Kucinich Charges Dem Establishment of Trying to Muscle Him Out

http://www.newsandpolicy.com/news/2007/11/kucinich-iowas-been-kind-of-a-rigged-game-the-iowa.html

Kucinich: "Iowa's been kind of a rigged game, the Iowa state Democratic Party wants to determine who the next president's going to be"

By ABC News | Kucinich


Calling himself a "long-shot candidate," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio., blasted his fellow Democratic presidential contenders during an interview with ABC News, arguing that his rivals have given in to health insurers and big pharmaceutical companies.

"I'm the one candidate who is running for president who has the ability to stand up to the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies -- the other candidates have already capitulated," Kucinich said on 'Politics Live' Thursday on ABC News Now -- ABC's digital news channel.

"These insurance companies have a grip on Washington and on the Democratic Party," he said, arguing that he is the only presidential candidate with a health care plan that is completely not-for-profit.

The Ohio congressman said he is optimistic about his chances after a New York Times/CBS poll released this week had Kucinich in fifth place in New Hampshire with 5 percent support, but only four percentage points behind former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

"I know I'm a long-shot candidate," he said. "The fact that I went up to 5 percent in New Hampshire shows that I have to keep moving up. If I can get to third place, the race starts to change a little bit."

more...

http://www.newsandpolicy.com/news/2007/11/kucinich-iowas-been-kind-of-a-rigged-game-the-iowa.html

We need you desperately!

...we need Dennis.

Sure. We need Dennis about as much as we need Hepatitis and Staph infections. There isn't much difference.

If this turd is allowed to keep stirring the pot and screaming about impeachment and embarrassing the shit out of Pelosi and Hoyer, what we're gonna get is another Republican in the White House.

Hillary is an awful candidate and she's running a non-race. Yes, she has plenty of money and plenty of good talent on her team but half of the party hates her fucking guts. Edwards says she's unelectable because she can't carry anything red. He's right...and if that includes Ohio, the Democrats will face another four or eight years in the wilderness. She needs Ohio or Pennsylvania...and she must win Florida because we know she won't carry anything else in the south. Gore found that out the hard way.

If she can't handle competition from her own party, what do you think the Republicans will do to her next Fall?

Then there's the question of Ralph Nader. I haven't heard anything but if he jumps in, all hell will break loose.

Of all the candidates on the stage the other night, the most qualified was probably Biden. I'd vote for Joe...but he'll never get the nomination. He doesn't have the right friends.

that if we had a candidate who agreed more with Kucinich that they might have a better chance of winning the general election? Did you hear what Biden said during the last debate about having an anti-war candidate? Bascially he said "don't listen to the propaganda".

I do know this about DK, once he is pushed out of the scene; so am I. I will then be only a somewhat interested by-stander. Unless, I hear otherwise; the issues of the other candidates suck. Meanwhile, before my vacation from politics, my money and support stays with Kucinich.

the majority of American people think that war in Iraq has been a disaster and they are not likely to support war in Iran. He also indicated that this opinion was bipartisan, and the only reason Republicans are going along with it now is because they are afraid to go against Bush. Once a new administration is about to be in place, there's no reason a Democratic candidate could not win the general election on an anti-war platform. He also said don't listen to the propaganda <Clinton-Obama> that would suggest otherwise. This is all paraphrased.

We will be in Iraq for years to come . Did that mean he thinks we have a role for many years to come.

and doubtless has been exposed to many of the secrets that aren't being discussed publicly. The basic issues are: what are the plans for the military bases and the US embassy and how are we going to affect the political evolution. Are we still going to twist their arm with respect to the oil law? The media would rather ignore these issues, but they are important ones for Biden to address. I don't know how his statements about being in Iraq for years relate to these.

consider impeachment. And he's not pro-war, but he refuses to cut the funding. The fact that he has a son involved might have something to do with his opinion, but I don't agree there. I think that's the only was to stop this occupation, as does Kucinich. And Dodd, I believe, because he voted against additional funding last week.

...a lot of folks just like you in the party, who simply aren't willing to be pragmatic.

It's one of the reasons we've had Republican chief executives for as many years as we have.

THe despised left has been the driving force behind every victory that the Dems have had over the last eight years, yet the establishment is either too afraid or too well paid to take a chance on the left.

I'm willing to bet that if we elected an anti-war candidate their are enough moderates that are sick of the GOP to elect an "extremist" who believes in such radical ideas as not picking fights with third world countries.
Maybe you are right though and someone like Kucinich will put-off the center and we will have another four years of Republican government. If this is the case I can't help but think that the center deserves it.
If the choice is between taking a stand and achieving nothing and not taking a stand and still achieving nothing I'll take the former over the latter.

...truly how you feel, then don't be surprised when things like the Fairness Doctrine go away. Since you're not willing to do what it takes to be represented, it doesn't matter anyway.

voting for some "middle-way" path that doesn't represent me? I may be abrasive, but I'm trying to change minds here. There may be some room in the Democratic party for so-called pragmatism, I even agree that change must be incremental in many cases, but the Dems have got to actually work for change. They can't just decry George Bush say ", but there's nothing we can really do" and call it a day.

To be perfectly honest I don't understand the point of your post.

The problem is that the "center" has bought into the same smear campaign of the left that the right has been pushing for the last 30 years (at least). They've internalized the idea that the left isn't good enough, smart enough or well liked enough to win, and that is a self-defeating idea.

So I repeat, what has "pragmatism" and "centris" achieved? and I'd also like to ask, why should I care for the "center" when the "center" granted George W. legitimacy, went along with Iraq, voted for the patriot act and has generally treated it's own voters with contempt for 8 years?

...represent you, then you need to go third party...probably with the Greens.

The only kind of Democrat that's electable in a general election will be a centrist. We can argue about this all day but if I didn't know I was right, I wouldn't stick my neck out and make that statement.

Clinton won in 1992 because he ran as a centrist up and down the line. You know it's true. He won in 1996 for the same reason, even failing to carry Florida but carrying so much of the rest of the south that it didn't matter.

Carter did the same thing in 1976. So did Kennedy in 1960...and he just barely won.

Are ya with me?

You can't sell abortion, gay rights, gun control and unionism to southern white males! And what they think, matters! Period! End of story!

I read a piece recently about the so called NASCAR voter. Just what the fuck does the average Democrat who's catering to the Moveon.org and DailyKos crowd say to get those people's votes?

NOTHING. But I'll betcha Rudy Giuliani will make inroads there. He's got a loud mouth. So have the average guy and gal who are attracted by that lifestyle.

What the current leftward lurch of the Democrats appears to be setting up is for their party to get the living, breathing fuck beaten out of it next Fall. This is what happened in 2004. Bush should not have gotten a second term but Kerry was such a bad candidate and ran one of the worst campaigns in memory that Bush basically walked across the finish line. Bush doesn't speak well, he doesn't think quickly on his feet...but he still won. WHY?

I know why. I just told you why.

The south matters. It matters a lot. It determines who wins presidential elections in this country.

Are ya with me?

He was unwilling to stand up to George W. Bush. THat's what this debate over centrism vs. leftism is really about. It's not really about specific issues such as abortion or gun rights. It's about whether you have the spine to stand up for what you believe or whether you are going to continually back down when pressed.

...it's whether or not you can win enough of the right states to accumulate 270 Electoral votes!

That is what presidential races are about. And nothing else.

The candidate who most comes to mind here is Mondale from 1984. Reagan walked all over him in those debates. I remember...I was there. Dukakis was another bad one, when Bernie Shaw set him up with that question about Kitty. He committed political suicide right in front of God and everybody. I was sitting on the couch with my parents, looked at them and said the race was over. I was right.

This is precisely why Democrats have this propensity to lose, cycle after cycle after cycle. Yes, once in awhile they win (2006) but then, the next time, the nutty loony mentally ill left becomes emboldened and pushes the party off a cliff. That's what happened in 1972, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004. Carter was different in 1980 but he was so weakened by Uncle Teddy's primary challenge and the hostage crisis that he never really had a prayer. Carter should never have run that year.

Even Jack Kennedy ran as a centrist in 1960, because his advisors told him that was where most people stood...and he just barely won that race.

And guess what? This is precisely the scenario that's shaping up for 2008. If Hillary can't quiet down the Democratic base and get the discussion back to the center, she'll be tarred and feathered by the Republicans. She will be chewed up like a piece of raw meat and we will get another 'Pub in the White House. You just watch and see if that doesn't happen.

And right now, it doesn't look good. Half the party doesn't trust her because her husband signed NAFTA and welfare reform. Her negatives are higher than anyone who's ever run and been elected President.

We needed Gore.

the center was overly cautious and afraid to stand its ground making the Dems seem wish-washy and unprincipled "flip-flopping" if you will. The 2006 elections were won in spite of party leadership rather than because of it.
Perhaps in some election cycles it is more important to present a moderate face and not rock the boat, but in this election cycle the boat is fairly capsizing, and refusing to take strong and principled stands is just allowing it to sink.

It hasn't been enforced at all -- just look at the Fox News hate machine.

I am supporting the candidate of my choice in the primaries, and will vote for our nominee in the generals.

If this country gets stuck with another Republican, I guess we can all thank people like you, who are myopic in their political interest. Kind of self-serving if you ask me. And, you know what, I bet DK would tell you to support the candidate. As long as they didn't support war.

Some of us actually care about the future of this country, and seeing justice done.

And then there's cowards like you, willing to let criminals get away with murder.

...there are people like me who choose their battles carefully.

We're the same ones who aren't in the habit of losing battle after battle, year after year.

What you're saying is precisely what people said when they nominated McGovern in 1972, knowing full well that he'd lose forty or more states. That's what shaping up again. A lot of Democrats will stay home rather than vote for Hillary, and one hell of a lot of Republicans will crawl across broken glass soaked in acid to vote against her.

And we'll get another 'Pub in the White House.

And you'll drop another anti-depressant.

WE can not afford another Clinton "pardoning forgiving and healing" us into letting the fascist criminals get away with it again.

Pelosi and Hoyer don't need Kucinich to embarrass them, they're doing a pretty good job of doing that themselves, as apparently you are too.

Then you end this despicable, embarrassing rant saying Biden is the most qualified ... but he'll never get the nomination ... because he doesn't have the "right friends."

Who exactly are the "right friends"? The insurance companies that have paid Joe off? MIC friends? The big money people? People with intelligence?

You sir are so off base it's hard to put into a message just what delusional cellar you dwell in.

Kucinich is hands down the best candidate. And he won't get the nomination because dolts like you buy into the corrupted message coming from mass media instead of doing the research into the records of who voted for the public interests as opposed to who voted for the corporate interests.

Everything, I mean everything, I've heard from him (even the 16 year old vote) makes sense. It's so past time to move into a new world of promise. He sees a way to make things work that will benefit all. He is running as a problem solving President, who is here to serve not to dominate, or charm, or use this Country.

I see him being marginalized in favor of the in crowd and it is disappointing to see our leaders being chosen by their " good ol' boy" abilities. A wise responsible President would be so refreshing at it's simplest and so rewarding at it's outcome.

DK ALL THE WAY!!!!!

Bilderberg Group - Gen. Smedley Butler - Project for the New American Century - Norman Dodd http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-7373201783240489827&hl=en

It's starting to seep through, but unfortunately most are still under the impression that this country is a democratic/republic as opposed to being an oligarchy.

Know this: the people in power, especially those now in the White House, WANT to destroy the Constitution. They want to destroy our boarders, our economy and form the New World Order.

If you think that's crazy, than view the evidence and come back and talk. Why else would what's going on be going on if this wasn't true? They lie to our faces and dare us to do anything about it. But we can't. Because they own the government, the courts, the media and the weapons.

Kucinich won't get the nomination because he opposes the destruction of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our country, while the rest of these so-called candidates are nothing but shills for the New World Order.

you are our only hope!

I love Dennis. I want him in the white house. But I think this is the stopping point of his campaign. Calling himself a long shot, for starters... no. No, BAD Dennis, no biscuit... And then accusations of conspiracy (warranted or not) against the other candidates... This doesn't help Dennis and I think he knows that.

Damn it.

Still dropping him in the ballot box, anyway.

The *tone* of the article is the problem. You really get the impression in the first few paragraphs that he is writing himself off. But far from it, if you read more.

Mainstream news articles have a completely different read if you read them from back to front. You tend to get the real facts first and the spin at the beginning has much less impact.

Kucinich has called himself a long shot before. I think that Dennis is a real threat, a potential spoiler. After the last two Presidential elections, it wouldn't surprise me at all that many Dem party apparatchiks would try to smooth things for Hillary, who many, no doubt, view a sure thing if she gets the nomination.

"The candidate accused the Iowa state Democratic Party of throwing support behind only the leading Democratic contenders."

That's an accusation of support, not conspiracy. Never used the word.

Hmmm.

Hail, Hillary.

Everyone roots for the lovable underdog.

IF democracy in America is alive and stong, DK has a chance.

:kick:

With almost 21000 votes cast in The Nation online poll (started on 7th November), Dennis is way ahead with a 9% lead over his nearest rival Barack Obama. These are the standings on 17th November!

Joseph Biden
(611) 2%

Hillary Clinton
(1062) 5%

John Edwards
(2630) 12%

Christopher Dodd
(260) 1%

Mike Gravel
(2417) 11%

Dennis Kucinich
(7203) 34%

Barack Obama
(5398) 25%

Bill Richardson
(1389) 6%

These are sorts of national the polls that Dennis and his campaign team should be shouting from the rooftops!

It is very obvious who is the candidate of choice of those who can read and think!

that any reasonable candidate would "shout" about. The margin of error completely negates the result. You said you can read and think and so I believe you. Certainly you can read and think about potential problems with an Online Poll.

A regular poll targets just about 1000 people in a selected demographic profile with loaded questions and comes to a result which they claim is plus or minus 3 %.

The Nation online poll (with just one single question) would have met that demographic spread at least 10 times over if not 20 times, except that it is restricted to readers on The Nation online.

The margin of error in this poll would be not more that plus or minus 1% of this category of the demography.

The percentages have steadily increased in favour of Dennis. Edwards got s short blip after the debate, but a poll which has been online for over 10 days is far more accurate than a telephone poll with a series of loaded questions.

And do read this alongside 189368 submissions to a form (so far) about issues and then you will see that Dennis is way head and shoulders above any other candidate.

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php

I am not American, I do not live in the US (also never been there), am not White, Black, Muslim or Jew but have an interest in the US election as it impacts the world, not your life-style in the US. But I listen to all major US Liberal Talk Show Hosts and this poll result of The Nation mirrors the opinion of almost every single major Liberal Talk Show Host in the US. So the beef was about online, and then it can be about Liberal Talk Show listeners, etc., etc., except the real error of corporate controlled media polls!

a grasp of some of the problems with this poll, but offhand dismiss them & still believe it to be reprentative of American Democrats?

You dismiss these problems by claiming that other polls are inaccurate. Well even if that is true, it does not make THIS poll accurate.

If you are going to trust that a poll that is subject to freeping, residing on a web site that self identifies as "The Flagship of the Left", only available to self-selecting, left leaning, The Nation reading, internet users as an indicative cross-section of America, you are deluding yourself. The problem here is The Nation readers are not a cross section of America.

A large sample size does not modify a polls margin of error proportionally. The point is bad data in, bad data out. Think of it this way. If you stood at the door of a sports event and asked all people that walked through the door if they enjoyed sports you simply could not make any conclusions about the views on sports of the population at large whether you asked 100 of the attendees or 50,000.

An unscientific biased poll only returns unscientific biased results, without regard to how many other bad polls there are out there.

For you , others are bad polls, biased polls, unscientific polls?

If there was freeping it should occur for all candidates, not just Kucinich.

And when his lead has been steady and growing for this period of time, then who is freeping?

What you are implying that Dennis has the best freepers in the US to keep his lead so steady so no one will suspect freeping!

Simply absurd.

Here are the latest figures with almost 21150 pollers:

Poll | posted November 7, 2007 (web only)

If the Democratic presidential primary were held today in your state, who would get your vote?

Joseph Biden
(618) 2%

Hillary Clinton
(1072) 5%

John Edwards
(2644) 12%

Christopher Dodd
(263) 1%

Mike Gravel
(2420) 11%

Dennis Kucinich
(7306) 34%

Barack Obama
(5421) 25%

Bill Richardson
(1399) 6%

As I said in another thread:

"Lies, damned lies and statistics!"

As much as you would like to put words in my mouth, I did not say, nor do I agree with this idiotic statement. What I did say is that a biased, nonrandom, nonscientific poll returns a nonscientific, biased non-representative result.

"If there was freeping it should occur for all candidates, not just Kucinich"
Huh?... Freeping by nature is balanced? Oh never mind. Let me be clear that I make no claim that Kucinich benefited disproportionately from freeping. But, all one has to do is look at Kucinich's own web site and see that his supporters at the MINIMUM were inviting freeping and then rejoicing in their OWN perceived success of their efforts: http://action.dennis4president.com/forum/posts/id_1997/page_last/



In Response and furthering of the call to freep:


And then a mere 10 hours after the first call to action:


I have no idea what degree freeping had on the results, and that is the problem with Self-Selected Activist-Promoted online polls. My point is the prospect of freeping decreases the level of confidence in inferences one can make from the result of an online poll. The FACT that a call to arms was made, action was taken, and a mere 10 hours later the lead that had taken 2 days to be established had changed, should raise skepticism.

Those entries also prove the falsehood of your statements: "his lead has been steady and growing for this period of time". Whatever.

If you are encouraged by this poll, and its results, more power to you. It says more positive about your candidate than if he would have lost. It is an indication of support somewhere. It says nothing of the sort to your claims that "Dennis is way head and shoulders above any other candidate" or his prospects as a Democratic Nominee for the nation at large, however.

The last fact I would like to leave with you, is as you look at the very poll itself you would see three little words that you conveniently keep leaving off of your useless results. Now these are not my words, they are written right on the polls results: Not Statistically Valid. http://www.thenation.com/poll/primaryvote1108

So, admitted "Not Statistically Valid" poll results subject to a proven call to freep are the type that "Dennis and his campaign team should be shouting from the rooftops!"? Lordy, my!

I have screen shots from 11th November when Dennis had polled 4405 votes till today when he has polled 7342 votes and his lead over Barack has grown from 6% to 9 %.

I would suggest you apologise for saying that I have stated a falsehood.

I also asked you to look at another form which has been filled by almost 190000 respondents and Dennis is far far ahead of the competition on issues. This is at

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php

The people above are ranked based on how often they are computed to be one of the top three choices for users who submit their political choices. A log entry is made each time a user submits their choices. This log entry contains, among other things, the top three choices for that user. What you see above is a tally of all the choices, weighted by their position for each user. We'll call that the number of Hot Pockets they have earned. The first-place candidate gets 3 Hot Pockets, the second-place candidate gets 2, and the third-place candidate gets 1 Hot Pocket (which everyone knows is just not enough). This method gives you a more fair representation of the interests of the users.

You would probably be interested to know that Kucinich has been the first choice of 104081 people (out of 189877). That wasn't my intention or expectation when making this site, but it is certainly interesting.

I also have screen shots of this result as the forms are being filled, so please kindly refrain from making such wild accusations. I do not know how to post images on DU Underground, but I am willing to email them to you.

I am not aware of the Dennis web site or any call for votes to be cast, and I suspect most of these 10481 out of 189877 form fillers or 7500 of the 21000 who voted for Dennis are unaware of any such calls on his site.

The site may claim that the results are not statistically valid which is far more honest than the sites which claim they are but which, in my humble opinion, are not.

What you are implying is that the Mainstream Media is statistically honest because they do not state that their results are NOT statistically accurate - which I know for sure it is not!

And, as I do not really care who wins your US elections, it does not bother me what you think, but kindly do not attack my integrity. In my 7 years on DU this is the first time someone has attacked me by saying I have written a falsehood.

While "a falsehood" connotes a deliberate lie, "the falsehood of x" concerns x's state of being false or not (like "falsity", "falseness"). Thus "those entries prove the falsehood of your statements" shouldn't be construed as an attack on your integrity but rather the integrity of your statements ("purposefully specious", on the other hand...)

No, I think s/he stated explicitly that an internet poll of self-selected respondents familiar with The Nation is unlikely to be a representative sample of the (primary voting) population at large, which is true. I wish we were a microcosm of the body politic, and perhaps this is what America would look like if it were collectively better informed, but at present there's no evidence suggesting Kucinich is favored in any non-virtual primary election. (Btw, "Hot Pockets" are an American delicacy possibly considered inedible by culinary standards.)

Seemed either purposefully specious or unwittingly fatuous given the :banghead: I was doing. Granting purposefulness was a compliment, no? :evilgrin: Anyhoo...thank-you for the succinct, supporting, clarification. Maybe without the offense the poster will be able to parse what I was saying...maybe not... But I think it more likely with the added third party input.

In your post on the 17th, you described "a poll which has been on-line for over 10 days" (i.e. from the 7th), and then followed up with a statement, which I provided evidence of my objection to. To be clear, I said:


I think perhaps you are confused as to the meaning of "falsehood of your statements". It is saying your STATEMENT is untrue or inaccurate, or false. It is not an attack of YOUR integrity, it says NOTHING about your integrity. It is a comment on the false nature of your stated facts. Besides a lead is either steady OR growing, not both. It could be steadily growing, but that is not a statement made nor objected to. The facts are, during the begining of the stated period (10 days); Obama had the lead, two days later Dennis took the lead, which grew partly due to people directing Kucinich supporters to this poll. These facts and links to such are right there for you to read and verify if you choose to do so.

"I would suggest you apologise for saying that I have stated a falsehood."
You stated a falsehood. No apology. Your statement, as it stood was false. I provided the links that demonstrated that. I provided a possible answer to your question of who is freeping, with links, dates and times that show from the period the poll began until shortly before 11/09/2007 22:17:57, his lead did not exist, it was not steady, nor was it growing. A lead can not grow until it exists and it did not exist until 2 days into the poll of the 10 day period you discussed. Hence the falsehood of your statement.

If you would like to now acknowledge the inaccuracy of your statement and change the period of discussion (beginning the 11th for example) in which Dennis had a lead that was either steady, OR growing, OR steadily growing, I have no reason to dispute that. I never did. My point was the inherent inaccuracy (And the stated "Statistically not Valid") nature of The Nation poll. I demonstrated a lead shift that occurred precisely at the time that Kucinich supporters were directing people to this poll and PROVIDED the links that shows that. You can ignore this links but it does not change the facts: "I am not aware of the Dennis web site or any call for votes to be cast..." Did you click on the links I provided? If you had, or do, you will be aware.

If you wish to discuss wild accusations:
'What you are implying is that the Mainstream Media is statistically honest because they do not state that their results are NOT statistically accurate - which I know for sure it is not!'
I said in my previous posts, and I will say it again don't put your words in my mouth... I make no such claims and do not believe in any such assertions, because I believe such would be idiotic. I never discussed MSM polls, their honesty, dishonesty nor otherwise, and I never mentioned a word about whether they include or do not include disclaimers. In fact I made no comparisons to alternate polls that you could even make this inference from. Talk about wild accusations. I discussed ONLY the poll of The Nation.

"kindly do not attack my integrity"
I did not state or imply anything about your integrity, I contradicted your "facts" with facts. Nothing about integrity. Where does this wild accusation come from? You can have integrity and make statements that are proven to be false... claiming you made a provably false statement is NOT an attack on your integrity.

"I also have screen shots of this {referring to the dehp poll} result as the forms are being filled, so please kindly refrain from making such wild accusations"
You totally lost me here.... What wild accusations am I supposed to be making in this regard on a poll I never commented on.... I cannot figure out what you are accusing me of here, but I am skeptical I could be making wild accusations about something I never mention.

'So only the polls you believe are the "good" polls. For you, others are bad polls, biased polls, unscientific polls?'
Please quote my having said this. Or even any statement I did make that states this by inference? My friend, I never stated BELIEF of a poll influences the level of bias, scientific nature, or goodness or badness of that poll. This would be idiotic. I do not believe this, and I said nothing of this nature. It is the structure of the poll that determines these qualities, not the belief of results. Claiming I believe or stated such without pointing to a fact is simply another wild accusation.

So I will be waiting for you to demonstrate your integrity and apologize for the above listed wild accusations/falsehoods. Or not.... At this point I don't care.

In the real world, it is going to be Obama or Clinton.

:bounce: Keep speaking the truth.

n/t

without corporate support.
Plus we are STILL using voting machines!!! 08 is going to be rigged again unless these machines are ditched!!! How can we have a fair election?

“Unlike other candidates, I am not funded by those corporate interests. I owe them no loyalty, and they have no influence over me or my policies.”---Dennis Kucinich


It is soooo embarrassing for the "serious" candidates to have someone who is CLEAR & Consistent on the stage with them while they triangulate and weasel.

If DK is silenced, who will tell America that:

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

*that "For Profit" HealthCare is obscene

*that Mandatory Health Insurance is NOT REALLY Universal HealthCare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Who will tell the truth to America if DK is silenced by BidMedia and the Democratic establishment? :shrug:

Dennis Kucinich's voice is one of the few reasons I am still in the Democratic Party.
If Dennis is silenced, then I am silenced.
If I have NO voice in the Democratic Party, why should I stay?

I concur completely. So I want to use my first post here to agree with your very well written sentiments and thank you for expressing them so succinctly.

Cue: Randi Rhodes sound effect for a first time caller..."POP"
And welcome to DU!
:toast:

Stand up with Kucinich!

I was very critical of him when he ran in 2004.
But now I value his candidacy tremendously. Everytime I do one of those matching things he is my guy, and I love what he has to say.
Beyond that, he is doing what Democrats desperately need and the third parties can't do.
He is showing voters that somewhere in the caucus, there is a strength of conscience than makes them worthy of our votes.
His presense as a Democrat also contributes significantly to the dialogue because he is the guy who gives us liberals permission to make the kinds of demands that are worthy of our country.

...is confirming the notion among many Americans in southern and midwestern states that all liberals are nuts. He's giving Rupert Murdoch more credibility than he could ever buy with all his money, power and influence.

Every time Dennis Kucinich gets on television, his district and the Cleveland area in general both get a black eye.

Every goddamn time.

Every time some CEO of a small to medium sized company in NE Ohio sees that Kucinich has been reelected to Congress, that guy gets nervous about his investment and starts looking for places to relocate his operations to. Guaranteed.

I'm sitting here wondering if Hillary is even going to be the nominee. Even if she wins her party's nomination, her ability to govern will be so crippled by her support for the war and her husband's support for the trade policies that have hurt the industrial belt of the country so badly in the last fifteen years or so...

I don't think she'll be much of a President.

Did you think you stumbled into a hate spewing forum? This is a discussion forum and usually folks will put a little fact and evidence behind their words. Perhaps you missed a right turn somewhere.

and they consider leaving Cleveland. Think you really mean leaving for China. If we had the economics of Kucinich, I think it very unlikely the US would have lost 3 million jobs this past six years.

One point I missed was to call attention to the fact that they have effectively contributed to the dialogue for Republicans by showing themselves as "closer to "reasonable Republicans" but-" the way they or another third party might have for Dems.
The trick is to raise just enough party interest so that they can raise issues in debates without drawing too many votes.

Libertarians acknowledge there is no chance of winning and don't care. The only way we have gotten ourselves into a position of having the kind of tax system we have is by having a bunch of Libertarians running on local ballots screaming "no taxes ever!"

You seem to resent his run. It's a democracy. Do what you have to do. Kuccinich knows intolerant voters are out there. That just shows what kind of personal sacrifice he is making.

...what he and the influence of his supporters have done to the economy of NE Ohio over the years, making the place incompatible with young professionals who aren't doctors.

We're separated from family because of his bullshit. Cleveland never recovered from the recession of 1979-1982 and all the while, cities in Right To Work states continued to grow and prosper.

Did you know Austin is growing so fast right now that the concrete companies can't keep up with the demand? Did you know Dallas is getting a third freeway loop? Even Santa Clarita valley north of Los Angeles (where we live) is developing a parcel for thirty thousand new homes within the next five years. Our infrastructure won't be able to handle it but they're gonna build'em anyway.

And the Rust Belt just sits there and rots. And the people who send Dennis Kucinich back to Congress each time are making things worse.

As I said before, Pelosi needs to get control of the situation. She could stop it if she wanted to.

Jim Wright would never have put up with it but, then again, he's a Texan. They're tough people.

...nor are Liberal Dems in general. Kowtowing to the great corporate god makes no difference in the long run. Sooner or later, they'll throw all the "right to work" states in the bin when they have extracted what they want form them, just like they did the Rust Belt.

...well, that doesn't appear to be happening in Texas, now does it?

And do you know why? It's because there are enough people who grew up there and care about the continued maintenance of places like University Park and Highland Park (very upscale places near Dallas) and even Plano that they've taken it upon themselves to do whatever it takes to keep the city and the region both competitive and acceptable as a place to live and raise a family.

No, the south is not LGBT friendly or a favorable environment for sexual deviants or other weirdos. No, most of the south is not friendly to militant feminists. Southerners take a very dim view of anyone who wants to restrict their gun rights. But they have the demographic edge, now and for the future.

Do some research into the automotive transplants. Damn near the entire rubber industry has moved to either Charlotte or Nashville these days. Nissan picked up their whole corporate headquarters and moved it from Gardena to Nashville last year. It wasn't smart to lose all those people but they did it anyway...and they don't appear to have lost any momentum as a company.

That's the reality. I lived there for almost a decade. I've seen the place up and I've seen it down.

Let me tell you a little secret. In the end, the rich guy wins. He's gonna win anyhow. Down through world history, it's always the same. It's in The Bible.

The country I want is one that pays its bills, has all the government it needs but no more than it needs, has all the defense that it needs but no more than it needs and has plenty of both white collar and blue collar jobs for its people...thereby letting them decide if they need college instead of presenting the alternatives of either white collar work or low paying sustenance level jobs for life that only worsens an income disparity problem which is already at intolerable levels.

The best social program in the world is a good job. You know it and I know it.

What do I want? I want 1964 to come back. That's what I want...and if the Democrats were somehow able to reconstruct that country, they'd be in office for the rest of your lifetime and mine.

Let's think about this. In 1964, Democrats were in control of both houses of Congress and the White House. This was before the campus unrest and all that crazy anti-war baby boomer shit happened. Go talk to someone in their seventies...not some fucking campus crackpot or academic or someone else with an axe to grind, but someone who was in military service or in college or ran a small business or worked in a factory during those years. It was a special time for America. Just ask 'em. Chris Matthews was one of these people. So was Chris Dodd. So was Joe Biden. (Hillary was too young.) They all remember. I know they do...and I wish someone would ask them about those years. I'm sure they don't want to talk about it because of the memories it would bring back.

Don't give me the standard corporate fascist argument. Anyone the left doesn't like is a fascist. Someone from the left would say my dog was a fascist if they thought it would help raise money for one of their causes.

Come next year, we're either gonna have Hillary (who the left won't be happy with) or Giuliani or Romney (who the left won't be happy with) so what does it matter?

And if Kucinich doesn't shut his mouth about impeachment and start behaving like an adult, someone from Speaker Pelosi's old neighborhood in Baltimore is gonna stick a pair of cement shoes on him. I'm sure it's been discussed. I'm quite certain of it.

That's what I pick up from your posts, anyway. "The rich guy wins", and so on. And you want everyone else to see that your capitulation is the right thing to do because it is "smart".

Enjoy your life, while the corporate types you embrace as masters enslave you and billions more. Revel in your comforts while others are oppressed. Mock those less fortunate as they suffer and die, unlike your ever-so-wise self.

This is not just addressed to you, of course: many people have followed the path of least resistance over the Millennia of recorded history: read Plato, for example. It is also quite common for them to adopt the stance that you have taken.

I, again like many others (I make no claims of uniqueness), choose to fight for those starving kids; I choose to support the rights of those who did not win the gene pool lottery and be born as a straight white male; I have not surrendered. Those of your ilk may think what you wish, but don't be disappointed when I fail to think as you do.

To DK in specific: he did not allow a load of corrupt individuals to break the law and steal Muny Light, lining their own pockets and screwing a city that was already preparing to lay down in its coffin. He was reviled at the time, but later recognized as the man who saved Cleveland from an even worse fate. It makes one wonder what would have happened if he hadn't been blackballed and run out of town by those same crooks after he beat them in that battle.

DK, in short, is not a surrender monkey. That may irk those who ARE said simians, but some things can't be helped. Sweet-tasting treats are not always as good for us as shitty-tasting medicine, but in a sick country I will vote for the guy who is doing what is right, not what is easy.

:wtf:

..to anyone. Of COURSE the democratic leadership are trying to keep him from gaining too much ground. I always vote democrat, but let's face it this party really isn't that progressive and generally to the right of many of it's supporters. Bill Clinton passed NAFTA. John Kerry made a comment on the campaign trail, I don't have the quote in front of me, something to the effect that nationalized healthcare was too radical and lacking in public support.(???) Not to mention the leaders of this party owe a major debt to private industry, they may not wallow in corruption like the right does, but it's there. This is one of the main reasons I'm such a strong proponant of campaign finance reform. Bottom line, the party is overwhelmingly "centrist." The current system is deeply entrenched and both sides of the political spectrum, and the private backers that support them have everything to lose if an ant-globalization, anti-nafta, pro-labor, anti-war candidate gets in. It's for the same reason that US support of third world dictatorships rarely makes the news, it's not overt, KGB-style censorship, it's the system. Power is ever vigilant in defending it's own interests. (And if you don't take my word for it read Manufacturing Consent.)

...receiving the same exposure and coverage as all other Dem candidates, Kucinich would move from a long shot to a shoe-in for the Dem nomination, and after that he'd be a landslide winner in the general in '08 -- they couldn't possibly flip 40% of the votes cast without it being glaringly obvious, and that's about what they'd need to do in order steal it.

However, those who control MSM will NEVER let this happen, and if there's any consolation it's probably that it's what will spare DK from assassination. Given what the current criminal thugs in charge have done, and by all rights should be brought to justice for, there is simply NO WAY they would permit a Kucinich presidency. Dennis is neither corruptible nor subject to intimidation -- he is truly the only real people's candidate out there and he does not compromise his principles -- period. And unfortunately, when your dealing with the powers that be in this country, those the attributes that'll getcha killed.

However, I support Joe Biden as an electable Democrat.

"What about Mr Kucinich scares you/threatens you the most?"

instead of whining.

Come to Iowa! You can drive here! It's cheap! You could probably stay with a supporter. Come to the small towns and get front page, detailed coverage that reaches thousands of people! You could go to 4 or 5 towns in a day. They'll even put you on the local nightly news. You can get the word out if you wanted to.

Don't spend a week campaigning in Hawaii or California. That's expensive.

Spent much of his budget, time, and energy in Iowa. Despite press releases, and volunteers passing out flyers, and people like Patch Adams coming to Iowa to fundraise for him, he didn't get any media coverage, and was not on the nightly news.

:shrug:

He's not ignoring Iowa, he's just trying a different tactic.

Getting muscled out? *sniffle*

I remember another candidate getting muscled out, 2004. I also remember Kucinich sending his supporters letters saying, caucus for anyone but Gov Dean.

Boo hoo, Dennis, cry me a river!

Never would I vote for Kucinich -- he doesn't have the chops!

ater Blitzer's performance, facts are facts. And to think I once considered supporting Sen. Harkin for prez. Never again.

The DNC is responsible for the CNN and MSNBC debates. Fair and Balanced? Not in my book. Dennis isn't the one getting muscled out. We the people are being silenced.

Fortunately, we can still bitch and complain, for a while. What happens when our forums are muscled out?

complaining and telling his few supporters that hes being shoved out........didn't he do this last time?

I'm sick of his crying......notice the other lower tier candidates don't carp on it like he does.........and also notice that they don't go after him on his votes in the House.........

From the beginning the designers of the "corporate coup" have supported several candidates they know will be their own. A voice of the people is not in their design.

Dennis has been certainly squeezed out, given foolish questions an had shorter speaking time on all debates. He is not "in the bag". But, the front runners have signed their pledge to continue the silent corporate media driven coup:so far bloodless.

This is pitiful.

he campaigns there and has staff. that is a campaign.

that is why he will never be treated with the same level of "respect" the others get. what they want is clinton versus obama and that is what they are getting.

special interests that run the others campaigns. if that is respect , don't want any.

nt

we need be there with him. I will.

to run for office. The Democratic Party for me, means representation for the people not corporations as persons. It's a hard truth, that when we vote for those who have taken money from corporate interests, they tend to ignore the will of the people, and THAT to me is not representation of the people. I always saw the Republican Party doing it, but to see the Democratic Party doing it AS MUCH now, is heart breaking.

Campaign Finance Reform is needed to cut ties to big campaign donors. Give all candidates the same amount of tax funded funds and let the races begin.

Mr. Kucinich speaks DIRECTLY, from EXPERIENCE. There is no reason to campaign extensively in Iowa for Dennis. They already have their sponsor...er...candidate.

New Hampshire is more important for him and should correctly remain his focus. He doesn't have the corporate payola that others have garnered in order to compete evenly EVERYWHERE. He is polling quite well in NH, and even with further partisan, media-centric interference thinly disguised as "debates," should continue to gain support over the current Democratic field of corporate-controlled, incompetent mouthpieces.

I think he can. He is the only Democrat in the race with spine

you tell those party hi-jacking corporate shills the truth about the washington smoke screen. we the people no longer wish to be controlled by corporations.

Between the Dems & the MSM, its a miracle we hear anything about Dennis at all!!!

DR

Answer 24 questions and find out how your views compare to the '08 presidential candidates

http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html

"They're using antigravity beams. It's just not fair," he complained bitterly.