Let's thank Kucinich for these "supreme" votes

[ProSense]

• Vote 906: H R 976: In this 265 to 159 vote the House passed an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. No
  
  
• Vote 624: H R 2956: This bill would require the president to begin reducing the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq 120 days after its enactment and would require most troops to be withdrawn by April 1, 2008. No
  
  
• Vote 186: H R 1591: The bill offers supplemental appropriations to help the United States fight the global war on terror, among other things. However, President Bush has vowed to veto the bill because it includes a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. No
  
  
• 3/5/09 Vote 97: H RES 205: Providing for Further Consideration of the Bill (H.R. 1106) to Prevent Mortgage Foreclosures and Enhance Mortgage Credit Availability No
  
  
• 4/2/09 Vote 192: H CON RES 85: Congressional Budget for Fiscal Year 2010 No
  
  
• 6/26/09 Vote 465: H RES 587: Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act No
  
  
• 6/26/09 Vote 477: H R 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act No
  
  
• 7/8/09 Vote 486: H R 2965: Enhancing Small Business Research and Innovation Act No
  
  
• 7/17/09 Vote 592: H R 3183: Making Appropriations for Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies, Fy 2010 No
  
  
• 9/17/09 Vote 718: H R 3221: Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 No
  
  
• 10/1/09 Vote 752: H R 3183: Making Appropriations for Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies, Fy 2010 No
  
  
• 11/7/09 Vote 887: H R 3962: Affordable Health Care for America Act No

link

Climate change bill, a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, one of the most progressive budgets in history, student aid and preventing foreclosures are not good enough to warrant Kucinich's supreme vote.

[redqueen]

1. You forgot the flag-burning thing and the Christian religion thing.

:evilgrin:

[ProSense]

2. See how fast the so-called progressives with one eye shut try to bury the facts

Why not come on in and defend these votes. Explain why these bills weren't good enough and didn't deserve to be passed.

[Peacetrain]

3. Are you kidding me? I have never followed Kucinich because I live in the Midwest

But I had this impression he was a liberal democrat.. Not voting for Children s Health Care? Voting No on nearly every big Democratic initiative..

I am sorry, but who is this guy?

[redqueen]

5. He's very liberal... he's just not a hero with a halo.

Did you see the list of Stupak's votes recently?

People are people... and no two of them are going to agree 100% on everything, ever.

:hi:

[ProSense]

9. It's hilarious to watch a group doing exactly what they project onto other: worship a politician n/t

[Luminous Animal]

29. It is hilarious to see you post misinformation and watch your sycophants

fall into line. At least two of those "no" votes were actually "yes" votes.

[Enthusiast]

84. No Kucinich supporter "worships" him.

It's hilarious to watch you lie and mischaracterize our support for a "good" Democrat.

[OnyxCollie]

90. Yes, Kucinich voted against SCHIP.

He voted against it because it wouldn't cover the children of legal immigrants. After all, why should they be covered? Fuck 'em, right?

He also voted against the FISA bill because blanket warrants don't do shit to protect Americans' 4th Amendment rights. But, hey, if you've got nothing to hide... BTW, Biden voted against the Senate bill, Obama voted for it.

The poster omitted those details because that would screw up her little smear campaign.

[rudy23]

4. You're only backing up my theory that the Dennis bashing is orchestrated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6022082

Who goes after Dennis on a progressive board this virulently in their spare time?

[BzaDem]

6. Have you ever considered the possibility that it is you that is wrong, instead of others?

You see many people post threads against Kucinich, often containing facts as opposed to (or in addition to) opinion. For example, this thread has a large number of progressive policies (that got the votes of essentially if not actually every other progressive), but that Kucinich did not vote for.

Have you ever considered that instead of a massive conspiracy against Kucinich, that maybe in fact your views on Kucinich are the ones that are wrong (from a progressive perspective)? That you might be mistaken, instead of the "Kucinich bashers" being mistaken?

[sabrina 1]

80. You need to look closer at the votes and who else

voted 'no' with Kucinich. Would you eg, say that John Lewis is not a progressive, or Maxine Waters?

That is the problem with a selective list that deliberately provides no other information. You have been led to believe by this list, that Kucinich alone, voted against progressive bills. Do a little research and your impressions of why he voted as he did, might change. And who else agreed with him.

[ProSense]

7. Bashing? Count the number of post criticizing Obama, which the posters have a right to do,

and get back to me. Kucinich may be "supremely right" to some, but he's not above criticism. Period.

[EFerrari]

12. Putting up a list of votes out of context is not criticism.

It is just bashing because it's not an argument.

[ProSense]

14. Right, but putting up a list of votes to show how progressive one is

makes sense?

Hypocrisy. He voted no against expanding SCHIP.

[EFerrari]

40. You can't dispute what I said so you have to revise my statement?

I don't think there's anyone here who still mistakes you for a Kucinich supporter, Prosense. And I remember the SCHIP argument. Dennis wasn't the only one that objected to all the kids left out. Children living in poverty and squalor are a national shame. The UN thinks so, too.

UN investigator accuses US of shameful neglect of homeless

Source: Guardian

UN special rapporteur says wealthy US ignoring deepening homeless crisis while pumping billions into bank rescues

A United Nations special investigator who was blocked from visiting the US by the Bush administration has accused the American government of pouring billions of dollars into rescuing banks and big business while treating as "invisible" a deepening homeless crisis.

Raquel Rolnik, the UN special rapporteur for the right to adequate housing, who has just completed a seven-city tour of America, said it was shameful that a country as wealthy as the US was not spending more money on lifting its citizens out of homelessness and substandard, overcrowded housing.

"The housing crisis is invisible for many in the US," she said. "I learned through this visit that real affordable housing and poverty is something that hasn't been dealt with as an issue. Even if we talk about the financial crisis and government stepping in in order to promote economic recovery, there is no such help for the homeless."

She added: "I think those who are suffering the most in this whole situation are the very poor, the low-income population. The burden is disproportionately on them and it's of course disproportionately on African-Americans, on Latinos and immigrant communities, and on Native Americans."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4143956&mesg_id=4143956

[OnyxCollie]

94. Do you know WHY?

He voted against it because it wouldn't cover the children of legal immigrants. Apparently, denying coverage to children of legal immigrants is okay with you.

If the Stupak amendment makes it into the final healthcare bill, I expect you will have no problem with women being denied coverage from healthcare providers for abortions.

As a male, it won't affect me. As a female, you've got skin in the game. Are you gonna be cool with that? Or are you gonna be a hypocrite?

[HughMoran]

17. HA! ...& that never happens to Obama

Your criticism is valid, but misses the point completely.

[EFerrari]

41. I think those lists are stupid, too.

lol

:hi:

[HughMoran]

52. Then it's agreed that tit-for-tat is an annoying aspect of DU

:)

:hi:

[Luminous Animal]

24. He voted yes on at least two of them. (No time to look up others)

So the list is wrong, anyway.

[ProSense]

27. No, he voted yes and then no. n/t

7/17/09 Vote 592: H R 3183: Making Appropriations for Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies, Fy 2010 No

7/17/09 Vote 591: H R 3183: Making Appropriations for Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies, Fy 2010 Yes


The earlier vote is yes, the final vote is no.

[geek tragedy]

26. Posting someone's voting history is bashing? nt

[EFerrari]

51. Evidence doesn't speak for itself. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. I wouldn't want to talk those votes either if I were a Kucinich supporter either

[sabrina 1]

78. Why? For example

On just one of them, H R 1591, Kucinich was joined by Reps John Lewis, Michael McNulty, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey and others. Are they on the 'let's bash Progressives' list also?

None of them appear to not want to talk about their votes, in fact all of them did.

That bill provided billions in funding for wars most Democrats did not support, and the withdrawal meant 'leaving troops there' for 'protection'. That is not withdrawing. Especially when you are providing billions to fund the war in the same bill.

[HughMoran]

15. lol - you are strangely paranoid about this issue

WTF is your obsession with anything critical of Kucinich?

It's almost as funny as those who say they're being "suppressed" when people complain about the continuous Obama bashing here - which I've noticed you have no issue with at all - hmmm.

[dionysus]

19. because in his mind dennis is some kind of superhero being held back by some enormous conspiracy.

he can't accept the fact that the dude in completely inconsequential.

[Luminous Animal]

23. I only had time to look up three of the votes. And 2 out of 3 on list are wrong.

[EFerrari]

42. So, how do you know this? Are you Kreskin? Or?

[rudy23]

59. No, I think he represents true progressives, and he (and we) are getting attacked for it.

If I were Obama, I wouldn't want a respected progressive pointing out every time I sold progressives out, either. I'd probably want to smear him somehow.

[dionysus]

62. you think obama has some kind of campaign to smear dennis? LOL

i doubt dennis even crosses his mind...

[rudy23]

92. No, I think it's a campaign to thwart the backlash from the left over this shitty bill.

and all the other anti-progressive moves Obama has made since he took office.

Why wouldn't he try to control the message on the blogosphere? It's cheap, and anonymous. Much easier than trying to control the message on a news channel.

I doubt Dennis crosses his mind much, but I think his approval rating crosses his mind every day. The attacks on Dennis are a part of his political strategy to brand dissenters on the left as being just as unreasonable as teabaggers on the right.

Why would it be so inconceivable that Obama would want to debunk his critics from the left? That makes the most sense in the world to me.

[dionysus]

18. you give him way too much importance. he's not a threat to anything.

outside of political junkies on lefty message boards, no one even knows who the guy is.

christ, people attack obama on a daily basis for months on end, so don't cry if people are bitching about the irrelevant kucinich. he invited this shit with his vote.

[Forkboy]

65. If he's no threat why are people seemingly so obsessed with going after him?

People do the same with Nader. In one breath they say he's irrelevant and in the next they say that he cost Gore the election. It can't be both. So either Kucinich is a threat worthy of the attention he gets from people like Prosense, or he's irrelevant, making this attention border on obsession.

[rudy23]

71. Exactly. His "no" vote on the health bill meant nothing to the numbers...

but it also means a LOT to us as progressives, especially as part of the blogosphere.

Dennis represents resistance to Obama's policies from the left. Every time he pipes up, the DLC brigade will be there to put out the fire before we start getting inspired by Dennis to DO something to hold the Blue Dogs (and Obama/Rahm) accountable to their campaign promises and party affiliation.

[dionysus]

75. speaking only to what happens on DU;

it's simply a matter of a group of people simultaneously bashing the administration and obama supporters obsessively, while elevating kucinich to some kind of infallible hero status. even to the hyperbole that he's the only actual democrat in office.

when dennis voted against the bill, it pissed off the DU obama camp enough that they finally responded in kind.

and the result is amazing. people who have been railing at the administration ever since the inauguration are now shocked!!11! and surprised!!1!! their political icon is taking fire. to them, railing at the administration is some kind of noble foot-fire-holding exercise, but for someone to trash dennis is blasphemy. and then taking it to an even further level of crazy to say obama has ordered nefarious DLC plants to come to DU and post on his behalf. it's quite silly.

outside of DU and it's political junkies, hardly anyone even knows who DK is.

[redqueen]

77. +1

I love the posts talking about how criticism of St. Kooch is organized. :rofl:

[Forkboy]

86. I don't think it's out the realm of possibilities that some attacks are paid for, shall we say.

But if so, it's just as likely that a few of the DK people are working for the same side. If I was looking to disrupt a party I'd plant people on both sides to antagonize the supporters of each and get them at each others throats. Divide and conquer has been around a long time, in both war and politics, and this is fertile ground for such an exercise. Both sides might want to think about the possibility.

And using terms like St. Kooch isn't helping anymore than calling Obama a warmonger does.

[redqueen]

88. Good point...

if one was going to bother paying people money to post about Dennis (lol), then yeah, it'd make sense to play both sides against each other. I still don't think that's the case, though.

And yeah, I know saying 'St. Kooch' is doing what the other side does when they call Obama a 'fraudulent Democrat' or whatever the hell... but I'm just getting into the spirit of things is all. :) I still like a lot of what he says... won't be working for him again though... which is sad, but not very sad... more just disappointing. I used to think very much of him.

I am not taking this brouhaha seriously at all. In the big picture Kucinich is just a bit player.

[Forkboy]

95. We should be taking it seriously.

It represents much the same split that was evident in the 90's. If the people who blame Nader for all the world's ills since 2000 really care they'd look at what led to that division, and how it closely relates to what this DK/Obama tiff represents. We're playing a dangerous game, and the consequences extend further than just what's right for Democrats, it involves the whole world, which the U.S. hugely affects in both good and bad ways. We're tearing ourselves apart when we agree on 75% of the issues before us, if not more. It plays right into the opposition's hands.

I've made no bones about the fact that Obama was my next to last choice in the primaries, but have you once see me call him a warmonger or start a single negative thread about him, let alone a daily obsession with him like this OP has with DK? The OP is no better than the very people she decries, and is doing as much damage to the party as well. Both sides need to let go of the spite and bitterness and grow up. There's too much at stake to be doing this to one another. There's are ways to criticize that are respectful and thoughtful. This OP, and some of Obama's detractors, aren't among the ones that try to do so. The only purpose is to inflame, and can you explain how that's helping any of us? I can't.

[redqueen]

97. But Nader isn't to blame, right? So how is that valid?

This site is a microcosm and I sincerely doubt that a food-fight over Dennis is going to have any serious impact on elections next year.

Sure there are some people who really are that stupid... but most will decide whom to vote for in their districts and states based on the candidates or their usual criteria... not what some meano said about Dennis or Obama one day on DU.

And IMO it is the ones who take an overly-simplistic view of politics, and pretend that perfection is possible who do the most damage. But that's of course just MHO.

[Forkboy]

99. Most Dems I've seen here over the years think he is.

Technically I don't, but he didn't help. But why did so many vote for him? Why did thousands of Dems vote for Bush? What led to their dissatisfaction with Democrats, which many Greens were before being Greens, and obviously the Bush voting Dems were Dems as well. Why were so many upset enough at Dems to take their ball elsewhere?

This site is a microcosm and I sincerely doubt that a food-fight over Dennis is going to have any serious impact on elections next year.

You're missing the point. It's not really over Dennis, and it's definitely not just about the next election. And it's not confined to DU. I noticed the split in the 90's, long before DU was here. It's about the very direction of the party. Dennis is just the face of one side of the a battle between the left wing and the center, one that will only weaken us if we resort to using cheap tactics instead of honesty in our criticisms of each side. You could remove both DK and Obama from the equation and the two factions would still exist. They're just the face of the current incarnation of the split.

And IMO it is the ones who take an overly-simplistic view of politics

And the OP is guilty of doing that, just as surely as the ones she's upset with.

and pretend that perfection is possible who do the most damage.

I don't know a single person, here or in real life, who thinks perfection is possible. Every single person I know on the left has repeatedly made compromises. Your just rewording the purism charge, which is complete nonsense, and more projection than fact. Tell me, what did the center compromise in voting for a centrist?

[redqueen]

100. You're seriously asking me why Dems voted for Nader or Bush?

The reasons are myriad... I'm sure shit like Clinton pushing through NAFTA and Welfare Reform played a big part... ETA that Gore's responses to the environmental community probably didn't help him, either. That said, I don't put a whole lot of stock in the idea that it was mostly knowledgeable voters who left. Not at all. I've done enough canvassing to know there's far more ignorance out there about congress and legislation than actual knowledge. Marketing and PR is more important than facts in campaigns. It's sad, but there it is.

As for the split... yes it's real, and it's not just in the US.

I can't stop thinking about how France nearly elected Le Pen. Apparently you think many Americans still haven't learned their lesson. I suppose if not, we'll just have to go through another nightmare and hope it sinks in next time.

And as for compromise... how the hell should I know? Do you have some surveys or something? Obama was talking about Israel and Slavery and all kinds of stuff... I'm sure some of that didn't sit well with republicans who crossed over to vote for him. I'm not overly concerned though. Americans aren't babies and they really don't need to be spoonfed. Eventually they'll catch on... the only question is how much misery will it take before that happens.

[Forkboy]

81. And Obama supporters seem shocked that THEIR political icon is taking fire.

What's the difference?

to them, railing at the administration is some kind of noble foot-fire-holding exercise, but for someone to trash dennis is blasphemy.

It IS holding his feet to the fire. Obama is the president, not Kucinich. If DK was in there I'd be on his ass just as much, if not more (because I would be expecting more from him). The criticism of DK isn't blasphemy to me, it's childish revenge based out of spite, the exact thing that bothers you with their attacks on Obama. So again, what's the difference between posts like this and posts criticizing Obama? None, and both sides are acting like fucking babies over it, throwing tantrums left and right. It's pathetic.

Maybe both sides should just grow the fuck up before they take the party down. Did anyone learn anything from the 90's? In my 8 years here on DU I can safely say we didn't learn a damn thing, and I'm watching as we traipse down the exact same self-destructive road.

[dionysus]

104. point taken.

:hi:

[Engineer4Obama]

98. I told Obama when he hired me to cricize Kucinich on DU it was a waste of money

but did he listen to me no. He said "Go make sure that real democrat doesn't get support of the millions of DU posters and our evil plot to enslave America to the corporations can proceed".

:sarcasm:

[G_j]

43. +1

[sabrina 1]

70. Definitely organized. I wasn't sure but

it's obvious now. What it shows is that the 'left' are as bad as the teabaggers when a politician doesn't vote their way. And it's pretty ugly to watch.

Notice, eg, that left out of the above voting record are the all the votes Kucinich DID cast AGAINST the continued funding of the War in Iraq.

This is how you know something is organized. The deliberate selection of certain statements, or votes out of context to try to influence others to go along with the destruction of a person's earned reputation, eg, what the Swift Boaters did to Kerry.

I could post an OP ten times the length of this proving exactly the opposite of what this OP is deceptively attempting to do.

Not all are proably part of the organized attacks, but because of their own ideology are easy to bring along.

Move-on and the other liberal groups who when told to STFU about blue dogs by Rahm, did so. Now they are following his orders to go after the 39 Democrats who voted against the bill. They sold out for money and access.

Kucinich is right about the Health Care bill, as often in the past as other courageous members of congress have been but at the time, were vilified by partisans and special interests. The more I see these attacks, the more right I believe him to be.

Sen. Dorgan, eg, did not join the majority of his colleagues when they all jumped on board with their Repub colleagues in 1999 and voted to repeal The Glass Steagal Act. Only eight others joined him in voting against it. But we had a Dem president at the time and he was considered to be an obstructionist.

He warned what would happen if that bill passed, but it fell on deaf ears as the celebrations were in progress.

18 years later he was proven to be right. The same will happen with Kucinich if this bill as it is now written, goes into effect.

[derby378]

8. Kucinich on his vote against HR 2454

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to 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 percent 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 is 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 a weak bill tomorrow. Rejecting a weak bill today gives us another chance to pass something more in line with the science tomorrow.

[ProSense]

11. "It won't address the problem. In fact, it might make the problem worse."

What a lame friggin excuse. That's what he always says.

[bananas]

35. James Hansen was against the bill for the same reasons

There were a lot of good climate scientists and environmentalists against it for the same reasons.
Dennis has been fighting for stronger climate action, without him this bill would have been even more watered down.

[PVnRT]

108. Perhaps you could rebut his argument

Something tells me that you won't bother, though.

[flvegan]

20. Please don't come into one of (oh the irony!) ProSense's threads with context and logic.

Please, it makes him look ridiculous.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Le Taz Hot]

13. Do you need a towel?

:eyes:

[berni_mccoy]

16. A pattern is developing... it looks a lot like a Nader

[rudy23]

60. Nader! That's on the list!

Maybe you wouldn't have to bitch about all the DK threads lately if you were not one of the main ones advancing and repeating these insulting talking points.

Your strategy is hurting your faction, your party, and your country.

[Luminous Animal]

21. He voted "yes" on HR 976

HR 976 was originally a tax cut bill when it started out. The title and the scope was changed in the Senate. It went back to the house as an extension to SCHIP. Kucinich voted yes.

Voted yes on 1106

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=318

[bigtree]

22. this is such a sham of an argument

You've neglected to show his votes in context of what the House politics and legislative agenda were at the time of these votes and whether the congressman's initiatives presented at the same time as these votes, prevailed or should have prevailed. This is dumbed-down politics for the ignorant. Even worse, it's a vapid political stunt on a message board with unclear and questionable motives. What is your agenda here?

[ProSense]

28. Give me a context for voting against expanding SCHIP

What BS.

[mtnester]

32. Hera ya go

“I voted to override the President’s veto. In the previous SCHIP vote, the Democrats left out up to 600,000 children of immigrants, so I voted against the bill. The President left out all children, so of course I voted to override,” Kucinich said.

“The bill’s failure to provide coverage for legal immigrants is wrong. All children deserve health care coverage. Health care is a right, not a privilege. The denial of a life-saving service based on an arbitrary length of citizenship is simply wrong.

“It is the responsibility of Congress to address the main difficulties that prevent legal immigrant children from gaining access to health care. This bill does exactly the opposite, which is why I voted against the bill after the Senate negotiators refused to provide health benefits to legal immigrant children. Negotiating away health care for 400,000-600,000 children as a political compromise is not acceptable.

“The President chooses to ignore the crisis created by the number of underinsured people by vetoing a bill that would have not only covered uninsured children but provided better coverage for many who are one illness away from losing their money and their home.

“HR 676, the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act captures the enormous savings to be had if Americans had health care provided through Medicare and uses them to cover everyone for all medically necessary services with no copayments, no deductibles and no premiums. I am the coauthor of the bill. This bill is the only true solution for the health care needs of America,” Kucinich said.

[bigtree]

46. ProSense thinks

. . . standing up for 400,000-600,000 children is 'BS'

[mtnester]

56. I know, I just wanted to post some real sense

and see if it was addressed..it wasn't, and I remain unsurprised

[sabrina 1]

85. How criminal of Kucinich to want to take care of innocent, sick immigrant

echildren. But then, we had Democrats like Madaleine Albright who thought that US sanctions that caused the deaths of half a millio Iraqi children was 'worth it'.

If they're not born in the US, they are fair game.

Good for Kucinich for not voting to allow tens of thousands of children to be neglected.

I'm glad this list is here, I did know about the War votes, but was not aware of his stand on this issue. And shame on the rest of the Democrats who voted for it. This country is getting worse an worse in its xenophobia and fear of people with different skin color. The desease has infected Democrats too. And here is an OP praising such a despicable policy.

[ProSense]

101. "Good for Kucinich for not voting to allow tens of thousands of children to be neglected."

He voted to override Bush's Veto of SCHIP. Same bill.

[sabrina 1]

102. He voted against a bill that discriminated against

against immigrant children on what for many of them, could be a life or death situation. Cowardly politicians willing to allow innocent children to die for political reasons, should not be a part of the Democratic Party. The hate campaign against immigrants was not joined by Kucinich to his credit.

You left out so many of his 'no' votes from your list. Here are just a few:

'No' on the Patriot Act. At a time when to do so was likely to get you anthraxed.
'No' on the Military Commissions Act. A bill which 12 Senate Dems shamefully voted for.
'No' on the War in Iraq and all votes to fund it.
'No' on the Impeachment of Bill Clinton when other Dems did not have the courage to do so.
'No' on the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act. Only one of six with the guts to do so.
'No' on Government spying on the American people.

Just a few. When will we see your OP on a few of the Dems who voted FOR all of the above and a list of the rest of their votes
?

The truth is Kucinich is too far ahead of his time as this country lags way behind the rest of the world on what ought to be policies that are no brainers. Such as Universal Health Care. The US is at the stage Europe was at decades ago and throughout its brutal history.

Just as other lone voices (although the fact that he is often not alone, his Healthcare bill had over 80 sponsors eg, means we have moved forward just a little) history will remember him as someone who was right on many of these issues, but at a time when this country was going through a war-mongering, far right on policies phase where there is no room for human compassion for others. Only after the full effects of this period are felt by an ever-growing majority of Americans, will it begin to change. I hope he lives long enough to see it.

[ProSense]

103. Why did he turn around and support overriding Bush's veto of SCHIP? n/t

[sabrina 1]

105. He explained it himself:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/10/19/house_fails_to_override_veto_of_schip/

Meanwhile, six Democrats, including presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who had opposed the bill last month voted for it yesterday.

"I disagreed with the Democratic position in that they left out six million immigrant children," said Kucinich.

"I disagreed with the president's position because he wants to leave out all the children."

[ProSense]

106. "I disagreed with the president's position because he wants to leave out all the children." What?

So his original vote against the bill wasn't to leave out all children? If he didn't want to leave out all children, why didn't he vote for the bill?

[sabrina 1]

89. I think you should make an OP of this one vote alone.

How few Democrats have the courage to stand up for Immigrant human beings anymore. I will look up what happened in the final bill, but if his 'no' vote helped to stop any bill that would refuse to take care of sick children, who have no say in their parents' decisions, then he deserves credit for that votei.

I guess the OP supports allowing hundreds of thousands of children to remain untreated when they are sick, for political reasons. The more I read about this country's nhumane laws the more I lose faith in it.

[Bryn]

96. I will give you a context against SCHIP

Smokers were targeted to finance SCHIP so I quit smoking, switched over to electronic cigarettes. So no SCHIP for children from me. :hi:

[joeybee12]

30. This list is mainly worthless...these are what the bills are called, not actually

what they'll do. Affordable Health Care fo America Act? Hah!

[Orsino]

54. It seems a careful attempt to avoid acknowledging any nuance...

...and to paint Kucinich as an enemy. It would be unfair--though perhaps fitting--to speculate too freely about the OP's motives, because that, too, would be avoiding nuance.

It would be much more useful, and therefore threatening, to examine a representative's stated reasons for voting against the so-called party line.

[derby378]

31. But wait, there's more - Kucinich in opposition to HR 2956 (Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act)

I rise in opposition to the bill.

We've lost over 3,600 of our brave service men and women; 1 million innocent Iraqis have perished in the war. We're now telling Iraqis, whose country the U.S. destroyed, whose reconstruction funds the U.S. mishandled, whose social networks have been shredded, stand on your own feet, while we try to steal their oil under the cover of occupation.

This bill will not end the war. This bill will not end the occupation. It doesn't take a vote to end this war. We must inform the administration that the $97 billion appropriated last month is the end of the financing for the war. Use the money that is in the pipeline through October 1st to bring the troops home. Compel the President to put together an international peacekeeping security force which would move in as our troops leave.

We could have our troops home by October 1. The question is whether we're ready to take a stand to do that, or whether or not we're going to vote on resolutions that give the American people the appearance that we want to end the war, without actually addressing the central issue that will end the war: Stop the funding.

[ProSense]

37. "This bill will not end the war. This bill will not end the occupation. "

Yeah, but voting against a timetable to withdraw will?

Everyone should stand there and pick their noses.

[PVnRT]

33. I guess "big tent" means

1. Accommodate conservatives at all costs
2. Marginalize and push out liberals

Funny that we keep being admonished that the Blue Dogs are needed members of the party, but Kucinich is a worthless asshole.

[ProSense]

34. The blue dogs are the worthless assholes

Kucinich just makes a lot of grandstanding votes. To claim that all the other progressives are worthless because they don't vote against bill that represent progress is obtuse.

[MNDemNY]

38. Then why do YOU support the House HCR bill WITH the Stupak amendment INTACT????

[Xicano]

39. You call sticking up for democratic principles "grand standing."

Wow! Just wow!

[ProSense]

45. "sticking up for democratic principles"

What utter bullshit. According to Kucinich, the bill sells out to the insurance companies. That's pure crap. He would have voted against the bill even if the Stupak amendment had failed. He will likely vote against the bill even if the Stupak amendment is stripped.

[MNDemNY]

36. Let's thank ProSense for her unabashed support of the destruction of

50 years of progress in womens' reproductive rights, with her wholehearted support of the House HCR bill with the Stupak amendment intact! Thanks! We all know that the all important 'WIN" and the Fancy Rose Garden signing ceremony are much more important than womens rights. :-( :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[G_j]

44. +1000

[SammyWinstonJack]

63. +1

:thumbsup:

[Hippo_Tron]

47. ProSense, I'm no Kucinich fan but this really not necessary

He's not holier than thou and you've made that point. No need to keep starting threads scrutinizing his every vote.

[MNDemNY]

49. She should start a thread to explain her support of the House HCR bill WITH the Stupak amendment ..

intact.

[ProSense]

53. This is a debate/discussion forum

Let's debate whether or not Kucinich is "supremely right." Isn't that better than debating whether or not people should criticize Kucinich. There are nearly a half a dozen thread lamenting that DU is no longer progressive because people dared to criticize Kucinich. That's pure hypocrisy.




Edited for clarity.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. It's not constructive debate when they do it and it's not constructive debate when you do it

Starting OP's with selected votes that Kucinich has made in order to make Kucinich look bad is just flamebait. If you seriously want to have a debate about purity then start a thread with a well reasoned argument and ask others to reply with well reasoned arguments.

You aren't accomplishing by simply imitating the behavior of those that you are calling hypocrites.

[ProSense]

57. Sorry, this is a fallacy.

If you seriously want to have a debate about purity then start a thread with a well reasoned argument and ask others to reply with well reasoned arguments.

If the post is critical of Kucinich, or even advocates a position that appears supportive of the House health bill, it's automatically disrupted. Also, what you are claiming is that criticism of Kucinich should be avoided because it's flambebait.

This OP takes issue with Kucinich's votes. He uses them often to grandstand. He managed to vote against SCHIP before it was vetoed by Bush, and then he voted to override the veto. Why? Did the bill suddenly get better between the two votes?

[Hippo_Tron]

67. Again, I'm not defending their behavior

I'm just saying you're doing exactly what they are doing.

[PVnRT]

69. "automatically disrupted"

...and the true colors come out. Anything opinion differing from ProSense's is "disruption."

[ProSense]

72. You're wrong

a disagreement is not a disruption. Name calling and rebuttals that try to make this personal are, though.

You want to defend Kucinich's votes, go ahead.

[redqueen]

79. Yep... "DLC idiots"... and they cry about being bullied.

Gotta love the irony!

:rofl:

Not to mention the fact that I'm in no way a fan of the DLC... but apparently ANYONE who disagrees with Dennis is automatically aligned with the DLC.

At least the knee-deep stuff in here has been pretty entertaining, for me at least.

[PVnRT]

107. Have you bothered to look into why he voted no on those?

You have been given plenty of rebuttals in this thread, yet you have no answer to any of them other than "NUH-UH!" This makes it pretty clear that you don't give a shit about discussion of any kind, simply mocking of your own in response to any mocking of President Obama. How very grown up of you.

If you were to take issue with why he voted the way he did, you might actually find a discussion here. Instead, you just post yet another list with no context whatsoever, in many cases simply relying on the names of bills to deduce what they are and what they do.

I don't have any problem with criticism of Kucinich, any more than I do of Obama. Your post is not criticism, it's a lame trollbait post, and you knew it when you posted it.

[timtom]

109. You're right.

Pure performance art. Not as well done as others I've seen recently, but performance art it is.

[rucky]

48. Baby, meet bathwater. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Again, it is a tactic I abhore

The listing of isolated votes. No politician can look good when you do that. Obama and Biden, well they are a goldmine of voting follies, perhaps highlighted by Obama's vote with the Frist video medicine wing of the GOP on the Teri Schaivo circus. Even he thinks he was wrong on that one. But his vote is there.
It is a method that is as easily turned on our friends as our enemies. It is invalid and meaningless. But that is to be expected.

[G_j]

58. plus there is no mention of what kind of crap was stuck onto

these bills. For example, DK ALWAYS votes against war funding. The recent hate crimes legislation was attached to war funding and he voted against it, and stated how sorry he was that these two things were tied together.

[frylock]

61. i'd put you on ignore, but i really do enjoy watching you get your ass handed to you..

as you accumulate unrecs. keep up the good work! :thumbsup:

[ProSense]

64. "as you accumulate unrecs" You really think that's the same as "your ass handed to you"?

:rofl:

[frylock]

76. considering that the vast majority of your replies to people are rofl smilies..

then yes, you're getting your ass handed to you. repeatedly.

where's your reply to this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6998949#6999537

beat. down.

[Forkboy]

66. Let me guess, your favorite perfume is Obsession?

[ProSense]

68. Wrong,

again.

[Forkboy]

73. Satire...live it, love it, learn it.

[Ignis]

74. Which Democratic Congressman will you attack next?

Because this can't simply be an anti-DK witch-hunt, can it? :shrug:

[redqueen]

83. Earlier this week, someone posted a list of Stupak's votes...

which we all agreed with.

Was that poster praising Stupak, or simply pointing out that politics (life, really) isn't as black & white as some on here seem to want to believe?

IMO they were making a point, just like this thread.

But far too many people around here are just as thin-skinned as they accuse others of being when they call Obama a corporate shill or sell out or fraud or whatever the insult du jour is.

There are other progressives in congress besides Kucinich, and nobody is attacking them, are they? :think:

[Ignis]

87. So this same poster will post another anti-DK OP tomorrow?

Or will it be an attack against a different Democratic Congressman?

Because so far this week, it's been nothing but the former. Again. And again. And again.

Obsession's not only a perfume.

[redqueen]

91. Seems to me that these OPs are more rebuttals... that is responses...

which would mean that if there's not another "Kucinich is supremely right" or whatever it was... then no... if there is, then probably so.

I happen to be a fan of balance, so I don't mind one bit.

(And if you missed the "Kucinich is supremely right" thread then please do yourself a favor and go there now, and read the links. I found them quite entertaining. :hi:)

[Ignis]

93. Seems to me you're wrong.

Go back to Monday and start looking at the ratio of anti-DK OPs in GD vs. pro-DK ones.

Only over time does that ratio come out anywhere near even, and that timeline shows that most of the pro-DK OPs were started over the past two days.

Drawing first blood and then continuing "on-message" for three days straight over multiple OPs is not exactly something I'd consider a rebuttal. But YMMV.

[Enthusiast]

82. I'm sure Dennis had a good reason for

his votes.