My Open Letter to Dennis Kucinich

[Larkspur]

I'm faxing this letter to Kucinich's office tonight and will send it to Commondreams, The Nation, IndyMedia, etc., but you can find it at my blog http://tinyrippleofhope.blogspot.com/

I'm the secretary of my town's Dem Committee and I feel that if Dennis Kucinich can chasitise Howard Dean in public, I can chastise Dennis Kucinich in public. Enjoy!

[CWebster]

1. Just a note of irony

About the painting in your sig line...

[Larkspur]

4. I don't recall Howard Dean championing preventive or pre-emptive wars

or wars for imperial conquest.

I do recall him saying that he would defend this nation and I don't think King, who took a long time before publicly opposing the Vietnam War, would object to Dean's position.

[CWebster]

5. The painting , "Guernica" is by Picasso

It is an antiwar painting. It displays the horrors of war--all war. It doesn't specify the particular cause.

[Larkspur]

6. I know that, but Guernica the village was the test site for Nazi

dive bomber tactics. Guernica is about the horrors of war and why wars should be avoided, but the Nazis were warmongers and had no empathy for the people of Guernica, so should we have allowed the Nazis to conquer the world in the name of peace?

It's a Catch-22, just like our position in Iraq.

[CWebster]

9. Franco, it was

another right-wing dictator pal of the US.

[Larkspur]

18. The Nazis bombed Guernica on behalf of Franco

from the website http://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/a_nav/guernica_nav/main_guerfrm.html where I got the picture of Picasso's famous painting is this bit of history
On April 27th, 1937, unprecedented atrocities are perpetrated on behalf of Franco against the civilian population of a little Basque village in northern Spain. Chosen for bombing practice by Hitler's burgeoning war machine, the hamlet is pounded with high-explosive and incendiary bombs for over three hours. Townspeople are cut down as they run from the crumbling buildings. Guernica burns for three days. Sixteen hundred civilians are killed or wounded.

The raid on Guernica was also intended to affect European diplomacy. More on Guernica http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/guernica.htm
In April 1937, Guernica was the first city to be deliberately targeted for aerial bombing. Guernica was the ancient capital of the Basques - a group who had withstood the advances of the army since the Spanish Civil War begun in 1936. The region's resilient stand was punished by Franco when he allowed the unprotected city to be bombed by Hitler's air force.

In 1935, General Erich Luderndorff had published "The Total War" (Die Totale Krieg) in which he argued that modern war was all encompassing and that no-one could or should necessarily be spared by the military. He argued that civilians were combatants and should be treated accordingly. His ideas were backed up in Fascist Italy where General Giulio Douhet produced a pamphlet which stated that an army's advance might be suitably assisted by targeting civilians whose panic would severely hamper the ability of the enemy's army to mobilise itself. Such panic could be delivered by "air-delivered terror".

Franco's Nationalists had little air force power. But Nazi Germany was very keen to try out its developing Luftwaffe. Hitler had sent out to Spain his Condor Legion lead by Lieutenant Colonel Wolfram von Richthofen, cousin of the Red Baron of World War One...

The Condor Legion returned in triumph as it had set out on a mission and returned intact. The raid was to have enormous consequences in the diplomatic workings of Europe with Chamberlain's three meetings with Hitler in September 1938. Chamberlain, above all else, feared the possibility of a southern English city being similarly bombed. Therefore, what happened in Guernica in April 1937, was to impact what happened in western Europe in 1938. It also acted as a stimulus for Britain to modernise her outdated Royal Air Force.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Larkspur]

20. I wasn't comparing Saddam to the Nazis

CWebster and I were discussing Guernica and why it's on my sig line.

[CWebster]

16. Actually the bombing of Fallujah

is often compared to Guernica.

[Zhade]

24. And rightfully so. Fallujah is now a horrific word.

Like Vonnegut's Hiroshima/Nagasaki dichotomy, Fallujah now stands for massive American terrorism against innocent civilians.

[lojasmo]

2. Good on ya, Lark! Thanks. EOM

[CTLawGuy]

3. Great letter Larkspur

:)

[Mitt Chovick]

42. Great picture

I used to love that show

[CTLawGuy]

me too

and I love this picture as well :)

[redqueen]

7. Laughable.

Do you really not know that Dean's spoken position on PBS which you quoted is identical to Kucinich's? Since Kucinich held that position then AND now, it should be obvious that to Kucinich and those that support him, anti-war doesn't mean GET THE TROOPS OUT NOW! It means replace our troops with foreign troops. As soon as possible. It doesn't mean irresponsible action... it means bringing our troops home responsibly, to further the cause of peace.

Sad that that unbelievably simple concept is still so hard for Kucinich's detractors to grasp.

The mistake about how many senators voted against the IWR is so trivial... surprising you railed about it with such vehemence. Almost.

The confusion as to why he's not directing his ire towards other Democrats who voted for it? I would think that would be obvious why he's not. Note the difference in responsibility? One's head of the DNC, the others aren't?

[Larkspur]

11. Dean held that position long before DK became a Prez candidate.

Dean was influenced by Al Gore's view on Iraq, not Dennis Kucinich's, so maybe DK borrowed from Al Gore? Al did give a great speech on Sep. 23, 2002 on the Iraq War Resolution and Bush's pre-emptive war policy.

The confusion as to why he's not directing his ire towards other Democrats who voted for it? I would think that would be obvious why he's not. Note the difference in responsibility? One's head of the DNC, the others aren't?
Wasn't Dean told by Kucinich's Minority Leader, Rep Pelosi, that the DNC chairman doesn't make policy? Congressional Dems do. The senators I mentioned in my letter actually vote on legislation including war resolutions and appropriation bills for Iraq. Dean does not.

And don't Kucinich supporters remember when DK got into the primary race? It was months after Dean, as Prez candidate, opposed the Iraq War when the other Dem Prez contenders, DK was NOT among them at the time in 2002, voted for IWR and thought that Dean had committed political suicide by opposing the war. DK didn't join the Dem Prez race until 2003 and DK was NEVER a serious threat for the nomination. He barely polled above 3%.

Any my letter is my attempt at publicly chastising Dennis Kucinich for his hyprocrisy on the Iraq war and jealousy of Howard Dean's success and popularity. If DK can publicly chastise HD, then I can publicly chastise DK.

[CWebster]

13. This is just plain out wrong

It makes it look like you don't know what you are talking about.DK never voted for IWR or advised Dean against it. Are you sure you don't mean JK?

[Eloriel]

46. You may want to reread the post you're responding to

because you misread it, which is pretty ironic in itself: It makes it look like you don't know what you are talking about.

[redqueen]

14. Who cares who influenced whom? Why are you going off on a tangent?

The point is you seem that by 'anti-war' DK means 'bring them home RIGHT NOW'. You are wrong.

Why are you bringing up who said what first? What does it matter? THe point is Dean said get them out, then. Now, he says "Now that we're there , we're there and we can't get out."

Is that not different than his comments on PBS? Seriously... do you honestly think this is the same position?

And yeah, the head of the DNC has nothing to do with the direction of the party. Right.

As for your quibbling about when DK joined the race? Meaningless. Why are you bringing that up? Please, do explain why you mention it.

[Larkspur]

23. Kucinich is wrong about Dean's stand on Iraq

He accuses Dean of being totally anti-war and trying to deceive progressives and Democrats about his stand on Iraq. Dean was always clear about his stand on Iraq and Dean never said he was totally anti-war. It is Kucinich who is in error and I was pointing that out.

Kucinich is also in error about the makeup of the anti-Iraq war protesters. He assumes that we are all like him and like those anti-Vietnam war protesters. We're not.

Why are you bringing up who said what first? What does it matter? THe point is Dean said get them out, then. Now, he says "Now that we're there , we're there and we can't get out."
You are wrong. Dean never said get our our troops out immediately and keep them in now. Dean had always wanted to bring in foreign troops so that Iraq didn't look like an American colony. Dean never believed that we could abandon Iraq, like Reagan and Bush I did Afghanistan.

And yeah, the head of the DNC has nothing to do with the direction of the party. Right.
Why don't you ask DK to ask Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid what they told Howard Dean?

As for your quibbling about when DK joined the race? Meaningless. Why are you bringing that up? Please, do explain why you mention it
It is not meaningless. Dean had been saying that he was the only Prez contender to oppose the war BEFORE DK got into the race. Yes, after DK got in the race, Dean should have corrected that saying, but Dean was the only major candidate to oppose the war. DK was never a serious contender and unlike Dean, DK's Prez campaign never grew outside the the small group he attracted.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[redqueen]

89. Where did he 'accuse' dean of being totally anti-war?

"He accuses Dean of being totally anti-war and trying to deceive progressives and Democrats about his stand on Iraq. Dean was always clear about his stand on Iraq and Dean never said he was totally anti-war. It is Kucinich who is in error and I was pointing that out."

I think there may be some confusion abou the term 'anti-war'. Kucinich is 'anti-war', yet he supports the same stance you quoted Dean as having (the PBS quote).

So... how is having the stance that we should replace our troops with foreign troops and bring ours home the same as what he says now... that we're stuck there and we hope bush's plans work out?

[Mairead]

22. You have the most disturbing ability to rewrite history, Theresa

I'd urge you to do two things: read (and note the date on) Kucinich's 'Prayer for America' speech.

And then look at the Tapper interview with Dean that appeared in Salon on 20th February '03.

I'll help you out: DK's 'Prayer' speech was given in February '02 and he has never wavered from that position. And in the Tapper interview Dean was still saying (I'm paraphrasing) 'give Hussein 30-90 days to disarm and if he doesn't and the UN won't force him, then the US should attack Iraq unilaterally'. (That Salon interview became public ONE DAY before Dean began claiming that he'd always been opposed to the war. The juxtaposition was both shocking and amusing.)

You really should pay closer attention to the actual record.

[Larkspur]

26. You have a bad habit of misspelling names

I'm not Theresa.

The point of my letter is that DK was and still is wrong about Dean's Iraq position. When it came time for the IWR vote, Dean opposed it because Bush had not proven his case. Dean wanted the inspectors to do their job, which Bush did not want. That is what Dean meant when he said per you, 'give Hussein 30-90 days to disarm and if he doesn't and the UN won't force him, then the US should attack Iraq unilaterally'. Saddam had signed an agreement to disarm after the 1991 Gulf War and if he broke that agreement he was in violation of international law.

Obviously, you didn't pay close attention to what Dean said.

[Mairead]

54. No, actually, I don't have. Even in minor things you invent your 'facts'

Sorry, though, if you spell your name 'Teresa'. I'm fairly sure that's a minority spelling, but it doesn't mean you're not entitled to use it, it just means that I couldn't quite remember.

As to Dean... He was all over the place about Iraq. All you have to do is look at the record. Like Kerry, Dean tried to 'nuance' his way onto both sides of the issue. Which is, no doubt, why people were still trying to pin him down during that Salon interview. And why he became 'irritated', to quote Tapper.

People never needed to try to pin Kucinich down that way: his position was clear and sharp from Feb '02 onward. (Probably before that, too, but that's the earliest I know about.)

Dean tried during the campaign to lay claim to the left side (the wellstonian 'Democratic wing') of the Dem party, and that's the side that was clearly, unequivocatingly anti-invasion-and-massacre. And that's what Kucinich is calling Dean on. The 'Democratic wing' was bitterly opposed to the invasion, opposed to the massacre, and is opposed to the occupation. The 'Democratic wing' wants the US o-u-t out. Get the UN in, get the US out, and the sooner the better.

Dean is again trying to be all things to all people through 'nuance'. But it didn't work before and there's no reason to suppose it's going to work any better this time, except with people like you. But for the people of the 'Democractic wing', Dean's voice of support for BushCo's criminal enterprise has all the appeal of a lead carillon.

[Zhade]

25. Uh, DK didn't vote for the IWR. You're flat-out wrong on that.

I'm really surprised you failed to realize that.

[Larkspur]

27. I NEVER said DK voted for IWR

I said that he wasn't in the Dem Prez race when he voted against IWR and didn't enter that race til months after Dean made his stand in late 2002.

[CWebster]

29. Okay, I read that sentence wrong, but Kucinich

never hid his views. I am not sure of the exact date he entered officially, but since the onset of the simpleton's crusade, Kucinich was speaking out against it.

I can understand you wanting to defend Dean, but Dean needs to get real. What do you want - Dean to have a pass just because he is Dean?

[Zhade]

33. Yes, after rereading that very awkward sentence, I see that you did not.

"It was months after Dean, as Prez candidate, opposed the Iraq War when the other Dem Prez contenders, DK was NOT among them at the time in 2002, voted for IWR and thought that Dean had committed political suicide by opposing the war."

The point about DK not being among them would be better in parentheses, so as to not confuse your average reader. It can be read as what I and others saw.

[redqueen]

36. Can be?

It's not confusing, it's just plain incoherent.

[Eloriel]

50. I don't find it incoherent at all

Awkward, at worst. I've done worse myself, often enough in the sponteneous environment that is the internet.

[Madrone]

8. Funny.

"I have read both your original and revised open letters to Howard Dean. It was very sloppy of you and your staff for publishing the original letter on the Internet with the major error -- the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war. We both know that 23 senators voted against the Iraq War Resolution. I also found it interesting that the Left-wing Media web sites, which posted both your letters, posted the revised one without noting that they were doing so, but fortunately, I saved a copy of the original letter and am posting a link to my copy of it at the end of this open letter. I will gladly show it to everyone, who uses your revised edition to attack Howard Dean, to prove that you are far from the perfect progressive your portray yourself as."


At least Kucinich corrected his mistake. I happen to be someone that recalls Dean crowing about being the ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY Democratic contender to have been against the Iraq war from the beginning at pratically every spoken venue, even after being corrected time and time again. But yeah, Kucinich is a bad guy. He made a misstatement and corrected it. :eyes:

[tishaLA]

17. I'm very happy Mr. Kucinich corrected his error

and I'm not sure what is to be gained by dredging it up repeatedly, particularly since his correction came so quickly. It just seems like divisiveness to me.

[Larkspur]

28. Kucinich's letter is divisive. Maybe that was his intention

Maybe Kucinich was attacking Dean so that he could lure many of Dean's supporters and donors to his camp?

[redqueen]

34. No. Kucinich's letter is an attempt to get Dems to stop us tooing.

Do you HONESTLY consider this attempt to get the US to stop killing Iraqis in the name of the neo-cons simple divisiveness to get supporters?

He's trying to get the Democratic party to STAND UP to WAR for LIES, for God's sake! Is that SO MUCH to fucking ASK?

ESPECIALLY now that it's PROVEN to have been based on a lie since before the WMD charade even began?

[Eloriel]

55. Oh, yeah, it's up to Dean

Do you HONESTLY consider this attempt to get the US to stop killing Iraqis in the name of the neo-cons simple divisiveness to get supporters?

Please, you're smarter and more well-informed than that.

That's precisely what is so bogus about this whole "letter" from DK. It's just not Dean's job, role or business to make or influence the Party's policy on Iraq.

He's going after the wrong people!!

AND, he knowingly misrepresented Dean's positions with his ill-placed "letter." There's no excuse for that.

He's trying to get the Democratic party to STAND UP to WAR for LIES, for God's sake! Is that SO MUCH to fucking ASK?

Then he should be talking to Pelosi and Reid. IS THAT SO MUCH TO FUCKING ASK???

OR, if he REALLY thinks Dean is responsible here, he should have picked up the phone and FUCKING CALLED HIM instead of making it a public brouhaha -- IS THAT SO MUCH TO FUCKING ASK?

ESPECIALLY now that it's PROVEN to have been based on a lie since before the WMD charade even began?

More delusion, I presume. I don't even know what you're talking about with this comment. The LIE is Kucinich's, represented by his whole "letter."

[redqueen]

67. Response

""Do you HONESTLY consider this attempt to get the US to stop killing Iraqis in the name of the neo-cons simple divisiveness to get supporters?""

"Please, you're smarter and more well-informed than that."

What does this comment mean? I wasn't the person to called Kucinich's letter divisive.


"That's precisely what is so bogus about this whole "letter" from DK. It's just not Dean's job, role or business to make or influence the Party's policy on Iraq."

What is his role, do you think? When I see the chairman of the GOP going around saying things, I notice he delivers the party line. Perhaps if Dean doesn't want people to percieve comments like "Now that we're there we're there and we can't get out" (read "Our only intent is to sit around with our thumbs up our asses and see how big a hole Bush can dig") is the party line, he should stop saying stuff like that.


"AND, he knowingly misrepresented Dean's positions with his ill-placed "letter." There's no excuse for that."

Which policies did he misrepresent?


"Then he should be talking to Pelosi and Reid. IS THAT SO MUCH TO FUCKING ASK???"

He IS. His speech on the floor was targeted at all the Dems in attendance. As for Reid... what's the point? Reid's happy to tow the centrist line which Dean's now gone public with.


"OR, if he REALLY thinks Dean is responsible here, he should have picked up the phone and FUCKING CALLED HIM instead of making it a public brouhaha -- IS THAT SO MUCH TO FUCKING ASK?"

How do you know he didn't?


""ESPECIALLY now that it's PROVEN to have been based on a lie since before the WMD charade even began?""

"More delusion, I presume. I don't even know what you're talking about with this comment. The LIE is Kucinich's, represented by his whole "letter.""

ROFL... "more delusion"

The memo?

You know... the thing that just came out that anyone with a backbone would consider sufficient reason to make a stink about?
:eyes:

[KoKo]

90. But, the mistakes in the letter are what lost him his credibility

by putting it out. He challenges Dean but says Wellstone was only Dem in Senate who voted against Iraq Resolution...

He should have "Googled" if he couldn't remember. Sheesh.

[redqueen]

93. As has been pointed out... staffers write letters.

He should have proofread better.

Is that deserving of such a huge uproar?

The man is asking us to stop causing the needless deaths of our soldiers and civlian Iraqis, and people harp on minor errors?

Sheesh, indeed.

[KoKo]

94. Staffer or not...if that letter came "from his heart" he wouldn't leave it

to a staffer and not proofread it afterwards. Perhaps the staffer was a mole, though. (I have to wonder that this letter came out with such a terrible error in it.)

[redqueen]

95. Interesting theory... but still...

I can't see how such trivial errors matter when one considers the subject of the letter.

Our troops are 'stuck' there, so... I guess we should all quit worrying about the occupation and just trust bush to do what's right.

[tishaLA]

43. Truth be told,

I am not behind Rep. Kucinich's exit plan at all. I think any way this situation is handled is going to be terrible: whether we leave immediately and let the UN take over or whether we stay on until we have "stability" (an impossibility), we are in trouble. But that dates to george taking us to war and doesn't really address either Mr. Kucinich's letter or your reprimand of him.

That said, I would never suggest that Mr. Kucinich has ulterior motives for his letter because his message has been consistent since the primaries; indeed, he rebuked Gov. Dean more than once in the primaries, as we all know. I think Rep. Kucinich is an earnest man with whom I sometimes disagree. But I would never try to impugn him my suggesting that he was operating from anything other than the most honorable position possible. He just doesn't seem like that type.

[Eloriel]

56. He doesnt' seem like the type

until you look a little more closely.

There are some things in his profile and history that point to clay feet, AFAIC. A little opportunism, a little self-serving-ness. The like.

I do agree with the first half of your post, and well said.

[eridani]

112. He is CRITICIZING Dean in order to get the Dems--

--to distinguish themselves from the Bush project, which is the imperial conquest and permanent use of Iraq as a military staging post for domination of the whole region by force. Criticism is not attack. Kucinich is trying to move the party in the direction where its very large antiwar contingent wants it to go.

Now, looking at the sum total of Dean's comments over the years wholistically, he doesn't favor permanent military occupation. Then why in bleeding hell does he now say "we can't leave" and and that he wishes Bush "tremendous success"? Why couldn't he have said that "we can't leave immediately" and that he wishes "tremendous success" to the slate that won the Iraq elections, and wants to plan a phased withdrawal of the US so that Iraqis can run their own country?

[Eloriel]

53. Right. The only real (viable) candidate. Sorry, but that's the truth.

I was going to write something way different -- but ya know what? I'm tired of this snearing resentment from Kucinich supporters who imagine that IF ONLY Dean hadn't done that to him, IF ONLY the media hadn't marginalized him, IF ONLY people who liked his politicis wouldn't have considered him unelectable, IF ONLY, IF ONLY, IF ONLY...ta da! Kucinich would have miraculously somehow become a REAL candidate.

I'm sorry. I'm tired of letting this pass as wishful thinking. It is delusional and it's a delusion that Kucinich himself fuels. He may be the source of the delusion, in fact. To the extent Kucinich likes to blame Dean for his own lack of success, that is precisely the extent that he and his supporters are not willing to face the truth of his campaign and candidacy, not willing to take responsibility for his own life and political fortune.

Kucinich was NEVER going to be a mainstream candidate. Never. And it wasn't Dean who "stole" DK's voters or made him less than a mainstream candidate. Dean wasn't the cause for DK's problems or lack of success or lack of supporters and voters. Nor were the bulk of Dean supporters going to be Kucinich supporters if Dean had left the race. Wasn't going to happen. Dean's failure to include DK as a top tier, mainstream anti-Iraq-war candidate didn't cause all that opr in fact harm DK in any significant way, other than his obviously prodigious EGO.

DK needs to get over himself, and get over his resentment and animus towards Dean, which is ill-placed to start with.

[redqueen]

70. "Kucinich supporters who imagine that IF ONLY Dean hadn't " blah blah blah

Who said any of that?

AMAZING amount of "let's avoid the topic at hand" crap going on in this thread.

Geeeeeee, I wonder why.

:eyes:

[Crunchy Frog]

102. The only real, viable candidate, other than Clark.

Sorry, but it is the truth. Just thought I'd throw it in and fan the flames a little. Carry on.:)

[Madrone]

111. I like Dean.

It's his supporters that end up leaving a terrible taste in my mouth.

Kind of like Jesus, and christians.

Someone certainly needs to be rid of their EGO and get over themselves.

It ain't DK.

Apologists. They ain't just for Bush, anymore. :eyes:

[katinmn]

10. I find these comments nasty, personal, and unprofessional

"After reading your letters, I drew the conclusion that you are just trying to pump up your ego to run for President again in 2008, and you're trying to paint yourself as the only "pure" anti-war hero in Congress. What I detect in your letter, Mr. Kucinich, is jealously towards Howard Dean's pre-primary success and the continuation of his popular support from many Democrats and progressives who opposed the 2003 Iraq war."

"Mr. Kucinich, many of us who protested the 2003 Iraq War don't and never have supported you or many of your positions, like your long history of anti-abortion votes. As a former Catholic myself, I am aware that you are or were a Catholic and voted on abortion in accordance with Catholic teaching. Your change on abortion started happening when you were getting a divorce and you discovered that the Catholic Church frowns upon divorce too. It also helped your 2004 Presidential ambition and campaign purse to be pro-choice. This proves that you yourself are not a pure progressive and are susceptible to dark motives."

"Rebuilding the Democratic Party from the grassroots up to be a viable opposition party is a Herculean effort. I do not envy Howard Dean's task at doing so, but unlike you, Mr. Kucinich, Howard Dean is appealing to a broader group than just the Left Wing extremists and the Democrats in your own district in Ohio."

[Larkspur]

12. I'm not a paid member of the Democratic Party. I'm a volunteer who

was elected to my town's Dem Committee.

And those comments are intended to chastise DK. I'm glad they have that affect on you. It means that I succeeded in my goal. DK deserves to be called on his hyprocrisy, since he so willing does it to HD.

[katinmn]

19. so you think Kucinich supporters are "left-wing extremists?"

Nice.

[Larkspur]

21. Yeah. The DK supporters I know are farther to the Left than me

but like moderates they all have different angles of leaning.

[bvar22]

31. So.

Those who support Organized Labor, Single Payer HealthCare, Environmental Responsibility, Corporate Oversight and Accountability, Transparency in Government, effective Social Safety Nets, and Withdrawal from Iraq....
are NOW "Left Wing Extremists"?

The Republicans and the DLC would have you believe that, just like Will Marshall would have you believe that the War in Iraq has been an "astounding success."

[Zhade]

35. I'm not buying Larkspur's argument...

...but where did he say "left wing extremists"? Did I miss it?

[redqueen]

39. In the letter...

quoted in post #10

[Zhade]

40. Oh. Now I see.

Well, if that's "extremism", fine. Better that than to be a conservative rightwinger posing as a Dean-supporting Democrat.

(No, I don't actually believe this about Larkspur - just making the point that it's really easy to apply bullshit labels.)

[redqueen]

37. That's not divisiveness, though.

Oh, no.

[Zhade]

30. You'll have to point out DK's "hypocrisy" before you can chastise him.

I'm taken aback at your swipes at his change in views on choice. You seem to intimate that no one can ever change their mind. You indicate that his change in stance came around when he was getting a divorce, and the Catholic church having an issue with that.

Don't DUers constantly talk about how they left this or that church due to their personal lives being directed by beliefs they didn't share? We're HAPPY when people think for themselves and get out of such situations, yet you take DK to task for doing what many, myself included, have done?

That seems quite unfair, and calculated to express your apparent distaste of DK's views. Frankly, I'm surprised to see such exclusionary vitriol from you. I'd think someone like yourself would be THRILLED that someone like DK would realize he doesn't have the right to try to control women's choices about their own bodies. I thought that such change was a sign of growth, but it reads to me that you see it solely as political gimmicking, which I naturally disagree with and dismiss as an unreasonable conclusion drawn by relying on speculation and your newfound ability to read DK's mind.

(EDITED to retract statement that you said DK voted for the IWR. See upthread for awkward sentence explanation. The rest of my point stands.)

[Larkspur]

47. If DK can chastise Dean in public, I can chastise DK in public

Kucinich's letter is the divisive case and he needs to know that there are Democrats who do not support him.

Now, will DK publish a public open letter commending Dean for diversifying the DNC management team? If DK was not trying to be divisive with his open letter condemning Dean's Iraq position, then he should immediately follow it up with a public open letter commending Dean for diversifying the DNC management team.

[Zhade]

51. Please explain how this answers my question of DK's "hypocrisy".

DK's alleged "divisiveness" is not hypocrisy. It (if it even exists) does not even fit the definition of hypocrisy.

[Eloriel]

59. Oh, it's a sign of GROWTH all right

and self-serving opportunism as well.

Don't think for a minute that DK wasn't targeted by every pro-choice lobbying group in the country for years now (like his whole Congressional career). But when did he decide to "think for himself" on this subject? When he decided to become a Presidential candidate, that's when. How convenient.

I think it's great, but let's be honest about at least ONE of the motivations, shall we?

[Mairead]

71. " But when did he decide to "think for himself" on this subject?"

Yes, the timing looks suspicious. When I mailed him begging him to stand, I made crystal-clear that my plea was conditioned on him changing his stance on Choice; that no matter how good the rest of his politics looked, Choice was a non-negotiable issue for me. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who did that. But it was right around that time--a few weeks one way or the other--that he stopped voting against Choice and started keeping his head down. So it could be that the timing just looks bad, but I can't figure out how to get evidence that would help settle it. Can you? At least one of the women who know him say the timing was a coincidence, but maybe they'd say that anyway.

If you choose not to give him credit for motives, you do have to give him credit not only for doing the right thing but also for taking a big risk in doing it: he did himself no favors with the RC conservatives in his district. He gave them quite a poke in the eye when he started voting strongly against their favorite woman-control issue.

[eridani]

113. Easy to settle the question--look at the timing of his votes

He first abstained, then trended pro-choice, a couple of years before his candidacy.

[Zhade]

107. "But when did he decide to "think for himself" on this subject?"

Actually, I don't know, and neither do you, since neither of us spends our time with him and neither of us can read his mind.

You can feel free to conclude it was politically motivated. I disagree.

[eridani]

118. And now you're volunteering to spread Republican memes

Like universal health care = "left wing extremism"

[Larkspur]

124. No, I'm rebuking an elected Democratic official for misrepresenting

the DNC chair's position.

[eridani]

131. Calling universal health care extremist is a Republican thing

So is indirectly approving the Republican war of conquest by not naming it as such.

[Don Claybrook]

38. Where did DK mis-speak?

Yeah, he got the number of senators wrong, causing you to accuse him of not being as progressive as he'd like people to believe. Aside from the fact that the counting error has nothing to do with how progressive he is, it's still an error, and I'm glad he corrected it.

More importantly, Dean campaigned on an anti-war theme; an anti-Iraq war theme, to be specific. No one, including Dennis Kucinich, has ever accused Howard Dean of being a pacifist, leastways no one on this side of the aisle.

You can chastise Kucinich in public all you want, but you'd do well to not misrepresent the claim he made, a claim that was and remains correct.

I'm assuming that you are defending Howard Dean because you agree with his stance, and not because you support a personality over an ideal, even when that person's stance is wrong. If my presumption is correct, I'm assuming that you support George W. Bush's current Iraq occupation policy, since Howard Dean has endorsed it. And that's the part I really don't understand. I don't see any stablity coming as a result of our staying in Iraq. I truly believe that the least harmful option is to get out, write them the largest check ever written in the history of humanity, and prepare to deal with the geo-political fallout of a failed war. It seems like the best of several really bad options. And I harbor no illusions that this administration will act in the aforementioned manner; it doesn't match with their strategic plan. But I certainly don't agree with Dean's position, and I think Kucinich was right to call him out. He's in a higher-profile position now, and he's subject to more scrutiny. He speaks for the Democratic Party, after all.

Finally, it's worth noting that had Dean called for us to leave Iraq right now, Kucinich would've supported him, and the DLC-types would've been screaming bloody murder. In other words, Dean is going to get the 3'rd degree from both ends of the Democrats' spectrum. It's his job. I think he picked the wrong direction on this one. But this doesn't mean I don't like Howard Dean and don't expect him to continue to do good things for the Party. I wouldn't have voted for him if I thought poorly of the man. But his words are subject to heightened scrutiny. He knew that when he took the job. I hope he listens to what the left is telling him.

[Larkspur]

44. Howard Dean did not endorse Bush's occupation policy nor do I support it

Dean's position is from the pottery-barn rule -- you break it, your own it, and Dean has been consistant on it since his primary campaign. DK was wrong about Dean suddenly changing his position.

Because we launched the war under false pretenses, Dean feels a moral obligation to help the Iraqi people create a better nation than they had under Saddam; whereas, Bush sees Iraq as a corporate colony.

Another reason why Dean opposed the invasion was because it would be a mess to clean up. What Dean supports is getting Iraq to be a peaceful independent nation, not an American colony, which is what Bush supports.

My beef with Kucinich is that he misrepresents Dean and made a public letter critisizing his misrepresentations of Dean's position. DK is also a hyprocrite, and I just wanted to point it out to him that many of us see him as a hyprocrite. If DK really didn't want to create divisiveness among Democrats, DK could have handled this situation through private mail to Howard. DK chose to air his dirty laundry and I'm calling DK on it. Don't worry, I'll fax DK a copy of my Open Letter tonight, so he won't have to go on the Internet to read it.

If DK wants to make amends, he needs to send an Open Letter commending Dean on diversifying the DNC management team.

[eridani]

114. It is not possible for the US to help Iraq create a better nation, period

Not with our current strategy, and not with our insistence on retaining US military control.

Our military presence is stirring up a civil war, not preventing one. What in bleeding hell do you think will be the result of hiring Kurds to destroy Sunni Fallujah, or Shi'ites to patrol Sunni Ramadi? How does having Humvees full of kids with no relevant training, all the firepower in the world, and big stashes of empty coke bottles collected for the purpose of breaking over Iraqi civilian heads stabilize anything?

We could, of course, help create a better nation by turning over more control to the UN and the Iraqi government. But that isn't going to happen. It is especially not going to happen if the Dems won't start pushing it.

[MadHound]

41. Oh fucking yay

Another moderate trying to further alienate the base, all in order pull the party ever further rightwards and drive out all but the most corporate, moderate Dems. Just fucking great. Congratulations, you're doing a fine job:eyes:

First off, why are you stirring up this tempest in a teapot? Kucinich has already apologized for his mis-statement, what more do you want? Secondly, you're doing the other side's job by labeling those you disagree with as "far left extremeists" Not that it really bothers me, the RW crazies have been spouting that line for years. But it is rather disappointing to hear somebody who is nominally on our side saying the same thing. Congratulations for being a tool and carrying water for the RW crazies. Good Job!

Methinks you are just protesting too much. DK made a mistake, apologized for it, why not let it go? Stop with the '08 campaign already and focus on the here and now. We've got a war to stop, and a country to save. You can either put aside these petty BS differences and help, or continue your devise tactics and become part of the problem. The choice is yours.

[Larkspur]

45. I find Kucinich divisive so I'm calling him on his own hyprocrisy

and I don't recall DK ever apologizing.

Don't worry, I'll be faxing DK his own copy of my open letter for him to read. I don't know if he will read it since I'm not one of his constituents.

[MadHound]

48. And you don't think that you are being even more devisive?

C'mon, drop this petty BS already. We're years away from the primaries, and have MUCH more important issues on the table. Let go of that primary mentality already, we're past it.

What do you really hope to accomplish with this madness, other than further alienating a great number of people who you have more in common with than dividing you? Do you really want the party to collapse? Nose-Spite-Face. Get the message?

[Larkspur]

49. Kucinich is a Dem leader in Congress and I have a right to rebuke him

DK needs to be rebuked about distorting Dean's position, and I'm willing to do it. It's also called Freedom of Speech.

[MadHound]

52. Distorting his position? Geez, stop with the over the top hyperbole

DK made a mistake, one, in his draft letter. Do you understand the concept of a draft letter? Mistakes are made in draft letters, is that so hard to understand?

And quite frankly, I think that in his finished product, DK actually stated the situation succinctly and clearly. Ooo, Ooo, he dared to cricize "your man". Suck it up and deal with, it's called politics friend, and a thick skin is required.

If you want to do this, if it somehow makes you feel better, fine. As you say, we do have a First Amendment in this country. But first off, it isn't going to make one iota of difference in the larger scheme of things. And secondly, instead of doing what you intended, your letter will simply come across as another whiny, innaccurate screed by one of those deranged Deaniacs who can't get over the reality of their man's loss in the primaries(please note, these aren't my sentiments here, this is simply what your letter is going to portray you and fellow Dean supporters as).

And finally, this is all a tempest in a teapot. First, there are bigger things to do, like stopping a war. Secondly, nobody except the dedciated few political animals even know that this is going on. Outside of DU, there isn't a peep of what is going on. So your audience is comprised of a small group of dedicated politicos who you're either going to alienate or be preaching to the choir on. In other words, you're going to make very little difference, and what difference you make is going to be negative. Congratulations friend, you've officially become part of the problem:eyes:

[Eloriel]

63. So intentional misrepresntations of other politicians is A-okay to you?

Shame on you.

And finally, this is all a tempest in a teapot. First, there are bigger things to do, like stopping a war. Secondly, nobody except the dedciated few political animals even know that this is going on. Outside of DU, there isn't a peep of what is going on. So your audience is comprised of a small group of dedicated politicos who you're either going to alienate or be preaching to the choir on. In other words, you're going to make very little difference, and what difference you make is going to be negative.

Ummm, well you've just described something like 98-99% of all discussions on DU. Why not write Skinner and tell him it's pointless, fold up shop, shut the place down, there's no point in DU existing at all.

Congratulations friend, you've officially become part of the problem

LOL. And WHAT, pray tell, does that make you?

[MadHound]

73. Gee, I guess that make me somebody who has moved on

And is dealing with other battles, rather than refighting the primaries of last year, or gearing up for the '08 run.

Get a grip, please. Do you even know what is going on outside the world of Dean? Do you even care? Or are you so partisanly poisoned that you feel the need to be devisive, even when it isn't called for?

Ooo, poor Dean got called out by DK. Why don't you let Dean take care of it? You know, your passion and energy could be used in umpteen million other more constructive ways than sitting around typing out replies to obscure political manifestoes that, in the greater scope of things, DON'T MEAN A GODDAMN THING.

Please, step back, take a deep breath and calm down, OK. I'm sure that outside of your prickliness concerning all things Dean, you're a very nice person. Somebody that I have much more in common with than not. Hell, I even like Dean, and outside of Kucinich, Dean was my favorite. But you are obsessing over things that matter very little, and which Dean can deal with himself. Put the primaries on hold for awhile(like until '08), and redirect your energy and passion to something that we can all agree about, stopping this damn war, and bringing our troops home ASAP.

[VelmaD]

62. Have you considered that Howard Dean is...

a big boy and is perfectly capable of responding to DK for himself if he feels it is necessary.

[Larkspur]

64. Yes, I have considered that, but I felt that it was long past time that

DK get rebuked from a fellow Democrat and one who is a member and officer in a local Dem Town Committee. I felt that I would be doing DK a service by popping his ego before it exploded.

[VelmaD]

69. You know, I don't even know...

how to begin to respond to you without saying something that will likely get deleted. I'm going to try. I think many of Dean's supporters are having an emotional reaction to this that is WAY out of proportion. I didn't see anyone crying like this in the past when people publicly excoriated our recently-departed DNC chair - hell it was encouraged.

I also think if the man himself chooses not to respond that responding for him smacks of hubris.

[redqueen]

72. Yeah, 'cause DK's never been rebuked by other democrats before.

Unfrickinreal...

[Larkspur]

81. If DK can't take being rebuked from me, than he is thinner skinned than

his supporters. But our Constitution which DK swore to uphold, gives me the right to rebuke him.

[VelmaD]

84. You know...

you couldn't be this funny on purpose if you tried.

Thin skinned? Aren't you the one who got so irate over a letter that wasn't even written to you that you had to write a response?

Hi kettle, I'm the pot and you're black.

[Larkspur]

99. I've held my tongue aginst DK's slams at Dean for a long time..

DK went too far with this letter and now he's going to get the earful he should have gotten a long time ago.

[MaggieSwanson]

128. I'm sure DJK will feel truly chastened

by your poorly written attempt to protect Howard Dean's fragile ego.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[VelmaD]

58. This will come as a surprise to no one...

but I agree with you on this 100 percent. I've gotten my recommended daily allowance of irony and then some.

[Larkspur]

60. We are shaking up the Dem Party.

I'm secretary of my town's Dem Committee because Dean inspired me to be more active in my local Dem group. We're starting to replace or change the minds of some of the "Old Guard" in my committee. Some of them were so sure Kerry/Edwards would win in 2004 but became disillusioned not just with the loss but with Kerry hanging onto $10 million that he could have used to battle Bush or at least help candidates, like our US Rep challenger, who needed money against the well financed Repuke incumbent.

And there are many Dean supporters across the nation joining Dem Committees and/or running for office. It won't be quick or easy, but we will rebuild the Dem Party from the grassroots up.

[Eloriel]

61. What's supernatural

is your interpretation of what's going or even what the potential for this is.

Surreal, in fact.

[mzmolly]

65. Not any more ironic than Kerry supporters who NOW seem heartbroken

about the "we can't cut and run" philosophy. ;)

[bvar22]

78. No. Kerry remains consistent.

When those of us who oppose the War on the Iraqi People voted for Kerry, we knew exactly what we were voting for.
Where is the irony?

[mzmolly]

79. Dean also remains consisent ... so you tell me.

The irony is that people who KNEW Kerry's position and voted for HIM knowing said position ... are now whining because Dean shares such a position (and has ALL ALONG.)

[bvar22]

86. WOW.

Talk about trying to divide the Party.
Those of us who are Anti-War but chose to vote for Kerry out of Party Unity are being bashed for our strategic voting.

Now THAT'S IRONY!!!!

[mzmolly]

92. Nice try. I was discussing Kerry's primary supporters first and

foremost.

However, I'm glad you were for party unity a few months back, "what's changed?" ;)

Since Dean has been consistant on this very issue (and his supporters were well aware of his position) all the inflamatory and inaccurate language trying to paint Dean and his supporters into a "pro-war" stance is not only ironic it's bullshit.

[bvar22]

96. If....

you were "discussing Kerry's primary supporters first and foremost."

You should have said so.
You didn't.
Nice try.

[mzmolly]

105. Given the fact that I replied to ONE OF THEM and you answered

I didn't feel it necessary to clarify.

[redqueen]

74. No, I find it sad.

Not all too surprising, mind you, given his 'trying to have it both ways' stances during the primaries.

But still, sad.

[Zorra]

75. Yes. IMO, Howard Dean has unwittingly developed a cult of personality.

I mean this in the sense that many Dean supporters seem so intensely devoted to the man that they are willing to support issues or ideas that they previously did not support, and generally would not support, if Dean did not support them.

I always liked both Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich.

But if Dennis Kucinich supported the republican and DLC position on Iraq, and announced tomorrow that the occupation of Iraq was now justifiable and that we should "stay the course" indefinitely, I would be among the first to say that he was FOS because he was not understanding the reality of the fact that the PNAC has long-term plans for Iraq that do not in any way include the establishment of a genuine democracy.

Hero worship can be a very dangerous thing, especially in politics.

[mzmolly]

76. Given the fact that his position on Iraq has NOT changed, can you

elaborate on this?

"many Dean supporters seem so intensely devoted to the man that they are willing to support issues or ideas that they previously did not support,"

Dean never agreed with going into Iraq but ALWAYS maintained that once in we had to be certain that we left Iraq stabilized.

Point me to the position Dean and his supporters did not support in the Primaries? I'd like specific quotes.

Dean ( like Kerry - Edwards - Clark - Braun - etc. ) said all along "we can't cut and run once we go in ..." he said it loud and clear, time and time again. Kucinich and Sharpton were the ONLY ones running for office who said otherwise, so if you didn't support either .. you've got no right to bitch.

[Zorra]

101. You are right. I could not find a single instance of a Dean supporter

that opposed the indefinite occupation of Iraq or who did not believe that the occupation was unjustifiable. I must confess that this really surprises me; while I was aware of Dean's initial stance against the invasion, and also his support of continuing the occupation indefinitely after the war began, I thought that Dean supporters were generally anti-war, and had realized by now that the occupation of Iraq is a Vietnam like quagmire that will continue indefinitely. It surprises me that Dean, and Dean supporters in general, wish to continue the indefinite occupation of Iraq, given the lessons of Vietnam, and especially with regard to the rapidly escalating violence now occurring in Iraq.

It is extremely difficult for me to reconcile the conundrum that there are still Democrats that support the continued occupation of Iraq; it surprises me that they do not seem to understand that the occupation of Iraq, in some form, will continue at least as long as Bush remains in power and probably long after that unless there is some type of firmly united opposition to the occupation. Basically supporting the republican/DLC position on the occupation is not going to end it. In the meantime, many people are dying every single day in Iraq, and our country is financially devastated. Continuing to throw our money into this bottomless pit is only going to irrevocably destroy our country, and there is a distinct possibility that nothing constructive will ever be done in Iraq, or that Iraq will become a puppet nation.

In all honesty it is very difficult for me to respect people, republicans, democrats, or whatever, that support this ongoing PNAC occupation of Iraq, but are only willing for others and their children to risk their lives and/or limbs in the cause that they support. IMO, this implies an immoral disingenuouness and hypocrisy, especially considering that we are running out of soldiers to complete this tragic PNAC mission to conquer Iraq, and the folks that support the occupation are not lining up in droves at recruiting stations to fight in this occupations that they support.

If you, mzmolly, or your children, were to be drafted tomorrow, would you go and fight and die in Iraq, or be willing to let your children go and fight in Iraq?

Would you still support the occupation if you were drafted?

I don't believe most Dean supporters that are standing behind Dean's recent statements would be willing to do this, and this is the reason that I brought up the cult of personality issue.

I guess I find it difficult to believe that many that are defending Dean on this issue really believe that the continued occupation of Iraq is justifiable and that Bush is going to make everything OK in Iraq.

Larkspur apparently does know of a few Dean supporters that are against the occupation for in the letter Larkspur wrote to DK there is mention of anti-occupation Dean supporters:

"You also need to consider that some Far Left anti-war advocates continue to support Howard Dean, even if they disagree with him on some of his positions. One anti-war/pacifist advocate, who is a Dean supporter to this day told me that she still supports Howard Dean because "Howard Dean is always who he says he is and Howard Dean knows how to look at a problem and fix it."

I found this post from Mike_c from Oct. 2003 to be very sad:

"...a couple of days ago. Since many dems (myself included) have aligned ourselves with the anti-war movement, which advocates the quickest possible disengagement and return of U.S. troops, how do the dem candidates propose to achieve this? Kucinich appears to be the only one with a real plan for disengagement in Iraq, whether realistic or not. If Dean, Clark, Kerry, Gephart, or Lieberman (who also advocates more troops) is elected, will we be marching in 2005 to protest the democratic administration's occupation of Iraq?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=607188#607290

We are not even marching in 2005 to protest Bush's occupation of Iraq;
indeed, apparently far more Democrats than I ever imagined, including the new DNC Chairman, still support this quagmire/occupation after all this time.

All the lofty Democratic plans for getting out of Iraq are moot; Bush and the PNAC are in power, as are RW republicans in the House and Senate. We are never going to get out of Iraq if we and our Democratic legislators continue to support their efforts to keep us there.

IMO, Democrats that consider themselves "progressive" need to break from the DLC and unite with the PDA in putting pressure on Bush and the republicans in calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Sticking with these useless DLC policies that don't work and appease the republicans is getting us nowhere - we really need to start shaking things up.

And BTW, I did support DK in the primaries. Dean was my second choice, and I was very glad to see him get the DNC chair.

I just hope that he changes his position on Iraq before the troop death toll hits 2000, and the cost of the war hits $300 billion.

[bvar22]

103. Good Post, Zorra.

I agree.

You should start a new thread with this post.
Well written and sincere.
Thank You.

[mzmolly]

109. Not really, same ol' same ol'

if you ask me. :boring:

[mzmolly]

108. Let me post the same question. If you had to move to Iraq one day

after we pull out, or your children did, would you be willing? Would you send your family to help rebuild that country because it will be such a peaceful haven? Will you help provide income for the people of Iraq by taking a vacation in Bagdad? Or, better yet .. will you replace our troops who are stopping an all out collapse of the region currently?

Iraq is in the middle of a tribal war right now due to the mess we've created. This civil war could be a catalyst for an even larger mess in the surrounding countries as well. The tribes fighting extend well beyond Iraq, and this is one of the reasons this is a no win situation.

I realized this would happen all along, ( like others who were against the war ) .. we all knew once we went in it would be hard as hell to get out. If it were so easy, it would not have been as HUGE an issue as it is/was. We could have went in, killed some innocent people, removed Saddam ... and went home. But, those in the know - KNEW that once we went into Iraq we'd be in deeeeeeep shit.

Because Iraq is basically in the middle of a civil war, were there until it's not worse for US and most IRAQI's is we pack up and leave. We need international support, but the international community hates Bush and feels it's too dangerous to assist, so ... were F'd.

As others have asked ... are we "occupying" Germany? We have troops there? The language you guys use to advance your case VIETNAM, OCCUPATION, YOUR FOR THE WAR IF ... this language is not conducive to real discussion. It's like saying "your with the terrorists if your not with Bush." It's the thing I can't stand about Kucinich and the way he phrases things. He shuts down any room for actual discussion using the same framing tactics Republicans do.

One can be against the war, while realizing that if we leave NOW were all worse off.

[eridani]

115. Sorry, but we are stirring up civil war, not preventing it. n/t

[mzmolly]

121. Actually we did stir some shit, and those of us who protested the war

in the streets of America and elsewhere, feared this would happen. Now that it has ~ we can't leave the area to further deterioration.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[CTLawGuy]

134. i think thats an excellent question

"If you had to move to Iraq one day
after we pull out, or your children did, would you be willing?"


but don't hold your breath for a response.

[janx]

122. Please show me where

Dean said he supports "continuing the occupation indefinitely."

This is a deliberate distortion of the facts.

[eridani]

133. He said he wished Bush "tremendous success"

Bush intended permanent occupation from the start, so wishing him success is supporting permanent occupation.

[KoKo]

91. He didn't say that it was "justifiable" though... that's the crux of the

matter. It's looking at what someone says and what we "think" he said because of our own personal read that we suddenly thought he'd "turned."

Maybe we are so paranoid because we Dems out here (the people) have been betrayed so much that we look at every statement and see another betrayal. I'm guilty of that as much as anyone else. But, when other DU'ers post actual quotes and not CNN garbled quotes, then I often find that I got upset over nothing. That so much is misquoted or taken out of context today that we sometimes just plain "over-react."

[Guaranteed]

77. Almost as ironic as supporters of someone who voted to authorize

the invasion calling Dean a Bush collaborator.

[mzmolly]

80. Yes indeed.

:hi:

[eridani]

116. And though Kerry supported the invasion--

--he also said while he was campaigning that he was unequivocally against permanent military bases there.

[KoKo]

88. Not so much except if some of us are now called "Left Wing Extremists."

I see some of what you say here, but not so much out in my Red State. I'll have to keep a watch on it though. We have an equal number of Dean/Kucinich activists that we work with. In each group there are "slackers" who seem to be drifting back to the "status quo."

So...don't see it yet as something exclusive with Dean supporters that needs a look at. :shrug:

[OrwellwasRight]

104. Best post in this entire thread. nt.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[Eloriel]

66. I'm really glad you posted this, Larkspur

I'd gotten the link from anothe thread and had an open window to it when I signed on today, but had forgotten where I got it or who it belonged to. Very nice blog.

And I agree with every word, obviously. You're taking a bit of a beating here, but most of it (possibly even all) is totally nonsensical -- as you well know.

[Larkspur]

82. Thanks.

I totally expected to "take a beating" on my letter to DK. I was willing to put it on this board and knew that I had to prepare for the verbal storm. I've got "tough skin."

[mzmolly]

68. Thanks for posting.

I wrote an open letter too, but failed to send mine to anyone.
Perhaps I should?

:hi:

[Larkspur]

83. Thanks for the support

I started working on this letter yesterday and got feedback from various Dean supporters at another site. I rewrote it this morning and was happy enough with the rewrite that I posted it here. I'll fax it to DK tonight after I get home.

[mzmolly]

85. If you get a moment, I'd like to fax a revised edition of my letter as

well, would you mind pm-ing me any fax #'s you have?

Again, if/when you have a moment. Or, you can just post em too?

:hi:

[Larkspur]

98. If you are referring to Kucinich's fax numbers, I get them from

Congress.org

Here's DK's Washington and Ohio contact information
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/?id=468&lvl=C&chamber=H

Washington Office:
1730 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3510
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Main District Office:
14400 Detroit Ave.
Lakewood, OH 44107
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

[Larkspur]

123. I just faxed both DK's offices

The off-season Nor'easter has screwed up my fax line, so I had to use my main line to fax. Well, we'll see what happens.

[KoKo]

87. Larkspur, I agree with almost all of your letter...BRAVO...BUT...your

addition of a reply on "American Prospect Site" categorizing some of us as "Left wing Extremists." It's a Republican term when they aren't using the "Lieberal" Word and I found the inclusion of he word "extremist" offensive. I'm a very Lefty DU'er but very far to the Right of many of you on Porn invading our airwaves and Childrens TV being too violent and Sexual in content.

So...I agree with hitting back at folks trying to trash Dean and that letter that Kucinich sent out where he didn't even check the vote (which should have been burned in his brain) on who voted for Iraq War Resolution. That letter caused one of our DU'ers to suffer some pain because we questioned her post which had the original Kucinich statement.

But, hitting back and including Kucinich is part of the Left Wing Extremest wing of the Party, did cause me pause.

Otherwise...great reply! :yourock:

[Larkspur]

97. Sorry if I offended you. Here's my definition of an extremist...

An extremist in my opinion is one who is enslaved or addicted to an ideology and is willing to use whatever means necessary to impose that ideology on others. I believe that there are extremists at both ends of the political spectrum. Extremists of any political ideology tend to be domineering. The Righwing is currently giving us a living case study in that definition, but the Left can fall towards Totalitarianism as well. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao ended up as ruthless dictators. In America, Sen. and ex-Gov Huey Long, who founded the "Share our Wealth" clubs and helped the poor in Louisiana, turned into a leftwing ideologue and ruthless tyrant in LA.

A friend of mine in college, who was a grad student in economics, told me that he was a Communist ideologue until he visited the Soviet Union during the early 1970's. That trip made him realize that Communism could be as bad as Capitalism, and that the extreme ends in both economic philosophies led to disaster for ordinary people.

Whether or not you fit my definition of extremist, I leave up to you.

In regards to DK, if he had a problem with a quote of Dean's, he should have called Howard or the DNC to confirm what Dean meant by his statement before writing and releasing to the Internet an open letter chastising Dean for "changing" his position on Iraq. I saw DK's letter as way to try to drive some Dean supporters, who may be anti-war supporters, away from Dean and into DK's camp, not as an honest debate on Iraq. I'm suspicious of DK's motives for publishing his open letter because DK is not the Congressional Minority Leader, so he does not represent all the Dems on the Hill.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[Desertrose]

100. This is just freaking mindblowing...really.

I am gonna just dip my toes once in the mess here.

I am amazed that a person with such an obvious dislike of a former candidate has the "balls" to write and "chastise" someone who has consistently had the guts to speak out for Dems. Who has consistently spoken up and called bush on his insanity.

Just mindblowing.

Face it, Dean is now in the hotseat, like it or not. He is gonna have to be very clear in what he says and he sure as hell won't be able to please everyone. Still the man is DNC chairman...what are you going to do? He wanted this job & now he has it. Plain & simple- it means he has shit to deal with.

Well folks, all your biases are showing...and showing badly. didn't we have these damn wars in the primaries?? How the HELL does this bring anyone together??? This is the biggest waste of time and talk about furthering duality...yup...this shit feeds it big time.

I honestly feel no need to defend DK... I know where he is coming from and I trust my gut. I can also say the same about Dean.

Just really interesting that a few still seem to harbor such a hatred for Kucinich and some are not allowed to criticise Dean. Makes ya wonder.

If you feel it is so important to "chastise" another...in public, then obviously, you are most welcome to do so. I personally think there are a lot more things we can do to help each other and our country than hold onto the anger & self righteousness...but hey, whatever.

[mzmolly]

110. I agree with much of what you said. But, I have a different angle.

You said: "Just really interesting that a few still seem to harbor such a hatred for Kucinich and some are not allowed to criticise Dean. Makes ya wonder.

If you feel it is so important to "chastise" another...in public, then obviously, you are most welcome to do so."

Now, let's change this quote around a bit and give it another view point:

Just really interesting that a few still seem to harbor such a hatred for DEAN and some are not allowed to criticise KUCINICH. Makes ya wonder.

If Dennis Kucinich feels it is so important to "chastise" DEAN ... in public, then obviously, he's most welcome to do so - but he too will "take the heat."

You see, it's all a matter of perspective. ;)

[Desertrose]

119. of course you do...thats why this thread was started

Kucinich spoke against Dean and the faithful have come to his support as always, rather than look objectively at what is being said.

Dean is DNC chairman...a position that is basically the hot seat. If Dean can take it so should those who support him without having to jump on anyone who criticizes him him. We certainly know all Dems don't agree but the fact that any Dem at this point is not looking for an alternative to whatever bush proposes to do and/or has done, to my way of thinking, does not really offer us any other options.

Are we becoming one big happy corporate party?? Must all other points of view be shut down? Since when is it not OK for DK or any Dem to question the chairman of the DNC??

This has nothing, N O T H I N G to do with hating (wtf?) Dean for crying out loud. Why must it always go there???

This is about Dems giving us an alternative to "we're there & now we have to stay there til its fixed" bullshit rhetoric.

[mzmolly]

120. Actually, I did look objectively, and the fact is Dean's position remains

the same as it has always been ~ Kucinich once again implied that Dean "used" progressives.

Further, Kucinich continues to insinuate that he's got the moral high ground and is speaking for progressives on the issues he's personally in disagreement with Dean on. It's tiresome.

Legitimate criticism is welcome. But Kucinich and his postion were known in the primaries, and Dean's were was as well. His letter was nothing more than an opportunistic attempt at attention.

[eridani]

132. Antiwar, no matter how you slice it--

--is supposed to mean being against the Republican project of establishing a permanent US military outpost in Iraq. What could possibly be wrong with asking Dean, as a highly visible Democrat, to differentiate our position?

[saracat]

125. Great Post Desertrose. Right on. You are 100% correct!

[saracat]

126. This is really ridiculous. And I would suggest you read the rules of being

Party official. We are not supposed to use our official positions to attack one another. And I say this as a District Chair and a State committee persomn. This is inappropriate behavior. You may think and say what you want as an individual , but NOT as a Party officer.

[Larkspur]

127. Then you should inform Kucinich of the rules

Kucinich attacked Dean in public, so the gloves are off.

[saracat]

129. Kucinich isn't a PARTY official. You are.

Kucinich is an elected Congressman.That difference is why Zell Miller can spout his mouth off but a precinct committee person cannot.By the same consideration Kucinich can criticize Dean, but Dean, as a Party Official, DNC Chair , can't criticize Kucinich. You and Dean can each voice your opinions but not AS party officials.With Dean it is problematic because it is really hard to differentiate should he choose to do so.
You have the right to write your letter but all the references to being Secretary of your committee and the use of your title are technically not allowed. But whatever.Just to let you know!

[Zomby Woof]

135. DK was right on

It was a legitimate criticism of Dean's position (The DNC Stamp Of Approval), and needed to be said. Had the former chairperson of the DNC said what Dean did, said chairperson would be burning in effigy in this forum.

This argument smacks too much of 2004. Progressives must be FORWARD-looking, and DK's plan is just that. The DNC plan is the STATUS QUO. Dean is, if nothing else, the status quo, dressed up as "the future". He has the power, and is already misusing it.

[Moderator]

136. Locking, Flame bait