Kucinich blasts Edwards on "Consistent Lack of Integrity"

[rhombus]

Snip ---

"This is a serious matter and I'm calling him on it," Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, said in a telephone interview Friday. "Whispering, trying to rig an election, then denying what's going on and making excuses. It all reflects a consistent lack of integrity ."

Kucinich's bitterness toward Edwards was somewhat ironic, given the boost he gave Edwards in Iowa when they were both running for president in 2004. Kucinich, who is very popular with a small but ardent group of liberal activists, asked his Iowa supporters to back Edwards if they didn't meet voting thresholds in any of the state's precincts. That effort increased Edwards' final delegate count in the state, putting Edwards within striking distance of winning the caucuses that year.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QBT8HG0&show_article=1




Kucinich helped Edwards place second in the 2004 Iowa caucuses, and he gets stabbed in the back by John Edwards. Lack of integrity indeed.

[jsamuel]

1. Turns out Kucinich refused to debate some rivals himself in his congressional runs.

Turns out Kucinich refused to debate some rivals himself in his congressional runs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3374495&mesg_id=3374495

[merci_me]

8. IMO there's a big difference

It's one thing to refuse to debate your GOP or Ind. opponent. In the primary, they are all representing the same party and should be expected to step up and endorse the eventual primary winner.

Sure it's a crowded field, but given the outrageous cost of paid media, money becomes the king maker in politics. MSM already tries to limit our access and pre-determine who our candidate will be. Whenever the candidates have access to public media, so we can see them and hear them without MSM interpreting for us, we should grab it. To have some candidates try to squelch our access tells me more about them than they plan to show. It will be remembered.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. Fixing a debate and refusing to debate are two different things. If you come right out and

say, No, I'm not going to debate that is at least up front. The voters can decide. If you collude with another candidate to exclude other candidates that's wrong and the voters never know what happened.

if Edwards and Clinton just said we won't debate, while some voters might be turned off, it wouldn't be the same.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. I agree. So why is Kucinich participating in fixing the debates--something he claims to oppose?

Why has DK been silent on these 11 candidates being excluded from debates and forums?

Warren Ashe (D-Virginia)
Randy Crow (D-North Carolina)
Laura Davis-Aaron (D-Tennessee)
Michael Forrester (D-Colorado)
Dan Francis (D-New York)
Alfonzo Jones (D-California)
John Joseph Kennedy (D-Georgia)
Karl Krueger (D-South Dakota)
Sal Mohamed (D-Iowa)
James Prattas (D-Hawaii)
Ole Savior (D-Minnesota)

http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm

[John Q. Citizen]

23. Have they showed up at the debates and been turned away?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. We don't know. The media excludes them from its reporting. We also have the example of John Cox (R)

Cox is the former chair of the Cook County Republicans. He is running for president but is not considered "serious" enough to be included in the debates. Have you seen any articles about him protesting his exclusion? No, but he has stated his opposition to that on C-Span during a minor meet-and-greet event that several candidates attended (the NH GOP included him in the event). The point? Even if all 11 of those candidates vigorously opposed being shut out of debates (as they logically do...) the media would not report it. Surely Dennis Kucinich, given his principled position on this matter, should be leading the charge against this tacit collusion to limit the field by the 8 current candidates, the media, and the DNC.

[Alexander]

25. Have any of those candidates even bothered to shown up?

[w4rma]

27. Why did Kucinich avoid showing up to debate Edwards at the Cuomo-Gingrich Cooper Union Challenge?

There is a lot of talk about the audacity of Edwards calling for a better debate format. The implication is that this is a crass political move for political gain, given the intense damage to the Edwards candidacy the campaigns of certain candidates are doing. :crazy: The truth is John Edwards actually cares about improving the state of the political debate in America. He was the only candidate who accepted an invitation from Democratic icon Mario Cuomo, a three term governor of New York, for a real debate in the Cooper Union Dialogue Series. What is this? It is an idea devised by Governor Cuomo and Newt Gingrich and modeled on Abraham Lincoln's famous 1860 address at New York City's Cooper Union. The purpose of this is to force candidates to truly discuss the issues and their views, not merely recite 30 second rehearsed sound-bites. Only John Edwards stepped up to the plate to accept this challenge among Democrats. On the Republican side Rudy Ghouliani has stated he is willing to engage in an actual discussion of issues (hey, there is a first time for everything!). Cuomo and Gingrich also have proposed that there be nine debates leading up to the general election next year with each debate focusing on a single topic.

==This was not a fundraiser or a stump speech for the former North Carolina senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee. Edwards came to talk policy.

Outside the confines of sound bite-driven national debates, he took the opportunity to introduce policies he would implement as president to protect low- and middle-income families.

This was the spirit of the event. Like presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Bill Clinton, Edwards took the stage to engage in serious discourse about the policy behind the rhetoric.

Cuomo and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) kicked off the Cooper Union Dialogue Series in February and sent an open invitation to every presidential contender to speak or debate. Edwards was the first to RSVP. Cuomo noted that other candidates were welcome to debate Edwards, but nobody had taken the challenge.==
http://www.cityhallnews.com/news/128/ARTICLE/1200/2007-06-28.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3376264&mesg_id=3376264

I'm very very disappointed to understand now that Kucinich has shown himself to be a hypocrite over this faux outrage.

And for that matter (this particular outrage of mine has been building up for some time about Kucinich), when the heck is Kucinich going to do something about investigating the Katrina failures? He is head of the committee, in the House, that is supposed to be handling this. LIEberman is head of the committee in the Senate and we know LIEberman won't do it. But Kucinich hasn't done any more than LIEberman has on this issue.

[CarolNYC]

28. I'm not sure Kucinich was invited....

Mario said he invited "all of the top candidates", Democrat and Republican and didn't list who he thought those "top candidates" were....I have a hard time believing that Dennis, given the chance, would pass up a debate. He showed up for the Biden inspired all-Iraq debate, which others ignored.

So, do you then think that Edwards is a hypocrite for not showing up at that debate, the all-Iraq one, the one that all of the candidates (except, I imagine, for that list of other candidates for Pres that have been floating around...and maybe even they were invited, I don't know...but none of them showed up) were invited to but only three accepted?

[Adelante]

2. I always felt Dennis got out-slicked in Iowa

He even said not long ago, he would do it again this time around. I hope he will rethink this play now.

[BootinUp]

3. Ouch! n/t

[bluedog]

4. two groups of four each, chosen randomly.

In New Hampshire, Clinton seemed to lay responsibility on Edwards.

"I think he has some ideas about what he'd like to do," she said, adding she liked participating in the forums.

For his part, Edwards told reporters in Iowa that he wasn't in favor of barring anyone from future gatherings. Rather, he said he wanted to see them separated into two groups of four each, chosen randomly.

"The result would be that we would have a much more serious discussion and people would actually be able to see what the differences are between us," he said.

Kucinich called Edwards' explanation "disturbing" and said he planned to contact Edwards and Clinton immediately to demand an apology.

"I accept their offer to participate in a debate with just the two of them," Kucinich said. "John should be happy with this, since he wants a small group."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QBT8HG0&show_article=1

**sounds like a good idea to me.....as long as the same questions are asked........

[bluestateguy]

6. The fact is this

It's hard to have a quality exchange of ideas in 90 minutes or two hours with 8 candidates crammed onto the stage. There are clearly three major, heavyweight candidates in each party, and there is no constitutional right to be in a debate.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

20. WEEEEEE

So, how will Edwards respond when he's not invited to debate Clinton, Obama, and Richardson?

[Mz Pip]

7. I like that idea

These debates with 10 people on the stage, each one getting 30 seconds to make a point, leave a lot to be desired. I rarely remember what any one candidate says over the other, unless someone delivers a zinger. THe issues are too important to rely on zingers to make a choice.

These debates need to be smaller. It would give the lower tiered candidates more of an opportunity to get their message out and not be constantly overshadowed by the front-runners.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[madfloridian]

5. Kucinich is substituting Edwards now for Dean in 04.

Read this.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=07&year=2007&base_name=post_4218

[Strawman]

9. Guess my hearing was right

What lies are next from the see-no-evil-from-my-candidate brigades?

But really, who fucking cares?

[rinsd]

10. Now its election fixing? Has Dennis lost his mind?

[bluedog]

11. he needs media attention

and this is his way of getting it........

[BlueStater]

12. Kucinich was attacking Edwards and the other candidates long before this exchange

He can shove it.

[LWolf]

31. As can Edwards and the others, lol.

[Cybergata]

13. I voted for Kucinich in the last Primary, but . . .

. . . he hasn't been very impressive this go around. I find that both John Edward's and Bill Richardson's comments have been more impressive on the liberal side of all the candidates. Edward's comments before ACORN and before various Unions have been impressive. I have to admit that once I saw Kucinich on Letterman with his so trite young, blond wife, I'm not as impressed with him. He isn't getting my vote this time around, John or Bill will.

[madfloridian]

14. Breitbart is right wing and Drudge's cohort in talking points. Why do DUers use it?

The father of the US president will speak at a Reverend Moon event.

Here is what I found about Breitbart at Insight Magazine.

From Insight:

"Here are the "media outlets", the links given at the Insight Magazine. Note them carefully.

Insight Magazine

Drudge Report
Human Events Online
American Spectator
National Review Online
Breitbart.com"

The starting points for the right wing noise machine.

More about Insight:

"Insight is Washington's premier political intelligence report and was recognized as America's No. 1 conservative news site by Rolling Stone Magazine's 2006 "Hot List". Insight's articles have been cited by FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Laura Ingraham -- among many others"

So why do so many DUers use Breitbart as a reference?

[BeyondGeography]

16. Non-issue...It's an AP story on Breitbart's site

You can find it everywhere, e.g.:

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/business/index.ssf?/base/politics-1/1184340551155410.xml&storylist=mibusiness

[madfloridian]

18. Breitbart is quoted often here. Edwards is the new Dean for DK

and I very much resent all of it.

There's a lot of backstory that needs to be told but it won't be because I would be attacked....and trust me it is not the hell worth it.

[SaveElmer]

15. Kucinich should talk...

His whole portrayal of this situation has been dishonest....

He is a fringe candidate worried that the days of his riding the backs of more serious candidates for free publicity may be coming to an end...

[madfloridian]

17. A DUer was DK's media guy in 03, and Dean was the hated one.

I wondered who it would be this time.

The vitriol toward Dean has not really stopped either. I don't post against DK because I had some bad episodes when I was critical.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. Kucinich's lack of integrity? Why is he silent on these 11 Democratic candidates being excluded?

Warren Ashe (D-Virginia)
Randy Crow (D-North Carolina)
Laura Davis-Aaron (D-Tennessee)
Michael Forrester (D-Colorado)
Dan Francis (D-New York)
Alfonzo Jones (D-California)
John Joseph Kennedy (D-Georgia)
Karl Krueger (D-South Dakota)
Sal Mohamed (D-Iowa)
James Prattas (D-Hawaii)
Ole Savior (D-Minnesota)

http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm

[Stop Cornyn]

24. Thus ends my interest in Dennis Kucinich's campaign. I thought that he was winning the "ideas

primary" but a candidacy based on persuading other (more electable) candidates to adopt your ideas dies when you start falsely accusing the other candidates of bad motives.

See ya in 2012, Dennis. It was nice while it lasted (last cycle, I switched from Kucinich to Kerry in May; this time I made it to July before losing faith in Kucinich in favor of Obama or Edwards -- to be determined -- so I guess that's progress).

[Tellurian]

29. "See ya in 2012, Dennis. It was nice while it lasted "

It seems your initial instinct of shifting your support from Kucinich to another candidate were correct the first time. I don't think DK realizes the damage he is doing to himself by accusing Edwards and Clinton of malicious motives. I hope another candidate is found who will challenge him for his House seat next cycle. He's overstayed his welcome as a fringe candidate.

[Red Knight]

30. I doubt you were ever voting for DK anyway

Seriously, I doubt it.

The term: "more electable" is a giveaway.

At least be honest.