Dem chief: Kucinich a 'narcissist'

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Politico

In the ongoing saga over Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich's next act, Washington state Democratic Party chair Dwight Pelz makes clear where he stands on the question of whether the liberal congressman should move west and run for Congress.

Jim Brunner of the Seattle Times has the story:

The possibility of a Kucinich run here "horrified" state Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz, who has repeatedly discouraged the idea.

"Dennis Kucinich has to decide what his legacy is going to be. Will he be remembered as a principled member of Congress or the narcissist who lost two Congressional races in two states the same year?" Pelz said.

Read more: Link to source

[Fuddnik]

1. Is Pelz another New Democrat?

I'm horrified that such a goof can run the state party.

But, I'm used to it. We were inflicted with the beyond incompetent Karen Thurman in Florida for years.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

6. As a resident of Washinton State I'm horrified you think we'd welcome carpetbagger Kucinich

Which district should he run in? The only one I think he has a snowball's chance in hell is Jim McDermott's.

[Cleita]

13. You guys don't want him?

We'd gladly take him here in California.

[Auggie]

18. Yep

[Vincardog]

29. I would love to have him replace Grassley here in IA

[nxylas]

31. Shouldn't that be...

I wld <3 2 hv hm rplc Grsly?

[Vincardog]

32. If I could type with my thumbs

[cyclezealot]

40. We want him here

Let the bidding war begin.

[pnwmom]

51. Where is here? And who are "we"?

I don't know anyone in Washington who thinks we need him here -- unless he can replace a conservative here, which I doubt. We don't need him to replace any of our progressives.

[pnwmom]

50. We don't need him to be our savior. Jim McDermott is great,

and we have other good progressives in place, or already running, in other districts I've heard Kucinich is eyeing.

Washington state and Ohio are extremely different places. For one thing, a third of our economy is based on international exports. We also have a challenging division between the western and eastern parts of our states. We need progressive Dems who understand the issues here, not carpetbaggers from Ohio.

[Cleita]

52. Okay, your loss could be our gain.

I would receive Dennis and his carpetbag with open arms. I hope he considers moving further south.

[pnwmom]

60. I have no idea why, out of 49 states, he's considering Washington. n/t

[bahrbearian]

15. As a Logger of Washington State I'd welcome him with Open arms.

He could run against " I wonder who the green river murderer is"

[pnwmom]

53. He could run against Reichart, but Reichart has been redistricted

and he's in a very safe red district now. I can't imagine Kucinich beating him there, but more power to him if he could.

The rest of Reichert's old district is now being represented by Adam Smith. He's a progressive, and we don't need Kucinich-- who knows nothing about Washington's issues -- to replace him.

[tularetom]

2. Couldn't you pretty much say that about most elected officials?

[Hissyspit]

8. Actually, the headline is misleading. He didn't actually say that Kucinich was a narcissist.

He said he might be if...

Typical Politico shit-stirring.

[TheMastersNemesis]

3. Pelz is FOS

Dennis Kucinich is probably the most sensible politician around. They hate him because he is a progressive. He does not fit the center right model that the DNC supports. Howard Dean was also very progressive and they dumped him too.

The middle of the road politics is not serving this country. The only things you find in the middle of the road are dead things or road kill.

I hope Dennis is able to go to Congress again. While the GOP is eliminating moderates, the Democrats seem to want to eliminate progressives. Being GOP lite is what is hurting the Democratic party.

[groovedaddy]

5. They did dump Dean but he ended up as DNC Chair and implemented

the 50 states strategy which was critical in helping the Dems get the House back in '06 (only to lose it in '10).
Given the likes of who currently sits in Congress, Dennis Kucinich is a valuable person to have there. I wonder if this guy in Ohio had the same feeling about Hillary Clinton running for the Senate in New York?

[happerbolic]

12. Now, wouldn't Kucinich make a good chairman...?

[groovedaddy]

20. Only one way to find out. I'm not sure that he has any interest in

the position.

[w4rma]

82. And then Obama and the New Dems dumped Dean and lost Congress the next cycle. (nt)

[just1voice]

38. Well said, the center right model is why Congressional approval is at 13% too

Its corrupted interests are making up "laws" that allow "deregulation" for the 1%. Also, having an executive branch that insists we try to compromise with those criminals is not helping either.

[Daniel537]

4. Leave it up to the voters to decide.

I've got my criticisms of Kucinich, but if the Democratic voters in any of the districts in Washington put him up as their nominee, the state party needs to get behind him. We need every seat we can get this year.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

7. So as I said in my response to post one.

Which district in my state do you think he should run in?

[Daniel537]

9. I don't really care if he runs or not.

I just said that if he does and voters vote for him, the party should get behind him like they do any other nominee. Common sense.

[bahrbearian]

21. The 4th ,5th, 8th , or 10th

[pnwmom]

55. It's hard to imagine Kucinich carrying one of those conservative districts

or even the 10th (a new "swing" district), but more power to him if he could.

I would support him running in one of those districts, but I'd oppose him trying to take over in an area where we already have good progressives.

[pnwmom]

54. That won't happen. The deadlines have passed. n/t

[Daniel537]

85. Not true. The deadline is May 18th. n/t

[jobycom]

10. Sounds like the real narcissist is the dude who wrote that headline.

From the passage, the headline could just as easily have said "Kucinich a principled member of Congress." It would have been just as wrong a headline, of course, but the headline reveals a lot more about Politico than about Kucinich or Jim Brunner.

[marshall]

11. Who in politics ISN'T a narcissist?

It's practically a qualification for running for public office.

[Cleita]

14. I don't recognize the Democratic Party of FDR and Kennedy anymore.

In those days Dennis would have been considered a mainstream Democrat, not a wacko left winger.

[pnwmom]

57. It's not that he's too left wing, it's that he's not God's gift to Washington.

We grow our own progressives here, and we've been doing fine.

[Cleita]

61. You have hardly been left wing and liberal for all the years you

and I have posted here. You are a conserva-dem, so I can see why you don't like him. But like I said your loss could be our gain. I'm hoping to get him to run in my district and I'm writing him a letter to tell him how I think he can.

[pnwmom]

63. Skip the name-calling, please. I'm just a progressive who doesn't always agree with your

particular slant on issues.

[Cleita]

64. Name calling? I didn't call you a Freeper or other derogatory slur.

I just stated what part of the left of center political spectrum your own words on this message board have placed you.

[pnwmom]

65. Wrong. It is name calling and derogatory to call anyone here a "conservaDem." We all identify as

progressives, even if we don't all agree with you personally on every issue.

I don't think Kucinich was a particularly effective Congressman -- that doesn't make me conservative. And I'm old enough to remember him in his pro-life incarnation. Maybe you aren't.

Or maybe you're the one who's a pro-life "conserve-dem"?

[Cleita]

66. No it isn't. Conservadems or Blue Dogs have always been part of the

DU community. You just can't make up your own rules here.

[pnwmom]

69. This is a site for progressives, which is why there are Greens and other non-Democrats here.

And when progressives here call someone a "Conserva-Dem," it's a slur.

But you still haven't explained why you can support Kucinich, with his convenient change of heart on his pro-life, "conserva-dem" views.

[Cleita]

70. Because you don't seem to understand that Kucinich is a Catholic and once held

pro-life views like most Catholics do. Politically, he changed his position in 2003 to pro-choice because he realized it was a question of women's health. I'm sure the many conserva-dems and Blue Dogs who frequent this website including some who run it will be surprised to know that their political views are considered a slur. Really, examine your politics. You fought single payer health care tooth and nail in the early days when it was being discussed. I guess the Romney plan, now known as Obamacare, isn't conservative but progressive in your mind?

[pnwmom]

76. Show me one single post where I could be said to have "fought single payer health care

tooth and nail" -- or AT ALL.

You will not find a single post doing so because I would love to have Medicare-for-all. However, it was abundantly clear that Medicare-for-all wasn't politically possible, and I was unwilling to condemn Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and others who advocated for a compromise. We never had the votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. Since it was clear Medicare-for-all was doomed, I hoped the public option would be possible, but that didn't work out either. So I supported Obama, Pelosi, and the other Dems in the only choice that remained.

But I would have been happy if Medicare-for-all had ever been a possibility. You must be confusing me with someone else.

As for Kucinich, I am Catholic, too. But like most Catholics I know (Catholics in the pews, not the hierarchy), I have been pro-choice for my entire adulthood. Unlike Dennis Kucinich, who was an outspoken pro-life person for much of his career.

[Cleita]

77. You aren't a very good Catholic then. I know I wasn't and I spent years in convent school, living

with the nuns and getting indoctrinated. The doctrine against birth control and abortion was uncompromising and still is. It didn't take though and I would never claim today that I am a Catholic in any way. I don't give a fig about the baptism thing. I guess you can't open your mind to the fact that people can change their viewpoint, even on something as rigid as the Catholic Church's view of abortion as murder.

[pnwmom]

79. I don't let right-wing thugs define my view of what a "good Catholic" should do or believe.

Why should I let the right-wing steal the Catholic Church? I'm as entitled to call myself Catholic as any of them.

I agree with you that people can change their viewpoints, and I've changed some of mine over the years. But I've always been a progressive even though -- like Kucinich -- not every position I've ever taken at any moment in time has been on the farthest left end of the spectrum.

I reserve my option to be a non-black-and-white thinking person with complicated, nuanced opinions and beliefs.

[Cleita]

80. There is no right wing in the Catholic Church or any wing in the same

way we think of it in secular politics. It's dogma all the way. The Pope writes encyclicals that defines the beliefs. There is no debate. It's not a democratic institution but an absolute monarchy and the Pope is king with absolute power. When he speaks ex cathedra on a doctrine, it's like god has spoken. You can't disagree. You can't just pick and choose your beliefs and actions and remain in the state of grace. That is the teaching of the Church. When you try to change dogma, then you become a heretic. Honestly, that is what the Church is and what it is to be a practicing Catholic in the state of grace. Ask your priest sometime if you don't believe me.

[pnwmom]

83. You're parroting the absolutist beliefs of the right wing, but millions of Catholics, including

priests and nuns and laity, disagree with that point of view. Vatican 2 brought a whole new way of seeing the Church. Unfortunately, some of the right wing are still trying to undo that -- but millions of liberals aren't willing to let the Church go without a fight.

I attended Catholic schools, and I personally know liberal Catholic priests and nuns. They do exist, and they consider themselves just as Catholic as the right wingers. The priests I know believe in the supremacy of the individual conscience -- not in a top down "absolute monarchy."

If you haven't ever seen this site, you should check out the National Catholic Reporter online. ncronline.org
That will give you more of an idea of the diversity of present day Catholic thought.

[Cleita]

87. Well the absolutist beliefs you speak of are the Church.

I know there are those liberals out there, even among clergy and religious who try to change the narration, but ultimately they will be either brought back into the Vatican mainstream thought or sometimes excommunicated and many times just go off and form another religion not sanctioned by the Church. I know many parish priests will go along with their parishioners liberal thinking because they know that to alienate the laity would dry up the contributions to the Church.

You may have gone to Catholic school, but I went to Catholic boarding school and I had to live with the nuns. When you are in the belly of the beast so to speak, you really learn what the doctrine is the Church follows and there is no room for birth control or abortion in it even for non-Catholics, the Catholic pro-choice position.

[pnwmom]

91. No. The Church is the whole body, including all the laity.

Some in the hierarchy want to claim more power than the laity actually gives them. Witness 90+% of laity using birth control.

You do understand that some orders of priests and nuns are more liberal than others, don't you? I'm sorry that you went to a school taught by the rigid kind. That's NOT universal. At my Catholic high school, a Catholic teacher and mother taught us all about contraception in our high school health classes, with the full knowledge and blessing of the nuns there.

[Cleita]

92. Well, you are making up your own rules there. I'm happy they taught you about those

women's issues in health class. And yes most Catholics do use birth control and go to confession to be forgiven for it. However, the Catholic School system could always teach religion in religion class and science in science class without any conflict, which is why Catholics aren't caught up in the Creationist crap. However, the ultimate authority is the Vatican and they define the dogma and doctrine. When it comes to contraception and abortion they are unwavering. Read the papal encyclicals. I actually didn't go to school with the rigid kind. The order of nuns who taught me were very liberal and even came in conflict with our rigid cardinal about women's rights. However, this was within the doctrine taught by the Church. The ultimate authority of the church goes all the way to the Vatican. There really is no right and left when it comes to dogma and doctrine, just the one way.

[pnwmom]

99. That's your opinion, and the opinion of the right wingers, but it's not the only one.

And I haven't made up my own "rule" about the ultimate supremacy of individual conscience. That's as much Catholic dogma as anything you could site.

It's too bad you weren't exposed to more Jesuits during your Catholic education.

http://www.alan.com/2010/07/31/catholic-dissent-is-catholic-doctrine-is-church-triumphalism-slow-suicide/

Perhaps the least known aspect of Catholic doctrine, both inside and outside the church, is the “primacy of individual conscience,” which has been explained (by no less an authority than the current Pope—albeit in 1967) this way:

Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.

SNIP

[Cleita]

100. Stop accusing me of being a right winger of any sort.

I am not a Catholic and even though I was forced through a Catholic education, I was never one of you guys in spite of my baptismal certificate. I was taught by Jesuits in college. When it comes to doctrine about women they also follow the no contraception, no abortion dogma except in very specific circumstances like a tubal pregnancy or fetus that dies in the womb.

[pnwmom]

101. I didn't. I said you accepted right-wingers claims to their authority in the church.

Many Catholics don't.

If you were taught by Jesuits, I'm sure they must have explained to you about this:

http://www.alan.com/2010/07/31/catholic-dissent-is-catholic-doctrine-is-church-triumphalism-slow-suicide/

Perhaps the least known aspect of Catholic doctrine, both inside and outside the church, is the “primacy of individual conscience,” which has been explained (by no less an authority than the current Pope—albeit in 1967) this way:

Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.

SNIP

_____________

Got that? According to Catholic doctrine, as explained by the current Pope, individual conscience supersedes the authority of ANYONE in the hierarchy, no matter how much the right-wingers want to pretend otherwise.

[Cleita]

102. Yes, we were taught about our conscience being our guides.

However, we can't make up our own doctrine. That's why there is clergy and the Pope to make it very clear to us what they seem to think to know that Jesus wanted. After all they have some kind of hot line to heaven, the Pope being infallible and all. I guess you missed that part. There would be no need for a Church if conscience was the only thing guiding you. In my case there is no need for a church because I do follow my conscience and don't need a bunch of men in lace and brocade dresses preaching to me about my sexuality and pro-creation choices.

[pnwmom]

103. The Pope is not infallible in most of his pronouncements.

There have been only two occasions in the course of history that a Pope has declared a doctrine to be infallibly true ("ex cathedra&quot , and both had to do with a doctrine about Mary. That's it. All other Catholic teachings are not taught infallibly.

[Cleita]

106. Wrong. You need to talk to some theologians. n/t

[pnwmom]

107. You need to read some actual books, instead of misinterpreting Wikipedia articles.

There is no question about this. An encyclical has been issued ex cathedra -- infallibly -- only twice in Catholic history.

[cali]

81. Do you have anything to back up the claim that most Catholics held/hold pro-life views?

I believe that most Catholics reflect the general public on that issue.

[Cleita]

86. Most lay Catholics often don't know the Church's teaching and position on a lot of these

matters or if they do, ignore it. They are known as cafeteria Catholics, those who chose what they want from Church doctrine and reject the rest. The Vatican does not approve of this approach to Catholicism. Besides Scriptures and Tradition, Popes will issue Encyclicals to clarify those two sources of Church doctrine. Here is the one on birth control:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae

Here's the one on abortion:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelium_Vitae

When the Pope issues an encyclical, he speaks as Jesus Christ, or ex cathedra (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm) and the pope is considered infallible when he does so. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

So as you can see according to Church doctrine, you really can't be pro-choice, although some Catholics do aver that they are.

[pnwmom]

104. You have completely misunderstood the doctrine of Ex Cathedra.

It doesn't apply whenever a Pope issues an encyclical. It ONLY applies when a Pope specifically says a particular encyclical is being issued "Ex Cathedra," or infallibly -- and that has only happened twice in all of Catholic history.

The concept of "cafeteria Catholics" is another right-wing description of Catholic liberals. However, Catholic liberals would be just as justified in using it to describe right-wing Catholics, who ignore all the social justice and anti-death penalty teachings of the Church.

[Cleita]

105. Ex-Cathedra means "from the chair".

Ex Cathedra

Literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm

About the encyclical on birth control.

In Living Tradition No. 12 (July 1987),1 the present writer favourably reviewed a recent book by Fr. Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M., Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità (Vatican City, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1986), in which the thesis is sustained that the teaching against contraception in Pope Paul VI's encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (25 July 1968) is infallible, not merely by virtue of being an instance of the constant, ordinary and universal magisterium of the Popes and Catholic Bishops against this practice, but because the encyclical itself contains (in article 14) an ex cathedra definition. Lio claims, in other words, that Humanae Vitae contains an intrinsically infallible pronouncement: an instance of papal infallibility as defined by Vatican Council I.

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

I don't know who is telling you it happened twice in history cause it's happened a lot more than twice.

[pnwmom]

109. Yes. And it applies only "when he speaks ex cathedra" -- that is, when he proclaims that a doctrine

has been issued "ex cathedra." And this has only happened with two encyclicals.

[Cleita]

111. Where are you getting that information? A link would be nice. n/t

[pnwmom]

112. You provided a link. Read it again. It says "when" a doctrine is issued ex-cathedra.

That's because they aren't all issued with that label.

[Cleita]

113. No, my link didn't say it was only twice in the history of the Church. n/t

[pnwmom]

114. There are only 2 instances upon which theologians all agree, and another handful in dispute --

in thousands of years of Church history.

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_infallible_declarations

The Catholic Church does not teach that the pope is infallible in everything he says; official invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare.

Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact which has been confirmed by the Church's magisterium.[66] However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.

_______________

(The same article lists the following documents as possibly falling under ex-cathedra, but under some dispute.)

"Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;

[Cleita]

115. My source says twice in the last two centuries, not in the history of the Church and those two are

the ones that all theologians agree on. Other encyclicals and parts of them that have been issued ex cathedra and the birth control and abortion ones in particular have been meant to be regarded as infallible. If many theologians don't agree maybe that's good and the Church might stop it's war against women's reproductive rights. However, I recently had to go to a Catholic church for a funeral. That church had a parochial school attached to it. On the school grounds, the children had made a little cemetery mound with crosses on it. The sign said it was to honor all the children who had been aborted. I don't think the Church has changed its views that much.

[pnwmom]

116. Then here is another church chock full of "bad Catholics":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002576164

[Cleita]

117. Look you need to hang onto your religion for whatever reason so I know not all Catholics are

evil. Many are truly saintly in the sacrifice they do for the greater good. However, the Church has never really been gay unfriendly considering much of the clergy and religious are gay. My favorite priest when I was in college was unquestionably gay as were many of the nuns. They practiced celibacy, in theory, anyway and frankly if they had gay lovers, who cares. But many of the brothers in my stepdaughter's high school were openly gay so there was progress in those years between my high school years and hers. But I guarantee you, you will never see a gay couple be married in the church. If they are, then the diocese or even the Vatican will pound down on them and hard.

[pnwmom]

119. As many as 98% of Catholics disagree that the encyclical on artificial contraception was infallible.

Because that's the estimate of how many Catholics have used A.B.C. at one time or another.

And I am unaware of a single theologian who has written that the encyclical on birth control was intended to be infallible. Can you provide a link?

(No. Because there isn't one.)

[karynnj]

88. Or because he realized that you can not run for the Democratic nomination as prolife

Ted Kennedy was not progressive by your logic - he was one of the architects of the ACA and was NOT for single payer because it could not pass and this was our best chance to get some improvement - even though in 2005 he sponsored a single payer plan. The difference, there was NOTHING we could pass in 2005 - we controlled nothing.

[Throd]

74. I don't identify as a "progressive"

This is DU, not PU.

[Freddie Stubbs]

95. Kennedy ran on a platform of cutting taxes and increasing nuclear missiles

[Cleita]

96. That wasn't the only thing he ran on. But to address your concerns.

Back then the top tax rate was 92%. There was a problem with the tax code that needed fixing. I myself got caught in the progressive taxation trap, where a raise pushed me into a higher tax rate, and thereby resulted in my take home pay being less than I got before I got the raise. So this is what he was running on. We also were in an arms race with Soviet Russia then because we were in a cold war then. Remember that the Soviets controlled most of Asia and Eastern Europe. It was a huge empire and not to be taken lightly with the danger it presented. Nuclear talk made people feel secure back then. Fortunately he concentrated on the space race instead once elected. I was alive then. I was almost old enough to vote and if I could have I would have voted for Kennedy in spite of those things because the guy he was running against was Richard Nixon and I couldn't imagine a worse person to be President, which as history unfolded, he did become President starting in motion the downward spiral this country has fallen into today.

[Freddie Stubbs]

97. So, he ran on making the tax code LESS progressive?

[Cleita]

98. No, I think he wanted to fix it for the middle class.

Of course it takes Congress to do these things so running on it is fairly meaningless. The tax code did get changed to a less progressive one I believe. I'm trying to remember when. We were able to deduct the interest on our credit cards at one time as well as our mortgages, and that got taken away and the medical deductions were far more generous than they are today.

[chervilant]

16. hmph!

Sounds like Mr. Pelz is a water-carrier for the Corporate Megalomaniacs who see Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, and politicians of such ilk as a dire threat to their hegemony.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

22. No

Pelz is a tried and true Democrat. He however knows that we here in Washington State have never taken kindlt to carpetbaggers.

[chervilant]

89. Carpetbagger?

Easy to throw around pejoratives. How about a little clarification? Or, are you an FOP, throwing out a red herring?

[Zorra]

17. The Third Way Party is ecstatic that the GOP redistricted Dennis out of office.

He was the major thorn in their side, doing things contrary to Third Way ideology, things like condemning going to war in Iraq.

The Third Way hates him because he exposes their nasty Republican like deeds.

Now the Third Way can collaborate with republicans without Dennis calling them out, speaking truth to power from the floor of Congress.

Congratulations to the Third Way on their victory in removing a great Democrat from office.

Expect us.

[Cleita]

19. I wonder how long it will be before they shove Bernie Sanders out of the Senate. n/t

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

24. Sanders is an independent.

[Cleita]

28. He is and he is still a lefty.

Fortunately, he's not a Congressman anymore where he could be redistricted out of the race. However, there might be some mega-bucks Republican that could run against him and push him out. I'm almost certain he has a target on him as I type this.

[Zorra]

47. A lefty for sure...

...but left is a four letter word to some.

Yeah, I'm sure the GOP, and the Third Way Party as well, would love to see Bernie kicked to the curb.

[Fearless]

25. Vermont isn't Ohio

It will be quite some time.

[MADem]

41. Bernie isn't a carpetbagger. He "came up through the ranks" in VT. He is invested in the state and

its people. When he was Mayor of Burlington his opponents used to call it the "People's Republic of Burlington" but he was much loved by the population and they would joke about it too--they took the nickname and owned it, and thereby took the sting out of it.

DK, rightly or wrongly, is perceived, with this latest effort, as being a "district shopper"--trying to find a place where he feels he has a chance of getting back to DC. The sense is, it wouldn't matter where, so long as he could "make it work."

I'll be honest, if it were my district, I'd be opposed to his candidacy, for several reasons. First, DK does not know my district, its people, issues, problems, or needs; 2nd, he has a lousy reputation in Congress for working with others, and 3rd, it often--to my mind, mind you--looks like he's grandstanding on the national stage, and could give a shit about the Tip O'Neill maxim that "All politics is local." Bernie Sanders, who no one can say is a "Third Way Dem" or some kind of corporate shill, understands that you need to take care of the folks back home, and he also understands how the legislative system works. You give a little, you get a little, you stay true to your ideals, but you bend on the small shit and play a bit of quid pro quo. Three steps forward, one back. Paul Wellstone got this, too. DK doesn't get it. He's obstreperous and mean, frequently, rigid and bellicose, and he comes off as self-aggrandizing. He's also a flip flopper on the issue of choice--he was ardently opposed to it until he realized it wouldn't play when it came to scrounging up votes, and then he changed his mind rather quickly and cravenly. I don't trust his conversion, frankly. So, mean-spirited, a bit selfish, and occasionally insincere--that's how he strikes me--even when he is saying things that I agree with.

OK--that's my personal opinion. Put that aside, because that doesn't matter in this discussion. Here's what I think of him running in SOMEONE ELSE'S (not MY) district. If the people of the district like the idea, more power to him. Let him go and run, and if he can get the votes, good for him. It's not for me to tell people in another district who they should choose to represent them.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

23. Get your facts straight

Republican redistricting is what moved Kucinich out.

[Zorra]

45. Um, hmm. It appears that I explicitly stated that in my subject line.

Here it is:

"The Third Way Party is ecstatic that the GOP redistricted Dennis out of office."

.

In no place in my post did I state that the Third Way Party redistricted Dennis out of office.

Sorry. It seems that I'm not the one having a problem getting facts straight.

The point is, the GOP redistricted a solid multi-term Democrat out of office, and almost all republicans, along with many supporters of the Third Way Party, are ecstatic over it.

It's kind of obvious, ya know, I mean, I'm just sayin'...

[WCGreen]

56. And losing two congressional seats....

[a2liberal]

26. What they fall to mention

is that they HELPED redistrict him out. The original GOP plan preserved his district but the democratic party protested it (they say for other reasons, but...) and got it changed to the one that pitted him against Kaptur.

[RufusTFirefly]

27. Classic Politico. Why anyone trusts it as a news source is beyond me. Look at who owns it...

If you did some research on who owns Politico, you'd be a lot less likely to quote it. At least I hope so.

Frederick J. Ryan, Jr, President and CEO of Politico.com, also serves as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation

Politico is owned by Albritton Communications. That's the same Albritton family that controlled Riggs Bank.
Try Googling "Riggs Bank" and "Pinochet", for example. Or "Riggs Bank" and "CIA."

[freshwest]

34. Ooh, nasty. Thanks for the info, will regard them with a *more* jaded eye than before.

[RufusTFirefly]

37. Yes. The folks at Politico are the journalistic equivalent of agents provocateur

They typically start a fight (and in some cases make shit up) and then step back to let the confrontation they initiated take on a life of its own.

[leveymg]

35. The same J Allbritton who gave GHW Bush a job as a bank Director after Carter fired him as CIA Chief

The Joe Allbritton-owned bank in Texas was First International Bancshares which morphed into part of BCCI. See, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0806/S00096.htm

McCain and BCCI, the Bush Bank

Before he was selected to as Ronald Reagan’s 1980 running mate, George H.W. Bush had a short and little-known career as an international banker. That effectively started in 1976, while Bush was still CIA Director, a post he held for part of the Nixon and Ford Administration. In the final months of the Ford presidency, Bush made a deal with the newly-appointed head of Saudi General Intelligence Directorate, Prince Turki al-Faisal. The two spy chiefs agreed the CIA would look the other way while the Saudis ran their own global operations. In exchange, the Saudis financed the sort of black ops that had been banned by the Democratic Congress after Watergate and the Church Committee hearings. The arrangement was called “The Safari Club” , and the funding mechanism for this was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, “BCCI”. See, Link ; Link

Newly-elected President Jimmy Carter fired the CIA Director. In early 1977, Houston banker Joe Allbritton appointed Bush to direct his First International Bancshares (dba, First Interbank) and its London and Luxembourg affiliates. According to Kevin Phillips, Bush’s bank was among the first outposts in America for BCCI. Link In the early 1980s, Allbritton followed G. H. W. . to Washington, purchasing Riggs Bank, installing brother Jonathan Bush as a Director.

Riggs closed in 2004 after being fined $25 million dollars for violation of federal money laundering and anti-terrorism laws. Riggs had catered to high-end foreign customers and the diplomatic trade in Washington, as well as having “a relationship” with the CIA. Link / After 9/11, the bank was found to have transferred money from Saudi Embassy accounts that ended up supporting two of the 9/11 hijackers, Flt. 77 leaders Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khaleed al-Midhar after their arrival in the U.S. See, Link

Know Your Banking Customer: Salem Bin Laden

Meanwhile, back in Texas, First Interbank merged with Jim Baker’s Republic Bank, in which the Saudis had taken a stake with the 1978 purchase of the bank’ headquarters building by members of the Bin-Laden and bin-Mahfouz families. The merger of these two Texas banks several years later created the largest regional financial institution in the U.S. Infused with capital from Saudi Arabia, First RepublicBank went on a massive bargain buying binge in the Southwest oil patch. Link

This Saudi-financed merger of the Bush bank with the Baker bank created the nation’s largest bank holding company, and soon the largest bank failure, resulting in a $1 billion tax-payer funded bailout in 1987. This was to become a pattern for the trillion dollar rip-off to come. See, Link

[Zorra]

46. Many conservatives trust it, and seem to like it a whole lot.

Just like they trust and love Fox News.

[RufusTFirefly]

62. Politico's MO is remarkably consistent. It stirs up trouble with the goal of Divide and Conquer

Works quite well, as you see.

[KamaAina]

49. They also own the ABC affiliate in DC

WJLA = Joseph L. Albritton.

[Ian David]

30. Ouch. n/t

[countryjake]

33. How typical, this is a perfectly timed attack...

published on the very same day that Kucinich is sending out feelers to his supporters, just to see if he might have a chance.

With all of the Independents running loose this election season, you'd think our party would actually be supportive of the real Democrats who already have years of proven service under their belt. A Democrat who could snag those Indie votes up, easily.

Mr. Pelz should have kept his mouth shut!

[Wind Dancer]

39. I agree!

It's shocking to see how many Dennis haters post on DU.

Hmm....makes you wonder!

[Bodhi BloodWave]

90. why use the label 'hater'?

just because some people think he was quite inefficient in congress and don't trust his convictions doesn't mean they are haters. All it means is that they would prefer somebody else over him, maybe just a dash less(or more) progressive but more capable of getting things done in congress and the district they would represent.

[Wind Dancer]

118. Have you read the comments on this thread?

I stand by my original post!

[Odin2005]

36. Dennis was anti-choice before he started trying to run for president.

That tells me everything I need to know about him.

[countryjake]

44. People do often have their eyes opened on issues as they age...

and Kucinich has a better record than Kaptur on votes for women's rights. He scored a 100% with NARAL last year.


http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/government-and-you/us-government/congressional-record-on-choice/2011/state-page.html?state=OH

[pnwmom]

59. Kucinich is being urged to come to Washington -- he doesn't have a better record on woman's issues

than Suzan Del Bene or Darcy Burner or Jim McDermott or any of the other progressive Dems I've heard he should run against.

[Odin2005]

71. So the timing of his conversion to being pro-choice is not suspicious to you???

[pnwmom]

58. Many people have short memories. n/t

[Kingofalldems]

42. How is this LBN with no link?

Oh and another thread by OP trashing a Democrat. How many thousand is this now?

[Judi Lynn]

67. It got old years ago. Pathetic. n/t

[SpartanDem]

43. People really think this a good idea?

Some guy loses his election and moves across the country to run again. If it were a Republican considering this we'd think they were pathetic, Pelz is right if Dennis runs in WA, it proves him to be narcissist. Quite frankly it take a special level of delusion to think otherwise.

[freshwest]

68. He didn't just lose an election and get interested in WA. He's been coming out for years and..

Working with anti-war, anti-corporate interests here. He's pro-union and pro-public workers, for maintaing the social safety net and all traditional Democratic ideas and he begged the last time I saw him to move out here. He said he couldn't commit because he had a duty to his constituents in Ohio.

I can't see him as wanting to take away any chances of progressives being in office here, or him acting as a spoiler. We have been losing on progressive legislation here and have some DINOs who aren't living up to our values.

I think the suggestion that he move out here and get established before running for office here is a good one and I'm betting he will take it, unless he gets a chance in CA, for examples as some have suggested. We're on the edge here in WA and the main thing is keep the state house in Democratic hands, and elect Inslee. McKenna would run this state just like Ryan would run it, selling it off quickly. We're already having that problem as it is with the GOP refusing to do anything but privatization.

[itsrobert]

48. Here is the link, (OP please update with link)

OP please update with link:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/04/dem-chief-kucinich-a-narcissist-120617.html

[MindMover]

73. If Dennis is a narcissist which most politicians are anyway.....

he certainly is the poorest member of the house......

Net Worth, $63,000......

For me, that is all the more reason to vote for him, no matter if he is representing the man in the moon.....

[Steerpike]

75. How odd

I love him to.

[got root]

78. look whos talking

[brooklynite]

84. Why are so many people convinced that the Republicans "got rid of" Kucinich?

However strong his voice, he got virtually nothing done on the national stage, and if anything, I'd think the GOP would want him around to help caricature all of the Democrats in the House.

[Cleita]

93. I do believe they got rid of him with the help of DLC Democrats.

He was a nuisance to them in the House when they were trying to pass corporate friendly legislation. He didn't compromise much but followed his conscience most of the time. They hated him for that.

[brooklynite]

108. So, you're saying he complained...

...just as influentially as if he was a TV pundit or a writer.

The cold reality is that they wanted as many Republican seats as possible in Ohio, so they concentrated as many Democratic seats into one district as possible. And those Democrats chose Marcy Kaptur over Dennis.

[Cleita]

110. He explained this morning that his district was chopped into four pieces.

He was forced to run against Kaptur in her own district. The part of his district put in that district gave him 75% of the vote. From what I understand the gerrymandering *cough* redistricting is done by both Republicans and Democrats, so you figure it out.

[bullwinkle428]

94. That would be AWFUL if narcissists started running for public office!