When you only focus on one issue you get Kucinich/Paul. . .

[wndycty]

. . .I'm very fond of Kucinich but for him to consider running with Ron Paul is just disgusting. Paul is a bigot and a nutcase. I keep hearing about how Kucinich is a true progressive, but if he considers a run with his anti-choice comrade Paul one must wonder how progressive he really is.

[PresidentObama]

1. Agreed. Dennis is a good guy, but Jesus Christ. NO Ron Paul.

He's just plain wrong!!

[MuseRider]

2. I could not agree more.

I can't imagine anyone even tending to the left endorsing anyone with Paul. So he is against the war, good for him but he is also against everything else a true liberal/progressive would stand for. I am waiting for an explanation from Kucinich before I jump off the wagon. This is a total deal breaker for me.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Ron Paul has a HUGE and very vocal base

Many are young people the Dems should be going after. And they also have a tremendous ability to raise money. These supporters are going to be looking for a home soon, when they realize Ron Paul has no chance of being a candidate. So anything any Dem does to win their support is very smart, IMO.

There is a huge Ron Paul group here. They come to our rallies. They support ending the war and impeaching Bush and Cheney. And you can't argue with those positions. Once we discuss those issues, I bring up choice and then I slip in some of Ron Paul's racist rhetoric. Many times, they then ask "Well who are you supporting for president?"

It's smart to try to win over Ron Paul's supporters. I think Elizabeth Kucinich made a wise decision when she said this.

[MuseRider]

15. If he runs with him

I am gone, period.

There are far better ways to get those voters won over than including that nutbag in on the ticket. He is the total opposite of everything I believe in on social issues. No fucking way. This is what it will take to move me from Dennis Kucinich.

More fucking politicking. Stand for all you believe K and stop messing around with the crazies. It is just fine to like the man but another thing entirely to run with him. Sorry, he is the polar opposite of DK on everything but the war.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. I guess I see it as a strategic move

I honestly don't think there is even a remote chance that Kucinich will pick Ron Paul as his running mate. But going after his supporters is a smart move.

[MuseRider]

22. I guess if he does not mind

losing at least half of the people who have stuck with him through all of this mess. Nope, strategy can be done without selling out or appearing to sell out. I am waiting for an explanation from the man himself. I am not hopeful since it came from Elizabeth.

I supported DK because I trusted him. If he does not recant this I can't trust that he is not serious. I refuse to vote on the assumption that he did not mean this.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. I agree DK needs to address this

What I find interesting about this is in that same interview she was also asked about 9/11 and that question and answer is getting zero attention. Seems like that would be a more controversial issue.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. When did Kucinich say he would consider running with Ron Paul?

I thought his wife made that statement.

And really, anything the Dems do to reach the Ron Paul supporters is smart, IMO.

[Basileus Basileon]

5. Do you believe she was lying?

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. No but she isn't running; her husband is

It is dishonest to frame this discussion with the implication that a candidate made this statement. When Kucinich says he wants Ron Paul as his running mate, then we can discuss it. In the meantime, we need to remember that his wife said this, not him. She also said he would CONSIDER Ron Paul, not that he was actually choosing him.

[Basileus Basileon]

13. So you don't believe she was lying. You believe Kucinich really is considering a run with Ron Paul.

And you do not believe that to be offensive?

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Go back and watch the tape again

You are completely distorting the question and Elizabeth's answer.

[Basileus Basileon]

20. Do you believe that Kucinich is not considering a run with Ron Paul?

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. "Would he consider" is a whole lot different from "IS he considering"

[Basileus Basileon]

30. All right, so let's go back to "would he consider." Do you believe he would?

And if so, isn't that offensive?

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. Maybe, but I doubt he would actually choose him

There are far too many differences in their platforms. The only issues they agree on are ending the war and impeachment. Beyond that, they share no common views.

[Basileus Basileon]

34. And the "impeachment" issue becomes moot the second they take office.

I also doubt he'd choose Paul.

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. There is still talk of bringing criminal charges

I don't know for sure if Kucinich would do this but impeachment activists are largely in favor of holding Bush and Cheney accountable, even once they leave office.

[Basileus Basileon]

37. I would certainly be in favor of that. nt

[bunnies]

4. Paul is anti-choice because he wants to let states decide?

Help me out on that one. He's not willing to ban abortion. As opposed to say... Huckabee. Dont get me wrong.. I know Pauls a freak... but I dont really get this argument.

[SaveElmer]

6. That is the point of overturning Roe v. Wade...

Remove it as a constitutional right...then the righties will concentrate on getting abortion banned in as many states as they can...

[bunnies]

14. Maybe I give states too much credit?

Could any of them actually get enough votes to ban abortion? Do I delude myself by thinking that the majority of people see that a right to a safe abortion is necessary?

[Basileus Basileon]

17. You delude yourself, yes. South Dakota recently came very, very close.

Their abortion ban was only later defeated because it had no exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the mother.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. You bet they could

South Dakota would be number one.

[Basileus Basileon]

7. Yes, and George Wallace was not a racist. He just wanted to let the states decide. nt

[MuseRider]

10. Just like we let the states decide

gay marriage. Not working out very well for the civil rights of our fellow citizens is it?

[bunnies]

23. No it isnt.

And it really pisses me off. In fact... theres no other issue that pisses me off more than that one right now. Its complete and utter bullshit.

But dont the majority of people support abortion rights? Would a population actually allow abortion to be outlawed?

[Basileus Basileon]

24. The majority do, but they are not evenly distributed.

Illinois will never outlaw abortion. Idaho probably would.

[MuseRider]

25. Please explain

how it is different.

[bunnies]

38. I'll try

Marriage - Its nothing but a legal contract entered into by two people. It connects you legally to one another. Nothing more, nothing less. Hell Ive done it twice. A legal process gets you in. A legal process gets you out. What the hell does a legal contract have to do with sexual preference? To me its no different than "hey.. you cant buy this house because you're gay". And theres no reason for it. None whatsoever.

Marriage could continue even if Churches ceased to exist. Therefore it cannot be owned by the religious zealots no matter how hard they try to convince us otherwise. Besides, the churches will always have the right to deny people their services. So in essence, gay marriage wouldnt even effect them. The church shouldnt get to dictate gov't policy. And the gov't shouldnt be allowed to discriminate. We have anti-discrimination laws in place exactly for this reason.

I dont give a shit how many people are threatened by gay people getting to have the same rights as them. Its a legal contact an therefore should be open to everyone. Period.


Abortion - A medical procedure that isnt anybody elses business. Same deal with the church... as in they need to fuck right off. The churches have the right to suck in as many people to their organization as they can. They're just pissed off that they can't get the whole planet to see things their way.

But unlike gay marriage, most people support a womans right to chose. I can't imagine any state successfully banning it. Though I very well could be wrong.


It's giving something vs. taking something away. But I dont know. Maybe they're not that different after all.

[Basileus Basileon]

41. South Dakota just *did* ban it.

It was overturned 55-45 in a ballot measure, once people realized that it did not have exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the mother. However, if those exceptions were in place, it would have survived the vote, and would have been challenged and taken to the Supreme Court. And if this were Paul's America, abortion would have just been banned according to popular opinion in South Dakota.

[bunnies]

43. So what you're ultimately saying is

That since there ARE states that could make a ban stick if they had the chance, letting states decide is equivalent to encouraging a ban. Makes sense.

Its so depressing.

[Basileus Basileon]

48. Yes, I am. Many states would enact a ban the minute they could.

Therefore, saying "let the states decide" is allowing abortion to be banned for many people. It's the same thing as desegregation in the '60s. Roe is our first and best line of defense for women's rights.

[MuseRider]

42. I may have misunderstood

your first post. If so I apologize.

I see them as the same because nobody should ever be able to tell anyone who to love and keep them from living and loving just like anyone else. I see them the same because nobody should ever be able to tell anyone what to do with their own body and keep them from doing what is right for them.

Both have to do with people making decisions to keep other people from having the same freedom as they do.

I do think there are states who would ban abortion. I hate to think it but I do think they would. Many of same people who vote against GLBT rights don't give much of a shit about women either unless they are standing in the corner waiting for their orders.

I think we agree. :hi:

[bunnies]

46. We definitely do.

Agree that is. I think I just *really* wanted to believe that even if it were left up to states that womens rights would be protected. Its so sad to think it wouldnt be that way.

I wish the anti-choice, anti-gay rights ignorants of this country would either shut up or go away. We can dream! :hi:

[MuseRider]

47. We can dream but we can also work

like hell to beat them. Speaking from experience it is a damned difficult thing to do but it is the right thing. :)

[ConfidentialStatus]

54. I'm married

I don't have a certificate of marriage from the state. I'm a man and have been married for 25 years to a beautiful woman. I have that right and we don't need to get permission from the state.

If you are gay why would you ask? Do you have a license to breathe air? Walk on the public sidewalks? Earn a living in a lawful calling?

[bunnies]

55. That argument doesnt hold up.

Just as you had the right to chose a marriage not recognized by the government, gay couples should have the right to chose one that IS.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Yes just like it was before 1973

He wants to roll back the clock. Crazy, IMO.

[cali]

31. paul support both federal legislation declaring life begins

at conception and a constitutional amendment stating the same. You understand what that would do to choice, right? And the morning after pill, and birth control pills, and certain other birth control methods.

[liberalmuse]

8. Oh HELL no!

The sad thing is, Paul is probably the least offensive 'pub running. If Kucinich said that, I think he needs to re-cant.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. Kucinich didn't say it; his wife did

[rucky]

26. He's onto something, but a unity ticket ain't it.

The point is that there are marginalized people on the left and on the right, hence the "fringe" and "cultish" appeal of both candidates. In reality, both parties have been hijacked by corruption and their supporters realize the need for sweeping reform. That's where the agreement ends... BUT. There will never be a viable third party, unless there's a fourth one formed at the same time. That's split both parties from both ends and weaken the concentrated power, give more choices for more voters, and give politicians more freedom to

[stuartrida]

28. Dennis was a rabid anti-choicer up until he started running for president

so they have some common ground to work with on that one.

[hayu_lol]

33. I guess this is what happens when you have a...

green card carrying, young, educated, Limey hippie chick for a spouse.

[AlertLurker]

35. Kucinich changed his position more that FOUR YEARS AGO, actually.

It was in April of 2003. Well before the 2004 election, too!

I have seen others reply the exact same info to you before.

What do you gain in continuing to post these transparently spurious assertions?


If you don't like him, just don't support him, OK?


For the undecided:

Support Dennis Kucinich TODAY! Your Country Needs You!

[Basileus Basileon]

39. Whoa, he changed his position literally WEEKS before the primary season began. Never mind.

Clearly that was not politically influenced at all.

[maxanne]

60. you might have a point

if Kucinich was a frequent flip-flopper. (see: Edwards, John)

[cali]

40. you do understand that the chances of Kucinich

to get the nom run between no way and not a chance, right? I like Dennis, and I'm voting for him in my late and meaningless primary, but that's because I'm hopeful that 5-7% of us might be enough to send the party a message, not because I delude myself that he has a chance.

[stuartrida]

52. " Dennis was a rabid anti-choicer up until he started running for president"

was what I said.

"Kucinich changed his position more that FOUR YEARS AGO, actually. It was in April of 2003."
is what you said.

You recognize that we are agreeing, right?

[flvegan]

56. He evolved. Many people here don't get the concept.

Hillary used to be a REPUBLICAN. How's that for a response?

[stuartrida]

62. Dennis was a rabid anti-choicer a few short years ago. I am glad he flip flopped on it

but it is worth remembering. As for Hillary voting for Goldwater decades ago, that is worth remembering as well. They would both make shitty presidents regardless.

[Deep13]

58. Ohio's 10th is a heavily Catholic district.

I can't blame him for avoiding this landmine when he unseated a Republican in 1994, the same year that the Rs took Congress away from the Ds.

[MadHound]

44. I love the smell of fear and desperation in the morning

That is what is eminating from the supporters of certain candidates right now. They seize on the most offhand of statements and try to build them up into something big. It really is sad, sad and pathetic.

Elizabeth Kucinich states that Dennis would consider running with Paul as a VP, and all the sudden the adherents of other candidates, none of whom are anywhere near the popularity of Dennis around here in DU, start yammering like this is some sort of done deal, when in all reality this was simply politeness on Elizabeth's point. Sure, if I'm being polite I would consider lots of things. But does that mean that I would actually follow through? No.

Sorry folks, but your methods and tactics are transparent, as are your motives. I'm sorry that your particular candidate isn't popular around here, deal with it. I'm sorry that your candidate isn't exhibiting the correct or right positions on various issues, including the war(no promise of first term troop withdrawl). But that is your candidate's problem, not ours. Perhaps you should reconsider whom you're supporting rather than trying such underhanded tactics that are Rove-like in their machinations.

I find it beyond odd that these sorts of tactics have been increasing of late around here. Do you realize that your motives are obvious, as is your lack of critical thinking and reasoning? I'm sorry that your candidate didn't win the Fun Run, or that they aren't the object of worship around here that you think they should be. But the reason that people ardently support Kucinich is that he represents the positions of true liberals, including getting us out of Iraq ASAP and restoration of our Constitution. These also used to be the position of true Democrats, but alas, that has been polluted and corrupted by corporate money, as are the candidates that tote that corporate water.

But hey, if you want to continue using these tactics, go for it. You're not only showing up how badly your candidate is corrupted, but how badly your own positions and ethics are compromised and how desperate you are to drag down the one candidate who has been right on all the issues all along. It is a shame that a polite aside by a candidate's wife is being pumped up as some sort of big deal. Then again, the fact that you are putting this much effort into such a desperate smear must mean that Kucinich is now a real threat, so I suppose that is some sort of comfort.

[MuseRider]

49. I have to admit

an audible gasp when I saw this. If it is true I am gone but I am waiting to hear from Dennis. She did say it and really, considering means almost nothing, but with trust being such an issue for many of us the very statement is pretty scary.

I hope for a comment from DK soon so I can relax or not. I HATE waiting.

[Basileus Basileon]

50. Um, yeah, everyone is afraid of Dennis Kucinich.

:eyes:

[stuartrida]

51. Hey now, he came in 6th in the 2004 primaries. I am sure the the other candidates are shaking

in their boots.

[polichick]

45. This Kucinich/Paul story can't be good for DK's credibility. nt

[ConfidentialStatus]

53. I know I wish Ron Paul

would stop talking about the War on Drugs. He thinks it's a big failure and he's about free choice and responsibility.

How can Dennis Kucinicnh like this guy? He's only a one issue guy. :) If Ron Paul would make an attempt to follow the Constitution he wouldn't have the Republicans calling him crazy. You should see the attacks on the freeper boards.:) It is down right nasty!

[Deep13]

57. Is there some possibility that a DK/PR ticket might happen?

I rather doubt it.

[maxanne]

59. when

did Kucinich say he'd run with Ron Paul?

[LWolf]

61. When you focus on ANY issue, it's DK. Period.

He's better on the issues than any of the rest of the pack. The more issues you put together, the farther he leaves the rest in the dust.

And he has never said that he has, or would, consider a ticket with Ron Paul. Try to be accurate, please.