Why do so many consider Kucinich unelectable?

[spindoctor]

That is not the title of an essay based on the many comments I read on this forum, but rather a serious question. Why?

58% of all Americans is generally dissatisfied with the way things are going in the US according to Gallup (56% says Princeton). So what is wrong with a candidate that WILL change the way things are going?

80% believes in providing health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes (ABC 10/03). So what is unelectable about the only candidate that WILL provide health care coverage for all Americans?

70% of the people think this country's political system is so controlled by special interests and partisanship that it cannot respond to the country's real needs (Newsweek 10/03). What is so unelectable about the ONLY candidate that has a proven track record of resisting special interest groups?

76% of the people does not want to continue NAFTA in its current form or would like to see changes to the agreement (Epic-MRA 05/99). What makes the only candidate that will retract NAFTA unelectable?

53% of the people in America now believe the war in Iraq was not worth it (CBS 10/03). Why then is the ONLY candidate who actively opposed the war before it started unelectable?

41% of Americans agree that the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol (Zogby 6/03). Does that make a candidate who acknowledges that 40 billion spend on the war on drugs can be better applied unelectable?

Kucinich is the ONLY candidate who realizes that the ONLY way to make sense of a budget in which more than 50% goes to military expenses is to cut military expanses.

Why is Kucinich unelectable? He is only unelectable if the people who support his ideas the most (yes, DU…that means you) refuse to back him up.

Kucinich is not a radical progressive. He is a little bit left of center. The problem is that most other Democrats are found so far to the right that they are simply confused Republicans (and yes, that includes Bill Clinton). This offsets the position of Kucinich and Sharpton but only relatively to the others.

44% of the Americans will vote for a Democrat, but it is not Clark, it is not Dean, it is not Lieberman and it is not Kerry.
The other candidates are too unknown at this time to be considered. But why could it not be Kucinich? Are his ideas too radical? Is it the hairdo? If that is the case, we badly need a schism in the Democratic party because there will be no more room for the ones that represent the ideals that this nation was founded on.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

1. hmmm

They're afraid of getting what they want?
Apathy?

It's a difficult question to answer.
Although many make light of and bash the media, it's as if they still let it guide them in decision making.

You ask the question that is on every Kucinich supporters mind. I think if we knew the answer to this Kucinich would be polling at 95%.

TWL

[ScotTissue]

9. Short and ugly

Sorry, but there it is.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

11. He's better looking than Kerry or Dean

That's the truth.

[mrgorth]

42. You CAN'T be serious!

.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

49. Kerry looks like Frankenstein, Dean looks really fat

Yes I'm serious. Kerry is one *ugly* mofo, and anyone who thinks Dean is attractive needs glasses. I know it's superficial, but it's true.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

60. WCTV....

:)

[shanti]

93. OOOOH FAT!

that is simply HORRIBLE!!!


good grief.

[demrebel]

110. Another lie, we need to stop the lying and it will help the party

Yes the Kerry comment can be made it fun and he does look like lerch or frank.

But to say dean is fat, come on. Fat is al gore, jesse jackson and teddy. Dean takes care of himself and is a doctor.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

111. hehe

Lol defend Dean and take a dig on kerry.

But fail to see the humour in WCTV's original slam. He was doing exactly what everyone does to Kucinich. Which is common since it's hard to challenge Kucinich on the issues, people resort to petty 'looks' bashing.


TWL

[Hep]

167. Your last sentence is wrong

Kerry is one *ugly* mofo, and anyone who thinks Dean is attractive needs glasses. I know it's superficial, but it's true.

It should read, "I know it's superficial, but it's subjective"

Or, "I know it's superficial, but it's also stupid."

[Hippo_Tron]

137. Kucinich is popular amongst Democrats who are into politics...

Most others consider him too liberal.

[Hep]

168. too liberal

for whom? That's the thing. He's not too liberal for me, but I think he's too liberal for America.

[redqueen]

172. I'm with you!

:toast:

[arwalden]

12. Nobody Knows How To Pronounce His Name.

Sorry, but there it is.

[GeronimoSkull]

104. Just say...

http://thekooch.com/">The Kooch!

[ThirdWheelLegend]

13. and I addressed that..

That is mostly the media's fault. Be it 'news' or entertainment.

Oh and he is not short and ugly. He is a great man. With an excellent smile!

TWL

[arwalden]

14. Does A Bad Comb-Over Speak About Someones Style Or Honesty?

Just wondering.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

16. I didn't think so...

but my peers say YES! so... :eyes:

TWL

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

39. Which rich Democrats are being attacked for their looks?

Kerry looks like Frankenstein, but I don't hear anyone complaining about his looks. Dean looks bloated as hell, but I don't heard any complaining about that. I never heard anyone say that Graham was ugly, and he surely was.

Only working class candidates get attacked for their looks. Why is that? I have no doubt they would be saying the same thing about Edwards if he wasn't so telegenic (I guess they say he looks immature)

[redqueen]

194. What, no responses to this question?

:kick:

[Woodstock]

I don't think he is ugly

I really don't think there is anything to that.

The looks of Dean, Kerry, and Kucinich are all about equal to me - they are about average.

The only really good looking ones are Clark and Edwards.

[FrancoUnamerican]

198. Bad at debates, bad press....

I've only seen him on the news a couple times, but one of the times I saw him he let himself get trapped, it was obviously coming, and he let it happen....That is unsavory in a president.

Although I support DK, this could contribute to why others do not. When the little press you get is bad press, it doesn't make for good polling statistics.

[bearfartinthewoods]

43. not difficult at all.........

how can a candidate who represents the purest wishes of either end of the political spectrum ever be elected by the whole? perhaps, some iresistably charismatic, multimillion funded person could but that's not DK.

[OneBlueSky]

2. well, speaking only for myself . . .

he reminds me of Alfred E. Newman . . . despite what he says (which I largely agree with), he just doesn't come across with enough gravitas to be president . . . jmho, of course . . . if he should manage to get the nomination, I'll certainly vote for him . . . in fact, I'll probably vote for him in the primary, just to send a message that his views are important . . .

[redqueen]

173. Bless you!

I hope you do decide to vote for Dennis. He's the strongest candidate with the values he has (shared for the most part by CMB and Al).

And after all the talk about *'s 'gravitas' after 9/11, if no one EVER uses that to describe Dennis that's fine by me! :)

[vision]

187. Kucinich looks like Alfred E Newman?

I guess you have never seen the nation cover
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushworry2.htm

I think Dennis is great and if somebody like Bush I & II, Lincoln, etc can get elected I don't think Dennis' looks are significant.

If he was able to get his message out I think more people would support him, but the media and corporations are more afraid of him than any other except maybe Sharpton.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

3. Kucinich is the "Unnamed Democrat" that beats Bush

Poll after poll over my lifetime shows that your average middle working class American is pretty far left-of-center on economic issues. Universal Health Care, a living wage, strong regulations on corporations, opposition to "free trade" agreements, anti-outsourcing - these issues score high again and again among Americans. In fact, the only way to defeat these issues is a huge media assualt on any specific proposals.

Which Democratic candidate agrees with the majority of Americans on these issues? Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich is "unelectable" because the pro-corporate Democrats won't let someone like Kucinich get a fair hearing even in his own party.

It's not Republicans that make Kucinich unelectable, it's Democrats. The DLC would rather lose an election than support a true progressive populist like Kucinich. The DLC *exists* to make sure people like Kucinich don't win. They would rather lose with a centrist like Dukakis.

[spindoctor]

6. Yep

It's not Republicans that make Kucinich unelectable, it's Democrats.

That is the truth and that really...really worries me.

[stickdog]

56. Sure he is.

Short, single, strident, whiny, veggie Representatives who are easily maligned as extreme left nutcases always win overwhelmingly in US national elections.

[caledesi]

64. Dennis is single? There is your answer. Never happen.

[spindoctor]

77. James Buchanan 1857

And....Grover Cleveland 1885 and 1893, the only President to marry in the White House.

[Padraig18]

115. "Ma, ma, where's my pa? Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha!" n/t

[Clark Can WIN]

116. When you have to hopscotch a whole

century in American politics it might as well have never happened. That's really, really, really, really thin.

[spindoctor]

151. Never say never

Who was the last bachelor candidate to run for office? That I don't know.

Is being single really that much of a disadvantage? I foresee high scores from eligible young ladies and the gay community (one never knows).
Of all the weak arguments why Kucinich would be unelctable, this must be the worst.

Rational thinking would suggest that it means less distraction from the job. If I look around me, the people that totally dedicate themselves to their work are either single or married "without commitment".

[a_random_joel]

4. Well, it's totally superficial

But looks count. Maybe not to you or me, but to the masses...

As for me, Kucinich lost it with his wild-eyed hysterical spews. He needs to tone it dwon a bit. I agree with many of his positions, and respect his passion, but he does not channel it or present it appropriately.

Just my .02

[Iverson]

5. he's mostly progressive

Republican partisans don't like him. Most Democrats are terrified of him, in the sense that the corporate wing has a lock on the party and wishes to distance itself from liberalism.

Then there are a substantial number of people concerned about "electability," who are frightened that the ideas he expresses won't carry the day, so they shy away.

What remains is less than a majority.

[Must_B_Free]

7. Scare mongering by big money players

"You're not cool enough to be in the in crowd"...

They can't stand Dennis because he's honest and he won't play ball.

[ShaneGR]

106. Well, when a candidate starts REFUSING to do interviews on national TV

I wonder why in the heck he is running for President. Especially considering his overall name recognition is about maybe 5% of the general populace. If he can't tackle Chris Mathews, he doesn't belong in the dance.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

108. Interview?

I didn't realize Chris Matthews intended to interview Dennis Kucinich. If I were to use his first appearance on the show as a reference I would come to the conclusion that it would just be CM yelling alot and not letting DK say anything about the issues.

hmmm

Go Dennis


TWL

[ShaneGR]

121. If Dennis can't handle a blowhard like Mathews, he's got troubles

Seriously, doesn't it bother you that ALL of the Dems are doing interviews with Tweety, but DK is ducking it? Seriously, he needs exposure. Why would he pass up a chance like that?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

126. I explained that..

What good would it do for DK to go on CM's show to have him yell nonstop and not get a word in on any issues?

It's a good move in my book. We may not be able to find a 'librul' interviewer but at least someone who would let the candidate talk.

I agree he needs exposure, but a 10-20 minute Tweety yell-fest is not good exposure.


TWL

[RapidCreek]

143. Uh huh...and what good has it done them

sorry chief, but I am not of the school that any exposure is good exposure. He passes it up because he rightly puts tweety on the same plain as Limpdick.

RC

[redqueen]

177. Hence the nickname he earned when he saved MUNY

from being taken over by privateers...

"Dennis the Menace"

The corporate media has to keep a tight lid on him -- if they didn't, his message would start ringing in people's heads like a fire alarm!

Rules Circumvented on Huge Boeing Defense Contract

[Nikia]

8. He's not getting good media coverage

I don't watch network news but all the newspapers focus on other candidates. I don't think most people know enough about him or think that he is a serious candidate. He needs to be on the cover of Time and get a multiple page article that says what you said.

[DealsGapRider]

10. I want to make clear my reasons for opposing Kucinich.

It's not just because he's unelectable, which he emphatically is. The man would lose all 50 states. I don't even think he could carry Massachusetts.

The real reason I oppose him is because of his policies. Many DK supporters have deluded themselves into thinking that everyone secretly agrees with him and it's only a matter of convincing them that he actually can win. Wrong. The man's policies would be disastrous. Slapping a mammoth 7.7% tax increase on businesses to pay for health care, criminalizing private health care, disrupting trade relations with the international community, weakening the military, the list goes on and on.

Let me be clear. I will vote for any Dem who gets the nomination. But I will not vote for Dennis Kucinich. I would rather vote for some obscure third party as a protest.


edit: all 50 states. jesus.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. Exhibit A: Misrepresent Kucinich's positions and populist platform

"Many DK supporters have deluded themselves into thinking that everyone secretly agrees with him and it's only a matter of convincing them that he actually can win. Wrong."

The majority of Americans support and have always supported a populist economic platform like Kucinich's.

"Slapping a mammoth 7.7% tax increase on businesses to pay for health care"

Most Americans support universal health care, and don't have a problem with taxing the rich. Corporate Democrats, like Republicans, don't support a health care system that doesn't make money for rich people.

"criminalizing private health care"

No one supports that, obviously. Just a lie.

"disrupting trade relations with the international community"

Kucinich supports international trade, bilateral trade agreements, and a strong economy - JUST LIKE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS.

"weakening the military"

Kucinich supports a strong military that can protect America, as opposed to an imperialist army that protects oil fields for Bush's cronies. Clark has proposed cutting the Pentagon budget more than Kucinich. Does Clark want to weaken the military?

It IS clear why you don't support Kucinich's platform, and Kucinich's platform is the progressive populist platform that the majority of Americans support. Most will never know it, thanks to the corporate media and their tools in the DLC.

[DealsGapRider]

22. Pure propaganda

"Most Americans support universal health care, and don't have a problem with taxing the rich. Corporate Democrats, like Republicans, don't support a health care system that doesn't make money for rich people."

Hello, Kucinich's health care tax increase wouldn't just affect "the rich." It would apply to businesses across the board, even small ones struggling to stay in the black. Slap a 7.7% tax increase on them and just watch the economy sputter.

I said: "criminalizing private health care". You said: "No one supports that, obviously. Just a lie."

Explain to me, then, what the Space Cadet is talking about when he says he intends to completely remove profit from the health care system. I'll give you a hint: he means erecting a single payer system like Canada's where the law forbids private health care. Prohibits it. Or, in other words, CRIMINALIZES IT.

Can anyone explain to me how that would be constitutional? Can anyone explain to me where the government would derive the constitutional authority to tell one sector of the economy that they are forbidden to practice their trade outside the realm of government controlled institutions?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

27. yes, your post is pure propaganda

I can't disagree there. Right now, programs like Medicare funnel money into private companies, under Kucinich's plan, it wouldn't. No one is going to get hauled off to jail for paying a private doctor.

Of course, that IS what the Republicans say whever they want to scare people away from universal health care. So thanks for posting Republican propaganda so we can all see it clearly, and those who mimic it.

[DealsGapRider]

36. A common refrain...

When you know you don't have the facts on your side, just hurl accusations that your debating opponent is mimicing Republican talking points!

"Right now, programs like Medicare funnel money into private companies, under Kucinich's plan, it wouldn't." You're right, the private sector would hemmorhage revenue to establish a behemoth government health care system, draining huge amounts of capital away from business and destroying the economy.

"No one is going to get hauled off to jail for paying a private doctor." You're right...because they're wouldn't be any private doctors. They would be illegal. Kucinich has said it in explicit terms: he wants to completely and totally do away with profit in the health care industry.

You know you can't dispute the facts I'm stating. They're right their on his web site.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

feel free to quote from his website

I'm interested in reading your quotes from Kucinich's website saying he will jail private doctors. I'll be online for another 20 minutes or so...

[DealsGapRider]

57. Here's a direct quote.

"I've introduced a bill which states that health care is a right, not a privilege, and it's to get the profit out of health care..." -- Dennis Kucinich.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Health_Care.htm

If you pass a law to "get the profit out of health care" presumably there would be penalties for practicing medicine privately outside the ambit of the government system. Maybe they won't go to jail. Maybe they'll just be fined. The point is, private health care would be forbidden. Does that sound like Cuba to anyone but me? Thanks, but I'd prefer to remain a free county and have a two-tiered health care system like Britain's: government provided health care for those who can't afford it and private health care for those who can.

And you still haven't answered my question...where does the government derive the constitutional authority to outlaw profit from the health care system? You can send me a private message anytime you find the answer to that question.

[spindoctor]

73. Say what?

f you pass a law to "get the profit out of health care" presumably there would be penalties for practicing medicine privately outside the ambit of the government system.

You do realize that that presumption lives only in the inside of your head, right? If you quote one thing and then presume another, you are in fact....making things up.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

79. your presumption is ridiculous, and wrong

but I'm pretty sure you knew that.

[DealsGapRider]

82. I note that you don't explain how.

If I was demonstrably wrong, I'm sure you'd point out why. Which you have utterly failed to do.

[spindoctor]

86. I did, but I'll gladly do it again

DealsGapRider wrote: If you pass a law to "get the profit out of health care" presumably there would be penalties for practicing medicine privately outside the ambit of the government system.

The answer is simply no. There would be no such penalty. Nobody has ever mentioned such a penalty, nor is there a need for such a penalty. It does not make sense to penalize private medical practice. In short, you presume WRONG.

Maybe they won't go to jail. Maybe they'll just be fined. The point is, private health care would be forbidden.

You build on a wrong presumption. See above. Your presumption is WRONG and consequently, your point is WRONG too.

Does that sound like Cuba to anyone but me?
I have no knowledge of the Cuban healthcare system.

Thanks, but I'd prefer to remain a free county and have a two-tiered health care system like Britain's: government provided health care for those who can't afford it and private health care for those who can.

A. Even in the scenario that you WRONGLY depict, you would still be living in a free country. There would be free healthcare to match.
B. If that's what you want, you shall have it, providing the only person who actually supports such a plan (hint: his name rhymes with huminich) gets a say in the matter.

And you still haven't answered my question...where does the government derive the constitutional authority to outlaw profit from the health care system?

Afraid I have to say it again, this argument too is based on the FALSE assumption that you made in your first line. The thought that profits will be outlawed comes solely from your imagination.
But please read more on Kucinich' health care plan in search for quotes that would sustain your FALSE accusation. You might like what you see.

[Mairead]

54. "they're wouldn't be any private doctors"

Are you a native speaker of English? What do you think 'funded publicly, delivered privately' means?

[Mairead]

51. "Slap a 7.7% tax increase on them and just watch the economy sputter"

No, because they're paying 8.5% today in premiums. So with Dennis's plan, they'd net out at a reduction.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

63. mairead, say it with me!

OI VEY!

:)

Thanks for you continued efforts!

We fight the good fight.

TWL

[Mairead]

76. Oy vey!

Also oy gevalt! Such tsuris these meshugganim create.

Oh well, as Feynman said, Nature cannot be fooled, so reality is going to catch up with all these guys one day and they'll have to go back to dodging goats. :evilgrin:

We fight the good fight indeed--and together we'll win! Solidarity forever!

[Loyal]

197. It's

OY VEY, not OI VEY.

[no name no slogan]

171. And don't forget...

Currently 12% of our annual GDP goes to paying for healthcare insurance for American workers.

I'm quite certain most employers would jump at the chance to only pay 7.7% for health coverage for their employees.

Also, the plan says that the 7.7% does not all have to be covered by employers. That amount can be split between employees and employers in any way the employer sees fit. Which makes it not much different than how most medical coverage plans work for employees these days, anyway.

Also, as DK has stated and others have repeated, the plan is privately delivered, by independent doctors and practices. The only difference is that instead of hundreds of competing insurance providers, we'd now only have one to deal with.

If you're a big fan of waste and poor health care and you think the status quo is fine and dandy, then by all means don't support a candidate who wants to enact a single-payer plan. That way things will get worse before the get better, and our health will continue to suffer.

[Racenut20]

21. Is that his program?

[Mairead]

58. No.

Dennis's plan is to have all healthcare professionals submit their bills to and be paid by an improved/simplified Medicare program. About half the money would come from existing sources, i.e. tax revenue that's already going to healthcare in some way, often an unnecessarily complicated one, and the other half would come from a 7.7% payroll tax similar to FICA. However, since employers currently pay about 8.5% to insurance companies and that would stop, this 'new tax' would actually net out to about a 0.8% reduction in their costs.

[eridani]

139. Criminalzizing private health care?

What bullshit. The existence of the Post Office doesn't criminalize Fedex.

Who cares about a tax increase if it's less that businesses are now spending on health care? The Kucinich plan is the cheapest because it proposes spending exactly what we are spending right now. Who gives a flying fuck whether the expense is called a tax or a premium?

[paulk]

15. He's running at, what? One percent in national polls?

I don't mean that as a slam, I like DK. But, from a strictly pragmatic point of view, he doesn't seem electable. He's just not getting any support.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

24. Thanks!

The thread was why... not "Hey sign up here if you think Kucinich is unelectable!"

:)

The reason he doesn't get support is mainly the corporate control of the Dem party and the media and GOP.

The repugs are not scared to death of Dean, like some people would lead you to believe, they are scared to death by DK and that's why they don't even mention him and the media does it's best to ignore him.

DK threatens the entire power structure that is in place and that includes the GOP run media. Why on earth would they let people hear a message that the people want?

TWL

[jsw_81]

26. You think Republicans are scared of Kucinich?!?

That's hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

29. thanks for the facts!

Why wouldn't they be scared of a Kucinich Presidency?
He threatens most they hold dear.

He wants UHC, FAIR trade, no corporate money, cutting pentagon budget, gay marriage ... on and on...

Last time I checked the GOP was not much into these kinds of things.


TWL

[jsw_81]

33. You're right

They *would* be terrified of a Kucinich presidency. But when it comes to Kucinich the candidate they're not worried at all. Bush would wipe the floor with him.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

30. Yes, they are - because he would have to be on TV

I'm not going to say Kucinich is the best speaker or the smoothest politician or the most telegenic - even though he isn't 10% as bad as some here would have us believe.

If Kucinich got the Dem nomination, the corporate media would pretty much HAVE to give him airtime, and the Republicans CANNOT afford to run against a populist - which makes me wonder why the DLC wants to keep populists out of the party so bad.

I wonder which Dukakis-style centrist the DLC wants us to lose with this time?

[paulk]

101. you can't blame the media -

Blame the other candidates. They're the one's picking up support from Democratic voters. He IS running for the Democratic nomination.

This is just not his time.

At least he's getting national exposure - some people are hearing his message. They're obviously not responding this time around.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

107. "At least he's getting national exposure..."

OOOOH where? Tell me so I could see it, because I HAVEN'T.

Anyone have the breakdown of time for the last 'debate' handy?
If I recall correctly, Kucinich was last for time at around 5 minutes and Dean was ahead of the pack with 3 times that at 15+ minutes?

But you are right and wrong there:
"some people are hearing his message. They're obviously not responding this time around."
No, actually most of the people that do hear his message(I mean truly hear his message, not soundbites or talkbites from the media) realize what a great candidate he his and support him.

TWL

[ShaneGR]

122. Dude, I want what you're smoking

please

[Mairead]

78. Are you supporting him with money and drum-beating?

If not, start.

[paulk]

97. There are other candidates

with a better chance of getting elected that I also like who are getting my money and drum beating.

I'm interested in getting Bush out of office, not tilting at windmills. I'd rather see Kucinich in the Senate first, anyway. Hopefully his run at the presidency will give him a boost in that direction.

[RapidCreek]

149. The reason he doesn't get support is becuase of people like you!

Go figure...

RC

[Nederland]

18. Lots of poll numbers there

Here's another one: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=748

22% Gephardt
21% Dean
09% Kerry
07% Edwards
07% Clark
05% Lieberman
01% Kucinich

Perhaps this is why people say he's unelectable: hardly anyone likes him...

[piece sine]

28. He was an UTTER failure as mayor of Cleveland

and his comes across on C-Span like a whining spoiled brat. heis not Presidential timber in any sense fo the word. Ger-git the Repubs, he makes many Dems squirm. Some of us don't want to even see him in the debates because he takes valuable camera time away from front-runners.

Most importantly...he went to the constituency; people in large numbers did NOT go to him. So he mumbles things the far-left wants to hear and they buy it! I've very disappointed his defenders here aren't practical enough to realize he's a lost total cause in the race for Presidency. He and Al Sharpton -- birds of a feather jockeying for the spotlight in a most obvious and odious way.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

35. Is Bush "Presidential Timber"?

The way some people here talk, Bush must be quite handsome, well spoken,and have gravitas coming out of his ass, since he did *almost* beat Gore.

[karlschneider]

71. No, bush is not "presidential timber", but he had the $-besotten VRWC

behind him. And he will again. Obviously, if DK is the nominee, I'll support and vote for him but it will be a mission worthy of Don Quixote.
:-(

[Wetzelbill]

40. Perceived as a failure......

He had the balls to stand up to a major electric company that was trying to hold the whole city hostage. His morals nearly wrecked his reputation for good, because he was attacked so badly by the company and the media drones. Twenty some odd years later the man came back more popular than ever because he was right. Dennis stood up for the proper cause in such a way that he nearly ruined himself. Name one other candidate who would have the guts to do that?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

45. nice nofacts

You remind me of poster 'demrebel'.

LOTS of Kucinich bashing, without facts.

He wins a largely republican district with nearly 75% of the vote and you think he's a worthless failure, and "people in large numbers did NOT go to him."

Please bring some TRUTH to the table next time.

TWL

[Nederland]

81. Bullshit

Get your own facts straight.

Kucinich's Congressional district (Ohio 10th) is not 75% Republican. In the 2002 election, Democratic voters in the 10th district outnumbered Republicans 3 to 1. That's the only reason he can win there. If he had to face a national or even statewide Ohio voting population he would get clobbered.

10th district
Republican 41,778
Democrat 129,997
Independent 3,761

Source: http://clerk.house.gov/members/election_information/2002/2002stat.htm#35

[spindoctor]

83. Umm..

Those numbers are the votes that he received. He was the Democratic candidate and got 129,997 votes versus 41,778 for John Heben, the Republican.

I would say that is an overwhelming majority and thank you for bringing it to our attention, but these numbers don't say anything about the political polarity of the voters.

[Nederland]

157. See post #155 (nt)

[ThirdWheelLegend]

92. I did not say...

the voters wre 75% republican...
I said he got nearly 75% of the vote...RIF.

That is now, do you have the registry numbers for 1996? I would like to see those

Oh and he did that without giving in to the 'powers' that be.


TWL

[Nederland]

155. Question

That is now, do you have the registry numbers for 1996? I would like to see those

If you haven't seen them, what is the basis for your claim that his district is "largely Republican"?

I couldn't find party registration numbers for Ohio, but I did find voter turnout numbers for the primaries. In 2002 in the 10th district, 40,205 Democrats voted in the primary versus 16,520 Republicans. Granted, that does not tell you how many registered Republicans there are in the 10th, but it does lead one to question just how "Republican" a district his is when more than 2 1/2 times as many Democrats as Republicans turn out to vote...

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/results/index.html

[ThirdWheelLegend]

169. Actual numbers...

No I have not seen a detailed report of the ACTUAL numbers. I have it in several articles though. I was searching but could not find a link to the numbers.

Anyway 2002 is 6 years after DK won the seat in the US House.

The makeup of that district is changing. Kucinich's presence and leadership?

Here are the results of past elections from the site you listed.

2000:
District 10
Dennis Kucinich (D) Ron Petrie (L) Bill Smith (R)
Cuyahoga 167,093 6,761 48,940
Percent 75.0% 3.0% 22.0%

Impressive...

Here is the first year when he won the seat in the house:
DISTRICT 10

1996

MARTIN R HOKE(R)
104,546
46.32%

ROBERT BIVERSON(N)
10,415
4.61%

DENNIS J KUCINICH(D)
110,723
49.06%

AARON J O'BRIEN
12
0.01%

That site has sketchy data when you get into the 90's, couldnt find the voter breakdown there.

He beat the incumbent Republican in 1996.
To go from 49% to 75% 4 years later, have to be doing something right.

Here is the breakdown from 1992 when Martin Hoke(R) won previously
10. Mary Rose Oakar, Democrat 103,788
Martin R. Hoke, Republican 136,433
Write-in 18

I cannot copy and paste the numbers from 1988.(these are from the US clerk site)
The breakdown was 143,673 for the Republican and 56,893 for the Democrat.

You are correct, after searching I could not find actual numbers, but as you can see over time Kucinich has gained alot of support. In 1988 the Repub won with almost 75% of the vote and by 2000, Kucinich is winning with 75% of the vote.

If you find voter breakdown for 1996 please let me know.


TWL

[spindoctor]

170. More unusable numbers

These don't make up for half the 130K votes he received.

Besides, what numbers are you looking for here? If Ohio's #10 voted for Kucinich, then they can obviously be considered a Democratic district now.
To taint the district in red or blue, you would have to look at its election history. Voter percentages are irrelevant.

Personally I don't feel its worth the effort, but be my guest.

[Nederland]

179. Numbers

Besides, what numbers are you looking for here?

The numbers we are looking for are party registration numbers for Ohion District 10. Until we find these, no one really has any proof as to whether or not his district is "largely Republican". Quite frankly, I find it difficult to believe that a person as far left as Kucinich could win a largely Republican district, but until somebody finds party registration numbers I guess neither side really has any proof to back them up.

[Mairead]

61. Check your facts--as mayor he saved Cleveland over $200M and counting

I'm afraid you really need to get a less-biased source of information--your one stinks.

[maha]

130. Time magazine article

(This is a quote from Time magazine article, October 20, 2003)

He was elected mayor of Cleveland at the age of 31 in 1977, becoming one of the youngest mayors of a large city in America history. But Kucinich had a terrible tenure as the city defaulted on loans in part because Kucinich refused to sell the public municipal power company as the banks demanded. Kucinich became a laughingstock around the country and was roundly defeated in his campaign for re-election. "I didn't know if I would ever get any another chance," Kucinich said recently about his plight. And for 15 years, he didn't, losing election after election in Ohio, before finally capturing a seat in the State Senate in 1994. Two years later, he won his congressional seat and has become one of the most liberal members of the House, gaining notoriety among Democratic activists early this year for his fiery speeches opposing the war.

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,524691,00.html

[Terwilliger]

142. Time seems lazy

http://www.clevelandmagazine.com/editorial/thismonth_features.asp?docid=363

<SNIP>

Ahh, the default. Even today it's a divisive issue. The only thing people seem to agree on is what a gift the default truly was.

"In the end, it turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to Cleveland," says Richard Pogue, retired managing partner of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue. "It traumatized the community and brought everybody together and got people to say, 'Hey wait. We can't let the city go down the drain this way. We've got to do something.'"

James Biggar, president and CEO Glencairn Corp., agrees. "If you look back in history," he says, "we probably ought to give Dennis Kucinich the MVP award for Cleveland's comeback."

But what people are in complete disagreement over is what role Kucinich played in Cleveland's default. While some say he is totally to blame, others - including members of a 1979 congressional staff who conducted a study of the default - suggest the bankruptcy was politically motivated. In short, some say Kucinich's attempts to save Muny Light put his foot in the grave, while his confrontational style with the business community caused them to push him in.

Throughout his political career, Kucinich's battle cry had been to save Muny Light. The brainchild and dream of Kucinich hero and populist Cleveland Mayor Tom L. Johnson, Muny Light was born in 1914, and from its inception, fought off CEI's efforts to put it out of business.

Until 1968, Muny Light enjoyed success, generating $31.5 million in profits. But between 1969 and 1977, things went downhill: Poor service, frequent outages and a marketing blast by CEI on its weaknesses caused it to lose customers and money: $31.1 million in the hole, the city's general fund was forced to subsidize the utility.

Tempers flared over whether the city should sell Muny Light to CEI. Some thought it ridiculous to hold on to Muny, an ailing plant that, in 1975, could no longer generate its own power. Others saw the city-owned utility as the only way to provide a check against CEI's electricity rates.

Meanwhile, in 1975, the Perk administration filed a $330 million antitrust suit against CEI based on charges that the company was trying to undermine Muny as a competitor. Then, in January 1977, a ruling of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission all but saved Muny Light. Stating that CEI had "deliberately rigged the interconnection policies to cause Muny Light's power failures," it demanded CEI "wheel" power from the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) to Muny over its lines - a condition to its granting CEI licenses to operate nuclear power plants. This action was a huge Muny Light victory: Prior to this, Muny couldn't purchase electricity from outside sources. Because PASNY power was cheaper, the ruling was Muny's ticket to getting out of the red.

Furious, CEI took the city to court. During Carl Stokes' and Ralph Perk's mayoral terms, Muny had built up a $16 million debt to CEI, and the company wanted its money. After city council's attempt to raise property taxes to pay the debt failed at the polls community pressure mounted to sell. In May 1977, city council approved the sal of Muny Light to CEI for $150 million. That's when a 5-foot-7-inch, 135-pund obstacle stood in everybody's way.

Clerk of Courts at the time, Kucinich created the Save Muny Light Committee, collecting nearly 30,000 signatures to put the decision of whether to sell Muny Light on the ballot. While a court battle ensued over the legality of the petitions, his efforts successfully froze the sale until he stepped into the mayor's office in November 1977 - based on the campaign promise to save Muny Light.

But there was no mayoral honeymoon for Kucinich over this issue. Almost immediately, CEI filed a lien on city land and property through federal court, which ordered Cleveland to pay its now $18 million debt to CEI. Having walked into a general fund deficit of millions, Kucinich resorted to using the city's operating funds to pay off the debt. Pressure mounted when six Cleveland banks refused to refinance $14 million in short-term loans that would come due on Dec. 15, 1978 - an unusual move considering these banks had routinely rolled over such loans for Perk's administration. And the city needed those banks - shut out of the national bond market, it relied on local banks for financing.

As the deadline approached, Kucinich appealed to the banks with a most unpopulist-like offer, asking for time to hold a special election proposing an income tax hike to pay off the loans. Each bank consented but one: Cleveland Trust Co. chairman and CEO Brock Weir refused to go along with the deal.

On Dec. 15, 1978, Kucinich could pay Muny's debt to CEI, but had no funds to pay the banks. Then, Weir made Kucinich an offer: If the mayor agreed to sell Muny Light to CEI, his bank would not only roll over the notes, it would loan the city another $50 million. Still, Kucinich's answer was a resounding no.

Later that day, city council agreed to put an income tax increase before the voters if the mayor would sell Muny. Kucinich refused again, but offered a compromise: Certain that Muny Light would now be profitable because PASNY's interconnect, he suggested thev wait 18 months to see if the utility made money. If it didn't, he'd sell.

At midnight. as the gavel fell in city council following a 17-to-16 vote against the mayor's proposal, reporters from all over the world feverishly penned the story of Cleveland being the first American city since the Depression to go into default. Two months later - in the wake of a vigorous grass-roots campaign led by Kucinich to convince the voters to save Muny Light - the people of Cleveland responded: They voted to increase income taxes and to retain Muny Light.

I remember him standing one time in the mayor's opulent office," says Sandy Kucinich. "And him saying, 'If I have to go along with this, I might as well resign.' And I remember sitting there and looking at him and saying, 'But you can't do that.' And he said, 'No, I can't. So my other option is to stand up for what I believe in and say no.'" She pauses. "If we only knew it wasn't that easy."

What wasn't easy was the predicament Kucinich was in. "The city was in no worse financial shape under Kucinich than it had been under his predecessor, Ralph Perk," says Todd Swanstrom, a former Cleveland city planner who is now associate professor of political science at the State University of New York at Albany. "He became a scapegoat for the failures of the economy.... And his career was based upon defending Muny Light. So when they insisted that he sell Muny Light or go into default, he was really up against the wall."

<SNIP>

[BJ]

66. You've obviouly not done any research.

In fact Kucinich was not a failure as mayor of Cleveland. Why don't you read a letter Congressman Kucinich wrote to Truthout.org this August about his tenure as mayor, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (now FirstElectric) and his refusal to sell Muny Light.

[Terwilliger]

144. good link here as well

http://www.clevelandmagazine.com/editorial/thismonth_features.asp?docid=363

[Blitz]

95. "He and Al Sharpton"

Hey, I'm no fan of DK and think that he has about as much chance of being President of the U.S.A. as my cat has of being appointed King of Sweden, but that's no reason to smear the poor man by tying him to Sharpton.

[no name no slogan]

200. THIS is what's wrong with politics in America today

Sounds like you're more interested in a poodle show than in the ISSUES. "Some of us don't want to even see him in the debates because he takes valuable camera time away from front-runners..." sheesh. I thought the Repubs were tough nuts to crack, I never imagines we'd have to put up with such head-in-the-sand attitude from those in our own party!

I can tell, just by your response, that you've not even BOTHERED to investigate DK, his positions, his record, his stand on the issues, and his plans for this country.

DK is one of the few REAL Democrats who's running. He's one of two candidates who were drafted by popular movements to run for presidency. He's the only candidate who actually VOTED AGAINST the Patriot Act, the IRW, and he's refusing to go along with the Shrub's colonization of Iraq.

Go ahead, support some blowdried bouffant betty all you want, and this party will continue circling the bowl and become completely irrelevant. I, however, have invested too much time and money and heart into this party to let it go that easily.

[bywho4who]

203. I could'nt have put it more plain than that

:D As the arrow hit's it's mark

[bywho4who]

202. Are you on the rite web site ?????

:dunce: DO ya just hate DK or Al or are just feeling mean today?

[goodhue]

98. read the poll a little closer please!

59% of the 500 likely voters in the NH democratic presidential primary have never heard of Kucinich. Those that have think he is unelectable because the media desrcibes him as longshot, dark horse or fringe in the one sentence he gets in the last paragraph. The simple answer to the question as to why most folks think he is unelectable is that that is what they read in the press and they don't know any better. I'm sick of folks referring to his low polls. Put Kucinich on the cover of Newsweek and he would be right up there with Dean, Clark, Kerry all of whom have been cover boys.

[maha]

136. He can't match Dean's and Clark's bios.

Has it occurred to you that most people who do learn about his ideas and his background just aren't all that impressed? Because, frankly, his bio isn't all that impressive.

He was a dismal failure as mayor of Cleveland, couldn't get back into politics for 15 years, finally got elected to state office and then to the House. That doesn't hold up very well to Dean or Clark, who have remarkable resumes, not to mention most of the rest of the field.

[redqueen]

178. Ugh

"He was a dismal failure as mayor of Cleveland"

I won't even touch yoru statement about Dean's shining resume, since it's too easy (HINT: Check his re-elect percentages as time passed since he INHERITED the office due to the death of the elected Gov. -- and keep in mind, incumbents have a huge advantage)


But I have to ask, what exactly leads you to state flatly that he was a dismal failure? I hope to God you don't come up with that RNC spin point MUNY Light. If that's all you've got, don't bother, I'll know the answer. :)

[redqueen]

204. maha,

Just wanted to remind you I'm still waiting for your detailed answer giving some detailed reasons as to your opinion that Kucinich was 'a dismail failure as mayor of Cleveland'.

I'm really curious to hear your answer.

[robsul82]

19. Two reasons...

...he looks goofy and Kucinich is difficult to pronounce. Don't blame me, superficial reasons often decide elections.

Later.

RJS

[goodhue]

99. looks

What a joke. Remember Tsongas. No one complained about his looks because his politics were moderate. Kerry looks like Edward Munster and Dean like Uncle Fester but no one ever slams their looks. Kucinich in fact is very charismatic looking with boyish good looks and a broad smile. Don't beleive the hype. Again, the reason he is considered unelectable is because the media has said it is so, no more, no less.

[many a good man]

20. America is almost ready for a Populist

But I don't think DK fills the bill, now or ever.

I saw the Peter Hart focus group on CSPAN2 last night and it reminded me so much of when I was a high school teacher. The average voter has very poor higher order thinking skills. They obviously have difficulty linking actions to consequences and lack the ability to critically analyze situations. I don't mean to knock the education system, the people, or the even the media but one can't escape those conclusions.

People are therefore drawn more strongly to emotional issues and impressions. They want someone who seems strong, honest, presidential, and likeable. They want someone they'd like to invite to their backyard barbecue.

They distrust politicians, find the system corrupt, and would welcome drastic change if it was communicated by the right messenger. I've admired DK since I was a teenager and he was my mayor. He has the right message and he's improving as a speaker but I don't think he has the charisma it would take to get the mass of people to follow.

I hope I'm wrong.

[demrebel]

109. Your on to something I am hearing and this party needs to wake up

People are sick of lying and the crooks in gov. We need to set the standard for honesty and no lying. Get rid of all the liars. If you lie, your out of there.

Also pick people who have solved problems not gripe about big causes they never did a thing about.

You could not be even honest about our poor education system. Tell the truth.

We would have people rushing back to our party if we stood for no lying.

Gore would be president now if we had started with clinton.

Dean brings some fresh air in that area and he is not a lawyer

[ThirdWheelLegend]

112. By your standards your boy fails

You have been going off alot about getting rid of the liars lately.

Yet today there is a thread about Dean's deceptive(lie) campaign ad running in NH. Is that one ok, cuz when Dean lies it doesn't count?

TWL

[Wetzelbill]

23. Too many Americans - including a surprising number on this site- are....

trite and shallow. The U.S. has never had a president who truly fights for the little man and has made the world a better place. Even though most people agree with DK type values and ideas they cannot get over meaningless details. I think it speaks volumes about our country that a man like Kucinich has little shot at being elected president because people don't like how he looks, how he talks, his height or that they perceive the notions of peace, universal coverage, fair trade to be radical ideas. It speaks volumes about our country that we have never had a female or a minority president either. All of this appears to be a weakness we need to get over if this experiment called the United States is ever going to reach its proper greatness. Kucinich is the one candidate who would make the world a better place. Every country on earth would be infinitely better off with him in office. The other candidates wouldn't do anything other than Bill Clinton did, which I feel he did wonderfully economically, but he had a long way to go in both domestic and foreign egalitarianism. You could argue that John Edwards is the best populist candidate, I suppose, but the best progressive is far and away DK. Not even arguable. I like all our candidates, don't get me wrong. Kerry, Dean etc all reach and impressive me in many ways. But I'd rather vote for principal and substance and the dawn of a new era. The U.S. should be showing the world how democracy, values and prosperity is done. We have failed in that regared miserably for most of our existence. Nobody will truly take those steps beyond what we have ever done before but DK.

Too bad most people can't get over themselves enough to realize it.

[spindoctor]

69. I second that

If governmental positions are awarded on superficial qualities, which some people here (of all places) seem to value, then why even bother to replace Bush?
His tough-guy facade is going down great with the public at large, so why change a winning team?

Because it is a combination of things, they will argue.
That is the Schwarzenegger Syndrome. Muscles, looks and business smarts, a prefabbed package labeled and stamped for direct delivery to political stardom.
Is it any wonder that our truly great Presidents all held office before the television age?

Let's get one thing straight, my fellow freedom loving Democrats. Looks may tip the scale if somebody is undecided, but if it was a decisive factor, then the male vote in California would have gone unanimously to the lady with the big juggies (safe the San-Francisco district). We all know this was not the case, so even though my candidate does somewhat resemble a beardless yard ornament, this is not a valid argument to label him unelectable.

If you agree that Kucinich is the closest match to your personal political profile, then give the man a chance.
Bush has the looks, the slickness, the likeability factor and look where that got us.

[CMT]

25. why he is electable

1) He stands up for something which most people admire.
2) He represents change which after Bush I think many people will look forward to.
3) He is true to himself and his belief system.
4) electorally he represents a district with lots of "Reagan Dems" catholics, ethnics, union members, and he is easily re-elected. He could do this in the country as a whole.
5) He could make a huge issue out of something democrats should be
running on--jobs being exported overseas. NAFTA and jobs are two things which will resonate with many people.

I think if DK is nominated he could beat Bush. The tough part is his getting the nomination.

[Dr Satan]

31. I don't know

but I think he is the only who IS electable.

[Wetzelbill]

72. Damn she has my vote

[jsw_81]

32. Why?

Because he's so far to the left that it isn't even funny. And if you know anything about American politics you'd understand that a far-left candidate doesn't stand a chance of getting elected to national office in 2004. They may get elected to House seats in safe districts, and they may win the occasional Senate seat (Wellstone?), but national office is simply out of the question.

And sadly, we live in a society where a short, funny-looking guy with a strange last name doesn't stand a chance of being elected president, no matter how decent, qualified, or intelligent he may be. Just ask Mike Dukakis.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

47. Kucinich's least popular issue is Gay Marriage

Speaking of Dukakis, he was a centrist, pro-corporate candidate - no wonder the Dems lost - to Bush Sr, no less.

[jsw_81]

65. Political reality

The fact that you considered Dukakis to be a "centrist, pro-corporate" candidate shows just how far out the mainstream you are. I'm not saying that's a bad thing (I'm out of the mainstream on a few issues myself), but if you actually want to win in the game of electoral politics you need to understand that currently, most American voters would be horrified at the prospect of President Kucinich, and he has zero chance of being elected. This is reality.

If you want to win and actually get a few things done (like stopping Bush's insane wars, protecting the environment, gay rights, women's rights etc.) you'd get behind one of the mainstream, electable candidates like Dean, Kerry or Clark. You may not agree with them 100 percent of the time, and they might even piss you off once in a while, but the alternative is four more years of Bush.

So what's it gonna be? Are you going to waste your time and energy on an unelectable fringe candidate or are you going to join the rest of us, make a few compromises, and reclaim the White House next year?

[Terwilliger]

146. 'reclaim the white house'

Why was it lost?

[Terwilliger]

Mike Dukakis was not some great liberal

and he ran a shitty campaign

Next!

[Kamika]

34. in short. because many voters are sheep

Ok if they hear kucinich is really left they wont vote for him. Thats really all there is

[stickdog]

37. Short answer: Because we live in a place called reality.

Long answer:

1) He's a Representative.

2) He comes across as strident, petulant and whiny.

3) He's very progressive and very liberal, and Republicans have perfected their assaults on very progressive and very liberal candidates.

4) Any Dem will have to deal with Repuke scare mongering, but with Dennis it would be all scare mongering, all the time -- and he wouldn't stand a chance in hell against it.

5) There are now three months to go now and his campaign remains stillborn.

6) I've yet to meet anyone outside of the progessive activist community who even takes his candidacy seriously.

7) The general public is still palpably afraid of the Moslem bogeyman. Now is not the time to make a big issue of dismantling the military.

[spindoctor]

48. How do you do?

I've yet to meet anyone outside of the progessive activist community who even takes his candidacy seriously.

I am neither an activist nor particularly progressive. Regardless, Kucinich is the man that comes closest to my ideals and I trust him to hold his promises.

[stickdog]

87. I'm sure you come closer to my ideals than even DK.

And I trust you even more than I trust DK.

But I don't think you could win in 2004, either.

But Dean can win using grassroots activists and grassroots money. If he does, he will forever change the dynamics of national campaigning for the better quite fundamentally -- such that a future candidate like Dennis (or maybe even you or I) might actually have a real chance to make a real difference.

[spindoctor]

150. I can't win

There is a slight technicality with my age and something about being "foreign-born". The job description for President of the United States doesn't hold many qualifications, but sadly I fail every one of them.
More importantly though, I do not have a political record that would earn your trust, and just between you and me, I am not running for President either.

I appreciate your motion of confidence though and should you ever decide to run yourself, you can bank on my vote ;)

I believe that any candidate that gets nominated can beat Bush. Dean may be the frontrunner, but he has a meager 15% or so to show for it.
Kucinich may only have 1 or 2% behind him, but that is a margin that can still change overnight.
Dean did not invent grassroot campaigning. The internet is just a logical next step in any campaign.
Anyway, I already said it in another thread, but why be concerned about winning the Presidency at this time? The primaries are about electing the candidate that represents your ideas and ideals. If you have to compromise on that level because you are afraid he (or she for the CMB fans) may not hold up against "them", then this democratic process is not working properly and we seriously need to reconsider the whole frickin' system.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

67. anyone outside of the progessive activist community

My mom loves him, but since all of 'you' apathetic dems keep bringing up the BS electability GOP talking point, my mom is doubting him.

BTW my mom is a big house owning, 3 car owner, 4 dairy queen owner who lives in CINCINNATI?!


Well you did say "I've yet to meet", but since you gave up on DK before he was even running, you probably don't have really ask anyone.

:)

TWL

[stickdog]

89. Yeah. I never talk politics with anyone.

:eyes:

[ThirdWheelLegend]

94. No ... read what I said...

I doubt that with your complete dismissal of DK's chances that you bring it up when talking with people.

Yeah I am a moron who thinks you never talk politics with anyone.

:P

[caledesi]

128. ST - you explained it beautifully! nt

[Ficus]

38. Kucinich supporter

who thinks the guy is unelectable. Actually, not unelectable, but un-nominatable. Democrats are just too scared to actually be the party of the left. Which is a huge letdown, because the Republicans have NO problem with being the party of the right.

In head to head with Bush, I think most if not all of our guys can win. Kucinich does well in his district with a large number of republicans there.

but on some other points:
I believe that 7.7% payroll tax is lower than what most buisinesses pay now.

The boy mayor wasn't a total failure, actually he saved Cleveland's ass when it came to MUNY light...I won't re-hash the story, but the guy gets re-elected over and over in a majority republican district.

anyone interested in the real story should go to www.kucinich.us to read it.

:dem: :dem:

[goodhue]

102. unelectable vs. un-nominatable

Thanks for making this important distinction. Unfortunately many here confuse the two. If Kucinich had the nomination and the party got behind him he would become very very electable. But sheeplike beliefs about his electability appear to make him un-nominatable. But things can still change in the next few months. Who is Dennis Kucinich?

[leftofthedial]

41. because so many think he is unelectable

therefore, many think he is unelectable
and
therefore, many think he is unelectable
and
therefore, many think he is unelectable
and
so on.


Oh. Murkans are also reactionary/sheep/ignorant/stupid take your pick.

[Woodstock]

44. too extreme

it's too much change, too soon

also, he has a shrill delivery - they want someone calm to have that red phone closeby

[Wetzelbill]

50. I find it odd that Americans consider peace, prosperity and ....

universal health care extreme.

I find it even odder that Americans believe exploiting the rest of the world is a problem of little merit. All the talk of fair trade etc, is just talk. Dennis is the only candidate who would actually withdraw from NAFTA, which cannot be changed under WTO law.

When did the an honest look at the issues most central to our lives become radical?

[LoneStarLiberal]

62. Manifest Destiny Writ Large?

I would argue that it isn't odd at all. And that Kucinich's policies are radical to most Americans.

And I would argue they are radical for exactly the same reasons.

There was an arguement made a couple of months back on the GD boards about whether or not Americans were just being mislead or whether or not a majority of people in this country think about the rest of the world with the same chop-licking aggression in which we thought about our country in "Manifest Destiny" times.

If that theory is correct, which I believe for most Republican-voting conservatives it is, then it wouldn't be odd at all to see a large minority of Americans O.K. with screwing other people out of their natural resources through institutions like the WTO and NAFTA, making war in the name of secure oil, and resisting any international compliance that lowers us to the level of our inferiors.

Maybe people really do believe that crap. If so, there's your answer.

[Wetzelbill]

70. They may be ok with that garbage, however

that isn't what we are supposed to stand for. To sacrifice what the U.S. proclaims to be makes us the biggest fraud in the history of the world. You can toss all that "standing for freedom and democracy" shit right out the window in that case.

I'm angered at what we have allowed the perception of our country to become.

[LoneStarLiberal]

156. I'm With You On The Anger

My parents are both old enough to be my grandparents...my dad's 78 and my mom's 75. I'm 30.

Growing up with their first hand accounts of life during the Depression and World War II gave me the early foundation for appreciating life and appreciating America for our freedoms, our liberties, and our Constitution. When I think of what American accoplishment means to me, I think of the TVA and the Peace Corps, of civil rights and better education and public health care.

Most of my peers (at least those in this area) appreciate America for something different: Big screen TVs, SUVs, and unapologetic consumerism. When they think of what American accomplishment means, they think of Reagan "winning" the Cold War, mega-malls, and gated communities.

I agree wholeheartedly that as a country a substantial minority of Americans have lost the best sense of what being American means. Unfortunately I do not think that we are going to win them back or show them the right path by berating them (which is justified) or by attacking "their" President (also justified).

We have to give them concrete, demonstrable, practical alternatives, things that can be accomplished right here and right now, not things that are so radical that they cannot be accomplished here and now.

The key is incremental change, always keeping an eye on the ultimate prize, and always moving toward it.

[Woodstock]

46. Re: the poll, the unnamed gets higher points because they don't know them

they don't know all the candidates yet

given the choice between someone you know and someone you don't know, they are picking the someone they know

just my hypothesis - I think once the campaign gets in gear better, they will go for our candidates (the world series is almost over, and the CA recall fiasco, also a debate is on Sunday, so maybe we can focus on the Dems now)

[LoneStarLiberal]

52. Great Message, Wrong Party

It's a shame that his message doesn't stand a snowball's chance of being heard this year.

So what is wrong with a candidate that WILL change the way things are going?

But does he present change in a manner that will be what those 44% would find agreeable? Aggregated polling numbers from our own party indicate no.

So what is unelectable about the only candidate that WILL provide health care coverage for all Americans?

It'll never survive the big dollar PR blitz that awaits any of the health care reform proposals out there from the AMA and health care industry.

What is so unelectable about the ONLY candidate that has a proven track record of resisting special interest groups?

But the real question is are the people who answered yes to this question willing to do anything about that control? The followup answer to that is usually a resounding NO. As long as people are only mildly irritated and complacent versus being pissed off and agitated, the government will continue to run the way it has for the last forty years or so.

It's not a matter of resisting special interest groups. I mean hell, look at our current President. He resists special interest groups all right: NARAL, ACLU, and NOW have no influence on his policies at all. Yet they do in Congress. The influence of interests on Congress is where the problem lies, not in influences on the White House. Yet getting Congress to police themselves is like trying to get Ben Affleck to learn how to act: "Why should I do anything different when I am this comfortable now?"

Why then is the ONLY candidate who actively opposed the war before it started unelectable?

Because most of America doesn't oppose WHAT we did and are doing in Iraq; they only oppose the fact that they are being asked to pay more money for it. There's a MASSIVE difference in the politics of foreign policy and the politics of the checkbook.

Kucinich is the ONLY candidate who realizes that the ONLY way to make sense of a budget in which more than 50% goes to military expenses is to cut military expenses.

Only a leader who has military experience can hope to cut the military budget and win re-election. The military punishes those who do otherwise when it comes to the ballot box.

Are his ideas too radical?

In a nutshell, yep. It's too bad Kucinich didn't run as a Green this year. I say that as a Democrat and knowing what that would mean for the party. Kucinich simply has no chance as long as he runs as a Democrat. The party is too moderate for his policies and his message. The Greens, on the other hand, would be damn near perfect for him.

He's got a damned good message, but it's a message that has no chance on the national stage of the Democratic Party.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

53. Kucinich could pick up Buchanan and Perot voters

Perot got 20% of the vote, and there are LOTS of Republicans that would have voted for Buchanan if they thought he was "electable".

[BJ]

55. It's the way the media frames him.

congressman Kucinich's a long shot but, if you've ever read is biography, he's used to it.

His district had been a Republican stronghold until he came out of political retirement in California. There's talk that if he doesn't get the presidential nod he'll run for senate from Ohio.

I saw him last month at a big Democratic function. It was cold and rainy and Kucinich's speech was flat and so I, among others, concluded that, while I agree with him in principle, he has no chrisma.

I was wrong.

I saw him at a rally last week and the guy's a fighter and a rousing stump speaker.

I'm more firmly in his corner now.

[BurtWorm]

59. The Cult Factor

You seem to either be in the Kucinich cult or out of it. You either believe he's perfect, or you're preferring a more realistic candidate with wider appeal.

[MuseRider]

105. I do not think that any

of us think he is perfect. You are wrong with that one. I don't like the way he voted on the Flag burning amendment, I don't like his vote on stem cell research, there are several things I do not agree with him on but in my opinion he is still by far and away the best for this country. This is not a cult, I would reserve that definition for others however but would NEVER say it to them.

[maha]

114. Yes!

This is why the DKs bug me so much, I think. I HATE cultists.

DK has had a history of cultish following, though. Check out this article about him from when he was mayor of Cleveland:

http://www.clevelandmagazine.com/editorial/thismonth_features.asp?docid=359

What bothers most political observers about that kind of loyalty is that it is coupled with a myopic vision of reality. The Kucinich loyalists seem to divide the world into two parts: "us" and "them." Few, if any, seem to have an appreciation of the complexities and interrelationships that comprise the workings of the real world.

"Either they don't understand that everything is connected to everything else, or don't care," one longtime City Hall bureaucrat notes. Another administration source sees the situation in simpler terms: "People with little minds have little ideas."

And whis was published in 1978! The whole thing is a pretty damning portrait, not so much of DK as of his cultishly loyal followers.

See also "Kucinich on the Couch."

http://www.clevelandmagazine.com/editorial/thismonth_features.asp?docid=362

[BurtWorm]

129. This is disturbing

from the second article:


Every rung on the Kucinich ladder to success has been another bad guy, from old Ward 7 Councilman John Bilinski ("nigger lover," Kucinich supporters called him in that vicious 1969 council race) to the Illuminating Company (CEI). Dennis' need to be a hero means, of a course, that his opponents must be villains - which may explain why a he has used smear tactics in almost every campaign he has ever been involved in.

The literature portraying Councilmen Michael Climaco (Ward 5) and Mary Rose Oakar (Ward 8) as pawns of George Forbes circulated on the lower West Side in 1973; the leaflets passed out in all-white Parma accusing Congressman Ron Mottl of supporting a Martin Luther King national holiday when Kucinich ran against him in 1974 even the cheap "slum landlord" shot directed against mayoral candidate Edward Feighan last year through Kucinich protege Benny Bonnano -- those are just a few of the products turned out by the Kucinich propaganda machine over the years.

The psychiatrists say that the in ability to see beyond heroes and villains, beyond black and white, into the gray complexities of the real world is considered another mark of immaturity. That Kucinich has chosen to divide the world into two simple parts ("If you're not for me, then you're against me," he has told opponents and supporters alike during his career) is due, more than anything else, to the influence of one man dominating his life - Sherwood Weissman.




If this is true, this is really, really disturbing. Has anyone heard this about Kucinich before?

[maha]

132. I'm just looking into it now ...

Kucinich was pretty much of a blank slate for me until recently. I dimly remembered the "boy mayor" of Cleveland but couldn't recall details ... I was living in Cincinnati in those years, at the other end of the state.

What made me wonder about Kucinich is the obvious slavish, cultish devotion of his followers. These people give me the willies. So I started looking stuff up. And the facts are pretty disturbing.

Apparently he was a colossal disaster as mayor; his profile in Time magazine said DK became "a laughingstock" and couldn't get back into politics for 15 years -- memories do fade. But this is from another Cleveland magazine article:

Any attempt to sift through the ruins of Kucinich's shattered mayoralty can uncover evidence of why they lost, of where they went wrong, of what they did - and did not - accomplish during the most turbulent 24-month period in memory. There are few clues, however, to explain why they acted as they did; why they systematically attempted to destroy the spirit of other human beings, why they favored ridicule, persecution and harassment over sympathy, compassion and conciliation.

In a sense their personalities obstructed and warped their principles.

It's very possible Kucinich has grown since then, but since this was his only executive experience ...

[redqueen]

180. LOL!

Yeah, we've seen it... a second-hand analysis from an analyst that never visited with the analyzed.

In technical jargon, I think it's called a "smear job". :)

Read it carefully, and see how much of it is a recitement of actual events, vs. how much is mind reading and second-guessing. When 'journalists' attempt to discern motive as a way to avoid discussing actual events / issues, you know you're in whoreland!

[BurtWorm]

188. Fair enough, but the basic facts are that Kucinich ran a campaign

to appeal to Carl Stokes-hating Westsiders. He went so far as to oppose public housing and gun control to appeal to these constituents. After thinking long and hard about these facts over the weekend, my feeling is that Kucinich moved to the Westside and moderated his positions to get elected and implement his principle of empowering a constituency, and that's not a bad thing.

[redqueen]

189. Oh the campaign stuff...

Yes there are certainly some issues in that one... nothing that makes me think I should start supporting someone else, though.

I thought you were bothered by the 'psychobabble' one, which actually never fails to draw low, mordant chuckles from me. :)

[BurtWorm]

190. I was bothered by the accusation that Kucinich people spread

around the charge that his opponent was a "nigger lover," and that another opponent drew leaflets "charging" him with supporting the MLK holiday. It wasn't what the "docs" said, it was the mention of some of his supporters' racist tactics I was disturbed by.

[redqueen]

192. Yes, "Kucinich People"...

I would be bothered more if it were backed up by anything on Kucinich himself, as opposed to people working for his campaign.

Also, seeing as he grew up in minority districts, I really really doubt this was something sanctioned by him. If I've been duped I'll be the first to admit it after evidence is dug up, but Dennis really does display a kind of integrity rarely seen in politics.

Who has that quote about his Republican colleagues in the Ohio legislature? They disagreed with his policies but recognized him as a stand up guy with real principles. That kind of advertising, money can't buy.

[Selwynn]

68. Because of the history of who we have elected....

He doesn't quite fit the bill, does he?

[Loyal]

74. Simple

Because he is at 1% in the nationwide polls and has almost no $. Why do you ignore facts? He's unelectable because he has almost no support among Democrats. This could be because he's not really a mainstream Democrat...

[foo_bar]

75. it's his stand on "mood management" devices

that concern me. It'll bring new voices to the party, but those voices will hear other voices.

[Loyal]

80. I'd like to see a link for this claim:

41% of Americans agree that the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol (Zogby 6/03). Does that make a candidate who acknowledges that 40 billion spend on the war on drugs can be better applied unelectable?

I'm one of those supposed 41% of Americans who is not afraid of pot. But I've never seen a poll # that high.

So, link?

[kertnom]

84. Because he is polling less then 5%

n/t

[onebigbadwulf]

85. two reasons

1. he looks like a gnome
2. his record shows him as a failure

[many a good man]

90. Wrong. His record shows that he was right.

His failure as mayor of Cleveland was due to the stand he took against big business who wanted him to sell the municipal power plant. They forced the city into bankruptcy. Fifteen years later the overwhelming opinion is that he did the right thing.

His record is courage in the face of power and standing up for what is right regardless of the consequences. And later being proven to be right. He also look more like an elf than a gnome.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[Blitz]

118. Someone with over 500 posts

should know that it is specifically against DU rules to attack fellow DUers based on their post count or to imply that those that you disagree with are freepers. You have a suspicion that you can back up at all? Hit alert.

Your post will surely be pulled by the mods, as will this one, in all likelihood, but if you see this, I hope that you have the good grace and maturity to apologize.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

120. It will be pulled?

I am attacking the posting content, baseless attacks that Kucinich is a failure. Also wondering where these 'newer' posters are hearing it.

Not sure why it would be pulled.

TWL

[Blitz]

124. See for yourself

eom

[ThirdWheelLegend]

127. Hmm let me rephrase then

There seems to be a new theme of denouncing Kucinich a failure without anything to back it up.

Would be interesting to know where people are 'getting' this mantra. i.e. the source.


Better?

TWL

[maha]

138. Here's a source!

Time magazine article

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,524691,00.html

He was elected mayor of Cleveland at the age of 31 in 1977, becoming one of the youngest mayors of a large city in America history. But Kucinich had a terrible tenure as the city defaulted on loans in part because Kucinich refused to sell the public municipal power company as the banks demanded. Kucinich became a laughingstock around the country and was roundly defeated in his campaign for re-election. "I didn't know if I would ever get any another chance," Kucinich said recently about his plight. And for 15 years, he didn't, losing election after election in Ohio, before finally capturing a seat in the State Senate in 1994.

Plus, I found an archive of Cleveland magazine articles written during his tenure as mayor. He was a disaster. Start reading through some of this stuff and it would scare the stuffing out of you.

http://www.clevelandmagazine.com/editorial/thismonth_features.asp?docid=361

[Terwilliger]

147. I read the links

you seem like a partisan loony to me

you have your set ideas and beliefs, and THATS IT...you've made the decision and screw everybody that disagrees

well, I'm glad you're not running for office

[maha]

119. Do I count?

I think he's a failure and I have a 1000 posts!

http://www.clevelandmagazine.com/editorial/thismonth_features.asp?docid=361

[maha]

117. Not according to Cleveland magazine

I've been checking up on him. He failed because he surrounded himself with yes-people and admirers instead of professionals, and he was too arrogant to work with others toward goals. So he just plain failed, period.

http://www.clevelandmagazine.com/editorial/thismonth_features.asp?docid=361

[Moochy]

125. Gnomes arent so bad...

I've seen some recent pictures that seem to disguise his Gnomish heritage.

Besides gnomes get some good bonuses and skills:

• Gnomes
  Despite their welcome everywhere as technicians, alchemists, and inventors, Gnomes prefer to remain among their own kind. However, Gnomes are also curious and impulsive and may take up adventuring as a way to see the world or for the love of exploring. Gnomes generally stand about 3 to 3½ feet tall and weigh 40 to 45 pounds. Gnome males prefer short, carefully trimmed beards. Gnomes live about 350 years, though some can live almost 500 years. Gnomes get along well with Dwarves who share their love of precious objects, their curiosity about mechanical devices, and their hatred of goblins and giants. They also enjoy the company of Halflings, especially those who are easygoing and can put up with pranks and jests.
  
  
  
  Racial Traits
  
  Ability Adjustment: +2 Constitution, -2 Strength
  Size: Small
  +1 bonus to AC
  +1 bonus to attack rolls
  +4 bonus on Hide checks
  Base Speed: 20 feet
  Racial Abilities/Bonuses:
  
  Low-light Vision: Elves can see twice as far as humans in low-light conditions (starlight, moonlight, etc.)
  +2 bonus on saving throws against illusions
  +1 bonus to attack rolls against kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears
  +4 Dodge bonus against giants
  +2 bonus on Listen checks
  +2 bonus on Alchemy checks
  Speak with Animals with a burrowing mammal once per day
  If Intelligence is 10 or higher, Gnomes can cast the following cantrips once per day as a 1st level Wizard
  - Dancing Lights
  - Ghost Sound
  - Prestidigitation
  

(from http://www.narrowway.net/CharacterRaces.htm)

[leesa]

88. Because he's intelligent, prefers peaceful solutions and he's not

the male model type. Merikans want someone who is sure to provide the excitement of a war (for when they get bored with sports or sitcoms), lot's of bombs and explosions. They want someone unintelligent so that he doesn't make them look so bad. And of course he has to be tall and handsome so we can pretend we all are.

Kucinich would make an excellent president in a country with mature people in it.

[Blitz]

96. That's right , Americans are immature, dumb and bad

and it's their fault that they do not appreciate the wonders and glory of Kucinich and his enlightened supporters.

Just keep hammering that "progressive" refrain. It's a sure winner!!

[Terwilliger]

148. as opposed to....what...Democrats in general?

who have to fight the media imAge of themselves they've allowed to happen?

You want to get the same response out out Repukes and middle-of-the-roaders while calling Bush a nazi...think that'll work well?

[david_vincent]

91. I'm cynical

Your treatise raises a lot of good points. However, the average American voter isn't interested in rational debate. It really doesn't matter that Kucinich is solid on the issues that you've mentioned, because most people don't care about the issues. Look at the 2000 election - where were the issues? They were invisible. I feel that most Americans are very shallow when it comes to their elections, whether by nature or through indoctrination. Kucinich can't win, in my view, simply because he has an ethnic name. Think I'm crazy? Remember Dukakis? The last president we had with an ethnic name was Eisenhower, and he got in because he was a war hero in a just war with a victorious outcome. The days when someone with a name like Van Buren could be elected to the White House are long, long over. At least for the time being. Gary Hart was on to this; that's why he changed his name. The media won't take seriously anyone who's name isn't, say, John Armstrong or Tom Davis. It's as simple, and as utterly stupid, as that.

[redqueen]

181. I disagree on a few points...

I don't think the issues were invisible in 2000. They were co-opted by the right, and watered down by the 'left'.

Gore was careful to avoid alienating the moderates (there's that bush-lite label) and Bush was busy saying he was a populist and would advocate for populist issues.

The differences for '04 are: Bush can no longer expect to be able to campaign as a moderate / or to campaign on populist issues, because Americans aren't that stupid... well, at least most of them aren't. (And I saw the focus group on C-Span as well, and there were only two people at that table who were stupid enough to say they'd definitely vote for Shrub.)

You may think it's about a name, but I think the media has hoodwinked us again. They have managed to fool people about the issues they DO care about, while simultaneously bashing with the non-issues they couldn't care less about, thereby alienating most people from politics altogether. I still think if Dennis's message were to be put before the public, he'd race up those polls on like a house on fire.

Time will tell.

[Padraig18]

100. The problem with the threads that ask this question is...

... that there is no 'right answer', as far as DK's supporters are concerned. No matter how one tries to express their own reasons and rationale for believeing he's unelectable, one is inevitably hit with this mass of anecdotal evidence and pious hand-waving, etc., so answering is a no-win situation if you don't support DK.

If you go to a large, statewide gathering of active Democrats and say that you only saw one person pulling for DK, then you're innundated with inane questions about what type of gathering it was, its demographics, what color ties were the men wearing, etc., all the while the *fact* that you only met one person among this politically-active group of Democrats who was actually supporting DK is swept aside as though it were somehow meaningless. Cite a poll done by *Democrats* which comports with Zogby, Harris, etc., and you're told 10,000 reasons why it *must* be wrong, because no poll could ever be accurate and show DK with 1-2% of support among Democrats.

It's a lose-lose situation for non-DK supporters to even try and answer the question. :shrug:

[Clark Can WIN]

113. How is it that YOU get to define the Democratic party?

"The problem is that most other Democrats are found so far to the right that they are simply confused Republicans (and yes, that includes Bill Clinton). This offsets the position of Kucinich and Sharpton but only relatively to the others."

I've tilted left all my life and I have NEVER been a Republican registered or otherwise. So who are you to call me a confused Republican just because I don't support your candidate and beleive that he is in fact unelectable. Who are you to say that the other Democratic candidates do not represent the ideals this nation was founded on? I think most all of them do. Sounds pretty damn intolerant and closed minded of you I think.

Kucinch is polling in the 1% and under range. There is a reason for that and it's not the big bad media my friend or both Clark and Dean would be right down there next to him because the media has had those two for lunch damn near every day.

[ShaneGR]

123. but but but

The Dem Party is all about peace and love and happiness.... free trade is evil. All corporations are greedy criminal organizations. The world will be ending in two years. If you ever believed in any war, you are not a Democrat. Love and harmony must run the new era.

Lets go plant some flowers, chop off our nuts, and wait for the comet to absorb our souls.

[redqueen]

182. Finally found a reason for ignore n/t

[RapidCreek]

145. yep they have

but they rarely if ever mention Kuchinics name. Why is that?

RC

[spindoctor]

154. Where did I "define" the Democratic party?

The democratic process dictates that the Democratic Party "defines" itself.
Most votes win, that is the essence of democracy. Although I often doubt this process (too many morons get to vote too), I have yet to come up with an acceptable alternative and more likely than not I won't bother with it.

I've tilted left all my life and I have NEVER been a Republican registered or otherwise.

Then you seriously should reconsider your support for Clark. The fact is that Clark tilts to the right.

So who are you to call me a confused Republican just because I don't support your candidate and beleive that he is in fact unelectable.

Ok, I take back the "confused". ;)

Kucinch is polling in the 1% and under range. There is a reason for that and it's not the big bad media my friend ...

So what is the reason? That is my question in this thread and you don't answer it.

[kwolf68]

131. The notion of "too far left" is BOGUS

You know who cares about "too far left"? Leftists and Rightists...Those who have NOTHING to do with the election.

The right man (a Liberal) COULD, CAN be elected in this nation.

My WIFE is a Republican and LIKED Paul Wellstone. Wellstone was very Liberal...even proudly proclaimed it. My Wife? The typical American voter who doesn't really know or care about much...LIKED THIS LIBERAL...because he seemed to be a good guy and cared about things...he also "didn't come off as a politician."

If Paul Wellstone was running for our nomination right now he would likely be the frontrunner and we would have won with him. NO DOUBT in my mind. Kucinich's main problem is he comes off "too mean", while Wellstone was very progressive he had more tact than Dennis.

And one poster made a great point that our best Presidents came before the advent of political TV...TV has also helped destroy the Democratic Party...Now the Dems HAVE to run to the corporate coffers to keep up with the Repukes...The Dems used to go door to door to chalk up votes...

[tedoll78]

133. A few things..

Looks. Sorry.

The Department of Peace? Come on! While you're at it, Dennis, pass me the blunt and let's go free some lab rats from their experimental cages, man!

[eridani]

140. George Washington didn't think a Department of Peace was stupid

http://www.dopc.us/

George Washington introduced a Department of Peace bill into Congress in 1793. The African American freeman Benjamin Banneker, a brilliant astronomer, mathematician and surveyor of the future Washington, D.C. wrote in his 1792 Almanac about a Department of Peace to “balance” the Department of War. Banneker’s friends, like Dr. Benjamin Rush and Thomas Jefferson liked the idea. Yet 210 years and 146 bills later, we still have no Department of Peace and no US Peace Academy.

[Padraig18]

141. Ummm

Maybe because 146 times the American people thought it was a ridiculous idea?

[redqueen]

183. Oh yeah, it's the informed American people that vote in congress...

and decide which bills get to the floor or get retribution, and not the corrupt, money-grubbing politicans that have made most people completely cynical and distrustful of politics.

Oh, wait a minute...

[quaker bill]

134. It is 50 percent message and 50 percent messenger

His ideas are out of the mainstream. Sure many people support the general concept of moving from where we are in the direction Dennis advocates. But I will warrant you they don't want to go as far or a fast as Dennis proposes.

Yes, I know the line, the 'Murikan people are not bright enough to get our candidate's wisdom. It is classic disenfranchised liberalspeak.

Guess what, it is a statistical identity that 50 percent of the 'murikan public has below average intelligence. It is same as for any other population. Guess what else, they get to pick the President too. I suggest you grow accustomed to the concept.

Then there is the messenger. I like what Dennis has to say, but the man whines. He simply sounds like a disenfranchised liberal. It is not unreasonable, because he actually is one. But it does not sell.

[pasadenaboy]

135. This sounds silly but,

I considered him until he broke into song in the middle of a speech I saw him deliver. it made him look insane.

[adriennel]

152. shallow, but...

I love his progressive politics. The reasons why I don't like him are pretty shallow. He's shrill, reminiscent of Ross Perot, and on the verge of shouting way too often. I want a president that can speak calmly, clearly, and with substance--especially after Bumblin' Bush. Please, no more presidential speeches reduced to sixth grade level vocabulary and no more boneheaded cowboy assertations a'la "smoke'em out" and "bring it on". Uggg.

[Hep]

153. Because he IS unelectable

On one hand every candidate is electable until the primary when everyone but ONE proves unelectable. But I can't fathom a scenario in which Kucinich comes back and take the nomination.

[Cat Atomic]

158. Bush makes Kucinich electable.

Bush is extemely polarizing.

On the other hand, it's another point against Kucinich getting the nomination. I agree with Kucinich on almost every issue. He'd be my first choice as a candidate- no doubt about it. But my vote is practically locked up. The Democratic Party would have to go alooong way to lose my vote in the next election. It'd take a Leiberman... or something like that to drive me off.

So while I'm pulling for Kucinich, and I while I think this is the best time to push for a real progressive, I still expect the crowd to go for a more moderate candidate. They've got my vote- and I think they know it.

[DealsGapRider]

159. Because of statements like this:

"I am running for president of the United States to enable the goddess of peace to encircle within her arms all the children of this country and all the children of the world."

Who talks like that? Someone with a perilous grasp on reality, that's who.

That statement is just begging for a GOP attack ad. People across the country would soil themselves laughing at Kucinich, calling him a pansy, etc. And would could blame them? The man is just not all there.

[MuseRider]

160. Who talks like that?

Taken out of context that does sound pretty nutty. Interesting how you play this game so well. It actually made sense in context. Way to play the game.

[spindoctor]

161. That quote can be found on any GOP site

And yes, taken out of context it is very silly.
However, Mr. Kucinich was referring to the statue that stands outside the House of Representatives, named "Peace Loving Genius" (or something like that).
The statue depicts a woman (Peace) embracing a child.

[MuseRider]

164. It was

actually quite a lovely thought in context. I think DK has done a commendable job of showing us he can take attacks and always be counted on to defend himself by putting things right back into the correct context. He does not let these things slide, he does not let these things continue to be used against him. That is essential when fighting the Republicans who LOVE to take everything said out of context to make a point.

[diamondsoul]

196. Minor correction- "Peace Protecting Genius"

is the title of the statue. :)Here's another quote on what the statue means to him- It may not mean much to those who don't have children or those who thing things like this are stupid, silly, whatever, but let me tell you every Teacher, Mother and Teenager I've ever shown it to took it very seriously.

"I told this story of how in Washington there is this sculpture above the entrance to the House of Representatives of a woman whose arm is outstretched, protecting a child who is happily sitting on top of a pile of books. The title of the sculpture is "Peace protecting genius." Then I went on to say that I have it on authority that one of the books that the child is sitting on is the soon to be released "Harry Potter Challenges the Pentagon" in which Harry Potter takes on Lord Voldemort, and I explained that Lord Voldemort has an insatiable appetite for violence. I pointed out that the increase in the Pentagon budget takes money away from education. As President I intend to cut the waste from the Pentagon budget and put that money right into education. Harry Potter knows that education or Hogwarts is the place where magic is made and we are going to create new magic in the country by rebuilding our education system. I closed by saying, "Will Harry Potter overcome the power of Lord Voldemort? When I am elected President I intend to restore the educational funding, and I know where the money is." After the event a young boy and a young girl both came up to me with their brand new copies of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and asked me to sign them. And they knew exactly what I was talking about."

http://www.aoc.gov/cc/art/pediments/apoth_hse_ctr.htm
Link to photo of the statue itself.

[pmbryant]

162. Not sure whether he is electable or not

But Kucinich is definitely not the Dems' best choice this year, given the strong field running. He has never been elected to any non-local office.

He would be a better Presidential candidate if he comes back after winning an Ohio statewide office (Governor, Senator). We need good Dems in those positions as well, so I hope he runs for one of them.

--Peter

[leftofthedial]

163. because so many consider him unelectable, as best I can tell

that and because there are vanishingly few true progressives in Murka.

Remember October 2001 when 92% of Murkans supported the Cretin in Chief? 92% of Murkans are reactionary sheep.

[Padraig18]

174. And, unfortunately, ...

.. those 'reactionary sheep' have one vote each, just like everyone else. In short, that's why he's unelectable. :shrug:

[JohnKleeb]

175. I gots a comment

I've talked to family members about Kucinich now hes not their candiate of choice, and they arent far left like I am but they like him. What makes you think so many moderates wont like him? Say the guy is like a farmer who doesnt like the corporations taking over his family business I think a guy like that would vote Kucinich, I dont see why these swing voters would be so alienated by Kucinich they would go to Bush, makes no sense to me. Anyways proudly idealistic I am and I know damn well that its a tough battle but is it the right one, no doubt in the world, shall hold on to the bridge as long as I can.

[Selwynn]

165. Because electing a progressive will be a sunrise not a sunburst.

That's why.

Because we are not going to go from the progressive agenda representing a fractional minority of public opinion to an electing majority in one election year. Now, I understand that fellow Kucinich supporters (I believe Kuchinich's platform is the best of all the candidates) would argue that many or most americans actually do share progressive values, they just don't know it yet, but that's irrelevant. The point is, right now a truly progressive platform does not engender majority support in this country right now. And changing this is going to be a long, hard process that I hope will eventually lead to a much better country.

So, is there any chance of a Kucinich being elected this time? No, of course not. The point is to make progress towards a year when election of a true progressive IS possible. Getting the message out, gaining visibility, speaking out, campaigning is critical.

Now, where I part ways with some progressives (both Kucinich progressives and Green progressives) is that because I believe moving the country to a place where election of a real progressie is possible is a long hard process, it means that I can also think seriously about the the best decision for the country in 2004. Which is better? To use this election cycle to push the progessive agenda? Or is this an election year, where the encumbant President is so bad, so destructive and so absolutely horrible that we set aside the progressive process for four years and put all our effort behind supporting any Democrat to defeat Bush?

I understand that people can disagree on this. But for me, I am absolutely committed to supporting the Democratic nominee this election. If it is Kucinich that would be pretty amazing, but assuming it is not, I will support any Democratic nominee - because I know full well that literally any Democratic nominee will be better than Bush and allow for a better voice for the progressive movement.

[spindoctor]

166. The results of this little "survey"

Eat your heart out, Mr. Zogby.
If the above is a valid representation of why Kucinich is unelectable according to Democrats, then these are the reasons (I had to do some interpretation of opinions) in order of importance

#1. With a bullet. PRESENTATION.
He has a lot of good to say, but no good way of saying it.
#2. Too radical.
Let's face it, comrads. Free health care is simply un-American ;)
#3. Looks.
You know what? I won't comment on this one.

Other suggestions are his name, his honesty, lack of media attention, his track record, his stance on item(s) and the "cult factor".
None of these came close to the top 3.

Dennis, are you taking notes here?

[Ficus]

176. I noticed

on your #3 he changed his hairstyle at the beginning of the campaign.
Probably not much he can do about that though.

:dem: :dem:

[redqueen]

184. One word: Groupthink

Okay, make that two words: sheep mentality.

You get what I'm saying... if not here's a cute comic that says it well.



He is unelectable because people have been successfully conditioned to believe that if someone is a serious candidate with good positions on issues, that it's completely within the realm of the 'reasonable' to discount that politician because of any reason they can think of outside the issues. However once a candidate has reached a milestone (say in fundraising, or polling), then those 'issues' which would have made the 'serious' candidate 'unelectable' simply vanish! Great way to rig a contest, eh?

I mean, seriously... I could just as easily attack Dean for his lip thing or his mouth breathing; or any other candidate for similarly shallow reasons... because it's easy. It's sad to see all this debating of records for the other candidates, but seemingly the only thing anti-Kucinich people have is a) people aren't ready (ha ha), b) he was a failed mayor (hee hee) or c) hippies are cool to ridicule (ho ho!)

I respect those that have serious policy disagreements, because at least they have put some THOUGHT into their positions. Those that parrot the RNC ... shame shame shame. Way to buy into the system, though! And hey, maybe you'll be on the 'winning' team this time! Woo hoo! Party!!!!


If the major parties can 'count on our votes' no matter what, why would they EVER change in any fundamental way? They know we won't stand up for ourselves, we're too indoctrinated in petty non-issues like looks, money and slickness.

And please with the 'increments' -- we've been bending over for 'increments' for 30 years plus, and look at the progress! Wait, is that progress???? Wait, did you say that wage increases were posted for every sector except the lowest tier of wage earners? WTF?!

Count me out of the 'they have my vote' team. I'm for plain spokenness. I'm for a track record that speaks for itself and doesn't have to have a media team re-state to make it sound more appealing to the widest audience. I'm for a candidate who speaks truth to power, damn the consequences. I'm for a candidate who has PROVEN with his ACTIONS that he DOES what the Democratic Party SAYS they believe in, even if it cost him his damn CAREER!

That's why I think this 'unelectable' groupthink is WRONG. If we Kucitizens can get in front of enough of these 'moron americans' who are 'below average' and explain Dennis's message plainly and leave materials for them to reference, we'll see a "Kucinich Revolution" with "Kucinich Republicans" voting in mass numbers. You can bet your last penny having a Dem up there that insults those who voted for Bush (even implicitly by bashing him at every opportunity) ain't gonna do it!

We'd also most likely get extremely long coattails a la FDR in '32. You want a Democratic congress? Then put someone up in the Executive office who is actually, solidly, and demostratably DEMOCRATIC. And not just the name, you need a RECORD to run on!

Don't be so quick to write him off. Think for yourself, and use your vote in the primary for what IMO it was meant for -- speaking your voice and ensuring that it's YOUR concerns that are recognized.

One person can make a difference. -- D Kucinich
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi

[DealsGapRider]

191. Damn.

And here I thought it was because he was a radical, foaming-at-the-mouth little troll who proposes silly policy ideas like banning mind control weapons in space, makes asinine statements about the "peace goddess," and delivers out-of-control speeches that are redolent of Mussolini's body language.

[redqueen]

193. See? This is a great example!

"And here I thought it was because he was a radical, foaming-at-the-mouth little troll...

Here's the insult, note lack of substantial disagreement, just labeling and rhetoric... DGP have you considered a career as a professional journalist? Maybe a talk show host?

...who proposes silly policy ideas like banning mind control weapons in space,...

Here's where the smearing or twisting is used. Pick the most radical thing you can, which was taken out of an actual bill, and leave out any discussion of the actual problems dealt with in the bill -- this way people think he wrote a bill banning mind-control weapons in space (what this poster said) as opposed to a bill which bans ALL WEAPONS in space.

"... makes asinine statements about the "peace goddess," and delivers out-of-control speeches that are redolent of Mussolini's body language.

And again with the labeling and out-of-context twisting of words and gratuitous insults.

You just ignore that these 'out of control' speeches inspired a draft movement... ignore that the peace goddess is part of the architecture in washington (and ignore the implicit misogyny, too, please!), and hey, throw in a comparison to a hated figure in history (a la bush / nazi, etc.), and there you go!

Policy-free politics! Perfect for pandering to today's 'caring about policy is so, like... yesterday!' crowd! Remember, style over substance, and life can be as fun as highschool! ;)

[leftofthedial]

199. there's a serious intellectual argument

and an example of why.

[Scott Lee]

185. He's like a pair of sensible shoes

You surely don't hate them, in fact when you try them on, they fit just fine...

But what really moves you to make the purchase?


My only bitch about Kucinich is that the guy just does not "light the fire", know what I mean? Badmouth Dean all you want, but this guy is incendiary. He has this uncanny ability to tap into the anger base that I see as the best chance at getting the vote out on election day so we can get rid of these old Cold War fascistas running the show right now.

I'll hand you this - Kucinich would be excellent in a cabinet position. Like Housing Secretary, or Health and Welfare.

[redqueen]

186. I've heard others agree that he just doesn't 'do it' for them.

I think it's that 'anger' thing. Dean is really all about exploiting people's anger at Bush, and Kucinich won't go there.

Seriously, this woman at a town hall meeting in Iowa with Harkin (archived on C-Span probably, back in August I think?), went OFF on *, how he went AWOL, and lied us into war, and he was this, an he is that... and Dennis just calmly told her that the way to win isn't to bash the other candidate, but instead to present clear solutions to problems Americans care about. Maybe he's wrong... I dunno.

But to be sure there are those others that agree with me!

"When I think of Dennis Kucinich, I think immediately of what our country is all about. Not only does he have the guts to speak out when others are silent, when others compromise their principles -- he does it in a manner that sets all hearts on fire. He speaks hope for those who have lost hope." -- Studs Terkel

I'm with Studs on this one! :7

[many a good man]

195. The REAL Reason

Because he's from Cleveland.

I hate to admit that, because I was born there. But face the facts: the Browns, Cavs, and Indians are insufferable losers who can't win anything important. It rubs off a little bit on its citizens, too.

Look at me. No candidate I really really liked has ever won a big election. Its a jinx. Now Cleveland is the best location in the nation and Clevelanders are the smartest, kindest, best looking people in the entire world, but even the greatest optimist in the world can't seriously believe one of us can win.

:cry:

[redqueen]

205. See that's the kind of self-defeating attitude that has to change.

Dennis sees this, and he gets to work. He, like a lot of us supporters, actually believes in the power of positive outlook, the power of having a can-do attitude. He sees that power in every single person, even the least little Clevelander (?), and wants to foster, nuture and encourage that power in an effort to remake this country. It's WAY past time to do so.

Our evolution as humans has been stunted by our love of money and stuff. I for one am ready to step up. Gandhi said it best... you must be the change you wish to see in the world. I'm not going to rationalize and tell myself why I can't possibly make any difference so why bother. I'm not going to fool myself with comforting platitudes about incremental change. I used to be able to do that, but now I have children, and I see the 'warrior' stances of each and every candidate in both parties and it turns my stomach.

Dennis was told by friends and family alike he'd never be elected to city council, but he was.

Same thing happened in his bid for the mayor's office. He had to overcome all the naysayers once more.

Now here he is again, not surprisingly, being given all kinds of illusory 'reasons' why he can't win.

The plain, simple fact is that he touches a nerve.

It's why you don't see him in teeveeland.

It's why he's marginalized by everyone and every institution.

Do you take the blue pill, or the red?

[bywho4who]

201. Peanuts largest fear is this small man

I feel with the peanuts (rightwingers) grip on the media they can easily marginalize DK. Driven by fear.