Kucinich's Announcement Speech

On November 7th, the people voted for a new direction for our nation. They voted for the Democrats because they expected us to end the occupation and to bring the troops home from Iraq.

On October 1st, Congress appropriated $70 billion for the war in Iraq. The money is in the pipeline right now to bring the troops home. Unfortunately, our Democratic leaders have already announced they will support an additional appropriation for the war of up to $160 billion dollars. Not only are we not listening to the voters and taking steps to withdraw our forces quickly, we are actually planning to spend twice as much on the war as we did last year!

Somebody didn't get the message. And unfortunately it is the leadership of the Democratic Party and the consequences may be disastrous for our party, our nation, and the world.

My home is in Cleveland. Each day I see the effect of our misplaced national priorities on my city: The number of factories and businesses, large and small, closing. My constituents and people just like them across America are losing their jobs, losing their middle class status and being pushed into poverty. Blue and white collar workers in the city and suburbs are losing their homes. They are losing their hard-earned retirement. A total of one hundred million Americans have no health care or are underinsured. Budget deficits have crippled school districts. Many cities are in financial trouble, forced to lay off vital city workers, unable to finance repairs to bridges, roads, water systems, and sewer systems. The price of natural gas is rising. Huge utility rate increases are in the offing. It is getting more and more difficult for people to make ends meet.

Meanwhile, millions of entrepreneurs whose ingenuity will create new jobs by bringing forth advanced clean energy technologies are being starved for capital.

I live in the same working class neighborhood in the same home I purchased thirty five years ago. My parents raised seven children and never owned a home. We lived in twenty-one different places by the time I was seventeen, including a couple of cars. I know what people go through. I have seen first hand the effects of poverty and social disorganization. I also know of the powerful strivings of the human heart. I know that with just a little help, a little encouragement, and a little money, people are capable of creating new wealth and new worlds. That creative power is part of the birthright of all Americans.

I also know what the destructive power of war does to families and to our nation. I know what Vietnam did to this country and did to my family. I know how it divided our nation and set America apart from the world. The war in Iraq has already taken its toll on Cleveland and in communities like Cleveland across the United States. The war, tax cuts for the already privileged, and our trade policies have become a massive engine to redistribute upwards the wealth of our nation and to transfer our national wealth out of the country. Policies which divide people and fracture the social compact are inherently un-American. Our nation's very name makes of striving for unity a sacred cause.

How can we unite America around the health care needs of our people if we instead spend trillions of dollars in Iraq? How can we meet the educational needs of the children of our nation if we have money for arms build-ups, but no money for education build-ups? For example, the $160 billion dollars which our leaders are ready to appropriate for more war is equal to three times the entire annual federal education budget.

In a period of two years, the budget for the military, plus the war in Iraq, will exceed one trillion dollars. The billions we are spending in Baghdad we are borrowing from Bejing. We must end this reckless sacrifice of blood and treasure. We must stop sacrificing our dreams and the dreams of future generations of Americans to the nightmare of this war.

How can we have strong neighborhoods in our cities, with solid city services, adequate police and fire protection, if our cities are starving for tax resources because the federal government has money for war and not much else?

The National Priorities Project issued a report that says that in the year 2005, twenty-nine cents of every federal tax dollar went to the military, plus another nine cents went to pay interest on borrowing to finance the military. That's 38% of federal tax income being spent for guns not butter. Contrast this with 0.3% on job training, 2% on housing, 4% on education.

Consider that our nation is now spending more money on arms then all the other countries in the world put together and you can understand why our leaders have trouble extricating ourselves from a war based on lies. As President Dwight David Eisenhower recognized, the dramatic shift of resources to grow a military industrial complex does not help protect democracy, it destroys it.

This is the moment to remember first principles, to remember why America was founded, to remember our strivings for liberty, for truth, for justice, to remember the primacy of our Constitution. This is the moment to remember the deep historic mission of the Democratic Party. We are the party of the people. We are the Party of FDR and the New Deal. We are the party of JFK and the New Frontier. We are the Party of LBJ and the Great Society. We are the party of the courage of Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, the moral power of Cesar Chavez, the daring of Robert Kennedy, the compassion of Jimmy Carter, the brilliance of Bill Clinton. We have a sacred responsibility to keep alive the spirit of our nation, to protect people's faith in not just our party, but in the political process itself.

At this moment, people's trust in government is on the line. Trust in the Democratic Party is on the line. What does it say if only one month after the voters gave us control of Congress on the issue of Iraq, that we turn around and say we will keep funding the war? What kind of credibility will our Party have if we say we are opposed to the war, but continue to fund it?

There is still time to change the outcome. There is still time to rescue the people's confidence in the Democratic Party and their trust in government. But only if someone steps forward quickly to wake the nation and tell the people, to travel to those dozens of cities like Cleveland, to go to the villages, the farms, and the factories and say: "This is the moment to stop the US occupation, this is the moment to end our war against Iraq, this is the moment to bring our troops home, because the money is there to bring them home." And bring them home we must, to rebuild our cities, to invest in our children, to restore our environment, to work with the world to create new opportunities through peace.

The constituents have called me to action. Their economic future calls me to action. My country calls me to action. My conscience calls me to action. I am not going to stand by and watch thousands more of our brave young American men and women killed in Iraq or permanently injured while our leaders are ready to take action to keep the war going.

We Democrats were put back in power to bring some sanity back to our nation. We are expected to take a stand. We are expected to assert our constitutional power as a co-equal branch of government. We are expected to do what we said we would do: Get out of Iraq and bring the troops home.

Clevelanders remember that twenty-eight years ago this week, I put my career on the line to protect the people's right to own a municipal electric system. They remember that I had the courage to stand up for the people, to stand against all odds, and to prevail. Years later, I was proven right. I know what it is like to take a stand. I know what it is like to put my career on the line. Today, I am prepared to put my career on the line again to save my community and my nation from the devastating effects of more war.

Therefore, I am announcing my candidacy for President of the United States, with the intention of rallying the American people to the cause of the troops in the field, to the cause of stopping more American families from suffering, to the cause of ending a deepening tragedy in Iraq, to the cause of repairing America's reputation in the world, to the cause of the dreams of people in my own neighborhood and my own city.

I fully expect to be win, because when the American people hear this clarion call for a new and true direction, this call to confirm their intent, their power, I am confident that they will respond as powerfully, as they did just one month ago, to demand that America quickly change course in Iraq and to demand a leader who will make it happen.

My campaign will be about the truth in action. It will be about the power of decisiveness, and the power of compassion, which comes from an understanding of the imperative of human unity, the imperative of human security, the imperative of peace.

In 2002, I led the effort in the House of Representatives, challenging the Bush Administration's march toward war in Iraq. It was that effort which gives me hope. Because although the opposition to the authorization for war began with only a handful of members of Congress, it soon grew to 125 Democrats. Everything I said then has been proven to be true: Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had no intention or capability of attacking the United States. But we attacked Iraq.

Consider these facts and consider that, according to the prestigious Lancet publication, over 650,000 excess deaths have occurred in Iraq as a result of the war. What an injustice has been done to the Iraqi people. We must stop our betrayal of our own heart and work immediately to rally the world community in the cause of relieving the suffering of Iraqis. But we cannot do it as occupiers.

I ran for President in 2004, not just to challenge the war and Democratic Party policy, but to bring forth a message: Fear ends. Hope begins. My candidacy will call forth the courage of the American people to meet the challenge of terrorism without sacrificing our liberties and everything that is near and dear to us. My candidacy will inspire hope for a new America, where social, economic, and political progress is grounded in work for peace.

My stand for peace is not simply being against the Iraq war. It was against all war. We have the right to defend ourselves, but our leaders have confused offense with defense. America has separated itself from the world, put itself beyond the reach of international law, We must reunite with the world. We must rally the world in the cause of human unity, in the cause of the survival of the planet facing challenges from global climate change, nuclear proliferation, and from useless war. I believe that as human beings we have evolved to the point where we can settle our differences without killing one another.

This is what President Franklin Roosevelt, who knew war, meant when he spoke of our responsibility to pursue "the science of human relations." It was this thinking that inspired legislation to create a Department of Peace which seeks to meet the challenge of domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in the schools, racial violence, violence against gays, and to resolve conflict between police and community groups. War is not inevitable. Peace is inevitable if we are dedicated to creating new structures for peace.

Einstein once said "the significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them." Yet that is what we are in Washington with respect to Iraq. Even though we know that our presence in Iraq is totally wrong, we seem unable to do anything about it, except keep spending more money for the war. We must end this march of folly. Together we are going to change this and rescue our nation.

This is a moment that we need to call our Democratic leaders to courage. This is about leadership, clear vision, and integrity. The people were behind us in November. They are behind us now. We must stand by our word and bring the troops home now.

I am the only member of the House and the Senate running for President who has consistently voted against funding for the war, based on a principled opposition. I was against the war then. I am against it now. A leader must have not just hindsight, but foresight. The prophet Isaiah said "Without vision, a people perish." I am stepping forth at this moment because I believe, as did Lincoln, that "this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this earth." Thank you.


Poll
Would you support Dennis Kucinich for President?
Yes.
No.
Maybe/Unsure.

Votes: 56
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Something people tend to forget. (3.00 / 1)

I think people tend to forget that Dennis Kucinich, talk of a Department of Peace aside, can actually be a pretty serious politician when he puts his shoulder into it.

He was a city councilman at 23, a Democratic nominee for Congress at 26 (taking 47% against a 9-term incumbent during the Nixon landslide), an Indy candidate for Congress at 28 (30% of the vote in a three-way race that the Democrat won), clerk of the municipal court (a citywide elective office) at 29, and Mayor of Cleveland at 31.

As Mayor, he managed to survive a recall backed by every major politician and media outlet in the city, then scraped up 44% of the vote in his re-election campaign after he was unfairly tagged as "the man who bankrupted Cleveland."

After leaving office, he went west for a while, then came back to take 27% in the 1982 primary for Secretary of State (which Sherrod Brown won with 33%). That same year, he got elected to his old city council seat. In '88, he ran second in a Democratic congressional primary, taking 23% against an incumbent congresswoman, and in '92, he lost a primary in another district by only 6%.

In 1996, he got elected Congressman from the 10th District against Martin R. Hoke, a bumbling first-termer who spent his time making sexist cracks about women in front of reporters. Before Hoke, conservative Republicans had won the district with up to 74% of the vote every year since 1968. Since he took office, Kucinich has never been re-elected with 66%, 75%, 74%, 60% and 75% of the vote.

So, yeah, Dennis Kucinich might seem a little nutty to you. But he's still a damn good politicker.


by craverguy on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:37:48 AM EST

Ahem. (none / 0)

That should say, "Kucinich has been re-elected with 66%, 75%, 74%, 60% and 75% of the vote."


by craverguy on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:39:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What's Wrong With A Department of Peace??? (3.00 / 1)

Why does this constitute something you have to set aside?  And why would it make someone not a "serious politician"?

Maybe if we'd had a Department of Peace on 9/11, our response wouldn't have been so mounmentally counter-productive.

Does any other candidate have an idea that they themselves came up with that involves systematically developing new approaches to fundamental problems?  Heck, does any other candidate have any idea that they themselves came up with at all?  Because I sure would love to have a debate about them.  Think of that: a debate about the new ideas that the candidates themselves have come up with.

Mind you, I'm not saying that this is the most important qualification for being President.  But it gets us far away from the mind-numbing stupidity that dominates DC-centric political discourse.  And anything that does that is a good thing.


by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:35:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's Wrong With A Department of Peace??? (none / 0)

We have one.  It's called the Department of State. It's filled with trained diplomats who do consider war only if diplomacy breaks down. State is fed by Tufts' Fletcher School, Harvard's Kennedy, Columbia School for international affairs and Georgetown, etc. They staff the embassies and they staff the Washington offices.  But whether you have a department or not, you have to have the will to use it.  One of the worst thing that the Republicans and Bushies have done is to ignore the trained foreign affairs bureaucracy or weaken and destroy it.  That doesn't mean I think that the departments have always done well, but to ignore what they do and how they do it is to ignore a powerful and in fact liberal resource for governing. That's why the Republians tried to ignore or destroy it. And that's the reason I don't support Kucinich.  He dosn't seem to know the first thing about governing.  
 
alicew.
by ruthhmiller on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:08:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm Afraid You're Misinformed (3.00 / 1)

We have one.  It's called the Department of State.
Kucinich's proposal is not for another foreign policy department.  The Department of Peace is meant to deal with reorienting our whole society to deal with domestic as well as foreign affairs.

One reason that an administration can so totally bypass and subvert the Department of State (as you correctly noted has been done) is precisely that the non-violent approach toward problem solving is insufficiently developed and institutionalized in our society.

As Kucinich himself puts it:

Citizens across the United States are now uniting in a great cause to establish a Department of Peace, seeking nothing less than the transformation of our society, to make nonviolence an organizing principle, to make war archaic through creating a paradigm shift in our culture for human development for economic and political justice and for violence control. Its work in violence control will be to support disarmament, treaties, peaceful coexistence and peaceful consensus building. Its focus on economic and political justice will examine and enhance resource distribution, human and economic rights and strengthen democratic values.

We must change the metaphor of our society from one of war to one of peace. The Department of Defense now requires in excess of $400 billion for its activities. A Department of Peace can be an effective counterbalance, redirecting our national energies towards nonviolent intervention, mediation, and conflict resolution on all matters of human security.

A Department of Peace can look at the domestic issues that our society faces and often ignores as we focus on matters internationally. We have a problem with violence in our own society, and we need to look at it and address it in a structured way. Domestically, the Department of Peace would address violence in the home, spousal abuse, child abuse, gangs, and police-community relations conflicts, and would work with individuals and groups to achieve changes in attitudes that examine the mythologies of cherished world views, such as "violence is inevitable" or "war is inevitable." Thus, it will help with the discovery of new selves and new paths toward peaceful consensus.

This is clearly a proposal that goes far beyond what the State Department is tasked to do.  It would certainly support and reinforce the State Department in various ways, but it is not a replacement for, or a duplication of the Department of State.

Now, you can call this "utopian" if you want.  But the United States was founded as a utopian country.  There was no other constitutional democracy like us at the time we were formed.  No such secular republic.  We were, in every sense of the word, an experiment.  And that was about out entire system of government.  Kucinich is merely proposing that we add a separate cabinet-level department to promote a new direction for our country and our world. Any downside of failure is far less severe than if our whole system of government had failed.

So, yes, it is utopian.  But it is not putting all our eggs in one basket.  If anything, our current system is far more prone to doing that.

Furthermore, there is a great deal of new knowledge from anthropology as well as the explosive growth of alternative dispute resolution and related practices, which strongly suggests that we are capable of the sort of profound shift that Kucinich talks about--just as we were capable of the profound shift that America itself represented 200+ years ago.

To sum up, you are drawing a terribly mistaken false equivilence between BushCo and Kucinich when you try to say that he is ignoring the State Department the same way the Republicans are. Kucinich has always been a strong supporter of diplomacy, and it's simply ludicrous to suggest otherwise.  The Department of Peace would make it much harder for future Presidents to sideline the State Department, precisely because it would significntly strengthen and organize the forces of non-violent conflict resolution within our country as a whole.


by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:57:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Afraid You're Misinformed (none / 0)

I feel less informed after I read the blockquote.

I'm a middling-smart guy, and I have no clue what Kucinich is talking about, for the DoP. This department is going to organize the forces of non-violence conflict resolution? Which forces? In what way would taking these things into the government make them harder to sideline?

"... make war archaic through creating a paradigm shift ... We must change the metaphor of our society from one of war to one of peace ...  examine the mythologies of cherished world views ... help with the discovery of new selves and new paths toward peaceful consensus."

I'm sorry, but that reads like the Onion. Maybe it's just my cherished world view, but I can't really explain much better.


by BingoL on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:29:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Check Out The Hague Agenda (none / 0)

First off, the main reason I posted that was simply to indicate that it was not merely a duplication of the roles already covered by the State Department.  So, I guess I've accomplished that much.

Second, there's a very broad, very diverse worldwide movement to promote non-violence and end war. Naturally, Americans know next to nothing about it.   Trying to talk about something so vast, so diverse and so different is naturally not the easiest thing in the world.  But there's a great deal of very specific work behind these broad descriptions.

This article talks about the Hague Appeal for Peace Conference, held from 11 to 15 May 1999, which resulted in the Hague Agenda for Peace.  It has a somewhat redundant structure that was deliberately chosen to reflect the different approaches of different participants, but for our purposes, what's most salient is the existence of 50 specific organizing items under four major headings:

   *  Root Causes of War/Culture of Peace
    * International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law and Institutions
    * Prevention, Resolution and Transformation of Violent Conflict
    * Disarmament and Human Security Agenda

Kucinich doesn't intend the Department of Peace to take on the entire Hague Agenda.  But the Hague Agenda provides a framework within which the mission of the Department of Peace can be much better understood.

Now, I'm not saying you have to read the whole thing, and don't bother me till you're done.  I'm simply saying that there's a good deal of serious work behind this, and considering how much misery the human race has suffered from war over the centuries, this is certainly worthy of further consideration.

If Kucinich's campaign does nothing more than raise awareness about the existence of these ideas, and existing worldwide efforts to put them into practice, it will have done far more than most campaigns ever do.  And that's reason enough to give him a hearing.


by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:58:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check Out The Hague Agenda (none / 0)

Okay, fair enough, and I will check that out. But purely as a political fact, I think the amount of resistance that a 'Department of Peace' gets even here, on MyDD, which is hardly representative of the whole country, speaks to the (again, purely political) questionable utility of approaching these problems in this way.

Frankly, just calling for a dedicated Department of Conflict Prevention within the Dept. of State, say, might be a more, er, approachable way to raise the same awareness, without having even committed lefties like myself balking.

And I look over some of the bullet points on those lists, and just feel like I'm back at college. So hopeful and naive. Some initiatives seem like "endorse the discovery of dancing unicorns" but others are urgent and vital, and I'm afraid that calling for a 'Department of Peace' encourages those of us who are less-than-perfectly-informed (read: Americans) to throw the baby out with the b.

Still, very interesting links. Thanks.


by BingoL on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:59:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First They Laugh At You (none / 0)

Then they laugh at you some more.
Then they really laugh at you.
Then they die laughing.
And then you win.

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check Out The Hague Agenda (none / 0)

I agree. If the State Department can be marginalised so much, a Department of Peace can be marginalised too. Adding more departments is not the answer. Find solutions with what you have.

If the Bushies can render the EPA impotent, do you really think the Department of Peace has a chance with the wrong President in power? A good president won't need a Department of Peace because he would be smart enough to listen to the right people and go to war only as a last resort.

Fix what we got before we go about adding new departments or you will have another inefficient department like Homeland Security.


by Pravin on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:08:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Walk And Chew Gum (none / 0)

Why is it an either/or thing?

Aside from the fundamental illogic of this assumption, you seem to be forgetting that (A) Bush is the worst President ever. (B) The GOP hasn't controlled all 3 branches since 1932.

What we're faced with now is not the normal state of affairs, and it's ludicrous to use is as a benchmark for all our political calculations.

Furthermore, it does make a difference to have a more diversified cabinet structure.  The decimation of FEMA was very much facilitated by demoting it from cabinet status.

A good president won't need a Department of Peace because he would be smart enough to listen to the right people and go to war only as a last resort.
That's not the purpose of the Department of Peace.  That's the purpose of the Constitution.


by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:47:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I propose Department of Accountability (none / 0)

Almost every single one of the goals of the Department of Peace you quoted should be handled by existing departments. The fact that they are not addressed tells us that accountability is lacking in many public agencies. Maybe I should propose a Department of Accountability.

Starting a new Department will only add to the bloat and more meetings on how to achieve peace without actually working on accomplishing them.

What we need is department heads being held accountable when their department malfunctions. For a guy like Chertoff to remain in his position after KAtrina is ridiculous.


by Pravin on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:54:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You Sound Just Like A Republican! (none / 0)

This a standard, cookie-cutter set of arguments meant to discredit the importance of the purpose of the department.  Claiming that the goals "should be handled by existing departments" is a neat rhetorical trick.  But it's simply not true.  Pieces of the whole set of goals doubtlessly can be found scattered throughout different departments and levels of government.  But each of these has other goals as well, and its own prioritization of what's most important.

One reason that organizations get reorganized is to bring together and closely coordinate functions that are not being effectively coordinated, and to realize synergies that are not being realized.  The problem in such situations is not "that accountability is lacking."  It's that there are structural/functional impediments to having the separate efforts produce the desired co-ordinated effect.  The principal here is simple:  "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts."

But there also functions envisioned for the Department of Peace that are not covered by existing departments.

A statement like this is clearly misguided, and indicative of a misdiagnosis:

What we need is department heads being held accountable when their department malfunctions. For a guy like Chertoff to remain in his position after KAtrina is ridiculous.
Is Chertoff a typical BushCo fuckup?  Sure, absolutely.  Was there a total lack of accountability? Again, absolutely.

But that's hardly the whole of it.  The DHS is inherently dysfunctional because it buries independent functions--such as those of FEMA--that need higher level visibility, autonomy, flexibility and accountability.  It also brings together functions that have nothing rational to do together, while leaving out important functions--most notably intelligence functions.

One of the characteristic differences between liberals and conservaties is that conservatives tend to reduce everything to questions of personal responsibility.  This tends to make very real differences in social factors disappear, and with them any responsibility for society as a whole--through government--to do anything.  It also tends to overlook the need to make structural changes in organizations, seeing only issues of individual responsibility.  

Liberals, OTOH, tend to recognize both sorts of factors.  They realize that individuals cannot always overcome situations on their own, and that it's irresponsible of society to expect them to do so.  Government exists precisely to enable us to do things together that we cannot do separately.  And, likewise, liberals realize that there are bad managers, and then there are bad--or simply outmoded--organizational structures that even the best manager cannot make to work properly.


by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 02:21:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Sound Just Like A Republican! (none / 0)

Condescension does not make us bow down and accept your viewpoints. Feel free to disagree, but no need to imply I am using rhetorical tricks to end an argument. If anything, I enjoy debating with people I disagree with as long as you stick to the ideas expressed and not try to guess what my intentions are.

I could accuse you of responding with a broad  set of answers. Of course, one must put together a set of functions that can be coordinated and benefit from synergy. No shit. Tell me something I do not know. So how does putting together diverse issues such as international peace and domestic violence under the same department really benefit these issues? Saying so doesnt make it so. I do not see the extra synergy created here.  Adding a new department is just a a lazy way out, if I may be as smug as you.

I did not even address individual responsibility which you kind of imply I was hinting at. I talked about organizational responsbility as it is tough to monitor individual responsbility and so you put the head of the organization to task if something goes wrong.   A caseworker can slack off on a job just as easily in a Department of PEace as in DFACS. How is your typical DFACS worker going to get better by just being shifted to a new Department of Peace? How are Police-Citizen conflicts going to get better under a Department of Peace?  You think a racist cop is going to give a shit about what this department says? As far as gang violence, what you need is better schools that educate the kids better and give them more options. Maybe welfare system can be creatively modified(and no, dont even bother saying this is a republican talking point, because I am approaching this from a different angle).

Saying accountability in government needs be improved is not a republican notion, my friend. Gore made this one of his goals during his Vice Presidency.  Right wingers, who I suspect you are actually alluding to, want less government on a knee jerk basis, not better government. I want better government.


by Pravin on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 03:39:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So It's A Matter of Faith With You (none / 0)

Because you don't believe in principles of non-violence, they don't exist.  Ergo, there is no synergy.  Case closed.

Again, you sound like a Republican.


by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:50:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So It's A Matter of Faith With You (none / 0)

Wow, sounds like a convincing argument. You sold me. I am just honored to be in the presence of the last principled man on earth.


by Pravin on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 10:09:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Afraid You're Misinformed (none / 0)

I want to be very careful in my answer to you.  Non-violent conflict resolution in this society belongs to the courts, the schools, the states, in short, the whole institutional structure in all its forms is one kind or another of non-violent conflict resolution.  The last thing you want is a department of the federal government telling the locals how to resolve conflicts. or at least the last thing I want. Now if your man were really courageous, and I mean that, he would advocate eliminating on "war on drugs" like Mayor Schmoke(spelling?) tried to in Baltimore.  He was ruined because he suggested decriminalization.  The point is that a great deal of what is deemed violence in our society has to do with "illegal" drugs. What happens with drug turf wars is that because the drugs are illegal conflicts cannot be resolved the normal way, that is in court, administrative hearings or just by ordinary agreements.  If you allow the drug dealers the use of the usual means of conflict resolution you wouldn't have the murders you have now etc etc.  Also you wouldn't have the prisons overloaded with young African-American men. well. I'm not going to go into this further. I know you catch my drift.


alicew.
by ruthhmiller on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:08:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just One Question... (none / 0)

I want to be very careful in my answer to you.  Non-violent conflict resolution in this society belongs to the courts, the schools, the states, in short, the whole institutional structure in all its forms is one kind or another of non-violent conflict resolution.  The last thing you want is a department of the federal government telling the locals how to resolve conflicts. or at least the last thing I want.
I get three things from this statement: (1) You think we have already figured out and institutionalized all the possible forms that conflict resolution can take. (2) You don't believe in federal courts. (3) In fact, you have more in common with George Wallace than Martin Luther King.

You almost certainly didn't mean that, but that's how it comes across to me.  You seem very certain and very closed-minded.  And, to top it off, you have your own agenda that you'd rather have Kucinch take on instead.

I have just one question for you: How in the world do you expect to reach people with your agenda if they listen to it in the same manner that you have listened to Kucinich's?

Okay, I lied. I have a second question: Don't you think we can find a more productive way to discuss generating new ideas that can help us solve seemingly intractable problems?


by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:16:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's Wrong With A Department of Peace??? (none / 0)

I guess John McCain came up with the idea of adding 20,000 more US troops by himself.  Adding 20,000 more troops or a Department of Peace.  Why is Dennis Kucinich the looney?    


by David Kowalski on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:57:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something people tend to forget. (none / 0)

That depends on what you mean by a serious politician.  If you mean someone that could be President than no not at all.  He'll be lucky if he gets more than 2% of the vote in the primaries.  He'll be lucky if he gets 1% in the caucuses.


by blueryan on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:28:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something people tend to forget. (none / 0)

In the 2004 primaries Kucinich received:

    9% in Ohio
     5% in New York
    17% in Minnesota
    26% in Hawaii
    16% in Maine
     6% in New Mexico
     7% in Nevada
     8% in Washington

I can think of a few reasons to think that he may do even better in 2008.


by rmx2630 on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:08:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There You Go Again! (none / 0)

Getting all reality-based!

Don't you realize that we have to start thinking like Republicans, and shun all contact with reality?

Blind obedience, fanatic adulation, and endless repetititon of hand-me-down talking points is the way to go!


by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:39:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something people tend to forget. (none / 0)

Yeah but a lot of those votes were left-over disenchanted Dean voters after he dropped out(myself being one of them, albeit in Illinois).

The dynamics are much different this time. In '04 it was anybody but Bush (i.e. electability) vs. movement candidate (i.e. Dean). This time Bush is out and Progressives are on the upswing. I think there is a better chance for a progressive to win the nomination (or at least someone who progressives are very enthusiastic about, which wasn't the case with Kerry at first in '04).

Right now I see Edwards and Obama sucking up most of the progressive enthusiasm.

If Hillary runs away with the nomination like Kerry did in'04 and Kucinich stays in the race until the end like he did in '04 AND everyone else drops out like in '04, then I see your totals holding up, or being surpassed by Kucinich.

But.....
1. I do not see Hillary winning

2. I do not see everyone dropping out so soon as in '04 (we don't need to unite so early since there will be no incumbent to run against and the republican race is even more wide open than our race).

Therefore, if my postulations are correct, I don't see Kucinich getting even half the support he did in '04. The protest vote is just not the same this time around.


by adamterando on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 09:02:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Slight corrections (none / 0)

In 1996, he got elected Congressman from the 10th District against Martin R. Hoke, a bumbling first-termer who spent his time making sexist cracks about women in front of reporters. Before Hoke, conservative Republicans had won the district with up to 74% of the vote every year since 1968

Hoke was elected first in 1992 against incumbent Mary Rose Oakar.

Oakar held that seat from 1977 to 1993.

And the seat Kucinich ran for in 1972 and 1974 was held by Democrat Ronald Mottl from 1975 to 1983.

The district you reference as electing Conservative Republicans is probably the old 10th, which was in Southeast Ohio.

The new 10th gave Clinton a majority in 1996 and a plurality in 1992.


by RBH on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:23:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich's Announcement Speech (3.00 / 2)

Hey craverguy,

Thanks for this diary.  With all the talk about the "audacity of hope," Kucinich, in standing up against the utility companies, perhaps more than any other politician exemplified true courage.

He broadens the debate, and unfortunatley his voice doesn't often get the forum it deserves.


by justinh on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:54:25 AM EST

That's Why Obamaphiles Sneer At Kucinich (3.00 / 3)

Actual courage vs. talk of courage.

Also, re: Department of Peace.

Actual vision vs. talk of vision.

Big difference.

When you got nothin', sneer.


by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:40:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich's Announcement Speech (none / 0)

There are literally 200+ Democrats that I'd support for President before I'd consider Kucinich. Every single current Dem governor or governor-elect, all but maybe 3-4 Dem senators, at least 150 Democratic members of the House, and at least 20 former governors and Senators. And one former Vice President. Then, throw in Al Sharpton and Jon Stewart.

The guy is either out of his mind, or part of a strategy to make the real nominee look more appealing to moderate voters.


by mihan on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:44:56 AM EST

Zero Content From A Kucinich Hater (3.00 / 2)

Why am I not surprised?

With a contentless little rant like that, I'd assume you've gotten your picture ("information" would be too strong a term) of Kucinich from the M$M.  Do you trust them that much on any other subject?  When they talk about you, as a blogger, for example?

OTOH, do you know anything about Kucinich's leadership role in organizing Democratic opposition to the Iraq War in the House in 2002, for example?  Do you actually know anything about him at all?  It would be good to actually discuss facts, as opposed to simply venting our feelings.


by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:06:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zero Content From A Kucinich Hater (none / 0)

Yes, how dare I vent my feelings and give my opinion in this kind of forum. I could get into a little flame war with you, arguing semantics and all of that business, but to what good will it do on such a useless topic? You have no basis to accuse me of not knowing a thing about Kucinich, so lets stick to what we do know.

You say that the MSM is a big reason why people have misconceptions about Kucinich, right? Well, how does Kucinich overcome them? Howard Dean, the great progressive netroots hero, couldn't overcome a single scream into a microphone. I'll explain it as simply as I can, which I assume you need me to since we are making uninformed assumptions about each other. If a candidate loses the MSM, unpopular as the media may be in the netroots, it is impossible to sell a candidate to a plurality of voters as being worthy of the Presidency. It has nothing to do with his values. Politics, especially Presidential politics, is a game of public perception as much as anything, and for that reason, along with Kucinich's general lack of charisma and moderate appeal, makes him unelectable, and not someone I would even list in my top 250 potential candidates. That's my right, isn't it?


by mihan on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:15:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

All I'm Asking For Is Some Reality (none / 0)

Sure you're entitled to your feelings.  But we're supposed to be the reality-based community, remember?  So all I'm asking for is a little bit of reality to base your feelings on.

I know this is too much to ask of trolls like BrionLutz, but the rest of us should be able to have a fact-based discussion, even though we are bound to disagree strongly about the conclusions to draw from those facts.

You have no basis to accuse me of not knowing a thing about Kucinich, so lets stick to what we do know.
I didn't accuse you of that.  I asked you.  There was a question mark there, followed by an invitation to discuss the facts.  An invitation you still haven't taken up, btw.

As for the argument you do present:

You say that the MSM is a big reason why people have misconceptions about Kucinich, right? Well, how does Kucinich overcome them? Howard Dean, the great progressive netroots hero, couldn't overcome a single scream into a microphone.
By this "logic," Kerry could't overcome the swiftboat liars, either.  So, what's the point of supporting any Democrat?

This is truly what your argument comes down to: we cannot challenge our overlords, no matter how badly they screw up.  They will always manage to tear us down.  Well, if you really believe that, then don't waste your time here.  Go out and get drunk, play golf, or whatever.  This place is for people who actually believe that we can change things.  And actually believe that reality matters.

It ain't easy.  But in the end, hard truths will outlast easy lies.  That's the faith that unites us here, regardless of our many disagreements. From that faith, grounded in that faith, we make our disagreements into a source of strength, precisely by discussing them in a reality-based framework.


by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:49:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zero Content From A Kucinich Hater (none / 0)

Wait, maybe I can explain it in even simpler terms.  Because Kucinich can't get a fair shake in the mass media, mainly because (IYO) he doesn't play the appearances game well for them, therefore you won't support him.

Because you, in turn, are playing the electability game, looking for the least offensive candidate as opposed to one who will take risks for an actual cause.

Now maybe Paul, who is so silly as to assume you have no knowledge of the guy -- on the slim evidence that you don't show any even when challenged -- can wrap his tiny mind around that.


Tim Wolfe

John McCain is not pro-choice!

by bruorton on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zero Content From A Kucinich Hater (none / 0)

What am I supposed to do, reel off his lists of positions and accomplishments? He's not a viable candidate. That's the end of story as far as I'm concerned. We'll let the reality work itself out.


by mihan on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:03:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Neither Was Howard Dean in Dec. 2002 (3.00 / 2)

He's not a viable candidate. That's the end of story as far as I'm concerned.
In the end, Dean didn't win either.  But he became a viable candidate from out of nowhere, and his candidacy not only altered the race, it lead to his chairmanship of the DNC, which in turn lead to the 50-state strategy, and the rest is history.

The lesson here is simple: Do the right thing, and the let the chips fall where they may.  You may not win the next election, but you will do your part to advance us in the right direction, and open up possibilities that would otherwise remain closed off.

Now, you're saying you're not even willing to consider what those possibilities might be?

That seems like an incredibly narrow-minded, short-sighted approach to politics to me. Maybe not a year from now, with the primaries almost upon us. But now? Now should be the ideal time for considering possibilities. Where else do the big ideas come from?

If not now, when? If not us, who?


by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:18:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither Was Howard Dean in Dec. 2002 (none / 0)

Speaking of howard dean, why did Kucinich work with Edwards to help bump him off in Iowa in 04? I thought Dennis was more pure in his convictions? Not that Dean needed Dennis to help beat him or anything, the MSM and Democrats could have done it alone without Dennis partnering up too.

And why does Kucinich think that Joe Lieberman;s integrity can't be questioned? What kind of a peace candidate would think that other than one who has been in Washington for so long he is bored and knows that a presidential election is a great way to boost his own image, maybe find himself a girl, play the old "who wants to be my wife game" (well I guess that will not be part of the package this time around).

Oh, and it is great that he brings some voice to the anti-war movement although I wish he could get Gandalf and Legolas on our side too.

Don't get me wrong, I like Dennis and what he stands for progressively. I just don't think he's as pure as all that...

But I'm glad he'll be on the campaign trail because of his anti-war message and the fact that he brings the dead heads out with lots of drums. His supporters bring me right back to the dusty days of Alpine Valley, Wisconsin with Jerry and the boys!


Directing thegrassrootsmovie.com
by HE on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:17:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, You Certainly Get Points For Snark (none / 0)

but what's the point of your snark?

It's one part "he really does know how to wheel and deal," and one part pure character digs.  The first part offsets the more common complaint that he's too out of touch with reality--a point that's also offset by his electoral record.  The second part... frankly, I won't dignify with a response.  

As I've said, I think now's the time to be discussing ideas.  To be thinking big picture about what we want our political future to be.  We should think about possible candidates after that.  For now, we should look to candidates only for ideas that they contribute to thinking aobut the big picture.

I think it's fair to criticize politicians now--heck, it's always fair to do that--but the purpose of criticizing presidential contenders at this early point should be focused on what their positions indicate about the big picture future.

My problem with Obama, for example, revolves around my perception that now is time when we need polarization, in order to pull ourselves out of a rightward drift that's gone on for 30+ years.  I have a further sense that polarization along the proper lines will bring us 55-60% electoral victories nationally, with larger percentages in Congress--solid majoritarian governing material.  His rhetoric of consensus--while fine in the abstract--seems wildly misplaced in concrete political/historical terms.  The question of when to polarize and how to seek consensus on what terms is a big picture question.  And while I think Obama is seriously mistaken in the approach he's taken, it's way to early in the 2008 process to say where he'll end up.

As a very important year of governing unfolds, he may persist in this folly, or he may come to see it for what it is, without abandoning his longterm desire to bring people together--which, as I said, is fine in the abstract.  If he goes in the latter direction, I would probably have no problem supporting him.  So why lock in a position now?  And why obsses too much on minutia?  Look for stuff that's truly telling about the big-picture issues.  That's where I'm at right now.


by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:08:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No Snark Intended, It's Called Humor. (none / 0)

But I understand if you are not laughing because we have a country that is more concerned about Monday Night Football and American Idol than the fact that our government has been upended by a vicious group of neo-con corporate criminals who are profiting off the countless deaths of innocent people in an illegal war in our name.

Humor has helped after six years of republican friends not being able to understand that the people in charge of their party were/are actually intent on destroying our government, not changing it. The insanity that they, educated but scared people who would sell out everything they stood for just to have the false sense of security.

But any how, Paul, I do understand where you are coming from. I agree with where you are at right now.

I think Dennis is needed more than ever in this race especially since the so-called conservative movement has made the so-called center so far to the right that we on the left have to work extra hard to remind people who benefits from governing from the left of center--the old center that was lost when Mondale lost to Reagan and the the Big Dawg let all the dogs of K street in the House.

I do enjoy hearing Obama talk like a big visionary and everybody coming together ala Kennedy but my worry is that racism is America's biggest problem--why it is so easy to con people here into invading and killing people without moral consequence by the hundreds of thousands because those people are not white like them. I worry for Obama and his family, frankly, let alone the idea that he could win.

But that is your point, and I agree, there's no reason why the populist party should not listen to all sides in the beauty contest. Kucinich should be in there and I said I especially like him because he brings me back to innocent days of yore--well, his primary backers did (with the drums of peace and dancing and colorful buses and all).

I'm right on with his message too, yet what I was talking about were the disappoinments I did find in what you called his "wheeling and dealing." But that comes from obviously being on the Dean team from the start and obviously biased in my support.

Some of my humor just came from the old memories of the 04 sparring in the beginning of that great campaign. I used to play a lot of D&D and Dennis reminded me of some great characters I had...though I know he has great character. Just making myself laugh I guess...no one should be offended. I'd like to see a candidate like Dennis---whom James Carville told me the media (meaning him)actually intentionally "took him out" when they decided his time was up pre NH---could slay the big dragon and win.

Alas, as nice of a guy Dennis was to me on the trail, he will be shot down when "they" decide, and that makes him no less or different than Dean. So that was a bummer to find out he was playing a game like that in Iowa, but hey, it's all war in politics and who knows what can happen.

I'm with you, let's do what we do best in this blogosphere of ours and make people talk big picture things and get them interested in figuring out why they are, or aren't pulling a voting lever or complaining about electronic voting.

sorry if I got lost and have not addressed everyting.

PS: did you know Dennis carries around really old and expensive vintage baseball cards to remind him of why he is in politics? He's an interesting cat and very approachable if you are out there on the road this next presidential campaign. Ask him about it.


Directing thegrassrootsmovie.com
by HE on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:22:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry I Mistook You (none / 0)

I've talked to him before.  He's been in San Pedro a number of times, both during the 2004 campaign and afterwards.  He's certainly been well-received by the labor movement there, as well as a more diverse progressive audience.  He was also funny, disarming, and down-to-earth.  But I didn't know about the baseball cards.

What I recall most, however, was seeing him in early 2002, at an event put on by Americans for Democratic Action.  It was just a few weeks or so after Bush's "Axis of Evil" State of the Union.  A number of different people spoke there, some quite brilliant in their analysis, but they were all pretty down-beat, as you can imagine.

Then Dennis came on. And he was like a firebreathing dragon. He was just angry as hell that this gang of fascist bullies (my term, not his) was trying to take advantage of this national tragedy to strip America of its core values. I just don't think that anyone else in the country was anywhere close to psychic space he was in. And for me, even though many more people have come around since then, I still think there's something incredibly rare, precious and significant in an elected politician having that sort of profound independence of mind and spirit.

And, I have to admit, a good deal of my disappointment with Barak Obama came from thinking that he had that same independence, too.  Maybe if he was 18 inches shorter, he'd be a little more feisty, like Dennis.


by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:35:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

my favorite politcal quote: (none / 0)

"I would rather have Roosevelt in a wheel chair than Ronald Reagan on a horse!"

The crowd erupted and I knew there was something more happening at this event than my crush on the daughter of the most prominent democratic donor at the DNC SF event.

The only problem was Gary Hart. His people were insane.

They were in the way, like pancakes at Sears Cafe.

Yet, there was something about them. Their fight was unlike the kids that had no suits at the Dead Kennedy concert outside he Moscone center who started their protest just before Ted Kennedy was to speak.

Then Jesse spoke.


Directing thegrassrootsmovie.com
by HE on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zero Content From A Kucinich Hater (none / 0)

mihan:

If a candidate loses the MSM, unpopular as the media may be in the netroots, it is impossible to sell a candidate to a plurality of voters as being worthy of the Presidency.

I do not call it the 'MSM'. It is in fact the Fascist Media Regime (FMR). We do not need politicians to worry about losing the FMR. What we need is the FMR to lose it's grip on the minds of the public. The FMR is the enemy, not the GOP, which would be nothing without FMR support.


by blues on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:02:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zero Content From A Kucinich Hater (none / 0)

Oh good lord, I'll bet you were a Pennachio/Cegelis supporter too, huh? Hey, if you want Kucinich as your President, then god bless, but just keep an eye on the MyDD polls. Kucinich is embarassing. His positions on the issues, maybe a lot of people agree with them. But if so, why not vote for him? Most Democrats, as in 99%, just won't. The vast plurality of MyDD just won't. I won't. So who cares? The real reason why? Who really cares? Just a couple of people on a blog, it would appear.


by mihan on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:16:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zero Content From A Kucinich Hater (none / 0)

You say that as if it's wrong to be a Pennacchio or Cegelis supporter. Well, guess what? Pennacchio would have beaten Santorum, and then we would have had a progressive Democratic Senator from PA, and Duckworth lost. She lost. By a bigger margin than Cegelis did in '04.

So...shut the f*** up.


by craverguy on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zero Content From A Kucinich Hater (none / 0)

ouch, I guess you showed me. Good job, buddy.


by mihan on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:27:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, He Did (none / 0)

But you showed yourself, even more.  You showed yourself to be a DLC-style Beltway Head.  Utterly uninterested in ideas.  Only interested in who has the image of a winner.

Look at the entirety of the comments to this diary.  Notice the utter paucity of substantive criticism.  You may not be alone here.  But you're not in a good place.


by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:42:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, He Did (none / 0)

DLC-style Beltway head? I'm from Oregon, moron. I voted for Blumenauer, worked for Kulongoski(not the best I admit), gave money to Darcy Burner, Jon Tester, Patrick Murphy, Joe Sestak, Jim Webb, Gary Trauner, John Yarmouth and Victoria Wulsin, among others. I love ideas, and I'm glad there are plenty of members of Congress who can make them happen. Give a Democratic President a good piece of legislation, the vast majority of Presidential candidates we'll have will sign it. If Kucinich wins the Dem nomination, we'll look pretty stupid sending universal healtcare legislation on up to President Brownback.

You don't need to question my progressive credentials. If not liking Kucinich as a Presidential candidate is a crime, I hope you'll go after the majority of MyDD bloggers with the same tenacity.


by mihan on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:04:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just The Ones (none / 0)

If not liking Kucinich as a Presidential candidate is a crime, I hope you'll go after the majority of MyDD bloggers with the same tenacity.
who make stupid non-arguments.

Don't give me a list of your credentials.  Just show me some semblance of an intelligent, on-point argument.

Is that too much to ask?


by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:28:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just The Ones (none / 0)

What's your definition of an intelligent, on-point argument? I have a feeling that anything anyone says, other than "I'd vote for Kucinich" and "of course he's electable", would be wrong in your view.

I DO know of at least one high-profile blogger that thinks Kucinich isn't a serious candidate. I guess I'm not alone.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1 2/14/131844/59


by mihan on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:35:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On Point??? (none / 0)

Maybe you should read your own  replies in this thread before judging other comments.


by Pravin on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 10:21:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zero Content From A Kucinich Hater (none / 0)

Duckworth lost. She lost. By a bigger margin than Cegelis did in '04.

Duckworth lost by 4810 votes (2%)
Cegelis lost by 29,157 votes (12%)

In both votes and percentages, you're wrong.

Although you can always say that Cegelis got more votes. In the spirit of "Bill Nelson got more votes in 2000 than in 2006"


by RBH on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 07:31:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I Stand Corrected (none / 0)

My real problem with Duckworth was not that she lost, but that she was a carpetbagger parachutted into a district where Cegalis had done an enormous amount of spadework.  Rahm dumped a ton of money into the race, and we still lost.  It's a flawed model.  Even when it wins, it makes us indebted to big money donors with lots of strings, not to the people in the district.


by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:46:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich's Announcement Speech (none / 0)

In what way is Kucinich "out of his mind"?


by justinh on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:18:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Even Blanco??? (none / 0)

Let's ease up on the hyperbole. SO you would actually prefer someone like Blanco over Kucinich? I have no intention of voting for him, but seriously you overestimate the depth of the democrats or you really exagerrate what a loser Kucinich is.


by Pravin on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:57:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich's Announcement Speech (none / 0)

I can't get past his idea to create a Department of Peace, with the goal of "reorienting society."  Reminds me too much of the Cultural Revolution.  It isn't the government's job to reorient or guide the moral values of society, which is what the Department of Peace would be attempting.

Kucinich is an also-ran who was unable to crawl out of the third-tier in 2004.  But still his presence was productive, especially regarding the Iraq War question.  Other than Dean the top tier wasn't talking about Iraq, and Kucinich kept them honest.

So while I appreciate the Kucinich factor, I would not vote for him in a primary.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:24:22 PM EST

Counter-Examples: Abolition, Women's Rights, etc. (none / 0)

I can't get past his idea to create a Department of Peace, with the goal of "reorienting society."  Reminds me too much of the Cultural Revolution.  It isn't the government's job to reorient or guide the moral values of society, which is what the Department of Peace would be attempting.
The religious right's counter-revolution against civil rights, women's rights and the 20th Century in general has certainly served as a cautionary tale against trying to use government to dictate moral directions to society.  But it was a counter-revolution in response to precisely the same thing, only in a progressive, reality-based direction.

Outlawing segregtion and second-class citizenship for women was a profound reorientation of society, as was the abolition of slavery 100 years earlier.  One cannot avoid such challenges.  If one refuses to consider them, one has made a choice against them.  And this is what you are, de-facto, advocating.

I don't think you really believe this.  I just think you haven't considered it from all angles.  Kucinich is proposing a profound reorientation of our society, true.  But it is not a top-down blueprint type of change.  It is very much an empowering-the-people type of change.  Developing the skills and capacities to resolve conflicts nonviolently is one of the most fundamental ways we can empower people who are generally kept in check by playing them off against one another.

So I would encourage you to take another, deeper look at the idea of a Department of Peace.  I'm not asking you to support Kucinich.  I haven't decided myself if I'm going to support him this time.  I think it's way too premature.  But I do support this idea, and I don't see why other candidates could not embrace it as well.


by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:04:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Counter-Examples (none / 0)

Dang it Paul, you keep beating me to the same commenters, and always more carefully thought out too!  How do you type/think so fast?

As I indicated below, I probably would have supported Kucinich (or Carol Moseley Braun, for somewhat similar quixotic reasons) if Dean hadn't stepped up and become the person we needed to lead the movement.  And simply for his steadfastness to the principle of nonviolence, he will remain a contender for my vote until my final decision is made.

As for

If one refuses to consider them, one has made a choice against them.
it reminded me of the popular quote, derived from the 3rd canto of Dante's Inferno:
The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.

To make no assumptions about the afterlife, that's certainly true, at least, for how history remembers them.


Tim Wolfe

John McCain is not pro-choice!

by bruorton on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:30:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HT For Dante Ref (none / 0)

So what if I got there first?  Style points for Dante. Always.

BTW, have you ever read Linden Hills by Gloria Naylor?  It's about an affleunt black neighborhood, and it's modeled on The Inferno.  She's a vastly under-rated novelist, IMHO.


by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:03:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich's Announcement Speech (3.00 / 1)

I have sort of the same appreciation of his presence because somebody sure needed to be saying that in '04 -- and if not for Dean, even without the same fire in the belly Kucinich might well have gathered much more support.

However, your comments on "reorienting society" invite a larger discussion I think it would be good for us to have.  My immdeiate thoughts wereof Republicans doing that via, say, breaking down the separation of church and state or legislating morality directly... but perhaps Roosevelt's New Deal as well.  

Wasn't the latter also a major restructuring of American society, that we would all make an assumed commitment to preserving one another's social security?  In a way, that's as radical as a government organization that works on the humble premise that we should reduce violence in our society.  Towards one another, and towards others elsewhere as well.

Is that something we should look for our government to do?  Or should its role be more prosaic?  Like I said, this raises an interesting point I'd be curious to hear MyDDer's weigh in on.


Tim Wolfe

John McCain is not pro-choice!

by bruorton on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:10:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich's Announcement Speech (none / 0)

Paleo-conservative Republicans understand this situation. For example, Scott Ritter, former US Marine intelligence agent, and UN arms inspector, whom I talked with, expressed it clearly. My own example would be Germany from WW I through WWII. Violent acts spurred them on to more and more violent acts, until they arrived at a point at which they could no longer function as a nation. Ritter said the US is on this same slippery slope, and that it would destroy us.


by blues on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dennis Kucinich is a good man. (3.00 / 1)

He earned my respect in Iowa in 2004, and he added a lot to the process. He helps to elevate the debates. In each precinct, at the start of the caucus, a supporter of each candidate gets to speak briefly about what their candidate stands for. Even though the Kucinich supporters in my precinct were too few to reach the 15% minimum, their voices (and therefore his) were heard.  


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:21:38 PM EST

Emergency !!! (none / 0)

This is an emergency. We must get these "Democrats" to think outside the Beltway Bubble very, very soon!

------------------------------

Truthdig / Interviews
Dennis Kucinich's Showdown With the Democratic Leadership

Kucinich: I think this is going to be a serious test of the Democratic Party. We were put in power because people expected a new direction in Iraq. It goes without saying that they expect greater transparency and oversight, but they also expect us to do something to bring the troops home. Now, if Congress goes ahead under Democratic leadership and votes to approve what some are now estimating as an additional $160 billion for the war in Iraq, bringing the total for the fiscal year to $230 billion, the Democratic Congress will have bought George Bush's war. Now, who would buy a used war from this administration?

Truthdig: Weren't the Democrats elected because of the war in Iraq?

Kucinich: The Democrats came to power because of a strong desire on the part of the voters to get out of Iraq. That's why people voted Democratic. So now, with the Democratic leadership taking a position saying they're going to approve the supplemental budget in the spring, this could be seen by many as a breach of faith.

Truthdig: What can people do?

Kucinich: People first of all need to know about this. People need to know that there is an attempt by our leadership to support the supplemental, and what the consequences are.... The most difficult part of the challenge is to get members of Congress to understand that they themselves voted for a bill which went into effect on Oct. 1 that appropriated $70 billion, which could be used to bring the troops home. Unfortunately, our leadership is saying they're supporting the supplemental as a way of supporting the troops. So if we continue to ignore the money that's there right now to bring the troops home, we're losing an opportunity to bring the troops home now. People are now saying that they oppose the war, but they're continuing to fund it in the name of supporting the troops.

------------------------------

Weekend Edition
December 9 / 10, 2006
CounterPunch Diary
Liberal Consensus Hardens for More Troops to Iraq; Meet Senator Slither; Farewell, Jeane Kirkpatrick

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

Here's comes Rep Silvestre Reyes of Texas, handpicked by Nancy Pelosi to head the House Intelligence Committee and he's calling for 20,000 more U.S. troops to be sent to Iraq. Reyes says they're needed to crush the Shi'a and Sunni militias. Didn't I tell to you right here, after the Nov 7 "peace moment" the polls, that the Democrats would fall into line behind Senator John McCain? The minute Jack Murtha made his run for House Majority leader the liberal establishment began to take a stand against all seditious talk of "immediate redeployment". You can scarcely open up the New York Times without tripping over a piece by Michael Gordon reporting yet another thoughtful military man--he put up General Zinni in this capacity last week--saying that the prudent short-term course would be to send more troops to Iraq.

Contrast this with the angry floor speech Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, the potato kind of Pendleton, who said straighforwardly on Thursday night that he'd had it with the president that the US should "cut and run, cut and walk or whatever ... "

You want more evidence of Democratic spinelessness? How about the confirmation of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense by the U.S. Senate, 95 to 2. Not a single Democrat voted against this slippery survivor of the Iran-contra scandal, who spent the early part of his intelligence career at the CIA and NSC, inflating the Soviet threat and leaking fictions about the KGB plot to kill the pope to neocon fantasists like Clare Sterling. The two No votes came from Santorum of Pennsylvania and Bunning of Kentucky. Some of the Democrats voting Aye this time voted No on Gates when he was up for confirmation as Bush Sr's CIA chief back in 1991.


by blues on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:46:01 PM EST

The Tancredo of 08 (none / 0)

Like Tancredo, he's batshit insane.  Both will make debates fun, but I can't think of a candidate who would get his ass kicked more than Kucinich in a general.


by Terryus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:51:02 PM EST

Re: The Tancredo of 08 (none / 0)

Kucinich's chances in the primaries are nearly nil. However, his message happens to be the one we need to hear. So he gets a certain kind of support from most decent people. We understand a bit about strategy, and we are not stupid.


by blues on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:10:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think he's stupid (or you) (none / 0)

I just think he's crazy.  His chances aren't nearly nil, they are nil.  We need to hear the message of Al Gore, who was right about Iraq from the beginning, and sounded completely sane.  


by Terryus on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:49:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he's stupid (or you) (3.00 / 1)

I just think he's crazy.

As opposed to all those sane folks who want us to go bankrupt from these pointless wars? I don't think so. I will not say bad things about this decent man.


by blues on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:39:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Tancredo of 08 (none / 0)

He has very little chance. I am still puzzled by his support of Edwards in Iowa in 2004.

However, I will never discourage a guy from running. I personally believe we can have it both - a guy with leadership charisma AND substance. Dennis doesn't have that mainstream leadership charisma that is a useful plus when selling your agenda to the mainstream public in a big democracy.

Having said that, Dennis has shown some fire in meetings before. So maybe he can translate that to a national level charisma during his second go around in the debates.

In the worst case, he will still be useful in representing the left wing of the party and making it tougher for the press to shift the center to the right.

Regardless, I will respect his right to run and will not make fun of a true believer even if I do not have intention of voting for him unless the only alternative is Hillary.


by Pravin on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your decorum (none / 0)

is refreshing.


Tim Wolfe

John McCain is not pro-choice!

by bruorton on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:47:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oh geez (none / 0)

are the primary wars starting up already?!?


Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:00:05 PM EST

Re: oh geez (none / 0)

Not really. Since Kooky Dennis has zero chance, there really can't be a "war" on this one.

This is more your typical disagreement between the pragmatist wing and the one's who really, really believe they can get back to Auntie Em and Toto by clicking their heels together three times. Pretty much typical once you move left of center.

Those of us who've been around watch groups splinter left and right on this faultline.


by ElitistJohn on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:52:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Check Your Calendar, Please (none / 0)

At this point 4 years ago, folks were rolling their eyes at Howard Dean, too.  If they even knew who he was.  And you know what?  He didn't make it.  But he changed everything anyway.  And that could just as well happen again this time around.  Something completely unforeseen, unexpected.

It's way too early to be thinking about which candidate will be "the one."

Right now is the time for thinking big picture about what the party should be about.  Look at the candidates in terms of what ideas or directions they offer, not for the purpose of choosing, or defending a favorite, but simply for the purpose of having a discussion from which even better ideas can come.  We should have that discussion first--not with an eye toward reaching a conclusion, but simply to elevate our gaze, and our level of thinking.

This is what we should be about.  Having a high-level discussion on a national level, free from the gatekeepers that have traditionally stood in our way.  We've never had an opportunity like this.  In 2004, frankly, we didn't need it.  What to be for and