Can anyone explain these Kucinich votes

[ProSense]

on principle.

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)

Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)

Voted NO on end offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004)

“I oppose H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,”

[bigtree]

1. that's what you're here for

. . . presumably.

[ProSense]

4. Bravery? n/t

[bigtree]

5. inanity

[Go2Peace]

38. Prosense ... for the last 20 hours you have posted one of these every half hour. A little narcisist?

What is your purpose? Sure, eventually you will wear people down and then you and the other haters can enjoy talking to the choir.
Why don't you actually try dialog and maturity? You are never going to convince intelligent people that DK is a Republican, because everyone here knows that is not true, even most of those who don't much care for him.

What is REALLY your point?

[ProSense]

42. "What is your purpose?" "What is REALLY your point?"

Criticizing Kucinich. Is that OK with you?

[Go2Peace]

45. Well, OK. That was an honest answer at least. Do you think it is effective?

[ProSense]

46. Not for me to judge.

Just calling it as I see it.

[MrMickeysMom]

79. Have you examined similarly with other House members?

Surely you'll see some votes that don't seem congruent with their "mission and vision" when comparing these other members.

I don't say this because I've compared every members voting record for consistency, but wherever I've lived, I've seen inconsistency.

I've never seen anyone as focused on what I consider to be THE principles/platform of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party as Dennis Kuchinich is.

That counts a Hell of a lot more than the votes you brought up.

[Bluebear]

2. No, do tell.

:crazy:

[ProSense]

6. Conscience of DU? n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

3. No, but I think I can explain the purpose of this OP:

[ProSense]

8. Thank God?

:rofl:

[geek tragedy]

9. Indeed,. Any criticism of St. Dennis the Irrelevant is invalid

and should be decried for the outrage it is.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

11. I didn't say that. But there are already 15+ threads on Kucinich.

[spoony]

18. Most of them by this OP

Seems some have a wee obsession, and they want us ALL to share it.

[bertman]

34. Is that a rectal thermometer, SemiCharmedQuark??

:hi:

[NYC_SKP]

37. Actually, I found it enlightening. I did not know DK's voting record.

Prosense always brings good links and data.

I'm a fanboy.

[Luminous Animal]

52. Here is where ProSense cherry picked.

For which, by the way, ProSense provided no links. Kucinich's record is extensive and decidedly Democratic.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich_VoteMatch.htm

[freddie mertz]

61. Conclusion on that link:

"Dennis Kucinich is a Hard-Core Liberal."

Strongly FAVORs women's abortion rights, opportunities for women and minorities, same-sex domestic partner benefits, federal funding for health coverage, alternative energy sources, more progressive taxation, citizenship for illegal aliens, withdrawal from Iraq.

Opposes prayer in public schools, Strongly Opposes the death penalty, drug criminalization, "free trade", the Patriot Act, increased defense spending,

Sounds like a Republican to me (NOT).

[Go2Peace]

41. And this --> -->

[geek tragedy]

7. How DARE you criticize Saint Dennis the Irrelevant? nt

[Forkboy]

65. For an irrelevant guy he sure has you bent out of shape.

Not that that seems hard to do. You fly off the handle if someone says Obama's tie is crooked.

[eleny]

10. At one time he wasn't pro choice but then his thinking changed

That's the only thing that came to mind as I scanned your list.

Sometimes he votes against a bill if it doesn't go far enough for him.

[Odin2005]

30. Yeah, his thinking changed when he decided to run for presiden in 2003.

How CONVENIENT!!! :eyes:

[progressivebydesign]

59. +1 n/t

[DJ13]

12. I cant wait until people stop criticizing one vote of one man

And start recognizing its not Kucinich thats the enemy, its the mass defections of the blue dogs in yesterdays vote that shows who is the enemy.

[geek tragedy]

13. Well, according to the Kucinich people, all 219 Democrats

who voted for it are corrupt sellouts doing the bidding of the insurance companies.

[DJ13]

16. They're only replying to the 100 posts criticizing him

Seriously, his vote is unimportant compared to the 20+ blue dogs who crossed the line.

I will say that if I supported the blue dogs I would get everyone to concentrate on Kucinich to take the heat off.

[quakerboy]

54. As are the 38 blue dogs voting against

and all the rest of the repubs, on general principal. Makes for an interesting, if somewhat depressing worldview.

[geek tragedy]

14. Kucinich's Theorem:

No matter how awful his vote his, it's always okay because he must have had an awesome reason for doing it.

[tonysam]

+1,000 n/t

[rollingrock]

15. Do you have a source for these claims?

since you do seem to have a habit of spreading misinformation, I can't just take your word for it.

[ProSense]

17. "you do seem to have a habit of spreading misinformation" What?

You doubt these are Kucinich's votes?

:rofl:

[rollingrock]

20. I debunked your original posts at least three times today

excuse me if I don't just take your word on anything.

[ProSense]

24. Debunked? You mean the one where you're claiming that Kucinich thinks the CBO score is "misleading"

This one?

Convenient.

[rollingrock]

28. and you claimed that Kucinich agreed with the CBO's score

which is patently false.

[ProSense]

29. I said no such thing. You on the other hand.... n/t

[geek tragedy]

21. Corollary to Kucinich's Theorem:

If it's bad, and it's about Dennis Kucinich, it isn't true.

[rollingrock]

32. Yes, because cherry-picking a handful of votes

out of hundreds he has made over the years, without providing any context, isn't honest but is always a great thing to do when you are attempting to smear your opponent.

[ProSense]

48. Still, his votes. n/t

[flvegan]

19. I can't get past the irony of your username.

Sorry.

[ProSense]

27. No explanation, huh? n/t

[flvegan]

31. Like I said.

Besides, it wouldn't matter the response. Your mental masturbation over the topic "Kucinich" limits the value of my time in doing so.

[Luminous Animal]

51. It's given me a laugh now and then.

[underseasurveyor]

56. +1000 LOL

That should be a sure duzy if there ever was one :thumbsup::thumbsup:

:rofl:

[many a good man]

22. That's not fair. Those votes came before his conversion

He used to be a good pro-life Catholic boy until Shirley MacLaine and her friends talked some sense into him.

[tonysam]

25. +1,000 n/t

[Odin2005]

33. You mean when you needed to flip-flop when he tried to run for the Dem Nomination in 2003?

[Luminous Animal]

53. Flip-flop. Flip-flop.

Now where have I heard that? Hmmmmm.

[Bluebear]

63. That rings a bell, doesn't it?

Let me think. :eyes:

[Forkboy]

67. The people bringing up his stance on this are being highly inane.

The fact is that Kucinich has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL, yet some of these people act like DK should never have changed his view and should still be anti-choice just to be consistent, as if that helps the women they claim to care about. Hello people, flip flops are good when the flop is for the right thing.

[Forkboy]

66. You support women's rights. Would you rather DK still didn't?

Or are you happy he's standing for the right thing now?

[enigmatic]

23. .

[rollingrock]

26. Have you heard of something called Google?

you can easily find his reasons for these votes by looking them up yourself.

[bertman]

36. But, but it's so much more fun to stir up shit. Please don't confuse NoSense with facts, rrock.

[rollingrock]

40. Indeed

posting flamebait threads seems to be a hobby for some people.

[ProSense]

43. Look, dirtman, name calling is childish. n/t

[bertman]

57. You misspelled it, NoSense. It's Dertman, to you.

:evilgrin:

[ProSense]

44. Actually, I can't

find the real reasons like "bravery" and "conscience" of the party on Google. Just trying to keep up.

[Forkboy]

69. The OP doesn't want the reasons. It's just gotcha, Fox News style.

[rwheeler31]

35. Purity votes accomplish nothing.

[bertman]

39. Wrong. They insure that one's self-esteem and clear conscience are intact for future votes.

[progressivebydesign]

60. disagree. If that's his motive then, he needs to get a different job.

the voters should not be subjected to his self esteem issues and saint-complex. Glad that HE feels better about himself, but that's not his job.

[bertman]

62. You forget that Rep. Kucinich has been representing his voters for many years. THEY RE-ELECT

him precisely because they appreciate his honesty, his candor, and his willingness to fight against the party conformity that is such a scourge on Capitol Hill.

[bstender]

49. It allows him to stand up and make a speech that cuts to the core of this sham

your other generalities notwithstanding

how anyone can think this health care bill is a win for the people is republican-class clueless.

[Greyhound]

47. Of course, but why would anyone bother?

But please, continue to spam the board with this nonsense that's been covered ad nauseum for years.

[Luminous Animal]

50. The first 3, he was anti-abortion.

Thus, he voted his convictions. I've not problem with that but, at the time, if he were a candidate in my district, I'd be looking for another candidate. In 2003, after he became pro-choice, he voted the opposite. Again, voting his convictions. I've no problem with a person changing their mind on an issue. Even a big one. I've changed my position of the death penalty and the fact that I have changed my opinion does not diminish that opinion.

The 4th vote (flag burning) is just flat out stupid. A stupidity that seems to shared by many of our Dems in congress.

The 5th was an extraordinary complicated bill which, while touting the name of "American Jobs Creation Act" (a farce and had nothing to do with creating American jobs) was really a cumbersome bill of closing some tax loopholes while creating others. Perhaps, Kucinich objected to the creation of new loopholes.

And finally:

“I oppose H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The reason is simple. It won’t address the problem. In fact, it might make the problem worse.

“It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term, and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods. It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the problem that should be on its way out– coal – by giving it record subsidies. And it is rounded out with massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense. There is $60 billion for a single technology which may or may not work, but which enables coal power plants to keep warming the planet at least another 20 years.

“Worse, the bill locks us into a framework that will fail. Science tells us that immediately is not soon enough to begin repairing the planet. Waiting another decade or more will virtually guarantee catastrophic levels of warming. But the bill does not require any greenhouse gas reductions beyond current levels until 2030.

“Today’s bill is a fragile compromise, which leads some to claim that we cannot do better. I respectfully submit that not only can we do better; we have no choice but to do better. Indeed, if we pass a bill that only creates the illusion of addressing the problem, we walk away with only an illusion. The price for that illusion is the opportunity to take substantive action.

“There are several aspects of the bill that are problematic.

1. Overall targets are too weak. The bill is predicated on a target atmospheric concentration of 450 parts per million, a target that is arguably justified in the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but which is already out of date. Recent science suggests 350 parts per million is necessary to help us avoid the worst effects of global warming.

2. The offsets undercut the emission reductions. Offsets allow polluters to keep polluting; they are rife with fraudulent claims of emissions reduction; they create environmental, social, and economic unintended adverse consequences; and they codify and endorse the idea that polluters do not have to make sacrifices to solve the problem.

3. It kicks the can down the road. By requiring the bulk of the emissions to be carried out in the long term and requiring few reductions in the short term, we are not only failing to take the action when it is needed to address rapid global warming, but we are assuming the long term targets will remain intact.

4. EPA’s authority to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the short- to medium-term is rescinded. It is our best defense against a new generation of coal power plants. There is no room for coal as a major energy source in a future with a stable climate.

5. Nuclear power is given a lifeline instead of phasing it out. Nuclear power is far more expensive, has major safety issues including a near release in my own home state in 2002, and there is still no resolution to the waste problem. A recent study by Dr. Mark Cooper showed that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than to generate the same amount of electricity from energy efficiency and renewables.

6. Dirty Coal is given a lifeline instead of phasing it out. Coal-based energy destroys entire mountains, kills and injures workers at higher rates than most other occupations, decimates ecologically sensitive wetlands and streams, creates ponds of ash that are so toxic the Department of Homeland Security will not disclose their locations for fear of their potential to become a terrorist weapon, and fouls the air and water with sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and thousands of other toxic compounds that cause asthma, birth defects, learning disabilities, and pulmonary and cardiac problems for starters. In contrast, several times more jobs are yielded by renewable energy investments than comparable coal investments.

7. The $60 billion allocated for Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is triple the amount of money for basic research and development in the bill. We should be pressuring China, India and Russia to slow and stop their power plants now instead of enabling their perpetuation. We cannot create that pressure while spending unprecedented amounts on a single technology that may or may not work. If it does not work on the necessary scale, we have then spent 10-20 years emitting more CO2, which we cannot afford to do. In addition, those who will profit from the technology will not be viable or able to stem any leaks from CCS facilities that may occur 50, 100, or 1000 years from now.

8. Carbon markets can and will be manipulated using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial crisis.

9. It is regressive. Free allocations doled out with the intent of blunting the effects on those of modest means will pale in comparison to the allocations that go to polluters and special interests. The financial benefits of offsets and unlimited banking also tend to accrue to large corporations. And of course, the trillion dollar carbon derivatives market will help Wall Street investors. Much of the benefits designed to assist consumers are passed through coal companies and other large corporations, on whom we will rely to pass on the savings.

10. The Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) is not an improvement. The 15% RES standard would be achieved even if we failed to act.

11. Dirty energy options qualify as “renewable”: The bill allows polluting industries to qualify as “renewable energy.” Trash incinerators not only emit greenhouse gases, but also emit highly toxic substances. These plants disproportionately expose communities of color and low-income to the toxics. Biomass burners that allow the use of trees as a fuel source are also defined as “renewable.” Under the bill, neither source of greenhouse gas emissions is counted as contributing to global warming.

12. It undermines our bargaining position in international negotiations in Copenhagen and beyond. As the biggest per capita polluter, we have a responsibility to take action that is disproportionately stronger than the actions of other countries. It is, in fact, the best way to preserve credibility in the international context.

13. International assistance is much less than demanded by developing countries. Given the level of climate change that is already in the pipeline, we are going to need to devote major resources toward adaptation. Developing countries will need it the most, which is why they are calling for much more resources for adaptation and technology transfer than is allocated in this bill. This will also undercut our position in Copenhagen.

“I offered eight amendments and cosponsored two more that collectively would have turned the bill into an acceptable starting point. All amendments were not allowed to be offered to the full House. Three amendments endeavored to minimize the damage that will be done by offsets, a method of achieving greenhouse gas reductions that has already racked up a history of failure to reduce emissions – increasing emissions in some cases – while displacing people in developing countries who rely on the land for their well being.

“Three other amendments would have made the federal government a force for change by requiring all federal energy to eventually come from renewable resources, by requiring the federal government to transition to electric and plug-in hybrid cars, and by requiring the installation of solar panels on government rooftops and parking lots. These provisions would accelerate the transition to a green economy.

“Another amendment would have moved up the year by which reductions of greenhouse gas emissions were required from 2030 to 2025. It would have encouraged the efficient use of allowances and would have reduced opportunities for speculation by reducing the emission value of an allowance by a third each year.

“The last amendment would have removed trash incineration from the definition of renewable energy. Trash incineration is one of the primary sources of environmental injustice in the country. It a primary source of compounds in the air known to cause cancer, asthma, and other chronic diseases. These facilities are disproportionately sited in communities of color and communities of low income. Furthermore, incinerators emit more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity produced than coal-fired power plants.

“Passing a weak bill today gives us weak environmental policy tomorrow,” said Kucinich.

[girl gone mad]

55. Can anyone explain..

why you waste so much time attacking progressives who take principled positions that starkly contrast to the corrupt, corporate-controlled party "centrists"?

[Bluebear]

64. :crickets:

[ProSense]

70. Can you explain to me why Kucinich's opinions are

more valid than Weiner's and these progressives:

Barbara Lee Releases Statement On Passage of Health Care for America Act

Washington D.C. – Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) released the following statement today after the House of Representatives approved H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act:

“Today’s historic vote is one step forward in our quest to provide health care to all Americans.

“While there is still much work to do, I applaud President Obama, Democratic Leadership and the Chairmen of the Tri-Committees for their efforts to bring us to this point.

“I also want to thank in the Tri-Caucus, Progressives Caucus and particularly the 42 members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Together we have led the fight for a strong public option, which is included in the health care bill that the House approved today.

“When others were pronouncing health reform dying—and the public option dead and buried—we kept on fighting! And we will keep fighting until a final health care bill is on the president’s desk that includes not only a strong public option, but provisions to achieve health equity, eliminate health disparities and to limit the rate of increase for those with private plans.

“We have and will continue to champion issues such as the need for support for patients with end stage renal disease, for children’s mental health, and dental care, workforce pipeline issues, and expansion of community health centers.

“These provisions and others attack the many causes of health disparities, and we fought to get them in. Under the leadership of Congresswoman Donna M. Christensen, we have also championed expansion of the Office of Minority Health because we need a comprehensive way to address minority health across agencies.

“Finally, because we know that 85 percent of Americans are in private insurance, under the leadership of Rep. Donna Edwards, we fought to have included cost containment provisions to keep premiums reasonable. We know that the American people want and deserve affordable health care. We also know that this bill is cost effective for our country, and for American families watching their budgets.

“This was a historic vote, but we must keep up the fight until we have a final bill on the president’s desk. Health care should not just be a privilege for a few; it should and must be a basic human right in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world.”

CONGRESSMAN GRAYSON PROUDLY SUPPORTS AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR AMERICA ACT

November 7, 2009 9:18 PM (Washington, DC) – Congressman Alan Grayson voted tonight in favor of the Affordable Health Care for America Act. The bill (H.R. 3962) will deliver life, health, and peace of mind to the tens of millions of people in the United States who do not have health insurance.

Congressman Grayson said, “I promised from the start to vote for any bill that saves money and saves lives. This bill does both. This bill will help save the lives of the nearly 45,000 Americans who die every year because they do not have health insurance,” Congressman Grayson said.

Congressman Grayson never wavered in his support of health care reform. Leading up to the vote, he personally spoke with hundreds of constituents, to listen to their concerns and answer their questions. Since August, he has held three health care town halls, a health care telephone town hall meeting, and dozens of other open meetings; consulted with the members of his Health Care Advisory Board; and considered the overwhelming number of calls and emails from constituents.

Congressman Grayson said, “A lot of people say they love America. To them I say, ‘it’s not enough to love what’s in America. You cannot just love the Appalachian Mountains, the Mohave Desert, or the Gulf Coast. You need to love Americans as well. And loving people means taking care of them, sheltering the homeless, feeding the hungry, and healing the sick.’”

The Affordable Health Care for America Act received broad support from hundreds of important and influential organizations including the AARP, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce, and Voto Latino.

Conyers: House Health Care Bill Will Save Lives While Fight for Single Payer Continues

WASHINGTON D.C. — Congressman John Conyers, Jr (D-MI) issued the following statement today applauding the passage of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

“Today, I joined my Democratic colleagues in support of the Affordable Healthcare for America Act. While the bill is far from perfect, I supported it because it will expand access to health insurance to 96 percent of Americans, end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, help our seniors by closing the prescription drug benefit donut hole, and increase competition and choice with a public insurance option.”

In the near term, these reforms will improve and save American lives while we continue to fight for single payer health care at the state and national levels. I will vote for this bill because the cost of inaction is too high. Each year, 44,000 people die because they do not have access to insurance. Without reform, this number will rise, Americans will be at greater risk of losing their coverage, and our business community will continue to fall behind international competitors as their future profits are drained by burdensome health care costs.

Grijalva explained a couple of the highlights he says are in the bill. He told us there's no pre-existing condition denial, meaning if a person has a pre-existing condition they can't be denied services. He also said this bill will extend benefits to millions of American's who don't otherwise have an opportunity to receive health care coverage.

Representative Grijalva said, "It's not as strong as many of us wanted it, but it does provide for private insurances a competitive competition that will keep costs lower and make some of the premiums we see and some of the costs that we see from private insurance carriers are going to have to reduce their costs to compete with this public option."

link

Kucinich's vote sucked!

[WeDidIt]

58. Two words

Closet Republican.

[Forkboy]

68. Two words.

You're insane.

[flvegan]

72. Two words

You're right.

[Bluebear]

74. Two words

I agree.

[Forkboy]

73. The ratings for this closet Republican.

Rated 64% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record.
Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance.
Rated 94% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance.
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.
Rated 80% by CURE, indicating pro-rehabilitation crime votes.
Rated +10 by NORML, indicating a pro-drug-reform stance.
Rated 90% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence.
Rated 100% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection
Rated 85% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record.
Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record.
Rated 92% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation.
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record.
Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation.

You're clearly not someone with a strong grasp on reality.

[johnnie]

71. .

:boring:

[Cali_Democrat]

75. Thank you for shining the light on that fraud, Dennis Kucinich

He reminds me of a strange cult leader that is trying to get everyone to drink the poison.

Hopefully he will be the only one.

He even looks like a strange cult leader. :rofl:

[Bluebear]

76. 'He even looks like a strange cult leader. ROFL!' -- Wow.

[Cali_Democrat]

77. ZOMG!!! WOWZA!!!

:eyes:

[Bluebear]

81. I'd expect no different a response.

[Cali_Democrat]

82. I'm glad I lived up to your "expectations"

Like I care anyways.

[Bluebear]

84. Run along and make fun of someone else's physical appearance now.

/ignore

[H2O Man]

78. please stop it

[dugaresa]

80. as I recall, Dennis openly opposed abortion but when he ran for president

in 2004, he changed his mind.

Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)

Voted NO on end offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004)

As for the votes above, I have no clue but it could be because of other issues he wanted that were tagged with those bills???

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

83. He didn't "change his mind."

He changed his *position* since nobody is going to vote for an opponent of womens' rights in a Democratic Presidential primary. Turns out nobody wanted to vote for him anyway.