Kucinich isn't running for President.

[Blarch]

I have but one question for Kucinich.

"Do you think you can win?"

We all know the answer. So where does that leave us ? ...Why is he still there ?

Is it because ...

He wants to be heard ? ..If that the case then we should all be angry, this isn't about getting YOUR message out at all cost. The people heard his message in the last election, they rejected it in massive numbers. He is now in the race again, and his message is being rejected on a massive scale.

Richardson and Dodd also wanted to be heard, but they faced reality and dropped out, to stay in any longer would be grandstanding...thats right. GRANDSTANDING.

I don't give a shit if he represents your views, your views were heard in 2004, and heard in 2008 ...and is still being rejected by the masses. Your views don't have a chance of winning, it's a harsh reality.

Duers attacked Nader for staying a race he couldn't win and playing the spoiler, lets be honest now, shall we ? Has his message been heard yet ? ..or does he need just one more debate to break out in the lead ?

Dennis would tell you himself that he cannot win, this should be evidence enough. Do we really need a guy at the debate that feels he can't win ?

Rant off.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Blarch]

8. We heard all the views.

The people are making their choices, it is a process of elimination in their minds. Kucinich has been eliminated in a large way.

We really need to focus on the people who might be president, and make the right choice. If the stage had 10 people on it we wouldn't get the answers we need from the front runners.

[undeterred]

28. A lot of people never heard of Kucinich

and would have liked him if they did. We need media reform and campaign finance reform to truly have a choice.

We do not need baseless attacks on the best candidate out there.

[Cleita]

122. After two states we are supposed to settle on Obama and Clinton?

I think not.

[NikolaC]

137. Really?

I know several people personally who have never even heard of Kucinich or his platform. Those who have say that they don't know much about him or his platform. If Kucinich truly received a fair hearing then I would have no problem with what you are saying. As it stands, he has far less exposure than most of the candidates out there and has been struggling to get his message out since he has been excluded from debates - or given precious little time to respond to questions in debates - and NEVER mentioned in the MSM unless it is a joke. For the life of me I will never understand the hate on that people have for the man. What is so wrong with trying to get out a message of peace, promoting the rights of the American citizen and wanting to end the war (among many of his other liberal positions)?

[King Coal]

162. I think Blarch said it all when he said he didn't give a shit.

Yeppers. Taking him out of context is warranted, because he obviously doesn't give a shit about someone telling the truth.

[Deja Q]

26. Why do we have to put up with your views?

Sorry, couldn't think of a good subject line, but I digress.

The media can say what it wants.

If you have friends, coworkers, acolytes, strangers you like to babble with... even one night stands if you like that sort of lifestyle... Become your own media source.

:shrug:

[Missy M]

2. The problem is....

I don't think many people got to hear his views in 2004 or 2008. He has every right to be in the debates.

[hootinholler]

36. There ya go! n/t

[blondeatlast]

72. Indeed. We could choose between Ford and Chevrolet, too, but I want REAL choices

even if I don't support DK.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. I'd Say You Make Some Pretty Fair Points There.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Without Dennis or Gravel there are no "debates".

Just a beauty contest of bickering prima-donnas.

[Echo In Light]

16. Exactly. And stating as much immediately puts you into an unfavorable minority here

[cyclezealot]

85. And the media does not have to be threatened by Kucinich's promise

to reform the media. That is why they have done everything possible to dis Kucinich or deny him access to the American people. Absurd. Kucinich was rarely heard. How can he be massively rejected. Money is what it takes to be heard.

[Mythsaje]

108. Funny--I don't hear John doing a lot of bickering. n/t

[Webster Green]

5. That was the dumbest thing ever written by a human..

Really idiotic!

Why do you hate democracy? :eyes:

[riqster]

6. Primaries are not about candidates, they are about delegates

Kucinich delegates will help to to push the party out of its Rightwards drift. For that matter, in terms of Delegate numbers, Kooch isn't that far back at the moment.

I suggest you research the way in which primary elections operate.

[Blarch]

10. So you are implying Dennis can win the race ?

Do you really think there is a chance of that happening ?

[rucky]

14. he can influence the platform. n/t

[Blarch]

21. with 2%

:rofl:

If it was gonna happen, it would have happened already

[rucky]

32. May as well make it zero, then, eh?

Which of his ideas do you object to, if I may ask?

[riqster]

39. If you'll read my entire post

...you'll see that winning is not the only thing in this case.

Kucinich becoming the nominee is highly unlikely, but not quite impossible. His influencing the platform on which our candidate MUST run is far more probable.

Kooch has always put the country first and himself second, so I am sure he'll settle for that. And so will I.

[Stump]

7. I have no problem with Dennis staying in...

His time runnning as a Dem is coming to an end soon enough. I still enjoy listening to him though.

[livetohike]

9. Uh, this is a democracy (or used to be)

Dennis deserves to be heard. He represents a point a view held by many voters. He deserves to go to the National Convention and be part of the platform.

I am proudly voting for him in the primary.

[Blarch]

19. They all deserve to be heard.

And they were heard. Maybe they all should stay in, and get equal time...we would hardly hear from the people who actually had a chance.

Dennis was heard, in two elections in a row, there is no need to play a spoiler in this primary.

spoil·er (spoilr)

1. One who seizes spoils or booty.
2. Something that causes spoilage.
3.
a. A long, narrow hinged plate on the upper surface of an airplane wing that reduces lift and increases drag when raised.
b. An air deflector mounted usually at the rear of an automobile to reduce lift at high speeds.
A candidate for office whose chances of winning are slight but who may get enough votes to prevent one of the leading candidates from winning.
5. A post to a newsgroup that divulges information intended to be a surprise, such as a plot twist in a movie.

[bpeale]

96. YOUR candidate doesn't have a god-given right to all the votes

nor are you promoting a positive image for your candidate.

[rucky]

11. "Marginal" candidates can influence the debate.

There's an article about 5 issues the top candidates won't touch. It's pretty big stuff and needs to be addressed by someone. Why not make that someone Kucinich - and if he can't win, he has nothing to lose by bringing 'em up.

:shrug:

[marmar]

12. "Do we really need a guy at the debate that feels he can't win ?"

Not to question your psychic abilities, but how do you know what Dennis Kucinich feels? ..... And isn't this a Democracy? He DESERVES to stay in the race as long as he pleases.

[Orsino]

164. He's long since been banned from the debates, too.

The mainstream candidates, apparently, are entitled to be heard throughout the primary cycle. I understand whom Kucinich makes feel uncomfortable, but I haven't heard a good reason yet why we should continue to listen to him.

[stellanoir]

13. The masses are relatively clueless that he's even in the race.

Wasn't his last debate when he was dismissively branded as the UFO candidate?

They're doing to Edwards to a lesser degree what they've really done to Dennis.

It's BS.

[treestar]

15. Name recognition really gets you far

Maybe he'll have to run a few times, but eventually he'll get heard. Those taking $$ from big business end up unable to express those views. So they get heard. Eventually, he'll be known without idiotic TV commercials.

The average American's response to TV commercials always astounds me. But it seems they are essential to "electability." Which means big $$.

Kucinich would win if there was public campaign finance. His message has not been rejected. It just hasn't gotten through to all that many. That's the rub in modern elections. We're going to get the people who are best at raising the $$ until we get our heads out of our collective asses and start paying attention to the issues and being serious about it. We have to be able to deal with things that are "boring." That means sober and unexiting talk shows. We the people have turned it into the circus it is by refusing to work at it.

[PATRICK]

17. I disagree

First, it is a shame that money drove the others out. Second, their message is not so clearcut and critical as DK and millions of UNREPRESENTED Dems are trying to surface. It is indeed more fruitless than in the past to try to amass delegates for change if you are not a big contender, but by the same token, that takes off the pressure to amass a huge number as well.

All arguments and ideology point toward making a statement while he can, not submitting to the next closest contender with the percentages being relatively insignificant on that side. Some are making the argument for Edwards bluntly to throw his weight into the ABC Obama effort. That has calculating reason, the arguments against DK shutting up and going away like they wish Ron Paul would on the other side are based on what exactly? Pure pique? irritation? Anyone even bothering to threaten to not pay off his campaign debt?

He can do what he thinks best and that has a certain luxury for underrepresented reformers and peace activists and HAS helped pressure the conversation. He may be digging at a brick wall with a spoon but his attempt has far more consequence than numbers can ever show.

[Blarch]

24. "First, it is a shame that money drove the others out."

It wasn't the money. The money came from the people, the people chose who to send money to.

[PATRICK]

34. Not my point

Nader had zip and the complaint from his supportes was that he wouldn't take more. I am talking in general not about single donors calling up Biden and making him pale by saying his 10$ a month was being cut off. The dropouts' effort was ended under the rules of the system unless they felt they had a message to pursue greater than all the arguments against continuing a hopeless chance. I mean to critique the overall system where no candidacy is viable unless massive numbers of people in advance get the candidate a place in the game dictated first by big donors. It is too costly and daunting to even begin unless you are sure or daft enough to think you will win as the voters get some edited chance to decide. People out to make a difference, believing the majority of the people have no voice but are themselves forced to vote for a winner over content should continue for more than a "win". Many in fact say that but very few do and the pressure there is immense for many fatcors.

No chance means no voice? Does this "hurt" the others? Then the voice makes a difference? The armcahir advice from irritated people focussed on the winners' circle hardly signifies.

[Desertrose]

55. No, not all the money is from *the people*...

You really don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Check this out.

Now tell me that the "people give money to the candidates whose message they like" is how they end up with so much of it.

You need to get a clue how the political world works, buddy.

Seriously.

Get a clue...see where some of the other big money comes from for your candidates "who want to be president".

Its all there at www.opensecrets.org

[elaineb]

56. YEAH, baby! Money makes the world go 'round.

It wasn't the money. The money came from the people, the people chose who to send money to.

But honestly, do you disagree with the idea that the candidates who have the initial name recognition and media coverage get a huge jump start in contributions (and in the case of some, from big money donors)? Those initial large contributions are then used to pay for a huge fundraising machine, run commercials, fund public appearances, establish offices in as many states as possible, and ultimately to garner even more contributions. Can't you admit that that might explain the disproportionate money raised by the leading candidates?

You theorize that Kucinich's low polling and low level of contributions indicates a rejection of his positions on the issues. Do you REALLY believe that is the likelier reason than that his coverage by the mainstream media (outside of his inclusion in the earlier, little-watched debates) has been practically non-existent? I'll bet if anybody actually took a poll of name recognition of ALL the candidates that actually included Kucinich, you'd see how few people outside of the politically-aware even know his name. I found a few such polls the other day, and you'd be surprised how significant a percentage of people didn't recognize names like Richardson and Huckabee. Do you know Kucinich wasn't even included in those polls at all? I find it curious that a poll that seeks to determine name recognition wouldn't attempt to be inclusive of ALL candidates, since I would assume the point of asking in the first place was to determine how pertinent name recognition was to actual support of a candidate. Curious, innit? Do you find that troublesome, like I do? Or do you choose to really believe that only 1% of the American public would support Kucinich's positions if they learned of them?

[fishwax]

66. the money came from the people

:rofl:

[nonconformist]

71. I see you are not only ignorant about the primary process, but also about campaign financing

I suggest you educate yourself before pontificating.

[eridani]

121. The money came from the corporations mainly

http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=164

Large and Small Contributions: As the 2008 presidential candidates are setting records for primary fundraising, they are drawing two-thirds of their total individual contributions from large $1,000 and up donations – mostly maximum $2,300 contributions. Just 21% of the money is coming from $200 and under contributions, slightly more than the 18% of 2003 and 20% of 1999. So, despite the rise of small giving on the Internet, and the emphasis by some campaigns on their small donor fundraising, little has changed overall in the balance between large and small contributions in presidential primaries.

As the chart below shows, the candidates have raised more than twice as much so far as in the two past elections. The top four fundraisers in each party drew most of their individual funds from large ($1,000-and-over) contributions, ranging from 56% (John Edwards) to 83% (Rudolph Giuliani). Among the leading fundraisers, only John Edwards and Fred Thompson received at least 30% of their donations in small, $200 or under amounts. Further detailed information on the ranges of donations can be found in Table 1.

[Tatiana]

126. Yeah. The money came from the people... on Wall Street, for example. n/t

[blondeatlast]

18. He's not my guy, but he has a legitimate place in the race. I would've liked for all

of them to stay in the race and as long as he can manage it, I welcome his voice--and his ability to call out things like election fraud without political risk.

[Time for change]

20. I don't see what's wrong with running for president in order to get your message heard

I believe that Dennis has some extremely important messages that the American people need to hear. For that reason, I am grateful that he is running for president, whether or not he has a chance of winning.

But even if I didn't agree with his message I would still believe that he has the right to use his platform as a presidential candidate to get his message across.

And anyhow, I don't believe that he never thought he had any chance of winning.

"Has his message been hear yet?" Not enough. His message cannot be heard too often IMO.

The parallel with Nader is not valid. This is the primaries, not the general election, and Kucinich is not spoiling anything. If Nader had not run for president in 2000 Al Gore would now still be president instead of George Bush. I think it was a grave mistake for Nader to run in 2000.

Edited to add: I would feel very differently about it if Kucinich ran in the general election, thereby taking votes away from the Democratic candidate and risking another 4-8 years of Republican rule.

[timtom]

22. Alas, I'm afraid I've reached the point

that I think you're right.

There must be another way to "rage against the dying of the light."

[Buzz Clik]

23. Your Nader comparison doesn't work.

Nader ran as a third party in the general election. Kucinich is running in the primaries.

Run, Dennis. Don't listen to this silliness.

[Blarch]

30. wrong.

Ralph ran in a race he knew he couldn't win.

Dennis is a race he knows he can't win.

It's the same exact thing.

[fenriswolf]

38. nadar took away votes that probably caused the dems to

loose the election (that and voter fraud) while dennis is running in the primaries and the topics he keeps bringing to the table keep the other delegates on point and on issue (or he tries) his candidacy in this race in no way might electe a repub president and helps keep our democratic candidate more em... democratic.

[Buzz Clik]

47. No, dear. Ralph's votes gave us Shrub in the White House.

Dennis's run will not result in a GOP president.

Is it your suggestion that candidate who is favored in the national polls should run unopposed?

[fishwax]

65. um, it's not the same thing

You know the difference between the primaries and the general election, right? You know the difference between picking delegates to send to a convention and electing a president?

[DireStrike]

25. So why do you care?

He cant win and he gets around 1 percent of the vote, far from being a "spoiler". Why should he stop? Because he annoys you?

[Deja Q]

27. Well golly gadzooks, Nader was a 1%'er too.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

A few 5's and 6's in there, even a 7 in some state with no class at all, but predominantly 1's, 2's, and 3's.

Hardly a spoiler, Nader was. The other candidates just needed to do a better job at convincing people. Isn't that the point of campaigning - to prove one is better than all the others? (this two party system now has people believing any 3rd party candidate shouldn't even exist. Which is bull, the fringe can play with their tassels all they want.)

[maxanne]

76. obviously

I've never seen a Blarch post that was on a topic other than Kucinich.

[madrchsod]

29. it`s been decided by the corporations that it`s a two way race

hillary and barrack...john will hang in there but he`s never going to get any coverage.

listen to ron paul during the republican debates...he`s got those in the party and msm pissed and they can`t get rid of him because he`s getting over 5%...as much as i dislike him, i hope that he stays till the end...

...... an injury to one -is an injury to all....

[Akoto]

31. Do we need him? Sure do.

So long as a candidate has support from voting citizens, I believe he or she should receive any and all opportunities to represent their views to the public. Said voters have done their part by getting involved in their nation's future (where many do not), and they deserve for the Democratic process to hold up its end of the bargain.

[New Earth]

why do you care?

If he's 'not going to win' and isn't a threat to you, why do you care what he does?

[flvegan]

33. You suggest a question, then you answer it for him.

Brilliant.

Dennis does think he can win. So do I.

Question is, will he win? Probably not. America isn't ready to stop pissing and moaning over every issue. Complaining seems to be at the very core of our nature, currently. God forbid we lose that opportunity.

[Blarch]

37. If Dennis thinks he can win then he needs his head checked.

[flvegan]

41. Your concern is noted.

[Breeze54]

105. At least

his isn't up his ass!

Blarch, sounds like puke

[Pastiche423]

107. I agree w/your assessment

[bear425]

35. Dennis would never say he can't win. With all due respect...

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Snotcicles]

40. He is not being rejected by the masses, the masses are being rejected by the status quo

somebody needs to speak for them no matter how unpopular or distasteful some may find them. Next you'll be asking Edwards the same question. I think Dennis is forcing the discussion to be on what are real issues that no matter who is nominated will or should have to deal with. If you stop bringing them up they fade away.

[ljm2002]

42. Well I see a fundamental difference...

...between the primary race and the general election.

In the primaries, people should always vote their conscience IMO, except in unusual circumstances where not to do so means a very undesirable candidate will go forward.

In the generals, people should always vote their party, except in circumstances where their conscience simply does not allow it.

So calling Kucinich a spoiler like Nader is all wrong. Nader was a 3rd party candidate, in the general election. I don't object to 3rd party candidates, however, Nader also did things like attack Democratic candidates who were already weak, thus ensuring more Republican wins. He also took funding from Republican sources. This is why I became disillusioned with him, more than the fact that he continued on with his 3rd party run. I wish we had more parties in general anyway.

But back to your issue. You call Kucinich a spoiler for staying in the race when he "can't win". But he can win a bloc of delegates and use that to influence the platform. He can serve to push to dialog to the left, from its rightward drift over the last 20 years. He can be a voice for those of us who really are disenchanted with business as usual, who really do think that universal single payer health care is the only sane policy on health care, who really do think that "getting out of Iraq" means just that: remove all of our military personnel and do it now.

And Dennis Kucinich is not bound by whatever decisions are made by other candidates. Each candidate must decide for him or herself when to call it quits. I don't blame Biden or Dodd, and I don't blame Kucinich. In fact I don't want the field narrowed down that far, that fast. I prefer a few different voices still being heard.

[kestrel91316]

43. So what law is he breaking by still campaigning???

I mean, if what he is doing is SO WRONG and EVIL, why don't you and your buddies on the right just lock him up. Or maybe even give him the death penalty?

Last I heard, the First Amendment applied to declared political candidates, which he is and is free to remain so long as he chooses.

Dennis Kucinich is free to keep the rhetoric pushed toward the left by his incessant pressure on the other candidates. YOU are free to turn your TV off, though the MSM doesn't cover Kucinich so WTF are you bitching about? REALLY.

[lame54]

44. Their are still a few who want to hear him speak - watch this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x83374

[spooky3]

45. It's called "democracy."

Your rights are not diminished by his staying in the race; his rights would be diminished by your forcing him out.

Let the voters decide.

[rudy23]

46. So should there be a law forcing candidates who don't get double digits in the first 2 primaries to

drop out of the race?

[Wilms]

48. What else is bugging you? n/t

[Marr]

49. Are you a Hillary Clinton supporter, by any chance?

I'm just curious, because this particular brand of "shut-up and do as the boss says" is the sort of thing I see often among both Republicans and Hillary Clinton fans.

[warren pease]

50. Why the "frontrunners" are the frontrunners...

Two reasons: Corporate America and corporate America. In the first instance, corporate America has chosen our frontrunners for us because they -- Clinton and Obama at the moment -- would seem to pose the least danger to the continued tyranny of the status quo.

They announce these choices and build their credibility in a variety of ways: Through op/eds in the leading national papers; serious backgrounders and feature stories in news weeklies; televised profiles or rough cuts on the rigors of the campaign trail; a spot every evening on network news; the kind of breathless swill only CNN and Fox are low enough to wallow in; guest spots on the Sunday morning pundit pap shows and the nightly talk shows... And all this is free PR and costs the campaign nothing.

In the second, they secure those frontrunners' positions, along with their corporate loyalties, by bribing them with insane sums of money and other "soft money" perks, such as the use of corporate jets for campaign travel, free lodging at first-class hotels, a comped dinner for 30 and so forth.

So while the background buzz and PR blitz are forcing voters to concentrate on the corporate-approved frontrunners, all that money buys further name recognition and allows candidates and their entourages to travel the 50 states glad-handing potential voters. It also buys hundreds of focus groups and push-polls that, on the one hand, determine the path of least resistance to the majority of voters' hearts and, on the other, force voters to think within a narrow box that doesn't contain people like Kucinich and Edwards. Or Ron Paul, for that matter.

So, when the dust finally settles and we're presented with yet another nose-holding "choice" between two corporate-approved and -funded candidates, neither of whom will do anything substantial to change anything at all if it costs status quo profiteers a single penny, it seems only fair that contrarian views be represented at least during primary season.

It also seems completely undemocratic to arbitrarily exclude Kucinich from the Las Vegas debates, as NBC -- grateful recipient of corporate backing from mighty defense contractor General Electric -- has done in this case. Who the hell is NBC to decide who gets to present their ideas to the people and who has to stay home? Well... that's just corporate America deciding who the frontrunners are and enforcing that choice by limiting the options.

Finally, re Kucinich's appeal: When people are polled on the big issues -- Iraq, universal health care (not more fucking private insurance), alternative energy R&D subsidies, restoring Constitutional guarantees, repealing repressive crap like the patriot act and military commissions act, busting media monopolies, funding public education, environmental sanity, restoring the US' good name, ending the drug war, verifiable voting and so forth... when polled on these issues, respondents mirror Kucinich's positions to an amazing degree.

However, when they're polled on Kucinich himself, he's the little guy with the stringy hair and the tall wife with the tongue stud and the mid-west twang and he seems like a good guy but he's just sooooo unelectable. Well, he's unelectable because corporate America says so through its surrogates on network and cable infotainment TV. And that takes us full circle to why a Kucinich, Gravel or Paul candidacy would get exposure in an open society but are marginalized here, where the outcome is predetermined and only the names change.

Public financing of campaigns, anyone?


wp

[elaineb]

59. Great post

I was trying to make the same kind of points in my other post on this thread, but you said it much, much better. I hope the OP lets this complex concept of the need for public financing sink in, so he'll not make more inane posts attacking a great Democrat.

Gee, I wonder if Kucinich will actually take the OP's advice and drop out? I'm seriously worried! :P

[TahitiNut]

78. Nice post. Even 'public financing' won't fix more than half of the abuse. Further ...

... you'll notice that such candidates are torpedoed by a combination of smothering them under a blanket of silence (depriving them of any reasonable exposure) AND a litany of PERSONAL ATTACKS. The 'issues' and the candidate's stance on the 'issues' are NEVER discussed in association with them. Never.

Just ask the "man on the street" (or in another candidate's 'town hall meeting') what Kucinich's stance is on health care, immigration, the economy, or even Iraq and you'll either get a blank stare or a regurgitated attack against a 'standard' that NO CANDIDATE can pass or some despicable insult of his appearance. It's NEVER about his policy positions.

Yet there's one thing that the corporatocracy makes damned sure happens ...

For YEARS and YEARS afterwards, they'll tell you that "that's not a 'winning' position" on health care, or the economy or whatever. "Liberal positions are losing positions." BUT IT WAS NEVER ABOUT THE ISSUES WHEN THEY ASSASSINATED THE CANDIDATE!!!

What they do is TIE the most fair and equitable position on the issue to the tail of that cat and then run it out of town ... and then tell us that we can't have what we really need.



The WORST thing about that is the IDIOT 'liberals' (and those who call themselves that) who swallow that unadulterated garbage! Fucking fools!

[Truth2Tell]

160. Great post warren, well said as usual.

You always hide them in the replies. That was worthy of an OP on the greatest.

[Joe Fields]

51. He's free to stay in the race, isn't he?

As for his "views," as far as I know, he is the ONLY candidate who has put out views that should be embraced by progressives, and in fact the rest of this country. If you reject pulling out of the war, if you reject impeaching Bush and Cheney, if you reject upholding the constitution, then I am curious just what kind of views you embrace.

Please tell me. I really would like to know.

[bvar22]

52. I have 1 question for YOU, but it is against the rules.

If DK is eliminated from the debates, who will tell America that:

*Single Payer Universal HealthCare is not only possible, but cheaper.

*that "For Profit" HealthCare is obscene

*that Mandatory Health Insurance is NOT REALLY Universal HealthCare

*that the Democratic Party and American taxpayers should NOT be forced to subsidize some of the richest CEOs in history by subsidizing the HealthCare Insurance Corps and HMOs.

*that the USA SHOULD give the Imperial Palace (Green Zone) back to the Iraqis, close the permanent bases, expel all Corporate Consultants, withdraw ALL US Troops, and begin paying reparations NOW.

*that redeploying some troops at some future date is a PRO-WAR position.

*that the "Oil Law Benchmark" supported by the Democratic Party is a War Crime

*That we can have election accountability with "Paper Ballots publicly hand counted at the precinct".

*that we CAN cut $Billions$ from the Defense Budget

*that the RICHEST Corporations in history do NOT need $Billions$ in welfare subsidies

*that NAFTA (Free Trade) has not been a good thing for Americans who have to work for a living



Who will tell the truth to America if DK is kicked off the Democratic stage? :shrug:

Dennis Kucinich's voice is one of the few reasons I am still in the Democratic Party.

Kicking DK off the stage IS kicking ME off the stage.



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

53. Do we REALLY need YOU telling us who to support?

In case you don't get it, the answer is a resounding no.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

54. His voice of reason concerning the moral center of our country is very much needed in the debates.

I find it reprehensible that my local NBC station declared that there were only 3 Democratic candidates left. Proof of how MSM lies to we the people.

[Oeditpus Rex]

57. The Pittsburgh Pirates aren't trying to win the pennant

I have but one question for John Russell.

"Do you think you can win?"

We all know the answer. So where does that leave Pirates fans ?...Why are they still here ?

Is it because ...

They want to play baseball? ..If that the case then we should all be angry, this isn't about letting THEM play baseball at all cost. The fans saw their sub-.500 record last season, they rejected it in massive numbers. Now they're in the National League East again, and their record is being rejected on a massive scale.

I don't give a shit if you're a Pirates fan, your ball club was below .500 last year, and the year before that, and every year since 1992... and is still being rejected by the masses. Your ball club doesn't have a chance of winning, it's a harsh reality.

Baseball fans attacked the Mets for staying a race they couldn't win and playing the spoiler, lets be honest now, shall we ? Has their record been a winning one yet ? ...or do they need just one more 15-game winner to break out in the lead ?

The Pirates would tell you themselves that they cannot win, this should be evidence enough. Do we really need a ball club in the majors that feels they can't win ?

Rant off.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

58. Brilliant.

[elaineb]

60. Ooh, nice post!

And if your ball club has the lowest payroll in the majors, you might as well not even take the field on opening day. You can't possibly win the pennant.

And if your ball club has low television ratings, it means that only a tiny minority of losers likes your team, so again, you might as well hang up the cleats!

[Oeditpus Rex]

62. Does that mean the A's are Dennis Kucinich?

Shit, I hope not. I hate the A's. x(

[elaineb]

68. Well, as an Indians fan, and since Dennis is from Cleveland

I prefer to think Dennis is like the Indians. They have one of the lower payrolls and among the lower television ratings in the major leagues, but they keep on trying, and every so often, like last season, they do damned good! Alright, so they haven't won the World Series in half a century, but it'll happen some day. Just like we'll get Kucinich or someone just as progressive in the White House some day. Blarch may never change his mind, but there are lots of independents and fearful Dems who just need a lot of enlightening and encouragement to dare to expect the highest from our leaders.

You hate the A's? I remember loving their bright yellow and green uniforms when I was a 10-year old baseball fan back in the 70's. Rollie Fingers? Vida Blue? Too cool! Don't know too much about them nowadays, though. Who's your team?

[Oeditpus Rex]

70. I don't like American League ball, period

But let's not muck up GD with that argument. :hi:

Anyway, I don't "hate" the A's. It's not like they're the Jankees or somethin'.

I've been a Dodgers fan since 1965. Yeah, I know they're among the Corporate Elite in terms of payroll and whatnot, but changing your ball club isn't like changing your shirt. When you put your heart into a ball club when you're 9, you don't take it back.

[Blarch]

63. Jeeeesh.

This is a little more important than a baseball game.

[Oeditpus Rex]

67. So is maintaining democracy

Which includes my right to vote for the candidate I think is most qualified, regardless of what you think.

[Kucinich4America]

113. Says the guy who wants to cancel the entire season

and play the World Series in the middle of Spring Training.

(now as that a genius fucking metaphor, or what?)

[elaineb]

135. Yes, it is. Genius! n/t

[FlyingSquirrel]

61. Here's one good reason for Kucinich staying in it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2669083&mesg_id=2669083

Also, because he CAN. You wanna run for President in this country, guess what? You get to do it still. Even if you can't raise much money, as long as you can pay the filing fees you get to run. You wanna get rid of that possibility for all Americans?

[fishwax]

64. I don't get it. Why should he drop out just because he can't win?

:shrug:

The Nader comparison doesn't hold any water, since he's running in a primary, which is the proper venue for such protest candidacies.

[burythehatchet]

69. He shold drop out for the same reason Edwards should drop out

because their message makes the DLC douchebags uncomfortable. Their message reminds people that the DLC douchebags and their douchebag candidate have nothing to offer America except more of the same. That's why they should drop out, because in polite DLC douchebag company, they could embarrass their stooge.

[bunkerbuster1]

163. Pretty much.

BTW, does your entire team suck? because mine does...

(kiddin'.)

[elaineb]

73. Simple question for you

Since you haven't really responded to most of the rebuttals or questions posed on this thread:

Do you think the average American has a fair grasp of Kucinich's positions on the issues? Yes or no?

No, wait, TWO questions!: (NOBODY expects the SPANISH INQUISTION!!):

Do you think the majority of Americans even know anything about Kucinich, other than perhaps a vague recognition of having heard his "strange"-sounding name somewhere?

Wait...THREE! THREE questions!:

Do you honestly and sincerely believe that only 1% of the American public supports the kinds of positions he takes on the issues?

This post affectionately dedicated to Oeditpus Rex and D. P. Gumby

[Oeditpus Rex]

75. And nice red uniforms... oh, damn!

x(

[elaineb]

79. Amongst our chief weaponry against the OP

are such diverse elements as, fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to Dennis Kucinich.

I think we have very effective weaponry, too, since he's been pretty scarce on his own thread! We could give him the comfy chair treatment, but it never seems to be very persuasive. :-(

[Oeditpus Rex]

81. Nor do the soft cushions

Perhaps if we said "semprini" to him...

[elaineb]

82. Hey! Stop with the naughty language! There could be children reading DU. n/t

[Oeditpus Rex]

83. Kn*ckers

Kn*ckers



:P

[elaineb]

84. B*tty

:P

[Oeditpus Rex]

87. Bum

OH, what a giveaway!

[maxanne]

74. question

Have any of your 355 posts been on a topic other than Kucinich?

[stimbox]

77. One of LoZocculo's minions...

*YAWN*

Why are all you Illinois people so anti-Kucinich?

[Two Americas]

80. horrible and disgusting post

Your post contradicts and attacks every principle that all Democrats honor and fight for.

By your logic, why not just dispense with elections altogether? We can poll the wealthy corporate donors, ask them who they back and just install their choice.

Yes, I am afraid that politics is about getting a message out. That aspect of democracy may make you uncomfortable, but that does not give you the right to call for the silencing of others.

Most people in the country have not heard the message Kucinich is campaigning on, or even know who he is.

Are you pleased and tickled to think that this message has in your fanciful imagination been rejected? What sort of Democrat would derive pleasure from that?

The Nader "spoiler" effect does not apply in the primaries, and it is misleading and malicious to use it here to trash a fellow Democrat.

Here is where your thinking leads: most of the people in this country are now losing, as wealth and power is accumulated in fewer and fewer hands. Would you therefore say this: "Do we really people in our economic system who feel they can't win?"

How far does your “going with the winners and toss everyone else away" philosophy extend?

[Yukari Yakumo]

86. It's amazing how delusional some people are

{whine} Kucinich is being ignored...

{whine} Kucinich is the only one who can save America...

{whine} Kucinich is a saint...

BULLSHIT.

Kucinich is a loser.

If he bothered to spend his money on an office in Iowa and paid some staffers to man it, instead of "campaigning" in Hawaii and California, he might of gotten more exposure. The argument that nobody knows who he is bull. People know who he is... as a national punchline. A complete joke. If he bother to build the proper infrastructure, it could possibly be a different story.

However, should he have gotten more exposure, then it would have been made much more clearer that Kucinich is no saint, but a Left-Wing version of George W Bush. He's stubborn and uncompromising. He's an ideologue and a total autocrat. And during his stint as Cleveland's mayor, he filled government positions with friends and cronies, all of whom were complete hacks.

He wouldn't save America, he'd destroy what's left of it.

[elaineb]

89. Hey Aya

You are one of the biggest whiners on DU, for visiting every Kucinich thread with your ridiculous whining. How many times must you repeat yourself, by the way? Your story has grown tiresome.

[Yukari Yakumo]

101. Really?

Refute any of my points.

And the Cult of Kuch is even more tiresome. They try to paint him as a divine saint while remaining willfully ignorant as to why Kucinich is bad for America.

[elaineb]

125. Yep, really

I refuted your "points" yesterday in this disgusting thread you started that got justifiably locked:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2667668#2669604

And yet you continue your shameful attacking of a good Democrat like Kucinich on yet another thread. Truly tiresome. Give it a rest, and stop your whining.

Care to refute my refutation or answer any of the questions I posed? Any of your other points that are based solely on your personal opinion (which I think is just about ALL of them) are not worth my or any one else's time, because they are just that, YOUR OPINION, not facts, and my opinion is completely the opposite of yours. I won't argue opinions, only facts.

That you continue to try to color Kucinich's supporters as cultists is hilarious to me. Every candidate, including your own, attracts personality cultists who support the candidate for non-substantive reasons. In my opinion (you're free to disagree, as I'm sure you will), Kucinich has many fewer "cultists" than any other current candidate because they support him on a myriad of issues. In my own case, I can't think of an issue on which I seriously disagree with Kucinich, and I can list them all for you if you'd like (it would take me awhile, because there are so many). A cultist is someone who follows a candidate as a personality and not for substantive reasons which they can defend. Please tell us all the issues on which you support your favored candidate. I'll bet I could easily turn it around and accuse you of being a cultist or as viewing your own candidate as a "saint". C'mon, let's hear why you're so devoted to your candidate. He/she must be quite a superior being for you to take all the time you do in attacking his/her opponents.

Kucinich is NOT a saint; no human being is. If I disagreed with him on as many important issues as I disagreed with the other candidates, I wouldn't support him as I do now. Sorry that I don't fit your insulting stereotype. Oh, and please direct us to a post where any Kucinich supporter referred to him as a saint. If you're feeling ashamed because his supporters are proud of their ideals and proud they have a representative and a voice in Kucinich, well, I'm sorry for your embarrassment, but it would be nice if you didn't lash out at us in anger at your shame. Take a break from your negativity; I'm sure you'll feel much better.

[Yukari Yakumo]

133. Good Democrat?

Bullshit.

SCHIP? Voted no on principle.

Let's go back a little further.

Abortion? Pro-life until just before announcing his '04 run. NARAL can vouch for me on that.
Stem-cell research? Same story.

His cult ballyhoos integrity. Integrity? What the hell does it say about a man's integrity when he changes his mind when it is politically expedient to do so?

Let's go back even further still.

Some excerpt of someone who lived under Kucinich's rule:

In short, we hapless Clevelanders required a real leader. Instead we got the mayor whom the media were soon calling "Dennis the Menace," partly because of his uncanny resemblance to the comic strip character... but mostly because his was a destructive administration from the get-go.

Among his appointees was a 24-year-old finance director with little or no financial experience.

The mayor as very nearly crucified. When on April 10 the City Council voted to investigate other City Hall shenanigans, the mayor called the council members "a group of lunatics." With that, the movement to recall Kucinich, only a fourth of the way through his two-year term, was underway. By June 1, the necessary 37,500 petition signatures had been gathered. When the ballots were counted Aug. 13, Dennis held on to his post by a mere 236 votes.

The following year, Cleveland became the first U.S. city of its size to default on its municipal bonds. We hapless homeowners voted ourselves a 50 percent income tax increase to insure that the city could continue to collect our garbage, police our streets --- at one point during the fiscal crisis Kucinich threatened to lay off 600 city workers, including 400 cops and firefighters --- and, heaven help us, plow our snow.

That autumn, Dennis the Menace was ousted by George Voinovich, who went on to become governor of Ohio and a U.S. Senator. Kucinich went into exile in New Mexico for almost 20 years.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1725&dept_id=45406&newsid=15868561&PAG=461&rfi=9

Has Dennis proven he is completely different than he was back then? Considering his behavior and recent actions, I think not.
Can we afford Kucinich after eight years of Bush? No way, no how.

[elaineb]

134. Wow, he really embarrasses you, doesn't he?

Such a lot of time and anger you're wasting on such a supposedly unimportant candidate. Howz come? Could it be psychological?

SCHIP? Voted no on principle.

Thanks for pointing out that Kucinich votes on his principles. Does your candidate vote on principles? Do you realize that if all our Democratic representatives had principles, that we could begin to roll back the Bush administration's abuses and crimes, not only by scaring/pressuring the Republicans into voting with us (as they've done to Democrats for years now), but by persuading the American public that Democrats are actually an opposition party? (Bizarre concept for some, I know.)

Abortion? Pro-life until just before announcing his '04 run. NARAL can vouch for me on that.
Stem-cell research? Same story.

Again, thanks for pointing out that Kucinich currently holds the correct position on these issues. At one time, he was pro-life, apparently due to his Catholic upbringing. Would you be happier if he went back to voting pro-life, or do you support his current pro-choice position? If you support it, why keep bringing it up? I've already said that neither Kucinich nor any other candidate is a saint. But I support him because I believe he's right on the vast majority of issues. Again, I ask you (will you answer this time?): Which issues are the most important to you, and how does your candidate match up with your views? Simple question. If pro-life is your most important issue, I can respect your reasoning that Kucinich is too late a pro-choice convert for your comfort. Fine, but if it isn't the only important issue for you, name some others and either explain how Kucinich differs, or explain how your own candidate agrees. Pretty please?

His cult ballyhoos integrity. Integrity? What the hell does it say about a man's integrity when he changes his mind when it is politically expedient to do so?

You mean like just about every politician since time immemorial? I don't "ballyhoo" his integrity, nor do most of his supporters. When you gonna lose that strawman? I support him because he matches my beliefs and positions on just about every major issue. And I'd like you to prove beyond any doubt that the evolution in his view on abortion rights is any other than what he says it was, a conversion based on heartfelt conversations with some important women in his life. I guess you've never changed your viewpoint on anything in your life. Considering your angry, foul-mouthed posting history, I can actually believe that. Anything you disagree with Kucinich on, other than his prior position on abortion?

Some excerpt of someone who lived under Kucinich's rule:

Uhh...there are tens of thousands of Clevelanders who would tell you different. Some Clevelanders, mostly of the conservative persuasion, to this day froth at the mouth over the very existence of a progressive like Kucinich. And?? You post one person's opinion, and I point out the fact that Kucinich has gotten re-elected over and over in his district, and I've heard many of his constituents (one of them my mother, who lives in his district) gush about what a fine job his office does in getting their problems solved. I guess your excerpt is the only correct opinion of his time as mayor. Educate yourself on the battle over Muni Light, and then continue to try to smear him over personality issues. That's what the other side does too, but feel free.

Can we afford Kucinich after eight years of Bush? No way, no how.

Again, your OPINION, not a fact, and I hold completely the opposite belief. I believe that the only way to turn back the enormous damage done to our country under the Bush administration is to elect EXACTLY the type of person Kucinich is--principled, uncompromising, and someone who doesn't worry about personal attacks or political pressure from the Republican Party, much less the snide attacks of a poster on a message board, such as yourself.

[elaineb]

90. Oh, and another thing...

The other shameful thread you started last night got locked, before you responded to my post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4039866#4041410

Care to respond on this thread? I assume not, so let me ask a few very simple (related) questions:

What do you feel about the issue of campaign finance reform? Is it an important objective or not? If so, why do you think so, and if not, why do you think not?

[elaineb]

88. I always wonder about these "drive-by" posts...

Does the OP start out intending it as a drive-by, never meaning to respond to the rebuttals in the first place?

Or do they think that it will attract all the other Kucinich-bashers like maggots to rotting meat, and when instead it attracts all the Kucinich defenders in force, they just quietly leave, unintentionally turning it into a drive-by?

[Blarch]

91. If you bothered to read the thread ...

you would have seen I have posted many times.

I see most here say he is still in the race because he wants to be heard, and you want to hear him, I will accept that.

But lets not fool ourselves...Biden and Dodd were in it to win it. Thats why when their chances to win evaporated, they left the race.

Kucinich is not in it to win it. If he wants to be heard he should write a book.

[elaineb]

93. If you bothered to read many of the other Kucinich threads over the last couple of weeks

you would have seen that those who support his ideas want to be heard. I really don't understand what you mean by Kucinich wanting to be "heard". Do you think he's just in it for his ego, or do you think he wants to raise these issues because he believes in them with all his mind and heart? You probably think the former, but I think the latter. And it doesn't really matter to me what his deep-seated intentions are, since you and I could never possibly know for sure. All that matters to me is that ONE candidate in the presidential race stands firm for progressive ideals, across the board. I think you honestly don't have a clue how many millions of people in this country have almost identical ideals as Kucinich. We can argue all day over whether he is not garnering more contributions and votes because of "electability" (a self-fulfilling prophecy if enough people spread the idea), lack of corporate backing, lack of media coverage, lack of charisma, whatever you will, but I will never concede your implication that his poll numbers reflect the level of support in this country for his ideas and positions. I want someone to represent the ideals of me and millions of other Americans in this campaign, and it offends me to no end that an ostensible Democrat would demand he leave the race.

You obviously don't support Kucinich, but since it takes a certain amount of time and effort to post on a message forum, I assume you are at least leaning toward one of the other candidates. Without asking which one you support, could you tell me what specific positions are most important to you, and how does your favored candidate stand on those positions? I'm honestly trying to understand what fires up the supporters of other candidates, issue-wise, so I can understand why some of them spend so much time bashing Kucinich, a supposedly unimportant, non-viable candidate. Is it a position he takes that you disagree with, or is it simply that he's taking face-time away from your candidate?

[Yukari Yakumo]

104. Like Obama? {nt}

uguu

[elaineb]

124. ???

"Like Obama" what?

[DFW]

92. I find a fundamental difference between Kucinich and Nader

Kucinich is out to make his point and get it heard.
Nader was out there to see his name in the headlines
and spoil the election for Al Gore. Neither thought
that they had a chance to actually be elected president,
but Kucinich was actually thought-provoking, where Nader
was merely provoking.

Kucinich, ¡sí!
Nader, ¡olvídatelo!

[countryjake]

94. Exactly which part of Kucinich's message was rejected by the masses?

Please, could you possibly be a bit specific if you would actually like discussion on a candidate's position in this race?

What view does Kucinich hold that does not appeal to people in this country?

[Blarch]

102. The message that he wanted to be President.

[countryjake]

106. I thought you claimed that he wasn't in it to win it...

so which is it?

[bpeale]

95. Dennis should stay as long as he wants to stay. He has a message that needs to be heard.

[JackRiddler]

97. Too bad if you don't like democracy.

He has every right to run, to raise money, and to keep doing everything he can to make his voice heard in the election campaign, and nothing bars him from doing so.

Those with unpopular messages have every right to be heard, including by the means of running for office.

Not every unpopular message remains unpopular forever.

Next this logic will be applied to Edwards, then whoever is in second place... and then the party nominee will again be determined before most people even get a chance to vote.

[Breeze54]

98. You have that POV because you are

OWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[scarletwoman]

99. What's it to you? What skin is it off your nose that Kucinich continues

to participate in the democratic primary process?

This isn't just about Dennis being heard, you know, it's about US -- the people who want the issues raised that Dennis raises -- being heard.

So tell me, do you want all of US to shut up and go away, too?

sw

[martymar64]

100. If the masses reject him , then they are stupid

The people have then rejected peace and social justice for more war and corruption. That is what the mainstream candidates represent. If they can't see that then I'm ashamed to be an American living amongst all these morons.

I guess I won't be voting this year after all. Fuck corporate candidates!

[LWolf]

103. If my views "don't have a chance of winning"

in the Democratic Party, then the Democratic Party does not stand for:

civil liberties
social and economic justice
or people before corporations and before personal and partisan power.

In that case, then the Democratic Party doesn't deserve my vote.

Are you SURE that's the message you want to be promoting?

[MadHound]

109. LOL, Dennis isn't even third party, he is a true Democrat, truer than others in this race,

Yet you're labeling him a spoiler? What, exactly is he spoiling? The chance for the candidate of your choice to win? Umm, that is what the primaries are about, a bunch of candidates from the same party trying to spoil each others' chances at winning. If your candidate doesn't win, with or without Dennis in the race, tough shit, it's probably a good thing since it is a big indication that your candidate couldn't win in the general.

Your reasoning is faulty, and your disregard for the Constitution and our electoral system and rules are appalling. Really, they are. Perhaps you should study the Constitution and American government a bit more before you continue, just so you don't keep making yourself out to be an ass.

[proud2BlibKansan]

110. We need his viewpoint

and he has every right to run for president. Thank goodness you don't get to make the decision for him.

[Kucinich4America]

111. Wow, I guess the official DLC contract must have went out on Dennis today

I've never seen this many orchestrated hate threads aimed at him on any one day. I guess the DLC is scared shitless that with 98% of the country still left to vote, and most of the other candidates already bowing out of the race, Dennis could actually WIN.

Sure, try to block Dennis from the debates. And when Edwards starts borrowing from his platform, try to block him too.

Because the DLC, the corporatists, and AIPAC don't want the REAL issues debated. If they were, nobody would continue to believe the absolute horseshit that has been fed to them by both the fascist Republicans AND the DLC neocons over the last 25 years.

It's time to end this shit, before it ends us

Vote Kucinich. Vote Edwards. Hell, let's put 'em on the same ticket and FUCK THE DLC once and for all.

[MrMickeysMom]

142. :-^D exactly

This much is clear to me about the DLC and neocons... Kucinich still has my vote, as well.

[RedCappedBandit]

112. You don't give a shit if he represents my views?

Thats nice, but all of us Kucinich supporters *do* give a shit. And frankly, I don't give a FUCK if having a TRUE democrat in the debates bothers you. Posts like yours are just more evidence showing us that we DO need a voice like Kucinich as LOUD as possible.

[dweller]

114. Recommending, only

so more can see you have your ass handed to you by the diverse responders.

"Your views don't have a chance of winning, it's a harsh reality."


just my equal opportunity :kick:

dp

[question everything]

115. As Edwards said after NH: only 1.5% of the voters spoke

I wish that Biden, Dodd and Richardson stayed. I doubt that they had more money than Kucinich; they did not have to campaign but it would have given the 98.5% a chance to express our preferences.

The "pundits" keep "nudging" Edwards to drop out and if he comes third in SC he may just do this. I hope that he does not.

Having only Clinton and Obama on Feb. 5th is not enough. So many states moved their dates ahead, Florida and Michigan are even being punished.. for what?

I am not going to vote for Kucinich but I hope that he stays.

It is inconceivable that the white, rural people of Iowa and New Hampshire determine our nominee.

We need to change the system. We needed to do so in 2005.

[fascisthunter]

116. Are You Afraid of His Message?

that's too bad

[MrMickeysMom]

117. Sounds like a disgrunted Nader-ite wrote this...

Anyway, this is rather bad in comparison, if that's true. The fact is, I've never heard so many liberal progressives admit that Dennis Kucinich is how they would vote with their "heart", but not their "head".

I guess we aren't at that point yet where we want to take a leap of fairth to have our heads in the right places. That doesn't mean his running is not legitimate. I can't think of anything more important than him staying in the race. At least you don't see him running on a Green Party ticket with no intention of representing the Green Party.

[bridgit]

118. I do think his message has been heard. His message is eminently nuanced...

reasoned, balanced, 3-D, thought out from the top to the bottom imo...sadly...

Does that sound like America to you? America is into spinner wheels, bling, easy answers, creature comforts, 'the smack-down', yeah-yeah-yeah; amber waves of purple grain out somewhere where the buffalo used to roam maybe,

But not these days, neither it is Kucinich's fault that mobile libraries come & go in towns with little per capita interaction no...

America can't wait for her stock report, her dividend, her corporate sports score; America has nothing *but* time to waste while eminently nuanced, reasoned, balanced, 3-D, thought out from the top to the bottom notions come & go without further ado

[Bright Eyes]

119. So basically, the only two people who are allowed to run are Clinton and Obama?

[Freddie Stubbs]

120. He should stay in and let the voters reject him and his ideas again

[countryjake]

128. Do you mean reject him like after the ABC debate back in August?

Voters For Peace and Security - Making Peace A Presidential Priority A Project of PeaceActionWest


Kucinich's Anti-War Platform Resonates With Public, Outrages ABC
August 22, 2007


http://peaceactionwest.typepad.com/onthespot/2007/08/kucinichs-anti-.html

"As the mainstream Democratic candidates continue to alienate the party's base with ambiguous, insincere promises to reverse US foreign policy of perpetual aggression and dominance, Dennis Kucinich's message of diplomacy and nonviolence has catapulted him to the forefront of the race. Though corporate media would have us believe the public support of Kucinich is insignificant enough to write off his candidacy, he easily trounced the competition and came out as the leader of ABC's online post-debate poll.

Despite this shocking turn of events, ABC chose not to report the victory. Instead, the online poll was deleted, and replaced by a new poll, which Kucinich also handily won. ABC's response was to then remove the online poll entirely. In addition, Kucinich was cropped out of ABC's group photo of the candidates and virtually ignored in post debate reports. Apparently, like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich is being deliberately marginalized by the mainstream media."




Special Report: WashPo and Time Help ABC Bury Treatment of Kucinich

August 26, 2007

http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2007/08/special-report.html

* Sometime Monday afternoon, after Congressman Kucinich took a commanding lead in ABC's own on-line "Who won the Democratic debate" survey, the survey was dropped from prominence on the website.

* ABC News has not officially reported the results of its online survey.

* After the results of that survey showed Congressman Kucinich winning handily, ABC News, sometime Monday afternoon, replaced the original survey with a second survey asking "Who is winning the Democratic debate?"

* During the early voting Monday afternoon and evening, U.S. Senator Barack Obama was in the lead. By sometime late Monday or early Tuesday morning, Congressman Kucinich regained the lead by a wide margin in this second survey.

* Sometime Tuesday morning, ABC News apparently dropped the second survey from prominence or killed it entirely.




Bill Moyers talks with Congressman Dennis Kucinich

January 4, 2008

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/transcript3.html


~snip~

BILL MOYERS: There's a big Democratic debate Saturday night in New Hampshire. Are you in that ABC debate?

DENNIS KUCINICH: No, I'm not. And there again, you know, when you look at all the polls on the Internet I'm winning a number of them. I won a number of straw polls. In post debate analysis out of debates I have been in--

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, that August debate on ABC — when they did their post debate survey — you beat everybody. Obama by 5,000 or 6,000 votes. Clinton by 9,000 votes. And yet the mainstream media paid no attention to it, right?

[Kucinich4America]

129. Those polls scared the living shit out of the corporatists

and that's when they decided they were going to start cutting Dennis out of the process. Why are they so afraid of debating the REAL issues?

[Yukari Yakumo]

131. You do know internet polls are absolute jokes, right?

They are spammed relentlessly by Kuch's Cult.

Hell, how often do we see a thread saying "DU this Poll"?

[Kucinich4America]

132. Except when Hillary's winning them

Then they may as well be the Gospel of Christ himself.

[leftofthedial]

123. we need at least one actual Democrat in the race

for as long as possible

[1awake]

127. I don't think that

Dennis or edwards has any real chance of winning. And in a perfect scenario, they probably should drop out. But this isn't a perfect situation, and unfortunately even some on the Democratic side need alittle bit of reminding some times. I don't think it can be argued, at least very effectively that both Dennis and Edwards haven't had a lasting effect on the debate of ideas. In fact, I believe that both have had a lasting effect on the course of the national focus. So much so, that this alone would justify both of them staying in the game, for even if they have no chance in winning, they are clearly shaping some of the issues.

[Kucinich4America]

130. Why do they have no chance of winning? Because the media says so? Or the DLC?

It's January 13. The election is 10 months away. 98% of the country has not voted for anybody.

[Blarch]

136. Dennis has no chance ...

because the fucking people SAID SO.

Holy fuckimng shit. The media has nothing to do with it, the people have rejected him agaim.

[spanone]

138. ht

[Radical Activist]

139. This is how Dennis is hurting the progressive movement.

He's running such a bad campaign that his ideas get blamed for his poor performance. There are very different reasons why Dennis is losing and another candidate with the same views could do much better. Sadly, he makes progressive ideas look like loosing ideas, which hurts the movement in the long run.

[Blarch]

140. Democrats have spoken

Dennis has been rejected by the American people TWICE...in massive numbers. I agree with your post.

[elaineb]

141. You keep revisiting your own thread, so I know you'll see this post

Please answer the following questions, which you keep avoiding:

1. a) Do you honestly believe only 1% of the American people support Kucinich's positions? b) Which ones do you think they reject?

2. Do you support the concept of campaign finance reform? If so, state your reason(s), and if not, state your reason(s).

In return, I'll be happy to answer any of your points or questions that I haven't already responded to previously on this thread.

Thanks in advance for a little bit of your valuable time (which you're wasting so copiously on a candidate only polling at 1%).

[MrMickeysMom]

144. I don't believe Blarch believes that for one second...

unless this is the population who can change their mind based on negative campaigning. You can get those people to shopt WalMart and buy Hummers in a skinny minute.

[elaineb]

155. I can't figure out WHAT Blarch believes

I've been having trouble understanding his position. Apparently he doesn't think Kucinich is polling in the single digits because of a rejection of his positions on the issues, and certainly not because of the way campaigns are funded, but rather because the American public are like "children" and afraid of "big change". Oh, and he says Americans (not Blarch, I'm sure) think Kucinich *looks* funny.

I now understand better how Blarch chooses a candidate. He bases his decision on other people's opinions of 1) a candidate's looks, 2) the candidate's willingness to take baby steps so as not to frighten the "children", and 3) by deferring to the guidance and wisdom of those same "children". I guess the front-running candidates are totally alright in the opinion of the "children", considering their standing in the polls. I wonder if that should be a cause of concern in itself?

[Blarch]

147. I see ya.

1. a)Your question is loaded, Kucinich has some of the same views that others have. So he has many views that are accepted. But some of his views are being rejected, Like impeachment. I believe the national polls are close to reality. I believe that Kucinich has under 4% all day, and so do you. Go ahead, tell me he is at 7% or 12% you will get laughed right out of here. b)I believe they reject him outright. Before he even speaks. I truly believe they reject him because they feel he is extreme in his views(not my opinion) ...I feel the only way to change things in this country is small steps, it's because the American people act and behave like children, and need to be treated this way, they can't and won't accept change in big doses, Kucinich represents big change, and that scares these people. One more thing they reject...his looks. There are many people who reject him just because of his looks...ya, welcome to America. As you can see I don't think there is any thing wrong with Kucinich, it's the majority of Americans that really can't handle the truth.



2. I support reform. No more corps.


I have one question. You know as well as I do that politicians will say just about anything while campaigning, just to get votes or appear confident in their chances. Dennis will probably say "of course I think I can win" ..but deep down ..he has done the math in his head, the writing is on the wall....do you honestly believe Dennis thinks he can win the WH ?

Thanks for playing.

[elaineb]

150. No, thank YOU for playing. I'll be glad to continue the debate indefinitely.

1. a)Your question is loaded, Kucinich has some of the same views that others have. So he has many views that are accepted. But some of his views are being rejected, Like impeachment. I believe the national polls are close to reality. I believe that Kucinich has under 4% all day, and so do you. Go ahead, tell me he is at 7% or 12% you will get laughed right out of here.

You're either not following my line of reason very well or you're being deliberately obtuse. Let me try to be clearer for you. I don't claim Kucinich is at 7% or 12% in the polls. I'm trying to get you to understand that the way money rules elections, the voice of a candidate who doesn't get big donations at the very beginning has almost no chance of getting traction and therefore having the money to hire a big fundraising organization, run commercials, go on hundreds of campaign junkets, etc. In other words, being able to take the actions necessary to getting his/her message heard to be ABLE to rise in the polls. Is that really difficult for you to see? And do you honestly think the majority of Americans even know who Kucinich is (with his almost complete lack of media coverage outside the little-watched debates) enough to know he's even FOR impeachment? I think you have a really skewed idea of the political knowledge of the average American.

b)I believe they reject him outright. Before he even speaks. I truly believe they reject him because they feel he is extreme in his views(not my opinion) ...I feel the only way to change things in this country is small steps, it's because the American people act and behave like children, and need to be treated this way, they can't and won't accept change in big doses, Kucinich represents big change, and that scares these people. One more thing they reject...his looks. There are many people who reject him just because of his looks...ya, welcome to America. As you can see I don't think there is any thing wrong with Kucinich, it's the majority of Americans that really can't handle the truth.

So this whole negative swipe you initiated at Kucinich was only because you believe the American people aren't ready for him? OMG. That's so weird. Especially since you're posting negative comments about him on other threads too. So if the American public is too "scared" for "big change" that you say Kucinich represents, then there's no need for you to waste one more minute talking about him, is there? By the way, who's your "small change" candidate? I think you should write to your favored candidate's campaign HQ and suggest that as a slogan. "The Candidate for Small Change."

Thanks for expressing your support for campaign finance reform, but I also requested that you state WHY you were in favor. Oh, well. I can see you don't see the connection to my previous questions at all.

I have one question. You know as well as I do that politicians will say just about anything while campaigning, just to get votes or appear confident in their chances. Dennis will probably say "of course I think I can win" ..but deep down ..he has done the math in his head, the writing is on the wall....do you honestly believe Dennis thinks he can win the WH ?

I addressed this point yesterday when I stated that I want Kucinich or someone like him in the presidential race whether or not he has a chance of winning because I want my concerns heard, as do many millions of Americans who share the same ideals. I'm pretty sure you finally admitted in one of your posts that you could understand that and considered it valid. So why are you still harping away on Kucinich's chances of winning, when many of his supporters are saying that they want him to serve as their voice in this campaign? I have no idea what's in the man's mind re: his election chances. Neither do you. It doesn't really matter, does it? He's in the race, he has a right to be in the race, and all your ranting won't do anything to change that. Again, what bothers you so much that he should still be in the race? Other than the occasional debate where he's actually allowed to participate, he receives almost NO mainstream media coverage. Could you please give us some insight into why you and many others like you have been going so rabid with posting about him lately? I'm sincerely confused.

[MrMickeysMom]

152. Blarch will be most please to continue playing...

... with himself in the lead!

[Blarch]

161. back at ya..

" I'm trying to get you to understand that the way money rules elections, the voice of a candidate who doesn't get big donations at the very beginning has almost no chance of getting traction and therefore having the money to hire a big fundraising organization, run commercials, go on hundreds of campaign junkets, etc. In other words, being able to take the actions necessary to getting his/her message heard to be ABLE to rise in the polls. Is that really difficult for you to see? And do you honestly think the majority of Americans even know who Kucinich is (with his almost complete lack of media coverage outside the little-watched debates) enough to know he's even FOR impeachment? I think you have a really skewed idea of the political knowledge of the average American."

Thats right, money does rule elections, and in the beginning of these races it was the people who sent in money. The media then covers the candidates with the most money. The system is front loaded. But if the candidate has a message that is building support then money has NOTHING to do with it. Hucky didn't have any money, the media was ignoring him...look how far we have come. Kucinich doesn't need money if his message is so special...so stop complaining about money.



"So this whole negative swipe you initiated at Kucinich was only because you believe the American people aren't ready for him? OMG. That's so weird. Especially since you're posting negative comments about him on other threads too. So if the American public is too "scared" for "big change" that you say Kucinich represents, then there's no need for you to waste one more minute talking about him, is there? By the way, who's your "small change" candidate? I think you should write to your favored candidate's campaign HQ and suggest that as a slogan. "The Candidate for Small Change."

Thanks for expressing your support for campaign finance reform, but I also requested that you state WHY you were in favor. Oh, well. I can see you don't see the connection to my previous questions at all."

Yes, the people are not ready for him, thats why his numbers are low, make sense ? ...he is far to left for America right now, please don't tell me you can't see this. My big problem with Dennis is that he let his ego get in the way. He knows he can't win ..But he is still hasn't dropped out. Lets talk about Joe Biden for a second, we know Joe, he fucking loves to talk his ass off, he will talk to the wall for 2 days just to hear himself speak, he loves to have an audience ...we know this, I like Joe, but...We both know where this is going. Biden and Richardson both want their message heard yet they faced reality and dropped out and let the country focus on the candidates that can actually win. Did their supporters on DU start crying about how their message won't be heard any longer ? ..of course not, they moved on. Dennis needs to move on.

[elaineb]

165. Oh, so it's that Kucinich is taking "focus" away from the other candidates?

He gets almost ZERO coverage outside the debates, and recently he's been shut out of the debates, so tell me how he is a concern to you and your candidate? You still haven't explained why you're spending so much time posting on a candidate that is supposedly unelectable. You still haven't admitted that he's gotten almost no coverage in the mainstream media, but that would ruin your argument, wouldn't it?

And of course, that leads me to the major contradiction in your argument: You maintain that Kucinich's positions are known to the majority of the American public, and that that's why his poll ratings are low. If that is the case, and that getting greater exposure in the media wouldn't change his position at all, then why do the other candidates need ANY more debate time? According to your reasoning, they're exactly where they should be, because the American public already knows everything about all the candidate's positions.

I don't like continuing to resurrect a thread that has now fallen past the third page, so this will be my last post on THIS thread. If you'd like to continue debating Kucinich's right to proceed with his campaign, I'll take it up with you on a newer Kucinich thread (which I'm sure you'll find your way to, in order to continue your bashing).

[MrMickeysMom]

143. Gee, you must be the all knowing expert on running campaigns!

Hey, glad to meetcha! I'm so honored!

[Radical Activist]

145. I have more experience than most of his campaign managers.

Which is to say that I've worked on at least one campaign before.

[MrMickeysMom]

148. And, of THIS you are SURE?

Well.... what am I asking YOU that for? Ah, forget it... YOU KNOW EVERYTHING!!!

[Radical Activist]

149. Show me I'm wrong.

Who is managing Dennis' campaign this month? Does he or she have extensive campaign experience? Does anyone know? Is there a good reason most people don't know? Maybe because the truth is a little embarrassing to Dennis?

[MrMickeysMom]

151. Well...

Fuck... YOU'D know!

Come on... DON'T BE SHY... tell all of us dumb asses!!!

[Radical Activist]

156. I've lost track

I really don't know who his manager is right now. I know who was earlier in the campaign but the fact that its not readily available confirms my suspicions that its another unqualified person in a line of many.

[Breeze54]

167. You should turn off that M$M idiot box that tells you what to think!

He's not running a bad campaign at all!! The M$M has denigrated him at every opportunity and you pile on.

You should change your avatar. It doesn't represent you at all.

[arthritisR_US]

146. In a big tent party I would think opposing views would be

welcome irrespective of the votes they carry. I applaud a party which gives voice to the right wing, centrist and the left wing members of its organization. Dennis has brought many issues to the forefront that otherwise may not have been broached. He has spoken with clarity and without ambiguity, a welcome change from some of the others, IMO. Democracy is better served by the more voices that are heard.

[elaineb]

153. Welcome to DU!

Things are a bit nasty and contentious here, right now, as you may have already noticed, but things should come down a bit after the primaries are over. After some people on here stop directing their heavy firepower at fellow Democrats, they'll eventually turn them on the Republicans, and things will get back to relative normalcy.

Anyway, welcome! :hi:

[arthritisR_US]

154. Thanks! :) n/t

[upi402]

157. welcome. they keep excluding him. gee i wonder what's up?

:pals:

[arthritisR_US]

166. Thanks! I don't understand it at all but I truly don't think

we are better off for it. Quite the contrary, I think we are being poorly served by the silencing of him:-(

[Truth2Tell]

158. Kucinich's views are "being rejected by the masses?"

How the fuck would you know? Have you spoken with the masses? And the masses are aware of DK's views? Are you sure? The masses want more war? The masses want corporate health insurance? The masses like imperialism?

Really now, let's be honest. It's you who have rejected DK's views, isn't it. It's you who can't stand the idea of an anti-war Democrat. It's you who is just okey dokey with having the nose of the Democratic Party up the ass of corporate America. It's you who doesn't give a rats ass about civil liberties. It's you who values power more than principle. And it's you, quite plainly, who doesn't understand or even want real democracy.

Don't be shy. Fess up. It's not the masses you speak for - it's you. Don't be so modest. Be proud of your right wing Murkin values. Be a proud reactionary. Own it man.

Own it.

Although I gotta add - when you say that "you don't give a shit if he represents your views," I do believe you there. I believe that part. I really do.

[Zorra]

159. But Dennis is the most qualified person for the Presidency, and he

realizes that it is his obligation to the People of the US to stay in the race despite the odds against him.