Is this true what I'm reading about Kucinich?

[Stoic]

I will admit to a certain amount of ignorance towards the backgrounds of a few of the Democratic candidates. I have accepted the general attitude that Kucinich was the liberal's leftie. But I just came across this and this for starters and beginng to question the sanity of people who proclaim Kucinich as the Liberal Messiah. My god, his voting record and anti-choice positions are appalling. What am I missing here?

[Must_B_Free]

1. He changed his mind

.

[fabius]

2. Kucinich has been pretty strongly anti-abortion...

...in the past. He says this is from personal conviction and he will support Roe v. Wade.

Kucinich is a Midwest, industrial-age FDR Democrat, which looks pretty radical from an economic standpoint these days. I think he's got some of that Midwest social conservatism in him. Well, so does my mom but she'll vote Democratic.

[SharonAnn]

3. Actually, his district is pretty Catholic and anti-choice as I

understand it. Ethnic European Catholic population is what I've been told. So, I would understand if that was what they wanted.

However, if he wants to play a bigger role (like President) he takes off his blinders and realize that his potential constituents support Roe v Wade.

BTW, I'm pro-choice but I support some pro-life activities, those that actually support the mother and baby's needs. Being pro-choice simply means that women have the right to choose.

[AnAmerican]

4. A rebuttal

OK, the first link you gave is not worth the effort to read through, Talk about an agenda.

The second one, from The Nation, is more balanced. It does tke DK to task for his prior views on abortion but it falls into the trap of thinking that a man cannot alter or refine his thinking.

That is patently false. In the same time period they take Dennis to task over, I myself have undergone a MAJOR refinement in thinking.

I used to be a solid centrist, thought Bill Clinton and Al Gore were the best Administration we could ever have, though the bombing of Kosovo was justified, thought that thought the Iraq Sanctions were justified.

Now, I think differently.


DK also thinks differently on the issue of reproductive (by definition, women's) rights.

Just because I altered my thinking does that mean I am lying now? No

Simililarly, just because DK refined his thinking is he now lying? No.


Are any of us the same person we were two years ago? Do we all think exactly what we thought two years ago? I highly doubt it.

People change, it happens everyday, why is so hard to believe?

[dpbrown]

26. Actually, Pollitt herself recognizes Kucinich's change

"In recent abortion-related votes he has taken the pro-choice side and now, just in time for his announcement of his presidential bid, affirms Roe v. Wade on his website. National Review Online attributed this change of heart to "a tiny article" in The Nation (thanks a lot). I'd rather credit Kucinich's own instinct for what is right and fair in a pluralist society. Better late than never!"

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030310&s=pollitt

Katha Pollitt
February 20, 2003

[VermontDem2004]

29. The first one does have an agenda

but going to votesmart.com to check facts on what they are saying. It is true Kucinich has voting percentages from the special interest groups which are named in that article.

[John_H]

5. I don't support DK's candidacy, but I'm willing to cut him slack on choice

He knew couldn't have gotten elected in his district being pro-choice. And he knows he could never get the Dem nomination being anti-choice.

He's a politician, after all, and politicians tend to bow to the will of their constituancies. His district is probably overwhelmingly anti-choice as many heavily catholic, working class, Democratic districts are. As president, his constituancy would be the people of the united states who are solidly pro choice.

I just hope that he hasn't opened himself up to rethug attack when he runs again for his congressional seat in '04. I'm happy he changed positions, but, given the choice, I'd rather have an anti-choice Dem like kucinich in congress than an anti-choice republican.

[Tinoire]

6. Choice 1

Choice

During the period of time when Rep. Kucinich received the worst rating by groups that monitor pro-choice votes he:

1. Voted against requiring counselors to notify parents and impose a five-day waiting period when minors entered family planning clinics to buy contraceptives.

2. He voted to force federal health care plans that include drug coverage to include coverage for contraceptives.

3. He voted against creating a new crime of assaulting a pregnant women based on causing harm to a fetus.

4. He voted against a measure that would have banned the use of US Population funds to advocate abortion as a family planning measure.

5. He voted against banning "partial birth" abortion when the health of the mother is not specially protected as an exception to the ban.

Rep. Kucinich's votes are votes of empowerment. His votes, even during this time, were focused on putting more control over reproductive choice in the hands of the person making that choice. Since that time, he's come to a fuller understanding of the gender inequity ramifications involved in the pro-choice movement, and is the only candidate who has declared his intention to make judicial nominations subject to a litmus test on Roe v. Wade.

It should be noted that Antonin Scalia has expounded that judges should "quit" if they're not pro-death penalty, because that is the "law of the land." In just that way, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and no candidate has embarked on so bold a policy decision as to plumb from each potential judicial appointee their position on upholding that "law of the land." Rep. Kucinich's movement from personal empowerment to broad, full, and deep support of the positions of the pro-choice movement put him in the unique position of being the best candidate on choice, because he came to his position not through an examination of what would be the politically expedient choice, but through a natural evolution of his deeply held belief in personal empowerment and the responsibility of society and the government to play a healthy role in the development of that empowerment.

Written by Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=21170

[sandnsea]

9. The votes don't seem to match

The Nation article seems to say he voted differently on 3, 4 & 5. Do you know why the material conflicts, or did I miss something?

I believe Kucinich has problem come to the conclusion most pro-choice Catholics have come to, my religion is my business and somebody else's religion is theirs. The reasons and needs for abortion are too numerous and complex to legislate. So this isn't a Kucinich attack post, just a curious inquiry.

[Tinoire]

14. Give me time to research this...

I will also ask the author of that post, Dan Brown, to weigh in. I've been doing a few googles on the subject but between my fatigue, the bills and the various amendments, my eyes are crossing red!


On edit: While searching, I found this: http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/keypointsuvva.html

But I don't have adobe loaded on my computer (don't you dare laugh! I had a some bad trojans and have not re-loaded everything). I'll come back to this tomorrow with Dan Brown in tow :)

[sandnsea]

19. Oh don't knock yourself out for me

It was just a curious question. Your other posts show a real thoughtfulness on his part.

"People have the right to make their own moral decisions" I particularly like that and also that he recognizes that when women are forced to carry unintended pregnancies, it greatly reduces their opportunity of equality. I've even argued with women over that one. And that he also recognizes that support life means supporting prenatal care and healthcare for the child AFTER it's born. How can you be pro-life if you don't care whether someone can see a doctor?

[dpbrown]

27. I think you've hit the nail on the head with that balance

For what it's worth, the voting record was researched at Project Vote Smart.

I also think it's important to remember that the original Pollitt article was written based on his "rating" by organizations that track pro-choice votes, and those organizations may not have been looking beyond the individual votes that they considered important.

From the understanding I've developed over time regarding Dennis' position, he's gone from a view in which he thought if the government worked in concert with individuals and education and health care and daycare, etc., etc., etc., the wholistic effect would be a natural decrease in abortion. Along with providing full support for contraception and education, he apparently found there was room for withholding governmental support or funding from abortion in some situations.

The more important lesson in all of this is, however, his willingness to evolve on this issue to a position in full support of pro-choice positions, and his coming to a fuller understanding of the inequality repercussions involved in the choice/anti-choice issues.

I find his willingness to use support of Roe v. Wade (the "law of the land") as part of the test for ascertaining the fitness of judges to be appointed to the federal bench to fully bring him head and shoulders above the other Democratic candidates on this issue, especially considered the admonition issued by Justice Scalia that judges should just "quit" if they can't bring themselves to fully support the death penalty because it's the "law of the land."

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[dpbrown]

28. The Nation article refers to other votes

I'm not aware of any less pro-choice votes on 3) and I think his position has always been in favor of contraception and education (basically supporting the "choice" not to get pregnant, and then supporting people raising children), but as to 4) his vote on "international" funds was rated anti-choice, and as to 5) his earlier vote was in favor of some restrictions on second trimester abortions when the life of the mother was protected. This later vote was against the bill when the protection for the life of the mother had been stripped out by Republicans.

More significantly, I think, he's since come around more fully to support of pro-choice positions as more supportive of full equality between the genders, and I think this evolution on his part makes him particularly strong on this issue.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Tinoire]

7. Choice 2

IMO Kucinich is the most sincere candidate out there with a track record to prove everything. Abortion shouldn't even be an issue in politics but the Right has made it one- a false one. Why would we play their game? Why does this all boil down to abortion and can we trust a candidate's evolution and yet no talk about the death penalty which most liberals consider cruel, immoral and unacceptable? Kucinich has neither flip-flopped nor changed his personal beliefs- the only thing he's done, with the help of women around him is evolved to seeing it as a matter of CHOICE (the most important word in pro-Choice right?). He has consistently opposed and vigorously fought the criminalization of abortion which is a lot more than some supposedly "pro-choice" candidates have done.

In a recent interview on National Public Radio (NPR) Kucinich asserted that he now supports Roe vs. Wade. He said, “ No. But with the help of women in my life and women who I've had the opportunity to talk to over the years, I've seen how this really has become such a divisive and destructive issue. And I think that we can work to achieve a society which supports a woman's right to choose and we can do that within the context of working to make abortions less necessary. We also have to, through sex education and birth control try to create a culture which is life-affirming through prenatal care and postnatal care, child care and a living wage.”
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Frank_Kucinich.htm

If you want to examine records, here is his statement from June 2003 when took to the House floor to strongly oppose a ban on so-called "partial-birth abortions":

"Let's all be clear -- the bill before us is unconstitutional because it does not contain an exemption for the health of the woman who seeks to exercise her reproductive rights. There is no doubt about that. This is because the US Supreme Court has already ruled on very similar legislation in Stenberg v. Carhart. Opponents of the right to reproductive choice should know that.

"This bill likely will not prevent a single abortion. But it does defeat the rights of women.

"I believe that equal protection under the law and the right to privacy should be freedoms enjoyed by women as well as men. But women will not be equal to men if this constitutionally protected right is denied. This bill infringes on those rights for women, and that is why I will oppose it.

"Throughout my career, I have tried to work to reduce the need for abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies through comprehensive sex education, birth control, and increased access to health care. I think that all of my colleagues would agree that we should work to prevent unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions. I will continue those efforts, but the bill that is before us today is the wrong way to do that.

"Advocates of this bill who say they stand in defense of life would be more believable if they worked to support families, with adequate child care funding, child tax credit relief for vulnerable families, and peace. For some, this debate is only about politics. The fact that other abortion legislation, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, has been advanced on the publicity of the Laci Peterson tragedy shows the unfortunate politicization of this debate.

"I do know, however, that many are sincere in their desire to reduce the need for abortions. In leading the nation toward this goal, we must preserve Constitutional rights. We must respect the freedom and equality of women.
The best path for our country is not to escalate the divisiveness and
political nature of this debate. Rather, it is to remember the principles of this nation and refrain from undermining the freedom of choice. We must respect the basic human dignity of women to make personal decisions."

http://www.lysistrataproject.org/KucinichforPresident.htm

[Tinoire]

8. Choice 3

Kucinich is pro-life in the same way I and 2193 feminists are pro-life

In other words we are pro-choice in favor of life, in favor of a decent life for every human being in America. Pro-life, what a ridiculous tactic to divide people. Don't fall for this man. Pro-life- pro-choice, mere hollow words meaning absolutely nothing. The important thing is to respect a woman's right to choose and at the same time work at improving everyone's quality of life.

From a feminist perspective, Kucinich (despite his too-recent conversion to pro-choice) arguably would be better for women - especially poor women and women of color - then the other Dem candidates. Of the Democratic candidates, for example, Kucinich is the one most likely to be sympathetic to the need for government-funded childcare; for not just keeping abortion legal, but for supporting funding programs to help poor women who cannot afford an abortion; for providing more real reproductive choice to poor women by supporting government aid to single mothers; to support unionization of female-heavy workforces, such as retail workers; to fight to raise the minimum wage (most minimum wage workers are women); etc, etc..

You will no doubt recognize many of the names of women who signed the statement below. It's a statement by die-hard feminists who are outraged that people would use that to discredit the most pro-choice and most pro-womens' rights candidate out there.

Like many main-stream Christians, especially Catholics, Kucinich believes in the sanctity of life and that life begins at conception. I am one of those people (both DK and I are Catholic). We believe that abortion isn't right in the eyes of God but there are many other things that are wrong in the eyes of God that get no play from the Christian right. Not once did Jesus, who we believe was God walking on earth amongst us, not once did he rail against abortion and abortion was rampant during his time. What he did rail against were the social ills of poverty, oppression, greed, exploitation. Abortion was never a divisive issue until the Christian Right made it one to better exploit the American people and manipulate their consciences into the Republican camp. Please don't play that game. During the 2000 elections our Bishops stood in front of their congregations and reminded people abortion was simply not an issue in politics- that it was a personal choice they hoped no one would make but that poverty, starvation of the poor, homeless women and children and exploitation were even greater sins. If you want to cure society- start there was what they said (btw, 2+2 why is the Catholic Church being so persecuted now? 2+2= coming elections). Anyway, there's nothing incongruous about Kucinich's evolution. He was taken aside by several women to include his sister and eventually understood that it was a matter of choice- a necessity in today's society.

He has already sworn that he will make up-holding Roe vs. Wade a Litmus test for judicial appointments. No other canidate has promised to do that. Also, no other candidate is addressing the social issues that revolve around abortion.


"I support a woman's right to freedom of choice," Kucinich says now. "I do not believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned." He vowed last week to an Iowa audience that "as president, I would protect that right , and I would also make sure that appointees to the Supreme Court protected that right."
Kucinich is following in the footsteps of Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, and other Democrats who flip-flopped on abortion shortly before launching presidential bids.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich022003.asp

I support Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose, and will select Supreme Court justices who affirm this Constitutional right.

I’ve had a journey on this issue that a year ago, before I became a candidate for President, caused me to break from a voting record that had not been pro-choice. After hearing from many women in my own life, and from women and men in my community and across the country, I began a more intensive dialogue on the issue. A lot of women opened their hearts to me. That dialogue led me to wholeheartedly support a woman’s right to choose.

I have come to believe that it’s not simply about the right to choose, but about a woman’s role in society as being free and having agency and having the ability to make her own decisions. That a woman can’t be free unless she has this right.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is one of the most serious decisions a woman might make. It is deeply personal. In our society, all women and all men have a right to make difficult moral decisions and make personal choices. But women will not be equal to men if this constitutionally protected right is denied.

I want to work to make abortions less necessary, which means sex education and birth control. I want to work to make sure that, when life is brought forward, we have prenatal care and postnatal care and childcare and universal health care and a living wage.

And because I know that the right to choose is under attack -- as President, I will only support someone for the Supreme Court if he or she agrees to uphold Roe v. Wade.

(April, 2003)

see also:
Kucinich Stands Up for Right-To-Choose and Gender Equality


Note from Lila Garrett

"For a very long time many of us tried to convince Dennis Kucinich to run for President. He made his decision in his own way, thoughfully, after much soul searching and meticulous analysis of the issues. I love the way his mind works. I have known Dennis for many years, during all of which he has stood for peace and patience. I watched him evolve on his position on Choice, for example, the way he listened to women -- really listened. The way he opposes the Bush administration's attempt to criminalize abortion. Dennis not only adamantly opposes the criminalization of abortion, he has come to support Choice not just with lip service, but with concrete programs to move it forward. He would fund abortions for poor women through Medicaid. He would make Roe v. Wade a litmus test for judicial appointments. Once he embraces a program, he doesn't just let it happen. He makes it happen." -- April, 2003

http://www.kucinich.net/issues/issue_rightsreproductive.htm


FEMINISTS FOR KUCINICH


We are feminists who consider the Bush administration a danger to our country and the world, and see a regime change in 2004 as the highest political priority. Rather than waiting to hear what all the Democratic candidates have to say, then jumping on the bandwagon of the least offensive, we decided to make our own list of priorities and see who agrees with us. Here's our list:

We want a candidate who will stop the war on the poor. Though an estimated 20 -29 percent of Americans live in poverty, the Republicans’ new tax code penalizes the poor and rewards the rich. Women on welfare are forced into low-paid jobs, even in the absence of childcare. Food pantries can no longer meet the demand of the millions of the poor, both employed and unemployed. When anyone mentions these facts, the Republicans accuse them of inciting a "class war," but they are the ones who have started this war, whose victims are disproportionately women, children and people of color.

We want a candidate who stands for peace, respects international treaties and institutions such as the U.N. and the International Criminal Court, and tries to resolve problems through negotiation. We are horrified by the fact that our country started a war for no clear reason, on the basis of lies and distortions, in defiance of international law and world opinion, and without concern for the lives that would be lost. Far from protecting us from terrorism, such military adventures can only increase our vulnerability and feed the rage and ranks of those who seek to harm us.

We want a candidate who will defend the separation of church and state, and the individual rights guaranteed us by the Constitution. The Bush administration has instituted detention without trial; secret military tribunals; and hugely increased government surveillance of our citizens.

We want a candidate who opposes discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and who stands for women's reproductive rights and recognizes that these rights depend on universal health insurance. The right to choose means women are entitled to abortion, if that is their choice, and to all the social supports necessary to raise children, if that is their choice. The Bush administration is seeking to appoint judges who will undermine these rights.

We want a candidate who will address questions of global economic imbalance and stand up for the rights of immigrants. International financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank, led by the U.S., have imposed “structural adjustment” policies that relentlessly increase the gulf between rich and poor countries -- driving many of the world's poor to come here, legally or illegally. We call for an end to the harassment of undocumented workers by the INS and the political persecution of immigrants of color--the round-ups and detentions. We are a "nation of immigrants" and should embrace this heritage.

We want a candidate who will challenge racism domestically and internationally; who understands that affirmative action is still needed and that our schools have been re-segregated; and who will take a stand against the Republican Party’s use of stereotypes to spread division and fear, from Reagan's "welfare queens" to today's demonized version of Islam.

Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate who not only agrees with all these points but has developed policies to support them: starting a cabinet-level Department of Peace; supporting unions and the right to organize; cutting the bloated military budget; restoring environmental regulations and launching a “Global Green Deal” to benefit developing countries; withdrawing from NAFTA and the WTO and challenging IMF/World Bank policies; repealing the “Patriot Act”; upholding Roe v. Wade; working for universal health insurance; and abolishing the racially and economically biased death penalty.

Because we feel that he comes closest to representing our priorities, we have decided to support Dennis Kucinich for President and hope you will join us by signing this statement. Of course this does not preclude our voting for whoever gets the nomination; this is about whom to support in the primaries. Molly Ivins has put it: Vote your heart in the primaries, vote your head in November. If Dennis wins enough hearts, there won't be any contradiction.

Original Signers:


Barbara Ehrenreich, a political essayist whose most recent book is Nickel and Dimed: Surviving in Low Wage America

Angela Gilliam, professor and scholar of Black feminist anthropology and international feminism

Ynestra King, a writer and activist specializing in environmental, feminist, and disability issues

Gail Lerner, an organizer in the global women's movement, who has worked with several United Nations agencies and international NGOs in the U.S. and abroad

Grace Paley, a writer and peace activist whose works include Enormous Changes at the Last Minute, Later That Same Day, and Just as I Thought

Rosalind Petchesky, an international feminist activist and Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Hunter College and the City University of New York

Digna Sanchez, a Latina community activist in New York, president of the Aspirante Alumni Fellowship

Meredith Tax, a novelist, essayist and international organizer of feminist writers, whose books include Rivington Street and Union Square

http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/feminists_4_kucinich/

[Zuni]

10. everyone has their vices

I am pro-choice but I think partial birth abortion is revolting. Hopefully he would fight against that.

[Pastiche423]

16. "partial birth abortion" is a misnomer

invented by the anti-choice crowd.

Late term abortion is the correct term and is peformed only when the mother's life is at risk or the baby is dead in utero.

Please educate yourself.

[Fleshdancer]

22. The majority

of late term abortions involve wanted pregnancies where either the life of the mother is in danger, or the fetus is extremely malformed (example - the spinal chord doesn't fully develop).

This procedure is extremely rare and risky. A doctor would have to be insane to perform such a thing for superficial reasons. For politicians to think that keeping this legal would result in women aborting 8 mos. old fetuses for the hell of it is insulting. To illegalize late term abortions without the provision of protecting the life of the mother is criminal.

[eileen from OH]

23. Partial birth abortion. . .

is a 'publican made-up issue. Late-term abortions is an INCREDIBLY RARE procedure, and I do mean INCREDIBLY RARE - to the point of being meaningless. It's only done when there is a virtual certainty that the woman will die. This is NOT something that is done routinely, this is NOT something that is done because a woman "waited too long", this is NOT something that is even, in most case, a choice - unless you consider the choice of a woman living or dying a choice. "Partial birth abortion" is the conservative boogeyman, it's the issue that is supposed to make us all re-think our feelings about choice.

I have many conflicted feelings about abortion. I could "never". But I also could never advocate that another woman be forced to live by what I would do.

eileeeen from OH

[DeathvadeR]

11. Kucinich is just the dems version of Nader.

Thats right.... Both parties are actually working in cahoots... It's a charade....

[Tinoire]

12. Statement re PBA's

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH)took to the House floor to strongly oppose a ban on so-called "partial-birth abortions":


"Let's all be clear -- the bill before us is unconstitutional because it does not contain an exemption for the health of the woman who seeks to exercise her reproductive rights. There is no doubt about that. This is because the US Supreme Court has already ruled on very similar legislation in Stenberg v. Carhart. Opponents of the right to reproductive choice should know that.

"This bill likely will not prevent a single abortion. But it does defeat the rights of women.

"I believe that equal protection under the law and the right to privacy should be freedoms enjoyed by women as well as men. But women will not be equal to men if this constitutionally protected right is denied. This bill infringes on those rights for women, and that is why I will oppose it.

"Throughout my career, I have tried to work to reduce the need for abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies through comprehensive sex education, birth control, and increased access to health care. I think that all of my colleagues would agree that we should work to prevent unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions. I will continue those efforts, but the bill that is before us today is the wrong way to do that.

"Advocates of this bill who say they stand in defense of life would be more believable if they worked to support families, with adequate child care funding, child tax credit relief for vulnerable families, and peace. For some, this debate is only about politics. The fact that other abortion legislation, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, has been advanced on the publicity of the Laci Peterson tragedy shows the unfortunate politicization of this debate.

"I do know, however, that many are sincere in their desire to reduce the need for abortions. In leading the nation toward this goal, we must preserve Constitutional rights. We must respect the freedom and equality of women. The best path for our country is not to escalate the divisiveness and political nature of this debate. Rather, it is to remember the principles of this nation and refrain from undermining the freedom of choice. We must respect the basic human dignity of women to make personal decisions." June 2003
http://www.ruminatethis.com/archives/001413.html

[silverlib]

15. Thanks Tinoire -

I had my arguments for this issue well lined out, I thought, but you have worked hard on putting together a great fact sheet. I've never had a problem with the growth of anyone's thoughts, but your posts have shown how DKs thoughts progressed and a deeper insight to how his brilliant mind works.

Thanks again.

[eileen from OH]

13. Okay, I have no problem

with a candidate changing his or her mind. And I certainly think that epiphanies do happen and actually respect politicians who can grow, and come to embrace alternate positions. My prob with DK is the timing (among other things.) Unless I'm missing something, he didn't change his mind gradually, but virtually overnight - as in the night before he decided to run for President. His district IS heavily Catholic, and ethnic and they have been very supportive of him. I wonder how they feel about his change. I wonder if they feel betrayed. I would have had less trouble if he'd expressed doubt, or just said he was open, or said his opinion was evolving and at least done the cat's-on-the-roof thing. (Old joke. Ignore me.) But from all I can tell, he went from anti-abortion to saying he would not support Supreme Court nominees who wouldn't back Roe V. Wade verrrrry quickly.

I'm from NEOhio and I've posted before about the problems DK has in his own state. Outside of his own district, he couldn't be elected to anything. He couldn't even hang on to the mayorship of Cleveland for more than one 2-year term. I hate to bring up the whole electibility thing (but I will) and I'm telling you - there is no way DK could win OH. Most of us outside his district just kinda roll our eyes at the mention of his name. He's got more support outside of Ohio than in it. And WE'RE from the liberal part of the state - Cincy, etc., is really conservative.

I don't hate DK, and think he's probably sincere. It may be that familiarity breeds contempt, but most OH Dems that I know (and I know quite a few) have watched DK for years, seen the firebrand routine ad nauseum, and are singularly unimpressed.

eileeeen from OH

[wheresthemind]

17. it wasn't over night!

He abstained from voting for nearly two years on all abortion related legislation!

That does not sounds over night.

Look at Dean, his answers on retirement age depend on the month!

[eileen from OH]

20. Hey, chill. . .

I stand corrected. Did he give any explanation why he abstained during that 2 years? Did he campaign as a pro-lifer? Did that matter to his district? Did he go back to his constituents and explain why he was abstaining? I don't know the answer, do you?

And why are you bringing Dean into it? Did I?

I really dislike the "gotcha" game, whether it's DK or Dean or anyone. As I said before, candidates (and people) evolve. Dean's position on the retirement age can feasibly change, based on circumstances - specifically, the state of the economy. Don't know what outside circumstances would change one's view on abortion. Do you?

eileeeen from OH

[wheresthemind]

21. I'm so sorry...

I'm very snappy today... Its been soooo busy this last week with Dennis coming tomorrow.

I apologize, I brought up Dean because I was reading one of the links up above and it helped send me into a rage.

Some speculate his GF had something to do with it....

However he tells us that around that time the legislation became less and less about encouraging life, and more and more about criminalizing abortion. Thats when he decided to take a step back and reevaluate his position. As I understand it he would talk with women for long amounts of time about this issue. As he says he came to the conclusion that a women cannot truly be free unless she has control over her own body.

I'm about to collapse and am become incoherent so I will call it a night there! Sorry again! : )

Read Tinores posts! Her and Dan Brown are some of the most well-spoken people on these boards and will not snap at you no matter what!

[hippywife]

25. I was an Ohioan

from Columbus for 38 of my 45 years, and in many ways still consider myself one, so I can't agree that he couldn't be elected outside of his home district.

The fact that he didn't hold onto the mayor's seat for more than a term was due to a concerted smear campaign and the short-sightedness on the part of his constituency at the time. The fact that his actions against corporate interests on behalf of the working people of his city, which eventually led to a savings of a whopping $200,000,000 has long since put that into perspective. The fact that he has worked tirelessly to personally intervene in keeping community hospitals which treat the poor open and running, and in saving what jobs he could in his community speak volumes to the dedication and the kind of engagement we can expect from him as president.

[wheresthemind]

18. that first one is HORRIABLE!

gee I wonder who he is voting for...

the bob harris comparison was had a lot less spin then that!

Not to mention this:

KUCINICH & DOCTORS AGREE ON UNIVERSAL COVERAGE
From Associated Press today: "Washington -- Nearly 8,000 U.S.
physicians are calling for government-financed national health
insurance, which they say would cover every American while saving
billions of dollars.

"Ten years after President Clinton's national health plan died in
Congress, tangled in complexity and under fierce assault from the
medical, insurance and pharmaceutical industries, the doctors argue that
private sector solutions have failed. The doctors would put in place a
single-payer system -- essentially an upgraded and expanded version of
Medicare...

"Of the Democratic presidential candidates, only Rep. Dennis Kucinich is
advocating a single-payer system."

Our campaign is giving voice not only to the aspirations of millions of
Americans in need of health coverage, but many thousands of physicians
and healthcare practitioners who know they can't adequately serve the
public until national health insurance is implemented.
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_universalhealth.htm

[hippywife]

24. I'm getting pretty fed up

and pretty suspicious of the consistent effort around here these days to keep trying to paint Kucinich as anti-choice. His stance, and the reasons for it, have been explained and outlined extensively over and over again.

While I agree this is an emotional issue and don't belittle its importance, I would suggest as many already have, that people look at what platforms and agendas are truly life affirming, and which are not. Even the staunchest pro-choice activists around here seem to realize that abortions are ugly and, in the grander scheme of things, merely a symptom of the larger diseases of poverty and ignorance. The cure is only going to be found in attacking the root causes not each other.

It's one of the many reasons, as a woman, I support DK. He has a conscience on this issue and it shows. While he personally wishes them to be unneccessary, he upholds the Constitution and acknowledges a woman's right to choice and equality regarding her own body. With the possible exception of the current administration, no one glibbly throws away a life or the possibility of it lightly. (Ask any woman who has had the procedure or anyone close to that woman.) It is a gut wrenching decision both before and after, lingering both physically and emotionally for a long, long time. It requires much consideration and soul searching, a lot of "what if things could be different. Am I making the right decision?" This process is not unlike what DK as a caring, life affirming human being has gone through on this issue and I feel he has truly arrived on the other side of it with a new vision.

The right throws this highly emotional issue out there in loaded yet ambiguous terms meant to cause confusion and division in our ranks, weaken us, and veer us from the course of taking on their own bloody agenda. They play us for a bunch of emotionally charged, tree-hugging pacifists without the common sense to focus and some folks are not only playing right into their hands, but picking up the ball and running with it.

If we get busy focusing on the core issues, this argument could become a thing of the past! It's going to take a long time and a concerted fight. Let's not start it off by fighting amongst ourselves to our own demise when there are bigger fish to fry these days.