Dennis Kucinich: which of his issues don't you agree with, and why.

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/

here's where he stands on the issues.


edited for poor wording

It's about seeing him distract votes & delegates away from viable candidates, the more liberal part of the Dem contingent would otherwise look to, two cycles in a row.

Last time it was Dean, this time it's Edwards.

only parrot the same old tired stuff--their issues aren't in line with mine. Kucinich's are. And, FYI, Kucinich didn't "distract" me from Dean--Dean dropped out after Iowa, and before I could vote for him in a primary. Dean was undone by the media, not by Kucinich.

Okay, let's look at Michigan. He was the ONLY one who campaigned in Michigan of the dems. He was one of 4 on the ballot, Clinton, Gravel and uncommitted. He couldn't attract even 5% of the vote. That tells you he is not viable.

zalinda

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

anybody who suggests that a Dem votes for Mitt, under any circumstances (perhaps if Mitt were running against Dracula, but even then it'd be a close call) can't really be called a progessive. Let's call him a PINO.

Conyers is worried about his power. It's sad, really.

the only names on the ballot were clinton, dodd, gravel, and kucinich. Who do you think gets the most national coverage? Who's name is best known?


so which of his issues don't you agree with?

and I saw threads where it said that Kucinich was treated like a rock star in Michigan. It would be interesting to see how he turned out voters in those areas.

BTW, I had hoped that Kucinich would have had a better showing in Michigan even if to give his supporters some well deserved hope. But, he just didn't do it. Sorry.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4068055&mesg_id=4068454

zalinda

How could he, having "none" affect the results in a perfectly legitimate election?
What is it about people casting votes for their own choice that bothers people?

The right of the well-funded candidates to take office must not be infringed.

He'd be okay, it seems, if everyone else agreed.

taken of people who havent had the chance to know who is Dennis Kucinich?
They stole this election long before anyone got near a caucus, and sold the believers a bill of goods that will take us into phase III of PNAC.
Dont let anyone ever call GW a failure.

He's even managed to bungle what should be the easiest job in the world--but you're right. His reign has been a resounding success for Big Money, and the anointed Dems haven't shown much urgency about undoing neocon fiascos.

Sorry but why can't all candidates be heard. What are the 'big' boys and girl afraid of and why are so many here happy about Kucinich being excluded. This will backfire this time, even those who ignore the press realize that the vote has been decided for them by GE and the mother corps.

He is not a viable candidate because party officials and their puppet-masters do not want him to be a viable candidate. He is therefore ridiculed for personal beliefs that are far less weird than the personal beliefs of other candidates, demeaned, refused entry into debates and generally treated like a pariah. This in turn prevents him from getting his message out and drawing support.

The real issue is that Kucinich resonates with the popular mood and values. Allowing him to become "viable" would expose the fact that the party has already decided on the candidate; exposing the caucus/primary dog and pony show for the distraction that it really is would not be in the interests of the party.

Even a flake like Ron Paul was able to catch large amounts of interest, if only for a short while.

When has there ever been a Democratic debate in the last two presidential cycles where a majority of viewers polled thought Dennis came out tops?

Dennis resonates greatly with a lot of thoughtful, educated voters, but he most certainly does not resonate with popular mood and values. To the average person, Dennis does not present a likable personae.

How many delegates does Dennis have? How many primaries has he won or placed a close second?

When ABC posted an online poll about one of their debates and Kucinich won, they pulled it. Then they had a new poll. DK won that too, and they suppressed it. They also cropped him out of a picture of the candidates on their website.

As long as they can be Freep'd.

How many delegates does Dennis have, how many primaries has he won or placed a close second?

As far as I'm concerned, Kucinich has won every debate he's been in, with the exception of some of the very early ones that I would say Gravel won. There have been polls where the pollsters don't even give Kucinich as an option. These are a more subtle type of push polls. There have been two primaries so far.... what do you want? So you think your primary if it isn't one of the first two doesn't matter?

http://www.bobharris.com/kucinichdean.html">Bob Harris wrote an excellent summary, back in 2003

The key differences (at least for me) between Dean and Kucinich were:

* Kucinich supported a Canadian-style single-payer health care plan that covered everybody; Dean supported a piecemeal public/corporate plan that still didn't cover 100% of the population.

* Dean was not opposed to any Pentagon cuts and favored increasing policing and special forces; Kucinich demanded fiscal accountability (finding the "lost" $1 trillion for starters) and advocated cutting Pentagon waste.

* Kucinich consistently opposed (and voted against) the Iraq War (and almost every other war); Dean, while mostly consistent, supported unilateral action in case WMDs were found.

* Dean called himself "the only candidate to oppose the Patriot Act", ignoring the fact that Kucinich had not only voted against it in the House, but also helped lead opposition to it.


Kucinich did NOT "steal" my vote from Dean in 2004. Due to his positions, Dean never would have had my vote to begin with.

So please, stop claiming that Kucinich is "stealing" votes from "serious" candidates like Edwards, because that's not necessarily true.

:applause:

I didn't write that Dennis stole votes, I wrote "distracted."

Nor did I write "serious," but "viable."

We, the voters, decide who is viable, with our ballots.

History was made last night when the 'Democrats' decided to eat one of there own in public.

He's always been my first choice.

There was that footage of them talking about only having the candidates that are serious or something at the debates. I'd have to look for the links to find it.

Here's the story:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3373890&page=1

It looks like this was in the planning for a while. Thanks

Even stupider than Huckabee's fair tax.

Naive only begins to describe him. Kucinich would be dangerous as president.

why do you find him to be naive? Why would he be dangerous as a president?

Department of Peace:

On July 11, 2001, inspired by the strength, leadership and teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Christ, Dennis authored and introduced legislation to create a Cabinet level Department of Peace and Nonviolence. Domestically the Department will create programs to deal with domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, racial violence, gang violence and the root causes of all violence in our society. The legislation is now backed by a national movement.
http://www.dennis4president.com/go/resources/about-dennis-%11-continued/

something like 1984?

Is that as opposed to the safety provided by previous occupants?

Can't have a non-psychopath in the Oval Office.

Gotta get us more of that "bear any burden, fight any foe" crap. Gotta be willing to do another Missile Crisis every few years.

:sarcasm:

Just think if Bush had had that PR tool to leverage propaganda and help manipulate the movement toward war. There's no need for such a department. It's a nice thought in theory, but that's the State Department's job anyway.

We're trying to elect a person who would be responsible for running perhaps the largest, most complex, fragile, diverse, and dangerous organization the world has ever known. Perhaps many people just don't feel comfortable with him in that role, even having only seen a little bit of him.


You might as well ask people to make up their own personal issue statement. Might be a fun exercise. "If YOU were running for president, what would YOUR platform be"? (Not that even the perfect platform would get ME elected.)

stands on an issue, how do you pick the person you vote for? How can you feel strongly about a candidate if it doesn't matter where one stands?

I'm just saying that there is MORE TO IT than positions on issues, OK? And for some people, they don't even have to get to the issues to know they aren't interested. I'm like that with Fred Thompson (for example). I don't need to know where he stands on anything. I don't want to vote for him no matter what his positions are because I don't like the way he looks, because he's a Republican, because he hasn't shown any ability to mount an effective campaign, and other things too.

Personally, even if I didn't know where DK stands on the issues, the fact that he hasn't been able to mount an effective campaign means a lot to me. It means that I question his ability to implement whatever agenda he has. I like a lot of DK's positions, but I don't think he would get any of it through, and I don't think he can win a national election anyway, and losing with principle is still losing. It ain't called the "mainstream" for nothin'.

While I'm in full agreement with the focus and intent of his proposed Department of Peace, I don't see it being necessary to create an entirely new cabinet department out of it. The focus could be applied to existing departments, giving them much needed change of direction. Given the amount of outright scorn and contempt heaped upon those who advocate peace, it's not the most politically wise approach.

His gun proposal. America does have a desperate need to outgrow it's childish obsession with guns, but I don't believe the problem is going to be fixed by legislating it.

His flag desecration vote was not one I agreed with.

I'm not on board with his immigration proposals either, but I believe his heart is in the right place.

He's (along with Gravel) is still worlds better than any of the other options, all of whom I'm increasingly disinclined to vote for.

food for thought. Thank you.

I think it is okay to burn the US flag, but Dennis wants a constitutional amendment against it.
He tends to get a little teary when talking about the flag; me, not such much.

I am firmly against it, and would like to see him change his stance on the issue.

thank you TokenWasp

and welcome to DU! :hi: