Kucinich lambasting Obama's political ambivalence..

[Tellurian]

Dennis Kucinich is pointing to Obama's weakness of not knowing which side of the fence he's on.

Kucinich was recently interviewed by Newsweek and was asked:

"What about the candidates, like Barack Obama, who—granted—wasn’t in a position to vote against the war, but who spoke out against it?

That’s fine, except for one thing. He’s voted 100 percent to fund it. If you’re opposed to something, you don’t vote to give it money. And a single speech is not hundreds of speeches. It’s not real leadership. If someone wants to talk about the war, then they better have real credentials for it. And those credentials have to include working to defeat funding for the war."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17348970/site/newsweek/

Does Kucinich have a point or is this just a simple case of candidate envy at Obama's overnight success?

[thoughtcrime1984]

1. envy

thanks, though

[acmavm]

2. He has a great point. Obama is big on talk, short on action.

In fact, that's all he can do.

[NYCGirl]

18. And how many bills has Kucinich sponsored in the last couple of years?

Here are just some of Obama's:

2. S.CON.RES.53 : A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that any effort to impose photo identification requirements for voting should be rejected.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 9/20/2005) Cosponsors (23)
Committees: Senate Rules and Administration
Latest Major Action: 9/20/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

6. S.697 : A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to improve higher education, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 4/5/2005) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 4/5/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

7. S.918 : A bill to provide for Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV) refueling capability at new and existing refueling station facilities to promote energy security and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 4/27/2005) Cosponsors (5)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 4/27/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

9. S.1180 : A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to reauthorize various programs servicing the needs of homeless veterans for fiscal years 2007 through 2011, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 6/7/2005) Cosponsors (6)
Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs
Latest Major Action: 6/9/2005 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held.

10. S.1194 : A bill to direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to establish guidelines and procedures for tracking, controlling, and accounting for individual spent fuel rods and segments.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 6/8/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works
Latest Major Action: 6/8/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

11. S.1426 : A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize and extend provisions relating to contaminant prevention detection, and response.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 7/19/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works
Latest Major Action: 7/19/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

14. S.1685 : A bill to ensure the evacuation of individuals with special needs in times of emergency.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 9/12/2005) Cosponsors (11)
Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Latest Major Action: 9/12/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

15. S.1770 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for advance payment of the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit for 2005 in order to provide needed funds to victims of Hurricane Katrina and to stimulate local economies.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 9/26/2005) Cosponsors (5)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 9/26/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

18. S.2045 : A bill to provide incentives to the auto industry to accelerate efforts to develop more energy-efficient vehicles to lessen dependence on oil.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 11/17/2005) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 11/17/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

21. S.2125 : A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 12/16/2005) Cosponsors (12)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations; House International Relations
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-456

27. S.2257 : A bill to provide for an enhanced refundable credit for families who resided in the Hurricane Katrina disaster area on August 28, 2005.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 2/8/2006) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 2/8/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

28. S.2259 : A bill to establish an Office of Public Integrity in the Congress and a Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 2/8/2006) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Latest Major Action: 2/8/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

29. S.2261 : A bill to provide transparency and integrity in the earmark process.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 2/8/2006) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Rules and Administration
Latest Major Action: 2/8/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

32. S.2319 : A bill to provide for the recovery from Hurricane Katrina, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 2/16/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 2/16/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

33. S.2348 : A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to require a licensee to notify the Atomic Energy Commission, and the State and county in which a facility is located, whenever there is an unplanned release of fission products in excess of allowable limits.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 3/1/2006) Cosponsors (4)
Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works
Senate Reports: 109-347
Latest Major Action: 9/25/2006 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637.

34. S.2358 : A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative to report on health care quality in Veterans Affairs hospitals.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 3/2/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs
Latest Major Action: 3/2/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

35. S.2359 : A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to establish a Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative under the Medicare program to assess and report on health care quality in hospitals.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 3/2/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 3/2/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

56. S.3475 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 6/7/2006) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Latest Major Action: 6/7/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

57. S.3554 : A bill to establish an alternative diesel standard, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 6/21/2006) Cosponsors (4)
Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works
Latest Major Action: 6/21/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

58. S.3627 : A bill to prohibit the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy from selling, distributing, or transferring elemental mercury, to prohibit the export of elemental mercury, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 6/29/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works
Latest Major Action: 6/29/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

59. S.3631 : A bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to phase out the use of mercury in the manufacture of chlorine and caustic soda, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 7/11/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works
Latest Major Action: 7/11/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

60. S.3694 : A bill to increase fuel economy standards for automobiles, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 7/19/2006) Cosponsors (10)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 7/19/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

69. S.AMDT.390 to H.R.1268 To provide meal and telephone benefits for members of the Armed Forces who are recuperating from injuries incurred on active duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 4/13/2005) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 4/14/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 390 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

74. S.AMDT.670 to H.R.3 To provide for Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV) refueling capability at new and existing refueling station facilities to promote energy security and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 5/11/2005) Cosponsors (9)
Latest Major Action: 5/12/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 670 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

99. S.AMDT.2995 to S.2349 To expand the prohibition on lobbying in the year after leaving service to the Senate to include a prohibition on paid coordination activities.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 3/9/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 3/29/2006 Amendment SA 2995 ruled out of order by the chair.

100. S.AMDT.3144 to S.CON.RES.83 To provide a $40 million increase in FY 2007 for the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program and to improve job services for hard-to-place veterans.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 3/16/2006) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 3/16/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3144 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

112. S.AMDT.3693 to H.R.4939 To reduce wasteful spending by limiting to the reasonable industry standard the spending for administrative overhead allowable under Federal contracts and subcontracts.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 4/27/2006) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 5/3/2006 Amendment SA 3693 ruled out of order by the chair.

113. S.AMDT.3694 to H.R.4939 To improve accountability for competitive contracting in hurricane recovery by requiring the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to approve contracts awarded without competitive procedures.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 4/27/2006) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 5/3/2006 Amendment SA 3694 ruled out of order by the chair.

114. S.AMDT.3695 to H.R.4939 To improve financial transparency in hurricane recovery by requiring the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to make information about Federal contracts publicly available.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 4/27/2006) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 5/3/2006 Amendment SA 3695 ruled out of order by the chair.

119. S.AMDT.3810 to H.R.4939 To provide that none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made available for hurricane relief and recovery contracts exceeding $500,000 that are awarded using procedures other than competitive procedures.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 5/1/2006) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 5/2/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3810 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 98 - 0. Record Vote Number: 106.

131. S.AMDT.4224 to S.2766 To include assessments of Traumatic Brain Injury in the post-deployment health assessments of member of the Armed Forces returning from deployment in support of a contingency operation.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 6/14/2006) Cosponsors (6)
Latest Major Action: 6/22/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4224 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

132. S.AMDT.4254 to S.2766 To require the use of competitive procedures for Federal contracts worth over $500,000 related to hurricane recovery, subject to existing limited national security, public interest, and other exceptions.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 6/15/2006) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 6/16/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4254 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

150. S.AMDT.5138 to H.R.5385 To require a report on the costs of the Comprehensive Service Programs for homeless veterans.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 11/14/2006) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 11/14/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 5138 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

[acmavm]

30. And? That's his job, isn't it? But he's a major disappointment in

the important matters, i.e. Iraq and Israel. And that's where all our troubles are coming out of right now.

[NYCGirl]

31. And he does it very well, at least as well, and to some, better than Kucinich. NT

[mikelgb]

58. oh please

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

MY FAV from this congress:

<110th> H.R.1234 : To end the United States occupation of Iraq immediately.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 2/28/2007) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: House Armed Services; House Foreign Affairs
Latest Major Action: 2/28/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

this is just the 109th Congress:

1. <109th> H.CON.RES.321 : Providing that the new permanent Council of Representatives of Iraq is encouraged to debate and vote on whether or not a continued United States military presence in Iraq is desired by the Government of Iraq.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 12/16/2005) Cosponsors (25)
Committees: House International Relations
Latest Major Action: 12/16/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.

2. <109th> H.CON.RES.364 : Supporting the goals and ideals of St. Patrick's Day.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 3/16/2006) Cosponsors (7)
Committees: House Government Reform
Latest Major Action: 3/16/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Government Reform.

3. <109th> H.CON.RES.450 : Calling upon the President to appeal to all sides in the current crisis in the Middle East for an immediate cessation of violence and to commit United States diplomats to multi-party negotiations with no preconditions.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 7/19/2006) Cosponsors (34)
Committees: House International Relations
Latest Major Action: 7/19/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.

4. <109th> H.RES.170 : Of inquiry requesting the President to transmit certain information to the House of Representatives respecting a claim made by the President on February 16, 2005, at a meeting Portsmouth, New Hampshire, that there is not a Social Security trust.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 3/17/2005) Cosponsors (39)
Committees: House Ways and Means
House Reports: 109-58
Latest Major Action: 4/27/2005 Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 29.

5. <109th> H.RES.505 : Requesting the President of the United States and directing the Secretary of State to provide to the House of Representatives certain documents in their possession relating to the White House Iraq Group.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 10/20/2005) Cosponsors (109)
Committees: House International Relations
House Reports: 109-291
Latest Major Action: 11/10/2005 Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 117.

6. <109th> H.RES.515 : Of inquiry requesting the President of the United States to provide to the House of Representatives certain documents in his possession relating to the anticipated effects of climate change on the coastal regions of the United States.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 10/26/2005) Cosponsors (150)
Committees: House Science
House Reports: 109-296
Latest Major Action: 11/15/2005 Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 119.

7. <109th> H.RES.685 : Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense provide to the House of Representatives certain documents in their possession relating to any entity with which the United States has contracted for public relations purposes concerning Iraq.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 2/15/2006) Cosponsors (15)
Committees: House Armed Services
House Reports: 109-397
Latest Major Action: 3/16/2006 Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 156.

8. <109th> H.RES.718 : Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide to the House of Representatives certain documents in their possession relating to the Dubai Ports World acquisition of 6 United States commercial ports leases.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 3/9/2006) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: House Financial Services
House Reports: 109-414
Latest Major Action: 4/7/2006 Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 163.

9. <109th> H.RES.950 : Calling for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 7/26/2006) Cosponsors (11)
Committees: House International Relations
Latest Major Action: 7/26/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.

10. <109th> H.RES.1066 : Requesting the President to provide to the House of Representatives certain documents in his possession relating to United States policy toward Iran.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 9/29/2006) Cosponsors (15)
Committees: House Armed Services; House International Relations; House Intelligence (Permanent Select)
Latest Major Action: 9/29/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on International Relations, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

11. <109th> H.J.RES.54 : Proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of the United States posthumously.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 6/14/2005) Cosponsors (25)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 7/1/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.

12. <109th> H.R.2070 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a windfall profit tax on oil and natural gas (and products thereof) and to allow an income tax credit for purchases of fuel-efficient passenger vehicles, and to allow grants for mass transit.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 5/4/2005) Cosponsors (51)
Committees: House Ways and Means; House Transportation and Infrastructure
Latest Major Action: 5/5/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines.

13. <109th> H.R.2420 : To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by prohibiting the basing of weapons in space and the use of weapons to destroy or damage objects in space that are in orbit, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 5/18/2005) Cosponsors (35)
Committees: House Science; House Armed Services; House International Relations
Latest Major Action: 6/21/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

14. <109th> H.R.2969 : To amend title 9 of the United States Code to exclude all employment contracts from the arbitration provisions of chapter 1 of such title; and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 6/17/2005) Cosponsors (5)
Committees: House Judiciary; House Education and the Workforce
Latest Major Action: 7/25/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations.

15. <109th> H.R.3760 : To establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 9/14/2005) Cosponsors (74)
Committees: House Government Reform; House International Relations; House Judiciary; House Education and the Workforce
Latest Major Action: 11/7/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

16. <109th> H.R.3800 : To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to extend for 1 year the qualified individual (QI) program of Medicare cost-sharing assistance to low-income Medicare beneficiaries.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 9/15/2005) Cosponsors (18)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 11/4/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

17. <109th> H.R.4923 : To abolish the death penalty under Federal law.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 3/9/2006) Cosponsors (45)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 3/9/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

18. <109th> H.R.5266 : To provide additional protections for farmers and ranchers that may be harmed economically by genetically engineered seeds, plants, or animals, to ensure fairness for farmers and ranchers in their dealings with biotech companies that sell genetically engineered seeds, plants, or animals, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 5/2/2006) Cosponsors (5)
Committees: House Agriculture
Latest Major Action: 5/11/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research.

19. <109th> H.R.5267 : To prohibit the open-air cultivation of genetically engineered pharmaceutical and industrial crops, to prohibit the use of common human food or animal feed as the host plant for a genetically engineered pharmaceutical or industrial chemical, to establish a tracking system to regulate the growing, handling, transportation, and disposal of pharmaceutical and industrial crops and their byproducts to prevent human, animal, and general environmental exposure to genetically engineered pharmaceutical and industrial crops and their byproducts, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 5/2/2006) Cosponsors (4)
Committees: House Agriculture
Latest Major Action: 5/9/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research.

20. <109th> H.R.5268 : To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the safety of genetically engineered foods, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 5/2/2006) Cosponsors (10)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 5/15/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

21. <109th> H.R.5269 : To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act, and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to require that food that contains a genetically engineered material, or that is produced with a genetically engineered material, be labeled accordingly.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 5/2/2006) Cosponsors (17)
Committees: House Agriculture; House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture .

22. <109th> H.R.5270 : To ensure that efforts to address world hunger through the use of genetically engineered animals and crops actually help developing countries and peoples while protecting human health and the environment, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 5/2/2006) Cosponsors (5)
Committees: House International Relations; House Ways and Means; House Financial Services; House Agriculture
Latest Major Action: 5/16/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology.

23. <109th> H.R.5271 : To assign liability for injury caused by genetically engineered organisms.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 5/2/2006) Cosponsors (5)
Committees: House Judiciary; House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 5/15/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman .

24. <109th> H.R.5754 : -- Private Bill; For the relief of Theresa and Stefan Sajac.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 7/10/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 7/10/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

25. <109th> H.R.6114 : To assist States in establishing a universal prekindergarten program to ensure that all children 3, 4, and 5 years old have access to a high-quality full-day, full-calendar-year prekindergarten education.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 9/20/2006) Cosponsors (32)
Committees: House Education and the Workforce
Latest Major Action: 11/2/2006 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

26. <109th> H.R.6200 : To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require States to conduct Presidential elections using paper ballots and to count those ballots by hand, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 9/27/2006) Cosponsors (20)
Committees: House Administration; House Government Reform
Latest Major Action: 9/27/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

27. <109th> H.AMDT.86 to H.R.6 Amendment permits 30 communities to apply for grants to invest in alternative fuel vehicles under the Department of Energy Clean City program.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 4/21/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/21/2005 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Kucinich amendment (A017) as modified Agreed to by voice vote.

28. <109th> H.AMDT.94 to H.R.6 Amendment requires the Secretary of Energy to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences for a study to determine the feasibility of using of mustard seed as a feedstock for biodiesel.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 4/21/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/21/2005 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Kucinich amendment (A025) Agreed to by recorded vote: 259 - 171 (Roll no. 127).

29. <109th> H.AMDT.241 to H.R.2744 An amendment to prohibit use of funds in the bill for the approval or process of approval of an application for an animal drug for creating transgenic salmon or any other transgenic fish.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 6/8/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 6/8/2005 By unanimous consent, the Kucinich amendment was withdrawn.

30. <109th> H.AMDT.246 to H.R.2744 An amendment to require the Department of Agriculture, at the request of a producer or processor, to test ruminants, ruminant products, and ruminant by-products for the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy subject to reimbursement by the producer or processor of the costs incurred by the Department to conduct the tests.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 6/8/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 6/8/2005 Mr. Bonilla raised a point of order against the Kucinich amendment (A023). Mr. Bonilla stated that the provisions of the Kucinich amendment seek to impose new duties and thus change existing law constituting legislation in an appropriations bill. The Chair sustained the point of order.

31. <109th> H.AMDT.317 to H.R.2745 Amendment sought to require the President to direct the U.S. Permanent Representative to work to strengthen and expand the Social Protection sector of the International Labor Organization (ILO) in order to allow the ILO to issue more field and regional units of the ILO, to increase site inspections of working conditions, and to issue more reports on such conditions to the international community.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 6/17/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 6/17/2005 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Kucinich amendment (A024) Failed by voice vote.

32. <109th> H.AMDT.323 to H.R.2863 Amendment reduces and then increases by the same amount, funding for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation for the Army.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 6/20/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 6/20/2005 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Kucinich amendment (A003) Agreed to by voice vote.

33. <109th> H.AMDT.326 to H.R.2863 An amendment to add a new section entitled "Space Preservation Act of 2005".
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 6/20/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 6/20/2005 Mr. Young (FL) raised a point of order against the Kucinich amendment (A006). Mr. Young (FL) stated that the Kucinich amendment sought to change existing law and constituted legislation in an appropriations bill. The Chair sustained the point of order.

34. <109th> H.AMDT.475 to H.R.2601 An amendment numbered 23 printed in part B of House Report 109-175 to require the President to direct the U.S. representatives to the United Nations to commence negotiations for an international treaty banning space-based weapons.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 7/20/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/20/2005 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Kucinich amendment (A022) Failed by recorded vote: 124 - 302 (Roll no. 391).

35. <109th> H.AMDT.871 to H.R.5384 An amendment to reduce the appropriation for expenses of the office of the Secretary by $1.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 5/23/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/23/2006 By unanimous consent, the Kucinich amendment was withdrawn.

36. <109th> H.AMDT.880 to H.R.5384 An amendment to direct attention to the funding levels provided for BSE (mad-cow disease) under the enhanced surveillance program.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 5/23/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/23/2006 By unanimous consent, the Kucinich amendment was withdrawn.

37. <109th> H.AMDT.937 to H.R.5441 Amendment sought to increase funding for FEMA by $500,000.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 5/25/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2006 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Kucinich amendment (A002) Failed by recorded vote: 170 - 251 (Roll no. 211).

38. <109th> H.AMDT.999 to H.R.5522 An amendment to prohibit use of funds in the bill to implement the Northern Zone Investment Plan in El Salvador with respect to the Northern Transnational Highway.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 6/9/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 6/9/2006 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Kucinich amendment (A015) Failed by recorded vote: 118 - 288 (Roll no. 246).

39. <109th> H.AMDT.1009 to H.R.5576 Amendment increases funding for the Federal Railroad Administration Safety and Operations account by $70,000.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 6/13/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 6/13/2006 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Kucinich amendment (A003) Agreed to by voice vote.

[NYCGirl]

66. Yes, and how'd that turn out? NT

[mikelgb]

70. read

Status: Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

[NYCGirl]

72. In other words, "It's dead, Jim." NT

[Greyhound]

65. A lawyer's maxim, "Never ask a question that you don't know the answer to beforehand".

You just saw why. DK is nothing if not prolific.

[NYCGirl]

69. BTW, I did know the answer. Obama has introduced MORE bills (since he

has been in the Senate), so the canard that he is "all talk and no action" from a couple of DUers in this thread is unwarranted.

[Greyhound]

116. Counting problem? Your list has 33 bills from Obama in two years

while the Kucinich list shows 39 bills from one.

[NYCGirl]

117. I posted the ones I thought were most important. Obama: 152 bills sponsored, 427 co-sponsored

co-sponsored in 109th Congress. 34 sponsored and 91 co-sponsored so far in the 110th.

Search for yourself if you doubt it (thomas.gov doesn't allow specific links):

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d109query.html

[ripple]

111. Up until this session, he was the second top-performing senator

in terms of legislation sponsored, passed out of committee, co-sponsored, etc., according to fantasycongress.com

This session, he has been spread pretty thin for obvious reasons- yet he still hasn't missed a vote.

Your talking point is false.

[Tellurian]

3. I don't agree with DK's opinions all the time..

and think when he sees an opportunity, he will take advantage. But I'll readily admit, I don't know his interests well enough to know if he's right or wrong on this issue regarding Obama.

[John Q. Citizen]

50. Dennis is the only candidate I've seen with detailed positions on all the major issues.

Some people prefer image over substance.

I prefer substance over image.

I have been asking Hillary supporters why they support her. Without any replies, so far. I'm left to assume that Hillary supporters don't know why they support her.

What stances on the issues does Hillary take that you support?

Where does she stand on Iraq, for instance?
Where does she stand on Health Care for instance?
Where does she stand on free trade, for instance?
Where does she stand on election integrity for instance?
Where does she stand on the drug war for instance?
Where does she stand on medical marijuana, for instance?


The one stand I do know she supports is that she should be president. She unequivocally says she's in it to win it. Well, OK. At least I know that. ANd I know how she intends to do it. By taking more money from more corporations than any other candidate. From Rupert Murdock, to Citibank, she's making a pricipled stand on that issue and fighting for herself.

I know where Dennis stands on these issues and lots lots more because he writes position papers that explain, in detail, where he stands, why he takes that stance, and how he would implement his stance.

I'm not the kind of voter who supports a candidate because they have a nice spouse, (doesn't hurt but not really anything of substance) because they raise a lot of money, (like is money free?) they have good teeth, or because they come from my state. I base my support of every candidate I vote for based on where they stand on the issues, and specifically how they would address those issues.

[SaveElmer]

4. Kucinich is a bomb thrower...

Who doesn't even attempt to make progress on the things he says he stands for...

Case in point his recent vote not to set a withdrawal date for troops in Iraq, opting instead to vote to prolong the war, allegedly holding out for a complete funding ban, which he knows as well as anyone was not going to happen...but in reality I suspect, grandstanding for his Presidential campaign

And yes, I think he is jealous of Obama...

[Tom Joad]

8. It was NOT a vote to prolong the war. If you want to prolong the war,

hillary is your ... whatever. She has stated she sees a role for the US military in 2009 and beyond.

[SaveElmer]

15. AS has every other responsible candidate...

Fact is Kucinich made common cause with Republicans and George Bush in oppposing these restrictions...and voted to prolong the war

[John Q. Citizen]

19. that's your opinion. Everyone has one, you know?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[SaveElmer]

24. As Kucinich knows (or should know)...

Congress does not throw Hail Mary's...and that's all Kucinich ever proposes...with the result being he never accomplishes anything...

The recently passed restrictions are an excellent step forward...as Jim Webb...a man far more qualified than Kucinich on this topic...agrees with...

And there is no responsible proposal for withdrawal from Iraq, that does not envision a U.S. military presence in the area for some time...Murtha, Feingold, and Kerry included...

[John Q. Citizen]

29. Ah, yes. Just like it was irresponsible to oppose going in, right? We see where your

style of "responsible" has gotten us.

Stuck in a quagmire of so-called "responsible" action.

Thanks to all the "responsible" people who are now responsible for the unneccesary deaths of 3200 + US servicepeople and around a million Iraqi citizens.

I see how "responsible" works.

[SaveElmer]

32. Nice try...

George Bush's war...Democrats getting us out...Kucinich making common cause with Republicans opposing a withdrawal date...

[John Q. Citizen]

37. Thanks. Making common cause with Repos to go into Iraq was....what? Responsible?

ha ha ha ha.

Right.

[Tom Joad]

36. Kerry has been very "responsible". Responsible when he voted for the IWR

Responsible when he campaigned for more troops in Iraq...

I will say, he is responsible.

[blm]

41. 'more troops' before 2005 election to stabilize Iraq so that UN and NATO would take over

and US could start withdrawing troops and turn over its bases.

Big difference.

Kofi Annan and NATO officials would agree to take over under those conditions. Again, you have forgotten that Kerry and Annan have been longtime friends and allies, and Kerry proposed what he knew Annan supported.

What was YOUR suggestion for getting the UN to take over Iraq in 2005, and did you run it by Kofi Annan?

[John Q. Citizen]

17. I like the bill Kucinich and Conyers are sponcering and introducing for single payer health care..

Kucinich is one of the good guys.

Even if he isn't as corporitist as you like your candidates to be.

[Kolesar]

110. Ok. That is notable.

[mikelgb]

60. .....

4. <110th> H.R.1234 : To end the United States occupation of Iraq immediately.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (introduced 2/28/2007) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: House Armed Services; House Foreign Affairs
Latest Major Action: 2/28/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

[SaveElmer]

63. And his job is at an end...

This will languish and go nowhere...while DK is out campaigning...

[mikelgb]

71. It is up to the Speaker now.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[SaveElmer]

77. And I'm wrong how...?

Care to point to any progress Kucinich has made on any of his priorities...other than introducing a bill...which any freshman can do...

[John Q. Citizen]

90. How's Hillary's Health Care Plan coming? Didn't She start work on that in back in '93?

Is she half way there yet? Let's see, so in another 14 years do you think she'll make a difference?

Me neither.

[SaveElmer]

91. Guess you are not gonna answer the question...

If you would truly like a litany of Hillary's many accomplishments I would be glad to provide it...but somehow I don't think you are...

So, how about listing those big DK successes for me!!!

[John Q. Citizen]

94. I know she was a corporate lawyer, the wife of the AG of AR, the wife of the

losing candidate for Gov, the wife of the Gov. of AR, the wife of the POTUS, and a second Term Senator from NY.

So which bills has she written and passed?

You know, as I said in a different post on this thread, Hastert and Frist have both authored and passed more bills than either Hillary or Dennis has, so if that's your criteria for a candidate, perhaps you should look at those who have passed the most bills.

Dennis has been in a Republican controlled House until 3 months ago. Hillary was in a Dem controlled Senate for 2 years, (2000-20002) So comparing the two based on your how many bills passed criteria is a lame excuse.

I can tell you based on the issues why I support Dennis.

Will you tell me, based on the issues why you support Hillary?

What is her plan for Iraq?
What is her paln for Health Care?
What is her plan for election integrity?
What is her plan for the war on drugs?
Whay is her plan for free trade?
What is her plan for anything, other than getting elected to the presidency, a plan that includes taking money from Rupert Murdock?

[Greyhound]

115. Characterizing his vote as voting to prolong the war, when in fact he

voted against the bill that only serves to prolong the war.

[Greyhound]

133. ...

?:eyes:

[DCKit]

5. It would be political suicide to come out for issues at this early date

I really admire Kucinich's stand on issues, but believe this is political.

Obama is wise not to provide too much information at this point.

[Tellurian]

12. The game has ratcheted up so quickly..

I think the candidates have to come-up with at least a Health Care Plan model to put forward to voters. How long they will wait to do this is anyone's guess. Then there is the fear of 'copy cat' plans modeled on other nominee's plans and taking credit for the innovations.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. Yes, as voters we are to stupid to understand issues. It's best to just push image over substance.

[Kolesar]

108. Ok, that's sarcastic

But a point that needed to be made. I am disappointed that this campaign is roaring along with such scant attention to issues and "movement building".

I always thought that Wes Clark was presenting the climate change issue well, but his is the only campaign I can say that for. And he is not even a candidate.

[John Q. Citizen]

123. I like Clark. He's extremely issue based and gives very detailed information

about where he stands on issues, why he takes that stance, and what his proposed solutions are.

I hope he runs.

I also give Edwards credit along those same lines.

And of course Kucinich has detailed postion pieces on most of the issues.

This doesn't mean that I agree with all three or disagree with all three on all issues. But it is the only way I can determine who I'm ultimatley supporting.

Some people buy a car based on the advertising or how cool they think it will make them look. Some buy a car based on the sticker price. I buy a car based on many different factors and I want to know all the details, from MPG, to service costs, to reliabilty, to various options offered, to total cargo space, and more, to determine what makes the most sense for my needs, and my wants.

Any car company who won't give me detailed information on what their product is won't be getting my business.

Same for candidates.

[redqueen]

6. It is SO too early for this...

but people are eating it up...

*sigh*

[MethuenProgressive]

7. He has a point - and is envious too.

Your question was crafted like a MSM poll...

[Tellurian]

16. Is that a compliment or...

I crafted the question to be fair leaving plenty of latitude for everyones opinion.
I honestly don't know either candidates that well to make a statement myself..
I guess you could say the question was a little self serving.

[saltpoint]

9. I would challenge Republicans lurking in this forum to tell me which

of their 2008 candidates have spoken from their heart and mind as well or as truthfully or as consistently as Dennis Kucinich has;

and which of their 2008 candidates have spoken as lyrically and historically as Barack Obama has.

In my opinion, the Republicans ain't got shit.

The blue team's the ones with the star players.

[Learn2Swim]

11. Good post.

[mikelgb]

61. bang bang

[Tellurian]

97. I don't know a Republican with a heart..

Do You?

[saltpoint]

101. Almost none. Pete McCloskey of California, Howard Baker of

Tennessee, Lowell Weicker of Connecticut.

Abraham Lincoln.

That's it.

[Tellurian]

128. Exactly, OC..

I'm surprised you found 3.

Does Lincoln really count? :hi:

[saltpoint]

129. I threw in Lincoln in case they wanted to play Bridge!

How ya doin', Tellurian? Nice to see you on DU. :hi:

:dem:

[Tellurian]

130. hahaha!

thanks, and have a great holiday weekend!

....if my graphic isn't showing, right click and view image..

[saltpoint]

137. A thanks right back, and have a great weekend yourself.

Go, Democrats!

:hi:
:dem:

[sandnsea]

10. You don't lie about your position either

Like leading people to believe there's hundreds of thousands of UN troops to take over if the US leaves. Or supporting inspections but denying the mechanism needed to get the inspectors in. Or mischaracterizing an Iraq strategy as "stay the course" when it's exactly the same as your plan.

I saw Dennis in a small setting in 2004 and quite honestly, he has small-man-god complex. I did not like the vibes I got from him at all. Flame away.

[treestar]

22. I'm not sure about that kind of thing

Wasn't Chimpy said to be a pleasant fellow in person?

Though I understand it would be hard to vote for someone once you've met him and don't like him.

[sandnsea]

39. If sociopaths are pleasant

I'm not crazy about Hillary's personality, but that's not the reason I don't want her for President. I'm not crazy about Gore's personality either, but would vote for him in an instant. Kucinich started bugging me in 2004 when I read his Iraq plan and discovered it contained caveats like security and reconstruction that he and his supporters were calling "stay the course" in other people's plans. He isn't alone in that, Cindy Sheehan even said "out now" doesn't mean pack up and leave right now. Well, an awful lot of people thought that was exactly what she meant.

[John Q. Citizen]

45. How do you know how other people interpret Cindy's words? Are you psychic?

[sandnsea]

46. lol

Are you seriously going to pretend there aren't DUers who have been screaming 'out right now' since the day we invaded?

[John Q. Citizen]

51. Lol, nice side step of my question, and nice answer to a question I didn't ask.

Cindy didn't become involved in anti-Iraq war issues until a while after we invaded.

I do know many DUer and many accross the country opposed the war from before we went in.

It would be iompossible to move out 175,000 troops in one second, so the people you claim to be speaking for must know that, I would guess.

How many people are you talking about, the ones who you claim were fooled by Cindy, I mean?

[sandnsea]

53. Cindy wasn't for "out now"?

You're going on record saying that. You're saying "out now" actually mean leave in a measured period of time, leaving behind security and reconstruction. That's what you're saying?

You'll create a new post and ask people if that's what "out now" meant to them? Correct?

[John Q. Citizen]

54. Cindy is for out yesterday. What are you for?

[sandnsea]

64. Honesty. So which is it?

When she was campaigning for "out now", did she mean out "yesterday", in your words; or did she mean with a plan for security and reconstruction.

If people, including you interpret her to mean "out yesterday", as you say - then what I said originally is correct. People were misled by "out now", the plans actually contained the same provisions as some of the so-called "stay the course" plans.

That's my objection to Dennis Kucinich.

[Greyhound]

73. That's funny Randi Rhodes just now said how much she loves him personally

and how genuine and caring he is, and she has met and spoken with him numerous times. Now, I haven't and don't doubt your feelings, I just wonder how open you might have been to him.

[sandnsea]

81. "Randi Rhodes said"

And?

I was quite surprised at my reaction actually. I had heard a lot of people say he was warm and caring, etc. I got a good vibe from both Dean and Kerry, and I'm not that great of a Dean fan. I did not find Dennis to be at ease or affable at all. Very closed personality, seemed to me. It could be he was tired, being at the end of a very hectic campaign schedule. I just did not find him to match the image that was projected.

[bbgrunt]

13. Obama has done an outstanding job SOUNDING good, but there

is very little evidence that he acts or takes the lead on many issues. I just keep seeing the scene of him speaking up for and backing Lieberman during the lamont challenge......wtf was that? I find it hard to get excited about any dem who played backup to Lieberman.

[NYCGirl]

26. According to thomas.loc.gov, Obama sponsored 152 bills and co-sponsored

427 in the 109th Congress; he sponsored 34 and co-sponsored 91 in the 110th.

[IsItJustMe]

83. "played backup to Lieberman"

I also have a very hard time with that. He has done it on more than one occasion.

[NYCGirl]

86. Can you give me some links to those times? NT

[Radical Activist]

88. I hope you'll bother to look at Obama's record.

His time in the Illinois State Senate and US Senate shows that he has taken leadership on many issues.

[rinsd]

92. Here's the wtf that was about with Obama & Lieberman

"I just keep seeing the scene of him speaking up for and backing Lieberman during the lamont challenge......wtf was that?"

He was at a Democratic dinner (before the primaries)

"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."

Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate." That time, people cheered loudly."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/02/164/90446

Here is Obama's e-mail to CT Dem supporting Lamont

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/10/26/221519/73

"Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grassroots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election. He has a vision for his state and country, and his campaign has been about presenting that vision to Connecticut voters.

Ned Lamont and I share a commitment to bringing our troops home safely from Iraq, to achieving energy independence, to helping all our citizens realize the American dream, and to empowering the American people to reclaim their government. Ned Lamont’s campaign is about delivering on these goals in Washington.

The November 7th election is right around the corner. Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign."

So there you have it, a mention at a dinner for one, an e-mail endorsement for the other.

Of course whiny little shits like David Sirota are bitter that Obama didnt go to the full court press for Lamont in the general and like to pretend a dinner announcement in late March (when Lamont was barely on the map down 20pts + to Lieberman in the polls) is the same as an emphatic endorsement to all CT Democrats.

[flpoljunkie]

14. Door #2.

[Norquist Nemesis]

20. I don't think he has a point

In fact, I think it's a little disingenuous because he is only taking part of what Obama said. He's leaving out that Obama said, 'but if we do go to war...we have to do it right.' This is the first time since the war started that Obama's been in the Majority (not to mention it's the slimmest of majorities and threatened daily by Joe Lieberman over this particular issue).

[John Q. Citizen]

23. Kucinich is for the same thing Harry Reid just came out for. Defunding the war.

Everything else is just political theater.

Kucinich's point is if you oppose the war in Iraq then you don't vote to spend money to continue the war in Iraq.

Seems reasonable to me.

Do you believe funding what you oppose is the best way to say no?

[SaveElmer]

28. And why do you think Reid now has leverage to take that step?

Because restrictions passed in the last couple of weeks gave it to him...

He can now claim plausibly that if Bush vetoes this he is the one denying the troops the resources they need, and it is Bush that is subverting the will of the voters...and then the responsible Democrats will bring them home rather than have them there with no resources

Had Reid come out on day one demanding a complete defunding of the war, he would have been laughed out of the Senate chamber...

[John Q. Citizen]

35. Because the voters spoke. Out of Iraq!

[Tellurian]

40. That is definitely good news..

He can now claim plausibly that if Bush vetoes this he is the one denying the troops the resources they need, and it is Bush that is subverting the will of the voters...and then the responsible Democrats will bring them home rather than have them there with no resources."

and glad the Dems are making progress. What is puzzling, why isn't Kucinich supporting the progress or the plan the majority of Dems see as a way out of Iraq for us? Hasn't he been apprised of the end game in this plan? Or is he just being plain stubborn..because it's a major plank of his campaign platform?

[Tellurian]

33. I suppose if the question is just that simple

the simple answer IS no... but it NOT that simple. Whatever the dems propose Bush will Veto. And at last check, Bush came out today at noon time stating he wants no timelines included in any future bills. So, whats next?

[John Q. Citizen]

42. Obama could have voted against every funding measure instead of voting for

every funding measure. He lacked the political courage to do that. He was afraid opponents would try to paint him as weak on defense, weak on suppoerting the troops, weak on not rolling over and going along with war fever. I'm talking about every Iraq funding vote he made prior to this new congress.

At this point, congress could just refuse to pass a funding bill. No bill, no veto, no money for the war. Pelosi has the power to keep any bill off the floor she wants. All spending bills originate in the House. So that's the quick and easy defunding mechanism.

[rinsd]

44. Except Reid is playing chess while Kucinich is playing checkers.

See Reid has created political leverage while Kucinich is tantalizing his 1% with talk of initiating impeachment artiles.

[John Q. Citizen]

56. Yes, there are leaders and there are followers. The followers follow the leader.

I'm glad to see Harry is listening.

I knew he'd come around. He's a good man.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[Greyhound]

74. Did you just make that up?

Wow.

[ToeBot]

25. Does the OP have a point or is this just a case of opportunism? n/t

[Tellurian]

34. If you read my responses, you'll find your answer..

[rodeodance]

38. Dennise is keepting other dem. cand. in line. Good for him.

[CRH]

43. To fully understand his complete answer, ...

Below snip from interview

That’s fine, except for one thing. He’s voted 100 percent to fund it. If you’re opposed to something, you don’t vote to give it money. And a single speech is not hundreds of speeches. It’s not real leadership. If someone wants to talk about the war, then they better have real credentials for it. And those credentials have to include working to defeat funding for the war. There’s no other person in this race who’s done that. There’s no one else who’s taken a stand for peace that I’ve taken and I think that’s what the American people are yearning for.

snip

To fully understand, IMHO, one needs to weigh Kucinich's activities in promotion of 'The Department of Peace' as a cabinet level position. He first proposed this in 2001, before 911. He introduced legislation in the House if memory serves me, just after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Of course with the political climate of the time, it floundered. But with in that proposal was a promotion of non violence that swept across government and culture. It addressed weapons control, violence in the media, and called for a cabinet position that genuinely promoted peace and human rights on both the national and global level. Again, if memory serves me, he reintroduced similar legislation in 2005. Kucinich has been unswerving, in his devotion to and promotion of, peace.

So for me the second part of his answer, commands attention as well, i.e. ...

There’s no other person in this race who’s done that. There’s no one else who’s taken a stand for peace that I’ve taken and I think that’s what the American people are yearning for.

Do I think he has a point? Well he has submitted a proposal for the with drawl of troops, and the international administration of stabilizing Iraq, but this would interfere with keeping the forward military bases and the new national oil laws in place. It would interfere with Iraq being our new imperial outpost to maintain our national security, aka, cheap oil directed to the countries we deem are worthy. All the other candidates are hedging on the with drawl, but he is not. His solution is to not 100% fund the status quo, a war that few will admit, is a naked aggression of a broken society for a needed natural resource. What he is saying is talk is cheap if you don't walk the walk.

Do I think it is a case of envy? Well, that is not the Dennis Kucinich I've been watching.

[AtomicKitten]

47. I'd wager on Obama over Kucinich any day of the week.

Gobama.

[BeyondGeography]

48. Obama is working to end the war

His Iraq War De-Escalation Act sets 3/31/08 as the goal for total withdrawal, which is the same target date as Reid-Feingold. His bill has three co-sponsors in the Senate and 60 in the House. He has said no progress can be made on domestic spending issues until the war is terminated. He has decried this conflict since its inception. Obama's bill is an intelligent way to "defeat funding for the war."

Meantime, there is this inconvenient truth called President Bush and the power of the veto. The Democrats will have to respond to his veto with a plan that includes funding for the military in Iraq, hopefully with some restrictions, benchmarks for progress and/or a timeline for re-deployment/withdrawal. The Democrats will hand the GOP and BushCo a major political victory if they de-fund the troops in the field which Congress has never done, not even in Vietnam where cutting aid to South Vietnam was the only spending leverage used to help end the war. De-funding the troops would have the reverse effect of rallying President Bush and sacrificing a healthy share of the gains that the Party has realized since 2004. To equate any Democrat who supports continued funding with conditions, given the realities of the political situation (we don't have the votes to override) with full-throated support/ownership of the war is actually a Republican talking point, not one that should be coming from the left-wing of our own party.

I guess that's a long-winded way of saying DK is full of shit here.

[PresidentObama]

49. You took the words out of my mouth. Thank you.

I think Kucinich is trying to chip away at Obama's anti-war base, and trying to shift them into his camp. I respect and appreciate Kucinich's voice in this debate about the Iraq War. But I have two words that DK might want to consider looking up in the dictionary: envy and jealous!! The definitions will help him understand why he chooses to attack an anti-war candidate like Senator Obama.

[Tellurian]

82. tickle..

:kick:

[John Q. Citizen]

76. DK wasn't speaking only of the last vote. He was speaking about the many votes

Obama has made to fund the war.

It's embarrassing, I know. It's hard to sell yourself as opposing the war while voting many times to fund the war.

Yet life has taught me that people can rationalize anything.

Obama voted to fund the war, many times, that he is against. I personally believe he did that to shield himself politically from charges that he's abandoning the troops, that he's soft on defense, in other words, he voted to fund the war based on political calculus as to how his vote could be used against himself. It was a vote cast out of personal self interest, not out of national interest.

I could be wrong. But it's a legitimate question. And I hope Obama will address it.

So when Dennis, who is a candidate for the nomination, uses the truth to define himself as the only person running who was against the war from the start, and consistently voted against funding the war, he's telling the truth.

It's a truth many would rather not look at, because for whatever reason they would like to rationalize there support of Obama. That's human nature.Supporters of the other candidates have been using various similar rationalizations as well. Look at the Hillary supporters, they do it all the time. So do the Edwards supporters.

But before you get mad at Dennis because he's telling the truth, perhaps you should look at why that makes you mad.

That's not to say you will change who your candidate is. Just that you should acknowledge that support for the war doesn't really matter to you that much in deciding who you are supporting. It's not that big of an issue for you.

I'm different. I think the war was a huge mistake for the country, and I've already made my decision not to support a candidate who was so wrong, or so self centered, as to support the war.

Obama isn't full of shit. Neither is Hillary. Neither is Edwards. However, they made the decision to put their personal political careers above our service people and Iraqi civilians, or they were fooled by george bush. Or maybe both. That bothers me, but I know it doesn't bother everybody.

[BeyondGeography]

79. Obama is where he is because he opposed the war

Few people doubt his sincerity on the issue. Do you really think he isn't committed to ending it as soon as possible? Do you see him out there pushing an, "I'm strong on defense" line because he has gone along with the vast majority of his party to support legislation that includes funding for the war?

We have control of Congress and Congress has no political choice but to fund the troops in the field as long as they can not override a veto. It is the GOP's hope (and only DK's supporters here seem to be buying) that control of Congress would result in putting the Democratic Party's label on ownership of the war. Nice to see you've fallen for their trap, congratulating yourself all the while on your moral superiority.

[John Q. Citizen]

84. Hey. I like Obama. I hope he comes out for a single payer fee for service

health care system. I sent him a suggestion (he's soliciting suggestions) yesterday to that effect.

I'm not talking about the supplemental vote last week. I'm talking about the votes last year and the year before that.

The majority of Dems went along with the gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Does that make it right? Was that smart? Was that politically expedient? (Think Nixon, Humphey, 1968)

Harry Reid, Speaker of the Senate (who I think is a pretty smart guy, I don't always agree with him on all issues but agree with him on many) just announced that if bush vetoes the supplemental he's introducing a bill to cut off funding (along with Fiengold.) He knows if passed it will be vetoed. I'm glad the Reid is following the same thought process as Kucinich, and as a number of the other progressives in both the House and the Senate.

So it looks as if Reid disagrees with your analysis that "...Congress has no political choice but to fund the troops in the field as long as they can not override a veto."

I disagree with your analysis too. I see the last election as a mandate to end the war. Maybe you don't?

Nancy Pelosi could stop the funding by not scheduling a vote on any funding for the war except to pay for withdrawal. No money, no war. bush can't veto a bill he doesn't get, and bush can't appropriate new money, only congress can do that.

Moral superiority has nothing to do with basic political analysis. I think you are confusing the two, perhaps, because your morals are in conflict with your faulty political analysis, and you are struggling to reconcile the two.

[BeyondGeography]

89. No struggle here; what happens after the 2nd veto?

We are in the gamesmanship period right now; my prediction is funding for the war will not end in this legislative go-round for some very basic reasons. I hope I'm wrong, but, if I'm right, I hope the DK crowd holds the proper people accountable (i.e. the authors of the war), not Democrats like Obama who are doing their best to end this nightmare.

[John Q. Citizen]

98. I don't think anybody in our party blames Obama for the war. I'm surprised that

many fault Kucinich for making the honest distinction between himself and the other candidates as regards their actions on the war.

It is a legitimate distinction. I have no idea why Obama consistently voted funding for the war since he entered the Senate, a war he was on record in a speech as being against. I'd like to know.

I do know why Dennis has voted against funding the war. He was against the war and so also voted consistently against funding it. I'm glad he has.

Yeah, I know we are in the "gamesmanship" period right now, while people are dying, we are playing chicken with the Pres.

My hope would be that congress cuts funding by not appropriating money for the war. No appropriations bill, no veto, no money, no war.

The down side is the Prez will scream bloody murder that the Dems don't care about the troops. Are you afraid of that? I'm not.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[John Q. Citizen]

57. Bugs you that he's right, doesn't it? n/t

[zulchzulu]

59. Here's a hint. Kucinich is nationally known for lack of leadership skills

Finishing in last place in 2004 was a little hint. Ferchrissakes, Sharpton got more delegates than Kucinich.

If you want to adore a charlatan hellbent on another failed vanity campaign, be my guest.

Kucinich has passed jackshit while he's been in Congress. He does play the Central Casting role of screaming populist politician well, but when you look what he's done and his accomplishments, it's friggin' vapor. Name me any legislation that he sponsored that passed that has any relevance to ending the war or any major effort. I'm talking about legislation that passed, not pondered over at a vegan restaurant with some Buddhist ex-Deadheads.

I used to be a fan...actually met and filmed him...but he's turned into a blowhole in my book these days.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[zulchzulu]

75. OK then. Kucinich beat last place Sharpton by 14 delegate votes

I looked at CNN's 2004 feature.

As for the Cleveland issue where Kucinich make the MUNI light rail not get privatized (what year?), wow.

Look up the word "charlatan".

char·la·tan (shärl-tn)
n.
A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.

[mikelgb]

109. thanks for the definition

now even those who didn't know it before can clearly see

[John Q. Citizen]

80. I'm voting for intelligence, competence, compassion, and soul, not for notches on the

on a rigged system that caters to the interests of wealthy oligarchs.

I fully expect Dennis not to be elected POTUS. Of course, I fully expect 9 out of the 10 or so declared or rumored Dem candidates not to be elected either.

But i vote my hopes, my dreams, my heart and my head. I support Dennis' agenda (at least he tells us what his agenda is, unlike most of our other candidates)

If legislative victory is the most important criteria, then we should be supporting Hastert or Frist, who have far more legislative victories than anybody on the Dem side.

Dennis has been a congressman during a time when the Repos have controlled the house, up until a few months ago. So it is not surprising that he hasn't passed a lot of bills, is it?

If your only criteria for success is passing bills, then I suggest you look and see which candidate passed the most bills and vote for that person.

That's not my criteria for a candidate.

PS If Gore runs, I'll support him.

[Tellurian]

95. Everyone is waiting for Gore...

but I'm starting to believe he really isn't going to run..

[John Q. Citizen]

100. You know, I'd worry about that if he'd close the door. The fact he's left it

conspicuously open keeps me hoping.

Why leave it open unless there is a reason?

[AtomicKitten]

105. wax on, grasshopper

[mikelgb]

55. that is THE point.

and it applies to Hillary too.

[Spiffarino]

78. I've changed my mind on this guy.

Fuck Kucinich. What a self-serving dick.

[AnOhioan]

85. Very insightful....

:eyes:

[Spiffarino]

112. So happy you approve

:eyes:

[cadmium]

Has nothing to lose. n/t

[cadmium]

96. Has nothing to lose. n/t

[Radical Activist]

87. Kucinich is desperate.

Last time there wasn't a peace candidate with a good chance at winning. This time we have Obama. Kucinich has to grasp at straws to come up with a reason to justify his being in the race when there's a viable peace candidate in Obama. DK is searching desperately for a reason to be relevant.

[John Q. Citizen]

104. The last time we thought we had a peace candidate with a good chance of winning.

Then we thought we has a sort of peace candidate with a good chance of winning.

So how do you define "peace candidate" and "good chance of winning?"

I like Obama. But right now he seems like he's desperatly searching for a health care solution.

I'm not sure America is ready to elect a black man. I would truely love to believe that it doesn't matter, but I'm not so sure America is ready.

Kucinich is telling the truth about his peace candidate credentials compared with the other candidates. I know you don't like hearing that truth, because you have to rationalize why Obama voted, what 4 or 5 times to fund the war, but attacking Dennis because he points out the differences between himself and the other candidates is being desperate when there is no need.

If Gore enters, I will support him. If Obama comes out for single payer fee for service universal health insurence, I might support him. His chances at this point appear to be better than Dennis to get the nomination.

But in the meantime, I'm going with the candidate who best reflects my issues and solutions.

[Egalitarian]

118. If race doesn't matter to you,

then it would serve your beliefs best to not repeat this thought, would it not? By doing so you are reinforcing it's power IMO.

Other than that, I'm more or less in agreement with you stance on supporting Dennis.

[John Q. Citizen]

120. There is only one race, the human race. There are however an awful lot of

people all over the world who see minor variations in skin pigment, stature, etc as defining traits.

I don't.

Ignoring that there are a lot of humans who view these minor variation within the species as important won't help.

The myth must be directly addressed to dispel the myth that many labor under.

I bring this up not to enpower the myth, but as to the very real question of whether enough Americans have gotten over minor variations within the population to be able to elect someone nationally whose traits are at variance to some peoples expectations.

The same could be said for Dennis , for instance, as to his physical staure. And it has been said.
This is a fair question, in either case, as is the question of peoples expectations concerning gender roles when discussing Hillary's potential in the general election.

It's all really quite ignorant, IMHO, but to ignore the obvious and varied myths that many except as fact would be unwise in the sense of winning in the 08 general election.

In Dennis' case, it probably won't matter. I'm supporting him because I like his issues and solutions, and I would like to see him get to the convention with enough delegates to impact the platform, and possibly to cut some deals with the eventual nominee, whoever that might be. I think with the large amount of candidates, it's possible we might see a brokered convention, in other words a convention where no candidate has enough delegates to win on the the first ballot.

[Radical Activist]

119. I never saw anyone but

Dennis and Sharpton as real peace candidates last time.

Let me ask you this. In 2003-2005, when Kucinich wasn't calling to cut off funding for the war, was he not standing for peace then? Was he pro-war then?

In think its intellectually dishonest to say that someone like Obama, who wants to get us out of Iraq next year, is not a pro-peace candidate. So no, I don't consider it telling the truth when Kucinich makes those kind of bogus claims.

[John Q. Citizen]

122. Dean was the foremost peace candidate in 04 in terms of early support.

He spoke out against the war before it started, just as did Obama.

In 2003-2005, Dennis was voting against funding the war, and asking his fellow legislators to vote against funding as well.

Some did vote against funding the war. Most didn't. Obama didn't vote against funding the war.

That is Dennis' position as far as I can tell.

Is that untrue? Is it wrong for Dennis to point this out? By the way, Dennis doesn't single out Obama, he simply points out that he alone of all the declared candidates actively worked against the IWR, voted against the IWR, and voted against funding the war consistently.

I have some questions that maybe you can help with:

What's Obama's position on a continued US presences in Iraq, after most of the troops are home? What's his position on the hydro carbon law in Iraq? What's his position on the permanant bases?

[Radical Activist]

124. Dean was never a peace candidate

He supported prolonging the war for years and keeping Defense spending at Bush-levels. Kucinich had a point when he criticized Dean's stance.

Yes, there are differences between Kucinich and Obama on the war. Kucinich wants to pull out quickly without a plan or any regard for what will happen to Iraqis after a swift withdrawal. Obama wants to withdrawal in an organized fashion and doesn't take a position (like Kucinich) that the public will only view as not supporting the troops. That doesn't mean Obama hasn't worked against the Iraq war. He has.

Here's the documented proof of that in case you aren't clear about it:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/iraq/

Obama has a plan to end the war, while Kucinich takes rhetorical stands that allow him to say "I'm a bigger peace candidate than you are" without actually changing a thing.

[John Q. Citizen]

127. You haven't read Dennis' HR1234 obviously, as you are grossly characterizing

Kucinich's position.

Here, read his plan. Quit speaking from ignorance.

http://kucinich.us/node/1803
These are the elements of the Kucinich Plan:

1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement.

2. .US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1 st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors.

Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the international community. The massive corruption as it relates to US contractors, should be investigated by congressional committees and federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of Iraqis do not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment, cries out for justice.

It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished electricity within three months, despite sanctions. Four years into the US occupation there is no water, nor reliable electricity in Bagdhad, despite massive funding from the US and from the Madrid conference. The greatest mystery involves the activities of private security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of false flag operations must be investigated by an international tribunal.

4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq. The focus should be on a process which solves the problems of Iraq. The US has told the international community, "This is our policy and we want you to come and help us implement it." The international community may have an interest in helping Iraq, but has no interest in participating in the implementation of failed US policy.

A shift in US policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about the plight of Iraq. The UN is the appropriate place to convene, through the office of the Secretary General, all countries that have interests, concerns and influence, including the five permanent members of the Security Council and the European community, and all Arab nations.

The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to participate.

It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in Iraq as an opportunity, there is also an even-present danger that the civil war in Iraq threatens the stability of nations throughout the region. The impending end of the occupation will provide a breakthrough for the cooperation between the US and the UN and the UN and countries of the region. The regional conference must include Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation. The UN is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to authorize troops.

The UN is the place to develop the process, to build the political consensus, to craft a political agreement, to prepare the ground for the peacekeeping mission, to implement the basis of an agreement that will end the occupation and begin the transition to international peacekeepers. This process will take at least three months from the time the US announces the intention to end the occupation.

The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, which, by definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the peacekeeping troops must come from nations with large Muslim populations. The international security force, under UN direction, will remain in place until the Iraqi government is capable of handling its own security. The UN can field an international security and peace keeping mission, but such an initiative will not take shape unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi parties.

Such an agreement means fewer troops will be needed.

According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not give them troops.

6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties who can create, participate in and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated a desire for the process of reconciliation to take place around it, and that those who were opposed to the government should give up and join the government. Reconciliation must not be confused with capitulation, nor with realignments for the purposes of protecting power relationships.

For example, Kurds need to be assured that their own autonomy will be regarded and therefore obviate the need for the Kurds to align with religious Shia for the purposes of self-protection. The problem in Iraq is that every community is living in fear. The Shia, who are the majority fear they will not be allowed to government even though they are a majority. The Kurds are afraid they will lose the autonomy they have gained. The Sunnis think they will continue to be made to pay for the sins of Saddam.

A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when there is such mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get their money from the US and their ideas from Tehran. They function as religious militia, fighting for supremacy, while the Interior Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people have been displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend, the first response is likely to be that there is no reconciliation.

It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or several parties engaged in the conflict think they can win outright. The Shia, some of whom are out for revenge, think they can win because they have the defacto support of the US. The end of the US occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to come to an accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and support from Iran. They have little interest in reconciling with those who are seen as Baathists.

The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam, boasting half a million people insurgents. The Sunnis have so much more experience and motivation that as soon as the Americans leave they believe they can defeat the Shia government. Any Sunni revenge impulses can be held in check by international peacekeepers. The only sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process. All factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and Iranians.

7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq. Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis.

8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation.

9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of Iraq's oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization.

Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the US occupation will be a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution. The current Iraqi constitution gives oil proceeds to the regions and the central government gets nothing. There must be fairness in the distribution of oil resources in Iraq. An Iraqi National Oil Trust should be established to guarantee the oil assets will be used to create a fully functioning infrastructure with financial mechanisms established protect the oil wealth for the use of the people of Iraq.

10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation. This would block efforts underway to raise the price of food and energy at a time when most Iraqis do not have the means to meet their own needs.

11.Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the IMF or the World Bank. \n\n\n

12 .International Truth and Reconciliation. Establish a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of Iraq.

In 2002, I led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush Administration's plans to go to war in Iraq. I organized 125 Democrats to vote against the Iraq war resolution. The analysis I offered at that time stands out in bold relief for its foresight when compared to the assessments of many who today aspire to national leadership. Just as the caution I urged four years ago was well-placed, so the plan I am presenting today is workable, and it responds to the will of the American people, expressed this past November. This is a moment for clarity and foresight. This is a moment to take a new direction in Iraq. One with honor and dignity. One which protects our troops and rescues Iraqi civilians. One which repairs our relationship with Iraqis and with the world. Thank you.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1234: This is the URL to HR1234, the actual bill. It conforms with the above discription of the plan

And this is the Obama plan:

http://www.barackobama.com/iraqact/
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007'.

**********************************************************

I think the Kucinich plan is superior for a number of reasons. For one thing, it doesn't allow bush to just make a determintion that derails the whole thing, as does the Obama plan. Also, It doesn't envision a long and protracted US involvement with troops in Iraq as does the Obama plan.

What do you think?

[Radical Activist]

132. Completely unrealistic.

We're way past the point of the UN being willing to get involved.

It will take at least 6 months to get all the troops out even if funding were cut off today. It takes time to do something like that without exposing the troops to more casualties. Obama calls for getting the troops out within a year. So a difference of six months and a completely unrealistic plan is what makes Kucinich the superior peace candidate? Give me a break. :eyes:

[goodhue]

138. I like Obama, but he is hardly a peace candidate

[Radical Activist]

139. Obama opposed the war from the start and wants out next year.

What else does it take? I guess someone has to take a simple-minded absolutist position that no other candidate will take in order for you to call them a peace candidate? Kucinich is a slogan, not a candidate.

[AtomicKitten]

93. hey

I object to Kucinich going after Obama. Obama had the good sense to oppose the war from the get-go which makes him Dennis' perceived competition and probably why he is launching snark bombs at Obama. I appreciate Dennis voting 'no' on the war but quite frankly he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nod, and I resent him trying to bloody up Obama in the process.

[Colobo]

99. Dennis: Attention whore.

Too bad he's hardly getting any!

[bling bling]

102. It takes all kinds of representation...we're a large country. There's room for both of them.

Kucinich was asked a question and he answered it. Kucinich thinks he is doing what's best and Obama thinks he's doing what's best. They don't have to agree and it doesn't mean, necessarily, that Kucinich is envious of Obama. He's being pushy. There's room for pushy people in the Congress on this particular issue, at least in my opinion. That doesn't mean I agree with his viewpoints on Obama, though. In fact, I don't.

[burrowowl]

103. The Bu$hies are giving us the same crap on Iran

And Obama would consider going to war with Iran ....!?!?

Shows more DLC thinking than thinking.
He isn't a Julian Bond, Harry Belafonte and least of all MLK Jr.. Listen to King's speeches PLEASE!
Especially today. Much timeless on war!

Viva Dennis!

[Tellurian]

106. This is just the first step..

anything can happen over the rest of the year..

[barb162]

107. Kucinich has a point. I think it is becoming more apparent

[Superman Returns]

113. yes, let us attack the only mainstream candidate

consistently opposed to the war.

[John Q. Citizen]

114. Is consistently voting to fund the war actually opposing it? Or is it enabling it?

Obama needs to explain how repeatedly voting to fund the war squares with his opposition.

Kucinich isn't attacking anyone. He is pointing out that he is the only candidate who has consistantly voted against the war and against funding the war.

A look at the record reveals this is true.

Is truth an attack?

[Radical Activist]

125. Withdrawing within a year is not enabling.

That's the truth.

[zulchzulu]

126. Some play tic-tac-toe while others play chess

If Kucinich was really serious about ending the war, he would have voted for the legislation (which passed) that has timelines and benchmarks attached. It puts Bush into a corner.

Or...

By voting against the legislation and offering only unpassable legislation that will continue the war, Kucinich is extending the war by proxy.

Picture this scenario. You're camping in a mountain on a family vacation that you didn't want to go on, but there you are.

Suddenly a nasty storm arrives. Nancy Pelosi says that you need to find shelter in a cave and wait for the storm to pass. Then you have Kucinich saying that we should have never gone up to the mountain and need to get down now.

Who do you listen to?

[John Q. Citizen]

131. Some vote to fund the war everytime since Jan 05, some don't. I guess you

supported giving bush money over and over again so that the war could continue. So that Haliburton could make the big bucks, to pay for torture, to pay for genocide.

That's real leadership.

Just keep voting to give bush more money to kill US service people and Iraqi civilians in every vote since Jan 05. There were a number of votes.

My bet is if you were in the Senate, that you would have voted repeatedly and always to fund the war.

Well OK. You get what you pay for.

[Greyhound]

134. You would have a point, except for one little detail. there is no way to enforce

the time line and benchmarks. If they are ignored the money is not withdrawn and there is no mechanism to enforce them. All this bill does is to ensure that arbusto_® gets to keep his profitable murder scheme going until he is out of office.

I'd bet if any of the supporters of this mistake had any blood in the game their opinion would change immediately. It's easy to send other people into the meat grinder, vastly different when you have something to lose.

[Unvanguard]

121. Undoubtedly his point is exactly what he said it was. n/t

[rucky]

135. Would you give an addict money to buy drugs? n/t

[goodhue]

136. He has a point, but February 27th is not recently

Why stir this up?

[larsj]

140. The troops don't want our 'support'