Catch 22

[redqueen]

I posted this in another thread, but since I'm not sure how many are skimming over certain topics, I decided to air it openly.

How's this for a Catch 22?

Because Kucinich is the antithesis of corporate power over people & government, the media is making sure people no zilch about him. This is not up for debate, this is not excused by low polling numbers. When NPR's journalists fail to include Kucinich when listing the names of participants in a Democratic debate and fail to mention Kucinich when discussing congressional opposition to the Patriot Act, then you know something is seriously wrong with the those that steward political discourse in this country. But then most of us knew that already, right?

Because people know little to nothing about him, the support candidates they either know a little about or at least know the name and know some supporters they respect. This inflates those other candidates' polling numbers, one could argue artificially, since a lot of these people don't know specifics and some are even voting based on name recognition.

Because he has low polling numbers due to scant press coverage, other people who prefer his policies don't support him because it's a 'lost cause' and he's 'unelectable'. This is really nearly inexplicable. I saw it compared to buying a car (policies) you don't really like because you like the salesman (candidate). I'll stick to buying the better car, thanks. :)

Because so many who say they support his ideals don't support him, he loses, and big corporate power (especially media) is allowed to pick the next canddiate and on and on ad infinitum. What I don't get is why people are so willing to let corporate media tell them who to vote for. They have a stake in this game and if you noticed that they lied and slanted coverage on 'other issues' that you cared about, you can bet your last dollar they're lying and slanting now, too!

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

It would be funny if I didn't think this just might be the LAST time we get to have a say in who runs the place.



Disclaimer: PLEASE don't start with the claims that this is tantamount to telling all supporters of other candidates that they're wrong. This is mainly aimed at those who openly admit that they prefer Kucinich's policy stands, but support other candidates.

[Rainbowreflect]

1. Great points!

Everyone needs to stand up for what they believe in. If you honestly supports another candidate because their views are closest to yours, great, I respect that. But if you are letting anyone elses belief in who's electable & who is not make you decision, then you need to rethink their values, IMHO.
Do I believe that Kucinich can win? Probably not with the media we have today. Will that stop me from supporting him, voting for him, or telling anyone & everyone that this is the man we need to lead us? Hell, no!

[Mairead]

2. Personally, I can't imagine why anyone in love with 'Rockefeller

Republican' policies would want to call themselves a Democrat. Instead of trying to move the Dems to the right, why don't such people join the GOP and try to move them to the left?

Could it be because they really aren't Dems at all and are gnawing away from within to make the Democratic Party a hollow shell, so that eff-your-neighbor politics become the only game in town? It worked in NZ, so why shouldn't it work here too?

[redqueen]

5. Play ball, or you don't get big money.

That seems to be the only rule in this 'game', and scant few have chosen to try to change it or write new rules. Money = power and both are very nice, their powers to corrupt are legendary. I'm sure that people with lots of money are happy that the 'game' is so rigged in their favor.

Kucinich inspires me because he wants to change those rules, has notably not been corrupted by big money interests, and is unafraid to stand up for what's right, while others are cynically making politically calculated decisions which either aren't for or work directly against the public interest.

The comment about NZ is news to me... I'm curious now to know more about it. Thanks!

[Mairead]

3. Well said, RQ!

I think you've nailed it.

[leftbend]

4. The Catch 22 candidate?

Have we let the media and polls and commentators decide already based on $$ and poll numbers? Why do we bother with primaries? It's a long time until the convention and I'm not giving up as long as Dennis is a candidate. Have faith in truth and peace.

[rdfi-defi]

6. that is what it comes down to, nice job red

[dpbrown]

7. It's too soon to give up - we deserve more

The media machine will pay attention when we make them pay attention. I won't settle for another candidate, when this one embodies Democratic principles better than any of them.

I've fought against insurmountable odds for progressive causes, for keeping ANWR free of drilling, to keep the whales from having their brains imploded by low-frequency sonar, for campaign finance, to get Senators to resist right-wing judges, to protect overtime pay, to keep the roadless rule, for holding Bush accountable for the lies of his administration. And on, and on, and on....

Each of those fights was entered into with no guarantee of winning, no guarantee of a successful outcome, no guarantee that others would join and we'd become a force to be reckoned with.

This time, I have something to fight for that's worth fighting for. This person will make things better. This person will act decisively to heal the wrongs done to this nation by 16 years of the BFEE - Reagan, Bush, and Bush the Stunted. We need healing, we need a remedy, we need a vision for going forward out of the darkness of corrupt, corporate, trickle-down feudalism.

This is a fight not only for the nation, but to take back the Democratic Party for traditional liberal progressive values. This is not the time to settle for more of the same - a little bit more money thrown at health care, a little bit fewer innocent people killed wrongfully on death row, a little bit better NAFTA sucking jobs out and killing the environment, a little bit more farmers keeping their farms with dead-end subsidies.

This is our chance to redefine the national conversation. It's not enough to pick a cardboard cutout on the left or a cardboard cutout on the right. It's not enough to stand by on the sidelines as more and more people lose health insurance. It's not enough to tinker with Wackenhut's private killing machine prison system. It's not enough to allow corporations to attack the protective role of government by letting them sue governments under NAFTA. It's not enough to dump even more money into an unaccountable Pentagon out of control and drunk on military adventurism.

We deserve a leader who will pledge not just to "take back America" but to actually do something with it.

We deserve Dennis Kucinich.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's just that simple

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[redqueen]

8. You said it, Dan!

And the whole world is watching us.

[genius]

9. You're right. What do we do to fix the problem?

There has to be a way to take control of the Democratic nomination back from the Republican media.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. Well in Minneapolis

we got front-page coverage in the local paper by nagging the reporters.

We also have set up a media committee (dpbrown is on it) to look for alternative outlets, such as ethnic and neighborhood newspapers, professional newsletters, and the newsletters of peace and justice oriented religious groups.

[beyurslf]

11. I think the post makes some

good points but misses a big one for me.

I like DK's positions for the most part. Unfortunately, the areas where I disagree are large. Most troubling, is his unfulfilled support of Roe vs. Wade. He voted anti-choice up until he decided to run for President.

I do not support DK though. It is not because I believe he is unelectable. (I do believe he is unelectable, though.) It is not because I comprimised my values to vote who I think the "winner" will be.

Two reasons:
1. I like another candidate more personally, and still find his views in line with mine.

More importantly:
2. I don't find DK inspiring in his speeches. He sounds shrill and and all this bathering on about things being unfair just makes it worse.

[redqueen]

12. Thanks for taking the time to point out...

that you're not the kind of voter this thread is about.

[MuseRider]

13. Great points.

When I was younger and raising my boys and all that goes with that I would go to vote and look at the long list of judges. I NEVER took the time to know what they were about. One reason, the elections were mostly about other things and all you got about the judges was in one issue of the paper. A small paragraph for each. Each time I would lament that I had no clue what I was doing and early on I would pick the names I had heard, was familiar with. Familiar with the names but no clue what they stood for. One day I realized what I was doing so I began by reading about them and writing on my hand who I agreed with so I would remember them. I believe this supports your point quite well. Today I am ashamed that I would have to admit that I voted like that but it is so very important that people know the name. Really, even his name being bandied about by RW pundits as a lefty might help but they do not even mention him. Well, we know why. Thanks. Great post.

[snoochie]

14. AFAIK, Rolling Stone is the only mainstream coverage he's had that's not

buried in politics pages.

Hopefully that will help more people find out about him.

Now we just have to pray those people haven't already drunk the 'unelectale' kool aid. :)