About Dennis...........

[Highway61]

I am ashamed to admit I was one who never gave him a second thought...
until now. I am in my early 50's and have seen what has happened to our country....it's like a cancer...slow and insidious decay. We are in a dire situation folks and Dennis is the ONLY candidate who offers real solutions, is NOT for sale and doesn't speak out of both sides of his mouth. I don't want to hear the "well, he's a great guy but not electable." That makes you just as complacent as the 20 somethings reading People Magazine for their news and not voting at all.
Bush was "electable"? My God, Alfred E Newman would do better and you know it. But how is it he is where he is now? Because he has ruthless and manipulating forces behind him as well as $$$$.
Well, we CAN make him electable. Get bold and ruthless and get the word out. Email, write letters, educate, spread his message in the communities and above all send $$. If he announced Gore as his VP, folks would take notice then wouldn't they? Remember what he said to Lance and Chris Mathews just recently...he spoke to Kerry and Edwards about his health plan, told them if they proposed this, people will flock to the polls and you would win...hands down. They didn't want to hear it...and here we are now.
Well, I for one will do everything I can to give this man a chance. He is the read deal, he's honest, cares about the little guy and above all he can't be bought. That man has more courage and integrity than I have seen in one hell of a long time and no other candidate can hold a candle to him. He has been behind the scenes for too long and bounces back, dusts himself off every election year as he won't take no for an answer. It's that kind of perseverance and integrity that displays the kind of leadership that will bring this country back.
Sorry about the rant...but I feel a hell of a lot better. Now, If you'll excuse me , I have work to do.

[Maat]

1. Yep, that's why I'm highly involved in his campaign out here in California.

I'm going to campaign my butt off for him out here!

[poverlay]

2. After failing him miserably last time around, I will vote my conscience this time no matter what. nt

[Fresh_Start]

3. I'm a woman. I'll have a difficult time voting for a

twice divorced man married to a woman young enough to be his daughter.

I chose five other of our candidates over Dennis.

[patrice]

4. What exactly is his position regarding Choice?

Recent email I received from a long-standing Democrat:

During his first three terms in Congress, Kucinich compiled a
> > consistently pro-life voting record, earning a 95-percent rating
> > from the National Right to Life Committee in 2000. "He absolutely
> > believes in the sanctity of life and that life begins at
> > conception," Kucinich's spokeswoman explained last year.
>
> > Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May
> > 2001)
>
> > Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other
> > crimes. (Apr 2001)
>
> > Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
>
> > Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun
> > 1999)
>
> > He voted to criminalize partial birth abortions, to deny American
> > servicewoman the right even to pay for their own abortions overseas,
> > to prevent Washington, D.C. from funding abortions for poor women
> > with nonfederal dollars, against research on RU-486, even against
> > health coverage of basic contraception for federal employees. In
> > 1996 he told Planned Parenthood that he did not support the
> > substance of Roe v. Wade. He received a a 95 percent position rating
> > from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from
> > Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from NARAL. .....
> > This is a biggie for me. While a candidate does not have to
> > personally support choice, they should not deny others the right with
> > their votes.
>
> > On the Iowa thing:
> > Dean and Kucinich were the only two anti-war candidates at that
> > time. On the day of the caucuses, Kucinich made a deal with Edwards
> > (who at the time was NOT anti-war) that his delegates would go to
> > him, basically screwing Dean. It also turned out that Kucinich
> > participated in the plan with the other candidates to take down
> > Dean, not much of a principled stand in my eyes.
>
> > On the Leadership Thing:
> > While he has support for his positions among much of the very left
> > base - it is all for his stances and votes, most of them meaningless
> > in terms of enacting law. On the other hand, look at Russ Feingold,
> > who is just as left but managed to actually get legislation passed
> > and move the country with him.
>
> > Finally, Kucinich continues to regularly go on Fox Noize and
> > legitimize that network while the other candidates abandoned them
> > long ago.

........................

At least he earns street-cred for being anti-Choice by also being anti-War, but I wonder why he abandoned the anti-War position when he should have supported Dean instead of Edwards.

[Fresh_Start]

5. I'm aware he's been less than stellar on womens issues

so thats a more concrete reason not to like him.

Also he's not known to be effective.


I don't see him as a savior. I see him as a 'democratic-version' of Bush without the personableness Bush is supposed to exhibit

[Dawgs]

9. I think 'not effective' is the best way to describe Kucinich.

He has great ideas, but if you can't get above 3% support in your own party then are you really that great?

[Dawgs]

10. dupe.

[GreenArrow]

6. why he abandoned the anti-War position

He went with Edwards for the purely political reason that both of them wanted delegates and felt like they were going after different sets of voters; Kucinich the anti-war vote that he was competing for against Dean, and Edwards the moderate/conservative pro-war voters that were looking at Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman et al.

[penguin7]

12. Here is a recent video where Kucinich discusses abortion

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DiVKtwS-UvM

[penguin7]

13. from his website on reproductive rights

http://www2.kucinich.us/issues/rightsreproductive.php

April 2006

Why have a Republican House and Senate never even offered one vote proposing a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion? If the issue were truly important to them as anything but a wedge issue, they would have. The truth is that Republicans have hidden from an honest up or down vote on abortion and will never allow one to take place in the Congress. Instead, they will continue fooling well-intentioned voters who feel strongly about abortion that they "feel their pain," when clearly they do not. Even if the Supreme Court were to do the unlikely and return abortion to the states, it would merely mean that the rich could travel to blue states for abortion, while the poor would have less access to terminating their pregnancies.

The fact is that most Americans, including myself, are uncomfortable with abortions and feel there are too many of them. At the same time, the vast majority of Americans recognize that there are circumstances in which a woman and her doctor should be allowed to make this most difficult decision without government intervention. To return to the days when woman could self-abort without penalty, but to imprison doctors who would help them, seems senseless, especially recognizing that a new abortion law would likely become known as "The Abortions for the Rich-Only Bill."

I have a plan to reduce abortions by encouraging family planning, including abstinance training, combined with a full economic and health care plan that would clearly alleviate the number of abortions. Voters have a choice: Choose Republican rhetoric that will never allow the issue to come to a vote or a real plan to reduce the number of abortions with a program of economic justice. Factually, all the Republican rhetoric and phony issues surrounding abortion have never directly addressed the legality of abortion and have had no or negilible impact on the number of abortions.

[Virginia Dare]

7. I seriously considered him in 2004...

I'm still totally open for 2008. He ain't perfect, none of them are.

[patrice]

8. This is true.

I keep thinking in terms of the effect of each one on the overall discourse. Though I support Choice, I actually approve of the connection between "Pro-Life" and "Anti-War" and I wish Kucinich would make more of that connection for all of those Pro-Life HYPOCRITS out there who voted for Bushitler TWICE (are you listening RC Church?).

I think it's best to stay open to all of our Excellent Democratic candidates, to make them move towards our issues, rather than listening to PAID minds.

[EndElectoral]

11. Highway61..good post...I think DK is the only guy who gets trade issues, healthcare and Iraq

Those three are biggies with me.

He has some weaknesses. What candidate doesn't, but at least with him you get the truth, and he'll vote what he says.

When I hear right wing radio ncalling him a nutcase, I realize he's exactly the right man to run against them. After all they know more about nutcases becasue they generally vote for one on a regular basis.

Seriously, DK saw right through the Iraq fiasco, he saw right through the NAFTA/CAFTA mess, and he udnerstands the common man. His pro-choice record cited here would actually make him more appealing to Republican voters although I've never seen him asked in a debate about it.

He's got my vote at this time and my finanicial support. I refuse to let the media tell me who to vote for.