I'll reluctantly admit it -- Dennis has Jumped the Shark

[Armstead]

On every blindfold "issue/candidate test" I've taken, Kucinich has always come out as my choice. I agree with him politically and philosophically on almost everything. I also admire hiom as a person, especially his courage and his determination to always do the right thing, whether popular or unpopular.

At first, I thought the whole thing about a Kucinich/Paul ticket was another case of Gotcha Politics run amok...an offhand remark distorted and smeared.

But ultimately, I think it merely highlighted Kucinich's liabilities as a candidate -- and as a message carrier for the left/progressive wing of the Democrats.

I think in this campaign, Dennis has Jumped the Shark. There are just too many distractions around Kucinich that take away from the fundamental substance of his platform and message.

I'd like to blame it all on the media or his opponents. It's true that he has been unfairly marginalized and maligned by them all along. He's never given a chance to really explain his positions -- which I believe would resonate with an electable majority of Americans.

But alas, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that Dennis also brings it on himself. He doesn't know when to shut up. He doesn't know what subjects not to bring up at the dinner table. He seems to lack a sense of personal embarassment, and how to avoid it.

(And this wasn't a Dean Scream moment. Dean DIDN'T Jump the Shark back then -- that was a clear case of something that was distorted and taken out of context.)

Ironically, what is his greatest strength is also his shortcoming. That is, his unfiltered honesty. Unfortunately it is also coupled with a tendency to think out loud. That's a deadly combination in presidential politics. It makes him a loose cannon.

I actually understand -- and in some ways agree with -- what Kucinich was thinking about Paul. It basically boils down to his accompanying statement that the American Eagle has two wings, a left and a right. And a campaign team that couple include both could help to move beyond the phony partisan gridlock...And if that's the case, Paul is one of the clearest and uncompromising libertarians on the right.

However, it is a flawed logic, since he and Paul are so diametrically opposed on domestic issues.

More importantly, it's an example of how Dennis's "out-of-the-box" thinking translates into crating the perception of flakiness and nuttiness. It's like his UFO answer. Maybe he did think he saw a UFO. Maybe he did have a spiritual moment. Maybe he just had a migrane....I dunno, but he should have shot that down with a more palatable answer in the debates....Or his jumping in to couple the 18 year old vote with lowering the drinking age. (It may be correct, but there's a time and a place for such ideas -- not in a debate.)

I dunno how to deal with it. There are a lot of liberal/progressives who would havbe been great candidates this year -- but for whatever reason they're not in the race.

I still believe in Kucinich. But I think he has blown any chances of pulling an upset -- or delivering enough votes to send a message to the "top tier" candidates.

I suppose Edwards and Obama are the two main contenders as representatives of a change.

[asdjrocky]

1. I like Denny,

But Ron Paul? That is seriously around the bend.

[Armstead]

12. Would be like a Kucinich- Hagel ticket

[skipos]

49. I like him too, but in the house. No DK nomination and NO PAUL FOR VP! nt

[peace13]

2. I will wait to hear the words from Kucinich before I judge. n/t

[havocmom]

3. Yes, wasn't it his spouse who made the remark that launched a thousand

:wtf:

[Clintonista2]

10. No, after that he was asked about it and he said that he would probably choose Ron Paul

[havocmom]

13. Thanks for clearing it up for me. Been away from any real news most of the week

If DK said that, he has jumped the shark

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Link? nt

[Armstead]

23. Plain Dealer website

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. Link? nt

[Armstead]

31. google it

It's there, I've heard it, and i dont have time to look it up now for you. But it's easily found via Google.

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. If it is your assertation, it is only polite to provide the link.

Ain't cha got no manners?

[Nederland]

58. You are correct

The polite thing to do is provide the link. Here it is:

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/11/exclusive_audio_kucinich_consi.html

[Tresalisa]

81. I'm not believing it until I see it in another source or two.

This is from the link you provided

Kucinich's audience of roughly 70 people who gathered at Joanna Dennett's house in Acworth seemed to like the notion of a Kucinich/Paul ticket, although Ron Paul's press spokesman shot it down when The Plain Dealer asked about it later in the day

[RaleighNCDUer]

98. The spin - not surprising coming from the Plain Dealer -

was not an accurate reflection of the sound clip.

The audience was responding to Dennis' sense of humor. Their reaction to him saying he was "thinking about" Ron Paul (general laughter) was almost identical to their reaction to him, further in, saying that, while they both opposed the war against the overwhelming sentiment of their respective parties, they did have serious disagreements on domestic issues (general laughter).

He respects Paul's independence from the republican party line, and his integrity in saying what he thinks, but he knows full well that Paul would never support his universal health care, for one, and as that is a cornerstone of his campaign he could never bring Paul on as his VP.

All you have to do is really listen to the answer, and understand what he is saying.

[RaleighNCDUer]

97. Thank you.

And having listened to that, my respect for Dennis is increased.

Listening to the whole thing, it was obvious that (though he used Paul as an example) that what he was saying was that what is important in making the choice is integrity and principles. He knows that he has serious disagreements with Paul on domestic issues - he said so. But what makes Paul someone to "think about", using his words, was the man's integrity - his willingness to stand against the corporate corrupted mainstream. IMO, it also indicates what Dennis thinks about the current level of integrity in politics as a whole, that he would go to the extreme of pointing out Paul as a candidate with integrity, as opposed to even other members of his own party who are beholden to the monied interests that back the campaigns.

Dennis does not talk in soundbites. He expects people to actually listen to what he is saying - and he never did say he would choose, or was inclined to choose, Paul as a running mate.

[Armstead]

4. They're available online

Cleveland.com of the Plain Dealer has a recording of the discussion.

Before i heard it, I was willing to give Dennis a pass, thinking he was misinterpreted. But it was something he volunteered in response to a question if he were thinking of a cabinet or running mate.

That's when he lost me.

[frylock]

5. gore ran with lieberman and he's a fucking rock star round here..

go figure.

[Armstead]

6. Al jumped the shark in 00 -- He's redeemed himself since then

[cali]

7. do you really need this explained?

That was in 2000. He was not then what he is now.

[oasis]

11. C'mon now, Lieberman (pre 9/11 and pre Iraq invasion).(eom)

[FiveGoodMen]

61. Much as I'd prefer Gore to most of the pack that's running, I don't forgive him for that!

[intheflow]

63. ..

:spray:


Duly elected President Gore would be my #1 choice candidate (if he was running again) but it's amazing to me how many people don't seem to remember that Leiberman was on that ticket. I'm sure the reason Nader had any effect on the election was because of Lieberman. Al accepted some bass-ackwards advice that time, for sure. :(

[TwilightGardener]

8. Dennis is an opportunistic politician, just like the rest of 'em--

in the end, all politicians want to get elected, and will do or say whatever they think will get there. If that means latching on to Paul's buzz and fundraising, Dennis will do it. What baffles me is that anyone thinks he's any more principled than other Dem politicians--I see him as a grandstander, a little bit weird, and not presidential material. He's like Paul in a way--he wants to be seen as a leftie prophet truth-teller, just as Paul cultivates his image as the same on the right--but both men have turned this act into a predictable schtick, and it's no more believable to me than anyone else's act.

[cali]

9. I think you're right. He always got a pass from me even though

I agree with you about the picture you just painted, because I agreed with many of his positions, but now I'm not sure he even believes deeply in anything but Dennis. Plus, I don't see him as so courageous.

[mopinko]

32. dennis is an opportunist.

he had his delegates caucus with kerry in iowa last time around, so that he could knock down his rival for the anti was vote, howard dean.
and when the stole the election in HIS CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT he did nothing. nothing. nothing. not even stand on the statehouse steps with john conyers and jesse jackson, and say outloud that it was stolen.
he is self serving like them all, he just pretends he is not. i am glad to have him in the race, in the same way that i am happy to have paul in the race. the ones with no hope are the ones that speak the most truth. and thank them for that. but presidential material? neither come close, imho.

[w4rma]

67. It's my understanding that DK is chair of the committee in the house that contains the subcommittee

responsible for investigating Katrina and I have seen *nothing* out of his committee. I didn't even think about DK ignoring the theft of the 2004 election in his own district and not saying a peep. It has been his lack of action on Katrina that soured me on him.

[eridani]

73. He recommended that his delegates caucus with Edwards, not Kerry

Edwards and Kucinich were both running in single digits. Candidates who don't meet the 15% threshold in Iowa deal with each other, not frontrunners.

[pokercat999]

87. "presidential material" Now that's interesting. After 40 odd

Presidents there is one thing that is clear. To be President in these United States you must be,in addition to the constitutional requirements:
1. Male
2. White
3. A Christian or pretending to to be one.

Do you really think that's going to change this cycle?

[mzmolly]

80. "I see him as a grandstander, a little bit weird, and not presidential material."

Agreed. Sometimes I love his grandstanding, other times / not so much.

[David Zephyr]

14. What a thoughtful OP. I cut Dennis a lot of slack, but I truly respect your comments.

I wish all posts here were as honest, thoughtful and well said as yours were (mine certainly aren't).

I do cut Dennis Kucinich a lot of slack because whether he thinks out loud, doesn't know when to quit talking (Biden knows he has that problem), the thing that I can not run away from is Kucinich's voting record.

Dennis got it right on the most important matters of our lives including war and peace. He got it right when the great majority of his peers in Congress either got it wrong or knew better and went along with the popular crowd.

Healthcare? Dennis is the only candidate of all of them running in both parties that has it right.
Iraq? Well, everyone knows that answer.
The Patriot Act: Again, Dennis was there with only a handful brave enough to stand up to the greatest institutionalized encroachment on our civil liberties ever.

Still, I think you are getting at the more salient point: Can he be elected, not just nominated, but elected? That I do not know.

But sadly, the Democratic Party always marginalizes its best. We don't even need the media to help us do it, we do it ourselves.

In America, you need to be a billionaire, have a famous name, perfect teeth and hair, have gone to the right schools and have the corporate seal of approval for any real consideration to reside in the Oval Office anymore.

I wish Dennis hadn't commented about UFO's and don't know what he was thinking when he thought out loud regarding Ron Paul who is a reactionary in populist clothing, but I do know this: If he had four years in the White House, America would be a better place for it.

Since I'm bouncing around from candidate to candidate, I must say that your comments were painfully honest and respectful and I admire you for having posted it. Still, don't throw away that blindfold in your blindfold test, Armstead. With the great illusionists still perfecting their craft, a blindfold comes in more and more handy everyday.

[Truth2Tell]

72. Great response

to a thoughtful OP. Thanks both.

As I've said elsewhere, I stand by Dennis 150%

[Seabiscuit]

78. Completely agree with the OP and your post as well. I am also feeling lost and

a bit bewildered right now. I was shocked this morning when I heard the audiotape. I couldn't believe my ears. I love Dennis for who he is and what he stands for and what he's done for the country, but there's a space cadet side of him that just came out again, this time big time, and it could be the last time progressives like us can live with it. I personally no longer think he stands a chance, and I've lost faith in his sense of judgment and appropriateness. He comes across as a naive child on that tape that doesn't know when to stop talking or thinking out loud.

It seems about this time every month I sigh and say to myself: "Where's Al Gore when we really need him?"

Edwards, Biden, Dodd. All OK, none perfect, Edwards probably has the best shot at it of the three. Obama's proven to be too naive lately, sticking his foot in his mouth over and over again. And Richardson has put his foot in his mouth too many times as well (I've never seen a candidate as completely and publicly befuddled about the issues surrounding gays in America as he is). And Hillary? Well, I'll heed the advice of Thumper's father: "If you can't say somethin' nice, don't say nothin' at all."

[puebloknot]

85. Remember, Dennis was asked directly about having seen a UFO.

It was a cheap shot, but I'm glad he just answered honestly.

My daughter and I jointly saw a UFO. Keep in mind that the first letter in that acronym stands for "unidentified."

The knee-jerk response of too many is to suggest that people who talk about this subject "think they saw....," had a migraine, are not cooking on all four burners, were part of a mass delusion.

I have a brother who was an air force jet mechanic in the 1960's who described being followed across the desert one night, while driving from Walker Air Force Base, Roswell, NM, to El Paso, by a flying object which could not possibly be any plane he ever saw.

I have an uncle who lives in Roswell and who assured me that that thing that landed in the desert in 1947 was a weather balloon!

Who you gonna believe -- your own eyes, or the world's many critics, some of whom are "in the family"? Ridicule is the first blush response to any description of something seen which is out of the ordinary. I had a neighbor who was a war correspondent from WWII of some note, and while out on an assignment for a Los Angeles paper in the 1980's, saw and photographed a UFO. 'Ere long, some people from "the government" came and demanded his photos, which were never published, and which he never saw again. Makes you wonder! The man didn't suffer from migraines, and he had a keen eye for detail, as a seasoned reporter.

Most of the major Dem candidates for president may not have seen something as fantastic as a UFO, but many of them believe in the virgin birth of Jesus -- literally, not metaphorically. Just who is it that is mentally and psychologically challenged?

When John Kennedy was President, I never took time to consider that his Catholic religion caused him to believe in the above myth, as well as that the communion wafer he took on Sundays was literally the body of Christ. And, looking back, JFK showed a lot of class in not talking about his "faith"! Dennis Kucinich shows the same level of maturity in keeping his spiritual beliefs out of the dialogue, unless directly challenged to address the issue.

My opinion!

[Sherman A1]

86. I'm with you on your comments

I am still with DK in the primaries. He has to win them before the issue of a running mate becomes anything beyond just talk. There is a lot that has to happen before that occurs.

[enid602]

15. Paul

The main problem I have with Paul (and his renascent small government movement) is that he's setting himself up to benefit politically from our country's dissatisfaction with out-of-control government spending, even though the money was spent by his own party. Talk about working both sides of the street at the same time! It's not that I feel that we Dems should now have our own chance to raid the treasury (although I'm sure we'd spend it more wisely); I just find it odd that Republicans are suddenly bemoaning large government, after having sucked dry the national teat for seven years.

[Armstead]

18. Paul used to be a leader of the Libertarian Party

He's not a ty

[penguin7]

16. Stop bashing Kucinich on Ron Paul

Either allow an honest discussion on Ron Paul or quit bashing Kucinich on the issue.

[bluetrain]

17. Yesterday, on Mark Germaine's terrible radio show, Kucinich was interviewed and asked about Paul

and he said they would never be on a ticket together. I don't have a link to the audio and I don't know if they archive the show or not, but I heard it with my own ears straight out of the horse's mouth.

We can speculate all we want about why Dennis would want to bring Paul into the conversation, but the reality is that there will never be a Kucinich/Paul ticket. Unless, Dennis has suddenly become a liar.

As for Dennis jumping the shark, c'mon, and I say this as a Kucinich supporter, he jumped the shark decades ago, that's not even a factor for him because he's never played the game and that's one of the things I like about him.

[Armstead]

20. There's smart jumping and then there's crazy jumping

I believe if one positions themselves as a candidate representing a significant element of the Democratic base in a presidential race, he should be smarter in how he chooses to jump.

He jumped the shark in a good way in 2002-03, when he went out on the limb to declare that there were no WMD's in Iraq.

But even bringing up the possibility of Ron Paul at this point was crazy jumping.

[sniffa]

19. these kuch-paul threads have jumped the shark

if it's one thing we can't tolerate, it's honest politicians.

[Armstead]

21. Please re-read my OP

I said his honesty was one of his best assets. But one also has to be careful in how and when to be thinking out loud.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Better to think out loud than to not think at all. nt

[sniffa]

26. no need to reread - i got it right the first time

you think it's a bad thing. i don't.

yes, it will hurt him, but i prefer that to triangulation and poll checking.

[Armstead]

29. Kucinich was proposing the ultimate triangulation

By proposing an alliance with a candidate who is diametrically opposed to his own beliefs, DK was proposing Extreme Triangulation.

[progressoid]

33. Exactly. I was about to post the same point. n/t

[inthebrain]

68. Since when did he propose it?

It wasn't a proposition. A proposal is something you offer as a solution and request confirmation from other people.

Just something he said he was thinking about. Although I don't think too seriously. He did joke that he didn't want Paul touching any domestic issues.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

24. A running mate is seldom an ideological twin...

...how close do you consider Gore and Lieberman in political ideology? I don't recall a great deal made (I may have missed it) of the political divide between these two men when they ran on the same ticket. Choosing a running mate is more about assessing what he/she brings to the ticket than it is how close he/she is to the primary candidate's views on each issue.

Mrs. Kucinich called Paul a "truth teller" and I'd have to say, based on what I've seen of him, that I agree with her. If there are specific things that Paul has said, done, or is known to support which are so repugnant that he should not be considered for a running mate, what are they?

I understand Paul being from the other party is going to raise eyebrows, that's unavoidable, but I'm not sure it's necessarily such a bad thing. I wonder if it could appeal to a cross section we're not seeing. It may draw much needed attention to the Kucinich campaign.

To be overly disappointed by this, or view it as a sacrifice of principle on Kucinich's part seems unwarranted to me. The Vice President, historically, with the exception of Darth Cheney, does not figure importantly in policy decisions -- the First Lady usually wields significantly more actual power, and Elizabeth would seem to be a real positive for Dennis in that regard. The VP is rarely more than an ambassador for the President.

Kucinich's unfiltered honesty is just who he is and one of the main things that makes him so appealing as a candidate in my opinion. If this is, as you suggest, deadly, in presidential politics I would offer that this says a great deal more about the sad state of American politics than anything else. After all, what is the alternative to unfiltered honesty? I would say it's a willingness to engage in deception and spin, a willingness to become like every other candidate, something I hope and firmly believe Kucinich will never do.

[Armstead]

27. Kucinich is for government involvement -- Paul is against it

That's too stark a difference to overcome.

Kucinich believes in universal single-payer healthcare run by the government.

Paul? from his website: "By removing federal regulations, encouraging competition, and presenting real choices, we can make our health care system the envy of the world once again."

It is not simply a matter of specific minor difference within a larger agreement. They are diametrically opposed.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

36. Again, I would just repeat that running mates don't...

...have to see eye-to-eye on every issue. As to my question of what Paul has said, done, or is known to support that should eliminate him for consideration as Kucinich's running mate -- I can't help but notice you offer no specific quotes, actions, or any details about his platform.

What is so repugnant about this man?

[Armstead]

37. I just gave you a specific example

Health care.

Kucinich wants it to be a government function. Paul wants to take government out of healthcare altogether.

That's not a matter of not seeing eye-to-eye. It's more a matter of not even seeing eye-to-foot.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

42. Again, no specific quotes, no cited actions...

...and no details about the Paul platform -- you don't construct much of a case, Armstead.

And again, I would remind you that the VP position does not carry with it any policy making power.

And again, for the third time I ask, what is so repugnant about this man?

[Armstead]

51. I'm not going to bang my head against a wall on this

Ron Paul is a hardcore libertarian. he believes in a combination of tiny powerless federal government and states rights.

That's not necessarily repugnant. I even agree with some libertarian positions.

But overall, he is so different in philosophy from what i believe in -- or what Kucinich seems to believe in -- that there is no way he could run on a progressive or even liberal ticket.

If you think DU is a circular firing squad, just think of what a Kucinich-Paul campaign would be.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

54. I won't ask you to bang your head against any walls, Armstead...

...I will make this one last observation: Almost without exception, when I see anybody of note being trashed, or dismissed as being highly repellent based on who they are and what they stand for, if there is real substance/validity to the attack, one of the first things produced is the Wiki link for that person -- I notice, at least so far, nobody has done that here -- why do you suppose that is?

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

[Armstead]

55. It's not that complicated

I explained that I totally disagree with much of what Paul believes in and is pushing for. I got a million reasons, but it all boils down to the fact that he is an ultra-conservative libertarian, and that is a philosophy I cannot support.

Therefore I could never support him politically.

Nor do I think it was wise of Kucinich to mention a possible political alignment with someone who disagrees with him on many issues. It makes no more sense than a Kucinich-Bush team.

It's no more complicated than that.

[Mass]

39. Here

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

43. Thanks for the link I'll take some time to review it. nt.

[cali]

28. That's because, at the time, there wasn't a huge gulf between them

They weren't that far apart on any issue. Since then, they've both moved in opposite directions.

I'll do a search and pull up some of the shit re paul that will, I'm sure, convince you that he's a real nightmare.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

35. Oh I don't doubt for a nanosecond that you'll...

... pull up some shit -- I'm quite familiar with your posting habits, Cali -- it's what you do.

[sniffa]

38. ...

:rofl:

:thumbsup:

[cali]

44. aww, it 's that cute little sniffa

crawling around.

:rofl: :rofl:

adorable.

[cali]

40. in that case, I certainly won't bother to do a search

you can do it yourself. There's been plenty posted. Take a look in the mirror, bucko. It won't be pretty.

[Kucinich4America]

48. Bucko??

I think I just figured out who Cali really is......




I mean really, did you ever hear anyone else say "bucko"??

Hey Richie! :hi: What's Ralph and Potsie up to these days??

[PurityOfEssence]

41. Very nice post, and my heart goes out to you

When one runs from a bit out of the mainstream, one has to be PERFECT to even have a chance. Much as I deeply admire Kucinich, I'm just not quite that left, and I'm thoroughly convinced that he's not even slightly electable.

He's gotten very smug and sanctimonious of late, but dammit, HE HAS A RIGHT TO. Still, most Americans don't cotton too much to that. His free borders take on immigration is reckless and unsupportable, and the idea of thumbing his nose at immigration laws by supporting sanctuary cities flies in the face of the covenant of society: abiding by the law.

The Ron Paul gaffe is just beyond the pale; Paul is a libertarian, and the fact that he's right about the war and foreign involvement, he's wrong about everything else. He'd dismantle all social programs and take us back to a despicable feudal Fuckyouistan, and he's been very clear about saying so.

His troubles over the years with abortion are something I see as moral and consistent: he's against killing humans (the death penalty), animals (being a vegan) and he had trouble with this. It's consistent. His position on the Clinton impeachment early on is also very understandable: he's a moral guy and respects the law.

Unlike some who will damn him for being a bit weird and thus besmirching the leftist cause, I think he's a truly honorable guy.

It's similarly decent of you to bring this up, and you have my sympathies in what must be a very frustrating moment. It would be nice if he'd bow out and let Edwards get a bit of the boost. (I'd also like to see that Kucinich could rekindle the strong old friendship he used to have with JRE that I think has soured for him.)

Very interesting primary season; too bad it's almost over.

[demnan]

45. Would someone provide a link

where Dennis said he was going to run with Ron Paul?

[bluetrain]

75. Here's a link to where he said he was NOT running with Paul:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2374562&mesg_id=2374562

[KoKo]

46. I agree with what you say....but I just sent him $100.00 for his matching

funds he needs. I want him to stay in and keep talking...even if he puts his foot in it. He brought the Cheney Impeachment Resolution to the floor of the House and that deserved a donation..plus, I like his voting record and what he says about most issues. I was a Howard Dean supporter last time...and then did the Kerry thing..but also donated to both Kerry and Kucinich. Went to hear Kucinich speak while I was canvassing for Kerry and gave Kucinich some more money.

So...since I don't have a candidate this time (with Gore not running)...I'm giving Kucinich a donation again. Might give him more...down the line...even if he isn't electable. I've got to go with my conscience and not get swept up with the rest of them who don't need my few dollars for postage stamps.

[Armstead]

53. I admire you for that

I'm too broke and have to be frugal about whom I can give my meager financial support to.

But Kucinich does deserve it for keeping some kind of real dialogue going in this campaign.

[zippy890]

47. I agree with you

good post.

[polichick]

50. Yep, that says it! nt

[FreepFryer]

52. I reluctantly agree. The idea of him empowering Ron Paul is a 100% dealbreaker. (n/t)

[txaslftist]

56. I listened to the tape. He loves America more than he loves the party.

Obviously he's jumped the shark.

[Armstead]

60. Unfortunately, the party system is what we're stuck with

I am far from a blind partisan. However, the fact is we're stuck with this two party system for the foreseeable future, and I'd damn sight rather see the Democrats in power than the Republicans.

[robbedvoter]

65. America? THIS GUY's America????

"Welfare is now part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a "right," something one is "entitled" to. Calling it an "entitlement" makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft........Controlled curricula have downplayed the importance of our constitutional heritage while indoctrinating our children, even in kindergarten, with environmental mythology, internationalism, and sexual liberation. ........It is now accepted that people who need (medical) care are entitled to it as a right. This is a serious error in judgment........The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and hetero-phobia."

[txaslftist]

99. I'm sorry, but I don't find much in there I disagree with.

At least on a federal level. I don't look to the federal government for anything but a cut in my pay each pay period. I take care of myself and my family without assistance, and my church opens its doors to the poor. We also run a soup line and a homeless shelter, and if we had more money after the feds were done picking it out of our pockets, we'd do more.

I don't expect a life free from want; I've earned a life free from want, and will continue to work hard to keep it that way. As for the schools, if you think they teach the constitution to kids, you've been left behind.

I disagree with RP's position on the environment, but there's not much else there I disagree with. As for his position on the definition of marriage, he's said it's not a federal or even a government issue, and I agree with him.

[txaslftist]

57. The gist of your post is that he's too honest to be president. Nice.

We've done so well under dishonest ones.

[Armstead]

59. Maybe he is too honest to be president, or....

maybe everyone needs some kind of a filter to decide when it's appropriate to say what.

[KoKo]

62. He's "Too Honest' and therefore the "Poweres that Be" can't get along with him...

The "PTB" will always WIN....

That's the way it is...

[txaslftist]

100. We have such a filter. It's called the media.

And if it's a sin to run afoul of the political sensibilities of the editors at FOX or CNN, I don't think it's much of one.

[robbedvoter]

64. Regretfully so. Gravel's my man now.

[creeksneakers2]

66. I was disappointed when Dennis

refused to promise to support the Democratic nominee. If Dennis wins the nomination he'll rightly expect support from all the other candidates who took part in the pool. Turning his back on another winner makes Dennis a cheater to me.

[hedgetrimmer]

69. WHATEVER!

Anyone can talk to themselves whatever logic they need to in order to alter or create a truth due to some unconscious thought pattern... if you want to vote and are going to vote, vote the candidate that best serves you... vote the candidate that speaks what you speak... maybe you need to jump the shark. The choice belongs to you, while you stand in that closed booth by yourself looking down at possibility... good luck.

[southerncrone]

70. My impression of DK statement was that of mutual admiration for Paul based on the honesty of both.

DK is a visionary. I think he was just trying to get people to THINK about the possibility that both parties might be able to work together again for the common good of the citizenry. Even going so far as having a President from one party & a VP from the (an)other.

As many others on this post have stated, one of the roles DK plays is to bring issues to the forefront for others to consider. I think that is what he was doing here. Extremely doubtful that he would pick Paul as a running mate. They are kindred souls in the soulless pit in DC. Honesty & integrity bind them. It's not unusual that they would find some form of comfort in the other's being there.

[nachoproblem]

82. That was also my take on it

that Kucinich meant more to express an admiration or kindred feeling than to actually suggest it would happen.

He might also have some vision of reaching out to the Libertarians, as a "Social" or "Progressive" Democrat who probably feels confined within his own party. What left-wing Democrats and Libertarians have in common is that both feel they represent the rights and interests of real individuals rather than the State or the status quo. The underlying argument is whether the interests of big business run counter or parallel to that. If there were only some way to bridge that gap, there might be a chance for real change, and we wouldn't be forever divided and conquered by the party system as it stands.

So in my opinion it doesn't really count against Kucinich. Except maybe in that he is too idealistic for his own good, which is why I am slowly gravitating towards Edwards over him.

[stimbox]

71. It's not happening according to Dennis.

Here's the link: http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/LOSANGELES-CA/KTLK-AM/Mr%20K%20112807_3p.mp3

Germain asks him about Paul at 33:54-34:34

"...It's not going to happen..."

Straight from the candidate's mouth.

[eridani]

74. The issue is where you want the country and the party to be going

If you want it going in the Kucinich direction, then support him. Keep asking for a pony, even if you'll eventually accept a kitten.

(BTW, I credit Kucinich for pushing Edwards to be a far more substantive candidate this time around than he was in 2004.)

[dpbrown]

76. If Dennis is really considering Paul he's definitely jumped the shark

Paul is so anti-everything that Dennis has said that he stands for, it's unbelievable that he would even think that Ron Paul could be even close.

Sad, really.

[Sam Ervin jret]

77. Unless D. Kucinich has 7 lives and is planning on having the anti-Cheney type VP could this ever

make any type of SENSE. And I don't think Dennis is a CAT so the 7 lives are not going to work.

Just like this "ticket"

[mzmolly]

79. I came to this conclusion in the 2004 primary race.

You are a brave soul for sharing this. :hi:

I agree fully here: But alas, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that Dennis also brings it on himself. He doesn't know when to shut up. He doesn't know what subjects not to bring up at the dinner table. He seems to lack a sense of personal embarassment, and how to avoid it.

[stimbox]

83. Here is the clip for all you Kucinich bashers.

http://tinyurl.com/3cya9z

This should put it to rest once and for all.

[Armstead]

104. I've heard it

My point in the Op was not that Kucinich is not an admirable person, or the candidate that represents my own views most closely.

Simply that I believe he is not suited to be the presidential candidate who can best represent those views. His personal quirkiness gets in the way of the message, and makes it harder to get our views taken seriously -- which is a necessity if we are to get beyond continually preaching to the choir.

[Baby Snooks]

84. "Why the hell not?"

With that question, Molly Ivins launched the gubernatorial campaign of Kinky Friedman. The SS Friedman hit an iceberg and sank. But the thought is what counts. When both parties are a disaster, well, you have the option of an Independent. So, to quote Molly, why the hell not?

Behind the lunacy of a Kuchinich-Paul ticket is the possibility of an Independent ticket. There may be enough horrified Republicans as well as enough horrified Democrats to elect an Independent ticket although I'm not sure how the electoral college would react.

The problem with a Kuchinich-Paul ticket is Paul. But for some, really, it's an option. No one is perfect. The ideal candidate just simply doesn't exist in either party. Hillary and Guiliani are most likely going to be the party candidates. I'm not sure either really appeals to the "mainstream" of their party.

I most likely will take my chances and vote for the Democratic candidate regardless of who it is. Even if I have to hold my nose.

Just the same, Kucinich stood up to not only the president but to Pelosi and Hoyer and filed what we all wanted filed. Someone finally did it. Someone finally reflected the will of the people.

He banged the pots and pans. No one else did. Molly would be pleased.

And she might ask again, why the hell not? But she would prefer a Democratic Kucinich rather than an Independent Kucinich. Which I assume would take care of the Paul problem.

[ozone_man]

91. It might require a third party run.

I think it would take a major disruption in our economy or government scandal to get Kucinich in as the Democratic candidate. As long as the illusion that the economy is fine is maintained, people are happy with the status quo.

Well, that is starting to change, large cracks in the economic dike are starting to appear. Peopel are war weary. It may not be that much longer before people ask for real change. But that real change is not likely to occur with the present coprorate filed of candidates, especially not Clinton, and probably not Obama either. Edwards shows some promise.

As an independent campaign and in particular a Kucinich/Paul ticket, would force the corporate parties to deal with issues outside of the corporate center, which is a very short path with very few differences. Rather than a tune up, we need an overhaul. So, we can't get there with the present two party system in my opinion. We haven't to date, so why should we ecpect that to change any time soon? A Kucinich/Paul ticket may be the bitter medicine that is need to cure the disease ailing the country.

Paul may be far right on social issues, but is as anti-corporate and anti-imperialist as Kucincich, and stands for a fair monetary system like Kuicinich. We really do need to abolish the FED, or at least end the fractional Federal Reserve and make it part of the U.S. Treasury like Kucinich suggests. That's speaking truth to power.

Another way to look at is what are the top three or four issues facing the country? I think Kucinich and Paul are on common ground when it comes to the top issues. Mine are probably in the order of

1) Illegal wars, and global imperialism, corporate welfare, globalization, NAFTA, outsourcing jobs.

2) National debt, personal debt, banking fraud, monetary fraud conducted by the FED to support funding of 1)

3) Suspension of the Constitution and privacy rights to support 1)

We need to get our country back as the top priority. When we stop the drain on our economy from corporate welfare, imperialism, and irresponsible fiscal management management, enabled by a corrupt monetary system (FED), we can begin to address the issues of social security, single payer health insurance, education, and infrastructure in the country. But when $3.5 trillion dollars is going to waging war across the planet, and a $9 trillion + national debt, these programs simply cannot be funded, and that is the ultimate blow to our social well being.

So, the thing to worry about is not the social programs at this point, but to get the country back. And the corporate Democrats stole it just as much as the corporate Republicans did. The war didn't get funded by Republicans alone, and the IWR didn't get approved by Republicans alone.

“banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
- Thomas Jefferson

[Laelth]

88. Dennis Kucinich is providing a useful service.

I admire Kucinich, and like the OP, I feel Dennis Kucinich, better than any other candidate running, reflects my own values and opinions. On the other hand, it's clear that Kucinich's campaign is a vanity campaign. He's not going to win, and he knows it. He campaigns like he knows it. The questions is, why is he running if he knows he can't win.

The 2000 election is the answer, I believe. Had Ralph Nader not pulled enough votes from Gore to allow Bush to win New Hampshire, the whole Florida fiasco would have been moot. Gore would have been President, regardless of whether Florida was stolen. Kucinich's presence in the primary keeps liberals from jumping ship to other candidates (and parties, sadly) that better reflect our values.

Personally, I support Edwards as the best chance liberals have to elect one of our own.

... just my 2 cents.

:dem:

-Laelth

[remember2000forever]

89. As A Duped Palm Beach Voter in 2000,

I Say "Amen" to Laelth. We need to get behind the Elect-ability Factor!

[Laelth]

108. Welcome to DU!

:patriot:

:dem:

-Laelth

[johncoby2]

90. Teh only bigger loon than Ron Paul is

Any Democrat who would consider him a VP candidate, or anyone who would think Kucinich/Paul ticket makes sense or anyone who thinks a Kucinich/Paul ticket would win.

[mmonk]

92. My response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2375413

[Armstead]

107. I agree you should stick to your guns

My OP was my opinion only.

I was giving my reaction to Kucinich as a candidate. It's not just the Ron Paul thing. That's more like a last straw for me. It's the culmination of a pattern of distractions from 04 and this year that IMO disqualifies him as a serious candidate in terms of presidential politics.

Beyond that, my own belief is that the progressive left (or whatever descriptive term you prefer) needs to have credible candidates and representation to push our goals and principles into the center of the stage. That to me is more important than constantly having to try to squeeze in ths truth from the sidelines.

But we each have to decide for ourselves how best to achieve that.

[L0oniX]

93. Hillary will have Huckabee as a running mate.

Here's another blog rumor for ya. Pffft!

[notanotherday]

94. The Reason I Support Kucinich is because wt out him, we the Dems = Republican lite

That is correct, so he is not perfect. So what. You think the rest of them are? NO, they are just more polished at bullshiting than Kucinich is too frank to be 'slick' like Hilldog/Obama.

Get real.

Kucinich is just fighting to be on the stage, the DLC/Democrat/Republican party are just the same old crapola.


Impeachment is off the table. Right.. thank Hilldog/Obama and the rest of the useless pansy republicans in the democratic party for that.

[cali]

102. codswallop

first of all, Kucinich is pretty irrelevant, and secondly the differences between all the dem candidates and the repuke candidates is vast.

That you are unable to see that, speaks to your lack of objectivity.

[NorthCarolina]

95. I Still Support Kucinich

regardless of his comments about Ron Paul. First off, I really do not envision a Kucinich/Paul ticket, nor do I believe Paul would even accept such an offer in the highly unlikely event it was offered. There has been much speculation AND urging from campaign supporters for just such a matchup, and I believe this is now the culmination of that energy. When it comes to issues such as War, Taxes, or the Federal Reserve I am right there with Ron Paul. However, on all Social Issues I am a Kucinich Democrat. I could certainly envision a cabinet position for Ron Paul in a Kucinich White House, perhaps in the new Department of Peace, and I believe it is in this vein that Kucinich was probably eluding to when he spoke of Paul, regardless of how it came out.

This Kucinich-Paul issue to me is but a minor hiccup on the road that is the Kucinich campaign, and when compared to the miles of potholes ahead with any of the other Dem candidates I think I'll stick with the guy that best reflects my positions on the issues. For me, that candidate is Dennis Kucinich.

[redqueen]

96. Thanks for that opinion. I don't agree.

I care about this kind of non-issue.

He's the only candidate who seems to recognize the importance of protecting this country from the dangers WITHIN.

[Bunkie0913]

101. Jaws #?

Here's the opinion of someone with little experience and no seniority, politics is a dirty business. There seems to be a concerted effort on the part of D's and R's alike to discredit Dennis. Why, I ask my ignorant self? If Kucinich is no threat to anyone, if he is so unelectable, why are there so many trying to sink his ship, jump a shark or whatever nonsensical phrase? Think I've got this one figured out, Dennis Kucinich is a threat to the system. He speaks truth, he's not bought by the conglomerate of corporations. Think of all the big money those powered elite stand to lose if Dennis is in charge. I could give a rats ass what kind of spin the machine is putting out there. There are exactly 3 people running for the POTUS that have any integrity, Kucinich, Gravel and Paul. If we truly want change for the betterment of the citizens in this country and the world at large, we should stop electing the same dirty SOB's over and over. Please, let Dennis/Ron/Mike all team up. Then they can get Rocky Anderson, Jonathan Turley, Cynthia McKinney, John Nichols, Max Cleland and any other righteous person they have faith in to assist in restoring ethics, honor and the rule of law to this nation. I lurked around this site for a year or so before deciding I had to put my 2 cents in the kitty. We are the people we've been waiting for, we must be the change we wish to see in the world. The truth seekers/tellers will always be trivialized, minimized and when all else fails euthanized. Don't be scared of peace. Be scared of rich people saying they have your best interest at heart while they vote for war, speak at the AIPAC convention and give away our civil liberties in the name of security. No thanks, I'll vote for Dennis and trust that he will make informed decisions as to which folks are best suited to stand strong and fade the heat.

[backscatter712]

103. What pisses me off:

Everyone goes off on everything from Kucinich's wife to his stature to his haircut to his choice of words, and rumors of maybe possibly once-in-a-blue-moon thinking about partnering with Ron Paul, and say "OMFG HE'S UNELECTABLE!!!!"

Let me remind you that at the same time, we have a President who's an allegedly recovered alcoholic, who went AWOL from his Air National Guard unit, who ran every business he had into the ground before he entered the political arena, and can't even speak his native language correctly, saying things like "Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women across the country.", "Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?" and "Childrens do learn."

Yet Kucinich, who's sins and public gaffes are a drop in the bucket compared to Bush's, is widely ridiculed as a freak, a kook and given the label of UNELECTABLE. At the same time, Bush isn't just not labeled that way, but he IS President. Every time he screws up, which is frequently, he's given a pass by the same media, the same bobblehead pundits that call Kucinich a freak.

It's not about looks, it's not about gaffes. It's not even about issues and character. It's about money and power. Bush has friends with money and power, Kucinich doesn't. As you can see, money and power can overcome alcoholism, can overcome that nasty smirk, that inability to speak English, and that complete irresponsibility, and bring a complete and utter dipshit into power, while the deserving candidates who aren't endowed with the nod from the moneyed elite are forced to answer questions about the time they saw a UFO. Until everyone here recognizes that fact and starts tarring and feathering the sons of bitches who are pushing for assholes like Bush and Giuliani to get the seats of power instead of good people like Kucinich, nothing will change.

No matter what Kucinich says, no matter how clean his background is, no matter how smart and wily and smooth he is, no matter how reasonable and mainstream and common-sensical his positions are, until he gets moneyed interests backing him (which won't happen as long as he represents we the people instead of them,) the Murdoch media will portray him as a fringy kook.

I need to go to France - to borrow some guillotines...

[Armstead]

105. You are right -- but....

Your angry point is spot on. It sucks.

But, if we are to push towards a better system it is necessary to use the rules we are given to change them.
To win the game, ya gotta play the game.

It's true that any candidate who deviates from the playbook even slightly is going to be misrepresented by the media and the beltway Elites. (Witness how they turned the guns on Howard dean in 04, even though he was basically a political moderate and a normal person.)

However, that makes it even more important that candidates who represent us do not hand them the ammo. There is a big difference between taking a stand and being honest, and creating distractions.

[backscatter712]

106. To win the game, you've gotta have money.

I can pitch maybe a few hundred bucks total this election towards my candidates of choice. All of DU can pitch maybe a few hundred thousand total.

The CEOs, the Rupert Murdochs, the rich elite have billions.

He who has the gold makes the rules.