I call on Congressman Kucinich to resign.

[saltpoint]

Either resign if he truly feels that he is ethically compromised or renounce his affiliation with the Democratic Party.

If he does not wish to be a part of the Party whose nomination he has twice sought I suggest he renounce his affiliation with the Democrats and declare himself an Independent.

He would be far more comfortable in that role -- and just as isolated and ineffective.

He should do this immediately, as early as noon tomorrow.

[Horse with no Name]

1. I do too

I wish he would start the base of a REAL progressive party instead of this sham we have now.

Oh and by the way...I believe Obama should have run as an Independent as well. For many of the same reasons you state.

[saltpoint]

3. He might, of course. I'm not suggesting that he will not do it, only

framing the context in which it could become a success.

And I'm not seeing that.

[tonysam]

98. He's not going to do it

He's very popular with certain sectors of the voting public. He's not about to give up the limelight.

As people know, I am not a fan of this guy after having seen him in person. He's all ego, in my opinion.

[backwoodsbob]

6. yep

maybe if he resigned as a dem and started a progressive party we could get something other than this insurance company payoff

[Le Taz Hot]

2. And then run for president.

Cool! I'd be first in line to sign up. Fuck the corporate whores known as the Democratic Party.

[saltpoint]

5. Cynthia McKinney, the 2008 Green Party candidate, ran on a "fuck the

corporate whores" platform -- I think she characterized it in other language, however -- and garnered about 4 dozen votes nation-wide.

I'd be interested to hear how you think Dennis Kucinich could improve on that model, especially following two disastrous runs at the White House.

[Le Taz Hot]

16. "Disasterous run at the White House"

Sorta like Kerry? He was "electable." Yeah, I'm familiar with the concept.

It's a new day and millions voted for change where there is none. Expect people to stay home or vote for third-party candidates in 2010 and 2012. Good luck in holding on to that majority.

[saltpoint]

22. Kerry either narrowly lost or won and was cheated in Ohio.

Kucinich kicked butt in the Hawaii primary.

Hardly comparable trajectories.

[Le Taz Hot]

41. I SOOO want to argue this point

again 'cause we at DU certainly didn't do it enough in 2004. :eyes: If the DLC hadn't shoved Kerry down our throats in the first place the election would not have been close enough to steal. And yes, it was disastrous because it kept Little Boots in the White House for 4 more years. Trajectory is fine but if you still miss the mark it doesn't matter if you were 2" off or 2 miles off. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

My prediction is a mass exodus from the Democratic Party by the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party to Third Party candidates who, hopefully, will be able to locate their spines and vote for what's right as opposed to the way their wholly-owned corporate masters order them to vote.

[saltpoint]

46. Whoops. Iowa voters chose John Kerry over the field with c. 37 percent of

the caucus vote. John Edwards came in secondat about 32 or so percent.

Howard Dean was third.

Dick Gephardt was buried alive at 11 percent and dropped out around midnight.

"The DLC" argument is meaningless unless the 37% of Iowa caucus Democrats were in fact DLC agents.

IMO they were not.

[Le Taz Hot]

61. I could counter on about 30 fronts here

and the facts are out there should you choose to actually read them. I shall refer you to the archives for the debates. Then again, the facts have been out there for five years now and apparently, you STILL choose to accept the Party Line so there's no expectation of change on my part for you. The bottom line is this, if you live in Kuciniche's district and think he should be impeached, nothing is stopping you from starting your own campaign to do just that. If you DON'T live in his district, you really don't have a thing to say about it, do you?

[saltpoint]

63. It appears that I do have something to say about it, no matter where

I happen to live.

His votes in the Congress effect us all.

[Le Taz Hot]

71. As do the corporate whore votes affect us all.

And they won. Again. There is much partying in the land of rip-off insurance companies and big pharma. They would like to thank the Party Faithful for their unquestioning, blind support for anything with a "D" next to it.

[saltpoint]

77. If your solution to that problem is to defend a man who is increasingly

marginalized, I think you are betting on a lame horse.

Kucinich thinks he's Zorro, but he can't even get on the horse.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

82. Well I don't see anybody stopping you. Happy squawking.

[Le Taz Hot]

90. Dissent = "sqawking"

in corporate sell-out DLC world. Don't you have somebody's boots to lick?

[backwoodsbob]

139. he's right

I'll vote third party is this passes

[JackRiddler]

85. They don't effect us unless he's even more cosmic than claimed.

Insofar as they have effects on us, I'm affected effectively.

[saltpoint]

86. We agree to disagree on points of both agreement and disagreement,

generally speaking.

[blm]

122. You're completely wrong - DLC wouldn't lift a finger to help Kerry, that's why Kerry funded HIMSELF

in the final month before the caucus. Wise up and use some common sense for a change when you try and look back - had Kerry been the DLC guy he never would have been allowed to run out of money. You think DLC machine didn't KNOW that Kerry's numbers on the ground in Iowa were rising by November? They WANTED HIM OUT.

You are welcome to prove otherwise, but, it was pretty wellknown that From always hated Kerry, and that the hierarchy at DLC wanted Lieberman and Edwards, and that Kerry was in fact being urged publically to get out of the race.

You really fell for corporate media spin and left bloggers who couldn't make 2 + 2 = 4 if you gave them three tries.

You would smear the best anti-corruption lawmaker we've had the last 40 years just to make a point that doesn't even exist in any reality.

[Jane Austin]

99. Really?

You say "It's a new day and millions voted for change where there is none."

Stem cell research is "no change"?

Sonia Sotomeyer is "no change"?

There have been changes for the good every day.

Do none of these count for you?

[Le Taz Hot]

109. Oh, fer chrissakes.

Those are crumbs! Good, yes, but crumbs nonetheless. Why are we still fighting TWO illegal, immoral wars? Why is DADT and DOMA still policy? Why do we still have the Patriot Act? Why did we give telecoms RETROACTIVE immunity for illegal wiretapping? Why aren't we going after the Bush criminals? Why hasn't anything been done with off-shoring. Why haven't the tax breaks been taken away from those corporations that move American jobs overseas, they should be PENALIZED. Why was Single Payer not even considered by this administration? And for goddess sake, why the HELL did they agree to MANDATORY insurance and on the Stupak Amendment? Why hasn't WPA-type programs been enacted to get the economy moving as opposed to handing over billions to insurance companies and financial institutions with no strings attached and no accountability? I'm not saying everything needs to be done in the first year, but there should be movement on ALL of these and more. There's not. We get the occasional bone and the Party Faithful pee all over themselves with glee with promises of better things to come. I have news for you. With corporate whore Dems, this IS the best you're going to get. Sorry, not good enough.

[Jane Austin]

148. Right.

A Supreme Court justice who is not right wing is "crumbs".

[calimary]

103. No, people are probably more likely to flock toward third-party candidates,

perceiving correctly that the two parties are just a bunch of pissant politicians who'd rather fight than actually get something done for the benefit of the country. The "a pox on BOTH your houses" effect may start taking root. I don't know, it's just a little discouraging, I must admit. Somebody elsewhere here posted something about - imagine if we'd had to depend on some of these weasels for civil rights legislation. Good Lord!

Found it! 2. Jesus Christ. Thank God we weren't relying on these assholes to pass civil rights laws. (by chimpymustgo)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6961644#6961692

It's such a good line I wanted to remember it. We ought to start spreading it around. Adjust people's thinking a little. Where would we be today on some of the really crucial human progress this nation has been able to make - if we'd had to coddle these infants who don't want to grow up (or see ANYBODY ELSE grow up either)? If this mentality had prevailed, blacks would still be worthy of only partial value as human beings, and women would have next to none.

[emilyg]

118. This time he would get my vote.

[whatchamacallit]

4. Maybe you're right

as the two parties appear to be massive herds of sheep branded with a D or an R

[saltpoint]

10. If that is so, why was Boehner squawking so loud yesterday afternoon and

evening?

That's Nader's line -- that the parties are indistinguishablly blurred -- but I'm in sharp disagreement.

I believe someone who cannot distinguish between Russ Feingold and John Cornyn simply has their head up their hindquarters.

[rucky]

7. Labels - in politics and religion - have completely lost their meaning.

You may as well go for something totally enigmatic like "Independent"

[NoPasaran]

11. I think Monster Raving Looney would be clear enough

[saltpoint]

15. Is it your notion, rucky, that the history of third-party politics in the

United States is terra firma?

I think a critical look suggests that it is a fool's errand.

Maybe some day, but if so, that day is not now.

And Dennis Kucinich is not that person.

[rucky]

21. It is my notion that if you break down "Independents"

you wouldn't get a cohesive "party" out of it - or much agreement at all outside of "politics is frustrating". There's no way Dennis can expand his base any more than he already has.

We may see more parties - but a third party, without a fourth party starting at the same time, would not be viable.

[saltpoint]

28. Agree. Kucinich is a man without a platform or party and increasingly,

without a positive frame of reference.

[rucky]

44. Still doesn't mean he should resign, though.

This may hurt him in his reelection, but my larger point is that you can't really apply "purity tests" to today's Democratic party. Look at the spectrum. It's so wide, the label is meaningless.

[saltpoint]

53. I hear you, rucky, but if the focus is on Kucinich, a question remains for

him to answer: he has twice sought the party's nomination yet often bolts at key moments in the Congress.

In and of itself that is not contradictory, but in Kucinich's case, what may have begun as principled action has come dangeroussly close to defiant ego.

Democrats coast to coast have been offered his candidacy twice for the presidency in primary contests and have made a resounding judgment against it.

[newspeak]

108. yeah, and the MSM's influence had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with it

Kucinich has read this bill-I am not for a bill that forces us to buy corporate health without giving us a choice to a reasonable public option. Many of us are attempting to honor to pay debt and have seen our good jobs go bye-bye, while taking a substandard job just to make ends meet.

Dennis has consistently been for labor rights and for main street. I'll take him over the corporate ass kissers any day. So, if you want to marginalize him, go ahead. But, I stand for Dennis and Bernie. Yeah, and a lot of people after listening to their favorite talking heads, would cut off their nose to spite their face. I mean if you can get people behind a corporate sponsored "grassroots" movement with the help of the MSM, you can get people to vote away their best interests for corporate interests.

[kath]

51. Well, plenty of us feel like people without a party - the Democrats have left us.

I want a party that stands for the PEOPLE, dammit, not corporations.

[saltpoint]

62. Okey-dokey, but you very likely aren't going to win many elections, kath.

Kucinich has marginalized himself.

Voters in Democratic primaries have very forcefully rejected his candidacy.

In their resounding, comprehensive rejection of his candidacy are the components of your discontent, I imagine, but there is no There there for Kucinich.

What is he going to do -- run on an independent ticket? That's been tried on similar grounds with more or less equal results -- near-total failure.

Cynthia McKinney got a few hundred-thousand votes in 2008. I don't think that's going to sweep any "principled" candidate into the White House.

[KharmaTrain]

70. Shhhh...Let Them Dream...

I long ago quit offering any opinions about DK cause no matter how much fact and logic you present, you're either a DLC corporate whore or lying...or both.

Let them believe that DK was somehow jobbed or there is some massive conspiracy rather than he was a poor candidate with an even poorer campaign operation. It allows them to sleep at night and ride their high horses.

[saltpoint]

89. Hi, Kharma Train. I may have to leave this thread early, as I'm expected

at my Blue-Dog Corporate Whore Sell-Out Support Group.

It meets on Sundays because the rest of the week we're kowtowing to corporate interests.

:hi:

[newspeak]

114. we've seen this before

when both the parties were beholden to the same robber barons, and were wheeling and dealing together for the same interest. Pretend it's not happening to your own peril. What came out of that was a progressive populist movement. A movement that had a major impact in states like Wisconsin and California, especially in labor rights and education.

Can a government that continues to serve the same interests against the interest of the people and maintains the status quo survive? Even FDR knew that without concessions to the people, the people who were without hope, without justice against some of the greediest industrialists, that change was inevitable.

Again, I'll stand for anyone like Kucinich, Sanders, or the late Wellstone-they stood for us.

[kath]

137. thank you - very good points. And I, too, will stand w/ Kucinich - he's one of the very, very few

who actually stand up for US.

[depakid]

8. Wow- just when a person thought they'd seen everthing...

LOL.

One gets teabagging DU.

Major props on that btw.

[Mari333]

9. Dennis has integrity, unlike the corporate DLCers who are whores for the insurance companies.

[saltpoint]

12. I think Dennis is a principled man but his public opposition to key

Democratic bills is questionable at best and ego-driven at worst.

His 'nay' vote yesterday was dismaying.

[Coyote_Bandit]

19. There is an argument to be made

that NO "reform" is definitely better than bad reform.

And it is possible to judge that bill as being bad reform. All you have to think is that (1) it will do little to provide meaningful affordable healthcare access to the uninsured/underinsured - and might possibly put many in an even worse situation and (2) enacting bad reform just might mean that the next time reform is considered will be in another 15 or 20 years.

[saltpoint]

43. Agree that that argument is there, and that it can be made. Would that it

be made by someone who could advance it effectively.

IMO that person is not Dennis Kucinich. It also isn't Ralph Nader (although his new book is a howl), and it also isn't Cynthia McKinney.

The landscape of U.S. politics still sanctions meaningful acts, despite obvious and egregious intervention and interference by corporate interests. Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer are not grandstanding beyond the context of the party they represent.

Kucinich is. Yes, that arguement is there and he can pursue it to its logical end, which if our country's history is any guide, will be the trashbin.

[Coyote_Bandit]

107. I happen to think

the so-called "reform" that we are pursuing is a clusterfuck doomed to ultimate failure. There are millions of uninsured/underinsured folks that will not be helped. Indeed, some will find themselves in an even worse situation. But the frickin insurance companies should do quite well.

IMHO the corportatists and the politicians who were willing to sell the needs, interests and desires of flesh and blood people short are far more dewserving of criticism. We have a sitting Dem President with Dem majorities in both the House and the Senate. There are only two possible reasons why they cannot deliver real meaningful healthcare reform (as opposed to the INSURANCE reform that they are masquerading as healthcare reform): (1) they are not committed to making that happen (more interested in being re-elected; bought and sold) and (2) they lack the skill to make that happen. Neither of these recommend the sorry bastards retain their office.

[saltpoint]

113. The venue for meaningful reform though, is much more likely to

be legislation than it is defiant refusal to play ball.

The mountain-top Buddhist may be able to dissolve Self into the greater One-ness of the universe but on the floor of the House of Representatives, the going can get a little rough.

I'm sorry, I don't agree with Kucinichs' vote and am growing very weary of his grandstanding.

[Coyote_Bandit]

116. "Nay"

was the appropriate vote IMHO. Granted, some of our Congresscritters came to that conclusion for entirely wrong reasons.

Sorry. I think that bill is a clusterfuck doomed to ultimate failure. Because evidence regarding the viability of a single payer system was largely ignored we are pretending to think it is an informed proposal. The mandates suck and they will leave millions in a worse position - even with the subsidies. We are wrong to pretend that this in any way represents healthcare reform. It doesn't. At best there are some minor INSURANCE reforms.

We have a sitting Dem President with Dem majorities in both the House and the Senate. There are only two reasons wh we do not have a meaningful healthcare reform proposal: (1) they are not committed to making that happen and/or (2) they lack the political skill to make it happen. Neither exactly recommend the sorry bastards retain their office.

Who is the greater offender? The guy who didn't support a poor proposal? Or the guys who should have delivered a better proposal?

Dems could have done better - and they should have done better. We can pretend this is helathcare reform but it isn't. Dems don't have the intestional fortitude to make that happen. It would put the flow of corporate donations into their campaign coffers at risk.

[kath]

55. count me in that group - there's a very real likelihood that this non-reform "reform" will set the

possibility of REAL reform back by decades.

[Coyote_Bandit]

104. +1 n/t

[MadHound]

26. His nay vote for a POS bill that will hand a mandatory monopoly to the insurance industry

Was a courageous stand against the corporations that are controlling our government and our country. The fact that you want to see him resign or leave the party is far more telling about your principles and POV than perhaps you intended, none of it good.

Sad when one of the few genuinely Democratic, liberal voices in the party continues to be marginalized by the party itself. My guess is that if FDR came back and started implementing his agenda you would probably be asking for his resignation also, seeing as he was much closer to Dennis' stance than to the modern day, run of the mill corporately compromised Dems we have now.

[saltpoint]

35. Kucinich has no context for his courage, and without that context, it

becomes a brand of contrarian, defiant self-aggrandizement.

Measure how far he is from the actual workings of this Congress. Measure how few his ardent supporters. On this site his supporters are impressive folks to a one but I have heard none of them advance a proposal that would bring to fruition one tenet of Kucinich's "principled" anti-corporate positions.

[MadHound]

49. No context?!

Where have you been for the past, oh, eight years or so? While the rest of the Democratic party was rushing to kiss the ass of Bush over issues like the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, Dennis was one of the few calling these disasters out for what they were.

As far as advancing a proposal to bring his anti-corporate agenda to fruition, well apparently you haven't been reading much, because several people around here have advanced things like publicly financed elections, just as a starter, to get corporate money out of our government. What have you done? Oh, yeah, called for one of the few liberal voices in the Democratic party to resign:eyes:

Stay classy there:eyes:

[saltpoint]

58. It's Dennis himself who prompted my suggestion, MadHound.

He appears profoundly ill at ease within the bounds of the party, and while this is a party of people I like less sometimes (Baucus, Landrieu), it is also a party I like more sometimes (Wellstone, Boxer).

Dennis seems unhappy in the company of Democrats.

[MuseRider]

69. I have been hoping for years

that he would leave. It would give me someone to vote for and feel good about.

[saltpoint]

73. 'Mornin', ma'am. Perhaps that is so.

But you would be crushed in the general election.

I would agree that a far more progressive country would be far more comfortable.

But that is not the country we have to navigate through at this point in our history.

He's tried twice for the White House and Democratic primary voters have given him a firm 'no' both times.

[MadHound]

72. Frankly, given the fact that Democrats are proving to be as corporately corrupted as 'Pugs

I understand why he is so uncomfortable, so am I. Dennis is still trying to work the whole "work within the party" schtick, even though that has been shown to be virtually useless, especially in the past twenty years. I admire him for that, even though ultimately I think that it is futile. However many, many people have fled the party because they realize that there is no working with or within the party, that it is just the flip side of the two party/same corporate master system of government.

I imagine that if this POS bill passes, you're going to an even larger exodus of the liberals and base, and you can kiss 2010 and 2012 goodbye. Perhaps that will wake the party up.

[saltpoint]

75. No crystal ball have I and the soothsayer is in the Bahamas on vacation,

but my strong hunch is that a third-party effort comprosed of disgruntled progressives is not going to be politically viable.

Whether it tilts the arithmetic against Obama enough for a Huckabee or Romney to win remains to be seen.

[newspeak]

115. yah know, I'm kind of seeing this meme,

Pelosi goes on TV and states that the main focus is to get Democrats in Congress-and the host was asking about the wars, about domestic issues. And, all she could come back to was getting a true majority. To do what? Will it be the same old thing, but we're supposed to feel better because now it's Democrats instead of those crazy repugs?

You seem to have the same argument. Rah-rah our team, we got to vote so we win, but sometimes it is principles that do truly matter. Maybe, the repugs are rape and pillage, but the Democrats have been (I don't mean all) duck and sweep under the rug. There are some really good Democrats (more than repugs) in the party who do care about main street, but it looks like to me, that both parties serve the same master, and it isn't us.

Why should Kucinich leave the party? Maybe you think that FDR should have left the party and let those pro-business democrats have their way. So, maybe all of us Democrats who are against this bill should leave the party, instead of attempting to change it within? We are FDR democrats, we are Wellstone Democrats, we are Kucinich Democrats and we ain't leaving yet!!!!

[saltpoint]

145. FDR faced similar resistance to the resistance this president faces.

[bertman]

84. Thank you, MadHound. You are exactly correct on all counts. Saltpoint is just enjoying

the opportunity to be a contrarian; although, he would never admit it.

Dennis Kucinich is one of the few in Congress who not only votes the true democratic (little D--meaning for the People) way, but also provides more than ample backup for his votes. He is well-informed and thoughtful. Would that there were 220 more like him in the House.

[LWolf]

144. If noone will ever hold Democrats accountable

for producing "key Democratic bills" that are not pieces of shit, when will it happen?

There is no "ego" in taking the hits he does for standing on principle. It's obviously not the road to power.

Ego? Plenty to go 'round on DU. Way too many DUers, and Democrats, willing to compromise anything for a team "win."

That's the same damned ego that shows up to cheer the local sports team on. Paint, shirts, hats, beer, and bellows for the home team, regardless of who plays on it, or how they achieve their wins.

[Ineeda]

20. Nader has integrity, too. Where did that get him?

Or us? A spoiler for the Dems.

[Cleita]

59. So everybody in politics has to be an unprincipled scumbag according to you?

[Ineeda]

74. So where did you get that ridiculous impression? n/t

[Cleita]

83. From your words. n/t

[Ineeda]

100. idjut. n/t

[JetCityLiberal]

102. +1000

thanks Cleita. I read those words too. Spot on.

[Peregrine Took]

67. The only person in the House with integrity.

[Individualist]

13. Damn the DLC!

[liberalmuse]

14. Kucinich was my first choice for President.

But it seems he votes with the Republicans more often than he votes with the Democrats on the issues that matter most to Americans. I love that he's such a hardcore liberal, but there comes a point where 'purity' gets us all dirty.

[Truth2Tell]

17. In your dreams.

No question progressives in the Democratic Party are on the ropes. This is a high water mark for the Corporate Republicans who have co-opted our Party. This is the culmination of a strategy devised by the right in the Bush I years. It's classic political strategy. If you can't beat them, join them and neutralize them. Mission accomplished for the right.

But this fight is far from over. This Party still belongs to the people and to those whose aims are loftier than the stooges and vassals who have slithered into leadership.

Those of us who beleive we can do so much better are not leaving. We will retake our Party and we will return to rightful place as a force for good. This will certainly take much time and much work. But I don't see too many people quitting. Certainly Kucinich isn't quitting. And neither am I. So dream on.

[saltpoint]

27. When I dream I don't dream about politicians.

[Starry Messenger]

18. A healthy democracy has a range of voices in it. n/t

[QC]

23. A healthy democracy is the last thing this bunch wants. n/t

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[QC]

79. People who try to bully dissenters into silence.

That does include quite a few people right here on this site, though they are found elsewhere, too.

[saltpoint]

24. Agree. But if some of them are howling in the fog they are

difficult to transcribe.

[Starry Messenger]

29. lol

If Dennis left, the rest of the Party would have no one left to make them feel guilty. I think of him as the grit in the oyster.

[saltpoint]

30. Agree, he plays that role. But not all grits so embedded become pearls.

[Starry Messenger]

37. Well, you have your mind made up

so it isn't worth arguing. But I think Dennis takes the role at the behest of the Party.

[saltpoint]

39. It's possible. I'm not writing it off.

But it does spill over into manipulation, then.

[Honeycombe8]

25. Maybe he can join Joe Lieberman's party? nt

[L0oniX]

31. PFFFT ...yea get rid of him ...he makes the Dems look bad.

:sarcasm:

[saltpoint]

32. He is not felt to be a spokesman, he is not wielding influence over

legislation, his amendments are frequently tossed in the back alley, he is marginalized, uncollaborative, and contrarian.

Were I a Dem in his district in 2010 I would strongly consider a primary vote for a challenger.

[Truth2Tell]

34. Exactly. Don't like your hair?

Smash the mirror, that will fix it.

[ProleNoMore]

33. Why - Because He Does Not Agree With You - A Bad Bill Is A Bad Bill

eom

[saltpoint]

36. We tangled last evening. I haven't changed my mind since this morning,

and most certainly, Dennis Kucinich hasn't had any influence at all.

[Dr.Phool]

38. I call on Kucinich to spend my campaign contribution wisely.

And say "Hi" to Elizabeth for me.

[endless october]

40. Kucinich is a valuable asset.

i like him more than i like any political party.

[saltpoint]

47. Fair enough. But he frankly does not HAVE a political party,

and this by his own design.

Hence my call for his renunciation of his affiliation with the Democratic Party.

[ncteechur]

42. no,he should not resign--he has an important voice and speaks for many but he is one of the reps

He gets one vote just like Nancy Pelosi gets one vote. But he doesn't like the bill so he voted no. Now he wants to be the good guy by telling us why he voted no. It doesn't matter why. He voted no. Same as all the republicans save Cao.

[Myrina]

45. I call on the other 434 morons to resign, first.

You're joking right? Kucinich's one of the only people in DC who gives a flying fuck about his constituents and the rest of working America.

[saltpoint]

48. No, I'm not joking. Maybe a little, yes. But overall, I feel that Kucinich

on one hand pays the contrarian little brother who thwarts what's going down while on the other seeks the party's nomination -- twice.

That frankly isn't working for him.

[Waiting For Everyman]

64. +1

[kath]

138. +1 again. "one of the only people in DC who gives a flying fuck about his constituents and the rest

of working America" is a very apt description of Kucinich.
Too bad so freakin' many here support the DLC and their ilk. :puke:

[valerief]

50. What about calling on all those Republic Congress critters who voted against the bill to resign?

:shrug:

Aren't they also elected officials who control the destiny of your life?

[saltpoint]

97. Indeed they do. Congressman Kucinich voted with them yesterday.

Hence the post.

[valerief]

101. So you'd rather oust Kucinich and keep Inhofe?????

:shrug:

[saltpoint]

110. Last I heard they were in two different states, and one is a U.S. Senator

and the other a U.S. Congressman.

Parallel structure matters.

[valerief]

147. Point taken, except I don't understand the two different states. Boehner, then? Where's his resign

thread?

I do know that Inhofe and Kucinich are from two different states. I don't understand your point about it.

[havocmom]

52. My guess is he will give it more consideration than Lieberman gave his allegiance to the DEMS

when he mutinied and ran as an independent, insisted on being allowed to maintain his DEM seniority when it came time to do committee chairs, support the GOP nominee for president.

There are worse problems in the Democratic party than Kucinich. How 'bout we do some critical thinking and address them in order of the real threats they present?

[saltpoint]

56. Well, you can begin any thread you want on any topic, of course.

No one has suggested that a prioritization is in place in this thread, least of all the OP.

[havocmom]

123. So, only those who agree with you can post in YOUR thread?

:rofl: re-read the rules and weep, or start your own site where you make the rules.

[frazzled]

54. Well, on the bright side, maybe he'll get abducted by aliens in a UFO

They might want to try to study his head.

[demmiblue]

80. Well, at least that would prove that there is intelligent life on this planet

[Cleita]

57. Wow! That's a bit extreme!

Maybe we need to get another Congress person like Michelle Bachman in his seat, because that's what would be waiting in the wings. Kucinich has done nothing wrong. He cast a vote that he knew wouldn't matter because they already knew ahead of time that they had the votes.

Jeez! It's called politics

[saltpoint]

68. I lived for a while in Kucinich's district. I believe it is fairly solidly Democratic,

and although not as deep a blue as say, Berkeley, it's blue enough.

I don't see a Bachmann or Foxx emerging from the mix in Kucinich's district.

[Egnever]

65. I agree

He should form his own party. We could use more parties in my opinion.

[bridgit]

66. There you go: Nader/Kucinich 2012

[4dsc]

76. A lot of DLC supporters here supporting this bill

That's all I have to say..

[saltpoint]

96. Not all Democrats, in the 111th Congress or not, are affiliated with the DLC,

and so the bill advances or does not advance in a larger pool of opinions.

I'm glad it passed and wished it has passed by a more convincing margin.

[joeybee12]

78. Happy to unrec...let's see, throw out dennis and keep Stupak, right? n/t

[saltpoint]

93. You're wrong on all counts, jb12.

Voters in DK's district will make that call ultimately, and Stupak was not referenced in the thread to date.

That was your construction.

[ThoughtCriminal]

87. You don't know it

but this is probably setting DU records for unrec. "<0" is mercy.

[itsrobert]

88. Democrats do not attack other Democrats

Hint: You are posting on DEMOCRATIC underground.

[saltpoint]

91. The site clearly sanctioned savage attacks on John Kerry in 2004; it can

absorb an elbow under the basket to Dennis Kucinich.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[Tommy_Carcetti]

94. He has a 92.0% record of voting with the Democratic Party.

Which is pretty good for me.

(Oh, and Congressman Stupak has a 96.2% voting record with the Democratic Party).

I don't necessarily agree with his vote on the bill, but I can at least agree with his principles as to why he voted. If that makes any sense.

[saltpoint]

95. It does make sense.

What rankles is that the vote was imperative to the president and while I don't have a particular endorsement of Stupak, I'm not figuring him in on this thread much. I could have done without his amendment, certainly.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[dana_b]

106. so you want people that always tow the party line

all of the time? Really? No room for dissent. Wow - I guess a lot of people here should resign from the Dem party too then.

[donco6]

111. That's pretty silly. n/t

[Duende azul]

112. He wasn't the only one to vote no. So when are you calling the blue dogs to resign?

At least Kucinich was the only one to vote no for the right reasons.

[ShamelessHussy]

117. as do most of the elite

small crowd, there...

[Swamp Rat]

119. I call upon Senator John Bonehead to resign.

He is much worse than Kucinich, and is a danger to humanity, spreading his pumpkin skin seeds everywhere.



:D

[flvegan]

120. Good luck with that.

It's a shame that folks feel he's not a Democrat. It shows that they've forgotten what it means to be one. Pity.

[Desertrose]

121. OMG. And you are exactly who to call for this?

:rofl:

Do you even know what the Democratic party used to be all about, unlike the current corprate version ?

[havocmom]

124. Dunno who OP is, but OP didn't like mention ofthe traitor Lieberman

OP might wanna look and see who owns this site. OP might be better off firing up OP's own site where OP can be the boss. ;)

:hi: Desertrose :hug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

127. Actually, I'd say the comparison is rather valid.

Lieberman threated to vote against HCR, Kooch actually did it.

Fuck the both of their traitor asses.

[havocmom]

128. But HCR is not Lieberman's only act against the party he dumped after it dumped him

And Kooch is just staying where he has always been. My first reference to Lieberman in this thread was that Kucinich probably gives more consideration to things than Traitor Joe, who serves only Traitor Joe and his patrons. OP didn't like the comparison.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

132. Blah blah blah...

considerations... good intentions...

bullshit.

It's the vote that matters.

[havocmom]

133. LOL so, what the bill contains doesn't matter?

Blah blah blah or bleat bleat bleat?

[RetroLounge]

125. Grow up

unrec

RL

[anonymous171]

126. Kucinich is one of the few actual democrats left in congress.

[earth mom]

129. FUCK this OP!

:puke:

[Fuzz]

130. A Modest Proposal?

[cynatnite]

131. DUZY!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh, my sides hurt. That was funny. Thanks for the laugh.

[Vidar]

134. Ah, the brilliant I'm taking my ball & going home" defense--simply laughable.

[proud2BlibKansan]

135. Maybe you are confusing us with Republicans

They are the party that marches in lockstep.

[rug]

136. How odd. This, and not a peep against Stupak.

[freddie mertz]

140. WTF is up with the Dennis bashing?

He voted his conscience.

Agree or not, no reason to demonize him.

Meanwhile, what about the Blue Dog pukes who forced the antiabortion provision into the bill and STILL voted no?

Where is the puffed-up outrage over that?

[Hepburn]

141. The purpose of this forum is to...

...SUPPORT DEMOCRATS.

So...STFU, OK?

[LWolf]

142. I call on him to keep fighting the good fight.

And to not go quietly when the identity of the Party is at stake.

[JDPriestly]

143. This, I believe, is the first post that I have unrecommended.

Saltpoint, are you yourself a Democrat? I happen to like Kucinich. He is one of the few members of Congress who does not sell out for money. He is that rarity in politics -- a basically honest man.

[BzaDem]

146. I'm glad I had the opportunity to cancel out your unrec.

If Kucinich is going to vote against the entire Democratic agenda, he should leave the Democratic party. Hopefully there will be enough primary voters to vote him out in 2010 (as there almost were in 2008).