to say. I mean, are you even responding to the right person? Censorship? What on Earth are you talking about? I'm sitting here laughing at the concept that you are accusing me, of accusing you, of attempting to censor me somehow. What conversation are you reading? Too silly!


"Lighten up, bro."

Bro, I couldn't possibly be more lightened up right now. Hell, it's been quite some time since I've been able to be a wiseass. And ya know what? It. Felt. Good.

So thanks for the offer, but I'm actually quite alright. But then, I'm not the one responding with misconstrued perception or wildly odd concepts that you were being accused of trying to silence and censor someone. Thanks for the laughs though! :hi:

(disclaimer: This message is being typed by OperationMindcrime, who is temporarily finding himself in a sick of reality wiseass mood.)

[onenote]

83. welcome back OMC

Its been lonely here without you!!

Keep your chin up!!

[Starbucks Anarchist]

47. We'd still complain about them.

[Ken Burch]

49. The ideal Democrat would have Kucinich's views and look like

Edwards, Clark, or Obama. Or even good ol' Pat Schroeder. That combination would be unbeatable.

Plus, if they were all vegans, they'd live longer.

[ileus]

60. there would only be 3 democrats in power at any level...I'll pick worse.

[IsItJustMe]

63. This country is not ready for someone like Kucinich yet. Too bad, but the truth.

[trashcanistanista]

64. Actually, I think every democrat is

like Kucinich. It's the elected ones who are not. Every dem I know agrees 100% with Kucinich. He embodies the dem platform.

[superduperfarleft]

66. Obviously better.

It might motivate me to bother voting after the primaries.

[aikoaiko]

77. a totalitarian wetdream -- all party members in lockstep with leader.

[mmonk]

79. Better.

This administration would be impeached and the people of this country would have a clue.

[bunkerbuster1]

81. If by "like" you meant far more progressive than they are now

well duh, of course our nation would be more humane, more decent to its citizens, and a better place in which to live.

[ThomWV]

82. Much worse ... we'd be a nation of robots

[CT_Progressive]

84. Dunno, but we'd be guaranteed a FLILF !

:rofl: