I'm new here, and my observation is that DK supporters are delusional

[ChiefJoseph]

There seems to be a disproportionately large number of DUers who not only believe that Kucinich is an ideologically pure candidate, which he for the most part is, but that he would actually be able to win against George Bush.

There's a famous story about a Manhattan socialite who is stupified about Nixon's re-election in 1972 and the loss of George McGovern. "But everyone I know voted for him!" she said incredulously.

The point is that when you surround yourself with like-minded people, you forget that there's a vast country out there that is light years away from Kucinich's politics. All the Repugs would have to do is list a bunch of the loony things he's said, advertise the fact that he's a vegan who socializes with a bunch of New Age weirdos, produce some of the weird legislation he's introduced (mind-control weapons in space) and so on. He's get slaughtered. If Mcgovern only carried one state, I'm convinced DK wouldn't even carry one. Bush would beat him in the biggest landslide in American history.

[mhr]

1. And Your Point Is? We Are Free To Vote Our Preference, Just Like You

Go Dennis Go!

The Man Has My Vote March 9th in Dallas, TX!

[WI_DEM]

2. hmm, I'm not a vegan or new age "weirdo" and I support DK

against the remaining candidates. I just think broad brush criticism of supporters of a candidate are all some people with very little knowledge of that candidate can indulge themselves in. Also, DK represents a "Reagan Democrat" district full of blue collar workers and ethnic catholics many of whom voted for Reagan and who everyone wants to win. Hardly the vegan weirdos you talk about.

[dweller]

3. why would the repugs do that?

when they have you, chief?

see the little sleepy guy up there?
let me introduce you.

peace,
dp

[buddhamama]

4. when you surround yourself

with like-minded you start threads with "Dumbo" in the title.
how quickly we've forgotten how democracy is supposed to work.

[sadiesworld]

5. Not very politically correct of you.

[no name no slogan]

6. You don't know your history too well then

McGovern lost because he "sold out" his core support at the convention by selecting that hack Tom Eagleton to be his VP. He dumped Eagleton later because of his psychiatric history, even though McG said he was behind him "1000%" as his VP choice.

Furthermore, Nixon was breaking the law during the campaign, which was later exposed by Woodward and Bernstein at the Wash Post. You may have heard of it, it was called "Watergate" and it led to Nixon's resignation.

Also, the convention in 1972 was VERY contentious-- large blocs of old-line machine Democrats were not seated at the convention in favor of "new politics" groups. Richard Daley was locked out, for example. This alienated the old Democrats, who didn't get on board with McGovern until October-- much too late to affect the election.

McGovern didn't lose because of is positions-- he lost because the party machinery didn't get behind him, and because of some major campaign blunders after the nomination. To compare McGovern to Kucinich is stretching, to say the least.

[redqueen]

7. You must have missed this part:

Many of us who have been working for the Kucinich campaign have found that he does have widespread support, not just from like-minded people but from republicans, independents, greens, and libertarians.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but your premise is badly flawed.

[bahrbearian]

8. Prospects of a Peace Time President " Delusional" ?

Sorry Peace though peach cobbler would be nice.

[JVS]

12. Mmmmmm, Peach time.

(makes Homer Simpson drooling noise) I could sure go for some peaches. :-)

[Gringo]

9. I'm only speaking for myself, but...

I plan to vote for DK on Mar. 9 to send a message to the party & the nominee about which direction we want them to go.

I hardly think that delusional, and I'm sure that there are plenty of DK supporters who realize that he WOULD NOT win the general election.

I will cast my vote for him because I know he is NOT going to get the nomination. If it was close between DK and Kerry, I would vote for Kerry for the sake of winning the general election, I'm sad to admit.

[ChiefJoseph]

20. Very sensible response.

I sympathize with those who want to vote for him to make a point or to push the party in his direction. Fine. There's a role for people like DK to play in the electoral process. But to suggest that he would beat Bush is just fantasy-land.

[silverlib]

10. You are entitled to your opinion...

I am a DK supporter and am saddened that his voice is not heard. Al Sharpton made several points last night that even if you think that only two of the candidates can beat Bush, it is still extremely important for the other two to have as many delegates as possible to have a voice in the Democratic Party. Of course, he said it much better than I am stating it here.

There have been a lot of losers whose platforms were not recognized as "legitimate" until many years after their presentation. I still think McGovern lost due to his platform on flat tax, which the Republican Forbes embraced in a much later campaign.

I think DK is right on target. I will vote my soul in the primaries and ABB in the general election. What's wrong with being vegetarian? I'm not, but I certainly have never held it against someone. I find it rather admirable. Our founding fathers were rather "New Age weirdos."

[Protagoras]

49. Very well said Silverlib

I think Sharpton pretty much laid it out last night. He understands he's not going to win (though he made some great jokes about it)..but he also understands that staying in the race is our best chance to keep the party and the platform true.

There is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian...but then again there is nothing wrong with being a woman or a minority or homosexual and the country as a whole can't seem to get that straight yet either.

We have a looooong way to go. We need to start in 2004 but we can't look at it all as about just now...we must START now...and keep moving forward from there.

[MuseRider]

11. Thanks so much

but "Dumbo" represents me just fine. I am neither delusional or a "New Age" weirdo. He will get my vote, he gets my respect. Why don't you consdier doing something more productive with your time than insulting other people. No wonder you have no clue about his candidacy or his supporters.

[Armand]

13. I agree.

I love Kucinich to death, but he does not represent even 1/4 of the people this country. I'll take my chances with a guy who has a chance of winning.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. My contribution to the Kucinich campaign

is now $95, thanks to your starting this thread.

Isn't it funny how people who think Dennis is "unelectable" spend so much energy tearing him down?

[revcarol]

77. $5.00 more for Dennis!!

I already proudly voted for Dennis!!

Gotta tear DK down: MOTTO OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, "There is dno room in our party for new ideas. There is no room for FDR Democrats."

and I will be DAMNED if I let them get away with it!

My time, my money, my energy, and my heart belong to Dennis.

[tryanhas]

15. Oh you are right.

People here are pretty much from the "WE LOVE LOSING ELECTIONS" wing of the Democratic party.

They don't care about losing election after election, as long as they feel good about making a point.

That's why they foolishly think that it's a good idea for Edwards and Kerry to "EMBRACE" gay marriage.

They think that it's bad that a candidate "PERSONALLY SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY" even though most voters in this country also support it.

They could care less about MOST AMERICANS SUPPORTING THE WAR IN IRAQ, and they think that Kerry and Edwards have less chance in a general election because they did.

You are a very wise person to see the silliness that is present here, and it's not just in the Kucinich supporters.

Like I have said everywhere that I go on the web, Edwards' supporters tend to be the most "RATIONAL." The others don't seem to have a clue about what it takes to win a general election.

Prime example...BOB DOLE SERVED, GEORGE H.W. BUSH SERVED, AL GORE SERVED, MAX CLELAND SERVED. Dole lost, Bush Senior lost to Clinton who dodged the draft, Gore was so pathetic that he made it close enough for AWOL to steal it from him, and some good losing 3 limbs in battle did Max Cleland in his last race agains that bastard, Saxby Chambliss. But, nooooo, Democrats think that the fact that Kerry served makes him "ELECTABLE" although a recent scientific poll that came out said that MOST AMERICANS could care less about whether a President served or not.

I find that most of the posts on this board are just a bunch of "CLUELESS CHEERLEADING" and not informative or rational at all.

If it is a proven fact that voters, EVEN THE MAJORITY OF VIETNAM VETERANS, could care less that Kerry served and Bush didn't, why do Democrats think they have a winning issue there???

It's ridiculous!

[rucky]

17. How's that "appeal to the center" strategy been working out for ya?

2000. 2002. 2004?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Rainbowreflect]

39. If Gore "didn't appeal to anyone" why did he win the popular vote?

If Kerry does not have the broad appeal that Edwards does why has he not won more states?
If you want a conservative, just vote for a republican.

[Nederland]

45. He won the popular vote

...primarily because he was much further to the right than people around here would have liked him to be.

[tryanhas]

50. For Gore...

...BECAUSE HE OVERHWELMINGLY WON CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK DUH!!!

What's 500,000 freaking little votes in the two most populous and two of the most liberal states in the union?

That answer is too simple.

The electoral college decides elections, not popular vote, so get a candidate who can pile up electoral votes, like Edwards.

KERRY HAS WON MORE STATES BECAUSE DEMOCRATS ARE VOTING FOR THE DEMOCRATIC FRONTRUNNER BECAUSE THE MEDIA CONSTANTLY SAYS THAT KERRY IS ELECTABLE! Plenty of people I have heard testimonials from, say that people go to Kerry's victory speeches and go home saying, "I CAN'T STAND HIM, I just voted for him because I thought he would win."

They are just following suit and doing what they think they should do, they don't FULLY SUPPORT KERRY or care that much for him, they just HATE BUSH MORE! Kerry's "can beat bush" votes are votes against Bush, and those votes are accented in a Democratic primary, but would not be in a general election, duh!

REPUBLICANS IN CALIFORNIA ARE MORE LIBERAL THAN DEMOCRATS IN SOUTH CAROLINA, so I guess those conservative Democrats should just vote Republican, right?

When will you people realize that the world is not black and white! It's not, and EITHER OR WORLD.

Throw the freaking labels out the window! All Conservatives are not Republicans and all Liberals are not Democrats!

When the "WE LOVE LOSING ELECTIONS" wing of the Democratic party realizes that, then maybe we can win some elections. It's about appealing to PEOPLE, not just your base.

Kerry does well with the base, but he wouldn't do as well when you have an evenly divided electorate between Dems, Independents, and Republcans, and even more divisions and polarization in those groups.

That's where Edwards would thrive because he "CONNECTS" more with voters, and his support is solid, whereas Kerry's is soft.

Disagree, I'm sure, learn to think about things more, I hope.

I'm out for a while, I have to leave the house, lol...

Smile... :)

[Rainbowreflect]

64. Kinda funny the mixed messages we are getting.

Bad for people to vote for Kerry just because he's the front runner.
Bad for people to vote for Kucinich because he cannot win.

My response about Gore was to the poster's comment that Gore did not appeal to anyone. If he won the popular vote he obviously appealed to someone, even if no one outside of NY or CA voted for him, which of course they did. I live in a very conservative state and I voted Gore as did many people I know.

"Plenty of people I have heard testimonials from, say that people go to Kerry's victory speeches and go home saying, "I CAN'T STAND HIM, I just voted for him because I thought he would win."

I have also know many people, myself included, who have not or will not vote Kerry in the primary but will in the GE if he is the nominee.

[tryanhas]

94. So what???

Whether people will vote for him in the general election is irrelevant to the discussion of "WHY IS HE WINNING PRIMARIES THEN" question.

I answered that question, and it is simple, they are voting for him, because they are led to believe that he can beat Bush, NOT BECAUSE THEY LIKE HIM.

[rucky]

So lemme get this straight

You're the type who likes to win elections. But you don't support the guy who's leading by over 500 delegates. Are those 500 delegates members of the "We love to lose elections" wing? Because of course, the guy who's losing by over 500 delegates is more electable, and supporters of the guy who's losing by about 600 delegates (and the subject of this thread) are "clueless".

mmm-hmm

[tryanhas]

95. I'm not going to keep answering that question!

Why don't you read my ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION in my other responses on this thread, duh!

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

70. Pretty well in 1992, 1996, and 2000

Actually, damn well.

[no name no slogan]

116. Not that well

Clinton NEVER won a majority of the popular vote. If it weren't for Perot stripping off a sizable chunk of the Repub vote, Clinton would have lost.

2000 was hardly a "victory". If it was close enough for an illiterate's brother to steal it, that's hardly a triumph. Not to mention a good portion of Nader voters who would have been Gore's had he bothered to act like a Democrat.

And how convenient you forgot about 1994. That wasn't a very good year to be a centrist apologist was it? So long, House. Sayonara, Senate. Way to go Democrats-- drive away your loyal base of support among the working class to appeal to the Wall Street CEOs instead.

The DLC and the centrists have all but hammered the final nail into the coffin of this party. If we continue down this road, we'll make the Whigs look attractive by comparison.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Armand]

22. You're absolutely right. Kerry and Edwards represent

most of the country, whereas Dennis Kucinich represents like a small 2-4% of people.

[Rainbowreflect]

33. Your Rove talking points are showing.

Clinton did not "dodge the draft".
Gore was not pathetic the media was pathetic.
And bush's serving or not serving is not the issue, his complete dishonesty in this and so many other things is the issue.
I will proudly vote for Dennis Kucinich in the primary and the dem nominee in the G.E.
If you don't like our "clueless cheer leading" and find DU ridiculous, I know another site that might be more to your liking.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[dweller]

54. now THAT'S delusional....

"Bottom line, I like Kucinich and Sharpton, but neither one of them have a prayer or EVER HAD A PRAYER in a general election. That's not an
insult or an opinion, it's a fact, and everyone here knows it."

damned megalomaniacal almost.

way back in 2003 you say?

wow, you are really developing a following.
:eyes:

dp

[ChiefJoseph]

62. Your avatar gives me the heebie jeebies.

What is that thing?? It reminds me of the creature from the Mothman Prophecies.

[dweller]

69. then no wonder you fear Kucinich...

:eyes:

dp

[Rainbowreflect]

83. First off I'm a dudette, not a dude.

You said the Clinton was a draft dodger, you did not say the media presented him as a draft dodger.

I personally don't give a shit if a poll says 99% of the public does not care that bush was AWOL, they people need to know that their pResident is a liar.

I don't know where you get the idea that people on DU think bush represent Christians. I found the opposite to be true.

Critique me all you wish, but you might want to cut back on the capitalization and bolding. No one like to be yelled at.

I could take you arguments more seriously if you didn't change your message in mid stream.

[tryanhas]

96. I don't CARE

Don't YOU get it yet?

I love bold...

[Rainbowreflect]

100. If you really don't care, why do you feel the need to reply????

[Nederland]

43. Brilliant

Spot on description of many here at DU. Don't give up hope though, some sensible people do post here and have for years.

[youngred]

115. hmmm these talking points sound so familiar

www.freerepublic.com

[RichM]

16. Your remarks reflect a lifetime of exposure to TV & mainstream media.

It's nice that you like Bob Dylan - that indicates there's hope for you. It's nice that realize that DK is, for the most part, "ideologically pure." You have potential.

However, this thing you have just spewed is unworthy of someone who has probably reflected admiringly upon the text of "Masters of War." You should read some Chomsky & Parenti & Zinn, and try to think it all through once again.

It is true that under current conditions, DK will be marginalized. However, "current conditions" includes the complete subordination of the Democratic Party to corporate rule. IF the entire machinery of the Democratic Party was (suddenly and miraculously) devoted to defending, articulating, and spreading Dennis's message, he would be a formidable threat to George Bush. He has the truth on his side - & he is the ONLY candidate that does. He is offering a well-defined program that offers achievable benefits to 95+% of the population.

It is the cringing prostration of the Democratic Party, and its unwillingness to fight for progressive values, that will limit Dennis's electoral results -- not his ears, or vegan tastes, or New Age friends. He will be done in because the Dem Party is far too much a slave to the interests it pretends to oppose, to fight for him.

[ChiefJoseph]

23. Thanks

Bob Dylan is the closest thing I have to a religion.

DK is relatively pure in an ideological sense. His flip flop on abortion is probably the greatest evidence of his being a typical politicians rather than a progressive messiah.

"It is the cringing prostration of the Democratic Party, and its unwillingness to fight for progressive values, that will limit Dennis's electoral results"

Actually, I think it's the fact that hardly anyone votes for him that will limit his electoral results.

[RichM]

68. Let me ask you this, re: the alleged "flip flop" on abortion.

DK's career demonstrates a clear willingness to oppose powerful interests. No one knows better than he, that this costs votes. Even his enemies concede he's a straight-talker. And he knows himself that he only commands a few percent in the polls.

For him to "flip flop" on abortion, as a way to gain votes by pandering to a certain constituency, would be entirely out of character, AND it would make no political sense. If he wanted to flip flop to gain votes, why not flip flop on other issues to align himself with safe vote-yielding positions? If he knows he has only a few percent, why would he make an insincere flip flop on this one issue? Would he imagine that this change alone would elevate him to the head of the pack? No, of course not -- he knows that being against the war machine and against corporate rule generally makes one marginal. What would he have to gain -- while maintaining a whole array of positions that keep him marginal? Would he abandon his lifelong habit of being a straight-talker, just to move from 2% to 3% in the polls?

[ChiefJoseph]

82. Look, rationalize all you want, but answer this question:

Did he or did he not execute a complete 180 degree turn on abortion long after he entered the public arena? You can speculate all you want on why he did it, but he did flip flop.

But look, I don't mean to make a big fight out of this. On most issues, he's remarkable consistent and he courageously takes positions that he knows will hurt him in the polls. All I'm looking for is an admission that he is not without his failings ideologically speaking.

[tinanator]

120. Bob Dylan?

you must be quite the authority on "flip flops".

[redqueen]

24. "the Dem Party .. too much a slave to the interests it pretends to oppose"

And this is also the reason that support for him seems so soft.

Those that correctly recognize that the problem is BOTH parties being mostly whored out to corporate rule aren't even bothering paying attention yet. Why would they?

But in the GE, a candidate like Kucinich would shine like a beacon.

Too bad the democratic party machine is so vested in ensuring the continuation of the status quo.

You can thank the corporate-kissass centrists for that.

[ChiefJoseph]

46. What?

"And this is also the reason that support for him seems so soft."

What do you mean "seems"? He has gotten his ass kicked in primary after primary. His unpopularity is a matter of record, not perception.

[redqueen]

51. People voting now are involved. Most of the electorate isn't.

Those that are involved are seemingly hypnotized by the 'electability' mantra.

Those that would be involved later are more likely to be the sort that believe that it doesn't matter which party that you vote for, because the corporations will always get their way.

So his unpopularity NOW is only an indication of how many democrats are willing to sell out principle for politics (which is unpopular with the 'why does it matter' crowd as well, 'no moral center' and all), and how many democrats are being cowed into voting for the tall one or the cute one rather than the only one that represents a new direction for the country.

[Mairead]

121. "What do you mean "seems"? ... His upopularity is a matter of record"

A car stops when the cop holds up her hand. But the hand being held up isn't what causes the car to stop.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. Out of the mouths of newbies

comes a fresh perspective.

[diamondsoul]

25. And out of the mouth of Freddie

comes the same ol' Kucinich bash we know and love. Ahhh, security in the hate we know versus the decency we don't know.:puke: :eyes:

[dweller]

26. dude, it wasn't fresh or original

when you spouted it, and still not now.

smelled like cnn/msnbc/abc/cbs/fox spirit then, still does now.

dp

[redqueen]

36. Corporate Whore Media Spin indeed!!!!

:yourock:

[bearfartinthewoods]

19. hey chief joeseph...

are you related or just a fan. my wife is decended from the famous chief joeseph's father also named joeseph iirc. in other words she's the grand x? neice of the one who is so often quoted.

[ChiefJoseph]

27. Nope, just a fan.

I'm from Wallowa County, Oregon. Chief Joseph remains quite a presence there.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

21. I believe I read a statistic somewhere that said...

40 to 50 percent of Americans believe in UFO's. I also have seen statistics that say upwards of 95% of Americans profess some sort of belief in a "God". Yet you claim that "New Age weirdos" and "weird legislation" like "mind-control weapons in space" will ensure his loss.

Funny thing is, it seems to me that Kucinich's "weirdness" is rather tame compared to the electorate's "weirdness".

Personally, I think it is far more weird to believe that a multi-millionaire, pro-corporate politician has more in common with the average person than Kucinich...

[Sinistrous]

28. Good post, ChiefJoseph

It is important to be reminded that in a political race, a candidate will sieze on any quirk of the opponent and magify it so that, at least in the public's perception, it becomes a monsterous deformity (and I am not referring to ears here). You are correct that Kucinch has made several bizarro pronouncements that would provide fertile fodder to the republican propagandists.

I believe you are correct in your comparison to McGovern. I watched the McGovern debacle unfold, and he had much greater support within the Democratic party than Kucinich has at this time. A bush v. Kucinich contest would be a disaster.

BTW, as I haven't seen your handle before, Welcome to DU. Keep up the good work.

[ChiefJoseph]

29. Thank you!

You captured my post better than I did in drafting it. It's not so much that DK is a weirdo (although he is rather odd), but the Repugs would make like look like an absolute caricature. By the time they are done with him, he'd look like a cross between Frank Zappa and Mohandas Ghandi.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. You've got something against Frank Zappa and Mohandas Gandhi?

Sounds like flattering comparisons to me. :-)

[ChiefJoseph]

48. No, but those images don't win elections...

...anywhere except Eugene, San Fran, Ann Arbor and Austin.

[charlie]

30. One thing I've noticed

I that you've used a lot of your maiden posts snarking about Kucinich, often in threads that have nothing to do with the man. Why the obsession?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[redqueen]

38. Noticing the tone of your posts today is stalking?

Wow, I didn't know that.

[bigtree]

31. Despite the complaints that Rep. Kucinich was shut out of the debate

and cut off, I felt that he made a strong case for his candidacy. He expressed his stark differences with Kerry and Edwards clearly and forcefully. I think he can continue that strong defense of his positions at Sunday's debate.

I don't agree with some of the positions Dennis has taken on Iraq and I expect my candidate to effectively rebut his challenges. I look foward to Dennis getting a better shot at his challenge to Kerry to explain how he would get us out of Iraq. I've already heard Kerry's response and I am confident that although there are stark differences between their views on the conflict, Kerry's response will satisfy most viewers and voters.

Despite what some may assert, this is not a contest against pro-war and anti-war, or even pro-NAFTA against anti-NAFTA. Voters will make their decisions on the totality of their views and on the strength of character they present. I hope we can stop tearing at our candidates and focus instead on their differences with Bush. At the very least, I hope that the candidates would focus more on presenting their own record and less on disparaging the others Democrats'.

Go Dennis!

[rhite5]

40. There are surprises coming. Find the Courage to Join.

I am an old time Democratic activist and I've been measuring the real support for Dennis out there under the radar. His support is MUCH greater than you think.

People know now (finally) how much they have been lied to. They are looking at the Congressional and Senate votes that have enabled Bush. They are angry. They are ready for real change.

We have been too timid -- worrying that they just did not understand enough to really go for the changes needed.

Well, I am telling you -- that is BULLSHIT.

They are ready for a leader who will lead away from Imperialism, away from preemptive Wars, away from NAFTA and the WTO. They want a leader who cares genuinely about whether they have a decent-paying job or not, cares whether they have a place to live and food on the table, really cares about the safety of food in the grocery store, and cares whether the telephone company or the power company is ripping you off.

They see a candidate who is honest, one they can count on to tell them the TRUTH. He just happens to know his way around Washington. He has not let any grass grow or rested on his laurels during the years he has been in Congress.

He knows how to solve most of the problems we face and he knows how to pay for them.

"Think your vote for Dennis Kucinich won't count?"
THINK AGAIN.
Are Your Hopes and Dreams Electable? ... ... YOU BET !
But --- ONLY IF YOU VOTE FOR THEM.

YOUR Vote. YOUR Voice. YOUR Country. Don't be Silenced!

Do you have the COURAGE of your Convictions?

Dennis Does.

[Desertrose]

57. thanks...I concur with your post wholeheartedly,rhite5

support out there is SO much greater than is believed by some.

:loveya: & peace
DR

[cosmicdot]

41. do you have a link to the bill, and its language?

there is a blog which distorts and ridicules Kucinich; note that Dennis Kucinich's website is:
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/

thank goodness someone is looking out for us humans: “To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.”

So, a vast amount of Americans are light years away from wanting that?

striving for peace, and orienting society toward skills in managing conflicts on all levels and domains of human interaction and life;health care for all; building/improving our infrastructure for 21st century sustainability; justice for all; living wages - oh, horrors!

It's more frightening to me that people are so corporately controlled that they believe "there's a vast country out there that is light years away from Kucinich's politics". ... whatever that may mean.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. I think "delusional" is a rather nasty, downright disrespectful dismissal

While I don't think he can win because his message has been altered where it was covered at all, he actually COULD win if he got people's attention.

The working poor would be a HUGE voting block if they had anything to vote for.

Your observations are realistic ONLY because of the number of people excluded from the process via the fact that nobody addresses them and on this issue, I firmly side with progressives.

[diamondsoul]

47. We're busting arse to give that

group of people something to vote for...(did I just say "that group"?? Sheeeite, I AM "that group"!). Seriously, that's my focus right now- people who have no reason at all to vote. I;m giving them one and his name is Dennis J. Kucinich.

[MuseRider]

58. Very nice reply NSMA

I will not give up. I wonder how large that particular voting block will be in the next election if we do not change things significanly now?

[Tinoire]

52. You need to spend a little time on the Republican boards.

They think Kucinich is the only one who makes any sense.

So do many of us.

Apologies for being delusional and not buying into Murdoch's "Kerry and the other DLC boys are the only ones electable" spin.

[KamaAina]

53. I am not delusional which you cannot prove so stop saying that!

I really miss Bob Boudelang...

Aloha. My name is KamaAina, and I was one of 1,112 Hawai'i Democrats who caucused for Dennis on Tuesday night. I do not consider myself, or the others, to be delusional. Rather, cold logic stood behind my choice:

I will most likely get another chance to vote for John Kerry, in November, and then again when he runs for re-election in '08.

Unless I move to Cleveland (not ruddy likely), I will not get another chance to vote for Dennis Kucinich. I was a Howard Dean supporter who switched to Dennis once he became the pro-peace candidate remaining in the race.

My vote for Dennis was not merely a "protest vote". Those eight (or six, depending on whose count you believe) delegates will be much more effective as one of the major Kucinich blocs at the convention than they would have been as eight more Kerry delegates, among two or three thousand, from our small, isolated state.

True, Hawai'i, and especially Maui, put Kucinich on the map. But it is also true that, in a political sense, Kucinich has put Hawai'i on the map. Mahalo (thank you), Dennis!

[neoteric lefty]

55. hey Chief

I think quite a few people here are taking your post a little out of context. Most DU'ers seem to be passionate people and DK is a passionate man. I like DK and congratulate him for running a great campaign. He has tried his damnest to bring up issues important to him and many progressives. But I agree that the hill that Dennis would have to climb would be extremely difficult to overcome. That's the realist in me talking, I guess. The way our system works, and indeed it is flawed, Dennis would have a much harder path then someone who is more centrist. Some think that is a good thing, some think that is a bad thing. I just think that DK doesn't fit our current election system very well and until the system is changed, candidates like him will have a major disadvantage. Fair, absolutely not... reality, seems so.

[Imajika]

56. Ofcourse Kucinich has no chance..

to win the Democratic nomination let alone be elected President - never has, probably never will.

But your on a forum populated with many of the most active base of the Democratic Party - the true believers if you will.

This is the best forum on the net, it is also the best place to see new ideas and discuss issues, many of which might eventually percolate into the mainstream in some form or another.

Saying that, the activist base on both sides usually don't have a very good grasp of how the American public will react to issues, or vote in elections.

Just look at the track record of so many here on DU.

- 2002 was supposed to be a big win for the Democrats. Bush was predicted to be a massive drag on his party allowing the Democrats to knock off many Republicans. And in spite of all the ancedotal "Bush is going down" threads prior to the election, the Democratic Party wound up getting thumped - and in an off year election that should have favored them no less.

- Floridians were still furious about 2000 and would knock off Jeb. Instead McBride was annhilated in embarassing fashion.

- Much of the forum was behind Dean and Clark. Many projected Clark was an unstoppable force if only he would just join the race. I rarely saw any posts backing Kerry for President. Look what happened?

I could go on and on here. The activist base of both sides of the political spectrum are almost never good at gauging where the American public really is.

When people feel so strongly about issues that they invest huge amounts of time and energy, it usually blinds them to the political realities of the world.

Kucinich speaks for the far left. He has some good ideas, seems like a very honest person with good character, but he will just doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of being elected President in the United States.

Imajika

[scarletwoman]

59. Delusional? How nice.

I'll be sure to blithely dismiss YOUR ideas, too. Gosh, there's nothing like a little respectful dialogue to build bridges to unity, eh?

sw

[molly]

60. I remember the first mainframe I worked on

it had 4K. It was a IBM 1401. It was binary - bit on - bit off. To run "large" applications, you had to write overlays to free up memory you were done with. It was "state of the art". There was no multi-tasking.

Fast forward a few years. When I first learned Cobol, it was unbelievable that this language kept track of your addresses. The mainframes at this point could run several tasks at the same time - all you needed to do was tell them where and when.

When the first PCs came out, they were "toys". A lot of us "old timers" played around with them, but nothing serious.

Now look what has happened in just a few years. It's been like a snowball. The new languages and packages and procedures do things I would have never dreamed possible back in the old 1401 days. It's all done for you - and you never need to count bits and bites. That doesn't take away from the glory of the 1401 if you go back to the 60's. We thought we were big time, but programmers were thought of as weird and should be locked away in closets.

Dennis is idealistic and most likely a kind and sensitive person. He may be right on issues, but watching him last nite, I wondered just how realistic he is. This is a vast country and a vast world and somewhere, hidden away safe and warm is utopia - an ideal place to be. But, it's not reality.

[MuseRider]

66. "hidden away safe and warm is utopia

- an ideal place to be. But, it's not reality." Nothing ever happens if some are not willing to risk it all to make it happen. So we should just give it all up? Don't think so. A peaceful, productive life with respect for ourselves and others is unrealistic?

[no name no slogan]

72. Tell that to the people

...who won't be helped by either Kerry's or Edwards' corporate-based health care plans.

...who had their daughters/sons killed or injured in an illegal war in Iraq.

...who will have their sons/daughters or even THEMSELVES drafted to fulfill Sen. Kerry's proposed 40,000 additional troop obligation to Iraq.

...who lost their jobs (or will lose their jobs) because of NAFTA, or the MFN trading agreement with China, and other such flawed "free trade" agreements.

Politicians don't change things, visionaries do. John Kerry (who may have been a visionary 30 years ago) is a politician. Dennis Kucinich is a visionary.

I'll take the visionary over the yesman any day, thanks.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

98. I disagree with this point

...who won't be helped by either Kerry's or Edwards' corporate-based health care plans.

I think Kerry's healthcare plan DOES work. He leaves credits in place for the working middle class and removes catastrophic illness from being covered on employer plans. This is the MAIN thing that raises premiums for employer plans and their contributions and end up having companies cancel their healthcare plans or having employees choose not to take it. An otherwise healthy workforce can see a huge rise in premiums with ONE heart attack or ONE stroke of a coworker.

By doing this he also removes a lot of the burden from the medicare system and state systems that also provide for uninsured and under insureds, such as over taxed emergency room treating illnesses that don't belong in emergency rooms.

It therefore means that of the 40 million uninsured (if I have the number correct) that HAVE jobs, it is easier for their employer to deliver or offer a program and will be tied to BRINGING rates DOWN.

By creating a POOL for the catastrophic illness he goes a LONG way to DECORPORATIZE catastrophic illness since even though programs like medicare are imperfect, the government pays LESS to fee for service providers than the private market does for most services. In doing this he is USING government LEVERAGE to bring DOWN the costs of catastrophic treatment since heart surgeons and vascular surgeons are not going to WANT to go out of business tomorrow.

While medicare FRAUD has been a problem, medicare FRAUD has been easier to prove than INSURANCE fraud for the consumer who cannot afford to pursue the thieves in the industry.

Can anyone RIGHTFULLY say that a universal care program would even PASS with a republican house and senate?

If not, then what you are REALLY advocating is DOING nothing in exchange for an idea.

[no name no slogan]

117. More private sector bureaucracy is NOT the answer

Right now, more people in the US support a single-payer universal healthcare system than don't support it. Even 50% of Republicans support it.

People are fed up with the broken system of healthcare we have now. No amount of "tinkering" with the system (removing catastrophic illness, making more coverage pools, etc) will get at the ROOT of the problem.

The root is: we are allowing privately-held corporations to make a profit off the misery of fellow human beings.

More bureaucracy is what got us into this mess in the first place. Think back to 1972, when Richard Nixon proposed a universal healthcare system to combat rising medical costs. Instead of a true universal system, we got HMOs and "managed care". This has led to spiraling costs, greater bureaucracy and worse care.

A universal single-payer system will not only give better care, but it will save us MILLIONS of dollars in administrative costs. Your average HMO spends about 15% of its net on administration, while Medicare is around 3%. Now, wouldn't a fiscally conservative voter support that?

Besides, we've NEVER tried to pass a true universal, single-payer healthcare plan through congress before-- so how can you say that "it will never pass"? WE'VE NEVER EVEN TRIED!

Did Gandhi stop fighting the British because he didn't think he'd win? Did MLK quit after the March on Selma because he didn't think African-Americans would get civil rights? HELL NO!

Why are Democrats so eager to resign before the battle is even started?

It boggles the mind.
:shrug:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

125. Where are you getting those support numbers from?

I'd be interested in seeing them and am willing to rethink it..but I don't see people supporting it if they don't have SOME freedom to choose doctors or specialists.

If you have some supportive documentation, I'd be happy to read it.

[no name no slogan]

127. The numbers are from Pew-- and you get MORE choice, too!

The system DK proposes works like Medicare-- you can see ANY doctor or specialist you want. The only "socialized" part would be the insurance. That would be covered by a single plan, government-sponsored, that would cover healthcare expenses.

The plan itself will actually allow consumers GREATER choice in treatment, as it not only includes every physician in the country, but also covers alternative medicine, like chiropractic and accupuncture, too.

So, instead of being restricted to clinics where your current health plan is approved, you can go to ANY clinic-- because they'd all be covered by the same insurance!

Cost savings are realized by cutting out the current insurance bureaucracy and duplication of services. Currently, that accounts for 14% of each health care dollar spent. Compare that to Medicare, where only 3% of each dollar goes for overhead.

Employers would be better off as well. Currently, they pay 12% of their operating expenses for health care coverage. DK's plan cuts that to 7%-- an amount which can also be split between the employer and employee.

Not only that, but EVERYONE is automatically covered, regardless of employment status.

As Kucinich says, "we're already paying for universal health care in America, we're just not receiving it".

:D

[Shanty Oilish]

61. I will flame no more forever

Didn't you know someone would say that? ;)

[rucky]

63. Maybe Democratic UNDERGROUND Is Not For You

www.ndol.org
is more your speed. but thanks for your .02, your opinion is important to us, too. have a nice day!

[neoteric lefty]

67. I think that may be a bit unfair

lets read:

------snip-----

MESSAGE BOARD RULES (SHORT VERSION)

1. This is a message board for Democrats and other progressives.
2. Treat people with respect. Don't be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message, not the messenger.
3. Don't post entire articles. Instead, post short excerpts (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with links.
4. Respect the wishes of the moderators and administrators.

(down a bit)

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

-----snip------

DU is a place for all respectful democrats, not just progressives. If the MODs want to change that, then cool. But until then, I feel chief has a place here.

[scarletwoman]

73. So, it's "respectful" to call progressives "delusional"?

"DU is a place for all respectful democrats, not just progressives."

sw

[Sinistrous]

85. The term *delusional* was not applied to progressives.

It referred to those who believe DK has any chance of winning the GE.

Suggest you re-read the original post.

[scarletwoman]

86. And I suggest YOU read the post to which I was replying. (n/t)

[Sinistrous]

92. ???? Then please explain the subject line of your previous post. "n/t"

.

[ChiefJoseph]

89. Exactly, thank you Sinistrous

[rucky]

76. Then alert the mods

Maybe that's what I should've done to this entire thread, which was an unprovoked violation of said rules.

I would never start a thread like this, nor respond how I did without provocation.

[Desertrose]

65. yo chief, what has you so scared??

the fact that we are all delusional or that Dennis may be right about some things...

hey how do you know you are not already mindcontrolled...I think the ones doing it are pretty obvious...Faux,CNN,MSNBC, RNC,DLC....need I go on??
DUH

"The point is that when you surround yourself with like-minded people, you forget that there's a vast country out there that is light years away from the way you think, too"
DUH

and I suppose you think there are no vegan repubs?...that choosing to eat no meat ,poultry or dairy is a very wierd thing?? like the dairy/beef corporate farmers aren't pushing thier products - literally - down our throats?Ummm yeah ....with all the tasty downer cattle and poultry virus going around.
DUH


new age weirdos...one of my favorite catch all phrases...would love to hear your definition of exactly what THEY are.....and you get your information where???
DUH

Yeah, maybe we are DUH-loosional then...

I am amazed at how folks are unable or unwilling to think for themselves. And you talk about how we DK supporters surround ourselves with like minded people?! You & your friends are so threatened by us its almost sad....


Peace..hey its a good thing and its possible...

Desertrose, shaking head in amazement

[ChiefJoseph]

74. Delusional

the fact that we are all delusional or that Dennis may be right about some things...

The fact that many are delusional. I freely admit that DK is right about a whole slew of issues. He just has no chance of winning against Bush. All I'm saying is that it makes me cringe that so many DUers can't grasp this fact. That's all.

[scarletwoman]

78. Funny, you don't seem to grasp the fact that your "fact" is an OPINION.

I respect your right to your OPINION, but don't tell me it's a "fact", AND insult me as well.

I'm an intelligent person with well thought-out reasons for supporting Kucinich. I'm also quite capable of recognizing the "fact" of who actually HAS the Dem nomination WHEN IT IS A FACT!

sw

[redqueen]

80. Hard to keep your cool, isn't it?

Yes, opinions are not facts, and it's terrible when someone pretends otherwise, and then insults you to boot!

[scarletwoman]

84. I really do TRY! I want to live up to DK's example.

It IS hard sometimes, not to run out of patience.

One thing I CAN say is that I have NEVER started a thread to INSULT someone else's choice of a candidate, nor have I have EVER gone on another candidate's thread to run him or his supporters down.

sw
:hi:

[redqueen]

87. I do as well.

I think just about all of us have been there. :hi:

[Desertrose]

90. amen sisters

:grouphug:

DR

[scarletwoman]

91. (((((DR!! )))))

Having you show up ALWAYS lightens my heart! :loveya:

sw

[Desertrose]

93. awww...why thank you, sweet sister!

:hug:
been awhile..guess we've both been busy.....
miss you too

hey.... JackpineRadical still around?

we had some good fun back in the "old days" didn't we??
:loveya:
DR

[scarletwoman]

101. I had to take a break for a few months.

I guess I just couldn't stay away forever, though. What makes it worthwhile to be back is the wonderful group of Kucinich supporters here -- which I know you've been a part of all along.

I've seen an occasional Jackpine post, and we just exchanged pm's last weekend, so he's not totally gone either.

I DO miss the early days, I must admit, back when the registration count was under 1000, and we all pretty much knew everybody here.

It's way different now, and it saddens me to see how high the ratio of "centrists" (or whatever the heck they are) is to those of us who always believed that "underground" meant the work of getting at the roots of a corrupt system.

So many people buying into a stage-managed kubuki show, and just a few people trying getting their attention on what's going on behind the 3rd curtain -- and then THEY lecture US on "reality"!

Fascinating...

sw
:grouphug:
(please excuse my rant...)

[Desertrose]

105. heh heh...your rant is MY rant as well

I should have taken some time off...worked on the campaign quite heavily up til our vote this month....and suddenly this looks like a different place ...a place I don't feel too comfortable in...except when I run into old dear friends!

Yeah...it was some place back then....we were a big rowdy family, weren't we? I guess its like anything else...you don't notice all the changes until its (almost) past the point of doing anything about them....

(I never got a post deleted or a mod warning until this week....sigh...)

anyhow, feel free to rant on anytime to me...I LOVE your rants!!! they are awesome!

:grouphug: & :loveya:
DR

[scarletwoman]

109. *sigh* Thanks for still being here!

I had a post deleted once back in old DUv.01 (a post to Carlos - RIP -, of course!), and one about a year ago, but I've been clean so far since I've been back. :D (knock on wood)

For me, I noticed the change creeping in slowly at first, but after a time it felt like the floodgates had been loosed. By last fall, I just didn't want to deal with it anymore.

It's easier being back after a break, I think, because I just totally let go of what DU had been in the "old days". I knew what I was coming back to, and it's no longer overlaid with shadows of the past.

What I see is that THIS is precisely what we "3rd curtain" people are up against. THIS IS one bit of "reality" that's instantly visible here.

It also strikes home to me what I've felt all along. There can be no change in this country until there is a change of consciousness among the People. It doesn't need to be everybody, just enough to build a critical mass.

That's our work here, I think, more than anything else: holding a space for welcoming a change of consciousness.

Peace,
sw

[Desertrose]

111. glad you came back, sw

and I couldn't agree more with what you stated above.

I guess I have to get my head back into a *sacred space* and venture back in the meeting room...another place I took a long break from.....

I agree.... more than anything elsethis is our job here to hold a space ...make it a scared space...for welcoming a change of consciousness.

:loveya:
DR


check your inbox

[Lydia Leftcoast]

112. Changing the world, one mind at a time

:-)

[Sinistrous]

88. The issue is not Kucinich's prospects in the primary,

rather ChiefJoseph was addressing DK's chances in the GE.

However, I am interested in reading your scenario in which Rep. Kucinich, if nominated, could possibly beat bush.

Please do enlighten us.

[Uzybone]

71. Thats too harsh

they are voting their conscience, and at least DK is worth it. I do agree with you that he would have no chance vs Bush. Not because he is wrong, but I don't see how anyone but the solidly left and well informed would vote for him.

[redqueen]

79. See post #75 below for one example of how. n/t

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

75. The Texas Republican party agrees with Kucinich: Repeal Nafta

But this is what you said:

"The point is that when you surround yourself with like-minded people, you forget that there's a vast country out there that is light years away from Kucinich's politics."

Yet, Kucinich's trademark issue is supported by both the left and the right, and the majority of the American population.

So, when you say "delusional" are you sure you are referring to who you think you are?

[Uzybone]

102. But do you think the Texas GOP will support DK.?

Even if he has a presigned exec order in his hands that say "kill NAFTA and WTO" they will still endorse Bush. DK is vs Death penalty, for abortion choice, for affirmative action, for using tact when dealing with foreign policy not just weapons, universal health-care, common sense tax policy etc etc. Meanwhile the Texas GOP supports DeLay. This are people on a totally different planet.

[redqueen]

108. Wrong

You're lumping them all together.

Sure there are some Republicans who are die-hard bush party loyalists. We're better off just ignoring them.

The people we're talking about (and to) and hearing from are republicans (small R) who miss the old conservatives who used to care about things like keeping spending under control and maintaining sovreignity at all costs. NAFTA and the WTO undermine sovreignity.

There are MANY republicans, indpendents, libertarians, and greens who would support DK in the GE.

[Forkboy]

81. Thanks for your opinion

such as it is.

[theoceansnerves]

97. ahem

advertise the fact that he's a vegan

yeah, compassion would never play well to the american people :eyes:

[maxanne]

99. so in other words

"I'm new and picking a fight." More flame bait.

Yahoo.

[scarletwoman]

104. Thanks! Most straightforward response yet!

(and that includes mine ;-) )

sw

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

103. I'm new here too.

I'm voting for Kucinich more because I like his stands on the issues.

I recognize its unlikely he will win the nomination, and it would be a tough row to hoe for him to win the general election, but this is a primary & he's the candidate who comes closets to my views.

[scarletwoman]

106. Welcome to the "Delusional" Undergroud!

You'll find an absolutely wonderful group of Kucinich supporters here!

:grouphug:

sw

[Desertrose]

107. welcome waverly hills hiker

:hi:

Glad to welcome another Kucinch supporter/voter!

welcome to the insanity known as DU....tee hee
:evilgrin:


Peace
DR

[govegan]

110. Positively 4th Street.

You say "how are you", "good luck", but you don't mean it.


Chief Joseph sure was foolish to think that he had any kind of faith compared to the almighty White man and his God, was he not?

I'll be sure to check with my socialite friends about this, as well.

Or, maybe he had no faith to lose?

Oh, well. I am not in too good a mood right now, but I would just request more respect for the arguments of those who feel that DK has as good a chance as anyone in being the leader of the US.

[madfloridian]

113. Kucinich has contributed a lot to this campaign.

Your post just contributes disunity to a board that is lacking in it now.

[youngred]

114. *yawn*

Not even going to bother with this utter horseshit

:hi:

[burythehatchet]

118. Did we find out if he was from the Edwards or Kerry camp?

[tinanator]

119. I guess there are just too many prejudiced voters

that think he is unelectable.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

122. Lots Of Revisionism In This Thread...

To attribute McGovern's landslide loss to the Eagleton fiasco bespeaks a profound ignorance of history...

The Puke's successfully portrayed McGovern as out of the mainstream in 72 as the Dem's successfully portrayed Goldwater as out of the mainstream in 64...

The Pukes tagged McGovern as the candidate of "acid, amnesty, and abortion...

Imagine politics as a football field... It is played between the forty yard lines...


The "all my friends" quote is a gem... Some DUers need to get out more...

Peace

Brian


P.S. Dennis Kucinich is a good man with a good heart but he is not in the mainstream... I share many of DK's goals but I doubt I could get elected pres either...

[no name no slogan]

128. His views ARE "democratic mainstream"

He's advocating positions that Democrats have put in our platform for over thirty years.

The only difference is that Democrats got so addicted to Clinton's corporate cash that they're willing to sell these values out to get elected-- and then side with the Repubs once they do.

As long as we ignore our core strengths (fair trade, good jobs, health care) we'll continue to get our asses kicked every election.

Apparently some Democrats are masochists, as they keep ponying up for more.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[Astarho]

124. Everyone is entitled to their opinion

There are many Americans who are vegan. And in the light of Mad Cow, Bird Flu, E coli, downer cattle until recently in the food chain, a vegan lifestyle is looking better and better.

As for the mind control weapons in space, the legislation Kucinich introduced was to ban such weapons. I call that foresight. Even if we don't have such weapons now, I'm happy to think that someone is thinking ahead, so we won't have to deal with them in the future.

[incapsulated]

126. It's funny

Because I think anyone who considers Edwards the most viable candidate, as you do, shows the worst kind of political naivete and self-delusion around here.

I believe he would be utterly destroyed in the GE by Rove, period.

But, hey, that's my personal opinion, not a "fact", heh. I know the difference.

Anyways, you won't be here for long. After you've started the requisite amount of flame threads and baiting posts you will get bored and leave like all the rest.