What Dean WON'T SAY: another incomplete candidate

[MrSoundAndVision]

Dean hasn't SAID: He'll pull out of Iraq THUS: He might pander to the Defense industry and Bush hawks when elected.

Dean hasn't said: He'll provide universal health care THUS: He'll keep in place the current system, which kills people every day, as you well know, which also allows him to pander to the health care and pharmaceutical industries.

Dean hasn't said: He'll cancel NAFTA and the WTO THUS: He'll allow the power of the American industries to enslave foreign workers and keep jobs which would be legitimate here. Thus gaining the support of these industries.

These are the same industries which are ruining this country right now. I'm sure you see my point.

All the things Dean says sound great. It's what he doesn't say, and don't for one second believe that with his $25 million budget, he's not aware of these issues, or other issues are more important, or he hasn't considered them yet. Oh these issues have been considered, they're just not going to send the message Dean wants to send: he's for sale. Dean is NOT Clinton, and I'm not giving him the depth of character he so fervently compares himself to. Please click on http://www.kucinich.us read, and join. It's not time to elect a Democrat branded viable by a media which marched us into war, it's time to elect a candidate that the media fears, because it will change the world. The revolution will NOT BE TELEVISED! http://www.kucinich.us

Thank you

[MercutioATC]

1. I've generally respected your passion for Kucinich, but you lose a lot

of credibility when you slide into candidate attacks. Kucinich isn't a bad guy. I don't happen to agree with him, but I admire his candor.

Attacking Dean (or Kerry, or Gephardt, or anybody but Lieberman, really) weakens your arguement.

[Mairead]

6. Is there anything untrue in what he said?

Apart from the speculation, I mean.

As far as I can tell, Dean is the status-quo candidate on all the substantive (i.e., which way the money flows) issues. Isn't he?

[Skwmom]

7. It's not an attack. It's the truth.

Does anyone else notice the similarities between the Dean and Bush campaigns? When they are hit with the truth they spin it as an attack? There are also many other similarities. I think I'll start compiling a list.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. Comparisons between Clinton and Dean

really are an insult to Clinton. Dean can't hold a candle to Clinton's intellect, as is proven by all the gaffes we've had to suffer through.

[polpilot]

4. Dean is NOT Clinton and to compare him intellectually with Dean is

ahhhhhh... silly?? and to compare Clinton's character with Dean's is ahhhhhh...ridiculous.

One who is familiar with Clinton's legacy in Arkansas, his presidency, his support of the Iraqi bombing vis-a-vis his 'standing with Tony Blair moment' and his myriad foibles, would be hesitant to embrace Bill in important matters of substance. However, Dean's campaign will 'treat' the economic 'times' of Bill's presidential residency in the maximizing manner consistent with a professional, intelligent, mature campaign.

Dean '04...

[snoochie]

10. hehe

your 'ahhhh's reminded me of William Buckley. Or that's how I 'heard' it in my head as I was reading it...

Just thought I'd share. :)

[blm]

16. Clinton wasn't for deregulating electricity, and Dean was.

Dean was given the data from the Democrats and instead, sided with the GOP and Libertarian deregulators. It took the catastrophe in California to get Dean to back out of his support. But, his core principles had him supporting it first.

Dean also ignored the science given him by environmentalists and Democrats opposed to Yucca Mt. But, Dean sided with Bush, accepting his science instead. Another example of Dean's core values.

Guess what? Dean said this week that "the science" for Yucca Mt. now needs to be scrutinized. Uh....Gov. Dean, you were given the science by Democrats and environmentalists. When you made your decision to support Bush are you saying you did so WITHOUT scrutinizing the data you were given back then?

[LuminousX]

31. So THAT is an effective argument, isn't it?

We don't like it when our candidates buy into Bush's view hook, line, and sinker, especially when there are other Democratic leaders saying something entirely different.

[blm]

53. Clinton vs. Dean, I'll stick with Clinton's views.

btw, L__X, even Molly Ivins said there was a case to be made for removing Saddam, just that Bush didn't make that case. There was no hook, line, and sinker involved - There WAS a matter of preserving the viability of the UN as an international institution and getting the better resolution that stopped the further invasions of Iran and Syria.

[LuminousX]

62. Molly Ivins vs. Robert Byrd I know who I would listen to

[blm]

70. Byrd would have been for going into Iraq

under the right circumstances. He's no dove. My point was that EVEN Molly Ivins, speaking as a liberal, said that there was a case to be made.

The post above was comparing Dean and Clinton and I was contrasting them. Clinton is further to the left than dean according to their actual records of governance.

[bearfartinthewoods]

124. suffering through

last winter, a Vermont DUer posted that we'd better get used to Dean sticking both feet into his mouth because he'd been doing it since he first got elected.

[LuminousX]

3. Hmmm

We shouldn't pull out of Iraq. The UN doesn't have the resources and money available to do what we can do. We need to draw in other countries such as Egypt to help provide a governing framework that fits the cultural situation.

We can't get Universal Healthcare in one step. Any candidate promising it is blowing sunshine in your dark crevices.

We shouldn't cancel NAFTA or the WTO. Any candidate who says they will are lying to you.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[snoochie]

11. A couple of points:

"The UN doesn't have the resources and money available to do what we can do."

Kucinich knows this, and his plan includes funding from the US to pay for the mess we've made.

The point is it seems like he's the only candidate who seems aware that our very presence as the controlling power in Iraq is causing the hostilities to increase.

We MUST give up the role of the controlling party or this will sadly drag on a la Vietnam. You'd think we'd have learned from Britain's example there. Or our own in Vietnam.

"We can't get Universal Healthcare in one step."

Why?

"We shouldn't cancel NAFTA or the WTO."

Why?

[RogueTrooper]

5. Rather my incomplete candidate

than your little tin-pot dictator.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[RogueTrooper]

12. Mr "Rule By Executive Decree" Kucinich

I think there has been a little too much of that these last couple of years.

[snoochie]

13. It's called fighting fire with fire.

If most of Congress weren't completely sold out to corporate interests it wouldn't be necessary.

I don't think it will be necessary if Kucnich is elected because I fully expect that he'll have the same kind of coattails that FDR did.

[RogueTrooper]

14. My mistake

I thought it was totalitarianism.

[LuminousX]

17. It is

Kucinich wants to roll back treaties that took three administrations to negotiate, that were ok'd by Congress. When Bush did that, I called him a tin-horn dictator. Kucinich wouldn't be any better.

Get Congress to dissolve NAFTA and I will agree. I like the Constitution and the way it is set up.

[Mairead]

28. It isn't.

There's a negotiated provision in each such treaty that says the executive can start a get-out countdown timer. That was part of the agreed mechanism. So why is it totalitarianism to make use of it?

[LuminousX]

30. Because whenever people talk about it, they say 'repeal'

Not, 'activate the countdown clause', which I don't know if it actually exists or not and am currently reading through NAFTA and the WTO treaty in my spare time to locate.

[LuminousX]

34. Withdrawal Clause

Article 2204: Withdrawal

A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it
provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a
Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the
remaining Parties.

Any President who activates the Withdrawal clause without authorization from Congress, the body who had to ratify the treaty in the first place, would be doing so by executive fiat. Why not put it to a vote? Do we keep it or throw it away?

BTW, the clause does not say the Executive has the right to pull out, it says Party, the Party is one of the signatory states(country), which means that state(country) has to follow its own guidelines on withdrawing from the treaty.

[Mairead]

36. You beat me to it (though the article numbers are different)

Article 2205: Withdrawal

A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.


BTW, the clause does not say the Executive has the right to pull out, it says Party, the Party is one of the signatory states(country), which means that state(country) has to follow its own guidelines on withdrawing from the treaty.

That was already settled with Bush One and the ABM Treaty: the executive has that power, in the US at least.

[LuminousX]

37. But is it the right thing to do?

I railed against this Bush for unilateral action regarding treaties, I would rail against any executive who felt he/she knew better than Congress. It is frightening to think that an executive can come into office and willy-nilly choose which treaties to keep and which treaties to ignore.

I'm not niave enough to believe that it doesn't happen consistently, I just feel it is wrong each and every time. There ought to at least be an opportunity for Congress to override the Executive Decisison.

[Mairead]

41. "I would rail against any executive who felt se knew better than Congress"

Congress? You mean the guys who have been selling us out again and again and again? The ones who are responsible for our being poised on the edge of The Pit? Those guys?

[LuminousX]

43. So, do you agree with the 'cockroach' comment?

[Mairead]

44. Do I agree with what about it?

[LuminousX]

54. Interestingly Enough... Kucinich

Terminating ABM treaty was unconstitutional
Kucinich filed a lawsuit in federal district court to block the President from withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. The President's termination of the ABM Treaty represents an unconstitutional repeal of a law duly enacted by Congress.
Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.us, "On The Issues" Aug 1, 2003

[redqueen]

55. Yes, he railed against *'s withdrawal and filed that suit.

Since he lost the suit, he therefore knows he can withdraw from NAFTA.

Pretty good logic there, eh?

[LuminousX]

56. A bit hypocritical, but yeah, good logic

[redqueen]

60. Not hypocritical, playing by the rules they set up.

What else are ya gonna do?

If they change the rules, you have to play by them. So might as well make it count. That's the way I see it anyway. Kind of like beating them at their own game. :)

[LuminousX]

64. Just remember this, it will be used in the future

Candidate was opposed to A. The courts said A was okay. The Candidate now does A.

You are saying there is nothing wrong with this, so when this model is applied to other candidates you will not complain, correct?

[redqueen]

66. Newsflash: It's already been used.

We complained (and Kucinich actually went one further than complaining and filed a suit to stop the thugs), and the courts sided with *.

They've already used it. Using it against them is only turning the tables.

We can't go back in time and undo anything. It has been used in the past. We can either take the 'high road' and let them do all the maneuvering and get the advantage, or we can take advantage of the pitfalls they set for themselves. It's a personal choice I guess, and I think Kucinich's choice is by far the wiser.

[LuminousX]

67. I'm saying in regards to other candidates

That you don't consider such behavior hypocritical. And if that formula

(Candidate is opposed to A. Courts say A is okay. Candidate supports A.) is valid than the antithesis (Candidate supports A. Courts say A is not okay. Candidate opposes A.) is also non-hypocritical.

Just for the sake of extremism and to avoid comparison with any of the current candidates, if we had a candidate who supported clearcutting of timberlands but the Courts said it wasn't okay and that candidate changed his view to match the courts, that candidate wouldn't be a hypocrit.

Of if we have a candidate who was once opposed to a state lottery but the courts said it was okay, and now the candidate is a proponent of state lotteries, there would be nothing hypocritical about it.

[redqueen]

69. Oy vey

"(Candidate is opposed to A. Courts say A is okay. Candidate supports A.) is valid than the antithesis (Candidate supports A. Courts say A is not okay. Candidate opposes A.) is also non-hypocritical."

The problem with this logic is that A is not a policy stand, it's a legal tactic. You can scream until you're blue in the face that a legal tactic is wrong, but once approved by the courts, it's fair game. Refusing to use a tactic you challenged in court may seem like the principled thing to do, but what you're really doing is handing your opponent an advantage.


"Just for the sake of extremism and to avoid comparison with any of the current candidates, if we had a candidate who supported clearcutting of timberlands but the Courts said it wasn't okay and that candidate changed his view to match the courts, that candidate wouldn't be a hypocrit.

Of if we have a candidate who was once opposed to a state lottery but the courts said it was okay, and now the candidate is a proponent of state lotteries, there would be nothing hypocritical about it."

A legal tactic (e.g. withdrawing from a treaty without congressional debate) doesn't equate well to a policy stnd such as clearcutting of timberlands.

For one thing, there are good treaties and bad. You'd have to point out where clearcutting the timberlands, or whatever tortured analogy you choose, were actually beneficial to America / the world, for this to make any sense.

[LuminousX]

78. The logic works

and I will willingly add in the caveat that the formula only works for 'legal tactics' and not policies.

Kucinich was opposed the use of the legal tactic of repealing a treaty. The courts said it was ok. Kucinich now supports the use of the legal tactic of repealing a treaty.

I am correct in interpretting what you have said to mean that this stance is not hypocritical. Or, does that stance ONLY relate to the nature of the treaty and not about the 'legal tactic' at all, which means we get into subjective interpretation of what a good treaty or bad treaty actually is.

[redqueen]

81. Not exactly a priori is it?

"Kucinich was opposed the use of the legal tactic of repealing a treaty. The courts said it was ok. Kucinich now supports the use of the legal tactic of repealing a treaty."

I don't know that you know that for a fact. We can assume he was opposed to * withdrawing from the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty, but to extrapolate from there without reason isn't justified.


"I am correct in interpretting what you have said to mean that this stance is not hypocritical. Or, does that stance ONLY relate to the nature of the treaty and not about the 'legal tactic' at all, which means we get into subjective interpretation of what a good treaty or bad treaty actually is."

It sounds like you're trying to have it both ways. All we know is that Kucinich was opposed to withdrawing from *a* treaty, and challenged it in court. Based on that challenge, he now knows he can withdraw from another treaty.

Going beyond that is speculation.

[LuminousX]

86. Then I'm confused

He opposed withdrawing from a treaty he suppoted, sued to have it stop, lost and now knows he can't legally be stopped when he decides as President to withdraw from a treaty he doesn't support because the precedent is set. Is that correct?

Do you agree the following are true?

1. Kucinich didn't support Bush from withdrawing from the ABM treaty.
2. Kucinich sued.
3. Kucinich lost.
4. Kucinich wants to withdraw from NAFTA and WTO.
5. Kucinich, by your argument, knows he can do this because the courts sided with Bush in his lawsuit.

[redqueen]

88. Yep that seems about right. n/t

[Mairead]

94. Why is it hypocritical?

He tried to protect a treaty of which he approves. The tactic he used was to claim the executive doesn't have the power to void it without Congress's consent. The tactic didn't work. According to the court, the executive does have the power.

Now, as the executive, he plans to use that ruling to get rid of treaties he believes are harmful. What's hypocritical about that? His tactic wasn't a stand on principle. He didn't say 'I don't believe a President should do this and if I'm elected president I won't'. He said 'That's not legal'. The court said 'You're wrong'. What principle is involved?

[LuminousX]

98. That would mean

that his legal position was only taken for expediency and not because he truly believed it to be the case. I don't believe Kucinich is that type of person. Everything I read consistently points to the fact he honestly believes everything he says. He's been given many opportunities to choose the easy path, to back away from his beliefs to save himself and he has chosen, in every case I've read, to stand by his beliefs.

I believe he honestly believes it is a violation of the Constitution for an executive to anull a treaty Congress ratified. There is a reason why the U.S. takes so long in ratifying treaties and that is because the nature of our Constitution makes a treaty law. An executive may choose not to enforce a treaty in the same way he may choose not to enforce a law, but that usually ends up in the courts. Kucinich has said nothing to imply he would use an executive decree to nullify NAFTA. If he did, that would mean that he really didn't mean his original argument, the argument he still displays on his website. That would make him a hypocrit.

[Mairead]

117. So he always takes the principled course EXCEPT for this issue?

And that JUST HAPPENS to be what you want to see?

You really do work hard at stirring the pot, don't you!

[LuminousX]

118. You Misunderstood Me

One Kucinich supporter is saying he will use executive privilege to cancel the treaty when no where does Kucinich say that. Using his stated stance on the ABM treaty, we can see, that UNLESS he decides to turn hypocritical, he will follow a course of action I agree with, which is going through Congress to repeal it.

[Mairead]

126. You continue to ascribe hypocrisy, but have failed to demonstrate it

'Cancel' is shorthand, no more inexact than saying 'I'm going to bring down the building' when what you're really going to do is press a button and it's the explosion of the semtex that's going to bring down the building. Exactly how pedantic do you want to become about this, anyway?

And his 'stated stance' was that he thought presidents did not have the power to pull out of the ABM treaty. But he found that presidents do. So now he's going to use that power. There's no hypocrisy there. Do you really think if the court decision had gone the other way he'd be promising to pull out of NAFTA and the WTO? No, of course he wouldn't.

[redqueen]

48. Actually I think you're wrong.

IIRC Kucnich himself has mentioned the clause and the timeframe.

[LuminousX]

58. Kucinich may have

but this was the first time I heard it mentioned here on DU. Admittedly, that could be due to the fact that I didn't follow Kucinich threads up until a week or two ago, so I wasn't giving myself the opportunity to hear it.

On the other hand, everytime this topic comes up, it is spoken in terms of repealing the treaty, not activating the withdrawal clause. The latter sounds better to my legalistic ears than the former. I still support NAFTA, but as long as it isn't turfed like Kyoto, I'm cool with how any Democratic President decides to handle it.

[Mairead]

127. "it is spoken in terms of repealing the treaty"

Shorthand, commonly used when the result of some action is obvious and the action is not important in itself, or as a token that abstracts many activities that are 'world knowledge' to the audience. Someone who says she 'flew out from Boston' or is going to 'collapse the building' can usually take for granted that the listener understands that the actual work was/will be done by an airplane in the first case and something like dynamite or plastique in the second. The speaker is not usually accused of deception for omitting those or similar details.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[genius]

15. Why do you think the news paper execs are backing him?

He will offer no change of any kind.

[Padraig18]

18. Pure speculation...

:eyes:

[genius]

19. Fact.

People and kids around here have been checking the L.A. Times. They fail to cover major star studded events with the candidates they want to hide but use every excuse to cover Dean. The political registrations of the people who run the paper are not Democrat. One guess to which party they belong.

[Padraig18]

20. L.A. is not the US.

Try reading some online papers from elsewhere. As I said, pure speculation on your part.

[MrSoundAndVision]

21. Speculation leads to investigation leads to answers...

so don't bash speculation. I mean, he's a genuis but you can't expect him to cite some study that doesn't exist. Admit it, your guy is favored by the media. And I don't think you should just accept that as a good thing nor an unmentionable thing, they also favor George W. Bush. I mean, I'm not saying they sleep together or anything. You read my points above, they are true. Don't you think that they are an important aspect of running the country and influencing the world? If not, what's more important to you?

RSVP

[Padraig18]

22. he's way ahead.

Why wouldn't he get more press? :shrug:

[MrSoundAndVision]

23. Have you ever thought about how...

corporations are ruining this country Padraig18?

Speeches are an interesting way to communicate. You see, their are all sorts of messages that are sent when someone gives a speech, there are space messages, timing messages, content messages, inferential messages, and many more. (Study of these messages make up a large part of a college speech class, it is actually quite interesting). So, Dean speaks to the nation: people like you notice what he's saying but not how he smells, and people running corporations in Mexico hear what he isn't saying, but not what he is. Got it. He didn't say he'll do what I mentioned, thus there is no way of making him accountable if he doesn't do these things in office, and these ARE things that are some of the most important issues of today.

It's NOT about beating Bush, it's about changing this country and giving people jobs and taking care of them so they don't have to work at Hardee's and live in a motel room.

[Padraig18]

24. You lost me with the 'how he smells' comment.

Ciao.

[MrSoundAndVision]

25. Yeah um

it's another aspect of his speech, you know, like inferential content of a speech?

Anyway, you get me I think. Look, I'm not trying to assault you or anything, I just am absolutely serious about what I'm to do here.

Bonne Notte, I think.

[Mairead]

29. He was getting more press when he and Dennis were even-up, too

This should concern all of us.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

33. willful ignorance

stop glorifying Dean. Please.

[Padraig18]

38. Pure speculation.

Quit trying to put boots in the oven and calling them muffins.

[mandyky]

27. This seems to be the Kucinich meme

I have seen it in several Dean threads.

Dean has a plan for Iraq it is on his site. No, he does not say "Bring them home NOW", and honestly I don't think the US can pull out.

Dean will take what he can get on health care, much like Ted Kennedy supported No Child Left Behind as a place to start.

Dean has mentioned NAFTA and making free trade fair trade. Once again see his website.

Don't forget Dean is running as Dean, not as Kucinich.

[indigo32]

49. Don't forget Dean is running as Dean, not as Kucinich

very well put.

[MrSoundAndVision]

50. Yeah a one-liner

avoiding the issues, ah, well put. Representatively put I might add.

[indigo32]

51. except that most of what you wrote (in your original post) was true

how am I avoiding the issues? Short of some of spin like "pandering"... it's all true. Dean and Kucinich are different... and while I'm about ready to walk from Dean for other reasons... NONE of these include what you've written above.

[MrSoundAndVision]

52. well

So my point of view doesn't necessarily encompass your point of view. Why are you walking away from Dean? It is the issues that are important I think. And I think I've been over why the above is important, and if you have some other reasons to leave Dean than say so. I think just solving the above problems would make this world so much of a better place. I mean, yeah Dean is running as Dean, not as Kucinich, but that doesn't consider any of the points above does it? Not one, except that Dean isn't Kucinich, and by that I guess you mean he hasn't looked at these issues, or doesn't agree with them because of this or that, or that you don't know. I mean, does he have a stand on these issues and if so what are they, and why do you think they are better or the best?

[indigo32]

59. Perhaps

I don't feel I have to explain myself to someone who is trying to back me into a corner with loaded words. And maybe I should correct a few things you said anyway. First of all Dean does have a plan to remove the troops. It is simply more realistic than DK's.
you "just think solving the above problems would make this world so much of a better place" Well of course.... if I for one minute believed Dennis would suceed at solving these problems I'd be all for it. Am I simply stating an opinion? Yes Are you doing the same? Yes.

[redqueen]

61. Here's what I don't get...

You say Dean's plan is more 'realistic'. I've been trying to find out exactly why that's the perception with no luck.

Would you please clue me in as to why you think that Dean's plan is more realistic than Kucinich's?

[indigo32]

76. Well

please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But in essense Dennis wants to turn the country over to UN control for security and administration, paid for by us? Is that the case? So how exactly are we going to get that money? People are chocking on the 87 million that would be under our control as it is. Will the violence lessen when that happens? What countries have offered to put their troops in harms way in such a situation?

[redqueen]

83. Good questions.

Yes, that is the case. As to the money issue, I think the debates in Congress made it pretty clear that the $87 billion is being thrown to the wind (Pentagon has WIDE latitude to decide how to spend it). Considering that * has friends who want to get their grubby hands on it, I think it's safe to say it will be poorly spent. SO turning management / administration over to the UN will not only get the crony capitalism war profiteering cloud away from the situation, it will also provide a lot more transparency.

I beleive the consensus is that the violence will lessen when it's not solely coalition forces overseeing the peacekeeping functions. Germany, France, and Russia have all indicated that their sending of any military or economic aid hinge on the acceptance of their amendments into the UN resolution. Those amendments focus on control of Iraq.

[MrSoundAndVision]

84. Boom!

Good Answers. And good questions. $87 would go a long way if spent properly on a state just under the size of Texas. Did you that somewhere (trying to remember here) like 43% of the polulation of Iraq were under the age of 15? Now that was in the 2000 almanac, half of them may be dead by now due to malnutrition.

[indigo32]

93. My only concern with that answer

is that the UN has some serious credibility issues here in the US right now (right or wrong) does it not? I'm not sure handing the money to them will be more palatable (again... right or wrong).

[MrSoundAndVision]

97. What is credibility?

Is it agreeability with US policy? No, I don't think so. Anyway, I'm beginning to feel I'm not convincing you, that you don't care what I think or care to think on the points I've made. If you think something you call "credibility of the UN" is in the way of fixing the Iraq issue by not occupying it and selling it's resources, then ok, I'm not going to argue it with you anymore.

[indigo32]

109. At least RedQueen is having a civil conversation

fine with me if you don't wanna talk

[MrSoundAndVision]

112. oh don't take it personally

I just don't like wasting my time.

[redqueen]

102. Depends on the demographic.

If you ask some people, they'd agree. Ask others, and they'll disagree.

Just as support for the war was spun to make it seem as if most Americans approved of what * did, so too with the polls on the UN and their 'credibility'.

I honestly think that if we can get some soldiers home, that people won't give a damn about who's taking care of the administrative duties -- and I'll go a step further and say that due to the blatant cronyism with respect to the reconstruction efforts, some might even have moved from beliving the US more capable to preferring that the UN do the allocating of funds.

So the handing over of the money will never be easy, but considering how it's spent with kleptocrats in charge, I don't think it can get any harder. :)

[MrSoundAndVision]

63. Why?

Why can't Dennis Kucinich succeed?

I'm doing my best to convince you, but you seem to think he just can't. Well, I'll submit to you that the media has been feeding that same line to the public for months, and how could THEY know who is or isn't viable? Because they know people don't understand that they believe they should make that decision for you...and in this case they have.

Listen to the crowd and the debates when Dennis speaks and HAVE FAITH! Dennis is on the NYTimes Best Seller's list, his book "A Prayer for America" is on the Amazon best seller's list. The revolution has begun, let's go.

http://www.kucinich.us/revolution.htm

[indigo32]

75. Your doing your best to convince me?

not in this thread. I'll admit you've posted better. Here's the deal. I don't think we can expect other countries to foot the bill for picking up our mess. Thats what I think... not what the media is telling me. With Universal Singlepayer Healthcare (which I'm entirely in favor of BTW)... it's not the media I think, but the special interests that have backed our reps into a corner, and won't allow it to happen... yet. As far as Nafta and WTO agreements go... I have readilly admitted in the past that I don't know enough about this issue. I've heard and believe the complaints...but I also know there are some very intelligent people in favor of it.

And even if the media is behind driving all these viewpoints into my and the rest of the publics viewpoint...you've got a problem much bigger than me and the small group sitting here in this forum of this website. Seriously if I was to vote entirely on issues I'd vote for Carol Mosely Braun... but we've got a big problem in the Whitehouse to take care of.... and frankly I think it would be shameful when the entire world is praying for GW to go, to not do everything I can to get him out.
Just imagine what he would do with another 4 years.

[MrSoundAndVision]

80. Did you mean that....

that in a Kucinich vs. Bush election Bush would win? No way! Ah anyway, sorry I didn't respond sooner, I guess I missed this message.

I'd support Moseley-Braun to if it weren't for here "cut and run" business. It goes against everything I think this country should do about this war, she sounds like Kerry saying something like that: like there is ever a military solution, hah!

Yeah the whole Kucinich vs Bush = Bush in 2004 thing is something I have just felt awe about. It sounds like a Republican kind of logic. Just about everyone wants Bush out of the White House, even people not likely to vote. I expect great numbers in 2004. I can't imagine how anyone (especially Democrats) would say such a thing, it's like they aren't even listening to Kucinich on the issues. I imagine even Republicans would cross the line vote Kucinich. Anyway, if that's what you implied.

[indigo32]

85. Oh man

we have a serious disconnect then if you "can't imagine how anyone could say such a thing" regarding Kucinich's chances vs Bush. Look I know perfectly well where DK stands on the issues. I've had the pleasure of meeting him, shaking his hand, and listening to him answer questions off the cuff from a small group for like an hour. Yes I've been listening... which is more than can be said for most the people who will be voting in the fall. They WILL be judging him on less or more than just the "issues"

[MrSoundAndVision]

87. Like what?

Judging him on what else? The man's record is sensational in every way: ideologically and politically. So are you going to vote Bush if it's Bush vs. Kucinich? Is anyone else on the DU? No I can't believe that a Democrat would think such a thing. Kucinich is what the Democratic party is all about(or was before the time of compromisers): a party of progressive thinkers. Not even Lieberman's people would vote Bush against Kucinich. No, it's been made clear here and everywhere else, next fall it's ANYONE BUT BUSH! Right?

I'd vote for Wesley Clark if he got the nomination, though I wouldn't believe he was democratically elected over the others.

[indigo32]

90. I absolutely would vote for DK over Bush

any day of the week. Do you really want me to lay out for you "what else"? We are not just electing "issues" we are electing a leader here... and there are about as many criteria for choosing a leader as there are individuals choosing that leader. And don't kid yourself... there are lots of crossover people, we just had Zell Miller endorse Bush. I'm just not one of them. Frankly I don't think Dennis and his supporters have any lock on what the Democratic party is or was. I'm a Democrat too... always have been. I'm not compromising with anyone. I offered a few reasons why I think Dennis is the wrong choice. I stand by them.

[MrSoundAndVision]

99. Case in point: you're just being impossible

You could lay out something else, but you didn't, that's what this forum is about. So, again, I'm no longer arguing with you. Youn don't make points, you only threaten to.

[indigo32]

108. Fine by me

So I guess
"We are not just electing "issues" we are electing a leader here... and there are about as many criteria for choosing a leader as there are individuals choosing that leader" is not laying my point out.... or at least making an attempt.

and I suppose "The man's record is sensational in every way: ideologically and politically." is supposed to be all the convincing I need?

[MrSoundAndVision]

110. Is that what I said?

I didn't post the original message. I just said he was sensational and left it at that. Ah. I'm tired of this. You're just one of those arguer-bots.

[indigo32]

111. your original post said very little about DK

and alot about Dean

[MrSoundAndVision]

113. Don't play dumb

You knew what I meant in the original message, Kucinich holds these views on these issues, Dean won't be clear about his stands on these issues.

[blm]

71. Dean is NOT running as compromising centrist as he governed.

So, you are wrong. Dean is not running as Dean. He is running as a fighting populist when his record shows he is exactly the opposite.

[newsjunkie]

125. you should hear them on Yahoo chat

They attack anyone who isnt a Kucinich supporter.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. He's not promising things that he knows he can't accomplish

It is easy to make all kinds of unrealistic promises if you know that you will never have to deliver on them.

[MrSoundAndVision]

35. Iraq and that which CAN BE accomplished...

Actually, we can and should pull out of Iraq, because the Iraqi's don't want us. We should go to the UN with an immediate existrategy to get them in and give them lots of money to fix the mess we made. You see, the Iraqi insurgents as you may call them would see this as a good move. A UN Charter could put food on the table and provide some security. Know about Bosnia, yeah, people there didn't want to kill UN personnel because they knew they were being helped and the problem, US, fixed.

And don't dismiss me categorically. These are issues, study them, and get back to me with facts, not dismissals.

And for what can be done, well when you have a military size of the rest of the world combined, you have a lot of resources huh. So Kucinich takes 15% of the Defense budget, which we DON'T need, especially with someone sane and willing to stand up to these defense industries ruining our country and soon the world, and do a little fixing here.

Again, don't be so categorical. You say they can't be done, I say why? The same argument is applied to Kucinich by so many, that he can't get elected, and I say why?

I mean, it's the media that's been saying that, it's the media that's been saying we have to stay in Iraq, and NOW I hear it here! Again, why not? Why can't we get out?

[Padraig18]

40. "...when you have a military size of the rest of the world combined...."

Where did you get that figure from? It's completely *wrong*: Chine, e.g., has a military several times larger than our own, and that's only one nation. :shrug:

[Mairead]

42. I think that was meant to be 'military budget', not 'military'

The US military budget this year is on the order of $400-500G. China's 2002 budget, according to the CIA, was on the order of $50G.

I believe the subsidy we give the war industry is now about the same as the next 25 largest national war budgets combined. It's beyond merely outrageous.

[MrSoundAndVision]

45. thanks yes that was military budget

sorry about that...but I hope the mistake didn't confuse him into missing my point.

[Mairead]

39. "unrealistic promises" "can't accomplish"

How about supporting your opinion. Without support, it's merely another blast of hot air, of which we already have too many.

[LuminousX]

46. Overall, I'm curious on why you target Dean

When other candidates have similar positions?

Why not start a thread detailing the differences between Kerry and Kucinich? Kerry isn't going to pull out of Iraq. Kerry isn't implementing a single-payer Universal Health system and Kerry isn't going to back out of NAFTA and WTO.

[MrSoundAndVision]

47. I was wondering when one of you Deaners would ask that

Well, it's like this: Kucinich is obviously, so obviously better than all of the other candidates except Dean (where it's not so obvious), that I know it would be a waste of time to try to convince their supporters. Sometime I'll do a rundown of those candidates.

But with Dean supporters it's different. You see, Dean is second best. He shares many of the positions that Kucinich possesses but not the audacity to take on the REALLY BIG PROBLEM in our country today: that corporations have hijacked our democracy. On issues such as health care, Dean wants to compromise with the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, when what we need in this country is universal health care, like all of the other industrialized nations. On trade, he'll subsidize small businesses, when he needs to get the multinational corporations out of the international slavery business and cancel WTO, and negotiate labor standards and environmental standards with the countries with which American companies do business.

So Dean is incomplete. Since the media is so INTO Dean being the next president, people looking for a candidate will just take the media's stand and support Dean. Well I'm here to change that, to be clear on Kucinich's stands on the issues, and those Dean supporters will slowly start agreeing with me, in theory.

Regardless of what the media says, people know that the war was wrong. They just don't know (yet) that they should support the candidate who LED the effort to stop it. Hell, because of Kucinich, the House of Representatives stood up to Bush more than the Senate...how often does that happen!?!?

[lastliberalintexas]

57. A question for you

First and foremost- Why should other countries send their men and women to die in what is now the Iraqi wasteland which we created?

Whether we fund the operations or not is not the seminal issue here. How would you feel as an American if we were asked to send our military personnel to fight and die in a war zone of (insert country's name here)'s creation, particulary if that country invaded another sovereign nation against the will of the vast majority of people on planet earth? That wouldn't go over well in most areas of the world right now. The only "friends" we have are already in Iraq with us- and even they have refused to send more troops!

I understand the sentiment behind Kucinich's stand, and I appreciate that he was one of the brave elected souls opposing this invasion before it happened. Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to think that we can pull out now that we have created this mess- a power vacuum just waiting for the pseudo-Islamists to set up another Taliban style government.

Other countries of the world capable of taking over this mess have not shown the inclination to do so, and we certainly can't force them to. We can't just abandon the people of Iraq to the warlords of the area. We must now act like adults and clean up our own mess.

That does not mean that we should continue to control the resources of Iraq. That is an entirely different issue, and I'm sure that most of the candidates have said that the UN should be in charge of the oil reserves and monies flowing from same. I think even Lieberman may have come out with that stand. So while we shouldn't benefit monetarily as a country from the mess we created, we still bear a responsibility to clean it up.

And yes, I was opposed to the invasion from the beginning. For a time, I'd even vowed not to vote for any of the candidates who had supported the invasion if they won the nomination. I think I can now, but even that may change depending on how much worse the situation gets. But I wanted to let you see that those of us who agreed with Kucinich pre-invasion won't all necessarily agree with the withdraw now mantra.

Second- I don't disagree that Kucinich's plan would cover more people than Dean's (or any of the other candidates, for that matter). But I think Dean's plan would have a better shot at getting implemented, and I think that's more important than being correct on paper. Since I live in a state that just kicked 250,000 children off CHIP, Dean's plan sounds fantastic to me. Not perfect, but a definite improvement. (and by some estimates, we just kicked as many as 500,000 children off CHIP- gotta love Perry and the Neanderthals running my state). Yes, it's only my opinion that Dean's has a better chance of being enacted- just as you believe Dennis' could be enacted. Neither of us really knows at this point, and we just have to go with our gut instincts.

Finally- I've seen this addressed with many Kucinich supporters. As President, Kucinich would not have the legal authority to "cancel" either NAFTA or the WTO. Any Democrat who acts in such a manner is just as bad as Shrub for ignoring the Constitution or Reagan for acting contrary to the Bolen Amendment. We do still live in a Constitutional Democracy. I'd hate it to be my own party that puts the nail in the coffin of our system of separation of powers and creates a dictatorship of the executive. I for one don't think that's what Dennis actually means, since I think he means he would work through all LEGAL means at his disposal to withdraw or repeal those treaties through the Senate.


I like Kucinich, and most of his supporters attack the least here on DU. But you'd do far better by your candidate if you posted positive threads about him, rather than negative by implication threads about another.

[redqueen]

65. One area of contention:

"Any Democrat who acts in such a manner is just as bad as Shrub for ignoring the Constitution or Reagan for acting contrary to the Bolen Amendment."

You then go on to say that you expect that Kucinich will use all LEGAL means to accomplish his goals.

So what, exactly, is the problem here?

He's established in a court of law that the withdrawal is legal, and intends to use it. Maybe I'm out on a limb here, but I don't have a problem with that.

One thing I do have a problem with, though, is Democrats insisting that they must take the high road and keep staying out of the tough fights in order to avoid 'acting like Republicans'. They've changed politics. If we don't fight back just as hard, then we'll lose. At least that's how it seems to me.

I'm not saying we should have attack bots like Coulter... but if * wants to open a legal way to get out of treaties that hurt our manufacturing sector and our working people, then him using that same trick is, to me, a damn sharp move.

[MrSoundAndVision]

72. Thanks I forgot labor...

Yes, I think Kucinich would use legal means to do it. Why wouldn't he?

[lastliberalintexas]

74. Where did I say we shouldn't be fighters?

There is a difference between having a backbone and acting contrary to our constitutional form of gov't, however.

I don't have a problem with Kucinich. I have a problem with some of his supporters who think that the can legally act to CANCEL the treaties, as that was how it was phrased by the original poster- not me. What I said was that he can't rule by executive fiat, any more than I want Shrub to be able to do so. I didn't comment on the withdrawal mechanism at all, and I think that would possibly be an appropriate way to work to repeal the treaties. But if I'm not mistaken, even that process can be overridden by 2/3(?) of the Senate. If that happens, do you expect any Dem to act illegally?

I actually don't have a problem with using a liberal version of Coulter et al. In fact, given the attention span of the average American, it's probably a must that we do so. I want us to fight with almost everything that we have.

But I don't want us to destroy our gov't in the process. And saying that we should do something just because Shrub did it too doesn't make the act any less illegal. It may be trite, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

[MrSoundAndVision]

82. First of all...

Ann Coulter is a lunatic, so maybe you should find you tactics of delivery elsewhere. Secondly, so WHAT! I think I had this argument with you the first day I came here, the president HAS POLITICAL POWERS being the executive officer of the government, and he CAN CONVINCE lawmakers to vote with him for fear of political backlash, particularly on these issues (WTO,NAFTA) once the public is educated on their effect upon our society. I don't know why you think it should be some slap in our face that we don't know the legal specifics of those agreements. They CAN be repealed, so drop it, because the point was that repeal them is a great thing for this country, and that Kucinich will repeal them whence elected. Not that he will have to make an effort to repeal them: that's a given.

If you think that the Average American needs All Coulter like tactics to understand the political process maybe you should reconsider your political affiliation: not that you've indicated it.

Good Evening.

[lastliberalintexas]

89. Wow- I defend Kucinich

and say that I don't think he means that he would actually act in an unconstitutional manner, and this is the response I get? I never said that Kucinich could not work towards its repeal- in fact, that is what I said I thought he meant by legal means. I simply said that he would not be able to "cancel" either NAFTA or WTO as you termed it in your original post.

"They CAN be repealed, so drop it, because the point was that repeal them is a great thing for this country, and that Kucinich will repeal them whence elected."

Um, no he won't. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand that the executive branch does not have the authority to unilaterally repeal a treaty. That is not a slap at Kucinich, since it would be irrelevant who was in the presidency. There is this little thing called the United States Constitution which says that the Senate just might maybe have something to say about treaties into which the US enters. While this may be just semantics to you, what Kucinich or any other president would be able to do is work with Congress to repeal them.

Sorry that I wasn't clear or that you (deliberately?) misunderstood what I wrote. I don't mean that we should use Ann Coulter herself. But, yes, in this current political environment, liberal talking heads need to be much more aggressive than they are. Currently, liberals allow themselves to be shouted down by conservative pundits. Why, I don't understand, since we have the facts on our side. But we play too nice, and we try to be polite. Until the environment for political discourse in this country changes, I agree with redqueen that we should be much more aggressive than we are. We need to show a backbone again- and that unfortunately may mean using the right's "debate" tactics for a time.

And then we have an attack on my political affiliation. How nice. Not that it's any of your business, but I am a member of the Democratic party. I am also the president of my local county Dem club. I am further left than Kucinich, a socialist living in Texas. Does that help you try to stereotype me in some way?

[redqueen]

91. This just won't die. :-)

"I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand that the executive branch does not have the authority to unilaterally repeal a treaty."

The only thing is that there's the clause which allows the President to withdraw from a treaty with six months' notice of intent to do so. So really, he can withdraw from the treaty -- maybe repeal is the wrong word to use.

I just never get tired of thinking how that would split the Repubs in Texas, since that's one of their state party platforms. Line up his ability to get rid of NAFTA next to his willingness to fight tooth and nail to get healtcare reformed once and for all, and he'd actually give this state's repubs a run for their money. :)

I'd LOVE to see the downballot effects of a Kucinich presidential campaign on the recently redistricted voters of Texas. :D

[MrSoundAndVision]

101. You know what you are...

yeah you do.
Ok, you're right, he can't, he'll be impotent in office. But wouldn't it be great if someone repealed NAFTA and the WTO? Aren't they just ruining the world?

[lastliberalintexas]

122. Where the heck did that come from?

"You know what you are...yeah you do."

Yes, I know that I am someone who has actually read the Constitution and understands the doctrines of separation of powers and checks and balances. I know that the framers intended Congress to be the powerhouse of the federal gov't, because they themselves also feared a tyranny of the executive (which is what we have now with Shrub).

I also did not say that Kucinich would be impotent, as much as you might like to imply that I did. What I said was that he would not have unilateral authority to repeal or cancel a treaty. He can implement the withdrawal process which has so come in vogue of late, but that is different than repealing or cancelling the treaty.

Maybe if you stopped looking for attacks on your guy and stopped attacking me personally, you would be able to read with a comprehension level which would enable you to understand what I said. And let me repeat, yet again- I LIKE KUCINICH!!!!

I did not resort to an attack on him or you. I did not say that Kucinich is weird looking, shrill, a pinko commie, insincere in his conversion to pro-choice, too short, too liberal or a wacko. All of those are charges which have been unfairly leveled at Dennis. And if you'd use the search engine, you would be able to come up with several instances where I have defended him and/or criticized someone for stooping to those insults.

That is not what I did here. What I said is, despite the assertions of some of his supporters, I believe Kucinich would operate within the law. Period. Why you've taken that as an affront to him or you is beyond me.


Damn it people. Stop acting so freaking thin skinned about your candidate and open your eyes to legitimate criticism of her/him. Criticize Dean for being in favor of the death penalty for certain crimes, or for being against further federal gun control legislation, or for being a moderate. Those are legitimate criticisms of my candidate or his stands on policy, and you won't find me calling those attacks. Now stoop to the "he's too short mantra" and you'll probably get a biting retort.

But supporters of several candidates here really have taken to drinking the kool-aid. Apparently, for SOME supporters, even legitimate and constructive criticisms of Dean, Kucinich, Clark, or Kerry aren't allowed.


And if they continue to engender personal attacks from you sir, you will have the distinct honor of becoming the first person I've ever placed on ignore.

[No More Shrub]

114. One small point

I hate to jump into the middle of this, but the Constitution say this about treaties "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;" It doesn't say anything about ending them. There was part of said treaty mentioned earlier about withdrawing:
Article 2204: Withdrawal

A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it
provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a
Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the
remaining Parties.

Since the senate has already approved it, including this clause, wouldn't the President, whomever it happens to be, as representitave of the party in question be able to withdrawl?

[lastliberalintexas]

123. It depends

Some legal authorites think the President would have that authority, while others believe it would still be the Senate. Some think that even if the President has the authority to implement the withdrawal process, that the Senate would still be able to override that decision. I don't know the answer, and I'm not pretending to.

All that I have tried to point out is that a withdrawal is different than a repeal. I know this sounds petty since it's merely words that we're talking about. But words are very important when you are talking about legal issues such as this- they each have very different, distinct meanings under the law.

Historically, the Senate has retained great control over its powers concerning treaties and its advice and consent roles. The fact that the repubs currently in control have ceded that authority to Shrub does not make it right. I'm not sure whether I would want any of our candidates to continue to use procedures which would further erode the powers of Congress. Of course, if the executice and Congress are of different parties, I don't think any of this will be an issue, since Congress would probably reassert its powers.

[MrSoundAndVision]

68. No the positive threads don't...

do the job I want them to, getting people to talk about the nitty-gritty details if you will. I haven't heard anyone mention Dean's health care plan, is giving money to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries part of that? Tell Me.

Ok, your post should be titled "HUGE LETTER FULL OF QUESTIONS" but I'll do my best, as I do expect you to correct me immediately if I leave anything out.

Iraq: We've made a huge mess, and shame on any elected official who voted to support the war, they have no place in this race.

We pay for the rebuilding of Iraq, let me say that outright. We can ask for help, but not expect to receive it monetarily.

Ok, taking the US out and the UN in accomplishes the following

-no occupational force now, the Iraqi's won't hate the UN troops, especially if it is obvious THEY ARE BEING HELPED. Let's not forget, Iraqi's are people too, and they like to be HELPED.
-no question about whether those who are claiming to help you just want you resources at all costs: Iraqi oil is not privatized, like IT WILL BE if we remain (I suspect the Haliburton's will offer the Iraqi Governing Council a bailout deal).

And as for other countries wanting to help, I have said this repeatedly: it is in their interest to have a stable Middle East. Agree or disagree? Is that enough of an answer? Yes. It's that simple. Members of the UN didn't back away from Bosnia did they? No, the UN does it's job when there isn't a superpower bully threatenting to break it apart if they don't move out of the way.

Enough for now.

Healthcare: Anything less than universal healthcare is unacceptable. All of the other industrialized nations of the world have it, so we can too: . (period) I don't care how stubborn you think the Congress will get about it, most members of the Senate and the House will comply because once people UNDERSTAND the issue (how easy it is in fact to have universal health care: decree it) their political careers will be at stake.

We need a president like Dennis Kucinich. And I think I will continue to point out the insufficiencies of the other candidates thank you, it's called analysis, and it's how we'll decide that DK is the best.

What's the next issue?

[MrSoundAndVision]

73. Anyway...

be back later, I have to cook dinner so be well.

COMPARE AND CONTRAST COMPARE AND CONTRAST COMPARE AND CONTRAST
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
http://www.kucinich.us

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[indigo32]

79. Wow

you've convinced now. Geeze I'm a dupe.

[LuminousX]

92. After looking at this thoroughly, Kucinich is consistent, not a hypocrit

His original argument is well thought out...

"I filed a lawsuit in federal district court to block the President from withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. The President, by withdrawing from this particular treaty, insists that he has the authority to terminate any treaty, and can do so without the consent of Congress. But according to Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution, treaties constitute the "supreme law of the land." And the President does not have the authority to repeal laws: Article I, Section I empowers Congress to create laws, and charges the President only with carrying out these laws. Thus, the President's termination of the ABM Treaty represents an unconstitutional repeal of a law duly enacted by Congress."

He has this on his website, so even though he lost his lawsuit, he obviously still believe it to be true, yet he says this about NAFTA:

"The restoration of the rights of workers in America and throughout the North American continent will begin when we repeal NAFTA."

Now either he is going back on his own beliefs or he is going to attempt to get Congress to repeal NAFTA, which would be consistent with his beliefs. Despite thorough argument otherwise, I believe since thus far he has been a consistent there is no reason to believe he would suddenly change his beliefs for political expediency, which means trying to convince Congress to repeal NAFTA.

This may not be so difficult as he already does a good job in laying out the negatives, but the fact he has come to only one conclusion - get rid of it, instead of fixing it, I am bothered by it. As long as he goes through Congress if(when, as I through a bone to his supporters) President, I will not have a problem with it. If he decides to become a hypocrit and go against his own beliefs, I will have a very big problem with it.

[JohnKleeb]

95. Lum I am sorry about the way this post was done

I have better ways of promoting Kucinich, I dont think we need to bring up the others. Keep in mind, he will look for another kind of trade agreement as well, and its not like he wants to shut us off from the world, you may or may not have heard of his desire to sign the landmine treaty, join the world court, and others. Anyways no hard feelings, sorry if we get edgy, human nature is complicated.

[LuminousX]

103. I've had no problem with anyone in this thread today

I think once we get beyond the implied attack and started talking about Kucinich's stance on the issue, his methodology, and giving me the chance to read up on his postions on these issues, it turned into a positive experience.

I dump on idealists a lot, which of course makes them edgy around me. At the end of the day though, I would prefer a world with idealist than a world filled with just cynical realists like myself.

[JohnKleeb]

106. Thats good to know

Glad no one pissed you off. We are all idealists in some way or another you know.

[MrSoundAndVision]

96. Yes get rid of it...

and restore the worker's inherent right to collectively bargain. NAFTA strips that right, and the WTO makes it internationally illegal to "fix" it. So repeal it, and return to bilateral talks conditioned on worker's rights and environmental standards, it's that simple. Stop looking for inconsistencies, and interpret what you read, and think about how it might affect someone who has no idea of what it may mean for them, like the Singaporan who made your shirt for 12 cents.

[LuminousX]

100. See, I don't agree it needs to be gotten rid of

It can be used as a foundation. But as long as Kucinich is saying he is willing to go through congress to repeal it (NAFTA, WTO is a different animal all together), which means he may be open to reform attempts as well, then I have no qualms with this position.

[MrSoundAndVision]

104. See...

you don't understand NAFTA and the WTO. Ever wonder why people protest them so violently? It's because they tie our buying market to a market in Cambodia, only ours is a retail market and their's is a slave manufacturing market. See? That's what the WTO does. Repeal it and wham! We can demand that Cambodia practice fair labor standards conditioned on worker's rights. See?

You should investigate this. People around the world see it as the biggest menace to international society. It's important.

[LuminousX]

119. I have investigated it

and it (NAFTA, WTO is a different animal and can only be compared to NAFTA in terms of a trade agreement but is much more overbearing) is flawed. Yet, it offers the potential to equalize industry across the continent and opens doors that were normally closed. It also provides new avenues of contact between nations which goes an extra step of eliminating the concept of political borders.

[redqueen]

105. but...

I think the reason he doesn't bring Congress into the picture is for the same reason that IWR passed, and NAFTA passed originally, etc... a lot of people in Congress are no longer trustworthy. I'd go as far as to say most of them aren't. :(

[LuminousX]

120. So is Congress filled with Cockroaches?

Kucinich never said he wouldn't take it to Congress. We have no reason to believe he wouldn't follow a legalistic approach, an approach he previously advocated and still advocates on his website.

[redqueen]

121. lol, well I wouldn't put it that way...

You're right, we're not sure how he'd go about doing it, but since he knows he has several options, I think we're safe in expecting that it would be done, and it's about time! :)

[no name no slogan]

107. I think the problem w/ NAFTA and/or WTO

is that these treaties cannot be renegotiated once they're put in place. IIRC, there's rules in the WTO that prevent NAFTA from being changed without incurring a large financial penalty.

The reasoning behind withdrawal from NAFTA & WTO is that both agreements were negotiated from the ground up by multinational corporations and (relatively) powerless sovereign states, so that the corps always come out on top vs. the countries. Therefore, because the agreements are so heavily slanted toward corporate interests (and against individual countries and people), they should be scrapped.

IF the agreements are scrapped, we would simply revert to the bilateral trade agreements we had with the rest of the countries of the world before NAFTA and WTO. In effect, we'd go right back to 1993, with the same trade agreements, on a nation-by-nation basis: which in turn gives the government greater power to negotiate treaties without as much influence by multinationals.

I don't know if DK could withdraw the US from these treaties, but I don't care. He's still the only one who has the cojones to stand up and say that we're getting screwed by them, and we should do what we can to change them.

NOBODY else in this race has taken that position. Which is why I'm behind DK this time. :)

[redqueen]

115. hahahahaha

Reading your post, the most UNlikely thought crept into my head, "Kucinich: because he has the cojones!"

[MrSoundAndVision]

116. That's weird, I almost jumped on the cajones thing too...

Not literally of course, but it was too vile to post here.