Breakdown of the candidates on the main issues

[ErasureAcer]

http://www.vermontindymedia.org/newswire/display/1422/index.p

Got this from a Minnesota For Kucinich member, Eric Forst.

Now who is the real soul of the democratic wing of the democratic party?

KUCINICH!
www.kucinich.us

[genius]

1. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Great chart.

I am going to copy this and distribute it widely. The other candidates don't even come close to Dennis on the issues. This is awesome.

[ErasureAcer]

2. don't thank me, thank Eric Forst!

www.kucinich.us

[poskonig]

3. Kucinich is the most liberal candidate?

Thanks for pointing this out! We didn't know! :evilgrin:

[ErasureAcer]

4. Not only most liberal, but most humane as well

www.kucinich.us

Save the future from the American Empire.

Luke, Han Solo and Chewbacca are in a galaxy far far away...we need to fill their shoes!

[Desertrose]

5. taking this to the Dem meeting in Flag tomorrow

thanks Erasure Acer!!!

You really can't DO any better than Dennis!!

Peace
DR

[diamondsoul]

6. Eric is a great guy!

I love that table, and plan to print out a ton of them to distribute when we table events.

[Mairead]

7. Note, too, *which* indymedia posted it :-)

Coincidence? I think not. :evilgrin:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Five candidates with zero checkmarks.

Kerry, Graham, Edwards, Lieberman and Bush. Interesting.

[Northwind]

9. I was unaware

That the Democratic Party had become the party of authoritarian extremist ideologues. Kucinich is nothing more than the other side of the Bush coin.

[ErasureAcer]

10. and since bush is evil...that would make Kucinich a saint.

duh.

www.kucinich.us

[Northwind]

11. I guess you do not really understand

The idea of "different side of the same coin."

Kucinich would be just as bad for this country as Bush. His attitudes about governance are the same, you just cannot see it because he says what you want to hear. Bush wants to ignore the large portion of America that does not support his extremist agenda. Kucinich wants to ignore the large portion of America that does not support HIS extremists agenda.

I would vote for four more years of Bush before I would vote for Kucinich, better the devil you know.

[ErasureAcer]

12. I can believe you'd support bush...

you come up with just as bad "sayings" as he does.

Is that one from texas or tennessee?

[diamondsoul]

14. That's pretty sick.

"The idea of "different side of the same coin."

Kucinich would be just as bad for this country as Bush. His attitudes about governance are the same, you just cannot see it because he says what you want to hear. Bush wants to ignore the large portion of America that does not support his extremist agenda. Kucinich wants to ignore the large portion of America that does not support HIS extremists agenda."

No he doesn't. He wants to FIND the portion of America that DOES support his ideas, and believe it or not that's most of us. We're all just effing paranoid. I men let's be real here, we couldn't possibly find a polititcian who cares abut the little people, right? It has to be some sort of propaganda or BS just to get our votes. Only in this case it doesn't, and it isn't.

Extreme? Was Thomas Jefferson extreme? Was George Washington extreme? How about Thom Paine?

Dennis Kucinich believes in all the things those men did, and those men built a country on those beliefs. Were those men perfect somehow? No. Is Kucinich perfect? No. Were those men the best ones to lead the USA to becoming a sovreign nation? Obviously yes. Is Kucinich the best man to lead the USA out of this notion that war and violence are inevitable? Obviously yes.

You claim not to be a single voter issue, but so far I've only seen you bring up two points against Kucinich. Extremism and his change from PL to PC.

What else have you got, because those aren't going to alter my thinking. A man who puts peace above war and has the ideas to make that a common thread in our society has my vote. Counter that if you can.

>>I would vote for four more years of Bush before I would vote for Kucinich, better the devil you know.<<

Pathetic. Vote for a warmonger from hell over a peaceloving caring humanitarian. Why does that sound totally twisted to me?

[Northwind]

17. This is twice you have

Claimed I made a big deal about Kucinich and the PL vs PC thing. which I never did. You are mistaking me for someone else. If you want my opinion, I think Kucinich's change on that issue is more of a result of pressure from the party. That is a hot-button issue and I think the party demands compliance on it if you want to run on the party ticket.

"Extremism" is not an issue. It is an overall attitude that defines your approach to the issues.

Tom Paine WAS an extremist for his time, Thomas jefferson less so, and George Washington not at all.

[diamondsoul]

39. My apologies if you are not the person I'm thinking of.

You said-"Extremism" is not an issue. It is an overall attitude that defines your approach to the issues.

Can you clarify this for me, because I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Also, defining anyone as an extremist pretty well depends on your perception of them, doesn't it?

[clar]

24. uhh, I was about to say you had a valid point

but yikes! I'd vote for Dennis in a heartbeat before ever contemplating voting for Bush.

Having said that, Dennis doesn't particularly speak to me. Don't know exactly why. Yes, I've heard him in a real live forum. He's OK. But when he says stuff like he's just going to repeal NAFTA, he loses me. He knows that's not an Executive decision. He can't do it. So why the heck does he authoritatively state he will. And OK, he did an about face on abortion. I don't particularly hold that against him. He's a politician. He's been one his entire life. Politicians do politically motivated stuff.

I do agree that the far left wingers have a lot in common with the far right wingers. The territory they seem to share is a rigid absotlutism and difficulty in handling what I call the theory of apparent paradox: Two or more seemingly irreconcilable truths or facts that co-exist within the same time and space.

I keep coming back to lines from Yeats.

The worst are full of passionate intensity and
the best lack all conviction.

Being absolutly, unshakeably sure of things is all too often a dangerous mindset.

Still, you seriously undermined your argument here.

If I haven't pissed everyone off enough, let me add that consider Vermont Indymedia about as credible as Rush Limbaugh. Axes and all that.

[Mairead]

25. 'Repeal NAFTA'

But when he says stuff like he's just going to repeal NAFTA, he loses me. He knows that's not an Executive decision. He can't do it. So why the heck does he authoritatively state he will.

Because there's a get-out clause that he could invoke. Six months' notice and poof, we're out.

Same with the WTO.

[clar]

27. Mairead,

Can he do that unilaterally, bypassing Congress. I want to state here that I have some serious research to do on NAFTA. By the way, did you read the Lessig blog when Dennis was on? Lots of intelligent pros and cons re revoking it.

[Mairead]

32. Yes, he can

Coincidentally, given EA's response here, I have this:

President Bush has signaled his intent to withdraw from the treaty between the United States and Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) limiting anti-ballistic missile defense systems, commonly known as the ABM Treaty. This raises an important constitutional issue as to whether the President may terminate a treaty on his own authority, or whether he must seek the approval of Congress (or, perhaps, of the Senate). Although that may appear a close question upon first consideration, a careful reading of the Constitution reveals a clear answer: the President’s constitutional power in foreign affairs includes the power to terminate treaties. (Michael D. Ramsey, Professor of Law, University of San Diego Law School. Professor Ramsey teaches Constitutional Law and Foreign Affairs Law. Emphasis added.)

More: http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/White%20Papers/ABM.htm

So yes, Presidents propose treaties, the Senate ratifies them (or doesn't) and then the Prez has the power to enforce them, including the power to invoke their termination provisions. If they have no termination provision, that might be a different issue, but in the case of both the WTO and NAFTA, they do have.

[ErasureAcer]

30. yup

you have it down correct...there is a clause where the USA can get out. Just like Bushie did with the ABM treaty.

[AnAmerican]

36. Congrats northwind...you are my second "ignore"

If you think DK would govern like the shrub you must be toking some really good stuff.

Your post is laughable. C'YA

[Ishkaboogl]

13. seriously, that chart is bullshit

first of all, it takes kucinich's proposals and then asks EVERYONE if they support kucinich's proposals. so of course kucinich will get every one of them. not only that, of course no other candidate will have solution just like him, but that doesn't mean that they're not as committed to solving the problems as he is. as this chart is tailored to his strengths, of course there is no question about a lifetime rating from planned parenthood. because that doesn't matter, right? And it asks about single payer health insurance, but that's only one way to get everyone covered. there's a pretty big debate going on right now on the best and cheapest way to get everyone covered. but most of the candidates pledged to pursue the goal of coverage for nearly everyone. why doesn't the chart ask that?

second, its biased towards kucinich in its answers. peace activist? wasn't kerry a peace activist? didn't graham say that we shouldn't attack iraq, but instead the terrorist organizations that attacked us, much like our invasion of afghanistan (which of course kucinich supported). And how about "promotes nuclear disarmament"? does that mean that the other candidates promote more nuclear armament? that's bullshit - none of these candidates are gonna do what bush is doing, which is expanding our nuclear armaments.

third, candidates will have some plans that they will not mention in the election. why? because for the most part, the public isn't as concerned with them. does the public care about nuclear disarmament now? not really. they're pretty much still scared shitless over terrorism - nukes are far from their mind, at least right now. talking about things that the public cares about is normal and good politics, but because kucinich isn't running a prgmatic campaign, but rather one of ideology and extreme principle, he doesn't have to worry about many of the political concerns that others have. in his position, the more left he goes, the better. in the top six candidates' position, they can neither go to far left or too far right. therefore that's why clinton didn't really talk up his specific plan until after he was elected. this means that the other candidates could have more left-leaning plans that they opt not to mention over concern that it could be used against them in the general.

[ErasureAcer]

15. the truth hurts doesn't it?

Kucinich is the best on the issues.

many KEY issues were in there...social security age. nafta/wto. death penalty. gay marriage. pentagon spending and so forth.

this is an honest breakdown of these people's positions.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. ****

***
:hi:

[ErasureAcer]

21. because you say it won't...it won't.

yeah, who died and named you god, all knowledgable one?

Get real man. Kucinich supporters will spread the word day and night...he may or may not win...but if he goes down...at least it will be fighting for equality, justice, peace and the future well being of america.

[IndianaGreen]

37. Honestly, Kucinich has shifted on abortion

He has gone from being the darling of the Right-to-Life movement to becoming the poster boy from NARAL in 2 short years.

Will the real Kucinich please stand up!

[diamondsoul]

40. He's already standing, IG.

6 months he had to consider his position on abortion between votes. He considered, examined information from various sources and changed his approach to a delicate issue. So he has an open mind, is this a horrible thing?

[diamondsoul]

20. OMG are you kidding me?

"first of all, it takes kucinich's proposals and then asks EVERYONE if they support kucinich's proposals. so of course kucinich will get every one of them. not only that, of course no other candidate will have solution just like him, but that doesn't mean that they're not as committed to solving the problems as he is. as this chart is tailored to his strengths, of course there is no question about a lifetime rating from planned parenthood. because that doesn't matter, right? And it asks about single payer health insurance, but that's only one way to get everyone covered. there's a pretty big debate going on right now on the best and cheapest way to get everyone covered. but most of the candidates pledged to pursue the goal of coverage for nearly everyone. why doesn't the chart ask that?"

Show me how any other candidate has a plan to cover EVERY SINGLE uninsured American. Go ahead, I promise I'll take it seriously since this is a pet issue of mine.

Lifetime rating from PP, no it doesn't matter now because Kucinich has examined and revised his political stance on family planning. I don't expect everyone to take him at face value, but I challenge you to find me a single instance where he's said one thing and done another, clearly lied, or outright misled people deliberately. Show me the evidence, and I'll rethink my support. To date nobody has been able to do any of those things without twisting the facts or lying themselves.

"second, its biased towards kucinich in its answers. peace activist? wasn't kerry a peace activist? didn't graham say that we shouldn't attack iraq, but instead the terrorist organizations that attacked us, much like our invasion of afghanistan (which of course kucinich supported). And how about "promotes nuclear disarmament"? does that mean that the other candidates promote more nuclear armament? that's bullshit - none of these candidates are gonna do what bush is doing, which is expanding our nuclear armaments."

There were four possible postions- 1) Don't attack at all, the evidence doesn't support use of force. 2) Don't attack with qualifications, and 3)Attack with qualifications 4) Attack, period, qualifications are meaningless.

Of the four positions, there were three represented in Congress by current candidates. Kucinich was the only one who said 1 and said it repeatedly. The others said 3 and 4. Oh, ok, I should just accept the idea of my spouse, children and other family members being sent to fight an unjust war, eh? Sorry, I don't play the "With us or against us" game. See it's me and my loved ones who DIE in that lousy, ugly and biased gaem so I don't play it.

"third, candidates will have some plans that they will not mention in the election. why? because for the most part, the public isn't as concerned with them. does the public care about nuclear disarmament now? not really. they're pretty much still scared shitless over terrorism - nukes are far from their mind, at least right now. talking about things that the public cares about is normal and good politics, but because kucinich isn't running a prgmatic campaign, but rather one of ideology and extreme principle, he doesn't have to worry about many of the political concerns that others have. in his position, the more left he goes, the better. in the top six candidates' position, they can neither go to far left or too far right. therefore that's why clinton didn't really talk up his specific plan until after he was elected. this means that the other candidates could have more left-leaning plans that they opt not to mention over concern that it could be used against them in the general."

EXCUSE ME! I AM "the Public", and you'd best believe I'm concerned with nuclear development! Scared shitless over terrorism? Give me one sane reason why I should be? Because it finally hit home turf? Oh whoopdie effing doo, like that was a surprise to anyone. Was I shocked as hell? You better believe it! Did I spend weeks dealing with the shock? Absolutely, hell I still have my flashbacks to that day, BUT...for me it's "that day" for thousands of others it's "Those days". Big difference. I count myself and the rest of the USA as lucky we haven't had it a lot worse. I resent you and every other American who wants to pretend we're all that matters.

Left-leaning plans....well hell pal, left leaning plans don't include pissing off the people who already hate us enough to want us dead, now do they?!

AAAARGH! Shutting up now before staff has a reason to whup me into submission. Suffice it to say I'm disgusted.

[blm]

16. I love Dennis, but this isn't exactly accurate.

Kerry is against the death penalty in the US criminal justice system.

Kerry has always advocated for minimum wage to be indexed to the cost of living so it would be a true living wage, and taken out of the political arena.

Kerry wants to end the star wars program, and the manufacturing of mini-nukes. Those are defense cuts.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. Play along.

It's kind of like an anti-Dean thread. Ain't it fun?

[diamondsoul]

22. Do you happen to have a link/links

to show this? Honest curiosity here. The last time I tried to hit Kerry's site something went whacko on my computer and I kept getting a black screen.

[ErasureAcer]

23. so if a candidate promised to cut one less missile a year....that would...

be a cut?

come on now, you're reaching on that one. Kucinich is the only one asking for budget cuts on the whole...money that can be returned to us americans or invested in something else(education, please). Not only is Kucinich going to cut the pentagon on the whole...he is cutting it 15%...by doing this he will be showing his support to ending the American empire on the world.

Kerry has "advocated" for a livable wage? Do you have some bills he authored or co-authored or even voted on supporting such a "livable wage" claim. What about his website...what does he say about it now on his website. If he always advocated for it...you think it would be a key part of his campaign, no?

Death penalty...links please...preferably from his campaign website where he says he will ABOLISH the death penalty. Not just "tinker" and "look at" the issue like Howard Dean says.

[Mairead]

26. Kerry on one 'living wage' action -- AP story from May '01

http://hcs.harvard.edu/~pslm/livingwage/05_06_ap.html

Sen. John Kerry dropped by a student protest at Harvard University Sunday to lend support to a three-week-old occupation of school administrative offices.

The protesters, who have refused to leave Massachusetts Hall since April 18, want the university to pay all its employees a "living wage" of at least $10.25 an hour, the same minimum wage paid by the city of Cambridge.

"I just came by this evening to personally chat with the folks who are here and lend them encouragement," the Massachusetts Democrat told the Associated Press. "I feel they've made an important statement about people's right to earn a wage that allows them to live adequately."

[ErasureAcer]

31. and he hasn't spoken of this since 01 because?

...

I guess he doesn't find it that important after all.

[blm]

28. Kerry has been against the death penalty his entire career.

Even before he ever ran for office. Even as a prosecutor. If you don't know that then you don't know Kerry. Read the Meet the Press interview where Russert tries to make his death penalty stance sound like a weakness.

YOU passed off that chart as accurate, and it obviously did not include Kerry's statements against star wars and mini-nukes. Both of which he has stated he will end entirely. Where do you get the info that he wants to cut ONE missile a year?

Methinks you don't know Kerry much at all. He is the candidate with the closest liberal rating to Wellstone. I find it easy to support both Kucinich and Kerry because they are the two most liberal candidates in the field who have over 30 years in the public eye that backs them up.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/workers_position.html

Supporting America’s Workers

“I think it’s time we had a President who will provide the only real economic security: good jobs. A President who will provide middle class payroll tax relief to get money in the pockets of workers who will spend it, not more tax giveaways for those at the top to stimulate the economy in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. A President who will index the minimum wage to inflation and raise it from a 30 year low, not increase the tax burden on the middle class and those struggling to join it.”
-- John Kerry, March 27, 2003

John Kerry has a 90 percent AFL-CIO voting record over an 18-year Senate career. He has fought to raise the minimum wage, cosponsored bills to outlaw striker replacement and provide workers with Family and Medical Leave to spend time with a new child or care for a family member.  He has helped beat back Republican efforts to gut OSHA, weaken worker safety rules and cut funds from worker training and employment programs.  And he has fought for workers’ right to organize in his home state of Massachusetts, including SEIU workers in Boston, and UFCW and CWA workers throughout the state.  He’s also supporting UAW organizers seeking to organize in Worcester.

Here’s what John Kerry has done and will do for working families:
Raise the Minimum Wage: The minimum wage has fallen further and further behind the cost of living. The buying power of the current minimum wage is 19 percent below the 1979 level in inflation-adjusted terms. John Kerry helped lead the fight to pass the last minimum wage increase in 1997 and is a strong supporter of legislation to increase the minimum wage and index it to inflation. 
>>>>>


http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/122702/122702q.htm
>>>>>>
As the Millennial Housing Commission, appointed by Congress two years ago, has now reported, that goal was never reached. Its report has, however, stimulated a new effort, a bill now before Congress, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund, sponsored in the Senate by John Kerry, D-Mass., and in the House by Barbara Lee, D-Calif., John McHugh, R-N.Y., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

The measure, which has 28 cosponsors in the Senate and 196 in the House, would create a permanent source of funding over the next decade for the construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of a million and a half rental units for the lowest income households.

The House leadership does not want a vote on this bill. It would be embarrassing for members to go on the public record as opposed to transferring a few million dollars from the bloated Pentagon budget to citizens who shudder on sidewalks on these freezing winter nights. Let us embarrass them in another way. Call your senators and House member and urge them to give this proposal the priority it deserves.

National Catholic Reporter, December 27, 2002

[George_Bonanza]

29. Ay-men, blm

[ErasureAcer]

33. funny, he sure penalized the US soldiers sent off to Iraq...

and their deaths.

And what evidence was this based on? For a man who doesn't like to see people die...he is partly responsible for killing nearly 300 american soldiers, wounding thousands more...and the slaughter of thousands of Iraqis, mostly civilians.

yeah...this guy should be against the penalty...he helped support the killing of plenty of people already...being for the death penalty too, would just be over the edge.

Maybe next time Kerry won't hand over his constitutional duty to declare war over to the president.

If he cared so much about human life...he would have actually demanded some evidence. Eh.

[blm]

34. Bait and switch? You can't admit that you were wrong?

The truth is that you don't know anything about John Kerry. I have known Dennis Kucinich for over 30 years, and I doubt that he would spew any nastiness Kerry's way. In fact, they both know what it is like to be targeted and vilified by the powers that be trying to shut them down and ruin their careers.

[George_Bonanza]

35. Kerry opposed Gulf War I, which led to

Approximately similar amount of American casualties, massacres of anti-Hussein uprisers, depleted uranium sickness among returning veterans, and played a major part in the anti-American sentiment that led to September 11th, because American troops began stationing in the Middle East.

So if you want to put the blood of Americans unfairly on Kerry's hands, look at him closer. Not to mention that the IWR prevented Bush from going into the Iran and Syria, which would've led to more deaths of civilians and Americans.

[JohnKleeb]

42. Kerry is pretty good

I do like him, another one I like is Gephardt, I do like Dean but must admit there are some things I dont like.

[genius]

38. The poll appears to be very accurate.

While Kerry's position on the death penalty is significantly better than Dean's, I watched Kerry say in an interview last year than he would support the death penalty for terrorists. The trouble is that anyone could be classified as a terrorist. If he has backed down on this position, I would be interested in knowing about it. The trouble with the minimum wage is that it is not in fact a living wage and the idea is to switch from a minimum wage to a living wage. Mini-nukes are a future thing that would represent an increase. If Kerry is coming out with more liberal positions, please post them. Kerry got a bad rap because of a few bad votes. His position on the war was not that different than Dean's - both supported a war with U.N. backing but becasue Dean was not in Congress, he came across looking a little better. Kerry's current policy with respect to Iraq and the Middle East is significantly better than Dean's.

[JohnKleeb]

41. a plus for Kerry

then