Kucinich won't vote for finance bill

Run time: 06:14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5YGrKYBtcA   Posted on YouTube: May 27, 2010 By YouTube Member: TheRealNews Views on YouTube: 3   Posted on DU: May 27, 2010 By DU Member: Andronex Views on DU: 666

 
Dennis Kucinich: Without real reform of the FED I won't vote for this bill

Until he got invited to the white house... he's the democratic party fig leaf, he keep us hoping that maybe progressive have a place in this party, change you can hope for.

Every time he takes a stand and follows through, they scream that he's not a Democrat or some such garbage. He consistently voted every War Supplemental which was fine with the party cultists until it was their party doing exactly what the Bush administration did.

And when he does what they claim politics is all about and compromises on one issue, for which he gave detailed reasons, he gets slammed for that.

Go Dennis, a man with a very commodity in DC, a conscience which he refers to before every vote he casts.

He is absolutely right not to vote on this watered-down excuse for a Wall St. reform bill. Hopefully more will join him.

in the right direction (though not enough to suit his fancy). This isn't just wrong in one case or two; this is (for the most part) wrong as a general principle. So while he should be commended for switching his healthcare vote to the correct vote at the end of that battle, someone who makes the wrong decision most of the time (i.e. threatening to vote against hcr, voting against cap and trade, threatening to vote against finance, etc) but then occasionally corrects the decision to the right decision is still making the wrong decision most of the time.

Someone who makes the wrong decision most of the time deserves to be criticized consistently (notwithstanding those here who believe that voting against half-loaf progressive reforms somehow makes our country better).

I'm over words, they distract us while things get worse. His words are excellent, nothing changes.

Every time someone threatens to hold the line and caves it just weakens their bargaining position in future. The Left is disregarded because we accept failure. I wont accept failure any more even from those who talk the talk. Talk has gotten us nowhere. I love Dennis, but he hasn't even been as successful as a minority republican in changing government one whit.

We wont get success until we demand it.

because audits the Fed, but doesn't audit the Fed enough. (At least, that's what Kucinich is saying.)

In fact, that is almost undisputedly the wrong thing. So for the sake of the country, I hope he does do the actual right thing, and not the purported right thing that a few here want him to do.

"Every time someone threatens to hold the line and caves it just weakens their bargaining position in future."

Why do you assume that Kucinich has a bargaining position in the first place? Kucinich is not close to the median congressman. Therefore, they will always have to move the bill to the right if he threatens to vote no. If he threatens to vote no on the tax extenders bill, they will just cut COBRA subsidies to get more blue dogs to vote for it. If he threatens to vote no on the healthcare bill because it lacks a robust public option, they need to weaken the public option further to get a conservadem. If he threatens to vote no on the financial bill, they just need to move it further to the right to get someone else's vote for it (such as adding more exemptions for the auto industry).

"We wont get success until we demand it."

What makes you think you will get "success" (as you define it) EVEN IF you demand it? Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, "success" as you define it won't actually happen regardless of how you state your "bargaining position?" That there is a difference between what you really, really want and what you are going to get? And that threatening to vote no on a good bill just increases that gap further and further, even if you really don't like that fact?

quotes are not mine as far as I know.

Anyhow, I disagree with your points, not to say they are not a better argument than just calling him names.

If that is the thinking, and it is always the thinking, we have no idea what would happen if Democrats held their ground, being that they have a majority, and do what Republicans do to get their party on board for THEIR issues.

That's where leadership comes in. The fact is that Kucinich IS right. The fact that there are so many infiltrators in the party who actually do not want to do what is right, doesn't make HIM wrong. Which is why we are working hard to remove the worst of them so that he will have more real Democrats who represent the people, a majority of whom agree with HIM on this issue and who agreed with him on the PO, to back him up.

When you say he is not close to the median Congressman you confirm how far right the Democratic Party has moved. Kucinich in most countries in Europe would be the average Congressman.

So, hopefully, when we get rid of the DLCers from the party, he will have more people who are actually representative of the American people, as he is to vote with him on issues like this.

Blaming someone who is doing the right thing for not getting backing from other Democrats is like blaming a person who was mugged for being in the mugger's territory.

The truth is that both parties are owned by Corporate America and I am glad that Kucinich continues to show them up for what they are. And sadly, there are far too many 'pragmatists' or whatever they like to call themselves who are more than willing to give them a pass. Maybe if they felt more pressure from the people than they do from Wall St., they would find a way to do what is necessary.

"The fact that there are so many infiltrators in the party who actually do not want to do what is right, doesn't make HIM wrong."

Actually, yes, it does, without question. Even IF we assume your premise of infiltrators etc etc etc, it is STILL absolutely wrong to vote against the bill. If the bill deregulated Wall Street even further, then he would have a case for not voting for it. But it actually regulates them further. It goes in the right direction. Him voting against a bill that regulates wall street is the same as him voting for a bill that deregulates wall street.

"Which is why we are working hard to remove the worst of them so that he will have more real Democrats who represent the people"

If by that you mean to elect more progressive Democrats, I fully agree. The path to more progressive legislation is to elect more progressives.

But if you mean elect more Democrats who vote NO on progressive bills because the bills move in the right direction, but not far enough, that is ludicrous and should be opposed at every opportunity. Luckily, people who want to elect this time of "Democrat" are miserably failing, as there isn't a single Democrat in either house of Congress who agrees if they are the deciding vote.

"Blaming someone who is doing the right thing..."

I'm actually blaming him for doing the wrong thing, not the right thing. Voting against a bill that regulates Wall Street is using your voting power to promote a more deregulated Wall Street than it would otherwise be, and that is certainly the wrong thing.

loopholes is useless, as we have seen so many times before. He is absolutely right to demand a better bill. If ever there was a time to get Wall St. under control, it is now. The cause of the collapse of the economy is not addressed in this bill. And as many people have pointed out, Wall St. will be, in fact they are already, right back to doing what they did to cause this collapse in the first place.

Doing something half-way is the equivalent of doing nothing at all. I hope more Democrats will have the guts this time to take a stand against Wall St and join Kucinich in demanding what the people want, rather than catering to Wall St. leaving them with openings to go right back to what they were doing before.

real threats.

thought, realizing he was alone, that all those who had initially backed him on the PO, had caved, decided that he had no option other than to vote with his party rather than lose his access as a Democrat to keep up the fight for a Single Payer system.

The blame for putting that kind of pressure on him, and others, to vote against what he had fought for (you apparently have forgotten his amendment which was killed, as was Dorgan's, by the WH) throughout the process and face the kind of criticism YOU are now levelling against him, does not belong to him.

He made a difficult choice which I am glad he did, after assuring himself that the president was sincere in his desire for real health-care reform but which he believed could not be achieved at that time. As he said after his meeting with Obama, he realized what a difficult position the president was in and felt great sympathy for him.

Rather than slamming him for that extremely painful and hard decision, I would think you would appreciate his backing of a president who had by all appearances, betrayed him and other Democrats. Once he was convinced that this was not the case, he took a huge political risk but in the end, did what he felt was the right thing to do.

In terms of his record, he consistently voted against the War Supplementals regardless of how unpopular it was. He exposed Congress' insertion into one of those supplementals, a clause basically forcing the Iraqis to hand over more than 80% of their oil resources to multi-national Oil Corps.

For that, for telling the truth to the American people, he was threatened with being sanctioned BY HIS OWN PARTY!! Why would Democrats want so desperately to support the Bush administration's secret takeover of Iraqi oil especially at a time when rightwingers everywhere were DENYING that the Iraq war was about oil?

The truth is that Dennis Kucinich has been right on the issues and has not caved most of the time during a time when to vote against war couldn't have been more unpopular. The fact that he stands alone most of the time, is no reflection on him. It is a reflection on a system where Big Business lobbyists own our government, except for a very few.

When we succeed in putting more progressive democrats in Congress to help people like Kucinich, he will no longer be alone. That is where I and many of the people I know will be devoting time and effort previously devoted to the Presidency. Because Congress is where the real power is and real Democrats like Kucinich need support if we are to ever get that 'change' we all voted for back in 2008.

play a pivotal role in refusing to accept a complete sellout of the concept of reform, he caved. There is a big difference standing firm when power is going to get it's way, and having the necessary fortitude to stand up for what's right, when you know you will win and be responsible for your action. He flinched when he had the chance to make an actual difference for once. In a sense my best spin on Obama is the same criticism, refusing to use the power when he has the chance, although I'm not as confident in Obama's vision as I am with Kucinich.