Why Isn't There More Support for Kucinich?

[resist]

I've been surprised to see Dennis' favorability in the low one digits. And clearly, he's doing something wrong if he can't get his message across better than that.

But I can't help but wonder why Democrats are not more responsive to his message. I think most of us have been fed up with the DLC's answer to become more republican than republicans and their clear denunciation of their responsibility to educate the public and convince them that the democratic platform is better. Its been two decades since anyone took the liberal message to the public.

Is it the idea of the Peace Dept.? Sounds kind of flakey, doesn't it? But criminy, if its not also the first sign in 2000 years that people might choose the right direction for themselves. Whats wrong with a foreign policy that looks to resolve conflict rather than to confront it? There has never been a discuswsion in America about why the middle easterners hate us so. Isn't it odd that NO ONE seems to ask whether or not we've brought this on ourselves to some extent? Well, maybe a Peace Dept. would do that. But even if it did nothing, just the idea of a powerful government like ours recognizing that its worth pursuing in more than rhetoric and spin would be a powerful thing.

Anyway, if you are not for Dennis, could you tell me why? Thanks.

[MercutioATC]

1. I do like Dennis' ideas, but he's too much of idealist for me...

I really think that more of a pragmatic approach is required. I won't badmouth Kucinich, he has some great ideas. I don't know how successful he'd be at getting them implemented, though.

[Warpy]

21. Kucinich talks a good fight on mens' issues

...but his record in Congress speaks of a strong social conservatism. He would betray female voters on choice in a New York second, and we all know it.

I am glad he's in the mix. I'm glad he's making his voice heard on a lot of issues. I do NOT want him in the top job, picking supreme court justices and vetoing (or signing) bills that affect my basic rights as a human being.

[AnAmerican]

29. Still dragging up the women's rights issue I see

Face it, Dennis changed his thinking. A group of prominent feminists has actually endorsed him. Sure, a number of people still doubt his statements regarding a women's right to choose. But they are the people who, by and large, have not really listened to him speak about it.

Those of us who have listened to him, and read his reasoning on his website DO believe him to be a man of his word. And that is more than I can say for alot of other politicians. Above all else I know he is a man of integrity.

Your judging of what is in his heart is unwarranted, plain and simple.
Your assertion he would "betray female voters" is purely your opinion, NOT factual in any way.

[resist]

42. Social Conservative?

He could probably support the death penalty and I'd still support him simply for being the only candidate who is a current member of congress that had the guts to vote NO to the Patriot Act; to vote NO to the war on Iraq; to vote NO on homeland security. I'm only guessing that because other vichy dems votes were so right down the line with the Republicans that there must have been a lot of pressure to go along. I admire Dennis for not doing that; and decided before now that my one requirement of any candidate is that he/she not be a current member of congress who supported the above bills. He's it.

[Ein]

105. the evil kucinich is going to overturn roe v wade

Yea right.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[MercutioATC]

44. That's not what I meant...

This is NOT an attack on Kucinich, but I think some of his idealist positions would be difficult to implement.

He's already stated that he'd use executive orders to circumvent Supreme Court decisions that he feels are wrong. I don't think Congress is ready to pass a single-payer universal healthcare plan. Parts of the Patriot Act (like port security provisions) should be kept, while anything that infringes on civil rights whould be tossed. Kucinich wants to repeal it entirely.

I admire the fact that he has a 100% voting record during his campaign and I think he has opinions that need to be heard. I just don't see him being able to do a lot of what he wants to do.

[lastliberalintexas]

117. He said that?

"He's already stated that he'd use executive orders to circumvent Supreme Court decisions that he feels are wrong."

Not that I am doubting you or being confrontational here, but do you have a cite for that? I ask b/c Dennis is my #3, but if he truly said that, then he'd drop to the bottom of my list. Rule by executive fiat is wholly contrary to a constitutional form of gov't with a solid foundation of separation of pwers and checks and balances built into the system. No matter who does it.

That leaves me with a bad feeling, since I've seen some of his supporters argue for the same thing. That would make him no better than Reagan ignoring the Bolen Amendment.

Can anyone confirm or deny this for me please?

[janx]

125. He said it in one of the early forums, IIRC.

I don't know if you could find a transcript online or not.

[poskonig]

2. He is a bad campaigner.

He looked really good on Buchanan and Press yesterday and I always love Kucinich on the issues if we subtract his abortion stance. DK has previously looked physically sloppy and extremely over zealous. Kucinich also needs a message besides "I'm ideologically pure."

[Terwilliger]

4. That one debate where he yelled evey answer

made him look really bad

[Terwilliger]

3. I'm for Dennis but I think he's got problems

his physical stature in one thing in this plastic-people world, but he doesn't really have a command of his facts, and he doesn't have a lot of charisma (I'll leave out the singing)

If he could work on his presentation, he might do a lot better.

[denverbill]

5. Ditto.

If the only standard for judging Presidential candidates was reading their written responses and programs, Dennis would get a LOT of support, both here and generally in the US. Unfortunately, he's got neither the looks nor the charisma to be a big player. I'm glad he's involved, and I'm glad he's in Congress pushing the agenda.

[resist]

43. For Gawd's Sake . . .

Write him! His campaign has been very responsive, as in actually writing me back when I've emailed about issues. They are willing to learn.

[tezcatlipoca]

53. Are you a Gator?

Terwilliger? As in the pond, perchance? Would be cool to have a G-viller to talk to.

[ramapo]

6. I support Dennis but....

Dennis is the closest match to my philosophy of what our government and its' policies should be. I remember him from his early days in politics and I applaud his speaking out.

I haven't donated to any campaign yet but am considering both Dennis and Dean for a contribution soon.

Realistically Dennis hasn't any better chance than I of becoming President. It's a nasty truth and I wish I thought that there was even a tiny chance that I'm wrong.

I do hope Dennis can participate well into the primary season and get some mindshare. But he's an easy target. The Department of Peace is a great idea but you know it'll be tagged as everything from flakey to unamerican.

[Mairead]

19. Give your money and energy all to Dennis

if he's the one you want. We can put him into office if we want to!
(See my other response for Murray's words about commitment.)

[Oracle]

7. I'm too aware, not to see the writing on the wall...

But I don't give a fuck...I send Kucinich money and my support anyway.

He's the only true liberal running and will continue to be until he has no money left and we're stuck with the bullshit "moderates" that we will be forced to vote for, agaist Bush...

As I just posted to another thread....

Fuck Kerry and the rest, they offer nothing but the same old tired demo bullshit...just enough to lose to Bush and then say...well, we gave it a good try folks...they are just more fucking mainstream bullshit they are feeding us, as is Kerry, Lieberman, Dean, Edwards and milk toast Geppy!

Get fucking real...we need a real progressive liberal agenda...fuck getting by, just to beat Bush and end up with this Democratic moderate bullshit!

[Mairead]

17. Right on!

what's really nice is that if we truly want to put him into office, we can do it. All we need is the feeling of commitment.

Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, the providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his way.
--W.H.Murray, The Scottish Himalaya Expedition

Are you in earnest? Seize this very minute!
For boldness has genius, power, and magic in it.
(from John Anster's 1835 'translation' of Faust)

[George_Bonanza]

8. He has little support b/c

From what I hear, he's got very little money. Bush's biggest asset will be his huge stockpiles of cash, and a Democrat will at least need to have around half of what Bush has, and Kucinich has like what, 1/20?

[Terwilliger]

10. no

frankly, I dont think the money would matter if the Democrat had the right message..

Plus, I think Kerry has a similar amount to Mr. Kucinich, so I guess that discounts him too. He'll get the money when he gets the party backing.

OnEdit...OK its 15 to 1 Kerry over Kucinich...that just shows what having a lot of money and prominence does to help you.

[Oracle]

11. Your nuts Kerry is loaded!

And fuck him asa well!

[Mairead]

13. How much have you given him?

That's not meant to be a slap, only a thought-provoking question

And I should probably make the point, here, that for a guy who has (a) only been standing since February, (b) is only taking small donations, and (c) gets either studiously ignored or poison-penned by Media Inc (now why would that be? :eyes:), he's not doing badly.

[dajabr]

9. The fact alone...

That you used "criminy" in you post makes me want to give you a big WELCOME! That's one of my favorite words!

Anyway, back on topic. Your question deserves a longer answer, but in short:

Greed is trampling the shit out of most good in the world.

People are so caught up in the aquisition of "stuff," and getting theirs, that they have little time or energy left to consider where the world is heading.

The craving for Power prevents most of our leaders from taking a real stand on anything.

[sandnsea]

12. We're #1!!!! Rah Rah Rah!!!

And that means having the most stuff!!!!

Until that idea is broken, there's no hope for a candidate like Kucinich. I like him, but that's the sad truth as I see it.

[resist]

45. Short answers

Are usually inadequate and I'll give you credit for having more complex reasons that the one you state. But I cano nly respond to what you say and it brings out a resounding - "THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH". Not that I disagree with you, but if we all simply accept that capitalism is the only form of government on earth that can work, or that people are naturally greedy, or that people are naturally violent, then we might as well just lay down under some big truck.

Aren't we all here because this culture, this politic, is just not acceptable? So. lets change it; lets demand more of people. Remember (maybe not) Kennedy and Camelot? I was sixteen at the time and I thought he was God. Ask not what your country can do for you . . . . And it worked. I dont have a memory of people running around screaming about their taxes and how Kennedy was going to destroy business as we know it. Folks were excited that there maybe was a real alternative that they could be part of. It just needs the right message to do it. Kucinich may not be able to do that, I acknowledge, but he seems the only one who would care enough to try.

[dfong63]

14. if someone wants to be president,

... then imho s/he needs to get more political experience, in a higher office than congressional rep. a congressman represents only one district. i think it's too big of a leap from congress to the white house.

no congressional rep has been elected to the presidency in the last 150 years. DK is a very long shot at best.

[Mairead]

20. I think you forget that Dennis was chief executive of a city

with a population the size of all Vermont and much more diverse. He wasn't mayor of East Treestump, Idaho.

[ilpostino]

15. Dreamers

I think the fact that the word DREAM is used so frequently by DK's supporters says it all. Even they know that the hopes for his candidacy have no basis in reality. And why should it? His one claim to fame is as a spectacularly failed mayor of Cleveland (Rove will be able to map out his campaign strategy during one bathroom break). If not for that dubious distinction, he would be one of the more obscure congressmen, which would be bad enough in and of itself, but short of a top Congressional leader like Gephart, who ever emerged from the House with a serious chance at the Presidency? And then that Department of Peace idea! Has anyone ever put forth a more junior high proposal than that? And at the worst possible time. Pollyanna will not be voting in 2004.

[Mairead]

22. It's amazing how that lie keeps resurfacing, but encouraging too

...since it's so easy to refute. He bucked the system. He came into the mayor's office with the city deeply in debt, and vowed not to sell off the public power company. When he stuck to his promise, the banks defaulted the loans. But the Muni was saved. He paid a HUGE career price for having that tool-steel backbone. He'd be senator right now if it hadn't been for that. But he took the hit for the people who elected him, and after the big Enron ripoff of California, he was praised to the skies for his foresight and courage.

Now, you were saying about Rove's strategy?

[AnAmerican]

32. Worng answer, but thanks for playing

The proof is there, IF you choose to look. Dennis's actions in SAVING the citizens of Cleveland MILLIONS of dollars over the time period since his mayorship is proof enough. I am damn glad he was mayor.

I am damn glad he is my Congressman, and I will be damn glad to have him as my President.

The Department of Peace?? Visionary thinking in my book. Haven't we had enough of the "shoot first and lie about it later" type thinking?

In Dennis, there is no "us vs them" crap. He realizes that every person on the planet has the right to live a long, peaceful life. One of the goals of the DOP is to foster COMMUNICATION between countries, peoples, et al.

In the words of the late great John Lennon....."You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...."

Great song, great idea. An idea whose time has come.

[genius]

16. Accurate polls show that he's got a lot of support

The trouble is that some of the polls are slanted towards conservative groups. In the Wisconsin Straw Poll, he was second. He was also second in Moveon's poll. He sometimes is first in Democrats.com poll. Dennis's campaign started late. In some places, his people haven't even had a first get-together. Yet, for as little campaigning has he's done, he's doing great. Dean skipped out on his last year as governor to campaign. Considering that Dean has been campaigning almost two years, Kucinich's rise is remarkable. By the primaries, Kucinich's campaign will have time to get into full swing. Don't forget the conservative polls make it look like Lieberman has more support than he does.

[tezcatlipoca]

68. Sure you are...

Neither the straw polls or the moveon poll were representative of the electorate. Only scientific polls can be said to have any degree of accuracy. If you don't wish to believe me, just ask at moveon.

[stickdog]

18. Short answer.

Because, unlike Dean, his candidacy would be McGovern II.

[genius]

23. His campaign has just started and he's doing great

In many places, his campaign hasn't even gotten going yet and in many polls, he's second or first. In so little time no other candidate has come so far.

[Tinoire]

26. You're right- he is doing great

No flashy signs, no loud noises... Just a pure class act which is what America needs.

The times are too sober for anything other than a real class act.

[The Sushi Bandit]

27. I cant wait to meet him in Orange County

Ethics, commitment, principal... thats Dennis.

He is the only one who has the balls to promote single payer health care and he voted against the war and the Patriot act.

[lastliberalintexas]

24. Because he's too nice

And would be the next Carter rather than McGovern. I mean that as a backhanded compliment, btw. I think Dennis comes across as very thoughtful, genuine and compassionate. But not tough. In the good old days (which never really existed in American politics), Dennis might have more of a chance in a national election. But we are up against fascists who have actually learned from the Nazis' mistakes, and I think they would kill him. Maybe even literally.

Of course, this is all speculation and opinion, so take it as you will. And who knows- by November 2004 I might be able to beat Shrub if the Iraq quagmire continues to worsen.

[Tinoire]

25. Because most people, no matter how smart they think they are

prefer packaging to content so slick marketing wins in this country everytime.

Go browse in GD and there are 5 million ya-ya cheer-leading threads totally outnumbering the threads focusing on the issues.

On the issues, Kucinich should have won DU hands down. Instead, you see a lot of "he's short", "he looks goofy" "he's too extremist" and the f*%#ing classic- "he's not a viable candidate".

I'm stopping right here. Just came back from a Rachel Corrie thread in F/A and my blood is boiling!

Peace and all I can say, especially after that Rachel Corrie thread, is

Peace 2004

Kucinich 2004

[hippywife]

39. Anyone who judges...

someone by their looks or charisma isn't a serious voter. They only want to be able to say they backed the winner.

Anyone who has ever borne the brunt of such superficial bullshit in life...get out there and back Dennis.

It's revenge of the nerds time, folks! }(

[tezcatlipoca]

55. Charisma has nothing to do with it.

Which part of "to far to the left" are you having trouble with? Even with all the charm and charisma in the world, Kucinich would be a loser. I wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances and you can bet that many other Democrats feel the same way. We'd rather suffer the devil we know than spend the next four years experiencing new agonies under the one we don't.

[Tinoire]

58. First time I ever heard a Dem say he'd prefer Bush

Of course, I'm assuming that the "Devil we know" is Bush. Don't see who else you could possibly be talking about. Care to clarify?

[tezcatlipoca]

66. I don't but if Kucinich were Dems choice I'd throw away my vote and pray

I'd prefer Bush would drop dead, but in my mind, Kucinich is just a left-wing version of the Shrub. After he was finished with his term the people would probably be so incensed as to swing hard to the right again. I'd rather see the simpering simian go another four than risk that. Four more years of the neocon wrecking crew would almost certainly insure the Democratic party's dominance in the decade to follow.

[JohnKleeb]

84. yeah after their universal health care, universal pre kindergarten,

and universal college education.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[pop goes the weasel]

30. his supporters

Frankly, I would like to be able to wholeheartedly support DK, but the juvenile antics of his most die-hard supporters will make him a tough sell. They want ideals and purity, which is all well and good, but they show little respect for the average American voter--some of the posts in this thread are a case in point. And I keep getting the feeling that half of DK's supporters are for him because he is a vegan, and that's all the evidence they need that he is on the side of the angels. His policies? Don't ask them that, but man do they ever have a good tofu-bake recipe for you.

And it wouldn't hurt DK to get a better picture of himself out than the one in the badly fitting brown suit with 6th grade haircut. This isn't student council he's running for. And the close-up picture of him shouting something? Every copy should be tracked down, bought, and destroyed by the campaign, not distributed. To someone who knows nothing about DK, a picture like that just looks unhinged.

The Department of Peace idea is nice, but there are major problems with it. Among them, and certainly at the top, is the Orwellian nature of the name. Who in this day and age would believe the US could have a Dept. of Peace that wasn't in reality a Dept. of War by Other Means? Oh yeah, DK supporters, with their innocent enthusiasm. Dennis, Dennis, Dennis, most voters are not so innocent; you have to work with our cynicism or it will work against you.

Anyways, I do like DK, but you asked why his support is weak, and those are the reasons I can think of.

[GreenArrow]

61. If you want average you'll get average

Vanila ice cream. Fluffy white bread. Generic canned vegetables.

[tezcatlipoca]

71. I certainly don't want sub-average, i.e., Kucinich

Yeah, and if Kucinich has his way you can forget about getting any meat.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. I'm glad he's in Congress. I think he'd be a disaster as the nominee

n/t

[tezcatlipoca]

33. This is why

Kucinich is much too open to the neofascist elements of the far left who seek to remove humanity from the use of and interaction with nature and who would restrain scientific and technological progress and see civilisation in decline. I could never vote for the Chimp, but if Kucinich were to win the primary election I would likely cast my vote for the Libertarian candidate. For all of their glaring faults, they at least don't wish to oppress me or deprive me of my civil rights.

[AnAmerican]

34. Oh please

n/t

[Mairead]

35. er, you're only joking, right?

Totally unfettered capitalism would be the worst sort of despotism. There's a reason Warren Buffet doesn't move to a low-tax haven like, e.g., Senegal. You should study his reasoning a bit...he's quite open about it.

[tezcatlipoca]

48. No, I'm not.

I am in no way in favor of unrestrained capitalism, but Kucinich seems to be in bed with those who would completely dismantle the system rather than regulate it. Extremists of the left are no better than extremists of the right. Their motives and methods may be different but the goal is the same; to rob America of the Democratic process in order to impose their own narrow-minded ideologies.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. Your post seems overblown full of 'loaded' terms

Your post seems overblown full of 'loaded' terms. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, for now. Could you point to some policy statements that back up what you're saying?

On edit: Oh, and what candidate are you backing and why?

[tezcatlipoca]

49. Overblown, really? I think not.

Animal rights activists would impose their flawed, unrealistic, and aesthetically-based views on us all, by whatever means neccessary. The following clearly illustrates that Kucinich, even if he doesn't completely buy it, is in bed with these people. And I don't believe that "neofascist" is an overblown description of these fanatics.

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/issues/animals.htm

Protecting Animal Rights

Congressman Kucinich supports the humane treatment of all animals and opposes legislation which results in animal suffering. During the 106th Congress, Kucinich was a leader in supporting legislation which bans the importation, manufacture and sale of products made with dog and cat fur, the Dog and Cat Protection Act. In March 2000, he sent a letter to Chairman Crane of the Trade Subcommittee, urging him to include the provisions of this bill in trade corrections legislation. A prohibition on importing products made with dog and cat fur was included in H.R. 4868, the Miscellaneous Trade and Tariffs Act of 2000, which successfully passed the House and Senate and was signed into law by President Clinton on November 9, 2000.

As you may know, this new law prohibits the import, export, manufacture or sale of dog and cat fur in the United States. The law also authorizes civil and criminal penalties up to $10,000 for violation of the law, requires the U.S. Customs Service to publish a list of businesses and individuals known to trade in dog and cat fur, and provides for continuing congressional investigations.

In addition, Kucinich was a cosponsor of a bill to establish a committee responsible for reviewing alternative methods to animal testing. This bill became Public Law in December 2000.


Kucinich also cosponsored the following bills, all of which are from the ar agenda.



HR 1202 - Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act of 1999: A bill to prohibit "canned hunting" of exotic animals.

HR 1622 - Dog and Cat Protection Act of 1999: A bill to prohibit the importation of products made with dog or cat fur, to prohibit the sale, manufacture, offer for sale, transportation, and distribution of products made with dog or cat fur in the United States, and for other purposes.

HR 1581- A bill to end the use of steel-jawed leghold traps on animals in the United States.

HR 1275 - A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit the interstate movement of live birds for the purpose of having the birds participate in animal fighting.

HR 2929 - Captive Elephant Accident Prevention Act of 1999: A bill to exclude elephants from traveling shows and to eliminate elephant rides in order to protect spectators and make circuses more humane.

June 28, 2000 - Congressman Kucinich co-signed a letter to the International Whaling Commissioners urging them to stop the gray whale hunt by the Makah Indian Tribe of Washington State. The US Court of Appeals ruled that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration violated US environmental law by supporting the Makah Indian Tribe’s request to hunt gray whales in a National Marine Sanctuary before conducting an analysis as required under the National Environmental Policy Act. The IWC should have the environmental assessment of the effects of the Makah’s whaling before ruling on quotas.


And were that not evidence enough of collusion, here is part of his schedule for tomorrow, August 3, 2003: 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. PST
Los Angeles, California
Open forum with Congressman Kucinich
Animal Rights '03 Conference
Westin Hotel at LAX at 5400 West Century Blvd.
Vegan lunch for purchase if you choose.
Free event. Everyone welcome.

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


I could go on about his connections with the anarchists and extreme socialists, but the evidence cited above is sufficient to my point.

http://www.grahamforpresident.com/

[GreenArrow]

60. blah blah blah

DK is a leftist extremist only in comparison with the rest of the country, which seems hell bent on taking the easy route of convience, expediency, and denial.

It may true that this country is rightist at its soul, but if that is true, then we are really screwed coming and going. Unfortuantely, most people seem to operate at the level of the average cave-man, so maybe that is true, maybe the people of this country would rather have a corporatist fascist than a liberal democratic direction.

[tezcatlipoca]

67. Oh, really?

So if animal rights isn't extremist, what then would you consider a Left-wingnut to be?

[GreenArrow]

75. Really

You ARE an animal. So am I. Human beings are animals. The question is, what kind of animals are we? What kind of animals do we want to be?

So tell me, what is extremist about animal rights?

[tezcatlipoca]

80. You have to ask?

You mean besides the fact that a miniscule portion of the population thinks it has the right to deprive everyone else of their meat, pets, medical advances, circuses, zoos, leather, wool, silk, and every other animal use and product simply because they believe that other animals should have the right to live untouched by human interaction? Because aras believe that lower animals should be regarded equally as precious as humans and that because we are blessed with superior intelligence, even though we are not superior to our fellow creatures, and can choose whether or not to use animals, that we are ethically forced to choose not to? Besides the fact that to stop the "exploitation" of animals would in fact give them a status elevated above that of humanity? And because they feel that their "superior" ethic justifies, indeed commands them to achieve total animal liberation through any means neccessary, including but not limited to lies, propaganda, property damage, sabotage, character assasination, harrassment, stalking, battery, and even murder?

[GreenArrow]

86. of course I have to ask

Okay, you talk about "extremists" in all sorts of general terms and stereotypes, so I guess you are suggesting that ANYONE who is concerned with animal welfare is a liar, a propagandist, a vandal, a saboteur, a slanderer, a harraser, a stalker, a batterer, and even a murderer?

Do you think it's possible that the vast majority of people who are concerned with animal welfare are more interested in treating animals with dignity, respect, gratitude, and kindness, even when those animals are destined for the table?

I eat meat, I disagree with the way PETA, amongst other organizations, sometimes tries to publicize its platform, but I absolutely agree with them that there is no reason that civilized people should take such an uncivilized approach to their food, and more importantly, to other living things.

As for the concept of elevating the status of animals to some level above humans, I can only reply once again, that human beings ARE animals, and that by treating non-human animals with respect, we would most likely be elevating ourselves.

[tezcatlipoca]

88. Check my reply to Kenzee13

and then do a little research into peta and the animal rights movement. I'm not sure you know what you think you know.

[GreenArrow]

89. I read that one

It was irrational.

I'm not sure where all your anger comes from on this issue.

[tezcatlipoca]

92. Now you're starting to sound like Tinoire

"It was irrational" is not much of an argument. If you truly think so then why not lay out why? And what you seem to regard as anger is merely disgust for a candidate who is no better than Bush.

[GreenArrow]

99. well, it was irrational

it was full of rationalizations, generalizations, unsupported assertions, non sequitors, and stereotypes. Just because there are a few rotten apples in the animal rights barrel doesn't mean they all are.

You're entitled to your opinions though, and opinions don't have to be rational.

As for sounding like Tinoire, I take that as a complement, even if she was rude to you. Unfortunately, rudeness is endemic to this board, and even ordinarily respectful posters can be infected by it.

[tezcatlipoca]

106. Whose assertions are unsupported?

>>"it was full of rationalizations, generalizations, unsupported assertions, non sequitors, and stereotypes."<<

Identify one and explain it's invalidity.

>>"Just because there are a few rotten apples in the animal rights barrel doesn't mean they all are.
"<<

All of the apples in that barrel are rotten. If you lie with dogs you're gonna get fleas. Intolerant ideologies are unfortunately often embraced by otherwise good people who have only the best intentions. Remember that old saw about hell and what the road to it is paved with? Do you think Hitler or any other tyrant could have gained power with only his core group of fellow psychopaths? A duped apple is just as rotten as a naturally bad one.

>>"As for sounding like Tinoire, I take that as a complement, even if she was rude to you. Unfortunately, rudeness is endemic to this board, and even ordinarily respectful posters can be infected by it."<<

Be as rude as you wish; my feelings won't be hurt. But if ad hominems are the best answer you can come up with, you'll never have my respect.

[GreenArrow]

108. from your reply to kenzee

"FYI, I am a CVT, LAT, and certified zookeeper. I have a true appreciation for all animal life and have devoted my life to working with and for animals. I am a true animal welfarist."

Okay, how do you define "true appreciation?" Are we to assume that anyone who does not have your experience/attitudes/beliefs about animals is not a "true animal welfarist?" You are rationalizing.

"Animal rights is not about animal welfare, it is about controlling people who do not share the animal liberation dream."

Upon what do you base this? Does it bear out in every case? Are you willing to extend it as a general rule to include other groups? Would you say for example, 'civil rights is not about civil welfare, it is about controlling people who do not share the civil rights dream?' (or insert group of your choice--women, gays, unions, Arabs, Christians...) This is the worst sort of generalizing and stereotyping. Talk about fascism.

"Enforced veganism may not be on Kucinich's agenda, but he is in the petaphiles's pockets, an obviously all-too willing tool."

'Petaphile'--derogatory term, dependent on creating an emotional rather than a rational response. You'll have to provide some evidence as to Kucinich being in the 'petaphile's pockets,' and maybe you can clarify the 'obviousness' of DK's being a willing tool. Unsupported assertion, there, as well as ad hominen attack on DK, 'ars', and people sympathetic to the former.

"It matters very much to me whom one's bedfellows are and Kucinich is clearly sleeping with ar/eco-radicals and militant anarchists/socialists, so he may as well be one."

I believe that is a non sequitur. I could on, but I'm getting tired.

[tezcatlipoca]

112. Speaking of tired...

I'm not going to go one on one with your straw-men, red herrings, evasions, and obfuscations. You obviously either know nothing about the animal rights movement or are just a typical ar twit. And you don't know a nonsequitur from a hole in the ground but are all too pleased to sling the word around around. Here's a definintion, free of charge, to help you out:Main Entry: non se·qui·tur
Pronunciation: 'nän-'se-kw&-t&r also -"tur
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, it does not follow
Date: 1540
1 : an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2 : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything previously said

You might also want to look up "rational" as you are not.

[GreenArrow]

122. Like trying to argue with a drunk

Yeah, I know what the word means. All my criticisms stand.

Your arguments are emotion driven, unsound and indefensible, as further evidenced by your use of ad hominem attacks in this and other posts. It's funny, since you have accused several other posters of using that tactic, but you seem to have no problem using it yourself when you have no other argument. It's a last resort tactic


Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

[tezcatlipoca]

124. Get real or get lost

Every last one of your posts has consisted of making charges that you do not back up with reason. Like a little kid on the playground yelling "Uh, uh! You're the liar". You have yet to offer a single logical rebuttal to any of my arguments and have the utter indecency and gall to charge me with unreason. Put up or shut up. If you want a discussion, we can have one. If you're just here to play mighty Nimrod, flake off.

[GreenArrow]

131. I have backed up every comment I've made

I have "put up" in every response to you I've made. I have backed them up with reason and examples. You have not even tried to defend your points. Instead, you have responded with name calling, projections, and to use your words, "straw men, red herrings, evasions, and obfuscations." Point them out. I'm not above being corrected if I'm wrong.

As to the ad hominem charge that you keep throwing at me, show me one--ONE--instance in ANY of my posts where I have used that tactic.

This is not profitable.

[tezcatlipoca]

132. You answer nothing, you just level unsupported acusations

That's about what I thought you'd say. Let's review the posts, then.

>>"You ARE an animal. So am I. Human beings are animals. The question is, what kind of animals are we? What kind of animals do we want to be?"<<

Speaking of non sequiturs...

Then you ask me why I think ar is extreme and I give several reasons. You reply,

>>"Okay, you talk about "extremists" in all sorts of general terms and stereotypes, so I guess you are suggesting that ANYONE who is concerned with animal welfare is a liar, a propagandist, a vandal, a saboteur, a slanderer, a harraser, a stalker, a batterer, and even a murderer?"<<

The first part of that sentence is a lie. I was quite specific in my answers and they are in no way generalizations; that is the ar belief and agenda. The second part of your reply puts words in my mouth in a fallacious attempt to put me on the defensive and distract from my argument. I never said any such thing that could be so construed, thus that is a slander.

>>"Do you think it's possible that the vast majority of people who are concerned with animal welfare are more interested in treating animals with dignity, respect, gratitude, and kindness, even when those animals are destined for the table?"<<

Non sequitur.

>>"I eat meat, I disagree with the way PETA, amongst other organizations, sometimes tries to publicize its platform, but I absolutely agree with them that there is no reason that civilized people should take such an uncivilized approach to their food, and more importantly, to other living things."<<

Here you state your sympathies, but that in no way constitues a refutal of my position. Another non sequitur.

>>"As for the concept of elevating the status of animals to some level above humans, I can only reply once again, that human beings ARE animals, and that by treating non-human animals with respect, we would most likely be elevating ourselves."<<

Non sequitur. BTW, humans are certainly animals but not all animals are human. In fact, no others are.

>>"It was irrational.

I'm not sure where all your anger comes from on this issue."<<

A charge of irrationality without explanation is just an ad hominem. And I said nothing in anger; that is your invention.

>>"it was full of rationalizations, generalizations, unsupported assertions, non sequitors, and stereotypes. Just because there are a few rotten apples in the animal rights barrel doesn't mean they all are."<<

Several ad hominems followed by a purely subjective and unsupported assertion.

>>"You're entitled to your opinions though, and opinions don't have to be rational. "<<

Ad hominem.

>>"Okay, how do you define "true appreciation?" Are we to assume that anyone who does not have your experience/attitudes/beliefs about animals is not a "true animal welfarist?" You are rationalizing."<<

Putting words in my mouth again. Unsupported accusation, i.e., ad hominem.

>>"'Petaphile'--derogatory term, dependent on creating an emotional rather than a rational response. "<<

Strictly your assumption. Just means peta-lover.

>>"You'll have to provide some evidence as to Kucinich being in the 'petaphile's pockets,' and maybe you can clarify the 'obviousness' of DK's being a willing tool. Unsupported assertion, there, as well as ad hominen attack on DK, 'ars', and people sympathetic to the former."<<

I already provided evidence. There was no ad homninem, though you may safely assume contempt.

>>"I believe that is a non sequitur. I could on, but I'm getting tired."<<

Completely relevant to my reasons for not supporting Kucinich. You lie again.

>>"Your arguments are emotion driven, unsound and indefensible, as further evidenced by your use of ad hominem attacks in this and other posts."<<

More ad hominem while mendaciously accusing me of same.

>>"It's funny, since you have accused several other posters of using that tactic, but you seem to have no problem using it yourself when you have no other argument. It's a last resort tactic"<<

It is indeed a desperate tactic, and while I will not hesitate to insult you If I feel you deserve it, I never employ, as you have so frequently, the ad hominem as an argument.


An now I have demonstrated that you are a liar as well as a feeble debater. You are right; this is not profitable. Better go back to school, poor little nimrod.

[GreenArrow]

136. School

--That's about what I thought you'd say. Let's review the posts, then.--

>>"You ARE an animal. So am I. Human beings are animals. The question is, what kind of animals are we? What kind of animals do we want to be?"<<

{{Speaking of non sequiturs...}}

No non sequitur here. The point is that when you talk of animals, you are coming at it from a very narrow perspective, since you are implicitly excluding human beings as animals. When you speak of animal rights as extremist, you are really speaking of non-human animal rights as extremist. A holistic viewpoint is of more interest to me. There is an ethical element to the issue, on both sides; our treatment and relationships with animals can say a lot about us as individuals and as a species. That’s where my concern and interest lay, and I think they were fair questions.

--Then you ask me why I think ar is extreme and I give several reasons. You reply,--

>>"Okay, you talk about "extremists" in all sorts of general terms and stereotypes, so I guess you are suggesting that ANYONE who is concerned with animal welfare is a liar, a propagandist, a vandal, a saboteur, a slanderer, a harraser, a stalker, a batterer, and even a murderer?"<<

{{The first part of that sentence is a lie. I was quite specific in my answers and they are in no way generalizations; that is the ar belief and agenda. The second part of your reply puts words in my mouth in a fallacious attempt to put me on the defensive and distract from my argument. I never said any such thing that could be so construed, thus that is a slander.}}

‘That is the ar belief and agenda’ And the THE in that statement is why I consider your statement to be generalization and stereotype—there is no single ar belief and agenda—there is a whole range of them. However, if you choose to categorize the ar movement as a static, crystallized entity, then the second part of my statement is a legitimate question, since we have it in your own words that “All of the apples in that barrel are rotten. If you lie with dogs you're gonna get fleas.” And, in response to Kenzee’s question ("So any of us who support ANY animal rights are left wing nut cases?") you replied quite simply, “yes.” Both of those responses, taken into account with your statement that “their (ar) "superior" ethic justifies, indeed commands them to achieve total animal liberation through any means neccessary, including but not limited to lies, propaganda, property damage, sabotage, character assasination, harrassment, stalking, battery, and even murder?” goes a long way in creating an impression that you believe that anyone who is interested with animal rights and welfare is not only capable of doing, but actually commanded to do those things.

>>"Do you think it's possible that the vast majority of people who are concerned with animal welfare are more interested in treating animals with dignity, respect, gratitude, and kindness, even when those animals are destined for the table?"<<

{{Non sequitur.}}

Not a non sequitur, but an opportunity to extract yourself from the logical trap you’ve gotten into; remember, “all of the apples in that (the ar) barrel are rotten” and “any of us who support any animal rights are nutcases” commanded to perpetrate a whole litany of evils.

>>"I eat meat, I disagree with the way PETA, amongst other organizations, sometimes tries to publicize its platform, but I absolutely agree with them that there is no reason that civilized people should take such an uncivilized approach to their food, and more importantly, to other living things."<<

{{Here you state your sympathies, but that in no way constitues a refutal of my position. Another non sequitur.}}

Not a non sequitur. Since you have said earlier, that by association at best, I am ‘justified and commanded’ to commit any or all of a series of crimes, I am simply denying those charges of guilt by association. It was also an attempt at self disclosure, and to find some point of common ground.

>>"As for the concept of elevating the status of animals to some level above humans, I can only reply once again, that human beings ARE animals, and that by treating non-human animals with respect, we would most likely be elevating ourselves."<<

{{Non sequitur. BTW, humans are certainly animals but not all animals are human. In fact, no others are.}}

You might be right on this one; my point is worded badly. Let me re-phrase it: We make ourselves better by treating non-human animals better; i.e. by treating them as something more than objects or commodities.

>>"It was irrational.

I'm not sure where all your anger comes from on this issue."<<

{{A charge of irrationality without explanation is just an ad hominem. And I said nothing in anger; that is your invention.}}

Could be. In my experience, name calling often goes hand in hand with anger, or some other strong emotion. Maybe it is only disgust, as you claim. Calling your argument “irrational,” even without explanation, does not, by itself, constitute an ad hominem; if I had called you “irrational” it might.

>>"it was full of rationalizations, generalizations, unsupported assertions, non sequitors, and stereotypes. Just because there are a few rotten apples in the animal rights barrel doesn't mean they all are."<<

{{Several ad hominems followed by a purely subjective and unsupported assertion.}}

This was your reply to kenzee, and yes, it was full of those things. Pointing out logical flaws does not constitute an ad hominem. As far as ‘rotten apples’ go, if I had said that “all apples in the ar barrel are rotten” would you still qualify that as “a purely subjective and unsupported assertion?”

>>"You're entitled to your opinions though, and opinions don't have to be rational. "<<

{{Ad hominem.}}

So are you saying that opinions do have to be rational? You might want to look that word up in Mr. Webster. Not an ad hominem.

>>"Okay, how do you define "true appreciation?" Are we to assume that anyone who does not have your experience/attitudes/beliefs about animals is not a "true animal welfarist?" You are rationalizing."<<

{{Putting words in my mouth again. Unsupported accusation, i.e., ad hominem.}}

Those are your words in quotes. You have to define your terms. By using the word ‘true,’ you are implying that anyone not sharing your beliefs or experiences is not a "true" animal welfarist or an appreciator of animals. Why should the rest of us assume or accept that your experience or credentials are any more valid or truer than our own? Not an ad hominem.

>>"'Petaphile'--derogatory term, dependent on creating an emotional rather than a rational response. "<<

{{Strictly your assumption. Just means peta-lover.}}

I tend to believe the word was used largely because of its similarity to the word pedophile, which has extreme negative connotations. It is no different than arguing against women’s rights positions by using the word feminazi. You could probably find a more neutral word.

>>"You'll have to provide some evidence as to Kucinich being in the 'petaphile's pockets,' and maybe you can clarify the 'obviousness' of DK's being a willing tool. Unsupported assertion, there, as well as ad hominen attack on DK, 'ars', and people sympathetic to the former."<<

{{I already provided evidence. There was no ad homninem, though you may safely assume contempt.}}

The way it was stated indicates guilt by association: fallacy.

>>"I believe that is a non sequitur. I could on, but I'm getting tired."<<

{{Completely relevant to my reasons for not supporting Kucinich. You lie again.}}

More guilt by association:

Bedfellows are ar/ecoradicals
Kucinich is in the bed
Kucinich is an ar/eco-radical

More simply put: if everyone in the room was purple, except for one orange person, just being in the room does not make that orange person purple. It does not follow.

>>"Your arguments are emotion driven, unsound and indefensible, as further evidenced by your use of ad hominem attacks in this and other posts."<<

{{More ad hominem while mendaciously accusing me of same. }}

Delicious irony.

>>"It's funny, since you have accused several other posters of using that tactic, but you seem to have no problem using it yourself when you have no other argument. It's a last resort tactic"<<

{{It is indeed a desperate tactic, and while I will not hesitate to insult you If I feel you deserve it, I never employ, as you have so frequently, the ad hominem as an argument. An now I have demonstrated that you are a liar as well as a feeble debater. You are right; this is not profitable. Better go back to school, poor little nimrod.}}

“I never employ…” You have a real thing for absolutes. They get you in trouble. As for me being a liar, you have demonstrated no such thing. A feeble debater? Probably, but that’s relative, isn’t it. Why not just take your spanking like a good boy and learn from it.

[bread_and_roses]

79. So any of us who support ANY animal rights

...are too far left nut cases? excuse me? I dont' think enforced veganism is on DK's agenda. It looks to me like you have an extreme bias against ANY form of animal welfare. That's a bit 19th century, don't you think? And protecting dogs and cats is not a stance that would be real unpopular with voters - look at what we spend on our animals every year. I'll work for DK because he pushes the envelope a bit, which is a good thing. When peace, good wages, health care, worker protections are "too far left" we need someone out there saying them out loud. Which most of the Dems are too cowardly to do. Why do you think people consistently, in polls, say they would pay higher taxes for good schools? Support is out there for a Democrat not afraid to speak up. I don't expect DK to get the nomination, but the more support he can generate, the better, to offset the increasing Republicanization that is going to leave us with one monolithic corporate Oligarchy.

[tezcatlipoca]

81. Yes.

FYI, I am a CVT, LAT, and certified zookeeper. I have a true appreciation for all animal life and have devoted my life to working with and for animals. I am a true animal welfarist. Animal rights is not about animal welfare, it is about controlling people who do not share the animal liberation dream. Forcing others to one's will is what fascism is all about. Enforced veganism may not be on Kucinich's agenda, but he is in the petaphiles's pockets, an obviously all-too willing tool. It matters very much to me whom one's bedfellows are and Kucinich is clearly sleeping with ar/eco-radicals and militant anarchists/socialists, so he may as well be one. So which is he, one of them, their gun-for-hire, or just a short-sighted fool?
There are plenty of other candidates out there who genuinely care about true liberal causes and will not stoop to associating with wanna-be tyrants. One of them will have my vote or no one will.


If you want my confidence, bring me the science. Propagandists and extreme ideologists of any stripe need not apply.

[Astarho]

101. Oh Please

HR 1202 - Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act of 1999: A bill to prohibit "canned hunting" of exotic animals.

It should be banned. Hunting tame lions in an environment they cannot escape is cowardly. What kind of "hunter" needs to do that?

HR 1622 - Dog and Cat Protection Act of 1999: A bill to prohibit the importation of products made with dog or cat fur, to prohibit the sale, manufacture, offer for sale, transportation, and distribution of products made with dog or cat fur in the United States, and for other purposes.

You find this extreme? I think that most Americans who own dogs or cats would agree with this. I do.

HR 1275 - A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit the interstate movement of live birds for the purpose of having the birds participate in animal fighting.

This basically bans cockfighting. Numerous states have passed laws banning cockfighting as well.

As for the Makah tribe, I disagree and think they should be allowed to hunt the whales since as a Northwest Coast tribe, it is an intregral part of their culture.

None of these bills advocate releasing infected lab rats or some of Animal Rights Activists' more extreme viewpoints or actions. They are simply anti-cruelty laws (Animal cruelty is a crime in this country and has been for longer than child abuse.)

You seemed determined to attack Kucinich, (and defended cockfighting and canned hunts in the process).

I could easily pick out some of Bob Graham's votes in the Senate to throw back, but that would be a waste of time.

[tezcatlipoca]

113. Ooh, Did I hurt your feelings?

Why don't you take a look at who is backing this legislation. peta, hsus, and other animal rights groups propose what appears topically to be just animal welfare legislation simply to advance their goals. If you were to think about these bills logically, without the emotionalism that ar counts on to win you over, you might come to a different conclusion on some of them. All you have to do is take a look at the facts available to everyone to see what the agenda of ar groups is, and it isn't animal welfare, it's total animal liberation.

If Kucinich doesn't favor ar, what was he doing speaking at the ar3000 conference in LA on Monday? A man of principle would not court the lunatic fringe unless theirs were his principles. Either way he loses with me.

[Astarho]

121. No hurt feelings here, Smoking Mirror

Just your nonsensical rantings and ravings. Looking at those bills logically they still appear to be anti-cruelty legislation.

If Kucinich doesn't favor ar, what was he doing speaking at the ar3000 conference in LA on Monday? A man of principle would not court the lunatic fringe unless theirs were his principles.

I don't know, looking for votes perhaps?
Does it mean because Bob Graham voted yes on the Defense of Marriage Act, he is fundamentalist Christian?

[tezcatlipoca]

126. Try using a meaningful comparison.

For one thing, christian fundamentalists are not all fanatics bent on enslaving the rest of us to their will. For another, comparing looking for votes at an ar convention to casting a vote on a bill is entirely ludicrous and fallacious. I stand by my words and have yet to see any kind of rational refutal.

Funny how it is always those incapable of making a valid deductive argument who accuse others of ranting and raving.

[janx]

130. I don't find anything outrageous about these bills. One of them

was introduced by one of the very Republican senators in Colorado, IIRC. HR 1275.

In what ways to these bills "impose their flawed, unrealistic, and aesthetically-based views on us all, by whatever means necessary." ?

How would anything in any one of these bills affect you?

I'm not a Kucinich supporter, by the way. I'm just pointing out that these bills are entirely reasonable, and I would bet that a lot of people in Congress supported them.

[tezcatlipoca]

50. BTW

I nearly forgot. I'm supporting Senator Bob Graham for President. This is a man who is centrist, ethical, dedicated, extremely intelligent, and hard-working, i.e., just the man to beat the Chimp in 2004. I'm quite liberal enough to like Dean from what I know about him (though I haven't yet checked his positions on extremist issues; think I'll do that now) but even he is too far left to carry the center in these right-leaning times. Anyone who thinks that Kucinich has a snowball's chance in hell of threshing the Shrub is either living in a very small universe or self-deluded by ideological fervor.


http://www.grahamforpresident.com/

[Mairead]

109. Sure, pal, whatever you say

[tezcatlipoca]

114. Wah, Hah Hah!

I am so going to rub your face in that after the primary when Kucinich doesn't even make it into the double digits of the percentage.

[revcarol]

37. Is this a "stiletto in the back" or a "damn with faint praise" thread?

Amazed at this thread...Saw DK in person in Santa Fe...passionate yet so PRESIDENTIAL...reminded me of RFK (showing my age,ain't I?)

People coming out of the woodwork to support him!! ...labor...Greens...seniors...teachers...ranchers...professors...young adults

They see he has such PRACTICAL IDEAS: reduce the defense-industry budget by 15%...international diplomacy and cooperation(remember that word "diplomacy" we USED TO HAVE?)...care for working people, their jobs and families...

Grass roots all the way...little contributions from unemployed people dribbling in...new voters signing up to vote and w/Dennis

EXCITEMENT IN THE AIR

200 people expected on the 7th in this small town out in the middle of nowhere... new voter registration Saturday

Some have been out in the sun too long if they think Dennis is unelectable!!

[tezcatlipoca]

51. Really?

>>"People coming out of the woodwork to support him!! ...labor...Greens...seniors...teachers...ranchers...professors...young adults"<<

Ranchers? Not if they have IQs in the triple digits; Kucinich is a supporter of animal rights, whose proponents seek to put ranchers out of business.


http://www.grahamforpresident.com/

[LWolf]

38. The disease of doubt.

People have lost hope; they've given up on their ideals and tossed their hand into the mushpot of "I guess winning nothing much is better than not winning."

Doubt and mistrust are the mere panic of timid imagination,
which the steadfast heart will conquer,
and the large mind transcend.
--Helen Keller

Of course, as a confirmed, recalcitrant, defiant idealist, I'll keep on hoping. I'll toss out the doubt and enthusiastically support what and who I believe in. If I lose, I lose. But I've still won, because I haven't compromised my principles. I haven't joined a dispirited herd just so I won't have to stand alone. I'll keep barking and nipping at their heels until we get headed back on track.


Congressman Dennis Kucinich for President in 2004!

[FARAFIELD]

40. Are you Joking?

Dennis isnt ready for Prime Time at all. He got crossed up with a simple question about Outlawing Abortion on Hardball. He isnt getting more support because his answers are generally too far left. If if you agree with some of his stands, he is just too impulsive, if he simply ran on his views that would be one thing. But he is always trying to Make his name known and that generally isnt a good thing. I dont see why he doesnt switch to the Senate race. seems like a no brainer.

[AnAmerican]

41. Not worth the effort to reply.......

So I won't :)



Have a nice day

[ButterflyBlood]

46. I like the guy

but he is completely unelectable

[resist]

47. Don't kill us before we start.

As long as you say that and spread it around to your friends, you're right.

[tezcatlipoca]

52. Wrong.

The man is just too far to the left to win over the mainstream. His chance is about the same as that of Jerry Falwell would be. If you really want to see that smirking fool in the White House evicted, you will support a centrist candidate. Graham would be the best choice. Once we have the Presidency, we can prime Dean to be his successor, but Kucinich could only win in Europe. Maybe.

[resist]

119. times change

You know, I just don't want anyone-other-than-the-incumbent anymore. I'd like to vote for and support someone who will put issues I really care about in front of the American people. Can we really not afford universal health care while we can bomb the crap out of the middle east? Is that really what we want our money spent on? The public should talk about it, not bury it.

[tezcatlipoca]

127. I'll drink to that.

Cheers.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

54. He has my support

I like Dennis quite a bit, and hate to see that some of the press is already categorizing him as a "long shot" candidate. I think that sucks. I am hoping he makes some real noise in this campaign.

[LWolf]

56. There was plenty of support in Santa Ana today!

I spent the day in Orange County at a rally. There was no lack of support for Dennis.

[waywest]

57. I'm supporting DK because it feels right...

Throughout the primaries, I will continue to do so. Hopefully, he will be the Democrat I vote for in Nov,2004.
I saw Dennis today in Santa Ana, and was more impressed with him in person than on TV or radio.
Michelle Shocked was there and noted that if we don't vote conscience, we will probably end up voting for the one with the most money. *w has too much money.

[GreenArrow]

59. It takes a fascist to beat a fascist...

And that is exactly what we are going to get with all the other mainstream "Democratic" candidates. But it's all about winning isn't it? Electability. Charisma. Moola. DK is virtually alone in offering any kind of true democratic vision. No, he isn't perfect, yes, he is small in stature, but he is heads and shoulders above the alternatives offered up by both major parties.

[tezcatlipoca]

69. Yes, Kucinich does support fascism

There is nothing democratic about the animal rights movement or the anti-globalists, both of whom he supports.

[revcarol]

70. Gee, all 14 posts to slam Dennis?

A BADGE OF HONOR FOR DENNIS!!He's getting under some people's skins!!The first step to logical thinking!!

[tezcatlipoca]

93. No

Many of them were simply to keep the topic alive. If you have an intelligent rebuttal to make to any of my posts, I will be only too pleased to read it.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[tezcatlipoca]

82. This sort of ad hominem abusive reply...

is the reason why conservatives think liberals are stupid. Do the Democratic party a great favor; help to raise our apparent collective IQ by refraining from posting gratuitous infantile insults. Or do you like being thought dumb?

[Tinoire]

90. ad hominem abusive reply? Oh Please!

Don't be concerned about me looking dumb. If I were you, I'd worry more about posters who pen such gems as:


"Kucinich does support fascism
There is nothing democratic about the animal rights movement or the anti-globalists, both of whom he supports."

"I wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances and you can bet that many other Democrats feel the same way. We'd rather suffer the devil we know than spend the next four years experiencing new agonies under the one we don't."

if Kucinich has his way you can forget about getting any meat. {(Jeez Louise! Ever been to Ohio? I didn't think so! ))

So if animal rights isn't extremist, what then would you consider a Left-wingnut to be?

You just keep on like that, but don't expect more than yada, yada, yada from me or the other responses you've been getting.

[tezcatlipoca]

91. More simple-minded ad hominem

If you take exception to my statements feel free to offer an argument in opposition, but I don't think you can. You just like to twit people.

[GreenArrow]

77. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "democratic"

if you don't see animal rights and anti-globalism as democratic.

Yep, corporate privatization of water is democratic, and patenting genes and seeds is democratic, and geez, clean air is so un-democratic.

[tezcatlipoca]

85. So one perceived bad turn deserves another?

Any social movement that stoops to violence rather than the ballot is anti-democratic. Democracy doesn't move fast enough for the aras and anticapitalists so they resort to unethical attacks on corporate products, liberation, arson, bombing, rioting, battery, and other means that are expressly antisocial and antidemocratic. If you don't like the rules the corporations work under, vote to change them, don't seek to deprive third-world nations of vital crop technology. If you think animals should be "liberated" work within the system instead of destroying years of vital medical research. Otherwise expect to be labeled antidemocratic.

[GreenArrow]

87. again with the stereotypes

It's not that simple. Most people, by a huge margin, prefer and practice the non-violent protest approach. There is always a handful of people who attempt to use more extreme methods. And there are also agents provocateurs, who attempt to discredit anyone associated with a social or political movement.

If third world nations want "vital" crop technology, let them ask for it instead of letting an outside corporation dictate to them. The problem gets worse when these corporate entities infiltrate the "system" with immense amounts of money and influence, and effectivly project their will upon the majority. There is NOTHING democratic about privatization and corporatization; they are antithetical to democracy.

[tezcatlipoca]

94. Most people, by a huge margin, prefer and practice the non-violent protest

Ask any ar to condemn those who use "direct action". They won't do it. This puts them in the league of supporters, just like those "prolife" protesters who won't condemn abortion clinic violence. Even those few who might do so will end by saying something like "I certainly can understand why they would do it". Not the most sincere sort of disavowel. Furthermore, let's say that ars gain enough power to enforce their agenda. Their own fanatical convictions will not permit dissent and that will naturally lead to ruthless repression and violation of human rights.

[GreenArrow]

102. what's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?

Understanding why someone does something is not the same thing as agreeing with or condoning it. The world would do a whole lot better with a little more understanding in it.

As for "ars" creating ruthless repression and violations of human rights, I think there are bigger monsters under the bed to worry about. I'll grant you that there are some obnoxious animal rights zealots, but they are bush league compared to those that already have enough power to enforce their agenda.

[tezcatlipoca]

128. Small game hunting

I'd rather take the monsters out while they're still small. Why wait until they are unmanageable. That works out only for the monsters.

[JohnKleeb]

83. so you want corporations to take our jobs from us eh?

and animals just deserve to be killed just because they are animals. Fascism? yes fascism is universal health care for all, pre school universal, and the same for college. Give the guy a break will you, he has some ideas that we could really benefit as a nation frm.

[tezcatlipoca]

96. No, fascism is shoving your ideology down someone else's throat

>>"and animals just deserve to be killed just because they are animals"<<

Never made any such bizarre statement. Typical ar bullshit, distorting words and demonizing those who disagree with their warped philosophy.

Tell me something; how many of your rights are you willing to give up to have universal health care, etc., especially when you could have them without conceding any rights? Why is it that you are up in arms (as you should be) about Ashcroftian abuse of our rights but are all too willing to sacrifice them to Newkirkian ideology?

[JohnKleeb]

103. oh come on

I dont agree with PETA and all of them and you actually think Kucinich supports their irrational goals just because he himself is a vegan. If he was with them why would he be ok with hunters,

[Mairead]

111. Don't waste your valuable time on him, John

Leave him to the goats.

[tezcatlipoca]

116. Oh, that hurt so much.

Now I'm definitely going to rub your face in it!

[tezcatlipoca]

115. If he's ok with hunters

there must be some gullible hunters wherever that might be.

[JohnKleeb]

118. oh please

Kerry and the others get simliar grades from the NRA and the like. Just because he is a vegan doesnt mean he wants to ban all meat eating.

[tezcatlipoca]

129. How do you know? And why should I risk it?

Anyway, he wouldn't have been at ar3000 if he were not sympathetic to ar, unless he was just cynically fishing for votes. Either way, that dog won't hunt for me.

[nocreativename]

62. He's great, but

I like him just fine, but I think he would serve us better in the house.

DEAN FOR AMERICA

[Egnever]

64. Love the name!

And welcome to DU :)

[nocreativename]

72. thanks

I've here awhile but I stay quite and just read the news

[Northwind]

63. My take on Kucinich's low numbers

1. His appearance. Unfortunately, our society is disgustingly image-concious, and he is a small-ish man with sort of garden-gnome quality to his features (in no way intended as an insult, I LIKE garden gnomes). To a lot of average Americans he will look "funny," and that hurts him WAY more than it should.

2. His fiery liberal stance is scary to generations of Americans who have been taught that "liberal" equals "communist."

3. He is a vegan. Remember that a large number of meat eating Americans are a little freaked out and threatened by vegetarians.

And even if these three things were not true, there is one great big problem for DK. When he was Mayor of Cleveland, the city ended up with major financial problems. Whether or not it was his fault will be immaterial in a national election. The republicans will shout "He bankrupted Cleveland" and he would be finished.

[LWolf]

65. My take on your take

1. He is a small-ish man. He stands relaxed and confidently, and you really don't notice it unless you are looking for something to pick apart. I like gnomes, too, but his features in person didn't seem any more or less attractive than any other candidate. I know that many Americans are excessively (and, IMHO, shallowly) influenced by appearance. If they spend time listening to him and getting to know him, his appearance does not stand out. It's his voice, his conviction, his sense of humor (he's got a great smile, by the way), and his message that make the big impression.

2. His fiery stance is promoting making the every day person's world a safer, healthier, more prosperous place. If they listen to the message behind the fire, they aren't going to relate it to communism. They may relate it to mainstream america a generation or 2 ago, at least with labor issues.

3. I'm a meat eating American; I've yet to meet one single omnivore who was "freaked out" by an herbivore. I'm 43; I've had decades to find people who reacted to someone not eating meat, and it hasn't happened yet.

Let them shout it. He's proud of his record in Cleveland, and he'll respond with plenty of fact and fire to debunk that.

[diamondsoul]

133. Just something funny

You know I watched the AFL-CIO debate and was sitting here looking at all 9 of them. For some odd reason this stuff about Dennis being short and "elfish" looking flashed through my head and I started looking at their faces. I came to the conlusion if people want looks Graham is the only nice looking guy among them. I have to admit he kind of reminds me of Kennedy. Even so the second best looking guy is Dennis imo. What can I say, I'm strange, but I honestly don't like the rest of their faces at all! (Disounting Mosley-Braun since I can't compare the only woman to a bunch of men fairly, plus I don't think she's very attractive anyway)

Lieberman looks like a lush, Edwards like the Pilsbury doughboy, Sharpton like a chocolate pilsbury doughboy, Kerry looks like a very strange version of Lurch from the Adams Family, Gephart looks half dead, and Dean just strikes me as....sleazy somehow. That Clintonesque letch look, arrogant and overconfident.

Mosley Braun isn't bad looking, but even she strikes me as too nicey nicey when she starts speaking.

Kucinich has a warmth that the others lack, and a deep sense of caring for people proven by everyone who meets him and their desriptions of his behavior. His smile is genuine and full of energy, his passion is literally palpable even over the television screen. When he frowns it strikes me as being exactly the expression I want to see on my President's face when he's faced with a difficult decision. God knows it's better than pumping your fists and shouting "I feel GOOD!" just before you bomb a bunch of poor people in a decimated country.

Elfin or not, I prefer Kucinich to most of the others, and I'm not about to vote for a pretty face come election day.

[Tinoire]

74. Ditto for what LWolf said

Just want to add I eat my steaks so rare I have to have the cow raised specially for me with no pesticide, free range and on a special diet before being humanely slaughtered for the most tender, yummy, rare, bleeding meat.

Yes I know it's barbaric (but no more barbaric and much more humane) but that's not my point. My point is if Kucinich doesn't scare this woman who loves her meat French-style saignant (bleeding), then I have a hard time accepting your point.

Where did you get that people are freaked out and threatened by vegetarians? I'm really curious. Amused and disdainful sometimes but threatened? Most of the people I know admire vegetarians and wish they had the courage...

You could be right, I just don't see it.

Kucinich is only standing by the issues and letting his track record speak for itself. Judging by the growing numbers flocking to support him, I don't think those marketing obstacles will be a problem.

He's on his 4th term for Ohio right now. They're no different than the rest of America and they love him- meat eaters and all. Why should this be more important to the average voter than to the Ohians?

[Mairead]

110. Thanks for your take. I disagree.

I think you should look at a number of photos of him, rather than only one. He's one of those people for whom the camera angle is all--change the angle, see a different person.

As to liberal=commie, I respect people too much to suppose the majority are that stupid. If anything, the majority are socialist if you test them on their views. Either Chomsky or Zinn, I don't recall which, makes the point that at least once, when surveyed, a majority of people thought 'to each... from each...' was part of the the ur-documentation (Declaration, Constitution) of our nation.

Tinoire's statement "Most of the people I know admire vegetarians and wish they had the courage..." reflects my experience. I do know a number of people who get defensive--I think because they have a creeping feeling deep down about their choices--but I've only ever met one who felt so threatened that he could only manage it by being hostile (he was managing a number of other problems in similarly unproductive ways)

[CWebster]

76. lack of broad appeal.

in these times.

[revcarol]

78. Health care doesn't have broad appeal?

Education from pre-kinder through college doesn't have broad appeal?

Getting back to diplomacy instead of being the world's bad boy doesn't have broad appeal?

No more new nukes doesn't have broad appeal?

More research needed. Check Tinoire's thread.If DK's message gets out, there won't be any stopping his appeal!!

[sabbat hunter]

95. not for Kucinich

i dont think he has done a good job getting his message out there and getting main stream attention.

he may have excellent ideas, but they are unknown for the most part.
kerry, edwards, dean and lieberman all have to at least some extent have gotten their messge out there.
sharpton is a known quantity, one that i feel is unelectable for a whole slew of reasons.

but kucinich, graham, mosley-braun have not gotten a solid message out there.
for lack of funds? perhaps.
dean started with low funds, but got a message out that has engergized a number of people, and has gotten himself attention (see this weeks Time, US News & World Report)
Lieberman based on his VP run with Gore, has his ideas known for the most part, as has Kerry (based on his "front runner" status)

so rep Kucinich, if he wants his numbers to go up, has got to find a way to get his message out there.

peace
david
:hippie:

[LWolf]

98. I agree with this part:

so rep Kucinich, if he wants his numbers to go up, has got to find a way to get his message out there.

He started his campaign later than some who have raised more funds, and he doesn't take corporate money, so his funds don't come in big chunks. And, he didn't take any time off from his day job to hit the campaign trail; he didn't miss a vote. Still, the pace has picked up this summer, and I expect you'll see his message out there more and more as we head into fall!

[Sushi Bandit]

100. His Labor day Willie Nelson Concert will get him a ton of coverage..

... and word is that will also be the day he "officialy" throws his hat in the ring.

Dean is just the first of several "Front runners" and I expect the Kuchinich will garner double digit poll numbers by mid-September.

[LWolf]

138. Willie is performing at the L.A. County Fair this year.

Not for Dennis, but Dennis will be there the following day. I'm going to spend some time volunteering in the booth,I think.

[Sushi Bandit]

104. The press corps seem to feel that it's their job to narrow the field

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15481-2003Aug2.html

"Many in the political press corps seem to feel that it's their job and not the voter's job to narrow the Democratic field," Kucinich said. "We're going to bring our message to voters by hook or by crook."

[LWolf]

107. LOL

Well, it looks like he's got plenty of support here at DU; 100+ posts and counting now, all to argue with a couple (?) of Dean (?)supporter/s who seem to have reached a state of foaming at the mouth, rabid desperation to bring him down. To me, that says they see him as a threat to their candidate. And it's less about the issues than about doing battle on behalf of their candidate. And they can't find a real issue to wage the negative campaign process on; they are reduced to attempting to find a connection between his choice of food and extreme animal right's groups. Frankly, it's a pathetic attempt and it doesn't hold any substance.

This has been said before...how about finding positive things to say about the candidate of your choice instead? I'll take a page from Dennis' book for my last post/look at this thread. In Santa Ana on Sunday we were priveleged to hear from a lone protestor; someone supporting LaRouche. He didn't stand in the crowd and hold a sign; he stood 3 feet away from Dennis, yelling and disrupting, so that no one else could be heard. Dennis waited for a moment, then told the crowd, "let's show our appreciation for Mr. LaRouche's supporter." We waited a moment while he spewed, and then Dennis turned his back on him and went on with the program. When the disruptor tried to continue, Dennis glanced back and said, "you've had your turn, we aren't going to appreciate you any further." (something to that effect; I didn't write it down to be able to quote word for word). Then he went on with his business, and the listeners moved in to fill up the space and leave the man at the back of the crowd.

I'll say the same thing. You've had your moment. I've "listened." Now I'm done. I'm still paying attention to positive posts about other candidates, and I'll still engage in civil debate over the candidate's stand on the issues. But I'm done arguing with disruptors.

[ping_PONG]

120. Don't blame it on the Dean supporters

I think that Kucinich has his heart and his politics in the right place, personally, even though he is not my first choice.

I think that one reason that he doesn't get the support that you clearly think that he deserves is that the Democratic party, like it or not, is not a party with a unified view.

The union, guntoting hunter types have a very different outlook on things like defense, and gun control than the urban liberals.

There are issues that could unite the groups. It's not impossible. I think that Kucinich comes from the urban liberal camp (so do I) and I think that it will be very, very hard for him to overcome the suspicions that other factions of the Democratic party have of that group.

Trancending the stereo type of the urban liberal is something that any such candidate as Kucinich will have to do to get the broad appeal that it takes to be the president. The reason that his veganism becomes an issue (I have to admit that, it is absolutely stupid to elect someone hall monitor, much less President based on what he/she eats.) is because it seems to confirm all the stereo types.

He should have gotten himself an image consultant before the campaign started. Now it's probably too late for him. If was to elected, I would be as happy as I would be about my first choice.

[janx]

139. Now wait just a minute!

I'm a Dean supporter and I defended Kucinich on this thread!

For pete's sake, read before you make assumptions, please.

[ErasureAcer]

123. The support for Kucinich is starting to come..

Kucinich has moved into 3rd on Meetup for political candidates...and has #2 in site. :)

[diamondsoul]

134. People are finding

there are more of us than even WE knew.

Our meetup only had 11 confirmed, by the end of the meeting we had twice that show up. Moreover our State campaign director was there and informed us he had tracked down over 60 of us just in our county.

I hadn't been able to find the State contact so I was going just by what we had on meetup and BOY was I pleasantly surprised. :)

[JohnKleeb]

135. more and more of us by the day ds

now ds check out my thread in GD about why I support this visionary of a man, I am sure it will bring a :) to your face.

[peaceandjustice]

137. yes, it is the Peace Dept.

The Peace Dept. is worse than flaky. It is an irresponsible waste of money. A progressive President would already have the opportunity to appoint a promoter of peace to head the Dept.s of State, Defense, the CIA, and to Natl. Security Advisor. The Dept. of Peace is simply not needed. And it's not just a risk of "doing nothing." Creating a Dept. of Peace would eventually give future War-mongering presidents more resources to suppress Palestinian rights, resistance to corporate hegemony and union activity in the third world.

[diamondsoul]

141. Huh. George Washington is "flaky"...

It's not about appointing peaceful people. That's not enough. It isn't even just about foreign relations and international policy. It's about peace in every aspect of our lives.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

140. I would guess that it

is because he has no $, so therefore he does not have many ways of getting his message out, besides the internet.

[Bread and Circus]

142. Because he could never win in a million years

Even though he may be great America would not elect him.

It is sad, but true.