Kucinich: "The Democratic Party doesn't have a compass."

[Karmadillo]

The link is to an interview with USA Today's editorial board. Gives a good summary of where he stands.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-11-19-kucinich_x.htm

Q: Are Democrats turning away from President Clinton's 'new Democrat' ideology and back to more traditional Democratic credentials?

A: The Democratic Party doesn't have a compass. What does the party stand for? The only reason why people would want to vote Democratic is if there were real alternatives offered. What's the alternative being offered by some of the Democratic front-runners? President Bush would keep us in Iraq; many of the Democratic front-runners would keep us in Iraq. Bush would keep a privately run health care system; many of the Democratic front-runners would keep a privately run health care system. Bush would keep us in the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement and let the trade deficit grow, and many of the Democratic front-runners would do the same.

I reject where the Democratic Party has gone. I think the Democratic Party has abandoned its roots. I think it has abandoned the cities. I think it has abandoned people of color. I think it has abandoned blue-collar workers, and it has abandoned the practical aspirations of people for peace. I'm ready to help redefine the party. Frankly, if we don't do that, there's no way this party is going to be able to defeat Bush.

Q: Do Democrats need to embrace the issue of gay marriage, even if it costs some votes?

A: It's a civil rights issue, pure and simple. The Democrats ought to stand for everyone's civil rights — and that includes gays.

more...

[mmm]

1. Damn he's good

[MrSoundAndVision]

2. The K-Man

The only alternative: http://www.kucinich.us

Right on Kucinich. Change it all!

[Kanary]

3. Dems better find their compass in a hurry!

I will admit that my tone right now has a lot to do with having just seen how little it matters to so many DEMs that there are cuts being made that effect the very survival of so many people. However, I am also one of the large crowd of former DEMS who has become very disenchanted with the party, and the loss of connection "to it's roots".

Time for the big choice, DEMs: Continue spending energy picking on each other and being frustrated with Rush and Jacko, or start caring once again for the invisible ones who gave strength to the Democratic party.

Once again, Dennis pinned the tail on the Donkey.

Is anyone listening?

Kanary!

[La_Serpiente]

4. Damn

even if he doesn't win the primary, he needs to stick around and not go into the shadows. I love his ideas and he seems like he can turn them into a reality.

[ErasureAcer]

5. Kucinich is right...the Democratic party is dead...

Dennis is the only one bringing forth fresh ideas and standing up for people's rights, and mother earth.

The Democrats have failed as a whole. Their leadership simply sucks and compromises far too often on important issues.

It wouldn't surprise me if Dennis goes Green party. He obviously stands for more than the democrats do.

[JohnKleeb]

6. Dennis keep it up

[theorist]

7. A President we could all be proud of.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

8. BUT !!!

Dean is angry and is on TV MORE!!!!

LOSERS!

phew...

I thought I would get that out of the way on this thread...

:)


As usual the best candidate with the best stance on the issues with the best statements and HONEST as hell. No pandering.

"A: It's a civil rights issue, pure and simple. The Democrats ought to stand for everyone's civil rights — and that includes gays."

Well no two ways about it there.. no politico-speak, just the truth.
Once again Dennis is right-on.

TWL

[JohnKleeb]

9. It really is as simple as that

You know about civil rights and stuff.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

10. BOOT!

this needs a kick...

[ThirdWheelLegend]

11. no 2nd page for you!

kick

[jpgray]

12. Great statements from Dennis! Thanks for posting (nt)

[theoceansnerves]

13. yes

yes i really hope that even if he doesn't win any primaries, that he sticks around through the debates. it's good to have a voice like his getting (some) media attention.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

14. Can't argue with that

Compassless, Directionless, Idealess, Valueless, Backboneless, Leaderless, Moraless - The Democratic Party is all of the above.

[sandnsea]

15. The Practical Politician

Run with it guys!

Great interview and on target.

[morgan2]

16. not only republicans voters fall for the republican's scare tactics

Seems a lot of people are scared to vote for Kucinich, even in the primary because they don't think he can win. He can win, and his honesty and courage will play well if he gets the attention. If we keep running people like Clinton, who are nearly as pro big corporations as Bush, people will continue to lose their faith that the democrats will stand up for the little guy. You can't only do it when its convienent.

[bread_and_roses]

17. No front-running candidate

speaks with such clarity and vision. We have Kerry - a Veteran who protested Vietnam! - who won't stand up and say he was wrong to vote for the IWR. We have Gephardt - with his good Union record! -who won't stand up and say he was wrong to vote for the Patriot Act and tell the Unions that it will inevitably be used against them. We have Dean - a Doctor! - who won't stand up and say he was wrong to ever support raising the retirement age. None of them addressing the third-world conditions in our inner cities, or racism, or the real social cost of our war machine in any meaningful way. Except DK.
edit to finish:
People do respond to the truth. They can also forgive mistakes. But the shape-shifting front-runners with their convoluted explanations and fear of seeming too "liberal" are leaving us with an electorate too mislead and confused to get us - still! - more than half the people saying they don't want to re-elect Bush.

[w4rma]

85. You are factually incorrect on Dean, kenzee13

Dean Says He Misspoke on Social Security

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said Wednesday that he misspoke when he told the AFL-CIO he never favored raising the retirement age for Social Security benefits to age 70.

Dean acknowledged that he had called for such an increase when the country was faced with a deficit in 1995, but said he no longer thinks it is necessary. He said former President Clinton set an example of balancing the budget without raising the retirement age.
…
During an appearance on NBC's “Meet the Press” in June, Dean said an increase to age 70 is no longer necessary, but he would entertain an increase to 68.

He said the way to balance the budget now is to repeal President Bush's tax cuts and restrict spending. He said to balance Social Security, he would consider raising the retirement age to 68 and letting more salary above $87,000 fall under the payroll tax.

On Wednesday, Dean said since his appearance on “Meet the Press,” he has consulted with experts and concluded that no increase in the retirement age would be necessary. A better solution, he said, would be to raise the salary limit.

“I'm willing to take it off entirely if we need to,” he said.
…
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-dean-social-security,0,2509226.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=54995&mesg_id=54995

When Dean notices he made a mistake, he has been correcting himself immediately. I am respecting that, alot.

I'm *very* impressed with this and his solution to balancing the budget, above.

I'm also impressed with the short list of Dean's misstatements that the AP is building at the bottom of all Dean apologies.

And I'm wondering where Bush's list is.

[MuseRider]

18. Thanks

this is a wonderful article. His ideas are getting fleshed out for the public. Finally.

[Karmadillo]

19. Kick

n/t

[dusty64]

20. I really do like

Dennis and he is the closest to me on the issues. Hope he stays in the race and has a great future even if he doesn't win the nomination. A run for the Governorship or the Senate in Ohio hopefully will be in the cards if he fails to get the nomination.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. Nobody else even comes close

Nobody else seems to realize that we need to undo the disastrous Reagan Revolution, and in doing so, we need to be as bold as the Republicans were in initiating it.

He is also the only candidate (to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong) who is telling voters that they have to elect a Democratic Congress as well as a Democratic president in 2004 if they want things to change.

I have two nightmare scenarios:

1) The Dems nominate somebody who campaigns ineptly and/or keeps saying "I agree" to everything Bush says. The public can't tell the difference between them or figures that the Dem is the same-old same-old, so they are not inspired to vote. The polls have the two candidates neck and neck, and the Dem either loses or allows the election to be stolen. The DLC then tells everyone that the candidate (even if it's Lieberman) was "too liberal."

2) A cautious moderate gets in in 2004, but makes no bold moves and just keeps bailing out a sinking ship without patching the holes. He does the bidding of the corporations while making a few cosmetic changes to the system couched in vague P.R. slogans. The voters conclude that there is no significant difference between the Dems and the Republicans and either don't vote or vote Republican in 2008.

[MadHound]

22. This man is the only reason that I and many others

Will come back to the Democratic Party. He is saying and doing all of the right things, and won't be a DLC/corporate whore. Listen up Dems, if you truly want a change next year, put this man into office. With a solid Dem base behind him, while saying and doing the things that Greens want, and the platform to attract those long dormant non voters, Kucinich will be the winner.

Go with somebody else and I predict a huge drop off in Democratic voting.

[PissedOffPollyana]

23. All of the above and then some!!!

Since I have been paying attention to politics, there has been nobody I have been truly excited to support until now. I honestly feel that Kucinich is our FDR, our JFK, the leader who can inspire us to amazing progress if we will just take the chance and believe that we can do it.

The other candidates are relying on pointing out the negatives and slapping insignificant band-aids on them. Their "solutions" are just self-fulfilling prophesy that we are an empty people without the drive and empathy to truly make our country a better place for all. While the DLC's method is safe & all, may not offend anybody, it will not inspire a soul, particularly the over 1/2 the voting populace who do not bother to show up at the polls anymore. We desperately need a leader, not another enabler.

They said FDR couldn't do it. They said JFK couldn't do it... I think DJK is in some pretty damn good company!

[JohnKleeb]

25. remember a lot of our heroes are remembered by their intials

DK heh
I am kinda kidding around but look at it, you got FDR and JFK
Go DJK!
Now on a serious level, this is just great, hes making sense.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

24. Sounds like Dean

except Dennis actually has a record to back up what he says.

[redqueen]

26. Thanks so much for posting this.

Kucinich really is the best choice, hands down.

No pandering, no sugar coating. He leads. He doesn't chase polls to find out what to say.


I sincerely hope that all who wish to see him nominated will register and vote for him in the primaries, or get involved in elections locally to become a delegate, if there will be no primary in your state.

This is our chance to show the world who we really are.

The whole world is watching!

[Karmadillo]

27. Kick for the afternoon crowd

n/t

[Hep]

28. Right back atcha, DK

Although I think our rejecting you speaks greater volumes than your rejecting us.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

29. DK IS the best choice.

If the Democratic party fails to choose him as their nominee, they are ready to become the modern version of the Whigs.
If most of the people here are ABB how could they NOT support DK.
The "front runners" are ALL just more of the same nonsense or simply *-lite.

[goodhue]

30. excellent

And in USA Today no less. USA Today had a piece on DJK yesterday as well. This makes 2 days of coverage in a row. The folks at NYT and WP could take a lesson from USA Today.

[goodhue]

31. keeping it kicked n/t

[info being]

32. He's the only common sense candidate

and he gets called a Fringe Radical.

[Hep]

33. He's the only common sense candidate

for whom a vote would violate common sense.

Sorry, but with his budget, how in the world could he have a chance?

[mountebank]

34. Common sense reply

Of course, you could always ask: with the Pentagon's mind-boggling budget, how do any of the OTHER candidates have a chance? It's not a matter of "his budget" because his common sense answer is "we have the money" and of course we DO have the money. It's a matter of the kind of world you want to live in, where the money goes. Now, if you'd like to elaborate on "his budget," then we might be able to talk about something.

[Hep]

50. You have the money?

YOu have a paltry sum. And you won't be able to raise a dime between the primaries and the convention. Meanwhile, Bush will be spending 200 million dollars to tell the world just how wacky the right thinks Kucinich is.

That's what I'm talking about. Kucinich hasn't raised much money, and he has yet to even apply for federal matching funds, which makes one wonder if he even qualifies.

[redqueen]

53. Poor communication.

You said 'his budget'. Obviously, mountebank was referring to the US budget, and his plans.

You're referring to his campaign finances.

[no name no slogan]

61. Blather, rinse, repeat

Do you do anything besides troll DK threads? Seriously. That's the only time I see you around.

[Hep]

64. YEs, the answer is always to misrepresent your opponent

That's very good. You need to spend more time here, then you'd see that I post in a variety of threads.

I asked a sincere question about Kucinich and this is your reply, the standard reply. That's cool. I knew you wouldn't be able to respond any other way. I just like watching you prove me right. Thanks again.

[no name no slogan]

83. Hello kettle, this is the pot. You're black.

To refute your earlier *ahem* "points":

No way DK can raise more money between now and the primaries? Better tell that to the people who have contributed over $200k to his campaign this month then. I'm sure they'd be thrilled if you informed them of this.

And since when has the election turned into a fundraising contest? Lest you forget, Gore WON in 2000 while spending $50mil LESS than Dubya. If his daddy had packed the SCOTUS and his older brother ran Florida, he'd be the president TODAY.

If it's all about raising money to you, why shouldn't we just start selling crack to support our campaigns? You'll certainly make a hell of a lot more money by selling crack than you EVER could by hitting up every supporter for a hundred bucks a month.

DK not applying for matching funds? Seriously, do you even BOTHER to research those you slander? DK has qualified since Q2 2003 for matching funds, and has applied for matching funds.

Like I said previously, Blather, Rinse, Repeat. You're sounding a bit like a broken record old chap. What makes you think that we haven't heard that old saw before? Seriously man, it's time to haul out some new "excuses". You're sounding so last July it's quite sad.

[adamblast]

35. So what's my alternative?

Vote for Dean simply because he's the front-runner?

When he's so busy trying to court "moderate" homophobes that he won't openly support gay marriage?

How am I supposed to vote for a man who has sold me out before the primaries even begin?

As of today, Dean's hedging on gay issues has cost him my vote. I hope he picks up a couple Southern bigots for it...

Since the Massachussets decision, I need a candidate who will stand up to the religious right's backlash--not try to woo them.

[redqueen]

36. Hi adamblast!

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[adamblast]

37. Why, thank you!

[Hep]

51. I don't support gay marriage

unless the church allows it. I'm all for granting equal rights to people in same sex relationships though. I don't know which homophobes you think Dean is trying to recruit, but whatev.

Vote for whoever you want to. Just don't PROCLAIM that he's the best or only candidate out there unless you can back it up with something, ANYTHING convincing.

But I'd love for you to explain just how Dean has sold you out.

[redqueen]

54. Well-informed people realize

that "civil unions" do not offer the same benefits and protections as marraiges.

It's just a fact.

Also coming to light is that designating gays as deserving of only a specific, lesser version of 'marriage' is a violation of their civil rights.

[Hep]

58. Well informed people support their assertions

Because that support is how they got to be well informed.

So back this "fact" up for the love of Pete.

Lesser version of marriage? What the hell do YOU know about it? Relationships are about the love and trust and faith, not the semantics. I didn't suddenly feel more for my wife when we got married. I made my long term commitment long before I tied the knot. It didn't feel more valid or more meaningful when I went into the $99 chapel in Gatlinburg Tennessee and underwent the 4 minute ceremony. And I wouldn't care one bit if it were just a civil union, since neither my wife nor I are religious.

Face it, marriage is tradtionally a religious pact. If the church accepts gay marriage, I'm all for it, but it's not up to me, and it's not up to the government. It's up to the church.

If you wanna talk about equal rights, let's talk about equal rights, but this semantic BS about MARRIAGE vs CIVIL UNION is a bunch of garbage.

But by all means, please list some of the benefits and protections granted by marriage that aren't granted by civil unions.

[redqueen]

59. If you want a link, you could ask.

And weren't you on Will's thread lamenting the lack of civil discourse? :shrug:

Or maybe it's only unfair to bash candidates, but other rude behavior, you find completely acceptable? Anyway...

You're talking about ... interesting ... stuff. But obviously, you take for granted what others lack access to:

http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRightProject/OP7-marriagevcu.PDF

Federal Benefits:

According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:

Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.

Filling out forms:

Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union don’ t fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:

Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. We’ ve been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all. Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

[Hep]

63. Keep your petulance.

It's one opf my pet peeves when someone posts a beligerent message like "Well informed people realize..." and then whine when someone responds in kind. Check yourself.

So I read oiver the information you've provided and came to the conclusion that GLBT's in Vermont are lying when they say they got rights from the civil unions bill. Thanks.


Your argument is still semantic squabbling.

[sangh0]

66. Look who's talking!

Hep asked for info, and received it. Instead of being gracious and acknowledging that he was wrong about civil unions, he petulantly accuses someone else of being petulant, and then leans on the straw man that "GLBT's in Vermont are lying when they say they got rights from the civil unions bill. Thanks."

GLBT's DID get some *benefits*, but as the post shows, they didn't get all the *benefits* of marriage. (Hint: You might want to learn about the difference between a right and a benefit. Getting married does not create any rights)

[redqueen]

71. So equality before the law is semantic squabbling?

Sorry, but I would expect, reasonably I would argue, that someone who posts as much as you... and keep in mind the content of these posts are usally assertions... that you would do some research before making such assertions.

Your welcome for helping you to get clued-in on why civil unions are not equal to marriage. But you seem to think that for some reason equal rights aren't important if you consider it nothing more than 'semantic squabbling'.

[Hep]

75. Get it right, silly head!

Civil unions granted rights to vermonters. You say they don't but civil marriages do. That's semantic squabbling. Look up the word semantic for a hint.

[redqueen]

77. Um, what?

When did I say anything about Vermont?

I'm talking about civil unions in general, and how they differ (substantially, mind you) from marriages.

I said nothing about 'rights' vs. 'benefits'... that's someone else.

You might want to take a time out... you're starting to get insulting.

[sangh0]

79. That was me Hep

and you don't know what you are talking about. In the US, we all have equal rights. Getting married doesn't affect those rights, which are "inherent" and "inalienable" (you should look up what that word means)

[no name no slogan]

84. Then don't have one (n/t)

[no name no slogan]

62. Glad to have you!

I was once a Dean supporter too, until I looked at his record and watched him triangulate on several important issues.

All us Kucitizens are glad to have you on board! :hi:

[Oracle]

38. Support Dennis Kucinich...

http://www.kucinich.us/

[Zomby Woof]

come the AZ primary this February

Dennis is angling for my vote.

[Zomby Woof]

39. come the AZ primary this February

Dennis is angling for my vote.

[Desertrose]

41. Ohhhh, be still my beating heart....you mean it?

I guess having to stare at the DK bumper sticker on your frig and hearing me nonstop has finally paid off!!!!

:bounce:


:hi: Zombyson

:loveya:
Desertmom

[Zomby Woof]

42. you knew I was leaning that way!

;-)

It isn't like I was going to vote for Howsley Clean (my hybrid name for the merger of Dean and Clark - the "perfect Democratic candidate")! :puke: :D

[no name no slogan]

69. ROFLMAO!

"Howsley Clean"!!!! It sounds like an olde-tyme radio announcer from the 1940s or 1950s.

<radio announcer voice>

"LIVE FROM THE PINEAPPLE ROOM IN BEAUTIFUL DOWNTOWN WICHITA, IT'S THE TEXACO EASY SWING TIME BEBOP JAZZ HOUR, WITH YOUR HOST, HOWSLEY CLEAN!"

</radio announcer voice>

:hi:

[sujan]

40. sort of like his campaign

absolutely clueless.

[redqueen]

44. I'm curious.

If you don't agree with the sentiments Kucinich voiced, which were posted at the top of this thread, why do you have a Nader quote for a sig?

Which candidate gets your support as of now?

[sujan]

87. I didn't say I disagreed

He clearly doesn't believe he can win this race as demonstrated by his uninspiring campaign.

[frank frankly]

43. good for dennis

so true

[leesa]

45. The DNC and DLC have a compass, but it's pointed in the

same direction as the GOP. Most of them are stooges for the GOP and they are working hard to make sure Bush is re-elected.

[Kenneth ken]

46. Some how I missed this yesterday.

Kicking it for others who may have missed it then also.



I really like the things Dennis has to say!

[no name no slogan]

49. Hey I missed this too

too busy at campaigns/elections I guess. Great interview by USA Today, BTW, a publication I normally rely on to line birdcages or wrap fish with.

kick

[goodhue]

47. kick n/t

[Ficus]

48. could be a great VP

if he doesn't get the nom. Should we try and draw the left back with a VP like him or the right with a VP like Lieberman? (i am assuming he won't get the nomination. I sure hope he does though)

[sangh0]

52. He just lost my support

I won't support a candidate that takes support from the Democratic Party and then turns around and bites the hand. If he doesn't like the Democratic Party, he can join a party he likes more.

[redqueen]

56. You supported him before this?

Strange. I just read in another thread that you thought he had no chance at all... odd way to support someone, but whatever.

[sangh0]

57. Yes, I did

In the past, I have supported many candidates who I also thought had no chance.

[redqueen]

60. With supporters like that, who needs enemies?

KIDDING! ;)

[sangh0]

68. Not an enemy

just no longer a supporter.

[Scott Lee]

88. Statists won't support anyone who rocks the establishment boat

Kucinich is a wonderful guy, who sees the problem. And for that, the establishment types will neve let him near the nomination.

[no name no slogan]

65. Why is it so bad to tell a loved one they're wrong?

Are we simply to blindly follow the party whichever way it is lead by RepubLite apologists that have gotten us into the current mess?

DK is not speaking out in hate. He is merely voicing what so many Dems (DK supporters and non-DK supporters alike) have been saying for over a decade. Why is that so bad?

Look what happened over the IWR. The best the Democratic "leaders" could muster was a "me too, but not as much" as the Republicans. Or just about any other major issue that's come up in congress over the last few years-- not to mention the 2002 disaster.

[sangh0]

67. It's not

but it's another thing to do it in an insulting manner, such as the way you describe Dems as "RepubLite apologists". Is that how you speak about (ahem) "loved ones"?

[govegan]

70. Is not DK merely saying what many "mainstream" have said?

Many times have I heard "mainstream" commentators, pundits and others say that the Democratic party is struggling to forge a clear alternative to the conservative right. This is not just from progressive and liberal folks.

What Dennis is saying is even not so dissimilar from Howard Dean's message in that regard.

Dennis is clear-headed and focused on solutions. To solve the major problems in this nation and the international scene, we need a clear alternative. We need solutions, not rhetoric and dancing around semantics that in the end reveal the same muddle-headed nonsense.

This nation and its culture are seemingly addicted to violence. Politicians and officials who spout the prevailing mythology, veiling the truth with outright propaganda and lies, will never lead for the good of the common citizen of either this country or the world.

[sangh0]

72. No

and since when has the "mainstream" considered the Dem Pary their "loved one"?

What Dennis is saying is even not so dissimilar from Howard Dean's message in that regard.

And that's why I don't support Dean.

Dennis is clear-headed and focused on solutions. To solve the major problems in this nation and the international scene, we need a clear alternative. We need solutions, not rhetoric and dancing around semantics that in the end reveal the same muddle-headed nonsense.

I agree with that, and note that you said that without slandering the entire Democratic Party.

[redqueen]

78. Nit picking

Actually, the 'same muddle-headed nonsense' would imply that Democrats currently advoate 'muddle-headed nonsense'...

just saying. :)

[sangh0]

80. You're right

I just wanted to show I'm not an absolutist on this point. But there are limits.

[govegan]

82. Not Democrats, necessarily,

just those who claim to speak for them.

just saying :)

[redqueen]

73. I see

You've pointed out where NNNS was insulting, but where was Kucinich?

I tend to agree with others, that he's simply pointing out the obvious.

[sangh0]

74. Response

his statements that Dems have "abandoned" certain groups, and his statement about no compass which seem to echo the Republicans arguments.

[redqueen]

76. Fair enough.

We have different interpretations of what constitutes an insult then.

And to be fair, it was NNNS who made the comparison to loved ones... not Kucinich.

Also (and this isn't just to you, sangh0) Dean likens people unto cockroaches and spineless 'Bush-lites'... please don't equate Kucinich's statements to Dean's... please.

[sangh0]

81. thanks

FWIW, I consider DK far superior to Dean (shudder).

[govegan]

55. Happy Friday!

Missed this as well, but so glad to see it today.

Quote from Robert Redford interview in Grist Magazine:

(http://www.gristmagazine.com/maindish/redford111303.asp)

"Redford: The Bush administration has advocated the most destructive policies I've seen in the more than three decades I've been working on these matters. From the moment Bush stepped into office, not only has he been leading a vast and disciplined campaign to cripple environmental protections and enforcement across the board, he's been manufacturing more immediate crises -- war, for one -- that have kept the American public distracted and completely in the dark. And what makes our Republican leadership, both in the White House and Congress, seem all the more stupendously ignorant is that they're implementing these backward policies at a time when they could be pushing forward a new era of solutions -- tremendous technological advancements related to things like energy efficiency, renewables, sustainable building, and agriculture that are so incredibly exciting. It's as though they can't even see the historic opportunity they're passing up."

Will the Democratic party miss this historic opportunity to change the course of history, to get a clue, get a compass?

[Zorra]

86. More traditional Democratic credentials.

That's Dennis.

democratic: relating to, practicing or promoting the people's interests.