Kucinich refuses to promise to support the Democratic nominee

[Freddie Stubbs]

Kucinich files lawsuit after party denies him place on ballot
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 01/02/2008 09:39:43 PM MST

AUSTIN—Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, along with supporter Willie Nelson, have filed a lawsuit to get Kucinich on the ballot in Texas after they say the Texas Democratic Party rejected his application.

The civil lawsuit was delivered late Wednesday afternoon to U.S. District Court for the Western District of the United States, Kucinich spokesman Andy Juniewicz said late Wednesday evening.

The lawsuit says that Kucinich was informed by the Texas Democratic Party on Wednesday that his application was "defective" because he crossed out a loyalty oath in the application that said he would swear to support whoever the Democratic nominee for president might be.

[ixion]

1. loyalty oaths are crap... good for Kucinich

:applause:

[Freddie Stubbs]

59. Refusing to support the Democratic nominee is nothing more than Liebermanism

[ixion]

60. and loyalty oaths are fascism

no matter which party requests one.

[EFerrari]

64. Refusing to take the oath is not refusing to support the Democrat.

[aquart]

2. If he doesn't believe in the democratic process, he doesn't belong

on the Democratic line. Not in Texas, not anywhere.

[Truth2Tell]

3. loyalty oaths

are part of the "democratic process?' Where? In Iran?

[fightindonkey]

4. That's Actually A Pretty Good Retort!

[NanceGreggs]

9. Good one!!!

:applause:

[FREEWILL56]

27. Self delete

Self deleted, but I think you know where I was going.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

7. Why should a party support him if he won't support the party nominee?

In fact, he doesn't even have to "support" the party nominee. He just has to keep his mouth shut!

Pretty elementary, imo.

[GreenArrow]

12. what kind of irony is that?

Whew!

[aquart]

24. None whatsoever.

We use democratic process, which is majority rule, to choose our candidate. If that doesn't work for him, he should not be part of this party.

[GreenArrow]

33. the democratic process is about a lot more than "majority rule"

.

[Forkboy]

13. You live in the wrong country.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

5. Kookcinich, Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich

Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich
Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich, Kucinich

Yep, it's all about Kucinich.

He needs to get out of the way.

[avaistheone1]

8. Dennis don't turn into another Liberman.

Instead keep your prinicples and your dignity.

[FREEWILL56]

32. No need to worry about that as they are not alike for sure.

[Truth2Tell]

14. needs to get out of the way

Really. We have a fraudulent electoral process to conduct here. Damn these wrenches in the gears. Whataya mean the emperor's not wearing clothes?! Apostate!!

[GreenArrow]

20. I don't think they're coming for you

anytime soon.

[K Gardner]

6. I thought he was throwing his support to Obama anyway.

[Freddie Stubbs]

75. Not in Texas. At least not yet

[DemKR]

10. idiot. n/t

[Webster Green]

52. Oops, you got tombstoned!

Sweet!

[K Gardner]

54. OMG.. he did !! Sweet :-)

[Adelante]

73. Oh, wow!!

Thanks for pointing that out - oh happy day. :)

[saltpoint]

11. Measured in principle, Congressman Kucinich stands pretty tall indeed.

I don't know his thinking on this issue but to me it's not the issue at hand.

And even if he called me and told me exactly his thinking on this, I'm still inclined to give the man the benefit of the doubt.

I'd like his voice in the discussion of my party's future as long as it is humanly possible to have it.

[Forkboy]

15. Good. And, as a plus, it just pissed DemKR off.

It's a two-fer! :)

[TransitJohn]

39. lol

:thumbsup:

[flvegan]

16. Not refuse, withhold support

Just like me.

Hey, Dennis, thanks for not selling your soul regardless of what assholes will spin this into.

True progressive you are.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

18. "wahhhhhhhh, I wasn't crowned prince

so I'm not going to play."

Oh, wait.

HE'S GOING TO SUPPORT RON PAUL!

:rofl:

[flvegan]

19. I'm surprised juvenile hall allows you access this late.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

23. He's a dreamer, not a doer.

I guess if he dreamed hard enough, he thought he could win Iowa.

If DK was a serious candidate, Iowa would have been the place for him to get some traction, but he certainly didn't campaign very hard there, did he?

[flvegan]

28. Check NH.

He skipped Iowa.

Politics ain't yer forte, huh.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

31. The democratic nominee will not have skipped Iowa.

I'm politically savvy enough to know that.

Do you?

[flvegan]

55. Your ego is, at least.

*points, laughs*

[midlife_mo_Jo]

61. Not surprising that you have nothing else to say

but make a personal attack.

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:


TELL ME THAT I'M WRONG!

You know I'm right. Everyone knows that the democratic nominee for president is campaigning his or her ass off right now in Iowa. Doesn't take much of an ego to figure that out.

[Freddie Stubbs]

69. If he skipped Iowa, why was he bellyaching about being excluded from debates in Iowa?

:shrug:

[fudge stripe cookays]

88. Read her profile.

Tells you everything you need to know.

Fucking turncoat. And not too bright.

Disillusioned with everything huh? Then why is she here badmouthing Democrats in addition to Republicans? This is a Democratic board. She doesn't seem to fond of most of them.

:eyes:

[rhett o rick]

86. While you dream about impeachment, he has done more than anyone. Go back to sleep. nm

[sniffa]

67. agreed

:thumbsup:

:hi:

[LittleClarkie]

17. It stinks that they would deny him, but it also stinks that he might not support the nominee

who's he thinking he might support if it's someone he doesn't like, a Green candidate?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. He has the right to support anyone he wants, and the way

the Democratic Party has treated him in the past two cycles, who can blame him for being a little put off?

[LittleClarkie]

22. Sure he does, and I have the right to express an opinion about it as well

So we're both within our rights.

[Freddie Stubbs]

85. But does he have a right to appear on the ballot if he does not want to follow party rules?

:shrug:

[rhett o rick]

35. Did he say he won't support the candidate? He refused to sign a loyalty oath.

I don't blame him. Loyalty oaths are for children.

[NanceGreggs]

41. Exactly! n/t

[Orrex]

42. If he doesn't like the requirements of the party, he has other options

But to pretend to take a stand on principle and then whine about it afterwards is the same kind of poser civil disobedience that most people outgrow by the end of freshman year.

Not our boy Dennis, though!

[rhett o rick]

72. Yes, bring attention to the stupid, childish rule and get it changed. nm

[Fire Walk With Me]

76. "Loyalty oaths are for children."

And for people who are pretending to the authority of adults/parents...these are the scary ones. Who will frame things that NOT having a loyalty oath is dangerous and unAmerican somehow, all the while cementing their own power.

Just more ways to exclude the truth-tellers. They're afraid of Dennis.

Good.

[Freddie Stubbs]

84. Perhaps he thinks that he will be the Green candidate

[1corona4u]

25. What a suprise...

NOT.

[Union Thug]

26. A group of yahoos demanding a 'loyalty oath' shouldn't be considered Democrats

Loyalty oaths are for fascists, authoritarians and dictators. Dennis is right.

[FREEWILL56]

37. In addition he has the right to vote for whomever he choses just as all of you do.

[Orrex]

40. He can still vote for whomever he choses

He just can't expect the Texas Democratic Party to put him on the ballot.

Let him put himself on the ballot, if he's a serious candidate. But he's attempting to use an organization to get himself listed and he's thumbing his nose at that organization.

Politically speaking, that was a pretty stupid move. What business is this guy in, again?

[Freddie Stubbs]

89. Those 'yahoos' are the elected leaders of Democratic voters in TX

[comradebillyboy]

29. I expect nothing positive from kucinich

self-righteous whiney little cry baby. no wonder he cant break out of single digits.

[Freddie Stubbs]

90. Last night he got a big fat zero:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IA

[Orrex]

30. So Kucinch endorses the practice of Signing Statements?

Commendable!

[Paulie]

36. More like a line item veto

Find one loyalty oath, scratch that puppy out; then NOT perform the fascist salute.

[Orrex]

38. Which part of this is fascist?

:wtf:

He modified the application, which was then refused, and now he's crying about it?

If I don't like part of a job application, can I modify it however I wish and then cry fascism if they don't hire me?

[Paulie]

45. Not the same thing

We're participating in a democracy (of sorts). The only loyalty oath should be the one where it says to protect and defend the Constitution, that's the only one that matters. All the others are just games. If the eventual nominee ends up saying at the convention "When I'm elected, I will pardon George W. Bush" you going to hold everyone to the oath? :)

[Orrex]

47. The Texas Democratic Party isn't the US Congress, though

It can make whatever (legal) demands it wishes to make of its prospective applicants. After all, the TDP isn't the only game in town, so Dennis can still petition to be on the ballot.

[FREEWILL56]

46. Having to sign a loyalty oath to the nominee is against his right to vote

for whomever he choses and loyalty oaths are Atypical of tactics corporations or the current type of neocon republicans would pull. He does what he does on principles which many hillary supporters seem to lack. It may not truly be a Democratic party after all if we must forego our rights for the party making it no better than a corporation loyalty oath and thusly fascist.

[Orrex]

49. If it's not a Democratic party, then why is Dennis the uberdemocrat applying?

Are you saying, incidentally, that the Texas Democratic Party must admit anyone who wants to join, regardless of electoral intent?

[FREEWILL56]

50. YES, IT'S ONE OF OUR RIGHTS AND HIS.

[Orrex]

51. It's my right to join the Texas Democratic Party? And to expect the support of the party?

Well, hell! In that case, consider me on the ballot.

Statistically, my chance of gaining the Whitehouse is about the same as Kucinich's, and I promise not to run off to Syria in the middle of my nominal campaign.

[FREEWILL56]

53. Sorry, but somehow I wish you would, run that is.

On condition you sign a loyalty oath to me and I'm a Democrat so same thing right.

[Orrex]

56. I think that you're up past your bedtime

You're apparently confusing my choice not to support your pipedream vanity candidate with some kind of opposition to the democratic process.

[FREEWILL56]

58. I don't care who you wish for president or I as it is not right regardless

to impose such a loyalty signing. I'm quite sure that many candidates have probably signed it and voted if they felt like it or for whom they like and just said nothing as nobody is the wiser. You skirt the rights of those candidates of their voting rights and say that's ok to do, but have dismissed what I said about it all with your simpleton answer of me being a sore loser. I'm not as there are others I could vote for and there is a such thing as a write-in vote. So let me ask you this, If the nominee is chosen and all go out on the general election day and write in a different Democratic candidate would the Democratic party allow us our right to change our minds or would they still only go with the nominee even though all of us would go against the nominee. I'm thinking something happens to say expose said nominee's involvement in a crime or maybe even dies, but you're saying that vote only goes to the nominee is bull shit and is against the law giving freedom of choice to vote for whomever one wants to vote for if one even wants to vote. There are many out there that cross party lines to vote for whom they want (I am not one of them, but I respect the rights of others to be able to do this) and it is no different a right for even a candidate running. No candidate should be expected to give up any rights.
To conclude this, it is you who confuses DK's choice to exercise his rights, as you claim is being in opposition to the democratic process, and you don't give a damn because it is not your candidate being unfairly treated and now has less competition. In fact your candidate has already sold her soul just as you so what's the point of sticking up for one candidate's right to vote anyway. You're just pissed off that DK would not vote for her if she's nominated.

[Orrex]

63. Did I mention Clinton? My candidate is the one who gets the nomination

Kucinich, with his ill-organized vanity campaign, has never been a serious contender, and his acolytes attack anyone who points this out, as if his non-viability were the fault of his critics.

Kucinich has at least twice demonstrated himself to have little regard for the process and instead wants the process to accomodate him. That's hardly a sound platform for a man who would claim any understanding of the way things work, in Washington or elsewhere.

[FREEWILL56]

83. Yes, in past posts. Follow me now if you can.

From you, "Kucinich, with his ill-organized vanity campaign, has never been a serious contender, and his acolytes attack anyone who points this out, as if his non-viability were the fault of his critics."
Vanity campaign on anybody who says he can't win? Well, I will say that when people do vote for a candidate in the required numbers barring repukelike fixes and practices, they usually win. Sorry, but that's not your decision to determine as you are ill qualified to judge any of those points even if it doesn't look good for him from the polls which I hold little credance for.

From you, "Kucinich has at least twice demonstrated himself to have little regard for the process and instead wants the process to accomodate him. That's hardly a sound platform for a man who would claim any understanding of the way things work, in Washington or elsewhere."
Ah yes, I see 2 Bush administrations that are doing exactly that which you describe so you must condone Bush's doing it. The process that begets undemocratic practices that violate a candidate's own voting rights in the case of Texas and with little monies to stretch he has pushed the definitions for qualifications for debates to the edge I'll grant you that, but it is debateable that he didn't properly meet those qualifications that were conveniently further defined to exclude him. The way things work and the way things are supposed to work in this country are often 2 different things and if he and others don't question or put to task these extenuating requirements, irregularities, and circumstances there may come a day you'll be whining because he didn't go far enough with it because it all of a sudden effected you. That due process you speak of does not necessarilly follow the guidelines of fairness in keeping one's right to vote for whom one chooses as our forefathers intended and in keeping debates limited not because one was outdebated, but because they wished to narrow the field deliberately in order to sway the course of an election by the lack of choice and information because that candidate does expose the bad that you seem to back or you wouldn't fear him so much. Simply put, you are doing a good job as one of the sheeple that enable such bad practices to take place in this country.

[Freddie Stubbs]

91. The line item veto was found to be unconstitutional

[MalloyLiberal]

34. Shame on you Kucinich

[AZ Criminal JD]

43. I am not a DK supporter but he is correct to take this stand

The Texas Democratic Party has a long history of discrimination against civil rights. They tried to restrict their primaries to white voters and that was struck down by the Supreme Court in Terry v. Adams. These so-called loyalty oaths are another example of these unconstitutional restrictions.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

62. EVERY southern state has a long history of discrimination

Heck, this country....

never mind.

[AZ Criminal JD]

70. You are right

That is why attempts to restrict ballot access should be resisted everywhere.

[ruggerson]

44. Wow, he's a DU'er

now if we can just figure out which one...

[bobthedrummer]

48. He puts our Constitution and the rule of law above partisanship-that's democratic!

:patriot:

[Desertrose]

57. Good for Dennis.

Have to give him credit for drawing a line & sticking to it.

A loyalty oath is BS. He could have lied & signed it but he stood firm. I call that class.

[BigDDem]

65. Hopefully the next UFO will take him away.

Buh bye

[Little Star]

71. I always admired Dennis, but I think....

the aliens have already replaced him with some one else. Someone that (hearts) Ron Paul. Sorry day to see him up close!

[Robbins]

66. Democrats

I know for a fact there will be Democrats who will reject Hillary If she Is the nominee.Lieberman
claims to be a Democrat yet endorsed Lieberman yet he Is still allowed chairmanship of the homeland
security committee.Kucinich should be allowed on the ballot.

[onenote]

68. did texas have the same requirement in 2004?

I've asked this on another thread about this same subject. I'm curious if anyone knows if Texas had the same requirement in 2004. If they did, then DK's refusal to sign this time (after he presumably signed it four years ago) seems less principled and more a reflection of his intent to keep his options open to publicly support a third party candidate.

[Adelante]

74. Loyalty oaths be damned to hell nt

[antigop]

77. Kucinich said he would support the Dem nominee "Only if they oppose war as an instrument of policy."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/15/se.02.html

Transcript Democratic debate Las Vegas Nov. 15, 2007

BLITZER: I just want to go down the line and ask everyone, and then we're going to move on to the next question.

Just to be precise, because there was a little confusion thanks to Senator Edwards earlier in the week -- I just want to make sure I fully understand all of you Democrats.

Are you ready to commit, absolutely, positively that you will support the Democratic nominee, no matter who that nominee is? No ifs, ands or buts.

Senator Edwards?

EDWARDS: Is that a planted question?

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: Yes, I planted it.

EDWARDS: Yes, I absolutely will support the Democratic nominee for president.

DODD: Absolutely.

CLINTON: Absolutely, yes.

KUCINICH: Only if they oppose war as an instrument of policy.

(APPLAUSE)

[Freddie Stubbs]

78. Isn't the war in Afghanastan an"instrument of policy?"

Why did Kucinich support giving authority to Bush to wage that war?

[antigop]

79. Oh, brother. Go back and read what I posted. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

80. That would seem to exclude himself, as he supported war as an "instrument of policy"

[antigop]

81. Nice try. n/t

[sniffa]

82. Loyalty Oaths Are For Suckers

[Wizard777]

87. WOW! He's in lock step with his constituency. SO DO I ! n/t