Why I say "ugh" on Kucinich

[skipos]

NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING THIS OR ENDORSING IT. THIS IS KOS' OPINION NOT MINE. THANKS, SKIPOS.

When talking about Kucinich, I usually leave it at "ugh". I've found that much kinder than actually getting into Kucinich's record. But his supporters are OUTRAGED(!) that I would be so dismissive, and they DEMAND(!) I explain myself.

Honestly, it would be better for your guy if I didn't. But since you all insist...

1. Kucinich has never proven broad electoral viability. How many presidents have been elected straight from the House of Representatives? Kucinich could gain respect by running and winning in something a little more competitive than an urban 58 percent Kerry district.

2. Did you know that Kucinich was once ardently anti-choice and anti-stem cell research? From a 2002 Nation article:

One thing you won't find on Kucinich's website, though, is any mention of his opposition to abortion rights. In his two terms in Congress, he has quietly amassed an anti-choice voting record of Henry Hyde-like proportions. He supported Bush's reinstatement of the gag rule for recipients of US family planning funds abroad. He supported the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits anyone but a parent from taking a teenage girl across state lines for an abortion. He voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a crime, distinct from assault on a pregnant woman, to cause the injury or death of a fetus. He voted against funding research on RU-486. He voted for a ban on dilation and extraction (so-called partial-birth) abortions without a maternal health exception. He even voted against contraception coverage in health insurance plans for federal workers--a huge work force of some 2.6 million people (and yes, for many of them, Viagra is covered). Where reasonable constitutional objections could be raised--the lack of a health exception in partial-birth bans clearly violates Roe v. Wade, as the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart--Kucinich did not raise them; where competing principles could be invoked--freedom of speech for foreign health organizations--he did not bring them up. He was a co-sponsor of the House bill outlawing all forms of human cloning, even for research purposes, and he opposes embryonic stem cell research. His anti-choice dedication has earned him a 95 percent position rating from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from NARAL.

His transformation to being pro-choice happened literally overnight -- a week after he announced his 2004 presidential bid. One moment he was virulently anti choice, the next he was a staunch defender.

more here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/23/113236/176

[leftofthedial]

1. yep. I'm convinced that no Democrat is worthy of our support.

Now what?

[More Than A Feeling]

2. After reading both the post, and the comments from DK defenders

I cross Kucinich off of my list, and he joins Hillary and Biden on my "will not vote for" list.

[leftofthedial]

9. I guess I needed a sarcasm smiley

Kucinich moderated a position that he had held on religious grounds.

Of the issues involved in the election, Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East conflagration sought by the neocons), the class war, healthcare and the environment), reproductive rights is virtually a non-issue. Neither party, no matter how we vote, will actually make abortion illegal. It's a wedge issue, period. On all the issues that matter, Kucinich is head and shoulders above the rest of the Democratic pack.

[dansolo]

64. That's a bunch of bull

The problem is that the best candidates are the ones who aren't running. I can think of plenty of Democrats who I would enthusiastically support because the are consistently progressive, not just when they happen to be running for president.

[leftofthedial]

70. to repeat

I guess I needed a sarcasm smilie after all.

[LaurenG]

3. I think he was anti choice

but he has moderated his stance.

I think we'll see a lot more of these "changes" as we approach 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich

On December 11, 2006 in a speech delivered at Cleveland City Hall, Kucinich announced he would seek the nomination of the Democratic Party for President in 2008. <6>

His platform<14> for 2008 includes:

* Creating a single-payer system of universal health care that provides full coverage for all Americans.
* The immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq and replacing them with an international security force.
* Guaranteed quality education for all, including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.
* Immediate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
* Repealing the USA PATRIOT Act.
* Fostering a world of international cooperation.
* Abolishing the death penalty.
* Environmental renewal and clean energy.
* Preventing the privatization of social security.
* Providing full social security benefits at age 65.
* Creating a cabinet-level "Department of Peace"
* Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.
* Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.
* Protecting a woman's right to choose while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.
* Ending the war on drugs.
* Legalizing same-sex marriage.
* Creating a balance between workers and corporations.
* Restoring rural communities and family farms.

[skipos]

6. He was 100% anti-choice. He got a 0 rating from Naral in 2001. nt

[Zorra]

51. Yeah, well, Al Gore was 100% anti-choice for over a decade.

But nobody seems to have a problem with that.

Al changed his mind, so did DK. Good for them.

I gladly voted for Gore, I'd vote for him again, and I'd gladly vote for DK.

It's hard to understand why so many posters here at DU need to dig up now irrelevant history in order to trash good Democratic candidates unnecessarily.

[nam78_two]

53. No kidding.nt

[High Plains]

8. His platform is spot on. As for abortion, his plank now reads:

"Protecting a woman's right to choose while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S."

I can live with that.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. Kucinich got an 100% Pro Choice rating from NORAL in 2003, 2004, and 2005.

KOS is out of date.

[Sammy Pepys]

4. I agree with number 1 wholeheartedly....

...sorry. Kucinich is a fine guy, but he's not broadly appealing.

[NRaleighLiberal]

5. Russ Feingold is my ideal candidate - wish he would run! Al Gore is a close 2nd-

so, unless Gore runs, whoever gets selected to finally run for the Dems will be somewhat of a compromise for me...but they will get my vote no matter what!

[cascadiance]

11. I do look at Dennis as a man of action that I like in many ways...

... in what he's done and tried to do while in congress. His stances on abortion are interesting, but he does seem more moderate on that than say McCain has been recently, who's REALLY switched gears now.

I guess I think Kucinich is a good candidate to look at when comparing the others in terms of the deeds and stances they have on issues, so that we can get an idea of what is missing from the other candidates profile since the MSM is primarily focusing on style over substance.

I too agree though that he still has a big question mark on whether he can win or not. That's why like this poster, I'd like either Gore or Feingold to run. Feingold also would be my first choice, but I think it more likely that Gore would run (and hopefully get Feingold as his running mate). Gore and Feingold are like Kucinich in many respects in terms of substance, but are also I think more viable as candidates as well.

Ultimately though, I'll pick a candidate that has substance! That has to happen in such an important election we have coming up.

[dansolo]

67. I like them both, but I have a different personal favorite

My dream candidate would be Brian Schweitzer, the governor of Montana.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/lotp/2005/04/19/montana_governor/index.html

[AnOhioan]

7. DK has the best grasp of the issues....

Kos is entitled to his opinion, as am I. My opinion is that maybe Kos should put his money where his mouth is and run for office himself, like that will ever happen. And as an FYI, this topic is already covered in another post in this forum.

[bobbolink]

17. Except poverty.

He found it convenient to turn his back on us poor folk.

That hurts, after I spent so much time and energy working on his campaign.

Never again.

Edwards is very close in the issues, but is STRONG on POVERTY!

[AnOhioan]

18. Please give an example of DK....

turning his back on low income people. I worked for him in '04 and saw almost daily the genuine concern he has for all, especially low and lower middle class people. He comes form that background himself.

[bobbolink]

20. When has he mentioned it at all since early in the 04 campaign?

Remember when he asked supporters to "vote" for the top 4 issues?

Ya'lll decided to leave out poverty at that point.

Thank you.

[AnOhioan]

22. From his website..........

I see an America where the economy works for everyone because everyone is working. I see a new horizon in this country where there is no such thing as an acceptable level of unemployment. Nearly 9,000,000 Americans are unemployed. Millions more are not being included in the official count. Average wages are falling. People are taking pay cuts to keep their jobs. The unemployed and the employed alike are experiencing a falling standard of living. The middle class aspirations of many are being dashed.

Where the private sector fails to provide jobs, the public sector has a moral responsibility to do so. People want work, not welfare. And while there ought to be welfare for those unable to work, there ought to be work for those who are able to work and who want to work. And there is enough work to do.

I see a newly rebuilt America. I see a new horizon where America provides a means to have massive public works to rebuild our cities, our water systems, our public transportation systems, our schools, our parks, our public energy systems. Nearly $150 billion is needed over 20 years to repair and provide for adequate wastewater treatment systems. Another $120 billion is needed for drinking water systems. We need a new financial mechanism to get money to cities and states to begin rebuilding and to put America back to work.

The federal government can give cities and states loans for infrastructure programs to be repaid over a period of 30 years, at zero interest. This will boost economies and spur private investment. A Federal Bank for Infrastructure Maintenance would administer a program of lending $50 billion per year to state and local governments. The money comes from an innovative adaptation of the normal money supply circulation activity of the Federal Reserve Bank. The cost to the American taxpayer is simply the cost of the interest on the loans.

It is up to the Democratic Party to be the advocates for economic progress for all the people.


http://kucinich.us/issues/economicjustice.php



America is losing its way at home and in the world. We have no money to rebuild America's cities, but we have money to blow up cities in Iraq. No money to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless in America, but money to rain death, destruction, and starvation on Iraq.

Once again, the hopes of people of two nations are being smashed by weapons in the name of eliminating weapons. Let us abolish weapons of mass destruction at home. I am from the inner city. I have inspected these weapons.

Joblessness is a weapon of mass destruction.
Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction.
Hunger is a weapon of mass destruction.
Poor health care is a weapon of mass destruction.
Poor education is a weapon of mass destruction.
Discrimination is a weapon of mass destruction.
Let us abolish such weapons of mass destruction here at home. Eight and a half million Americans are unemployed. Bankruptcies are up. The number of uninsured without health care is up. The price of prescription drugs is up. Poverty is up. Crime is up. Homelessness is up. Hopelessness is up. Fear is up. Let us use the trillion dollars which some would cast upon Iraq in bombs and warring troops, instead for the restoration of the American dream, to rebuild our economy, to rebuild our cities and to expand opportunities for all.

Those who say we can have guns and butter do not know the cost of guns and do not know the bread you would put your butter on is being stolen. America may spend over a trillion dollars for war in Iraq. America can give a trillion dollar tax cut to the rich, spend a trillion dollars to put weapons in space, but not a dime more for temporary assistance to needy families.

I believe the American people are people of strength, wisdom, and courage. They have a right to expect their government to be truly representative! It is time to say stop this war. It is time to recognize that the terror we visit on the people of Iraq will bring terror to our own people. Bring our troops home. Come home, America. Come home and fix your broken streets and mend your broken dreams. Come home and rebuild your cities and create full employment, put millions who are unemployed back to work. Come home and establish a living wage, let workers share the wealth they create. Come home and provide affordable housing. Come home and provide single-payer, guaranteed health care for the 41 million Americans who suffer illness with no relief. Come home, America. Come home and provide free public college for all who aspire to attend.

Come home and act affirmatively to make sure that all opportunities are afforded to all Americans.


http://kucinich.us/issues/poverty.php


Just two issue stances that reflect on his empathy for the those in need.

Many more to be read, if you take the time to do so.

[Forkboy]

38. Kick for this

and I hope the previous poster gets a chance to read it.It's one of the reasons I like him as much as I do.

[bobbolink]

57. I REPEAT, when has he SAID this????

He's all about the war in his speeches!!

Can you empathize with those of us who are hurting, and scared to death because we're poor and we're not on the priority list???? Can you understand what it's like being in our shoes????

That's what I'm asking of you.

Please care.

[AnOhioan]

68. I do understand what it is like to be poor

to have creditors ringing your phone 24/7, to have to scrimp to make the rent payment, to have to eat less because the cost of food is high.

So, yes, I get it. I also get it that Dennis, while he may not mention the word "poverty" every 10 seconds is more concerned about it than most.

His platform reflects that, alot of his planks would have a direct inpact on peverty in this country.

Poverty is a priority for Dennis, as is ending the war, realizing single payer healthcare, guarding our civil rights, protecting the environment and much much more.

If poverty is what affects you the most, then support Dennis as he has the best grasp on that particualr issue.

[bobbolink]

75. Your sarcasm indicates that you DON"T understand.

"while he may not mention the word "poverty" every 10 seconds is more concerned about it than most"

I asked you when he actually spoke about this, and what I got back from you is sarcasm. "10 seconds".

Yanno, I'm so tired of that kind of unkind shit. That's what I saw over and over with Kucitizens. That says a lot to me, right there, so you might want to take a look at your lack of empathy. "10 seconds" indeed. PAH!

This time I'm voting my own best interest, so my vote this time around will be for John Edwards, who, as I said above, keeps not only talking about poverty, but has created an organization (Dennis talks about a Department of Peace, but can't bring himself to do the same about poverty!)

Edwards also pushes other candidates to take poverty seriously, and to propose solutions. Dennis only pushes about the war. That's it.

Dennnis has no solutions for poverty.

"Peace" is his only topic. Yet, his supporters can so "peacefully" address someone's real-life concerns with sarcasm.

I'M DONE WITH THIS SHIT!

[AnOhioan]

81. And I am done with you

I have no time to argue with folks like you. Poverty? You probably have no idea what poverty is.

[bobbolink]

58. I GAVE you the biggest example. He dropped it from his priorities in 04

I ask again, can you care about those of us who are poor, and see ourselves being taken for granted, not talked about, not given priority at any time.

Just being INVISIBLE, except when ya'll want our votes.

This time I'm very serious--I'm voting MY OWN BEST INTERESTS!!

If you want my vote for your candidate you're going to have to speak up LOUD to get poverty being trumpeted just as loudly as the war.

I wish you could all care, and understand how it feels to be invisible, rather than just arguing. We're people, too. Really.

[AnOhioan]

69. Do not accuse me of being blind to your plight

I live it everyday myself. Have for the past few years.

I am suggesting that voting in your own best interest would be supporting Dennis. He has lived through poverty himself...to this day he is not wealthy.

He understands and he cares. He offers the hope of a better way. It is up to you to accept the offer and support his candidacy.

[bobbolink]

72. I asked you to care. I didn't ask for lectures.

What has happened to empathy?

This is the one thing I really saw with his campaign--when he dumped poverty issues, all the people working on his campaign ceased to give a rip about poor folk. It's all war, all the time.

I can have empathy for your situation, but not when it's a one-way street.

Voting in my best interest is voting for John Edwards, who obviously cares DEEPLY, and talks about poverty ALL THE TIME, which Dennis has left behind a long time ago. Whether he grew up in poverty or not doesn't matter--many people who grew up in poverty and then "made it" no longer give a shit about poor folk.

Edwards has consistently motivated other candidates to include poverty in their issues! Since Dennnis can't even speak to it himself, he clearly isn't going to push others to do it!

I gave you a very clear invitation to care about what I see and what I've been dealing with, and to understand why I feel the way I feel. It's very sad that you have chosen to respond to that with dismissal. If that's the way you approach others as you campaign for Dennis, you won't get very far. We ALL want to be heard, to be included, and to feel like our needs matter.

It's just another aspect of....PEACE.

It's clear we have nothing more to discuss. Maybe someday you can think about what I've shared with you, and realize that this isn't a matter of who "wins"....it's all about understanding and caring about each other.

Just like .... PEACE.

[AnOhioan]

73. You misread my posts....as you have before

Peace

[bobbolink]

76. I "misread" nothing.

If you are really in poverty yourself, then you need to take another look at John Edwards, who REALLY gets it, and cares about people, instead of either dismissing them, or getting sarcastic.

That man is determined to help people like me. He is the closest to Robert Kennedy than any person has been since RFK was killed.

So, maybe it's time for *you* to reexamine your own best interests.

Sayonara.

[AnOhioan]

80. Yes you did misread

And you go further in saying "If you are really in poverty yourself". If? Tell you what. You MAY be be impoverished. I somehow doubt it. I think you are using the poverty card gain unwarranted sympathy. There, I said it, I accuse you of being a charlatan, using some false poverty to to shill for John Edwards, who talks a good game but nothing more.

I am through with you sir (or madam). Take your act on the road somewhere else.

[meldroc]

10. Learning about his anti-choice record just lost Kucinich 200 cool points with me.

Maybe he changed his mind since then, but it will take a huge amount of convincing to persuade me that this was a genuine change of heart, not a cynical, hypocritical weathervane maneuver to make him look better.

I'm switching my #1 choice to Obama.

[John Q. Citizen]

28. Do you trust NORAL? They gave Kucinich 100% rating in 2003, 2004, 2005 and

after the mid-terms in 2006 NORAL OHIO claimed Kucinich as one of their pro-choice victories.

KOS had to go back to 2001 to get his zero, and Dennis has totally changed on that.

If Obama would support single payer health insurence I might switch. But as of yet, he doesn't have a plan that I know of.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

43. NARAL

It's NARAL not NORAL. Do you even know who they are?

[MonkeyFunk]

61. The issue

isn't whether he now votes consistently pro-choice. Obviously, he does.

The question is how reliable is his "conversion" when he got a 0% rating from NARAL in 2001.

And while I'm glad he changed his position, to me it indicates that he's not really much different from any other politician. I don't fault him for that, but I have to laugh when people suggest he's a different kind of animal altogether.

[John Q. Citizen]

74. Why? I think we can trust Dennis to do what he says. He seems pretty trustworthy.

He got skewered in Cleveland for sticking with his convictions about municipal power. His refusal to fall for the corrupt and stupid "privatization" foisted on our country by corporatists made him some powerful enemies. He stuck to his campaign promise and it eventually saved city residents hundreds of millions even though it cost Dennis his re-election.

He was vindicated in the end though.

Vote Dennis;

He's right!

[mikelgb]

12. Wow # 3 says all you need to know about the author:

3 "Department of Peace"?

We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence but the presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity. We can conceive of peace as a tool to tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love. We can bring forth new understandings where peace, not war, becomes inevitable. We can move from wars to end all wars to peace to end all wars.

Citizens across the United States are now uniting in a great cause to establish a Department of Peace, seeking nothing less than the transformation of our society, to make nonviolence an organizing principle, to make war archaic through creating a paradigm shift in our culture for human development for economic and political justice and for violence control.

"Higher evolution of human awareness"? "Transform consciousness"? "Paradign shift"? What the hell is this crap? I expect this kind of crap out of Deepak Chopra (or Tom Cruise), not a serious presidential candidate.

And by the way, the "Department of Peace" already exists. It's called the "U.S. Department of State".

----

:eyes: yeah fuck peace! what is that crap?

yes the state dept is widely known for it's peacemaking :eyes:

----

Oh and this little gem clearly shows his grasp of the facts:

He used his 2004 run for president to score dates. Luckily, he's married this time around so we'll be spared that pathetic display of desperation.

Riiiiiiiight. That was totally set up by him and he was seriously trying to get a date...

---

Here is the bright side of this sorry collection of pixels dripping with putrid bullshit:

Dennis is becoming such a force to be reckoned with that this fuck-wit goes out of his way to scrape together all the tired old GOP guano about him...

BTW OP: thanks for needlessly reposting this clearly unresearched daily-krap post

[skipos]

15. Sorry, I searched but didn't find anything.

I must have made a mistake if this has already been posted. No need to get angry about it.

[not_a_robot]

13. hah

I read the whole thing. It's a smear article that leaves out some pretty important accomplishments (even lists one accomplishment as a negative, appearing in the same wording as a corp that swiftboated him because he blocked their interests for the publics, what a bad man.). In fact all I've really learned here is that daily kos is run by a dishonest person. Oh well I guess there are as many trashy bloggers as politicians.

[cali]

24. What accomplishments?

He's been an average Congressmen. Yeah, he's voted the right way, but he's demonstrated little effectiveness or leadership when it comes to legislation. And before you say that he's been in the minority since he was elected, let me present Bernie Sanders, who's been more successful at getting his amendments passed than any other Congressman for the 10 years between 1996 and 2006.

[eridani]

50. Organizing most of the Dem congressional delegation to vote against IWR--

--in 2002 isn't an accomplishment?

[cali]

54. Got any evidence for that?

Aside from a claim from Kucinich?

[eridani]

56. Other people seem to think so as well

http://www.appealforredress.org/php/kucinich.php

[Zorra]

79. "he organized 126 Democrats, two-thirds of the House Democratic

Caucus, to vote against the resolution."

Wow. Now that is genuinely wise leadership.

[cali]

55. dupe- self-delete

[MonkeyFunk]

62. At congress.org

they have "power rankings" for all members of the House and Senate. These rankings measure the power and effectiveness of every member.

For 2006, Kucinich was 391st out of 435 House members, and his "score" was 7.19 out of a possible 100.

So he's NOT really an effective legislator.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/power_rankings/overall.tt

[smoogatz]

14. Kucinich seems the least electable of the current field--

except maybe for Vilsack, who dropped out today. The business about his politically expedient position shift on choice (and his past voting record) was news to me, and doesn't speak well for his character, IMO.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

16. DK = emo

No emo can win

[AnOhioan]

19. Such a concise and illuminating post

Next, maybe bring up an ISSUE or two?

[d_b]

27. I love me some Kucinich

But that is funny as hell :rofl:

[Beelzebud]

30. What are you, 12 or 13?

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Can you explain that in english to those of us born before 1990?

Thanks Dogg.

[nam78_two]

52. ....

:eyes:

[Tom Joad]

21. Bush has , on the other hand, proven he can get millions to the polls.

bush, and hillary, and edwards, proved they can get a war resolution passed in Congress. they have a record of achievement!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. Having been involved in the Kucinich campaign in 2004

I'd like to speak to the "lack of appeal" issue.

First of all, here in Minnesota we had to absolutely BEG for media coverage--even before a single vote had been cast in Iowa. At his second appearance in the Twin Cities (and he was one of the few who spoke to the general public for free, not just to major campaign contributors), all the local TV stations were there, but only one local station had his visit on the 10 o'clock news. The rest were gloating over a scandal with an adulterous rural sheriff.

Second, going door to door or leafletting at public events, I heard several times an hour: "I love Dennis, but he can't win." As Dennis himself commented, if everyone who said that had actually voted for him, he would have won. People were voting not for the candidate they liked but for the candidate they thought other people would like. However, most people had not heard of him at all. And the reasons are as follows:

When the national debates were held with all ten initial candidates, DK got the least speaking time of any one of the ten, five minutes of air time in comparison to nine minutes for each of the others.

The NY Times' campaign coverage acted as if DK didn't exist--even before Iowa. Remember how they ran a series of articles about how the various candidates viewed the issues? They take an issue, say, health care, and have a full paragraph each on Lieberman, Gephardt, Kerry, Dean, Edwards, and all the rest, putting DK, Mosely-Braun, and Sharpton together in the last paragraph with half-sentence summaries. Their only full coverage of DK was a snide article that came off like a sorority girl dishing about how uncool her parents' friends are when they talk about the 1960s.

The main networks did not provide gavel to gavel coverage of the poliltical conventions, of course. National TV coverage started in the evening, and you had to watch the rest on CSPAN. Whoever scheduled the speakers scheduled DK--one of the BEST and most compelling public speakers I have ever heard--for the 15 minutes BEFORE coverage went national.

The result was odd patterns of results in the election. Where DK had a dedicated team of volunteers who could go door to door and do other kinds of guerilla marketing, he broke into the double digits, including in Minnesota, where he got 17% statewide. He even won some precincts in the Twin Cities.

You're probably thinking, "Oh, but of course he would do well in liberal Minneapolis," guess again. He did his usual 3% in Madison, Wisconsin, but much better in the not-so-obvious towns of Viroqua and Ashland, thanks again to guerilla volunteers. He even got an unexpectedly high percentage of the vote in Utah.

If DK had lost with the same publicity and respect that the other candidates got, I would have thought, "Okay, them's the breaks." But he didn't get the same publicity and respect from the media or from his own party.

But the process of going through the 2004 election left me deeply cynical about the process of selecting candidates. I was over at my mother's this afternoon, and she watches a lot of CNN. Aside from the endless obsessing over Anna Nicole Smith, I couldn't stand the campaign coverage with all its horse race aspects.

I don't like any of the other current candidates, but I also don't want to commit myself to another round with the DK campaign. I used to scoff at politicians who blamed the media for their troubles, but now that I've seen what lack of attention can do, I can sympathize.

Dennis was the only one talking about single-payer health care, strengthening family farms, and replacing NAFTA with bilateral treaties that protect the environment and human rights. I guess those ideas were so scary to the corporate media that they labeled him a loser before a single caucus vote had been cast in Iowa. (Oh, by the way, he won the county in Iowa that the Minnesota group had targeted.)

[GodHelpUsAll2]

44. Interesting

I was in Iowa for caucus and I remember how stunned I was seeing DK on the news in Iowa the day of caucus making a plea to anyone supporting him to join the Edwards camp if they found he was not viable at their local caucus. All of his people scattered to Kerry or Edwards. He cut a deal, publicly I might add, to throw himself and what support he had in with 2 people he supposedly railed over the way they voted on the IRW. I guess when it came down to nut cutting time that didn't bother him all that much. Ironically enough his supposed "anti-war" supporters flocked to Kerry and Edwards after the months of espousing how DK was the ONLY 'true" anti war candidate and they just couldn't in good conscience vote for anyone else.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. I voted for Kerry only reluctantly in the General

Not ALL DK supporters scattered to Kerry or Edwards, only those whose caucuses didn't have enough DK supporters to produce delegates. They had to go somewhere. Supporters of Lieberman and Gephardt went to other candidates, too.

I voted for DK in the Minnesota caucus. So did everyone I knew who was a DK supporter.

I know that all the Dean supporters are mad because DK didn't tell his supporters to go for Dean. There were huge flame threads on DU. I think there were two reasons for Dennis' choice. One is that Edwards and Kucinich are personal friends and share an interest in economic justice. Dean and Kucinich were not well acquainted and really agreed only on the war issue, not on a lot of others.

The reason the DK supporters were amenable for going to Edwards has to do with something that I observed in Minnesota. I don't know if this was true in Iowa as well (I didn't run into any Dean supporters when I was door-knocking in Iowa), but it really was in Minnesota. That is that the Dean supporters were snarky to the Kucinich supporters, acting as if Dean was absolutely entitled to the votes of leftists.

[NashVegas]

63. DK and Iowa

I know that all the Dean supporters are mad because DK didn't tell his supporters to go for Dean. There were huge flame threads on DU.

Yes, indeed. But here's the question: is it/was it Iowa tradition for a failing candidate to direct his supporters to a different candidate, of his choosing? Why didn't the Kucinich campaign instead direct their supporters to go with their own choice?

Kucinich had a PR rep of being so purely liberal he pooped apple butter, and the decision to send his supporters to Edwards' camp was pure political cynicism.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. They weren't required to obey, were they?

There must have been something about Edwards that appealed to them. I don't know. I didn't see the candidates up close the way Iowans did.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. KOS is very misleading in this case. Check his facts!

The 2 reasons he says ugh boil down to;


1. Kennedy came from the House to the Presidency, but that's a problem for Kucinich, who has also been the mayor of a major American city and in the Ohio state Legislature;

2.Kucinich used to be anti-choice and now he is pro-choice.

NORAL OHIO says Kucinich is "PRO CHOICE"

This from NORAL OHIO
http://www.prochoiceohio.org/s11issues/election_06.shtml

Election 2006- Pro-Choice Victories!
On November 7th 2006 Pro-Choice candidates from all over the state rolled to victory. Click on the links below for a list for each office. To read our election night press release, click here. To read the statewide news coverage of the election and the issues that influenced it check out our newsroom.

Statewide Office -
Ohio Governor- Ted Strickland
Ohio Secretary of State- Jennifer Brunner
Ohio Attorney General- Marc Dann
Ohio Treasurer- Richard Cordray

U.S. Senate -
Sherrod Brown

U.S. House of Representatives -
9- Marcy Kaptur
10- Dennis Kucinich
11- Stephanie Tubbs Jones
13- Betty Sutton

Look at those 100% Ratings from NORAL- KOS cherry picked back 6 years to try to make Dennis look bad.

And this from Project Vote Smart
http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BC032003&type=category&category=Abortion%20Issues
2006 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 56 percent in 2006.

2005-2006 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 2005-2006.

2005 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 22 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Democrats for Life of America 50 percent in 2003-2004.

2003 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2003.

2001-2002 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 71 percent in 2001-2002.

2001 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 10 percent in 2001.

2001 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2001.

2000 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2000.

1999-2000 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 95 percent in 1999-2000.

1999 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 10 percent in 1999.

1995-2004 On the votes that the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Assocation considered to be the most important in 1995-2004, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 60 percent of the time.

1995-2003 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood (House) 40 percent in 1995-2003.

KOS supports a Gore run, which I do also. But part of why I support a Gore run is because Gore NOW supports single payer fee for service universal health care. Back in 2000, Gore didn't support it. Does KOS suspect that Gore is somehow suspect because he changed his mind as to what he supports? I don't.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. it's not cherry-picking

it's meant to show that Kucinich was staunchly anti-choice prior to deciding to run for President, when he did a 180.

And I don't get the thing about Kennedy going from the House to the Presidency- Kennedy was a Senator.

[John Q. Citizen]

32. DK got a 100% NORAL rating for 2003 . Hillary decided a few weeks before she

announced that the war in Iraq was bad.

So who is the 180 and who walked the walk?

I stand corrected on JFK. I knew he was in the House, but he also was in the Senate.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. and in 2001

he got a 0% rating.

This thread isn't about clinton.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

45. NARAL

NARAL NARAL NARAL

[SaveElmer]

35. Kucinich is a panderer...

Face it if this was Hillary CLinton, or almost any other Democrat they would be raked over the coals for that kind of switch...Cripes, I'm surprised he didn't hurt himself turning so fast...

The only reason he gets a pass is because he kisses left-wing heiney!!!

[Forkboy]

40. Bitter much?

[SaveElmer]

41. Speakin the truth...nt

[Canuckistanian]

59. He "kisses left-wing heiney"?

First off, that's a strange way to put it.

Second - is that an unforgivable sin?

[SaveElmer]

60. Not at all...

Just pointing out why he gets a pass around here for his pandering where other Democrats don't...

[John Q. Citizen]

78. He isn't out kissing corporate ass, if that's what you mean. Perhaps that's why

your preferred candidate catches so much flack?

Hey, I'd vote for her if she'd kiss some left wing heiny once in a while instead of that Foxy Murdock Heiny. Her first love and all, it makes us lefties a tad jealous with of all that corporate attention she gets. Jeeeezzz, can't they get a room?

[Telly Savalas]

37. JFK was elected to the Senate in 1952 and 1958

He didn't go straight from the House.

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=K000107

Moreover, Kos wasn't cherry picking Kucinich's record on reproductive choice. In his words: "His transformation to being pro-choice happened literally overnight -- a week after he announced his 2004 presidential bid. One moment he was virulently anti choice, the next he was a staunch defender." Kos never tries to deny that Kucinich is now pro-choice. He's simply pointing out that it was a rather quick 180.

One can argue that Kos has made a pretty weak case against Kucinich, but his facts are in order.

[NobleCynic]

31. Hmm...

I'll rethink Kucinich after this.

I likely wasn't going to vote for anyway, but I do approve of anyone who campaigns on a hard left stance. At the moment my vote is tied up between Obama and Edwards.

When in doubt, go extreme. You'll make what you actually wanted in the first place look moderate.

Frankly, even if he is pro-life, even if it was a cycnical manuever switching over just to run for president, abortion rights are relatively safe. It isn't in the Republican's interest to ban it. It is far too profitable politically to fight against it. If it's banned all that leverage over the evangelicals evaporates overnight.

[Clark2008]

33. In the past 40 years, how many presidents have been

elected straight from the Senate?

None.

So why do so many senators run?

:shrug:

[skipos]

36. Only 3 senators have been elected since Lincoln.

I don't think that should stop senators from running, but we should consider WHY senators have a tougher time getting elected before we nominate one.

[Clark2008]

39. Exactly.

But, I was commenting on the fact that the author of the info in the OP asked how many people have been elected straight from the House of Representatives.

I was just pointing out that not many Senators have been elected, either; therefore, that point doesn't have much merit.

[The Count]

42. "Appeal"? Is this something like "electability?" "have a beer with?"

I don't drink beer. I'd be happy to have the opportunity to vote for DK.
Unfortunately, the media/their masters won't allow me. Judging by posts like this, the gullibility of voters goes deep.
Everyone attacks Hillary on the war vote - cuz the media tells you so. But Edwards somehow comes as anti-war because he flies under the radar both with the sponsorship of IWR and with the "Nuke Iran" rhetoric in Israel.
I filled an "your ideal candidate survey - on issues - and after saying war/vote on it was my main issue, I got DK, Gore....for some strange reason,Edwards and only after Edwards, Clark.
The media is hypnotizing you. Operatives extend their work on the internet.
In a society of clear minded people DK would be up there, with Clark, Gore and Obama.
And the IWR whores wouldn't have the gall to show their faces in public - apologies or not.

[provis99]

47. oh, here come the "electability" weens again

sounds like some DLC crap. Electability means the candidate has sparked with the elites that run this country. Look how DLC clowns like Clinton and Obama have become darlings of the press, despite Clinton's tendency for machiavellian contortions and lack of any real political convictions, and Obama's lack of anything substantive to say on any issue. Remember, electability gave us clods like George Bush and Bill Clinton in the first place. If the only criteria for your candidate is whether you'd like to have him at your backyard BBQ, maybe you should quit coming to DU.

[stuartrida]

49. Kucinich was anti-choice until he thought it would be politically wise to be pro-choice

It has nothing to do with electability.

[dansolo]

65. Kucinich always struck me as being too authoritarian

First off, as you mentioned, he was very much anti-choice before he decided to run for president, and felt that he needed to pander to the far-left. He also supported a flag-burning amendment. I also find it unsettling when he stated that he would immediately withdraw the US from NAFTA if he was elected. I thought that treaties were the responsibility of the Seante. We are critical of Bush because of his autocratic tendencies. I wouldn't accept that from someone on the left either.

[eridani]

82. "Far left" = policies that benefit actual people

Fair trade, universal health care, an end to the War on Some Drugs, alternative energy, etc.

[Beelzebud]

66. And another Kucinich bashing thread on the kos front page today.

Who needs right-wing blogs, when you have the DailyKos.

[Greyhound]

77. Consider the source. A supposedly ex-Repugnicon, misogynist.

Like the blind pig, he does occasionally find an acorn (or is it a truffle?), but on the whole is a strong advocate for the most brutal of capitalistic societies and the unfettered suppression, and exploitation of the helpless.