I believe that Kucinich should face a primary challenge in 2012.

[LoZoccolo]

[tekisui]

1. So?

[Badfish]

97. Didn't he vote against an Amber Alert system ?

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Families_+_Children.htm

At the very least , he should explain his votes.

[dionysus]

2. only if i get to burn your oasis records.

[LoZoccolo]

4. I haven't seen the ballot requirements, but I'll take your word that that is in there.

Hopefully we can get that changed.

[MadHound]

3. Why? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

10. He said that Obama should be challenged.

Also, he has a tendency of saying what progressives want to hear while being in a position to deliver none of it, while criticizing others for not delivering. I feel that that is a net loss for the Democratic Party.

[MadHound]

12. Ah, so you're pissed at him because he doesn't like the job Obama is doing,

And because he values principle over party.

I guess you thought that Kennedy should have been primaried because he dared to challenge Carter.

[LoZoccolo]

14. He doesn't have to like it. n/t

[MadHound]

16. Well, apparently he, and millions of other liberal across the country don't like it,

Many people are dissatisfied with the job Obama has done. Is that a crime, no. Is advocating for a primary challenger for Obama a crime, no. In fact that is how our democracy works. Seems to me that you don't like how our democracy works, and anybody who wishes to exercise their democratic rights is deserving of your petty, vindictive wrath. Why is that? Do you hate democracy? Do you hate how our electoral system works?

And again, do you think Kennedy should have been primaried because he challenged Carter?

[LoZoccolo]

21. It shouldn't be a crime to challenge Kucinich then either.

Seems to me that you don't like how our democracy works, and anybody who wishes to exercise their democratic rights is deserving of your petty, vindictive wrath.

Are primary challenges an exercise of democratic rights, or an act of petty, vindictive wrath?

And again, do you think Kennedy should have been primaried because he challenged Carter?

Yes.

[CrossChris]

22. I wouldn't be surprised if Kucinich agreed.

Maybe you should ask him. If he disagreed, then that would definitely be hypocritical.

[MadHound]

23. Not saying that it's a crime,

I'm just stunned (well, not really), at your petty vindictiveness. You don't want to primary Kucinich because of the job he has been doing, but rather because he dares to disagree with Obama.

[LoZoccolo]

29. I am not advocating a primary challenge because he disagrees with Obama. n/t

[MadHound]

45. Really? From your post above,

"He said that Obama should be challenged."

Not to mention your previous postings on Kucinich make it clear that you despise him because he does disagree with Obama on many things.

[LoZoccolo]

46. Disagreeing with someone and saying that they should be challenged are two different things. n/t

[Little Star]

122. Sure sounded like that is what you said in your #10 comment.

[LanternWaste]

42. I've often found that when one predicates an argument with

"He said that Obama should be challenged...."

I've often found that when one predicates an argument with "because that's what they said...", it aptly illustrates the a strength of petulance, and any real arguments or thesis.

Two people. One takes a shower daily. The other... not so much. Using the critical thought process of your argument, the clean person should take even more showers simply because he suggested taking one to the other.

[stevenleser]

75. Nope, your attempt to set up a logical construct failed at the beginning.

The correct way to set this up would be:

Two people. Both don't take many showers. One suggests to the other they should take more showers. LoZoccolo would say, I think the person who suggested it should take more too.

[Erose999]

47. delete

[grahamhgreen]

72. Name a policy position you disagree with him on.

[LoZoccolo]

73. I disagree with him on the criminalization of flag burning.

While I personally disapprove of the act, I believe that that is protected speech, and that the principles on which this country is founded can withstand strong symbolic criticism.

I also believe that there are no such thing as orbital mind-control lasers.

[grahamhgreen]

74. And for that you want to primary him?

[LoZoccolo]

78. No.

His policy positions do not alone qualify him for office, especially if he is impeding progress on Democratic policies which I find better than the Republican policies. An election is not solely a referendum on policies. The policy positions become moot if the representatives themselves impede and/or destroy the progress toward them.

[grahamhgreen]

93. Kucinich's positions more closely match mine, so I'll stand by him, Obama, OTOH

has been instituting policies that are not in our best interests.

I understand your frustration with Kucinich, but I'd love to see Obama primaried, not so much because i believe he would lose the primary, but because I believe it would force him to move to the left and address some of the simple, obvious solutions to our countries problems, like taxing the ultra rich, ending the wars, breaking up monopolies , ending free trade, and so forth.

Then, once Obama came back home to those who elected him, I'd feel more comfortable voting for him.

[LoZoccolo]

99. When in the 200+ year history of Presidential elections has a primary

pushed a candidate to embrace the more radical wing of their party?

I can think of two instances where it failed the party altogether.

[grahamhgreen]

101. They are not radical positions - they are held by the majority of Americans.

[LoZoccolo]

102. I said "more radical". Unless you would deny that Obama is "more centrist" than you'd like?

In either case, would you like to answer the question?

[grahamhgreen]

106. I deny that Obama is a centrist,

I say he is pushing radical positions advocated by the utra-rich power elite.

The majority of Americans want:

US out of Iraq & Afghanistan.

Cutting military spending.

Medicare for All or a Public Option.

To Tax the wealthy to reduce the deficit.

To protect social security.

To end so-called free-trade agreements.

To hold banksters accountable.

Etc.

These are centrist positions held by the majority.


So, historically, I don't think it matters whether or not a primary challenger has helped Dems in the past, what matters is that he aligns him self with the majority of Americans on key issues.

Everything else we have tried has failed to drive him to these positions. Without adopting them, he will lose, IMHO. The only thing I can think of to wake him up is to primary him.

[Badfish]

96. Because he is a all or nothing politician.

Didn't Kucinich vote against the Amber Alert System for some idiotic reason ?

Fuck him , never liked him and his all or nothing attitude. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Families_+_Children.htm

[Wilms]

5. I think Obama will challenge him. n/t

[H2O Man]

6. hugh

good luck on that

[tallahasseedem]

7. He will hitch a ride on his UFO and be gone by then...

Hopefully.

[LoZoccolo]

19. ...roaring toward the other side where only rainbows hide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dddm5bQeKvg

[no_hypocrisy]

8. Kucinich will be lucky if he still has a district to run from.

Census numbers indicate that his district may be split and added to other existing districts.

[phantom power]

9. I approve. Primary challenges are a cornerstone of our two-party system.

All politicians are accountable through a primary challenge, among other things.

[Myrina]

11. Waaaaaahmbulance on its way ...

:eyes:

[tallahasseedem]

13. Check out LBN...

good times indeed!

[Rex]

15. That is fine with me.

[JoePhilly]

17. I don't think anyone gets your joke ... FWIW, I thought it was funny. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. I believe that Kucinich (and others) should challenge Obama in the primaries.

[bobbolink]

20. Color us all totally surprised.

Fear.

Fear.

Fear.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bryan]

24. I don't know about that

He was a pretty good soldier for Pelosi in the 111th Congress, with a 92% record of voting with Dems.

He engages in a level of posturing I don't agree with, and he attracts a lot of flakes, but on the whole he's a smart, conscientious public servant who's not just in it for the private-sector connections, and unless people in his district are ripshit angry at him and/or have somebody sharply better in mind, I'd just as soon leave him alone. It's not like they're aren't bigger issues...

[WCGreen]

25. He will more than likely be forced to run against Marcy Kaptur

or Betty Sutton or perhaps even Marcia Fudge...

Ohio lost two congressional seats after the 2010 census came in.

[bluestate10]

77. Kaptur.

Will beat Dennis. Marci is one toughie.

[WCGreen]

85. It depends how they draw the districts.

they will probably go after Ryan by splitting his district in two, move sutton south and bring Kaptur in...

That's what I think will happen.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Do you live in his district? Even in his State?

If not, how is it your business? Why would you care? Your concerns are clearly centered in DC not in Ohio.

[LoZoccolo]

31. I can still donate contributions to his challengers.

It is also my business because his assertion that Obama should face a primary challenge works to undermine my Democratic president.

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. Is a shit statement.

[rucky]

40. It's just too easy sometimes.

:rofl:

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. Isn't it just? n/t

[mmonk]

66. .

:spray:

[Warren Stupidity]

84. !

[OhioChick]

28. Didn't you love Dennis here for years?

If I remember correctly, you even had a Dennis avatar.

What gives?

[LoZoccolo]

30. That was when he displayed teamwork and strategy in passing health care.

Now he is undermining the Democratic president.

[OhioChick]

32. IMHO....Dennis "is" more Democratic than the President. n/t

[AngryOldDem]

36. +1.

[ChiciB1]

44. ++++1...n/t

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

54. Or, the President is undermining the Democratic Party

and Democratic ideals.I choose to support issues, not personalities.

[LoZoccolo]

60. Why does he enjoy overwhelming approval amongst Democrats?

Most of all liberal Democrats?

[tekisui]

61. Most people don't pay attention.

It really is that simple.

[LoZoccolo]

63. And you know this how?

In b4 "they don't agree with me".

[tekisui]

64. It's American Politics.

It is pretty basic stuff. Most of the the US are willfully ignorant. Read up on it, it isn't really a point of debate, it is just our history and our culture. People routinely vote against their own interests and support politicians for superficial reasons. This is rudimentary stuff.

[LoZoccolo]

65. I say that everybody is paying attention and that's American politics.

It is pretty basic stuff. Read up on it, it isn't really a point of debate, it is just our history and our culture. People are very proud of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and their right to vote and we see that from the fourth of July celebrations. This is rudimentary stuff.

I have given hard evidence in the form of fourth of July fireworks displays, and that the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming, whereas you have given none. So far, I am right, and you are wrong.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

88. That is a ridiculous statement not based in fact.

[LoZoccolo]

103. I cited as many facts as you did. n/t

[tekisui]

119. It is not my job to educate you. I don't have the time or interest.

If you choose to remain among the willfully ignorant, so be it.

[LoZoccolo]

121. I didn't say it was.

It is simply up to you if you want to be compelling to me and others. If your explanation for Obama's overwhelming approval amongst Democrats does not explain the fact that self-identified liberals are actually the group which gives him the greatest approval, I would think that you would have an interest in resolving that for any onlookers to this thread. But you have no obligation to do so.

[Lucian]

107. I like the oxymoron you posted...

"Democratic president."

Dennis has more Democratic ideals in his little finger than Obama does in his whole body.

[bobbolink]

110. .

:rofl:

[mmonk]

68. He gave in and voted for the Heritage plan instead of holding to

his guns for single payer or at least a path to it.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

38. I don't like to reveal personal information.

I will have you know that I'm awaiting some delicious baked goods on my next birthday!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts1WvLWbwEw#t=01m23s

[Forkboy]

51. Why not, you're already revealing that petulence is a part of you?

[LoZoccolo]

59. Is it petulant to present a primary challenge against an incumbent? n/t

[Forkboy]

76. No, it's democracy.

Getting upset over that simple fact to the point where one feels the need to start an attention-seeking flamebait OP is being petulant.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

[bullwinkle428]

35. It's a free country, dude - move there, set up shop, and mount your challenge

yourself as a candidate if you feel so inclined!

[Disintermedia8]

90. that'll be the first time this dude

mounted anything

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. You would think that.

:eyes:

[Fla_Democrat]

39. Actually, i think he will be the primary challenger

Didn't I hear a bit back that his district is toast? If he is drawn out, he will have to fight for another, presumably already occupied by an incumbent. :shrug:



:smoke:

[Ozymanithrax]

41. Ohio State Congess is working on a real challange for Kucinich...

I have my problems with him, but I prefer he be a Congressman than replaced by a Republican.

[tammywammy]

43. Isn't he being redistribute out of office?

I thought this was possibly his last term anyway.

[WhiteTara]

48. he may not have a district in 2012 n/t

[apocalypsehow]

50. He seems awful keen to help Republicans. And that's ALL a primary challenge to a sitting Democratic

president would accomplish: help Republicans in their bid to take back the White House.

It causes one to wonder about motives....

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. The olive pit should run against him

[craigmatic]

55. The repub OH governor might just get rid of his district. Nobody is to the left of Kucinich in a

primary.

[deutsey]

56. That's how democracy is supposed to work, I think

Anyone should be able to challenge an incumbent if they think they can offer a viable alternative.

I know it can be divisive, but real democracy isn't the pretty PR shows that we see at political conventions these days.

[RedCloud]

57. A real gem of a thought there!

[MineralMan]

58. Lots of missing the point in this thread, I see.

K&R

[WilliamPitt]

62. Hee.

*ducking*

[ReggieVeggie]

67. he had a primary challenge in 08

from someone who did not live in the district sponsored by the Democratic party

[dkofos]

69. He will more than likely loose his district.

Does that make you happy??

[Fuddnik]

71. I'd better send Dennis another check, just in case.

[TheKentuckian]

79. What you believe and what the Gipper believed don't have enough space for water to come through

All incumbents should potentially have a primary opponent, that is our system.

Dennis not close enough to Reagan for ya? Then you and all the corporate money that is sympathetic to your viewpoints have the right.

I think it is daft to demand that an incumbent must never be challenged, regardless if people agree with what they have done with their stewardship.
The replay Carter/Kennedy forever and ever amen chorus is a lil goofy considering the main evidence is circumstantial. Really, even if those folks are right it means our system is broken in that it cannot withstand its own remedy to unhappy voters.

If having a vigorous primary means the other side wins then we don't have a Representative democracy but rather parties that by the momentum of entropy that will be less and less reflective of society as we move on through time.

[NYC Liberal]

80. A strong primary challenger makes the incumbent stronger, right?

That's what he said.

[LoZoccolo]

81. BRO FIST!

:fistbump:

[paulk]

82. go for it

[MrSlayer]

83. I can't imagine someone being better than Dennis.

But if they can find someone even more dedicated to traditional Democratic issues than he, then they should go ahead. Any challenge to Dennis would come from the right of him.

[20score]

86. I say this with all due respect. What are you, five? Please try to make a coherent case for your

side of the debate. It brings the whole level of discussion down a few rungs on the ladder.

Seriously, I'm sure you're a good guy, or woman, but if you have a point to make against Dennis Kucinich, please do better than, "Oh yeah, so are you!"

[ReggieVeggie]

95. +1

I thought copycat, flamebait threads got locked around here. I guess it depends on who does the flaming.

[LoZoccolo]

100. As NYCLiberal pointed out, it would make a stronger candidate.

This is by his own logic. Kucinich has not has much success in passing his bills. As people on DU point out, that when this happens, it is because the candidate is not left-wing enough.

[Forkboy]

104. The OP's intent isn't to make a case but to stir up shit and be divisive.

Ask the mods someday how many of his threads get locked for being divisive flamebait.

[LoZoccolo]

112. Please check one.

Primary challenges are:

< > democracy
< > attempts to stir up shit and be divisive
< > democracy when Dennis Kucinich does it, but attempts to stir up shit and be divisive when someone does it to him

[Forkboy]

113. I already answered your question above.

It's democracy. You'll do well to note my post below where I say I'd even be in favor of a primary challenge to DK were he the President.

This thread fits option 2, as do the vast majority of brain dead OPs that you start. At least the story of DK talking about a primary challenge is an actual news story for people to discuss. Your OP is vapid flamebait, a fit born of petulance because you only seem to like democracy when it suits your thinking, making your option 3 above pretty fucking hypocritical. Democracy is clearing bothering you when it's done to Obama, hence this OP.

Your questions are so full of fail it borders on Perry Logan type of stuff. When you called me a "worthy opponent" you were flattering yourself, not me. You're not even close, dude.

[LoZoccolo]

114. I don't dislike it for being democracy.

I dislike it for being poor strategy, which Dennis Kucinich engages in to the detriment of his party. In a similar vein, someone can appreciate free speech while disapproving of the way that it is being used by right-wing talk show hosts.

A political party by its very nature will impose compromise on its members; in return, they get the power of numbers behind some of what they want, and a platform to gain consensus for the rest. Dennis Kucinich needs to realize that he can't be appreciated by a good number of people within his political party when he works against their interests.

[Forkboy]

115. Is it best to work for a politcal party's interest, or the people's interest?

Because the two are rarely compatible anymore. So which do you prefer to stand with, given the choice?

And speaking of poor strategy, how many people do you think have been inspired to help Democrats after reading your posts? I find them to be a total detriment to the Democratic Party, and rather embarrassing in their simplicity. Why harp on DK for hurting the Party when you do the same here on DU? How can someone who has had dozens of posts locked for being "divisive flamebait", and someone who admits that they use "troll-like tactics" here on DU, talk of consensus building and hurting the Party with a straight face?

[LoZoccolo]

116. This is a false opposition.

I believe that the Democratic has more of the peoples' interest in mind, and - here's the important part - to the degree to which it is not, it is my responsibility in a democracy to gain the consensus necessary to make it more so, while doing what I can to make tomorrow a little bit better than today.

My posts are generally there to expose fallacies and canards which are detrimental to the party due to a lack of strategic insight and effort. To do so sometimes requires an indirect method, or presenting a situation where people have trouble holding contradictory positions (I've found that people who contradict themselves are often just saying two different things to manipulate people in two different ways according to whatever situation they are facing - this isn't helpful among Democrats). I think it is better for the Democratic Party to deal with that than to run off a cliff with goofiness.

I actually do little to espouse one policy position or another online because I generally feel that is being taken care of by other people in more effective ways. I see my main purposes on DU as getting people involved in real-life politics, and promoting strategic thinking.

[Forkboy]

117. Then you're kidding yourself.

I see my main purposes on DU as getting people involved in real-life politics, and promoting strategic thinking.

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

118. I've been raked over the coals several times for just suggesting that DUers are seldom doers.

But I know that people wouldn't get defensive if they were actually out there doing things because they'd realize that they meet very few people from DU at Democratic functions, and that they always need people to volunteer for things. Instead, I get a lot of "you don't know what I do"; if they were actually doing something, wouldn't they be like "I do _____" or, even better, "I do _____ and if you'd like to get involved with it check out _____"?

I give the two purposes as separate things but they actually go hand-in-hand; once you actually are making an effort to get something done, it starts to become worth it to actually sort it out and come up with a way that it will work. One of the DUers I know in real life is a major dude and even ran a presidential candidate's campaign in Illinois, and I see him all the time having to defend his OPs against people who just won't take responsibility for how they are operating in politics. The kind of people who get defensive at being told that they should engage in real-life politics wouldn't talk the way they do and come up with the ideas that they are coming up with if they were actually taking responsibility for getting what they want.

[Forkboy]

120. People get defensive when you use "troll like" tactics.

When people post negative stuff about Obama many here get defensive. That defensiveness doesn't prove the validity of the attack. And people's defensiveness to your lameness does not prove the validity of your accusation that they do nothing. Like I said before, your simplicity is embarrassing, especially as you seem to hold your intelligence and craftiness is such high regard. It borders on delusional.

If you actually gave a shit about what you speak of here you'd try some new methods to achieve your goals here on DU. Instead, you rely on flamebait and divisive OPs, and that's pretty much the depth of your strategy. All that stuff you just posted means shit in light of the approach you take here. You troll, end of story, and think that's smart politics. It's immature politics, not smart politics. Learn the difference before acting like you're helping anything but your own self-inflated ego.

I get a lot of "you don't know what I do"; if they were actually doing something, wouldn't they be like "I do _____" or, even better, "I do _____ and if you'd like to get involved with it check out _____"?

No, that's YOUR approach, and it doesn't follow that it has to be everyone's approach. I contact people privately here if I need help with something. I don't have a fragile ego and I don't need affirmation from other DUers that what I'm doing is good or not. When they say you don't know, that's the truth. You don't, and you just use it as yet another excuse to pat yourself on the back, which is what all this really seems to boil down to. You seem highly insecure to me.

it starts to become worth it to actually sort it out and come up with a way that it will work

So when do you start doing that?

[LoZoccolo]

123. I would hope that my opponents are in a position where defensiveness is one option.

You're talking about two separate things now, though: my calls to action and my arguments. Yes, I argue with people who I feel are being disingenuous against Democrats and/or otherwise doing unnecessary damage to them. Yes, I ask questions designed to create tension around the ways they are contradicting themselves. I don't follow them over and over into their threads, and I don't personally attack them so much anymore, and I certainly wouldn't ask to be tombstoned because they are allowed on the board. I try to avoid grossly breaking the obvious rules. Do you feel that people on this board are damaging the Democratic Party? How have you been dealing with that?

If you actually gave a shit about what you speak of here you'd try some new methods to achieve your goals here on DU.

If people were still able to look at my first posts from 2003 they would see that I tried the polite, beckoning route where I beg people to believe me despite the gross exaggerations at the foundations of their beliefs and actions and/or the manipulative hyperbole in which they engage and for which they refuse to take responsibility for making intellectually honest. If you think I am playing a game with people and engaging in street theater I would remind you that many of them are doing so as well.

No, that's YOUR approach, and it doesn't follow that it has to be everyone's approach.

Let's see what we see much of on DU, or at least what I am disappointed with in some of the population here: rampant defeatism, constant advocacy of extreme tactics (but only the easiest ones, like throwing away your vote), abdication of the responsibility for gaining electoral consensus, hyperbolic outraged rhetoric designed to manipulate the Democratic establishment rather than the sober assessment of the current political state which would allow activists to determine what to do next to get what they want, and rabid defensiveness (with no counter-evidence) when confronted with evidence of the general inaction of DU. Maybe you can find an explanation that reconciles a vigorously activist population on DU to these traits, and maybe you'll be able to tell me how it all works; I'll go with Occam's razor for now.

[fishwax]

87. I'm not surprised. n/t

[Dokkie]

89. so do i

Everyone and I mean everyone should be prepared to face a liberal primary challenge every end of term. Maybe that is what we need to keep em all in line. But anyone stupid enough to challenge Dennis would get shellacked. Its not easy defeating an honest and principled man.

Go Dennis

[City Lights]

91. Whatev...

[kentuck]

92. Barack Obama?

Hmmm..

[Robb]

94. I like it. Sort of a "Freaky Friday" kind of thing.

Boxing Day for Democrats. Could be illuminating.

[Forkboy]

105. If the roles were reversed I'd be fine with anyone mounting a primary challenge against DK.

Some people seem to fear democracy more than embrace it.

[rug]

108. Move to Cleveland so you can vote for the rightwinger.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[Zax2me]

111. His positives far outweigh his negatives

Not my senator - but I'd still vote for him.