Now I know: One Kucinich is more dangerous than 30 Blue Dogs.

[JackRiddler]

Some 30-odd blue dogs voted against the insurance reform bill, but apparently did so strictly because of "realpolitik." Dennis Kucinich also voted no, but delivered an accurate and passionate rejection of the bill's fatal flaws. Based on the reaction here, Kucinich is the greater threat to the world. Despite the 30-to-2 ratio of blue dogs to progressives (counting Massa as another vote of conscience), I find odd comfort in seeing that unwelcome simple truths have such a power to enrage.

[WeDidIt]

1. I say primary ANY Dem who voted against it

Kucinich at the top of the list, though.

[JackRiddler]

3. Hm, you've added a new attack sig line even. Smells of personal crusade.

[timzi]

117. I Agree With The "Smells" Part For Sure

[Dr.Phool]

123. I changed my sig line too.

[John Q. Citizen]

127. That's funny! You cracked me up.

[bertman]

167. OHHHH MY GOODNESS!!! Thank you, Dr. Phool!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Best laugh in a week!

[bvar22]

168. +1

:patriot:

[bjobotts]

170. Kucinich is right but short sighted.Refer to how bad the SS bill was when it passed

[bjobotts]

171. Kucinich ranting on how terrible this bill is gives senate arguments to kill it

[bjobotts]

172. If any PO gets thru then the door is open for gov. involvement in HC ins. & can be expanded

[bjobotts]

175. Kucinich is right and fought hard to get a good bill but this is what we got, an open door which was

non existent before.

[bjobotts]

177. Senate reconciliation process is for budgetary programs only.Medicare is a budgetary program

[bjobotts]

178. Thom Hartman suggests Medicare can be expanded to age 1 coverage

[bjobotts]

179. and passed with only 51 vote majority via reconciliation, giving us Medicare for all

[bjobotts]

182. Kucinich is so bitter (rightly so) for what we didn't get he can't see what we did get

[winyanstaz]

185. yes, we got women's rights thrown under the bus and many will die

if they cannot get the care they need.
I guess that is something you are happy about but I am not.

[bjobotts]

188. You're right.I'm not happy either but supposedly that will get eliminated in the senate

[winyanstaz]

189. I certainly hope so...

I also want to see a public option.

[bjobotts]

187. The first Social Security bill that passed sucked big time.Fixed in 1950

It doesn't have to be this way and it sucks that it is and Kucinich is right about all he says about the bill...but he can't understand that the door is opened with a PO which will eventually lead to what he wants, and what we should have now. I wanted Kucinich for president and would vote for him in a heartbeat but his bitterness over Congress' failure is only feeding the opposition in the senate. If it only benefited private HC ins then they would not be so against it...which is why the PO needs to survive no matter how weak it becomes...it will open the door to single payer in the future.

[winyanstaz]

191. or might shame them into fixing it...

[puebloknot]

194. Kucinich is short, but right sighted. Sorry. Couldn't resist. Dennis is right ...

... on this and many other issues.

How many years are we going to wait and let people die while we *incrementally* give to the citizens of this country what they rightly deserve -- freedom from worry over an illness wiping out a family financially?!?

The arguments of our "leaders" are laughable when held up against the list of what other sane countries do for their citizens and for the fiscal bottom line of their national budgets.

Yes, good that they appear to be outlawing pre-existing conditions clauses, but the rest of the proposed bill is an insult in a multitude of ways.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. Once it goes into effect and all the provisions hidden in the 2000-page document

come to light and bite everyone in the ass, you'll be thanking Kucinich.

[wroberts189]

44. ...and crying as the pubs take back Congress? Oh god I hope not..

But its not over yet....

[Lorien]

71. The pubs already have congress

they put a (D) behind their name to get elected, then when they work for corporations instead of us we act surprised but keep voting for them because an (R) would be slightly worse. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We need a third party or better challengers.

[wroberts189]

83. Well one good thing... I guess

We know who they are now. "blue dogs" "conservadems" ...we are hearing those words a lot more these days..

[kath]

93. +1

[Go2Peace]

99. This straw man argument has become all about EGO for these few posters against DK

They know that most on this board don't see it there way. And they will keep trying to incite everyone because their egos have been bruised. Pure and simple. Otherwise they would let it go as there are a million other things to discuss and the event is over.

[timzi]

110. F*ck'em........

[truedelphi]

164. Are you plagiarizing me? Or am I plagiarizing you?

In any case, thanks for confirming that I'm not totally nuts.

[dflprincess]

68. Amen

[truedelphi]

146. Yes then they will understand, just as most "Got it" about the Iraqi War

And Most will get it about the Geithner/Paulson Bank giveaways when the economy gets worse and the dollar devalues.

But for most Americans, they will not believe it is bad til it is irreversibly bad. Sorry state of affairs.

[winyanstaz]

192. Right...at least we know he read the bill.......

The people screaming the loudest about Kucinich are all too happy to throw womens equal rights under the bus and take whatever crumbs they are thrown.
I wish they would grow a damn spine and fight for once for what is right instead of acting like the perpetual victim.

[inna]

10. wow.

what a truly disgusting post/sig.

:puke:

[WeDidIt]

12. More than 20 Blue dogs voted in favor of health care reform

so far, they're more like Democrats than Kucinich.

[alarimer]

31. Kucinich is the BEST Democrat we have.

The rest are all corporatist sellout pieces of shit. EVERY LAST ONE WHO VOTED FOR THIS TRAVESTY!

[kath]

94. Agree, And I'm sick to death of all the corporatist sellout pieces of shit.

[pundaint]

142. Surrender monkeys suck.

Up Dennis!

[Riverman]

104. Who is the "We?" Got a rat in your pocket? The true rats are in

the white House and the democratic caucus!

[WeDidIt]

14. More than 20 Blue dogs voted in favor of health care reform

so far, they're more like Democrats than Kucinich.

[sabrina 1]

18. Well, that should tell you that it's a corporate government's

dream come true. Not that we didn't know that.

[WeDidIt]

21. So you prfer nothing be done?

You must like 45,000 people dying annually because they hage no insurance, because that's what Kucinich's damnable principles gets you.

[sabrina 1]

28. Explain how this bill will save those lives?

I know one way, they will probably get free treatment when they end up in jail because they are too poor to afford the forced payment to the Private Insurance Industry. But other than that, assuming it will be too difficult to round up all of them, as has been the case with the over half a million still uninsured in Mass. under Romneycare, pretty much the same bill as this, how does this bill save those lives? Clearly you have read it as you wouldn't just be supporting it without knowing what you're talking about, would you?

[Daemonaquila]

75. I'd hate to live in your universe...

... where one lost battle means the war is over. A dead bill would've been great news, and a responsible group of Dems would be back hard at work crafting something less disgusting. The stakes would've been higher, the fighting would've been rougher, and we'd have a chance at a bill with some real reform in it.

[underseasurveyor]

138. Compared to the third leading cause of death in this country.. Doctors.

Yes we need health care reform alright but the scraps we're being tossed are not the type of reform we deserve. I'm refuse to scramble for leftover scraps thrown at us by congress.. and then we're suppose to be grateful?:wtf: For what?

America's Health care System is the Third Leading Cause of Death

Barbara Starfield, M.D. (2000)

Summary by Kah Ying Choo

This Journal of the American Medical Association article illuminates the failure of the U.S. medical system in providing decent medical care for Americans.
(snip)

Even more significantly, the medical system has played a large role in undermining the health of Americans. According to several research studies in the last decade, a total of 225,000 Americans per year have died as a result of their medical treatments:
• 12,000 deaths per year due to unnecessary surgery

• 7000 deaths per year due to medication errors in hospitals

• 20,000 deaths per year due to other errors in hospitals

• 80,000 deaths per year due to infections in hospitals

• 106,000 deaths per year due to negative effects of drugs

Thus, America's health care-system-induced deaths are the third leading cause of the death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer.

http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm


The entire medical system in the US needs an extreme makeover and not by lobbyists or the insurance companies or big pharma. And the congress idiots that refuse to fight for the people against these massive powers need an extreme makeover to just plain citizen! And these are what your damnable principles get you when you refuse to fight for something better. Here eat your scraps so you can beg for more.

[wroberts189]

52. Only because we gave the HC corps what they wanted. No real competition. nt

[lark]

155. I think your record is stuck

Can we have original postings without just repeating yourself over and over?? Hmmmm?

[Enthusiast]

129. Agree. nt

[kayakjohnny]

15. What did 'we' do, btw, in your username?

Legit curiosity. Not being sarc.

[robinlynne]

60. you crazy.

[Go2Peace]

97. Yep, personal CRUSADE is what this is. Smells like an advocate for corrupt government

It really is going overboard to malign Kucinich. These guys are of the authoritarian mindset. Reminds me so much of talking to freepers. This reminds me so much of trying to discuss Al Gore with a Republican. They have a certain ideology that keeps them from talking nuance.
"Al Gore MUST be after money, because he can't possibly really care about people. Why? Because I can't understand him. And if it were me I would be after the money (well, they don't say the last line out loud)".

In this case the authoritarians say "I can't understand what Kucinich did, so he must be a black hat. Because he is now a "black hat" he must have been a phoney all along". No ability to actually intelligently discect the politics and stands of the man, because they WANT their ideological purity to remain intact, even if it gets in the way of truth or logic.

You said it when you said it is typical "you are with us or you are against us" logic.

[reggie the dog]

102. He will probably win the primary

his district in Ohio votes for him because they remember how he worked against privitization of electricity in I think it was Cleveland years ago. They vote to have an actual liberal border line socialist in office.

[whoopingcrone]

108. I say primary everyone FOR it.

From what I've gathered, this bill as now written, offers far more benefit
to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries than to any of those who'll use their products.
SINGLE PAYER - MEDICARE FOR ALL.

[walldude]

111. So you want to run a primary against the only person who

stood up for what the people asked for? That is fucking brilliant. Really. Yeah lets vote out anyone who has the fucking balls to stand his ground with the people who elected him so we can vote in another spineless Dem who we can complain about later.

[John Q. Citizen]

126. Yeah, the DLC tried that last election and Dennis mopped the floor with his opposition.

I love that in a fair fight that a liberal can alway beat Republicans who put Ds behind their names.

You are just mad that Dennis refused to vote against women's rights twice.

That's why he's first, isn't it?

[Enthusiast]

128. I say we hold Dennis up as an example

of a true Democrat.

[freddie mertz]

131. (NOT) nice sig line there, friend.nt.

[ProSense]

2. Aren't blue dogs expected to cast shitty votes? n/t

[JackRiddler]

5. And apparently that excuses them in your view.

[ProSense]

20. No more than it excuses Republicans. I don't expect progressives to vote like them either.

Blue dogs need to go because they're Republican enablers.

[valerief]

136. Blue Dogs are Depublicans. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. Yeah, that's DLC think for you

The Blue Dogs can make any craven compromises they want, and they're just being "realistic."

Dennis stands on principle, and he's a traitor.

And people wonder why left-wing Democrats are pissed off.

[flvegan]

11. Nailed it.

[G_j]

45. +1

[JackRiddler]

56. Thanks for rewriting the OP in a pithier fashion.

I need that talent!

[robinlynne]

61. thank-you LL!

[dana_b]

76. perfectly stated n/t

[wroberts189]

85. That would make a great OP. nt

[Go2Peace]

98. Reminds me so much of republican think. "Al Gore is evil and after money"

You can try and make them understand time and again that they may disagree with Gore, but Gore is a white hat, but you will never get anywhere because their minds and ideology don't allow them to think in nuanced terms.

EXACTLY the same phenominon here.

[kenfrequed]

125. Good post.

Yup it is amazing the depths of absurdity the blue dog enablers will go to when maligning a proper Democrat.

Kucinich has a good track record. He spoke out agaisnt the bank bailout and has been there for universal single payer throughout this battle. The blue dogs? Well they have been selling us down the river from the begining and resisting even a modest public option all in the name of phony bipartisanship. A bipartisanship they seem to define as a position between conservative democrats and freakazoid lunatic republicans.

[fascisthunter]

141. what a spot on reply

[Agony]

201. Exactly.

Thanks.

In,
Agony

[Individualist]

7. That says it all, doesn't it

The DLCers are spewing their venom about Kucinich because he's a progressive, not because of the way he voted.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[spoony]

13. "his tea bagging apologists"

I don't suppose you have any lucid explanation for that? And I of course mean something beyond, "well he voted no and so he voted with Republicans" or anything so obscenely simple-minded. I want to know why people who agree with Kucinich on this bill are "tea bagging apologists."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. I'm sorry, was it too many syllables?

I thought it was really rather clear.

[spoony]

19. Then you should have no trouble explaining it.

Right?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Which part are you having problems understanding?

The tea-bagging? Or the apologists?

[spoony]

25. As I thought, then.

You cannot explain what your empty name-calling meant because it was just another in a long line of carelessly thrown together insults that you cobble together and call posts.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Whoa, now. Why are you getting personal?

Oh, that's right. You took it personally.

:rofl:

[spoony]

29. Wrong, yet again.

I finally decided that the bill was better than nothing, so I'm not entirely on board with what DK did. But I understand why he did it, and I understand the problems DUers have, and I'm tired of other posters maligning them as being the same as right-wingers. Especially when they have nothing behind their poorly thought-out words, like your post.

[Ignis]

96. The teabagging.

This ought to be an amusing dance.

:popcorn:

[kenfrequed]

130. Feh

What I don't understand is how the usual blue-doggie defenders are all up in arms now. Most of them on this board spent half their time arguing against universal single payer and against a strong public option. They heaped derision and scorn upon the progressives here and thumbed their noses and made absurd statements about bipartisanship.

And what do we get? One republican vote in the house and maybe one republican vote in the senate. Wow!! it was totally worth it to gut the bill to get that kind of support. Really awesome job!

And now that principled democrats that have long stood with the people are voicing or voting in opposition the Bluedogs are howling 'traitor.' Of course he Blue Cross Blue Shield Dogs have been sitting, rolling over, and begging for the insurance industry. So I guess we have different perspectives as to who the traitors are.

[JackRiddler]

58. Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists!

And you're killing 45,000 people a year. How can you live with yourself?!!!

[sabrina 1]

24. Explain that nonsensical insulting remark please.

What exactly is YOUR objection to Kucinich's reasons for opposing this bill? This is the fourth time I've asked one of the small band of anti-progressives to state their disagreements with Kucinich's clearly laid out reasons for his vote?

So now, I'm trying again. What do you disagree with Kucinich about?

Or is this just a 'party thing'. My Party Right or Wrong!

So far, not one of them has explained exactly what about Kucinich's position they disagree with. So I won't hold my breat. Rhetoric and hateful accusations are easier, but not convincing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. My objection is to his opposition of the bill.

Why he did it doesn't matter any more than Joe Lieberman's, or Michelle Bachmann's.

[sabrina 1]

32. That's what I thought. You don't have a clue

you're the mirror image of the rightwingers who supported Bush right or wrong. In your own words, 'it doesn't matter' whether he's right or wrong. Good luck trying to get people to vote for that in 2010. Thanks for helping get us a Republican Majority once again.

Did you like the fact that a progressive amendment was removed from the bill while a rightwing fundy anti-women amendment was included?

Sad ~

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Hey, don't give me any of that crap.

I'm not the one siding with the RWers against HCR.

[sabrina 1]

37. You're siding with HCR?

You just said what you're against, is any opposition to the Party. I know what you're against, you're against dissent. Now, what are you supporting?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. "you're against dissent."

Yet here you are, all upset because I've blasphemed against Kucunich.

Fuck him and the rest of the enemies of HCR and progress.

[sabrina 1]

48. I'm not upset at all. I'm trying to find our what you support.

So far, you've told us how you hate Kucinich, and why. He refused to vote for a bill he didn't agree with. But you haven't told anyone what you disagree with him about, other than he didn't march in lockstep with the party.

[Forkboy]

113. You should write pamphlets.

[G_j]

46. frustrated?

it's obvious that person has no intention of having a real conversation.

[sabrina 1]

65. Yes, frustrated, not at this poster in particular, just what s/he

represents. For so many, this is about what THEY want or how it benefits them personally, not about the millions it will not benefit. The fact that people in both parties will support unconditionally anything the party tells them to support and use the same tactics to shut down anyone who tries to say 'wait a minute, we could do better than this'.

I think Americans are pretty traumatized as a whole. so accustomed to being abused by their government that they jump for joy when the Elites throw them a few crumbs. The national self esteem meter registers pretty low. There is no sense that they deserve and have a right to expect their government to work for them, as citizens of most other civilized countries do.

I'm just sad to see so many so blindly accepting of the fact that this is all they can expect when it is patently obvious that the Democrats not only didn't even try to get a Medicare for All type bill, they excluded from the process anyone or any group who even suggested it.

I'm not the type to allow someone to lie to me without calling them on it. Sure, this bill will help some people who need it. But it won't help millions of others.

As for the above poster, I guess I just wanted to see an admission from someone that they are supporting something they do not even understand and to give him/her their due, they did admit it.

[G_j]

66. absolutely

you were asking simple questions.

But, you are so right about Americans being traumatized, and I would add, perhaps too exhausted to want to think critically.
The plan is well over a trillion dollars, it needs to be right.
I don't except, the "best" we can get. That is the best that Insurance, Pharm & Congress will offer us for all that money.
They took single payer off the table before they even got started.

[sabrina 1]

78. I think it was all planned even before the election now.

2000 pages didn't get written overnight. We know that the Insurance Companies helped write the bill. And we were shocked when we first heard it. I agree people are exhausted and overwhelmed with their own everyday problems. But the more I learn, the more I see this as a bailout of an Industry was losing customers and in heading for failuree which would have opened the door to a national health care system. They couldn't allow that, so this was planned probably long before it became an issue in the election. We were set up, we are being divided, and while we argue, they win.

The only way I can see it failing to save the Insurance industry, is because they forgot one thing. As Obama said in the primaries, explaining why he did not support mandates ~ 'you cannot force people to pay for something they cannot afford'. I liked that Obama. Since then he has adapted the rightwing talking point which is 'you cannot expect hard-working people to pay for those who are not paying'. I do not like this new, 'evolved' (as he calls it) Obama. I am hoping that because he was right in the first statement, it simply will not work. People will not be able to pay them, and they cannot lock everyone up.

Or can they?

[SammyWinstonJack]

92. No they can not lock everyone up and I don't think they plan too.

However, taxes will be levied and fines/penalties imposed, throwing more people into financial hardship. Guess that is okay though. :shrug:

[robinlynne]

64. You go girl!

[robinlynne]

62. BULLSHIT.

[Dr.Phool]

122. I suppose you hated him when he voted against the Iraq war too?

Seems that all your heroes supported that fiasco too.

[LanternWaste]

147. Regardless of the justification used

"Why he did it doesn't matter any more..."

Regardless of the justification used, or even the context it's placed in-- a most small-minded and provincial thought.

[spoony]

30. As you see, you aren't going to get anywhere.

It's like arguing with a computer program that spits out insults but is incapable of simulating real dialogue.

[sabrina 1]

35. Yes, I realize that now. The mindlessness is

stunning and if this is the Democratic party, I will definitely have to rethink my support of them. I am not a Republican exactly because of this kind of mindless, blind allegiance to a party no matter how wrong they are.

[druidity33]

47. this is a long discussion

with one of those 'ignored' fellows... darned curious as to which one, or is it more than one...

ugh, no, i really don't want to know what they're spewing, do i...

ick.

[inna]

36. flamebait, typically.

:thumbsdown:

[wroberts189]

57. Yep... +1

[Forkboy]

114. It's what trolls do best, and Fructose is among the best of the best in the troll world.

[wroberts189]

55. "tea bagging apologists" ? A little Glen Beck in there perhaps? Go back to your pron. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

95. One of the reasons I left Christianity is because they told me

if I didn't believe what they told me to believe then I wasn't a Christian. So, I said okay I won't be a Christian anymore. Now, we have people telling people how they have to vote? If we agree with Kucinich we are Kucinich's teabag apologists? I don't handle people telling me what I have to think, believe, or vote very well. The independent party is looking better and better all the time.

[Go2Peace]

101. No, its because a bunch of authoritarian "purists" won't stop posting attack threads!

It's up to you guys to let the issue die. You are on a forum where the vast majority does not agree with you. And as long as you keep dribbling out these attacks people here will keep responding.

You guys are so pathetic, you don't even realize that you are SOLIDIFYING support of Kucinich!

[Forkboy]

112. Boy, you worked in all the bait in your response.

Two lines and two bits of bait. You're good.

[tekisui]

9. The House is going to lose a lot of the blue mutts in '10.

It may bust up the coalition and threaten the Democratic Majority.

[HughMoran]

17. Another funny thread designed to take advantage of the flaming environment here

:hi:

[ProSense]

22. The unions threatened to primary the blue dogs

The unions are happy the bill passed.

[robinlynne]

63. therfore... come on we really need more garbage arguments here.

[Canuckistanian]

34. I don't know what to think of DK

He's done this so often.

It's useful to have someone like this in Congress, but this time the vote was close.

I know all the arguments about the "perfect being the enemy of the good", but sometimes it can go TOO far.

[wroberts189]

40. Think independently minded. Think his reputation.

I cannot condemn anyone who stands on principle. No matter where the chips may fall.


Failing to yield has won more victories then not.


His vote really did not count... but might help with the final bill...pushing it more in our direction.

[Canuckistanian]

51. Here's my dilemma

It's said that there are no votes in Congress or the Senate that aren't already known BEFORE the voting. The whips do their jobs well and don't take "Well, we'll see" for an answer.

So, knowing that, did Kucinich REALLY realize that his "NO" vote wouldn't make a difference in the final vote?

If he truly DIDN'T know the final outcome, then I'd respect him for TRULY voting his conscience.

[G_j]

49. "perfect being the enemy of the good" doesn't work

for he doesn't believe the bill is good.

[treestar]

54. Yeah, when he voted against censuring Joe "you lie" wilson

It wasn't about something that mattered so much.

[wroberts189]

38. knr

[nashville_brook]

41. eggsactly, JR.

and the immediacy of the attack on this is quite the affirmation.

[ProleNoMore]

42. Thank You Dennis For Standing Firm Against The DLCers, Blue Dogs. And Insurance Companies

eom

[liberal_at_heart]

72. He is courageous

He was the ONLY politician to absolutely oppose the Iraq War at every turn. I just bet if he had won the election we would be pulling our troops out of Iraq instead of sitting on our hands. And now he is the only one to stand up to the insurance companies and the politicians bought off by them. A politician with a backbone. Who knew they even existed?

[lib2DaBone]

43. Ease up on Dennis.. he is the only CONgress Critter not in the pockets of Big Insurance...

Dennis is fighting for DEMS.. why do they bash him? :shrug:

[burning rain]

50. Probably more of a pushback against DK because he's ascribed a lot of cred...

among progressives. Nearly everyone here knows and acknowledges that Blue Dogs are nogoodniks.

[treestar]

53. Kucinich did it for the right reasons though

Those arguments need to be heard by a reasoned person who can articulate them. And he would only do it where his vote would not make a difference anyway.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. Dennis draws fire from the DLC here because he refuses to go along with Politics- as-Usual.

He is seen as a dangerous symbol of the left who refuse to be silenced by the "not as bad" wing of the party.

[liquid diamond]

67. I hope this fucker loses his seat in 2010.

I'm tired of how progressives here treat this asshole like their own Jesus. Kucinich is a fucking traitor.

[Swamp Rat]

70. "Kucinich is a fucking traitor?!?"

:wow:

[liquid diamond]

80. Yeah, he voted against the HRC bill like the Republicans.

I now it's jaw dropping.

[dflprincess]

73. No, the Democrats who sold us to the insurance companies

are "fucking traitors". Kucinich tried to stand up for the principles the other Democrats claim they care about.

[Individualist]

74. DLCers are fucking traitors.

[sabrina 1]

77. A traitor? You know, when someone on the right called

me and a few other Democrats traitors for opposing the War n Iraq, one of those Democrats threatened to sue that rightwinger. It turned out he was an attorney who had pretty much had it with the rabid right calling anyone who disagreed with them, traitors. He laid out his case which was pretty interesting. He made it clear that he didn't want money as he didn't need it. What he wanted was an acknowledgement from the moronic rightwinger that in this country, people are allowed, in fact they are encouraged, to disagree with the government. And an apology.

A strange thing happened. Other wingnuts agreed with him after discussing the possibilities of winning such a lawsuit .... or losing it. The offending wingnut was asked to prove that the person he called a traitor was actually a traitor. The statutes regarding treason were produced and discussed and it was clear even to the most rabid wingnut, that this was a false charge and possibly actionable, depending on how seriously one takes morons on internet boards who level ridiculous charges like this. The wingnut, coward that he was, fearful that the Democrat might actually take him to court, reluctantly acknowledged that 'treason' was a bit of a stretch and gave what passed for an apology, from the pov of a wingnut, to the attorney.

The attorney had no intention of wasting his time taking such a moron to court, he merely wanted to demonstrate what a stupid charge that is to make against someone who disagrees with you in a country that has a Constitution where the very first amendment guarantees the right to political free speech. It was a fairly dramatic way to get the point across, but wingnuts are not particularly bright and obviously one who would call another a traitor for not sharing their pov, needed a graphic lesson to point out his stupidity.

Kucinich is a Congressman. It is is his duty to vote based on what he concludes to be in the best interests of the public he represents. To do otherwise, to violate his oath of office, might be considered treason. But this vote to anyone with a few brain cells left functioning, not only doesn't qualify, it is a blatantly false charge with no basis whatsoever aside from being monumentally stupid.

[liquid diamond]

81. HCR is a very complicated issue.

It is very unrealistic to think that everybody is going to get what they want. Concessions will be necessary whether we like them or not. Hell, we can't even convince some democrats to vote with us. The bill isn't perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than no reform at all. Of course people here have stated they would rather have no reform than a "shitty" bill. How is that for stupidity? I'll take this bill over the status quo. Kucinich's problem is that he is too much of an idealist. That isn't realistic in the world of politics. It's amazing how this asshole has divided a progressive message board. I hope this guy gets his clock cleaned in 2010.

[sabrina 1]

82. I'm sorry, but anyone who calls someone who disagrees

with them 'a traitor' has lost all credibility with me, and as I said above, even back in the far more contentious days of the beginning of the War in Iraq on a rightwing forum, even among wingnuts.

Kucinich divided no one. I don't need a politician to tell me what is right and wrong. Bailing out Private Industry by selling people's right to health care is wrong in every country that calls itself civilized. But when I hear anyone, politician or otherwise state clearly why it is wrong, I will certainly support them and their right to tell the truth.

You are defending the indefensible simply because of party loyalty. The Founding Fathers rightly worried that if political parties were formed, the fledgling democracy they dreamed of would not survive. I think they were prescient as we are seeing this country handed over at an ever-increasing rate, to Corporate Control. Aided and abetted by party loyalists.

This bill is a bail-out of a failing Industry. We most certainly could have had a Universal Health Care system this year. Face it, Democrats were bought and delivered to the Corporations they serve. Convince yourself all you want that nothing that benefits the people is possible because of politics. No one, other than the willfully blind, believes that. We know why it was impossible.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. Yay, Sabrina

You tell 'em!

[Bluenorthwest]

106. You are the one doing the dividing with your right wing

style taunting and labeling and name calling. He is speaking the truth and you are speaking DLC ramblings and calling an elected Democrat a traitor. The lowest form of rhetoric.

[liquid diamond]

198. He sided with the republicans.

He is a traitor in every sense of the word. Fuck him.

[AtheistCrusader]

181. No, it's NOT better. That's the problem.

We just handed a huge pile of money to the insurers. This bill is NOT what we wanted.

This bill will hurt the poorest among us, for one thing. HURT them. Not Help.

[reggie the dog]

103. You want a Republican to replace one of the only true leftists in government today?

Kucinich stands up for little people like me time and time again. Very few other reps, senators, or presidents do that.

[dflprincess]

120. And from where the party structure stands, that is unforgivable.

That's how Minnesota got stuck with Amy Klobuchar in 2006. All the politicians in Minnesota and any national ones when they're in Minnesota may pay homage to Wellstone's memory but the DNC, DSCC, DCCC, DLC and even the state party organization will do all they can to see to it no more trouble makers like Paul or Dennis get elected.

[Forkboy]

115. I remember when I was 10, too.

:hug:

[freddie mertz]

133. No, he's not.

I have great suspicion regarding this current attack on Kucinich.

Many of those posting the attacks are clearly anti-choice, even anti-contraception (!?), and as such would not (and should not) have any standing in calling anyone else a "traitor."

Hold up the mirror, that which you pretend to speak against will be staring back at thee.

[suzie]

163. You're joking, right?

Have you forgotten that Dennis was anti-choice, anti-contraception for much of his congressional career? And only found his pro-choice calling when he decided to run on a national level?

The insidious thing about the Dennis Kucinich claque on DU is that no insult, no slander against other Democrats is enough, whether they be politicians or posters on this forum.

[liquid diamond]

199. Like I'm the only one

slamming this piece of shit. Browse through some of the threads about him. You'll see worse than what I'm posting. He deserves every lick. Why put "traitor" in quotes? He wears that label perfectly.

[liberal_at_heart]

69. the real threat is republicans and democrats being bought by Corporate America

[Echo In Light]

105. Yes, and the ominous signs of that have been abundant for decades

Yikes!

[New Dawn]

79. DLC = GOP

[jgraz]

84. Looks like somebody's DLC binky got threatened.

Deal with it - Kucinich cast a vote of conscience.

(You might want to look that last word up)

[slay]

86. I'm wondering if there is some miscommunication about this thread

It sounded to me like the OP was saying that Dennis is more powerful than all 30 blue dogs. Maybe I'm reading it wrong but that's what it sounded like to me. I'm 100% pro-Dennis - if we had more like him we wouldn't be in this mess.

[JackRiddler]

89. There are different kinds of power.

I meant that one truthful statement of conscience can exert a spiritual force (and stir up reaction) in a way that thirty or three hundred opportunistic votes cannot. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be better to have the votes on behalf of social justice and public health care, rather than on the side of the insurance companies and corporate health care providers.

Because of the bill's content, their lobbies win if it fails (show of force against all change!) and they win if it passes (since they got the provisions that gut most of the reform's ostensible intent, and are likely to profit from the new set-up even more than before). That's where the material power lies, for now.

[JackRiddler]

90. Are you talking to me?

Because if so, I don't think you understood the OP. Which may be my fault as a communicator.

[jgraz]

91. Yep, I misunderstood. That's what I get for posting when I should be sleeping.

:blush:

[Mari333]

88. well, thank god not everyone is a cheerleader.

[OnyxCollie]

100. Whaaa whaaa whaaa!

I want health care so bad, I'll turn a blind eye to how shitty this bill is! Whaaa whaaa whaaa! I WANT IT!!! Anybody who votes against it (even if their reason is it's a piece of shit that will bite us in the ass) is a TRAITOR!!! Whaaa whaaa whaaa! They'll fix it in the future, right after they punish the telecoms and restore FISA (another bill Kucinich voted against.) Whaaa whaaa whaaa!

Edit: I misunderstood the OP. This is directed at those flailing about, throwing tantrums, when someone dares try to deny them candy before dinner.

[theFrankFactor]

107. Keep Running from Dennis and into the Arms of Your Pussy-Ass Legions

How does one actually become able to swallow so much corporate gizz and still call themselves a Democrat? Such a pathetic self-hate and lack of confidence that they lap up the coproDems dribbles and say thank you sir.

I suppose we should thank theses brave compromisers for saving us from the possibilities of higher principals and self respect.

Not!

[RufusTFirefly]

109. I'm starting to think it's a form of the Stockholm Syndrome, Frank. n/t

[Echo In Light]

116. Powers That Be know how to manipulate people's innate want of belonging - no matter the real costs

... and put that mass marketing to good use.

[billh58]

118. Actually, Dennis

the Menace is no more "dangerous," nor helpful, than any of the other 435 US Representatives in the House. He is certainly more vocal than many, but accomplishes very little other than verbally appeasing his Far Left 2% "base." Successful politics has very little to do with grandstanding, or being popular with a distinct political minority.

If DK had the power base, or the leverage, or the charisma, to actually influence his fellow Congressional members into taking action, the high praise from his loyal followers would be understandable. As it stands, however, his "squeaky wheel" tactics only add to his lack of credibility.

DK is an adequate Congressional Representative for his Ohio constituents, but unfortunately he has no discernible leadership qualities. He is destined to be a perennial also-ran on the national political stage, and among his Congressional peers.

[Jennicut]

119. Kucinich is not like the blue dogs.

I cannot stand the blue dogs. I have no major issues with Kucinich other then the health care bill may help me or others like me dealing with pre-existing conditions. I get there are some that hate and some that love him but he just kind of makes me go...eh.

[RoccoR5955]

121. Bite my posterior! The Blue Dogs are merely DINOs!

Kucinich is the TRUE Democrat. He works for WE THE PEOPLE, not them, the corporations.
He does it all the time, every time.
No need for him to compromise his moral stance now.

As a matter of fact, in the primaries, I stood by Kucinich, and would do it again in a New York NANOSECOND!

Kucinich/Sanders 2012!
Government for, by, and of WE THE PEOPLE, not them, the corporations!

[kpominville]

124. Given a choice between DK and Blue Dogs...

I would side with Dennis in a heartbeat! He represents my views FAR more accurately than the corporatist sellouts.

[Enthusiast]

132. Ain't that the damn truth!

What is the point of having superior numbers in a legislature if they vote against the interests of their constituents.

If they craft a bill this way on health care reform what is to stop them from crafting an equally corporate protecting bill for 'Net Neutrality' and other critical issues?

[irislake]

134. I fail to understand how any American who wants true

health care can attack a man who sticks to his principles. What a gem. Send him to Canada we would love to have him.

[Orrex]

137. Kucinich adamantly sticks to his principles

Until they become politically inconvenient for him.

[valerief]

135. Oh, and they're all more dangerous than the NO! Republicans. Apparently

these Republicans aren't really in Congress legislating our lives. They're imaginary, so we should just ignore them apparently.
:sarcasm:

[Orrex]

139. Do those 30 Blue Dogs have as many fawning acolytes as Kucinich does?

No? Well, then there's your answer.

Many here seem to think that Kucinich excretes jasmine and roses petals. If you can find the same level of uncritical adoration heaped upon those 30 Blue Dogs here at DU--even in the aggregate--then I'll never type another word against Kucinich.

[Forkboy]

143. Do those 30 Blue Dogs stand up for things worth standing up for on a consistent basis?

No? Well, then there's your answer.

DK isn't always right, and he doesn't he always take the right stands. However, the Blue Dogs wouldn't know a right stand if it bashed them upside the head. What have they done to deserve any adoration in the first place?

[Orrex]

144. They've done nothing deserving of adoration, and they're held to a lower standard as a result.

Kucinich, in marked contrast, is held to a much higher standard due to the constant, uncritical praise he enjoys from his followers.

[Forkboy]

149. I'd rather be held to a high standard than a low one.

And I just criticized him, didn't I?

[Orrex]

151. Well, then you're not a fawning acolyte

And being held to a higher standard also means being held to account when you stand up to vote with the Republicans.

[Forkboy]

157. If you disagree with those who voted against it then the standard is the one YOU apply.

And you're choosing to apply a double standard and give a pass to one group for voting against it while attacking another who did the same thing. If setting the bar low exempts us from equal criticism then no one here should have ever uttered a negative word about Bush. But that doesn't fly, and I think you know that. Hold all accountable for the same act, not one because he's held to higher standard. That rewards setting the bar low. If one has no expectations of someone that doesn't excuse them doing something wrong.

[Orrex]

158. Not at all. The standard is consistently applied by Kucinich's supporters here at DU.

When I logged in last night, there were about 15 I-Heart-Kucinich threads at the top of General Discussion's recent posts. If you can point me to a similarly effusive outpouring of praise for the Blue Dogs who cast the same vote as Kucinich, then I will attack each of them in turn.

[Forkboy]

162. if you can point me to the things the Blue Dogs have done to deserve praise in the past first.

I give DK the benefit of the doubt based on his stands in the past. Again, I don't always agree with him, but his stands in the past have shown that he at least is on the right path and those views connect with my own ideals. The Blue Dogs have basically done nothing to deserve that goodwill in the first place, certainly not from the left anyways, though you're free to tell me why you think they do, if that's the case. Why would the Blue Dogs get the same praise when it's just one issue among dozens where the two have come down on the same side? You're attacking DK for doing something based on politics, yet that's the basis behind every single Blue Dog maneuver, and you're giving them a pass.

And when I logged onto DU last night there was about 15 Kucinich is horrible posts. I guess we see what we're looking for. :shrug:

[Orrex]

174. That's a straw man

I've never praised the Blue Dogs nor claimed that they were worthy of praise. Therefore I see no need to point you to anything praiseworthy that they've done.

And Kucinich is praised all over DU just because he remembers to put the seat back down afterwards. The surfeit of praise heaped upon this Principled Man requires that he hold him to a higher standard.

I don't "give them a pass," because they're doing what I generally expect them to do: vote along with their Republican isomers.

I don't give Republicans a pass, either, but since they're not propped up here by a chorus of cheerleaders, there seems little point in arguing with their nonexistent supporters.

[DemBones DemBones]

145. Why, no, they don't.

But some people here are impervious to facts.

[Orrex]

150. It's not nice of you to talk about Kucinich's acolytes like that.

[redqueen]

165. Simple logic.

Well, it seems simple to me.

If anyone started praising the Blue Dogs, they'd get torn apart (even more than usual).


But that's not what happened this weekend. This weekend people started praising Dennis for voting like a Blue Dog. (Again, you know... like he did with the flag-burning and the Chrstian Religion stuff and the anti-choice stuff, before he ran for president.)

[Orrex]

186. Yeah! What she said!

:thumbsup:

[fascisthunter]

140. it's an anti-progressive/liberal bend

I never see his attacks being anything with merit. They are never about his policies, because rejecting policies would give you a sense of where they are coming from politically.

[Orrex]

148. How about those of us who've attacked him for being anti-choice for most of his career?

We attacked him--quite properly--for making a calculated, cynical shift in his stance just in time for the 2003 Presidential Campaign season.

No Kucinich acolyte has ever explained this shift, except by saying "he considered it carefully before changing."

Yeah, right.

If any other politician had undergone a similarly well-timed change of attitude, he or she would rightly have been condemned as a hypocrite and an opportunist. Kucinich gets a pass, though, because he's Kucinich.

[Forkboy]

152. Would you rather he was still against it?

If not, isn't that change a good thing, regardless of reason (and how do you know it wasn't a thoughtful change, outside of your cynicism?)?

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he was still against it you'd be against him for that. He changed his mind and now stands for the right thing, and you're against him for that as well.

Color me revolutionary, but I have no problems with flip flops when the flop lands on the right side of an issue. Better than stubbornly clinging to the wrong ideal, no?

[Orrex]

156. I would rather his supporters admit that it was a calculated, cynical shift of posture

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he was still against it you'd be against him for that. He changed his mind and now stands for the right thing, and you're against him for that as well.

Since he's endlessly praised for being the sole "real" Progressive and one of the few "principled" members of Congress, then it's entirely reasonable to remind the readership of his artificial change of posture. You may have decided that it was a sincere shift of viewpoint, as most of his admirers seem to have done, but the conspicuous timing of the shift can't be explained away so easily.


It was a deliberate, calculated, political choice.

[Forkboy]

159. Again, where is your proof?

You have none.

For the record, I suspect it was at least partly political, but I have no proof either. All we have is our own cynicism, and that isn't worth much.

And you didn't answer the question: Would you prefer he was still against it?

[Orrex]

161. Answer: I'm not sure that he ISN'T still against it

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0223-05.htm

He had 30 years to change his stance, and somehow he miraculously only saw the light when he realized that he'd get his ass kicked if he campaigned for President as an anti-choice Democrat.

Given the amazing coincidence of the timing, it's up to Kucinich to earn my belief that his change in viewpoint is sincere.

[Forkboy]

166. That answer is a cop out.

You have no proof that he did it for political reasons, and instead of admitting that you just add another log to the fire with no evidence. He has stated his support for reproductive rights and has a 100% rating from NARAL, yet you suspect, based on nothing more than a hunch, that's he's still secretly against it. It's quite clear that there's nothing Kucinich can do to make you think he's sincere.

You're a smart guy, and I expected better than this kind of logic.

[Orrex]

180. Kucinich is a public figure who has to account for his words and actions.

It's not enough for him to say "Trust me--I've totally changed the position that I've held for more than three decades, and it has nothing to do with the campaign I'm about to undertake."

And it's not up to me to prove that he's insincere, because I've never tried to campaign for his vote. In choosing to make the change when he chose to make it, he created the inescapable appearance of insincerity, and it's up to him to prove that the change is sincere, if in fact it is.

[Forkboy]

196. So how does he prove he's sincere to you?

Is he just fooling NARAL and Planned Parenthood? They seem to think he's sincere in it. What do you know that they don't?

[Orrex]

197. For one thing, he needs to come up with an explanation for the timing of his shift

It's really that simple.

Of course, it would also be nice if he'd explain why he ignored women's reproductive rights for decades prior to his well-timed change of position.

[Forkboy]

200. He has. You don't believe it.

He said he changed after talking to the women in his life, and after a "journey" on the issue, much like we all do with important issues. I would much rather have someone change their stance on such an issue and do the right thing than stubbornly sticking on the wrong side of an issue because people will complain of a flip flop. You don't have to buy his explanation, but he has explained his decision on many occasions, including in at least one of the debates. And be honest, your opinion of Dennis is pretty clearly decided, so I have strong doubts that anything he says about it will sway you anyways.

Of course, it would also be nice if he'd explain why he ignored women's reproductive rights for decades prior to his well-timed change of position.

What does it matter now? He's on the right side of the issue now isn't he? He thought it was wrong before, and now he doesn't. It doesn't matter one whit what motives you or I want to ascribe to that change, the fact is he's standing up for the right thing now, but that still isn't good enough for you.

[Orrex]

202. You're right. I don't believe it.

And if any other political figure had undertaken such a profound and similarly well-timed reversal of position, I'm pretty sure you'd question the motives as well.

Curious that in this case you do not, other than to (tepidly) allow that political expediency may have played a role.

[Forkboy]

204. I did question it. It almost stopped me from voting for him.

And I wouldn't have voted for him over it if I hadn't spoken to some very intelligent women in my life who all said they were glad he changed his position, regardless of why he did so. So, that charge is wrong. You're making a lot of assumptions tonight but have no evidence of what you speak. First about DK, and now about me.

I'm curious as to why this is such a huge issue for you. Are you glad he's now doing the right thing or not? You can't even muster up support for his 100% NARAL rating, not even tepid support, yet you act like women's rights are a huge deal to you. Which is it?

You're right. I don't believe it.

Then stop acting like he owes you another explanation. It's clear his reasons don't matter to you, so why act like it does? You should have been this honest in the first place and we could have saved some time responding back and forth, as discussion on the topic is clearly a wasted effort. You're not really interested in his reasons, you just think you have a gotcha against DK.

[Orrex]

205. You criticize me for having an unchangeable opinion of him, yet you're doing the same

Despite your most recent post, I've seen nothing to suggest that you would seriously consider dropping your support for Kucinich. You may not be a "fawning acolyte," but it's pretty clear that you're not interested in revising your opinion of him.

And, since you're making assumptions about me, you can hardly complain when I do the same about you.

Despite your assumption, I didn't say that I couldn't believe it; I said that I don't. His explanation to date has been insufficient to explain the conspicuous timing of his epiphany, and those "very intelligent women in" your life don't change that. Some very intelligent women in my life think that he's full of shit. So whose "intelligent women" friends are right?

In any case, his voting record subsequent to the well-timed change isn't sufficient to convince me of the sincerity of that change, either, and for a very simple reason; he could hardly have continued his long record of anti-choice votes after he'd made a public show of having seen the light. Therefore he needs his votes after 2003 to be consistent with his professed new stance, or else he'd be revealed as a hypocrite. Maybe that's not proof of insincerity, but neither does it prove his sincerity.

And if you're willing to accept that "he changed his position, regardless of why he did so," then you're acknowledging that Kucinich is no more a man of principle than any other politician who adopts opinions for reasons of political expediency. So then we can abandon the much-favored meme that he's a lonely voice of integrity in a sea of conflicted interests.

It's clear his reasons don't matter to you, so why act like it does?

That's another foolish assumption, and it indicates very clearly that you haven't understood anything I've posted. His reasons are transparent and his explanation insufficient, and it matters very deeply to me because he's all but worshiped here by quite a few here on DU, and I'm sick of being painted (not by you, but by others) as a Freeper or a shill or a sheep or a DLC Kool-Aid Drinker or whatever just simply because I don't prostrate myself before his sainted image.

[Forkboy]

206. Show me something that negates his other stances, otherwise why would I stop supporting him?

You haven't shown me anything or told me anything that supports your assertion that he did it for political reasons. You have a hunch, like me, and that's it. I need more than that if you want me to seriously reconsider revising my support for him. Hunches don't cut it. He's done numerous good things, and some bad things, and by a ratio not many other Dems can claim over this last decade. This issue we're discussing won't change my mind because I've already pondered it years ago, and while I have reservations on how and why the change came about, the change itself is a positive. And I can't think of too many people who were not only right about so much while Bush was in office, but who had the guts to say so. It will take more than our hunches to negate that.

Despite your assumption, I didn't say that I couldn't believe it; I said that I don't.

Which amounts to basically a quibble over semantics. I asked what he could do to make you think he's sincere. You answered what he could do. I said he already did what you asked. You said it wasn't good enough. Now you say that even his votes since then aren't good enough. What else is left that he can do to convince you that he hasn't already done? How can his own votes, votes that have earned him a perfect rating from groups that support reproductive issues, not count to you?

And again, what about the end result makes you unhappy? Aren't you glad he supports women's rights as well as he has since he changed his mind? I don't get the anger over this at all. Is a flip flop bad if the end result is the right thing?

In any case, his voting record subsequent to the well-timed change isn't sufficient to convince me of the sincerity of that change, either, and for a very simple reason; he could hardly have continued his long record of anti-choice votes after he'd made a public show of having seen the light.

Circular reasoning, and another example of him being damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Maybe he really DID see the light. You're convinced it's all fake, and even said that you think he might STILL be against women's rights, despite his perfect voting record in that time. Again, he can't win with you and the position you've staked out. No one could. If he votes against these things you're mad. If he votes for them it's just a cover (and how is that bit of paranoia all that different from DK supporters accusing you of being a shill?).

Maybe that's not proof of insincerity, but neither does it prove his sincerity.

It proves that his votes were the right ones to make and that those votes have helped women around the country. Sincere or not? I don't give a fuck because the votes are the right ones to make. I'm too cynical to expect any politician to be overly sincere. I don't mind being pandered to when it's for the right causes, and DK's votes since his conversion are just that, the right ones for a good cause. If that's worthy of damning then we're more screwed than I already suspect (a hard to fathom concept).

And if you're willing to accept that "he changed his position, regardless of why he did so," then you're acknowledging that Kucinich is no more a man of principle than any other politician who adopts opinions for reasons of political expediency.

Yes and no. Firstly, with my low opinion of politicians I don't really see very many as true men/women of principle, certainly not at the level of politics we're discussing. But, having said that, there are degrees, and some ARE more principled than others. In D.C. there's no way to remain entirely true to one's principles, but some try more than others. Sherrod Brown, for instance, is no Joe Lieberman, though both have had to compromise on their principles at one time or another. And DK is no different. He compromises a lot less than many others, and that's both his strength and his weakness.

So then we can abandon the much-favored meme that he's a lonely voice of integrity in a sea of conflicted interests.

Only if we can abandon the meme that DK is a purist as well. It can't be both.

and it matters very deeply to me because he's all but worshiped here by quite a few here on DU, and I'm sick of being painted (not by you, but by others) as a Freeper or a shill or a sheep or a DLC Kool-Aid Drinker or whatever just simply because I don't prostrate myself before his sainted image.

It sounds like your real issue is with some of his supporters, and are just latching onto this pro-choice angle as a way to try to get to them for their slights against you. Let me ask you an honest question. What positions of DK's are so bad, and do they outnumber his good positions? For me it's not even close, but I understand that you're not me (be glad lol).

For the record, the charges of being paid shills, freepers, etc, are as useless and counterproductive as the ones saying DK is a purist, and the only real effect either has is to further divide the party. We're in the process of another 90's unfolding within this party, and neither side seems to care as much about that as scoring points for the fans in the cheap seats, all but assuring that the split grows wider. Both sides seem to think they can survive without the other, and both are dead wrong. As we may find out if things keep going down the path we've let ourselves walk back down.

[grahamhgreen]

153. The bill sucks....nt

[winyanstaz]

154. Dennis voted exactly right for the people and he has principles...

Something which is apparently beyond some peoples ability to relate to or understand.
They hate Dennis because he stands up like a man and speaks the truth to power and to the world.

[Orrex]

160. Is Lieberman's forthcoming NO vote likewise a result of Joe's principles?

Or is Kucinich the only one whose votes reflect his principled nature?

[winyanstaz]

183. lieberman will vote for whatever the republicans want...

and since he hasnt voted yet...please dont hold your breath.

[Orrex]

190. So Lieberman's NO vote is unprincipled, but Kucinich's NO vote is principled.

Got it.

And in twenty years, when people are looking through the roll call of House votes, I'm sure there'll be a footnote praising Dennis for the unflinching principles that led him to cast the same vote as Lieberman (likely) and the other Republicans.

[winyanstaz]

193. so why cant you learn to read?

Lieberman has not voted yet so your arguement has no merit at this time.
I also say Kucinich has principles because he is consistent about standing up for the taxpayers. Lieberman is only consistent with being a traitor.
The Republicans are not fighting this bill...they WANT it to pass and be a DEMOCRAT bill..so they can point to it and scream about how it was the Dem's that denied women equal rights and the Dem's fault that women will die in the alleys again from lack of ability to get an abortion when needed and this will give them the perfect amunition for the next election.
So there is my answer..read it this time because I mean what I write..and not whatever off the wall conjecture you can imagine.
I will not be answering any more posts from you...but you are entitled to your own opinion. This one is mine.

[bertman]

169. Thank you, Jack. Recommend.

[bobbolink]

173. Rep. Betsy Markey, D-CO also voted against.

I heard something briefly on the radio that she has now garnered 30-some signatures, mostly from women Reps, expressing their displeasure on how women's issues were handled.

[BlueJac]

176. People call that bill reform...............

I will have to buy insurance and I am unemployed, fucking great country we live in. Sell outs to insurance companies suck!

[Cha]

184. Dennis isn't dangerous.

[shadowknows69]

195. Well said Mr. Riddler. +1

[Agony]

203. Exactly. QUICK! build another warehouse! We need MORE dry powder!

Wait... I don't quite understand the "odd comfort" part. Are you power hungry?

In,
Agony