General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKUCINICH (corrected) is getting on my nerves. There he is on Faux giving aid and comfort to Fauxers
I get that he always goes his own way apart from party.
It's the Chris WALLACE circus eating it up. First KUCINICH trotted along with all the wingnut version of Benghazi, then with the IRS thing, he replied to WALLACE asking whether it was "political targeting," "How could it NOT be?!1"
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and always has been. That's why I couldn't understand why so many Liberals liked him so much. He was all hat no cattle as a "Liberal". And now, it appears, he's shown his true colors.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Dennis K accomplished little to nothing as a Congress member and flirted with the right far, far too often.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)is it a Liberal?
DK was all talk no action. I guess if that's enough for some to accept him in the Liberal fold, so be it. But it ain't enough for me. Talk is cheap.
I have a creeping feeling that Dennis has been more Libertarian than Liberal, though.
FarPoint
(12,209 posts)He also lacks any ability to negotiate and compromise ...noted during his tenure of Congress.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Obama
the "liberal" who gave us the permanent Bush tax cuts
and keeps trying for the chained CPI
and other bizarre proposals - like lowering the top tax rate.
But, yeah, saying a few words on Fox news has got to be far, far worse than that.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)done?
By the way? Obama said he was a Liberal. He was, at best, a pragmatic Democrat and campaigned as such.
As for chained CPI, at least he's not cutting benefits like, say, Carter and two Democratic controlled chambers of Congress and Clinton have. Or raised the eligibility age like, say that "liberal" Tip O'Neill.
DK isn't just saying a "few words of Fox". He's under contract there making him a fucking sell-out. But I'm not surprised a few "liberals" on this site would rush to defend this faux Democrat. Birds of a feather and all that.
dsc
(52,130 posts)then the cpi is also a benefit cut since Carter did the very same thing. You can't have it both ways. It isn't a cut when Carter did it but not a cut when Obama suggests it.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Right. Carter not only changed the index, he proposed doing so in a way that reduced benefits more than chained-CPI would. Carter also scaled back eligibility rules for Social Security's disability insurance. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/11/17708056-social-securitys-peculiar-partisan-problem
President Obama's proposal {which will not pass since his proposal comes to Congress as a full package they can't cherry-pick and demands raising taxes on the rich} was a minor tweak in the cost of living adjustment. Carter's proposal was far more reaching - and he had the power of Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress.
So there is a difference.
dsc
(52,130 posts)Yes, Obama's cpi would cut benefits less than Carter's plan did but a cut is a cut is a cut.
PragmaticLiberal
(904 posts)I wasn't aware of it.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)He led the opposition to the Iraq War Vote, successfully leading a majority of House Democrats to vote against it.
That might be considered significant and positive.
As for a good speech filled with fire, well the "truth is that words do inspire". I heard that somewhere.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/146
From some guy who was campaigning as "a pragmatist to the right of Hillary". Sure, that's what happened in 2008.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)DK might not be a Republican but more of a Libertarian, which could explain his reason for being against any foreign wars and his pondering to ask Ron Paul to be his running mate in 2008. Now that he sold out to Fox "News" Channel, well, that seals it for me.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)In the Senate, 21 Democrats voted No. Are you suggesting that none of them are actual Democrats because they opposed Bush's illegal war and did not swallow the lies?
Teddy Kennedy voted no as did Boxer. Are those also libertarians or just people with some principles and brains?
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/international/10AP-IROL.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)doesn't make him a Democrat necessarily. Ron Paul voted no along with five other Republicans, as well.
Those were good votes, courageous votes, and they were simply the right thing to do although not enough to stop Cheney's war against Iraq.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)That war was wrong, the reasons were lies. Attempting to frame a Democrat who did the right thing as being a Libertarian for doing so is very much an endorsement of the war itself as well as of the methods used to sell that war. To use that no vote against anyone means you endorse those who voted yes and in fact help create that 'save my ass' atmosphere in DC, you do not stand up for those who were courageous, you use that courage as some sort of evidence against them even as you claim to have opposed along with them when so few did.
Funny stuff.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)read the entire thread before commenting.
And if Kooch is a Democrat than I'm Jane Hamsher. Democrats work toward the collective, not go off and become rogue and alienate their colleagues who don't share one's view. Dennis Kucinich believed that HE was the Democratic Party and, apparently, so do his defenders.
The fact that he's sold his soul to Fox "News" Channel should tell all Democrats, including you, that he's been in politics for himself and his own self-aggrandizement. That's become pretty clear now he's taking a paycheck from the worst propaganda outlet in our country. I have no problem with Democrats appearing on that rightwing propaganda channel, but to sign a contract and take a regular paycheck from them? That's inexcusable.
I'm sorry, but no whitewashing by any person on this MB will change that fact.
I wonder, however, what the Leftists here on this site would say had President Obama signed up with Fox "News" Channel and was getting his paychecks from them? Oh my fucking god, I don't think we'll ever hear the end of it. But it appears that, by their silence, his defenders believe it's a-okay for "firebrand Lefty" Dennis Kucinich to do it. I wonder why that is?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)But Joe Leiberman voted Yes, so there you go.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I'm not sure he's a liberal in any sense...he himself pointed out that as recently as 20 years ago, he'd have been considered a moderate Republican. (He was pointing out fringy the GOP has become but its certainly casts no virtue upon him either.) He's a pragmatic centrist, much like both Clintons which is why I will never vote for Hillary.
Chan790: I'm a fucking liberal and I'm damned tired of non-liberals in the Democratic tent. Let's get some liberals on the ballot. To paraphrase Sam Jackson, I have had it with these motherfucking center-right corporatists with slight-to-nonexistent socially-liberal positions in this motherfucking party! (Emphasis mine.)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And he's the president of ALL Americans, not just Liberals.
President Obama can be justifiably labeled as a pragmatic progressive; just like Carter, just like Clinton - having in common with them that he is president. You don't have the luxury of being 100% whatever ideology of your choosing when you're president of ALL Americans. You can still pull it off in the House where you only have to pander to the constituents of your district or the Senate where you have to pander to the constituents of your state in order to get re-elected, but not so when you're president of the nation. That's the major difference.
you have always despised the dude.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)No. YOU have always despised the president. Dude.
G_j
(40,366 posts)up to when I posted my reply. Thought I was stating the obvious. You said a lot about Kucinich. Funny, I never once mentioned, or even alluded to the president. Go figure...
Marr
(20,317 posts)It's great. Do it again.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)whether to be entertained or depressed.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)without taking into account that if you go far enough left, you'll come full circle and join the TeaBaggers on the Right - only, weaker, since TeaBaggers do have the brains to vote for Republicans in the general and not stay home and pout.
It's great. Do it again.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Another great move. You really painted ME into a corner!
Number23
(24,544 posts)And now he's on Fox and on the advisory board of the Ron Paul Institute. I mean you cannot make this stuff up.
Your "if you go far enough left, you'll come full circle and join the TeaBaggers on the Right" comment could not be more accurate. The Kooch Swooners and their dwindling ilk are a "special" lot.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I've debated more TeaBaggers than I care to remember and when I compare those conversations with some DUer's posts these days, I swear to you I can barely see a difference between them.
Some have gone so far to the left that they've come full circle on the political spectrum and they've become indistinguishable from purist TeaBaggers with the only difference being that at least TeaBaggers stick with the Republicans in the general election. DK/Glenn Greenwald/ Ron Paul apologists are much more fickle and unreliable Democratic voters . . . yet these same fickle people have no problem demanding that Democrats do as they say or they'll vote 3rd Party {that's why I call them Third-wayers} or threaten to take their vote and go home. And so the vicious cycle continues.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Last edited Mon May 13, 2013, 07:23 PM - Edit history (1)
"an empty suit"
a "slave to his masters"
"Stupid"
"evil"
All have been used to describe this president. By Freepers and "liberals" alike.
So those of us with eyes see the similarities. Which explains why a few people that spend far too much time in this forum can't see it.
DK/Glenn Greenwald/ Ron Paul apologists are much more fickle and unreliable Democratic voters . . . yet these same fickle people have no problem demanding that Democrats do as they say or they'll vote 3rd Party {that's why I call them Third-wayers} or threaten to take their vote and go home.
Makes sense to me. Although this whole Third Way stuff sounds weird. But as I've said before, the people who seem absolutely CONSUMED by the Third Way on this web site seem to be the most mindless, incoherently ranting lunatics here. I don't think that the Third Way would scare me half as much as these people.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)POLICE STATE!!11!! at every turn, it's very difficult to tell the difference.
Don't try to put liberals (your term)in this mix, btw. The poster was obviously referring to fringe elements, they're not one and the same.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I reference the line about 'staying home and pouting' along with 'do it again'. The inference is that people like myself did it last time.
And for the record, I don't run around screaming "police state", so I don't know what you're talking about there.
I remain very interested to know just what policies liberals and Teabaggers share support for. If it's really just that they're both dissatisfied with a center-right government, then I think you've got a pretty damned weak argument.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Liberals don't share the same views with teabaggers.
I'm not sure where that leaves you, but you certainly don't own the "team."
Marr
(20,317 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)that he didn't do his usual routine of waiting until 3 seconds after someone has a post hidden to run into a thread and talk shit.
Marr
(20,317 posts)and your powerful muscles. You're so tough!
Hold on-- I'm going to use my mysterious powers to have you locked out of this thread so I can sneak back in post without fear!
Number23
(24,544 posts)Grade A comedy GOLD. LOVED IT.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I had no idea that person had been locked out of the thread when I responded to them.
Seriously-- do you get the faintest impression from me that I'm afraid of arguing with some dimwit on the internet? Think about that for a moment before you respond, because you may create some unintentional irony.
Number23
(24,544 posts)And no, I don't get the impression you're afraid of arguing. You seem to relish it. It's really just too bad you aren't good at it or have anything intelligent to actually argue about.
Ruff Ruff.
G_j
(40,366 posts)pure unsubstantiated rubbish. LoL
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)G_j
(40,366 posts)oh that's right,, the Earth Liberation Front (do they even exist anymore?)... And even they were not stock piling weapons to fight the government.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Jane Hamsher, part of the Professional Left blogosphere, once announced that people on the Left should join Sarah Palin and the TeaBagger Party against President Obama's HCR. She even used the TeaBagger word, "union thuggery". She has teamed up with Grover Norquist, and even called it "transpartisanship".
It's good to know that all she got for her troubles {her aim was to deny President Obama a second term and to get rid of more Democrats in the House and Senate - and guess who would win then?} was that the advertising arm of her Firedoglake had to file for bankruptcy. GOOD.
Proof enough? If not, too fucking bad. The info is out there on the Interwebs. All you've got to do is want to find it.
G_j
(40,366 posts)The words of one individual prove nothing.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)You didn't request that I prove YOU make the claim. You simply asked that I prove mine. I have. But, apology accepted.
G_j
(40,366 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)to acknowledge that you were faced, is quite telling. "Prove It"! "Prove It"!
G_j
(40,366 posts)it's not my job to back it up. (smilies aside)
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)G_j
(40,366 posts)"if you go far enough left, you'll come full circle and join the TeaBaggers on the Right"
though you may need some of that Kool-Aid to wash it down, because you can't substantiate it.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)And history bears it out. Like John Muir or Gandhi. That dude was total teabagger. Check this out.
Wealth without Work
Pleasure without Conscience
Science without Humanity
Knowledge without Character
Politics without Principle
Commerce without Morality
Worship without Sacrifice
He wouldn't even have the common sense to meet the Third Way halfway on those things. Talk about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)but people shouldn't forget, not everybody shares in those personal opinions. Hence, compromise IF we want to get something done and not remain stagnate.
That's just the reality of it, whether you like it or not. We are a democracy, not a dictatorship.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)"right-wing Democrats?"
Asinine.
Number23
(24,544 posts)that he will pretend to not have seen this post from you?
Mr. "I don't know how DU works but let me use this advanced search engine to find the ONE post from you in the BOG from 18 months ago where you said hi to the new hosts?"
Are these people TRYING to be hilarious or am I just laughing my ass of AT someone?
That post needs to come with a warning label.
Still waiting for The CAC to step in and clean up this thread.
It's a complete mess.
still_one
(91,966 posts)ok if it is based on principle. It is that view along with nader's followers, and greenwald admirers why the country is still following a right wing agenda
I understand principle, but there really is something about voting against the lesser of the two that will hurt you less
Change does not occur over night, and many of the left not voting if they do not like the choices end up making things worse
It should be noted that Dennis did eventually vote for the ACA, even though he was for a public optio because he reasoned that perhaps it could eventually lead to that, but to call him a republican is way off base and emotionally based on his approach as a purest
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)DK leans more Libertarian than Republican although that anti-abortion stance he held until he ran for the presidency in 2004 has stuck in my craw which is why I considered him more of a Republican than Libertarian since Libertarians really don't care what a woman does with her own body. Republicans do.
But I take the admonishment humbly.
think
(11,641 posts)Don't see any Libertarians promoting pro universal healthcare....
Q: Do you favor universal coverage for everyone without exception, and how would you pay for it?
A: Well, first of all, Im for a national health-care plan. The whole debate about universal health care has been a fraud. All these other candidates are talking about keeping the for-profit insurance companies in charge of health care in America. Thats not what Im talking about, because these private insurers make money NOT providing health care. And so, Im saying no more role for them. Let the United States be like every other industrialized democracy in having a health-care plan, a national plan where we take care of our people. And were already paying for it. We spend $2.2 trillion on health spending, but $600 billion of it goes for the activities of the for-profit system each year. Im talking about taking that money, putting it to care for people.
Q: And it would cost how much?
A: It would cost the same amount were spending now, except that all the money goes into the system.
http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/Dennis_Kucinich_Health_Care.htm
His voting record on the environment looks pretty Democratic to me also:
http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/318/dennis-kucinich/30/environment#.UY_RL8rWnK0
So like the OP said Kucinich's main problem is he was too staunch in his progressive beliefs to settle for watered down crap in order to compromise. On issues like the environment, business regulation, healthcare, and most other Democratic issues Kucinich was a staunch supporter if perhaps too staunch..
Outside the fact both he and Ron Paul are against the military industrial complex that is bleeding this country dry; respecting the constitution and Civil Liberties (Both parties should be for this no?); and his pro life stances the two have very little else in common.
So if Dennis Kucinich is a Libertarian then I guess so am I also. I want REAL universal healthcare. I want banks and Wallstreet to be REALLY REGULATED. I want our environment Protected and business regulated against polluting it. I want our military spending to go down from these insane levels that NO COUNTRY CAN AFFORD. Aren't these Democratic values?
I can respect that you don't care for Kucinich because he's a thorn in the side and he's just too unwilling to compromise. But your labeling him as a Libertarian is a bit off the mark IMO.
Peace out...
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)THE HORROR!
https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/318/dennis-kucinich#.UZEI9r7D_IU
God Almighty, NOTHING on this board is as entertaining as BOGers whipped into a Kucinich/Greenwald/Paul frenzy. Wait, make that BOGers, resident authoritarians, and former Freepers.
think
(11,641 posts)Was hoping to find a link like the votesmart.org but just couldn't find it. Thanks again!
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)I like numbers. And despite being asked repeatedly, none of the True Believers have coughed up any numbers of all the big, bad libruls who sat out 2010 and 2012 thanks to Jane Hamsher's blog.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)I don't engage anymore; it's a complete waste of time. It's just sheer unadulterated pleasure watching the exploding heads. I have to admit when they all swarm a Assange thread it's like a good box of Milk Duds.
It's always the same 25 people gnashing and snarling. Precious. LOL. And I've actually never even been a big Kucinich supporter. He wasn't my congress critter so....meh. Oh but the reactions are too much fun.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)that I find hilarious. I forgot Assange... talk about "derangement syndrome"! Do you remember this sort of insanity during the Clinton years? I know Americans were weary of all the (non-)scandals and wanted our elected officials to get back to, you know, "governing" (thank you, MoveOn!), but this Obama loyalty is taken to levels I've never seen. And *hope* (barf...) to never see again.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)I am loyal to this President. However I do not treat the man as if I am a 2 year old and he is my Mommy who can do no wrong.
still_one
(91,966 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Anti-death penalty. It is true he supports the Constitution, but if that is becoming a distinguishing characteristic of the right wing it will become a better country (and no, it is not). Anti-war. Pro SSM. He always opposed the Patriot Act. Wants Gitmo closed. Anti war on drugs.
So he's telling the truth about something that should never have occurred, and that makes him a Republican in your eyes?
Kucinich was one of the very few who voted against authorizing the Iraq war.
I have never adored him, but in no way can he be called a Republican. Anti NAFTA/WTO.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)As did Teddy Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Carl Levin, and others who this poster would call Libertarian for not supporting an illegal war and not buying Bushco lies.
In the Senate,21 Democratic No votes, 29 Yes.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)still haunt us. More than a decade, and the AUMF is still running the show?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
It's a pity that Kucinich didn't vote against that.
I think a lot about how we got to where we are today - we seem on autopilot to engage in an endless series of military excursions.
There is some Libertarian overlap between the left and the right on certain issues, but that is not a bad thing. The military and militarist thinking are holding too much sway in this country, and Eisenhower's warning seems prophetic.
I'm willing to concede that my personal concerns shouldn't run the country, and that there may be good arguments for some of this, but I think there can be no objective support for the idea that this should all be happening with so little public debate about it.
senseandsensibility
(16,713 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)The IRS SHOULD be politically targeting conservative groups.
Since Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally, conservative groups should be targeted to see if their tax-exempt funds are being used in proper ways.
The OP's shoulder must be sore from the chip that rests on it.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)a new punching bag for Fox, and he's either complicit, or too dense to realize what he is.
Sid
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I am beginning to believe he's no more a Liberal than Glenn Greenwald is. DK is more of a Libertarian, hence his pondering to ask Ron Paul to be his running mate in 2008 when he tried to run for the presidency. I'm glad he's out of the Democratic Party. He was never a Democrat to begin with, but he can talk a good talk of liberalism and I guess that got a lot of people fooled. His record shows he's been more of a Libertarian and he sided way too many times with the Republicans on important bills under the guise of "the Democratic bill didn't go far enough". Fuck him.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts).. . but Faux and their TeaHad audience are really "laughing AT".
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)Sounds accurate to me.
What you think differently?
Enrique
(27,461 posts)I am assuming they were targeting those groups because they are more likely to be abusing the tax-exempt status, not because of their politics. The idea that this is a Nixonian abuse of power seems remote to me.
former9thward
(31,806 posts)The Federal Election Commission enforces campaign finance laws not the IRS. The IRS has admitted they were targeting groups in the application process that used words like "constitution", "Bill of rights", and "patriot". You may be ok with that but liberals are not. Some of us remember that was one of the impeachment counts against Nixon.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)and campaign finance advocates have been urging the IRS to step up enforcement. One problem is they don't have sufficient staff, the GOP is making sure of that:
http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/senate-committee-examines-enforcement-of-campaign-finance-laws
Sen. Whitehouse Urges Robust Enforcement by the Justice Department, IRS
Washington, DC In the wake of the 2012 election cycle, which saw an unprecedented level of campaign spending by super PACs and tax-exempt political organizations that do not disclose their donors, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism today held a hearing on Current Issues in Campaign Finance Law Enforcement. The hearing focused on the challenges facing the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in enforcing criminal campaign finance laws relating to independent groups.
(...)
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)for determining whether groups are using tax-exempt image advertising or taxable issue advertising.
The IRS isn't really suited for this purpose, which makes it easy for groups to take advantage of the law.
Remember Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally? Did you think that was a political event? Prohibiting any political signs was an attempt to skirt past the taxable issue advertising condition.
former9thward
(31,806 posts)The IRS has said these were organization applying for status not organizations who already had it. It is a Nixon type of tactic and should not be allowed.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Where will Glenn Beck rally money go?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/27/AR2010082703289.html
Specifically, Beck has joined forces with a small, Tampa-based nonprofit called the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, which he said will benefit from all proceeds of the event. He is encouraging his supporters to donate to the foundation.
The foundation's primary function, according to its Web site, is to provide academic scholarships to the children of special operations soldiers killed in action or training.
~snip~
Beck has said on his television and radio broadcasts that he expects the foundation to receive a "meaningful" contribution after the rally's bills are paid. He has also said the event will serve as a boon to the foundation's fundraising operation by exposing it to many new donors. He said costs of the event will be transparent to the public and reported by the foundation in accordance with IRS rules governing nonprofits.
~snip~
The foundation's sponsorship of the rally helps explain Beck's description of the event as "nonpolitical" and his decision not to include elected officials in the program; IRS regulations prohibit nonprofits from sponsoring political events.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)...goes with not understanding the politics. Who's surprised...???
.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)UTUSN
(70,497 posts)CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)...it tells you what I think of your characterization of Kucinich and for that matter, FauxNews.
You apparently watch that network for 'information' despite the vast amount of evidence that it just doesn't deliver. And yet it is "Kucinich" who is at fault, in your mind? However, in your defense, you are not alone. The thread is rife with the usual anti-progressive voices that still blame Nader and fret about someones 'ego'....
Kucinich has been fighting for democracy longer, I suspect, than you have been alive. Show some respect.
.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Of course, if you say something like "it's obvious who the anti-progressives are" or "they know who they are," you're more or less admitting that that you lack the courage to call them out by name.
UTUSN
(70,497 posts)I gathered about you here. It's always better to know than not to know. Whups.already corrected another typo!1
UTUSN
(70,497 posts)for all stripes of Dems/Progressives/Libs, regardless of who was or wasn't my first preference in primaries, all my eligible life. I really wish that you would marshal your attacking energies toward Wingnuts instead of at members of a Democratic website.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)would certainly get on my nerves, which is why I don't watch it.
That, or any other drama-propaganda fest which passes for radio and tv "news" and talk.
DK? I admit that I haven't been listening to him on FOX. I'll still listen to him if he's speaking in a clean venue. I've really enjoyed hearing him speak in person, and having a couple of one-on-one conversations.
I'm wondering if he might be considering "giving aid and comfort" because he's going to say things that don't reflect well on the Democratic administration. He's typically been a pretty loyal Democrat, but the current administration leaves itself wide-open to criticism from all but the neo-liberal centrists, which DK definitely is NOT.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)With all due respect to his fawning acolytes, this sounds yet another desperate ploy to remain (become) relevant.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)is what those who are willing to sell the issues down the river for the party call those who have enough integrity to put issues before party.
Any publicly known Democrat who doesn't toe the party line, no matter how corrupt that line has become, is going to come under attack. It's always instructive that attackers can't come up with anything of substance, but have to resort to juvenile name-calling.
Kind of like Republicans.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)The main things that bother me about Kucinich are the convenient and opportunistic "evolution" of his views re: reproductive choice and the free pass that he got when he married an attractive woman half his age--a move that would have earned a Republican or other celebrity a ton of DU scorn.
While I'm at it, it also bugs me that he saw a large, triangular UFO at Shirley MacLaine's house, and it doesn't thrill me that his presidential campaigns never seemed serious or ready for primetime.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...although at least they evolved in the right direction.
I don't care who he marries. I have nothing but scorn for someone like Newt Gingrich, not because his wife is half his age, but because he presumes to lecture others on morality while himself having the morals of a tomcat. Do you see the difference?
I don't care that Dennis saw a UFO. A UFO is just that: an unidentified flying object. I've never heard of him making any claim as to what the object was. I have never heard of him claiming, for example, that it was an alien spacecraft. Now if Shirley MacLaine has made such a claim, well big whoop.
Dennis had his first political defeat due to a very progressive move that he made as the mayor of Cleveland. He refused to sell the city's electric utility to private investors. He was ousted in the next mayoral race, largely due to scaremongering by the private interests. Years later the people of Cleveland realized he had done right by them, when their rates continued to be low compared to the rates that people in other cities were paying.
He also cosponsored the Medicare for All in the House -- HR 676 I believe. It's still knocking around Congress but with little hope of passage. That must be his fault.
I remember the first Presidential campaign debate in the 2008 race, when there were 9 candidates on stage. His first question came at 45 minutes in, when he was asked if he believed in God. His answer was the best line of all the debates IMO: "Well I've been standing here for the last 45 minutes, praying that someone would call on me". TPTB made damned sure that his campaign was not "ready for primetime" -- they made damned sure that his voice was not heard on primetime. They didn't want him anywhere near the levers of power. Similar to Howard Dean, who I will readily acknowledge was a far more credible candidate, but not for the reasons you cite. It's just that Dean is much more of a politico who knows how to work within the system, while Dennis is much more of a gadfly. And even so, Dean was too much of a gadfly for TPTB, who destroyed him with the manufactured "Dean Scream" (TM).
I wish we could have a gadfly or two get some real power. But it is true, gadflies may be less good at governing. So there are tradeoffs. But what we have now is always, whoever gets into the Presidency soon becomes such a part of the well-oiled machine of state, that they seem to forget some of the reasons they got there in the first place, and they become reluctant to make much-needed changes, for fear of breaking the machine.
Like Mario Savio during the Free Speech Movement, I believe we need to throw our bodies on the machine and make it stop. It is a destructive machine. The machine may not need to be utterly destroyed -- certainly history shows us that is a very hazardous proposition, and may only give us something worse. But the machine we have needs retooling in a big way, and the party politicians we have right now are not equipped to do it.
In the meantime, poverty grows, the war machine grows, tensions rise and the world continues to heat up, both literally and figuratively. And our politicians continue to present us with two big choices: Awful, or Less Worse.
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)think
(11,641 posts)that someone would call on me"
Wow. Great post and that line speaks volumes.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)coming from someone who still sports that idiotic woodchuck avatar.
[URL=http://www.sherv.net/emoticons.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Again. I hadn't thought about chuckles in quite awhile, until a recent Tom Tomorrow cartoon caused some ignoramus to post about how terrible Tom Tomorrow was, and how glad he'd been to see Chuckles disappear. So I brought him back. Just for that poster.
Ironic? Sure.
It's amazing that a certain contingent on DU hasn't adopted Chuckles as their mascot, seeing as he's created right out of them.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Kucinich swooners.
Sid
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)meet
eridani
(51,907 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)meet
Response to SwampG8r (Reply #166)
Orrex This message was self-deleted by its author.
this was meant as a response to another poster
my apologies
Orrex
(63,086 posts)larkrake
(1,674 posts)think
(11,641 posts)and spending and spending and spending........
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)completely different than being anti-war. Like many Americans, the current president was staunchly against the Iraq war, but never claimed to be anti-war, and was elected TWICE.
think
(11,641 posts)The antiwar groups have always been just a plank but were still under the tent or so I thought. And from my limited perspective the Dems use to represent the doves better and most antiwar proponents have usually sided with the Dems because of this.
But currently when it comes to spending and the expansion of powers for the military the two parties aren't that far apart. The drone strikes are very discouraging also.
So as one who believes "War is a Racket"; as Retired US Major General Smedley Butler so profoundly coined it; I find now days that it's getting much harder to justify the Democratic positions on the issues of war & peace.
Our military & security budget is INSANE and unsustainable.
More guns less butter....
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)happen.
think
(11,641 posts)Even if the wars and the spending are totally corrupt we will keep marching to the beat of the war drums.
Hell we'll keep on spending on wars and the military even after there's nothing left to spend. Because that's American way...
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)either. It's a precarious situation, but it's real. No POTUS wants to have to answer the question, "how was this allowed to happen on your watch"?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)But I'd damn sure believe what DK has to say before much of anything coming from any Turd Way Centrist capitulator, every time.
Kucinich stands heads and shoulders above anyone in the current administration when it comes to integrity.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)He's "dancing with the ones who brung him"
Remove Fox from your tv listing/remotes
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Now Dennis, and he is entitled to, why not, sold out and is working for fox.
he is a fox tool and like nader a republican stooge, making money off the enemy
reminds me of Bush's dad in ww2 though not as largesummed.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Sad that he's doing it in 8th circle of hell.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)think
(11,641 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Like someone we know who does?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)Fascists, Republicans, DLC, Blue Dogs, New Dems, Third Way, conservadems, corporatists, neopliberals, teabaggers, and almost all other conservative groups and individuals seem to universally hate him.
Which is actually a very great honor, from my POV.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)That's the only reason he's on Fox News, and every honest person here knows it, whether they want to publicly admit it or not. For a real world view of Kooch's effectiveness as a legislator, I think it's important to have some perspective. Dennis is obviously celebrated much more for his rhetoric, than his record. This is a great synopsis:
"Just look at this section from the biography on his congressional Web site:
In Congress, Kucinich has authored and co-sponsored legislation to create a national health care system, preserve Social Security, lower the costs of prescription drugs, provide economic development through infrastructure improvements, abolish the death penalty, provide universal prekindergarten to all 3, 4, and 5 year olds, create a Department of Peace, regulate genetically engineered foods, repeal the USA PATRIOT Act, and provide tax relief to working class families.
Notice that the bio never says whether any of that legislation actually passed. In fact, according to the Web site GovTrack, of the 97 bills Kucinich has sponsored since taking office in 1997, only three have become law. Ninety-three didnt even make it out of committee.
The three that were enacted are, in chronological order from first to last: (1) A bill to make available to the Ukranian Museum and Archives the USIA television program Window on America, (2) a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14500 Lorain Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio as the John P. Gallagher Post Office Building (3) and a bill proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of the United States posthumously.
http://www.salon.com/2010/03/10/kos_kucinich/
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Of course, Kucinich was a congressional outlier. I would expect his percentage is even lower than usual. But it is important that bills get introduced even if they don't pass. That's how you start balls rolling. Kucinich won't, for example, be around to vote to legalize marijuana when that happens one of these years, but he helped start that ball rolling.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Let's see. If Kucinich can't get a bill passed, then he's a joke to you. If Obama can't get a bill passed...it's not his fault it's the Republicans. Hmmm.
How many of those 97 bills of Kucinich's were you against, by the way? How many did you disagree with, or did you think any of them should have been passed? Surely some of them were good and liberal ideas that were blocked because they were too disruptive to the norm?
I just think it's awfully convenient to condemn one man based purely on a pass percentage when you make excuses for another man when he fails in the same arena.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)There's a list around here somewhere that shows the president's accomplishments, but you guys poo-poo it. His rhetoric has matched his deeds far more than Kooch, especially the first two years when the House was lead by Nancy Pelosi.
And right back at you, it's ironic that you guys can acknowledge Kooch's difficulties in getting his vision through a resistant Congress, but Obama doesn't get the same slack, cuz Kooch "says all the right things".
Imagine my shock & awe when I read: "The Ron Paul Institute advisory board includes Dennis Kucinich". Obama can't even have dinner with a Republican without DU's purity brigade going apeshit. Kooch is a fucking attention seeking charlatan. Oh, and did I mention he also claims to have seen a UFO, along with Shirley McClaine? Much like Michelle Bachmann, I think he's batshit crazy, so he'll fit right in at Fox.
ecstatic
(32,567 posts)I saw him give a speech and I really liked him. He became my first choice for dem. nominee. But the more I learned about him, the more I realized that he was completely ineffective when it came to arguing his points in debates and interviews. At first I thought he was an idealist, but then I learned things that lead me to believe he was mostly disingenuous. He spent most of his time running for president, but the final straw for me was when he said Ron Paul would be his first choice VP. Huh? How does that advance progressive values? It's no wonder his district kicked him out and Washington preemptively said no thanks.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)fooled me. Call it intuition. Even when I agreed with him, he made my skin crawl, and now that he's gone over to the dark side, I say good riddance, he doesn't have to pretend anymore.
ecstatic
(32,567 posts)Gin
(7,212 posts)Money talks!
Orrex
(63,086 posts)He's a principled bulwark against the crashing tides of corruption.
If he's pitching the company line on Fox News, it must be because he's fighting some higher-level battle that you and I can't comprehend.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Three-dimensional chess?
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,846 posts)You're buying what corporate media is selling. MSNBC and FOX are both part of the problem, so are their viewers.
egduj
(805 posts)All is where it should be, I suppose.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)nt
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)parlaying it into a Murdoch gig is kinda skeevy.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)he goes kooky and loses me. He has certainly lost me on those comments.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)unlike GG who is a libertarian , however, DK has a habit of letting his ego get in his way, where he will rattle off on Tv and give people fodder for use. However, there is no reason for him to get a paycheck from Fox. If he thinks Fox will not use him to maximum effect, he is an idiot.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)would imply there was a shark to be jumped. He's always been 'off'.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)DK, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell.
Amazing.
Sid
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)What an asshat he's turned out to be.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I love this thread.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)Wow.
The thing is, I knew about Kooch's dismal rate of success as a legislator and learned about his racist tom-fuckery as the mayor of Cleveland. I also knew about the UFO foolishness too.
But as bad of all of that is, Kucinich's behavior has NEVER troubled me half as much as that of his rabid supporters. But after reading that spectacular post from you from five years ago, I'm guessing you know all about them already.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Nope, don't like him. Never did.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Here's another quiver in your bow re: your dislike of Kooch and the Krazy Kooch Kronies http://www.cleveland.com/kucinich/plaindealer/index.ssf?/kucinich/more/104747092810861.html
So in addition to being in favor of restricting women's rights, he apparently has no qualms about playing(?) a racist in order to win votes. It sounds as though your instincts were right on the mark when it came to the guy.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)Give the guy a break...
Making some bank, getting to sit next to Hannity while having makeup done---
He's big time!
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)It's been a long time since I laughed so hard!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)watch, and you are. You are the desired goal, a viewer, you add to their numbers and thus to the income stream which sustains FoxNews. Dennis takes from their money, you add to their money.
I'm sure many other loyal FoxNews ardents don't care for him either, so you are in good company when you sit around the electronic campfire with those you by choice gather with.
It is just very odd to whine that a product you purchase and use is not as enjoyable to you due to the presence of an anti war liberal.
Did you also support the Iraq invasion, most of the FoxNews audience sure did.
I don't watch FoxNews. You do. As a loyal consumer of their product, you should write to them with your concerns. They listen to those who support them, and that is you, the viewer.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Twisted FAIL x 2.
What? You don't support his efforts in representing a progressive POV on Faux?
I would think you would be more supportive of such a bold, courageous move and watch the show.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)is their audience, that which they profit from, not me. I don't give a shit what's on FoxNews, as I don't watch it. The OP does. If everyone was like me, no FoxNews exists. If everyone was like the OP, FoxNews would be top of the charts. Who supports FoxNews and thus everyone working there, DK included? The OP. Who would not notice if they all vanished from the air? Me.
So I don't give a fuck what some snarky stranger 'would think I would be'. Particularly those whose contribution to the discussion is a bunch of personal poo flinging without any content about the post I made. You write one up and argue with yourself.
FoxNews is like a store, by going there you endorse it, no matter how much you might mutter criticism of it, by showing up you are giving your custom where it should not be given. It is a vote of agreement.
The rest of this conversation is bullshit. Stop watching FoxNews. Deprive Dennis his paycheck, please, asap. Organize against FoxNews. But at the very least, stop watching it and stop promoting it in public. Who told me he was on FoxNews? DUers Who were 'upset' but had watched and duly reported the fact on the internet. They should not do that.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I took issue with the disingenuous twisting, and noticed that you EXPANDED on the first silly attempt upthread.
Trying to portray the OP as a regular Fox viewer was extremely weak. That you take issue with a misrepresentation of your views from a snarky stranger only adds to the ironic value of your comments.
If you don't like personal presumptions, then don't make them about others. It's really that simple.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)UTUSN
(70,497 posts)First of all, generally I find almost all of the posts of yours I remember as very compatible with mine, and I've probably Recced yours a few times. But this is about the second time that you have set your lasers on me, and I really think you do it impersonally, that is, not really identifying me as a poster with a DU handle you know, just because apparently I sometimes step on one of your pet peeves. I think I remember after the last time, when I commented supportively to one of your posts you responded positively, but here we are again.
I don't expect you to be familiar with enough of my posted stuff for you to have an actual profile of my personal niche in the Democratic coalition universe, and I'm not going to get into that now because the things you've aimed at me here have been broad-brush and have little to do with me anyway, more like pet theories of yours that I've managed to step on.
Some things I've posted repeatedly at DU, which I don't expect anybody to follow individually, are: Blah-blah, opposition research, blah-blah, keep your friends close your enemies closer, blah-blah, I prefer to know than not to know, blah-blah, no blinders no head in the sand, blah-etcetera-blah.
And one of the oldest, tiredest memes for the entire life of DU has been: "You're helping their ratings/numbers/income." I used to answer that with "I'm not a NIELSEN or Arbitron household," although in later years some updated Know-it-alls said that the cable outlets have other ways of tracking their use. Usually, the implicit message in that old meme was to stop one step short of calling a fellow DUer a Wingnut.
I'll skip the boring topic of my viewing habits and all the activist, outraged e-mails I've sent various wingnuts over the years, and get to the more pertinent disagreement in this thread, which is the Lefter-Than-Thou crowd vs Anybody-Else (on the Dem side, which to me is the SAME side). In case it isn't clear, I'm purposely labeling my beloved idealistic, purist Lefts as Holier-Than-Thou(s), of whom you my dear Bluenorthwest apparently are one. You seem to save your most vociferous ire for those of us who are just as stalwart on the same side as you but who don't breathe your same ideologically driven fire. I save my ire for Wingnuts and their enablers.
The blind allegations that because I monitor (actually a very small sliver) of the Faux Propaganda Network (my coinage) I must be somebody who supported the Iraq Attack (my coinage) is a total mental construct, totally without reference to me, in your mind, just a broad brush pop-up in your mind.
I look forward to our next make-up session. Toodle-oo for now.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)and what they have said in the past
i think i will stick with dennis
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Kucinich pushed the party RIGHT, not left.
They could always count on him to vote AGAINST Democratic bills. On principle. That must have been awesome for him. But the thing is, if Kucinich could be counted on to vote no, the Democratic leadership had to get the vote elsewhere. Like towards the votes on the bubble from Blue Dogs. They end up either changing the bills to appeal to them or cutting a deal on another legislative priority (or simply putting in an earmark) to get that other vote.
If Kucinich had voted with the leadership to begin with, some of that that wouldn't have been necessary.
FOX and Ron Paul on, little buddy. We have shit to do.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The fact he said it on Fox I understand how that can bother you but he was right that the IRS did a bad thing.