It seems that Dennis Kucinich may lose without losing

[DeadEyeDyck]

He wins the election but loses his seat. How is that? The 2010 Census.

One of Congress' highest-profile progressive voices is at risk of losing his House seat following the Census Bureau's announcement of changes to House seat apportionment.

He will be Gerry-Mandered out!!





<http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/census-kucinich-muscled-house/>

[RandomThoughts]

1. See what fascism looks like.

[davidinalameda]

2. how is it fascism?

that term gets tossed around a little too easily

it's almost as bad as the freepers calling everything communism

[Kalun D]

105. Corporatism

is a more accurate term, which is technically an offshoot of fascism

and fascism as a definition defined by Mussolini, the merger of the corporate and the state, or as I like to say the takeover of the state by the corporate. Not the definition of Nazi Germany which had a bunch of other baggage that tends to stifle discussion.

[davidinalameda]

117. how is it corporatism or whatever you want to call it?

this happens every ten years-states lose seats and other states gain them

the way they draw the districts is horrible but this is far from fascism/corporatism

[Kalun D]

118. The Influence of the Vote

by the corporate through the crooked politicians

like the privatized vote machines and Gerrymandering Texas Tom Delay style

not necessarily the standard ways that districts are drawn.

[Bumblebee]

3. A random thought indeed. It's called losing elections. If Dems won more

state legislatures and governorships, they would have done the same. Let's not hyperventilate.

[RandomThoughts]

17. you presume the arguement is about both sides doing the same thing.

I have said many times redistricting should not be about political parties, it would be wrong if either side did it, and the problems with much of the retentions in congress for the sake of retention not for concepts of government.

I have posted a very easy way for redistricting to be outside of economics or politics.


I am saying that method is wrong based on a third external point of reference, not a comparison of some party against some other party.

[DeadEyeDyck]

6. It is more about demographics

We get 435 Representatives to cover the country. Seems when you slice an dice it in 2010 Ohio lost out. People are moving to states where they can find work.

But you would think they would keep such a powerful Rep and drop the junior one.

[Yupster]

99. It's also about which parts of the states gained and lost population

For instance, Louisiana lost a seat.

Where will the loss be?

In New Orleans since the city lost so much population.

I don't think Michigan even lost a seat, but the congressmen representing Detroit maylose a seat as that city lost horribly. The seat could switch from Detroit to suburbs.

[Hydra]

15. See all the people not seeing Fascism?

Controlling who gets elected certainly counts in my book.

[DainBramaged]

4. The Right-wing plans long term for our demise and plays to win

they gave up 2006 and probably 2008 JUST to get the advantage of the census. THAT is why the Booshe election in 2000 was SO important to them, and why they gerrymandered the House then.


Think Tom DeLay back then, and look up what happened after that election to Texas......

[BrklynLiberal]

8. Exactly. you can be srue there will be more gerrymandering Dems out of their seats.

[DeadEyeDyck]

12. this is the most powerful act in politics

winning elections is one thing. Winning the Real-Estate is the Big Thing.

Winning Court Judges is the Crown Prize

[BrklynLiberal]

14. The repukes are in full control of all this..They know full well where the power sources are.

[DeadEyeDyck]

20. Look, the writing is on the wall

they RePugs have the numbers and are going to run rip-shaw with them. They will over-take the courts and the state governments. They will use power to gain power. And the Corporations will follow.

[rucky]

5. Marcy Kaptur could be in trouble, too.

That would doubly suck

[arcane1]

7. I must say, one thing I never understood...

is why there can only be a certain number of representatives in the House.

[BeFree]

9. Why just 435?

Easier to control.

If there were 770 it would be twice as hard and twice as costly to control the votes.

There is no constitutional requirement of just 435.

But there should be a requirement that for every x number of citizens, there is one rep.
Right now there is one rep for every 600,000 people. That is absurd and why we have such a mess.

[DeadEyeDyck]

18. don't have the answer

the constitutional says it will be proportional after one rep.

[SoCalDem]

55. The founders wanted one rep per 30K..and it was fixed in 1911 @ 435

and we started playing musical chairs (they briefly added two more when AK & HI were added, but then brought it back to 435)..

The UK has more representation than WE do based on population..

We are in the 21st century.. there is NO earthly reason why we could not have more representation, with them rotating in and out of DC , by groups..

Wyoming is a prime example... the whole state population is 563,626 million and they have 3 reps ( 2 senators + 1 congressperson)=1 per 187,875.33 people

California (pop.37,253,956) (has 2 senators + 53 congresspeople)= 1 per 677,344.65 people

How is this fair?

Atlanta
Louisville
Fresno
and many other CITIES have more people than the whole state of Wyoming

other low population states with skewed representation:

Alaska
Delaware
N. Dakota
S. Dakota
Vermont
http://www.citypopulation.de/USA-Cities.html

[Ken Burch]

60. Exactly. The size limit is just a statute, it can be changed at anytime

Why should we consider it untouchable?

Also, it's the size limit that has been used, when all else failed, to justify denying the District of Columbia congressional representation.

[gmoney]

127. they'd need a huge chamber and offices for everyone

Not to mention it would drive the population crazy if we had twice as many elections, and I hate to think of twice as much squandered on election campaigning.

But then again, each one would have half as much influence... could be a good thing there.

[BeFree]

130. Crroks would have half as much influence

And the people would have more influence.

Sounds like a good deal, eh?

[DeadEyeDyck]

10. The apporationment is Art 1, Sect 2

The number of seats in the House of Representatives is currently set to 435, and has been since 1913, except for a temporary increase to 437 after the admissions of Alaska and Hawaii. Though the actual reapportionment will normally occur in respect of a decennial census, the law that governs the total number of representatives and the method of apportionment to be carried into force at that time can be created prior to the census.

[BeFree]

22. Thanks

So this is our chance to get more representation? Or we lose Kucinich?

I have been proposing an increase in reps for years now, but no one else seems to think it a good idea. Ah well, so we lose the best?

[Ken Burch]

29. The number of seats is set by statute...it's not in the Constitution.

We COULD get it changed and we should try to get it changed.

There's no excuse for the House being the same size now as it was in 1913. Our population has tripled since then. States that have gained population have LOST Congressional seats, and no state that gains population should ever have that happen.

The size limit punishes the cities, the Northeast, workers, and the poor. It is solely in the interest of those who hate everything this party stands for.

[BeFree]

129. TRUTH

They are screwing us by limiting our representation.

This is the biggest single thing we need to do.

The only cure for a sick democracy is a big dose of democracy.

[jotsy]

11. Just when you think things can't get much suckier.

A nasty blow should it play out that way. First Grayson, now this?

Heavy Sigh.

[upi402]

13. They got Feingold and they'll get him

It's so screwed up now. SE Asia is far less corrupt.

[cyclezealot]

141. Of course Ohio 's Kasich will be after DK>

DK knows how to belittle the gobbers with class. And the gobbers have total contempt for anyone outside the K street circle , and are free thinkers... OUtside the control of the lobbyists.

[Skink]

16. We should ask Dennis how he feels about it.

[LWolf]

126. See # 125. nt

[cottonseed]

19. Well, there goes the author 1 actual law and a great speaker against all Democratic legislation.

The nation mourns.

[Ken Burch]

27. That is a LIE!

Dennis did not speak out against ALL Democratic legislation. Only a handful of bad, non-progressive bills. A Democratic Congress should never have passed any non-progressive bills.

No one to Dennis' right would be worth having in his place. Centrists care only about the rich.

[apocalypsehow]

36. That is not a "LIE!" - it's a pretty accurate tally of Rep. Kucinich's congressional career.

"A Democratic Congress should never have passed any non-progressive bills"

Here's a tip for you: Dennis didn't oppose any "non-progressive bills" that were subsequently passed by a Democratic Congress. Dennis opposed bills he well-knew were going to easily pass that he didn't think were progressive enough to suit his exquisite, refined tastes.

In other words, he only piped up & vocally opposed anything when doing so was both very easy and politically expedient. That is the record.

Gotta tell yah: that's not exactly the definition of Profiles in Courage.

[Ken Burch]

37. If the bills were going to pass anyway, why are you mad that he spoke against them?

It's not like that did any harm.

And it's not like he spoke out against any bills that actually HELPED people. Watered-down centrist bills aren't worth anything anyway.

You have NO reason to hate Dennis this much. Any non-left Democrat in his seat would have been worthless. A Heath Shuler or Baron Hill-type, like YOU would prefer, would have been worse than having a Republican.

Bland representatives who don't speak out can't be progressive or of any value at all. Quiet people can't lead social change.

[apocalypsehow]

40. "Mad"? LOL - funny stuff. But thank you for confirming the point of my post: that Dennis practices

his "idealism" only when the odds are short, the risks are low, and the potential political risks are negligible.

That doesn't say much for Dennis's determination to stand behind his core convictions, but, then, Dennis has abundantly demonstrated as much over the years.

For instance, did you know that, for quite a long stretch of time, Dennis was "pro-life," i.e., anti-choice? Yep - for years and years and years, Congressman Kucinich was solidly in the "pro-life" camp: right up until it became politically inexpedient, when he first decided to run in the Democratic primary for president.....

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

44. That doesn't mean it was better to vote for someone who was "pro-choice"

but to Dennis' right on everything ELSE.

"choice" isn't more important than every other issue, especially since most "pro-choice" Dems don't fight for federal abortion funding, without which abortion access is impossible for most women.

Bill Clinton was "pro-choice". That wasn't worth the fact that he was a Republican on almost everything else.

He wouldn't have been progressive if he'd just backed what the leadership wanted. Our Congressional leaders AREN'T progressive. They always water everything down, and it can't be progressive to vote for compromise legislation.

[apocalypsehow]

50. Having a hard time explaining away Dennis's long-time "pro-life"/anti-choice position, are we?

Funny stuff.

[Ken Burch]

52. Why does that matter to you more than anything else?

He switched to the good side and has stayed there. Isn't that enough?

Or are you mad because Dennis switched away from the anti-woman position?

Why do you obsess on that one issue over all others?

Without federal abortion funding, women don't have access to abortion anyway, so nobody's "pro-choice" record is actually worth anything if they don't back federal funding as well.

It's not like it's better to have somebody who's always "pro-choice" but right-wing on everything else, like Bill Clinton was. Clinton made it meaningless that he claimed to be "pro-choice" when he signed the Republican welfare punishment bill. When he signed that one, it meant he NEVER cared about the poor.

Dennis didn't change positions on abortion out of expediency. He realized his old position was wrong. You should be praising him for switching to a better position on that. He wasn't obligated to stay anti-woman just to prove something to you.

[apocalypsehow]

56. *You're* the one still trying to excuse & explain away his lifetime anti-choice position, not I.

Who is the one that it seems to matter to the most? :shrug:

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

58. If he went pro-choice, it doesn't MATTER that he used to be antichoice.

What matters is where you end up.

Why can't you admit that Dennis just moved to a better position and that it doesn't matter why?

Why does his being anti-choice IN THE DEAD PAST more important than everything else?

If he's pro-choice now and has been for years, isn't that enough?

Why are you harping on the distant and meaningless past?

It's not like the choice thing, in isolation, was worth settling for somebody who was further right on the OTHER stuff. That issue was NEVER more important that everything else, unless you were a suburban white woman. It never mattered most to working-class women or women of color.

[apocalypsehow]

64. STILL having a hard time explaining away Dennis's long-time "pro-life"/anti-choice position, are we?

"Out, damned spot!" -Macbeth

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

66. Why can't you admit that that stopped mattering when he WENT pro-choice?

Why does his OLD position matter more than the fact that he admitted it was wrong and took the good position?

There was no sellout...just an admission that his old stand was wrong.

Isn't it good to have a politician who admits he can be wrong?

[apocalypsehow]

68. It matters quite a bit, because it speaks to his character: he changed his position ONLY because he

wanted to run in the national Democratic primary.

That has been the way he has conducted his entire political career: catering to opportunism when it was convenient; pretending to be "principled" when that kind of stance suited him.

What I find especially laughable is the special pleading for that kind of ideological flip-flop on the same grounds that would lead to a more principled politician - like, say, President Obama - being metaphorically roasted alive in the curdled flare of your angry rhetoric.

It is very telling, that double standard you got going on....

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

74. There's no way you can seriously argue that Obama is MORE principled than Kucinich

Centrists, by definition, have fewer principles than progressives.

And you still haven't explained why his switching from a bad position to a good one(and this was the ONLY bad position he'd held in the past, btw) is a bad thing.

He was, otherwise, ALWAYS consistently left-progressive on the issues.

[apocalypsehow]

80. President Obama is much more principled than Dennis, of course: you well know it.

Tell us, again, why Dennis changed his "pro-life"/anti-choice beliefs only after he decided to run in the Democratic primary?

To ask the question is to answer it: and puts paid, laughably paid, to your :rofl: assertion that "Centrists, by definition, have fewer principles than"...who? What?

Kucinich?

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

85. Tell us again why it isn't enough that Dennis switched to the progressive position

Are you going to obsess about Kucinich having been pro-life in the dead past FOREVER?

Why does that issue matter more than any other?

As I've pointed out, Bill Clinton was "pro-choice". NO one seriously believes anymore that that made up for his being right-wing(i.e., centrist, which is the same thing)on all the OTHER issues.

Barack Obama hasn't fought for the people on anything since he's been sworn in. If you compromise with the right, it means you NEVER cared about the progressive position.

[apocalypsehow]

91. "Dennis switched to the progressive position" - LOL. Yep: when he decided to run in the Dem primary.

Such a "switch" speaks for itself.

[Ken Burch]

It's NOT important

And it's not a character flaw.

What matters is that he took the progressive position in the end. If you do that, it makes no difference why. Taking the progressive position is the only important thing. Motive is irrelevant.

It was far less a character flaw than the Obama campaign's massive rightward swing on the issues AFTER the primaries...a swing that didn't gain him any votes anywhere. It's always worse to move to the right than it is to move to the left.

[apocalypsehow]

95. It is important, and it is a character flaw. Kucinich simply fails the honest convictions test.

President Obama, on the other hand, does not.

[OnyxCollie]

100. When did Guantanamo close?

I must've missed it among all the other Obama accomplishments concessions.

[apocalypsehow]

122. Non-responsive. We are talking about Dennis, and his unfortunate tendency to flip-flop on a major

issue of our time - a woman's right to choose - when it became politically expedient to do so. Please stop trying to change the subject and stay on the topic at hand. Thanks.

[Ken Burch]

92. Where has President Obama ever demonstrated ANY principles?

He isn't progressive on anything. You can't be and push for the passage of watered-down centrist bills.

[Kalun D]

103. Principle

Obama has demonstrated the principle that to become president it's easiest if you sell out to the greed pig bankers.

[Kalun D]

102. BWAH HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!

""President Obama is much more principled than Dennis, of course: you well know it.""

that's the laugh of week, thanks.

the traitor Obama corporatist with ZERO principles totally sold out all the progressives and the working class to his banker buddies. He's to the right of Nixon for heck's sake.

[Ken Burch]

86. That's not true. He actually realized he was wrong.

It isn't a character issue at all.

And Barack Obama HAS no principles. You can't have principles and settle for half a loaf or less.

[ecstatic]

134. Right... Check this video out and explain it. Thanks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

Nick Michelewicz asks Dennis Kucinich who he would choose as a running mate if he had to choose from the GOP. Without hesitation Kucinich chooses Ron Paul.

So much for principles! Ha! :eyes:

[Ken Burch]

137. The question was...."if he had to choose FROM THE GOP"

Not "if he had to choose from anyone".

Obviously, he'd chooose a progressive Democrat a long time before he'd choose Ron Paul.

Besides, I said in another thread that I don't think Dennis should run for president next time, so are you going on about him at all?

We're not better served by limiting the choices for our nominee to people who are to Dennis' right.

It goes without saying that, even considering choice, real progressive politics AND THE INTERESTS OF WOMEN would be far better served by someone like Dennis than they would be by someone like Bill Clinton, who claimed to be pro-choice, yet kicked all poor women in the teeth when he signed the punitive welfare reform bill. Abortion rights are not the ONLY woman's issue. Economic and social justice matter just as much. A pro-choice world run on conservative economic and social policies, and militarist foreign policies, couldn't be a good world for women.

[Ken Burch]

45. He stood up to the leadership on the watered-down healthcare bill for weeks

That took guts. Everyone who just agreed to vote for it gave up THEIR convictions. You can't give your unconditional support to watered-down bills and still be a progressive. Watered-down bills never get improved later anymore anyway. If you don't get the real thing at the start these days, you never get a chance to fix the bad parts later.

[Enthusiast]

114. Thank you. Plus one.......nt

[apocalypsehow]

21. Now he can devote his full time to his first love: making quixotic presidential runs.

I don't the see the problem. :shrug:

Hopefully, Cleveland's next congressional Democratic representative will devote more time to his/her district, and pay more attention to their constituents. :thumbsup:

[BeFree]

23. Amazing

You really hate Dennis, eh? Why do you wish to see him gone? Is it because he is a liberal?

[Enthusiast]

116. You nailed it......nt

[WinkyDink]

25. It was the voters' ignorance that made his Presidential runs fail, not the attempts.

[apocalypsehow]

30. "Blame the voters" is not a real winning strategy in a democracy, FYI. But that attitude sums up

precisely why Dennis never climbed much above 3% in the tallied vote: smug condescension never works very well as a campaign strategy. Doesn't do much as a reply on a message board, come to mention it.

But it sums up the attitude the vast majority of Democratic primary voters perceived was on display: "vote for us, or you're all a bunch of ignorant rubes!!!!"

Considering that, and on reflection, it's a wonder the candidate from Cleveland even managed to scratch his way up to the 3% line of minimum respectability in the primary vote. It truly is.

[OnyxCollie]

104. Was saying the base are "fucking retards"

and calling for them to be drug tested a real winning strategy? No?

So why should we listen to you?

[cali]

139. that's an absurd claim.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

32. I have a friend who knows Dennis and who lives in his district.

The area is mixed Dem/Republican but DK keeps getting elected precisely because he does take good care of his constituents.

[eridani]

41. I know a couple as well. Outstanding constituent service n/t

[Ken Burch]

34. Dennis' district never wanted a more CONSERVATIVE congressmember

It's not like they were begging for a centrist(I.E., a conservative) instead of Dennis. And why are you so obsessed with pointing out that he's from Cleveland?

[Ken Burch]

35. What the hell is it that you think Dennis' constituents wanted that he DIDN'T do?

It's not as if they'd have preferred a DLC'er.

[Recovered Repug]

24. But if he runs like a REAL Democrat,

he will still win. At least that was the theory on why the Blue Dogs were so bad and should be replaced with REAL Democrats.

[Ken Burch]

28. And it was right.

The Blue Dogs lost because they ran as the enemies of the progressive wing of the party. Nobody like Baron Hill or Heath Shuler is even worth having. Those guys weren't on our side on anything that mattered.

[Ken Burch]

26. If Dennis' seat is taken away, he should run for the Ohio governorship in 2012

If anyone could start a "People's Army"-type revolt in that state against what the Babbitt-Industrial complex is going to do to the workers and the poor, it'd be Dennis.

It's damn certain that Strickland should never run again after the ass-kicking he got this year. Democrats should NEVER nominate a DLC'er like him again.

[apocalypsehow]

31. Yeah, right: Dennis would sweep...downtown Cleveland. And there's another problem...

Better think about amending Ohio's state constitution before trying to stage a run in 2012: the next gubernatorial contest in the Buckeye state is not scheduled to take place until November of 2014.

[Ken Burch]

33. I thought it was every two years.

Why do you hate the guy anyway?

It's not as if centrists would be better than him.

[apocalypsehow]

38. Hate Dennis? Perish the thought! I love Dennis - he reminds me of my sophomore Poli-Sci prof.

Idealistic; passionate; brimming with certitude & vim.

And utterly unelectable beyond the confines of an hyper-blue congressional district.

Though, in a sense, that's an insult to my Poli-Sci prof: he had the courage of his convictions 100% of the time. Dennis's congressional record shows he only musters up such courage when the odds are easy, and the political risks are relatively low.

[Ken Burch]

39. It's not like a bland centrist would be better to have than him.

And obviously you can't be anti-Dennis without wanting him replaced by a non-progressive, like Baron Hill or Heath Shuler. You damn sure can't care about workers or the poor and want Dennis out of politics.

And a quiet moderate liberal would be worthless too. Quiet people who back the leadership can't make social change.

BTW, what issues, as you see it, did Dennis NOT show guts on? He took the heat for weeks on the healthcare bill, then he did what YOU wanted and finally backed the leadership. What the hell else could he have done on that one? Or on the others?

Nothing the administration did was more useful than anything Dennis did.

[apocalypsehow]

43. A "bland centrist" who stood by his convictions and consistently voted for the Democratic agenda

would be far, far, far superior to have in the United State's House of Representatives than Dennis, truth be told.

And without all the embarrassing showboating every four years in a primary he couldn't possibly win.....

"Nothing the administration did was more useful than anything Dennis did"

LOL - just :rofl:

[Ken Burch]

46. Dennis DID stand up for his convictions on the healthcare bill

It's the people who backed that bill that gave up THEIR convictions. NONE of them have any guts. And none of them will lead us to meaningful change in the future.

Dennis has courage. Nobody who backs the leadership ever does. You have no right to say you have courage if you give your support to watered-down bills.

[Ken Burch]

47. If Dennis hadn't run in 2004, the presidential race would have been meaningless

Neither Kerry, Edwards or Dean ever fought for anything that year. Neither Obama nor Clinton fought for anything in 2008. They all just fought for power in name. That's all "mainstream" candidates do. None of them have any principles.

[apocalypsehow]

53. Of course, about no one noticed when he did...particularly voters. You do understand we compete for

VOTES in a Democracy, don't you? :shrug:

Laughable stuff.

[Ken Burch]

54. A lot of people noticed. A lot of people cheered him.

Dennis can't possibly deserve this much contempt from you. Nobody who GOT more votes than him in 2004 or 2008 was actually better, for God's sake. They were just more acceptable to the corporate media.

Dennis could have run a strong race as nominee, especially since he'd have actually called the Right on its bullshit the way the candidates you prefer never do.

Vote totals aren't all that matters.

Hitler got more votes than anybody else in the 1932 German election. Does that, in your mind, make him superior to the antifascists who ran against him?

[apocalypsehow]

59. A "lot" of people did a "lot" of things, apparently - except for vote for Dennis. That's the rub.

"Hitler got more votes than anybody else in the 1932 German election. Does that, in your mind, make him superior to the antifascists who ran against him?"

LOL - Godwin's Law on steroids.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You long conceded the debate, since you have no facts to substantively counter mine. But this bit was the icing on top. :thumbsup:

[Ken Burch]

62. YOU have no facts

And it doesn't prove anything that Dennis' primary vote was low. It just proves a candidate without money(I.E., a candidate who actually stands for something, which no frontrunning candidates ever do)won't do well. It proves the system is broken. It does NOT prove that Dennis deserves your contempt.

If we had no one in politics like Dennis Kucinich, we'd see no change in this country. Bland, slick centrists never change anything. And they're NEVER on our side. Kerry didn't care about the people, Bill Clinton didn't, Hillary doesn't, and the current "Democratic" president proved he doesn't when he settled for a worthless, meaningless healthcare bill that cannot be the base of progressive gains in the future.

You want a politics where nobody stands for ANYTHING. That's depressing.

[apocalypsehow]

69. I have all the facts. You are screaming at me precisely because you angrily dislike them.

But get used to it: we are living in the Age of Obama, not the Age of Kucinich.

President Obama will serve two successful terms as the President of the United States: Dennis isn't even going to able to hold on to his House seat, after the Ohio state legislature gets done redrawing the congressional lines.

Obama will be an entire chapter in future American history books; Kucinich will be luck to warrant a footnote.

And there we are.

[Ken Burch]

63. Kerry was just the guy the corporations TOLD us to nominate

Doesn't it bother you that he didn't care about the people? And that he wasn't liberal on much of anything?

[Ken Burch]

48. Tell me the kind of Democrat you'd actually prefer.

Our president isn't a Dem anymore. Neither is Hillary. Neither is any other centrist. None of them fight for us.

[apocalypsehow]

49. I prefer the kind we actually have in the Oval Office right now. n/t.

[OnyxCollie]

61. The kind that concedes to the repubs at every opportunity?

When Dennis ran for President, it was said that his stubbornness and purist beliefs would result in gridlock with Congress and nothing would be accomplished.

It's a good thing Obama won, because this compromise thing is working out very well for us.:eyes:

[apocalypsehow]

71. President Obama has done more for the progressive cause in two years than Kucinich has done

his entire congressional career - and then some.

Actually, about two-thousand and some, since President Obama has pushed for and subsequently signed into law actual progressive & liberal legislation.

Dennis? Uhhhhhhh...

Not so much. :rofl:

[OnyxCollie]

73. Bwahahahaha!

Oh yeah. Just wait 'til 2014 when the economy still sucks and people are mandated to buy insurance without cost controls or be fined. I'm sure they'll be praising Obama and this "progressive" cause.

HR 676 was progressive, not the POS Obama signed into law.

You're delusional.

[apocalypsehow]

76. And right on cue, the irrelevant reply coupled with the pedestrian personal attack. Textbook. n/t.

[OnyxCollie]

77. Thanks.

I wrote the textbook on answering authoritarian zealots.

[apocalypsehow]

81. LOL - fun stuff. n/t.

[Ken Burch]

82. All your posts have been is pedestrian personal attacks on Dennis Kucinich

You haven't been able to make any case for his being bad on his actual political stances(you've gone on and on about his switch to a pro-choice position, but you haven't been able to explain why this is outrageous, rather than simply being a rare instance of a politician doing the right thing and switching from the conservative to the progressive position, which is always a good thing no matter WHY it happens).

It's not as if the party, or Dennis' constituents, would have been better off if Dennis HADN'T run in 2004 or 2008. There wouldn't have been any expression of political principles or convictions in either primary if Dennis hadn't run, since all the other candidates were basically conservative corporate toadies. Kerry had no passionate convictions, Dean didn't, and Edwards didn't. Neither did Obama OR Hillary. All of them said ONLY what the big donors told them to say. None of them cared about working people OR the poor. None of them wanted peace. You can't think we'd have been better off if ONLY the mainstream candidates had run in those years.

You are dripping with contempt about a man whose only crime is actually standing for something, unlike Barack Obama, who stands for nothing at all.

[apocalypsehow]

87. My posts have been accurate, very telling analysis on the career of Dennis Kucinich - it has been

his most vigorous defender's inability to counter my accurate and quite correct analysis of those irrefutable facts that has driven so much flailing anger to the contrary - and amusingly so.

[Ken Burch]

89. Your argument about his switch on choice isn't irrefutable at all.

He changed because he realized he'd been wrong. What's so terrible about that?

It's not like the choice issue outweighs every other issue.

[apocalypsehow]

93. It *is* irrefutable: he "switched" only on the eve of running in the Democratic primary, and for the

most base of reasons: he'd decided he couldn't win without making that switch to get more votes.

Not that it did him much good..... :rofl:

[Ken Burch]

94. You don't know that and can't prove that.

And it was just ONE freaking issue.

Why do you obsess about a triviality.

It's not like it was better to have a Bill Clinton, who was "pro-choice" but right-wing on everything ELSE. Choice can't possibly be THAT important.

[apocalypsehow]

96. I do know that and it *has* been proven: history backs me up. Kucinich was anti-choice, right up

until he "discovered" he wasn't. And he "discovered" that on the day he decided to run for the national Democratic primary.

[Ken Burch]

109. It wasn't on the day.

And what matters is that he became pro-choice. It's always better to switch from right to left than from left to right(like Obama did after he won the presidential nomination).

[apocalypsehow]

98. "And it was just ONE freaking issue" - So, women's rights don't count so much, eh? Reproductive

choice is "a triviality" in your eyes?

I suspect the women of DU, the vast majority of them, anyway, would beg to differ with both you and Dennis....

[Ken Burch]

108. Of course women's rights count

but "protecting choice" isn't worth accepting conservatism on everything else, like you had to with Bill Clinton.

[Ken Burch]

113. Dennis is now pro-choice.

It doesn't matter what his position was years ago.

And he couldn't have carried out antichoice policies as president anyway.

Besides, he OPPOSED the Stupak Amendment, so Dennis was on the right side on the issue when it REALLY mattered.

Dennis is good on the choice issue now, and that's what is important.

It's silly to bash someone for a bad position they no longer hold.

[apocalypsehow]

120. It speaks to his character - he changed a MAJOR position he had on a very important component of

women's rights, and did so for the basest of reasons: simply because it was suddenly politically expedient to do so.

[truebrit71]

136. You must be mad. Progressive? Liberal? Not bloody likely...

He has caved at EVERY opportunity, failed to go after war criminals, continues with military commissions, hasn't closed Gitmo, accelerated the war in Afghanistan, did as BP told him to during the gulf spill, won't restore the 4th amendment, has allowed his appointee's to further encroach on civil liberties, but you think he's done more for the progressive/liberal cause? The ONLY thing he's done for the progressive/liberal cause (other than tell us to STFU) is get us motivated to find a REAL progressive/liberal candidate instead of the Democratic apologist currently churning out republican legislation from the Oval Office...

[eridani]

42. It isn't hyper-blue. It's purplish and full of Reagan Democrats n/t

[apocalypsehow]

51. Baloney - it's about as blue as blue can get in Ohio, with Dems routinely taking 65% of the vote.

Try that bit about "Reagan Democrats" on someone who doesn't know better. :eyes:

[OnyxCollie]

65. It's blue because people like they way they are represented

and treated by a liberal, progressive congressman. People like someone who is willing to fight for them, not sell them out.

And since I've lived here for over forty years, I think I know better than someone in Kansas.

[apocalypsehow]

67. LOL - it's "Blue" because the Ohio legislature concentrated urban voters there. Even at that, Dennis

has had difficulty winning his elections.

In. One. Congressional. District.

And under the most favorable of conditions.

As a nationwide candidate? His repeated inability to even break the 3% barrier in the most liberal of primaries, the Democratic primary, speaks volumes about his appeal nationwide. And the text ain't pretty....

[OnyxCollie]

70. So how will things be better when he's gone?

Do you have any constructive criticism, or do you just like pissing on anyone who refuses to bow before Obama?

[apocalypsehow]

72. For starters, perhaps we'll get a Democrat in his seat who cares about actually passing progressive

legislation, rather than someone who routinely & repeatedly uses his perch in Congress to simply angle for the next presidential primary campaign; someone who cares more about serving the interests of his constituents, rather than the quixotic allure of race for the presidency. Especially one he/she has not the slightest chance of being able to win.

That'd be a refreshing start to the career of the next Democratic congressman from the 10th district of Ohio.

"or do you just like pissing on anyone who refuses to bow before Obama?"

Very telling, that.

[OnyxCollie]

75. It is very telling.

It means I don't follow authoritarians. You, on the other hand...

[Ken Burch]

78. Dennis NEVER made ruinning for president the deciding factor in his votes in Congress

If he had, he'd have had a LESS progressive voting record. As did Obama, who was significantly to Kucinich's right on the issues throughout his Senate voting record.

And you haven't been able to make any case that Dennis was inattentive to his constituents. What did they ever want that he DIDN'T fight for?

[OnyxCollie]

79. Obama voted for cloture on FISA.

I'm sure he'll fix it any day now.

[apocalypsehow]

84. Dennis was quite inattentive to his constituents - which is why he had to *TWICE* break off his

quixotic & laughable presidential runs to race back home and shore up shaky support - the last time he was forced to do so, he barely prevailed in a primary he should have easily won.

Please try again.

[Ken Burch]

88. He won that primary solidly.

And he was facing a filing deadline. It would have served no purpose for Dennis to stay in the race and give up his Congressional seat.

It doesn't mean you're inattentive that you faced a primary challenge...it just means the rich are trying to get rid of you. It was only the rich who financed Dennis' primary challenger. NO ACTUAL progressives wanted him to lose his seat.

[apocalypsehow]

97. "It would have served no purpose for Dennis to stay in the race and give up his Congressional seat"

LOL! - what a "principled" politician he was indeed!

Speaks for itself.

[Ken Burch]

107. You can't seriously say that the guy was obligated to go into the political wilderness

just to prove he was "sincere".

Obama wouldn't ever have given up his Senate seat to run for president. Why should Dennis have had to give up his?

He could never have come back from ending up out of office.

[apocalypsehow]

123. To do right by his constituents, that's precisely what he should have done. Instead of neglecting

their interests so he make a futile, quixotic run for POTUS, he should have resigned his seat and then ran, especially since he has decided to make it a quadrennial exercise in futility.

But it looks like now, he's going to get that free time to run all he wants, thanks to the Ohio legislature....


"He could never have come back from ending up out of office"

So what? :shrug: What does that have to do with anything? I

[Ken Burch]

90. None of the legislation he spoke against WAS progressive.

He only spoke against centrist bills, and passing centrist bills can NEVER be progressive. He never spoke against any bill that provided REAL social change.

If you want Dennis out, you're against progressive politics.

[OnyxCollie]

83. He did better than Chris Dodd...

[Freddie Stubbs]

133. He would definitely lose in that endeavor

The next election for Governor is 2014.

[Ken Burch]

140. OK...I got the year wrong. I already admitted that.

What are you, the Chronology Gestapo?

[JDPriestly]

57. If he runs for president again, I will work on his campaign.

I did not support him last time. I think he would be a stronger candidate this time.

[apocalypsehow]

101. Women of DU: take a look at this dismissal of your reproductive rights, as embodied in reply #94 -

"And it was just ONE freaking issue.

Why do you obsess about a triviality."

That "ONE freaking issue" was the matter of reproductive choice, and concern about it was dismissed as "a triviality."

Myself, I think women's rights are not a "triviality," and that the pro-choice position is not just a matter of "ONE freaking issue."

But opinions obviously vary....as embodied, shamefully, in post #94.

[Ken Burch]

110. Abortion rights are not more important than all other women's issues

And they are NOT so important that it's worth accepting conservatism on OTHER issues just to "protect choice".

That isn't a dismissal of women's issues.

Only people who are progressive on ALL issues are truly "pro-woman". It isn't pro-woman to be pro-choice but conservative on other stuff.

[apocalypsehow]

119. Spin, spin, spin! I would too, had I dismissed a major component of women's rights as "trivial."

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

112. What matters is that he became pro-choice and will now stay that way

His having been wrong on that in the past doesn't invalidate his being progressive on everything else. And since he's going to be pro-choice from here on in, whether or not he runs for president again, it's clearly now a matter of sincere personal conviction.

What matters is where you end up.

And it isn't a character flaw to switch from a conservative position to a progressive one.

Your argument on this would ONLY be valid if Dennis had started pro-choice and switched to being anti-choice.

You cannot legitimately call Dennis an opponent of women's rights.

[krabigirl]

128. Well, are you ok with endless war? Kucinich has always voted against that stuff..but most women ro

don't give a crap.

[apocalypsehow]

106. "And it was just ONE freaking issue. Why do you obsess about such a triviality." - #94

I'll tell you why, sir: because women's rights are human rights - they are not just some "ONE freaking issue". They are not a "triviality".

No, sir, they are not: period.

"And it was just ONE freaking issue.

Why do you obsess about a triviality."

:puke:

[Ken Burch]

111. Women's rights are not protected by politicians with conservative stances on OTHER issues

Bill Clinton was much more antiwoman than Dennis.

It's antiwoman to be a fiscal conservative, back war in Afghanistan(when we know war is ALWAYS antiwoman), and back NAFTA(which is antiwoman).

Choice, which I support, does NOT justify accepting right-wing stances on all other issues, like YOU do.

And you don't speak for all women, especially since you're a conservative MAN. which you'd have to be to hate Dennis.

[apocalypsehow]

121. A woman's right to choose was not protected by Dennis for *years* - until he found it politically

expedient to flip-flop his position so he could run for president. That is the bottom line, and there was simply no excuse for it.

[lonestarnot]

115. Son of a bitch no!

[felix_numinous]

124. Crap

Not good. I have supported Dennis Kucinich. Anyone who goes against the sacred cows of corporate domination or the crimes of Bush&Co. cannot last long in this government.

[LWolf]

125. A loss to the nation.

I got an email from him today:

From Dennis: My Congressional District May Be Eliminated

Dear Friend,

The New York Times, Newsweek, and Fox News have all recently headlined stories that I may lose my Congressional seat, not through an election, but through redistricting!

Due to the new census figures, Ohio will lose two seats in Congress. The Ohio Legislature (Republican) will redraw the map with 16 instead of 18 districts for the 2012 Election. Speculation nationally, and more importantly, in Ohio is that my district may be eliminated, absorbed into parts of other districts. Keep in mind, given the early Ohio primary, the filing deadline could be only a year away.

You have helped to make possible my presence in the Congress through seven terms, and carried me through some hotly contested elections. I am very grateful for your continued support. I am also very grateful to the people of Ohio's 10th District for the privilege of serving.

Yet, in light of the strong chance that my district may be eliminated, my continued presence in Congress, to work for everything we care about, will obviously call for a much different strategy. I will not wait until a new Ohio map is produced to begin this crucial discussion of the consequences of congressional redistricting. I will not wait until the Ohio Legislature produces a new map to start thinking of the options. The question will not be: Who is my opponent? The question will be: Where is my district? Seriously.

We are going to have to prepare for a different kind of election, possibly in a different place because my district may be eliminated. We are going to have to organize in a different way, now. The question will remain: Where?

This discussion is consequential. Please participate by providing your insight and advice [email protected]
I will be in contact with you.

Facing the New Year with the usual unsinkable optimism, and wishing you the best New Year ever, I am, yours,
Dennis

If I thought he'd move out of Ohio, I'd sure as hell invite him to run in my state. Running in my district is nothing more than a fantasy; we haven't been able to oust Greg Walden with the most moderate Democrats. Still, he'll have my support where ever he lands.

[Freddie Stubbs]

131. Nonsense. He can simply run in whatever district he lives in after the new lines are drawn

[Lucian]

132. I see the Kucinich haters are out in full force.

No surprise there.

Why don't we throw Nader haters into the mix as well?

:eyes:

[ecstatic]

135. ...

Nick Michelewicz asks Dennis Kucinich who he would choose as a running mate if he had to choose from the GOP. Without hesitation Kucinich chooses Ron Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.