Kucinich policy... I wanna know

[MuseRider]

OK, it has been a rough week. I am a commited Kucinich supporter. I believe in the man but then again, this is a very important election. I want more than anything to make the right decision. I have tried to follow along with each candidate and there is something to like about all of them.
I do not agree with DK 100%. He has voted in several ways that I do not agree with but he still fits me the best. So with that in mind and with all the bad reactions to him here I wanna know what you all really think of his policies. Please no flaming, this is my sincere look at what others think of my candidate.
To start...

I did not agree with his vote on the flag burning ammendment. However I feel his vote against the Patriot Act was far more important.

I keep hearing about how he bankrupted Cleveland. Those of you who lived through this must have had a very difficult time. However, he ran on the idea that he would not sell out the public utility. How could he have done other than what he did? He did it at great personal and professional risk.

The abortion issue keeps coming up. He changed his stance long before he was drafted into running for president. He must have felt very strongly about it before he changed. To me his soul searching and changing his stance for the reasons he sited show someone who is willing to act for the greater good, even if he does not personally agree with it. Is this a bad thing? I feel very strongly about this. I was a teenage girl before Roe V Wade. I know how important this issue is and if he had not changed his mind I would not even consider him for any office.

The Peace Department. Why is this a bad thing? Have you read it? It certainly sounds to me like something we need.

On and on, you get the idea.
I feel that this is a man who is an advocate for the people (credit to someone else, thanks), who would try to lift up the least amoung us (again credit to someone else). I wanna know why I might be wrong or why someone else might be better. Sincerly.

BTW, I have already heard that he is a whacko, a loony, an idealogue, he looks like a gnome and he is creepy. I don't believe any of that, just wanted you to know I won't change my mind about that.

I will try not to respond much because I am asking for your help, I really wanna know. A good citizen is a well informed one or so they tell me. I wanna know.

[Tinoire]

1. On the flag burning

Flag Burning- Answering it simply from my heart and from having seen Dennis in person.

As a 20 year vet, frankly I could care less if people use the flag as toilet paper and don't get riled up about the issue one way or another because to me it's just a ridiculous, manipulative piece of cloth that both the anti and pro FBA people are making too much of an issue over.

That said. It is still the flag of this country. A flag that was supposed to stand for good and decency. A flag for which many, whether right or wrong, went and shed their blood when asked. It used to be a flag that was respected and admired by down-trodden people all over the world who believed the words "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. ... "

Kucinich is the son of a poor family that spent many lights sleeping in their car and he loves his country and its people. He also loves the flag and all it was supposed to stand for. What he wants to do is restore the honor and dignity of that flag.

The second time I saw Kucinich was in a room full of REAL patriots- it was at the Veterans for Peace Conference in San Francisco Friday & Saturday.

The room was packed with men like S Brian Wilson, a Vietnam veteran who in 1987 had his legs cut off at Concord, California, when he lay down in front of a train to protest a Naval train carrying weapons headed for Central America.

Kate Berrigan, the daughter of Father Berrigan

Rachel Corrie's parents Craig and Cindy Corrie

Representatives from Military Families Speak out

and hundreds of vets, disabled vets who lost a limb or part of their life for that flag.

And they, they too, would like to see that flag honored.

In that light is how you look at Kucinichs vote of the FBA.

Blind rage is not an answer. The blind rage to destroy out of anger and pain are not the answer. The answer is to fix the problem and on that I agree with him 100%.

Peace!

Pasted from an earlier thread where we had discussed Abortion and Flag-burning

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=173242&mesg_id=173242#173774

[MuseRider]

2. Thanks

I just bookmarked to peruse later, it looks like an informative one.

[Tinoire]

10. Here's another thread with LOTS of information for you :)

Bio, Vision and Issues

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=10913#25588

[MuseRider]

14. I already had that

one bookmarked. In fact, that thread gave me enough info to solidify my choice. I am interested to see what comes up on this thread, if anything.

[JasonBerry]

5. Tinoire: VERY GOOD!! N/T

~

[LWolf]

3. I think your candidate would make the best

president of the United States and hope he is elected.

He has 2 votes I don't agree with; but I do understand the votes. Only 2 disagreements puts me as close as humanly possible, I think, if I'm being realistic. I have never found this close a match before. Which is why he has my vote!

[JohnKleeb]

4. Wolf dont forget also how he tells about the human cost of this war

I just love that.

[LWolf]

11. You're right, John.

He looks at the human cost in every issue. I personally can't see a better way to honor/support troops than to make sure you don't send them into danger unless there is no other alternative. And then make sure they and their families get the benefits due them when they get home.

He's also looking at the human cost in the current health care system, public ed, social security...I could go on.

[JohnKleeb]

13. I wish the others who opposed the war would talk about that

Sure the war was illegal but what about morally or what about all those people who would perish. He appeals to the heart and has you asking WHY?

[Il_Coniglietto]

6. I'm a Kucinich supporter as well

so you won't hear me calling him loony. I think his more unconventional side is rather endearing, probably because I'm like that myself.

Um, I don't agree with his flag burning vote and I think there was one other one...but besides those, I think I agree with him on all of his points. And since I definitely agree with him more than any other candidate, he's who I'm rooting for.

Tinoire: Beautifully put and I see where Dennis is coming from on this one. Don't agree personally, but I have much respect for his decision.

[Yupster]

7. I eliminated Kucinich because of

his health care proposal which seems nutty to me.

I'm committed to single payer as he is, but as I understand his plan, he wants it financed by a new 7.7 % tax on all businesses, whether they currently provide health insurance for their employees or not.

In a time when companies are moving jobs overseas, and so many companies are struggling to stay afloat, a new major tax just seems nuts.

Mosley-Braun has a similar proposal, but she finances it out of general revenues which just seems logical to me. If there's going to be such a major change to our society, it shoud be paid for by all of us, not just one group.

Also, Mosley-Braun wants to detach health insurance from employment which again only seems to make sense to me. Why in the world should your health insurance be dependent on where you work anyway? Health insurance is a permanent need. Why anyone would want to tie it to a temporary condition like employment doesn't make any sense to me. We change jobs. We stop working for years. We go back to school. There's no reason health insurance should change each time your life changes.

So I'm for health insuarnce being detached from employment, and I certainly don't want another major tax thrown onto businesses. I'd call that the full employment for India tax.

[Fovea]

17. 7.7%

is peanuts compared to what most companies shell out in benefits, or lose in productivity to sick employees (or good employees to take a job with insurance elsewhere) if they don't.

I think the big shops would breathe a sigh of relief, and the small companies would sleep better knowing that preventing the loss of a key employee to ill health or better benefits would be worth it.

I too like CMB's plan, but Dennis's is not unworkable.

[no name no slogan]

18. Take a look at the "rest of the story", and it's actually CHEAPER

Keep in mind that right now, health insurance costs account for 12% of our current GDP. Most businesses pay AT LEAST this much for healthcare for their employees. A 7.7% tax would actually be a REDUCTION in cost for most companies.

Most businesses spend at least 12% on employee health benefits, including all the wasted man-hours used to choose a carrier, choose a plan, set a benefit level, etc. If you went to most businesses and told them that they could get BETTER coverage for their workers for LESS money, most of them would have their checkbooks out in a second.

Also, that 7.7% tax can be split between employer and employee, just like how Social Security contributions are split 50/50 between employer and employee. That brings this tax down to potentially less than 4% for employers, which is a helluva deal considering their current costs.

As Dennis has said, "we're already paying for Universal Health Care, we're just not getting it."

[MuseRider]

22. OK, so far so good

but I have been looking and I can't find what the unemployed or retired but not 65 do for health care. Maybe I am just confused but I do not see it. DO you know or can you direct me to a place to find out?

[diamondsoul]

24. Well SHOOT! They took down the financial

phase in information which sort of covered that. Anyway, this system is based on the existing Medicare system. Unemployed people and people unable to work are already eligible for medicare in most cases. The phase in information that I read showed the elderly and children being phased in first and the age range was pretty good sized.

[MuseRider]

25. Thanks so much

was this on his web site? If so I must have missed it before. I assume it will be back up eventually. I will keep looking. This is a concern for us since my husband retired at 55 and I am not yet 50 and make so little money for what I do. We can't afford insurance but since we are not destitute we can cover for now. People in our situation would be happy to pay into the system. It would surely be less expensive for much better care than we are all offered now.

[John_Shadows_1]

27. There's more than that point...

.. there's the fact that he wants to eliminate profit from health care insurance - he's taking the exact, correct stance.

[Tinoire]

8. NPR Kucinich interview on Abortion

((The entire interview is excellent!))

EDWARDS: Until recently, you opposed abortion. Why the change of heart?

Rep. KUCINICH: Well, actually the evolution that I've had on the issue of abortion has come about as a result of a number of factors. One has been the fact that over the last few years there's been a move in the Congress to try to criminalize abortion. I don't believe in criminalization. I think abortion should be made less necessary and you do that through birth control and sex education. But when this Congress makes a move towards criminalization, what it's really saying is that a woman doesn't equality in the society and I support a woman's right to choose. I think that it is fundamental in a democracy that a woman have equality and any effort to try to criminalize abortion would strike at the heart of that equality. So I support Roe v. Wade... Was I always there? 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..., to try to create a culture which is life-affirming through prenatal care and postnatal care and child care and a living wage, universal health care and all these things which can help life unfold to the fullest. But I think that we are at a moment where there is a serious effort afoot to wipe out Roe v. Wade and I'm not going to be any part of that. I support a woman's right to choose.

EDWARDS: This is curious, though... you've been around a while. Did you have some sort of epiphany or did you decide to run for president?

Rep. KUCINICH: Well, actually long before I became a candidate for president... this was an issue that I had been thinking about in the last Congress. I was the only member of Congress who cast a 'present' vote on an issue that dealt with late-term abortions when the Congress came back after a Supreme Court decision that said that a bill that the Nebraska legislature had passed, which is similar to a bill that Congress had passed, was unconstitutional because it didn't provide for a woman's health and didn't really describe the procedure. When I saw Congress over the Supreme Court's constitutional issues that had been raised nevertheless pass the same bill, when that moment came, I thought this really isn't about a concern for life that's being expressed here. What I saw it as was a concern about crass politics. I am concerned about life and I think that we need to do everything we can to make abortions less necessary. But we have to remember in this constitutionally based government we have that the right of equality is also at stake here for women and women will never truly be equal unless they can be free to make their own choices. And so I would say that my evolution on this issue has come about as a result of being in the House, looking at the way these votes have developed, looking at the politics of it and not wanting to play politics with this because this is the kind of deeply personal issue that affects so many lives. At the same time the underlying question is what can we do to minimize the number of abortions. The way to do it, I think, and what I've always supported is to make sure that sex education and birth control can make abortions less necessary. And for myself, I could not have got to the position I'm at without the help of a lot of women who have appealed to me and said, 'Look, there are so many issues that are at stake here, would you please look at them.' I've kept an open mind and finally arrived at a place as a member of Congress before I became a presidential candidate where I was able to say what I think what's best for the country is to try to take a position where you work to try to make abortions less necessary but do it within a constitutional framework. And that's where I am and as president, I think, because of my experience with this issue, I'll be in a position to heal this nation, where I can take the nation away from the bitterness and the divisiveness which has occurred over the issue of abortion and understanding the concerns of people on both sides but being very firmly supportive of the constitutional rights which women have, not only under Roe v. Wade, but of an inherent constitutional right a woman has to equality.

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=3837§ionID=33

[Tinoire]

9. Kucinich and the Pro-Life / Pro-Choice switch (Diamondsoul)

Kucinich and the Pro-Life / Pro-Choice switch
diamondsoul (331 posts) Sun Aug-24-03 05:03 PM
Original message
Kucinich and the PL- PC switch


Since this thing just keeps coming up and since someone else posted a thread showing when the Draft Kucinich movement began, adding still more credence to my argument, here we go.

Recently this issue was brought up yet again at Delphi Forums. The poster doesn't ravel much outside her own forum as far as I can tell so I didn't hesitiate to clarify things for her. I did so by going to C-span.org and looking up votes on abortion issues during 2001 and 2002. Here's what I found-

In Sept of 2001, there was a vote on an abortion related issue, the last mention of it I find in the 107th Congress, First Session.

"Rejected: Sanchez amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 107-218 that sought to allow abortions to be performed in overseas military hospitals (rejected by a recorded vote of 199 ayes to 217 noes, Roll No. 357)."

Kucinich opposed the Sanchez amendment. Shortly after this vote would have been the winter recess of Congress. In looking again, through the Library of Congress to check the session dates, I see that the House didn't adjourn for winter break until Dec.20th, 2001, reconvening Jan.23rd for the Second Session.

Ok, so now we're looking at when the next vote on an abortion related piece of legislation comes up. We know there wasn't anything after Sept. of 2001, and my search shows the next vote coming in March of 2002. At this point Kucinich appears to have revised his political position on abortion because he voted in favor of that legislation-

"Rejected the Jackson-Lee of Texas motion that sought to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report it back to the House forthwith with an amendment that exempts an adult sibling, grandparent, minister, rabbi, pastor, priest, or other religious leader from provisions prohibiting the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion by a yea-and-nay vote of 173 yeas to 246 nays, Roll No. 96."

In the time span between these two votes, 6 months time have passed, no abortion related legislation has crossed the floor of the House, and Kucinich has had numerous opporunities to speak to women close to him and most likely plenty of others on the subject. Given that my own change of heart took considerably less time, like about three weeks, and Kucinich had a full 6 months with which to ruminate on the subject, plus plenty of input from other sources, I'd love for someone to explain what is so suspicious about it.

Taking all of this, along with the fact that Kucinich wasn't even mentioned as a Presidential candidate until AFTER his Prayer for America speech which took place at the onset of the war earlier this year, I'd have to say the assertion that his change of positions was a political ploy is wholly unfounded and unsupportable.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=225113

[xJlM]

12. I don't have a problem with any of what you mentioned

1) The flag burning amendment probably does mean something important to veterans and members of our armed forces. Doesn't mean a thing to me, one way or the other.

2) He made a difficult choice with respect to Cleveland's public utilities, but he kept his word to the voters who elected him. Today they are better off because of his stand.

3) I'm against abortion, but then I'm a man so that's a decision I'll probably never have to participate in. I try to be responsible for my own actions, and I would be ready to support that with love and money and all the things that go with parenthood, but my decision in that matter would ultimately be a minor part of whatever my woman decided.

4) We do need a Department of Peace. We need other solutions than the ones we have been trying, that's for sure. While my hopes for a society of non-violence aren't quite as enthusiastic as those of DK and others, what do I have to lose from it?

5) The one thing I do differ with DK on is gun control. I own a semi-automatic assault rifle, along with several other guns. I don't hunt (I don't believe in killing animals). With a DK administration though, I would have a lot less reason to fear my government. Not to say NO reason, but I wouldn't have a problem with keeping my weapons locked away from intruding eyes.

[quaker bill]

15. We already have a peace department.

Believe it or not... Not that it has much influence, money, or staff.

Kucinich's proposals are too big. This country will not take that big of a leap at this time. The Bushies will just have fun scaring the daylights out of people with his ideas.

It is not about whether I agree with him or not. On most things I think he has some pretty good ideas.

Single payer socialized medicine is where we have needed to go for 20+ years.

Environmental protection is my career. Nothing would be better in my book than some new laws with teeth in them.

An early end to corporate welfare, what a bonus.

Nominating Kucinich is the quickest way to assure that we get just about 38 percent of the vote. On a good day with a tailwind, 42 tops.

Yes, me and all of my friends will vote for him if he gets the nod. But I am a liberal in a conservative town. I vote for winners very rarely.

[MuseRider]

20. Me too

I hardly ever get the satisfation of a winner. Clinton, Carter and that is about it.

[no name no slogan]

21. Kucinich is for a cabinet-level Department of Peace

one with the same stature as the Department of "Defense".

Kucinich is pulling in A LOT of support from previous non-voters and non-Democrats-- liberal, moderate AND conservative, because they see him as somebody who's not afraid to be honest and speak the truth to power. He has the same appeal that Wellstone had here in Minnesota, where many Republicans voted for him not because of his stands on issues, but because they knew he would be looking out for THEM and not some special interest.

For example, in MN, our campaign co-coordinators are both political neophytes, who've not participated in the caucuses or other DFL functions before. So are many of our supporters. I'm almost a political "veteran" because I've been to my precinct caucus a few times, and have been a delegate to the state convention.

IMHO, Dennis is the only mainstream candidate who can change the direction this country is going in. I would argue that, due to the extraordinarily low voter turnout in recent years (50%), that most Americans are ready for a REAL change in our government, and could care less about it's idealogical bent.

[Fovea]

16. Why I have a Kucinich poster in my yard.

I firmly believe that he represents the candidate that is most committed to the working and middle class. I believe that his vision of America is as a great power among a community of equal nations.

I belive that he will break the back of monopoly and special interests which have disgraced America in the eyes of the world. I believe that a Dept. of Peace, far from being a fantasy, might be the only thing that averts the majority of the world economically teaming up to bring us down like a wounded antelope on the serengeti.

George Bush's unprecidentedly criminal cabal has set the world on a course against American interests, because they percieve American interests to be world domination and empire. Sadly, right now they are correct. Only drastic measures will turn around this nightmare of a foreign policy and this domestic morass of crony capitalism. Otherwise our economy is headed the way of Japan's.

Lastly, on a personal note, if we cannot end the class warfare, it will end in violence and distruction of America's social fabric, perhaps even its soverignity.

I am supporting Kucinich because I believe it will take someone who cannot be bought or bluffed by the elites-- someone like Johnson was on civil rights-- always tenatious, sometimes brutal. I do not want a 'compassionate' *anything*! I want the new robber barons to fall hard, from their obscenely lofty gated communities. I want an America that is just, for a just America should need no gates.

[MuseRider]

19. Thank you

So far this is really good. Those of you with other views are making some good points. This is exactly what I wanted. Plus it is always nice to see the other DK people out writing away. Thanks, I am enjoying this. So far health care is something I need to look into. Please keep going if you feel the urge.

[goodhue]

23. briefly

You are right that these issues are often raised by folks who don't support Kucinich. They like to repeat and reinforce these complaints and they find validation in the media. My quick take:

1) Flag burning vote is really about the fact that he feels very passionate about the flag and reclaiming the flag from the right wing. He often waxes on about the star and stripes and likes to sing the star spangled banner. It was a vote from the heart.

Have you noticed that recently other candidates have started to talk about the importance of the flag and reclaiming the flag? Kucinich was way ahead of them on this one, but it is nice to see others steal his lines. Go Seabiscuit! :-)

2) Cleveland was never bankrupt!!! It was forced into default when banks close to muni light called in loans in retaliation for his refusal to sell the public utility to the private sector. It was an instance of sacrificing his political career for the public good. Over time Cleveland realized he was right and he was elected to Congress "because he was right."

Now Orange County, unlike Cleveland, did go bankrupt when run by a bunch of Repukes but the media doesn't like to talk about that.

3) His original abortion stance was understandable given his blue-collar catholic roots. His awareness has broadened over time to view abortion as a civil rights issue. I suspect he still disfavors abortions from a personal moral perspective, but in terms of public policy he correctly understands that women must have the right of choice as a matter of equality and freedom.

It is important to realize that his change on this issue was fully realized in early 2001 at least a year before the draft Kucinich movement began.

4) Dept of peace is a great idea. People make fun of it because they think it is wimpy and foolish. It has something to do with American culture of machismo and the myth of Charles Atlas.

People seem to ignore the fact that the idea is in the tradition of George Washington, Woodrow Wilson, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jimmy Carter & Tom Harkin, to name a few who have embraced similar concepts. People also seem generally unaware of the existing United States Institute of Peace.
http://www.usip.org/index.html

If it is such a loony concept, then why did Reagan sign the Institute of Peace Act in 1984. The Department of Peace is of course more ambitious in scope, but it is essentially the same idea.

[Armstead]

26. My honest assessment

DK is the candidate who most represents my views in totality. He is worthy of anyone's support in the primaries.

He also has a much more grounded and realistic grasp of the situation than the stereotypes image. I've heard him in interviews, and I can;t possible imagine how anyone who is even slightly liberal could disagree with his assessment and basic goals.

Frankly, he hasn't got a chance of winning. But he needs to be in the fight to the end, and as much supportas he can get to send a message to the bastids. And to lay the groundwork for future elections when a DK can go farther.

His Universal Health Plan. I am totally in favor of his goal of expanding Medicare to Universal Coverage. I'm not sure linking it to employers is the best idea, however. At least not on a mandatory basis. But those details can be sorted out. The point is, he and Mosley Braun are on the right track. We don't need the half-assed, "kiss the ass of the insurance industry" plans of the other Democrat candidates. It's junk and exclusionary. Make it real, or stop the pretense that you care.

Flag burning amendment. Yawn. He is patriotic. He is a lefty. It's good to see a patriotic lefty.

Department of Peace. I think it's a great idea. But I wish he'd called it something else. Like a Department of REsponsible Conflict Resolution. I know that's picky, but "department of Peace" does sound kind of ...er, flaky.