Kucinich: 'Anger' doesn’t work

[dweller]

By BENJAMIN KEPPLE
Union Leader Staff
MANCHESTER — U.S. Rep. Dennis
Kucinich of Ohio, one of nine Democrats
running for the party’s Presidential
nomination, warned yesterday that
Democrats must take responsibility for the
tone of their rhetoric.

Kucinich, who made his remarks
yesterday morning in an interview with
The Union Leader, also addressed the war
on Iraq, trade policy and foreign relations.
But he cautioned about the consequences
of drumming up fury while politicking.

“We as Democrats must take care that the tenor of the debate doesn’t become so
inflamed that it turns people off. We have to be very careful about that,” Kucinich said.
“I think voters are becoming increasingly sensitized to that, which is why . . . we have
to be careful about anger.

“Anger is not sustainable. You have to really provide people with hope. There is no
crossover from anger to hope,” Kucinich said, saying a short time later, “This is where
I think Democrats make a mistake — in just trying to tap anger. Where does it go?
What do you stand for beyond that?”

more here

dp

[lcordero]

1. hmmmmm

I know people that run on anger like if it was fuel.

[ClintonTyree]

2. I disagree.............

For too long Democrats have "played nice". This time it's personal, and we're not going to take it any more. I know Dennis' heart is in the right place, but the days of not fighting back are finished. No more freakin' Mr. Nice Guy!
The Dems should tone down their attacks on each other a tad but anger, IMO, is what is finally going to get the non-voting American public off their asses and into the voting booths.

[LWolf]

9. It's the sustainable thing.

It's not that people shouldn't be angry; it's that anger only carries you so far. This isn't about not fighting back; look at Dennis' record. Look at what he's done with his time during the Bush administration. There isn't a candidate that has fought GWB harder. Dennis Kucinich has been a warrior since the opening bell.

Anger shouldn't be sustainable. To depend on anger as your only fuel means you have to be perpetually angry; you can never be done with anger. So great....you "win," but if you have to stay angry to generate the energy to take care of business, what was the point? To be an angry nation?

If you can't see beyond the anger to where you are going, and how you are going to get there, anger isn't a productive tool.

[AP]

14. FDR fought nice against domestic fascist threat and won.

[Sean Reynolds]

16. FDR was anything but nice.

He was down right ruthless when it came to a lot of things. Doesn't change my love for the man though.

[WindRavenX]

3. DK is telling the Dems not to be angry?

IMHO, he and Dean have had the most "angry" rhetoric.
I've been extremely hard on both canidates for focusing on anger, and I still stand by it. Anger is a gift if used correctly- it should supplement a campaign, but, IMO, it should not be the only thing that drives it. IMO, Dean is doing that, and it really worries me. I'm not trying to bash Dean- I'm glad someone is pissed off- but I worry that it will turn off most Americans to his message.

[JailForBush]

4. Hmmmmm... Kucinich WAS my favorite candidate.

Now I'm not so sure.

There's obviously some truth to what he says, but I think apathy is a far bigger threat than anger, which is the rocket fuel we need not just to beat Bush but to clean up his mess after we've booted his corrupt ass out of the White House.

“Anger is not sustainable."

Bullshit. It's kept me going for years, while I was being persecuted in the public education wilderness, when I ran for public office, and when the bastards took away my hours, my benefits and, finally, my job.

"You have to really provide people with hope."

Well, DUH. Are anger and hope mutually exclusive?

"There is no crossover from anger to hope,” Kucinich said, saying a short time later, “This is where I think Democrats make a mistake — in just trying to tap anger. Where does it go?"

There's no crossover from anger to hope? Sheez, if Kucinich is just another peace pussy, then screw him. Joe Lieberman and Tricky Dick Gephardt are de facto Republicans, and I think Wesley Clark is working for the other side, too.

I'm not certain about Howard Dean, but he looks more like our best option every day.

"What do you stand for beyond that?”

Well, if a candidate has no issues, then, sure, anger is no substitute. I want the whole enchilada.

[jmatthan]

5. The world has reason to be angry with America

But Dennis Kucinch gives us "foreigners" HOPE THAT AMERICA WILL CHANGE FROM ITS EVIL WAYS.

Not a single one of the other Democratic Candidates holds out this hope.

Do you want us all to cross over to the anger platform?

Jacob Matthan
http://www.findians.com/educated.html
Oulu, Finland

[JailForBush]

6. No.

I believe in diversity. We need people speaking in many different voices.

But in general, we need MUCH MORE ANGER.

I don't know about the situation in Finland, but the United States is mired in terminal apathy. People are too detached to get angry. In addition, the establishment exploits the situation by warning people that it isn't politically correct to be angry.

Bullshit. I don't trust people who invest more time and energy in criticizing anger than they do fighting for a cause. They need to get their heads screwed on straight.

[LWolf]

11. The first step

in getting your head screwed on straight is to make sure you have a clue what you are talking about before it leaves your keyboard.

To get a clue, please research Congressman Kucinich's record. You will find that

HE HAS INVESTED MORE TIME AND ENERGY INTO OPPOSING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA THAN ANY OF THE OTHER CHOICES.

Who has introduced more actual legislation to oppose?

Who has cast more votes in opposition?

I could go on. But I'll let your fingers do the walking. Please look at the record.

[diamondsoul]

12. JFB, can I point something else out about relying on anger?

I understand where you're coming from, but I find anger is a very draining emotion as much as it can be useful to fuel real action.

When I'm JUST angry and have nothing else to go on, eventualy I get tired, just utterly worn out from sustaining that emotion, and that's when apathy sets in. There has to be something to focus on AFTER the anger serves its purpose. Does that make sense?

What Kucinich is saying is "Ok, be angry for a while if it helps you take action, but don't expect that anger to go on forever.". Anger got me started on the Kucinich campaign, but it's his promise to fight for what we want if we elect him that keeps me going at it, you see?

[Mairead]

7. "Well, if a candidate has no issues, then, sure, anger is no substitute."

And that's what DK is talking about. Dean has no issues--all he has is anger. His whole message is about anger. Look at his policies on his website: straight status-quo. Keep on pouring our money into the pockets of the wealthy elites via the war-industry rathole, the health-management-industry rathole, and the drugs-war-prison-industry rathole. Keep the kids over in Iraq til they have to be shipped home in pieces or boxes. Keep the queers second-class citizens. Keep us under control by preserving most or all of the 'patriot' act.

The most progressive thing Dean has talked about is media breakup, and that was just a speech, not a policy. When braced about it in an interview, he woffled madly (which is why Si Kahn's rule of thumb is: don't trust anything that isn't a policy; if it's a speech but not a policy, it's nothing but hot air).

The main difference between DK and HD is that DK does propose real change for the better. His are the most forward-looking policies since FDR's. So his anger has something to back it up.

Dean's shtik is 'I'm really angry and you should be too. You should elect me. No, I won't change anything, but that's not the point--the point is getting Bush out and me in'. And that is the point -- for him! If our wellbeing were at all important then he'd be proposing actual changes rather than promising to maintain Bush's status quo.

Don't be gulled. Go with the guy who wants to give us real change. Whose whole career has been about creating real change that benefits working people.

If you read the articles that have appeared about DK, you find that from the moment he was elected to the Cleveland city council he's worked to upset cozy business-politician relationships and shift resources away from the elites to ordinary people. That's what's behind the rhetoric about how he 'refused to compromise' (read: sell out), 'didn't work well with business leaders' (read: wouldn't sell out), 'was abrasive' (read: refused to roll over on command), etc. He does exactly what we say we want our political employees to do: be tough as nails, totally fearless, and on our side in the class war. Do we mean what we say? If we do, then we need to support him. If we don't, then we should stop saying it and own up that we're happy being peasants.

[goodhue]

15. anger is not a sustainable way to build a social movement for change

Certainly agner at injustice is a great motivator for change. But movements are built on putting forth a positive alternative vision. If democrats simply turn the 2004 election into a staright up referendum on Bush, we will loose. Anger and negativity turn off new and swing voters and keep them at home. Courage and hope can lead to great social/cultural/political transformations.

[KissMyAsscroft]

Tell that to Dean's bank account...

nt

[KissMyAsscroft]

8. Tell that to Dean's bank account...

nt

[diamondsoul]

13. That's pathetic.

You go right ahead and follow the almighty dollar if you like. I'll stick with truth and integrity, thanks. Money doesn't impress me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. I see exactly what DK is saying

I'm sure he is angry at what Bush has done, as his supporters are angry. If you go to a meeting of DK supporters, you will not find a single pink tutu in evidence.

And the voters do need to be reminded of the Bush administration's evils, as both Dean and Kucinich have done. If you've heard DK speak, you will know that he is the farthest thing from a "kiss Republican ass" DINO.

HOWEVER, voters will be justified in wondering, "So you're mad at Bush. So what's your alternative?"

Instead of just saying "We have to stop Bush," in essence merely reacting to the Republicans' initiatives, DK sets forth his own positive, consistent vision of America that reflects his core values and owes nothing to the Republicans.

When I look at Howard Dean's positions, I don't see a vision of what he wants America to become. He's still just reacting to the Republicans and offering some band-aids for the worst of their crimes without attempting to change conventional wisdom in the same way that the Republicans changed conventional wisdom to their own advantage 23 years ago.

Please do not deliberately misunderstand what Dennis is saying here. The justified anger at Bush needs to be balanced with attractive alternatives if we are to win the hearts and minds of the American people in a positive way instead of being identified only as the unRepublicans.

[Endangered Specie]

17. And Kucinich is such an expert...

on successful democratic presidential campaigns? (0-5%).

[goodhue]

18. so true!

The media was not yet listening but they are saying it now!