Kucinich- he's just bad on choice!

[MiserableFailure]

To my knowledge, Kucinich is the only candidate for the Democrats who has flip flopped on abortion. Just in time for the 2004 primaries, conveniently. Plenty of quotes and votes and articles from the past prove his flip flop.


He has a 100% score from NARAL now, but he hasn't always. A few years ago, his Planned Parenthood rating was only 10%, by far the lowest of any candidate with a record.

It's pretty pathetic that Republicans on here are chastised for wanting to make women slaves to the fetuses, etc, but when Kucinich voted that way for years, he gets a pass.

He was wrong on this issue for a long time.

Want a quote?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0223-05.htm

"Kucinich, who is Catholic and represents a working class and heavily Catholic section of Cleveland, voted repeatedly to bar poor women from using Medicaid to pay for abortions, to limit federal dollars in paying for overseas abortions and to ban a procedure labelled by opponents as "partial-birth abortions."

"He was solid," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director at the National Right to Life Committee, which consistently gave Kucinich ratings above 90 percent. "

Always good when you're being praised by nuts like the NRLC. It is also awesome that he voted REPEATEDLY to bar poor women from using Medicaid to pay for abortions. And he's for the poor, huh?

So Kucinich can bash opponents all he wants, but a look at his record shows that he's just as hypocritical and just as much of a flip flopper as he claims some other candidates are.

He was wrong for a long time in Congress. Also important to mention that he voted to prohibit desecration of the American flag(flag-burning pill)

Now rabid supporters of the little guy will try to explain away his blatantly anti choice record by saying that he has gone on some journey, perhaps with Grandfather Twilight, and come to the realization that abortion is a woman's choice. That's nice bud, but you were still wrong for a long time, and there are a lot of candidates who have supported women's rights for their entire political careers, and not just when it became politically convenient.

I don't believe Kucinich for a second when he says that he changed his mind because of careful thought and from conversations with people. You've seen what arguing with either pro-choicers or anti-choicers does. People don't change their mind, they don't move- unless it's politically advantageous to do so, like if they're running for president. Dennis Kucinich is basically no different from Mitt Romney on this issue when it comes to their duplicity.

[Mika]

1. Stop living in the past. It is now that counts.

:kick:

[question everything]

60. This should also hold true for Clinton's Iraq vote, right? (nt)

[scarletwoman]

2. Well done! Excellent example of a "concern troll" post!

And what lovely fun to re-fight the 2004 presidential race! Can't get any better than THAT!

[orleans]

29. (lol) n/t

[TwilightZone]

3. No one ever changes their minds? That's a new one.

There are people who don't ever change. They're usually called Republicans.

[melody]

4. As I always say, when you find an all-knowing, perfect candidate, let the rest of us know

Meanwhile, we must choose from mere human beings.

[MiserableFailure]

5. I think the only reason the major candidates don't point this out

is because they know that Dennis is just a gnat and becoming increasingly irrelevant. At least Gravel's comments are entertaining and humorous. Can't say the same for Dennis's

I really wish we could restrict the debates to the top 3 candidates and Gore if he comes in. Have separate debates for those 3 in addition to the ones where everyone is invited. I'm glad that CNN and MSNBC etc are already giving more time to the majors during the debates, but more needs to be done.

[alstephenson]

8. Why???

So if you consider a candidate "irrelevant" they should be excluded from the debates? Maybe someone else might consider that candidate VERY relevant. Just WHO should make these determinations? Ultimately isn't it the voters? WTF???

[MiserableFailure]

12. Like someone else said,

there are at least two dozen other Democratic candidates for president. Why are Kucinich and Gravel included when people like LaMagna are left out? I guess they should be let in as well and each candidate can have only 4 minutes to speak over the course of 90 minutes.

[bamacrat]

9. We dont need the MSM to have even more power over who becomes president.

If the debates were limited to the top 3 we would start to see a pissing contest instead of debate. Albeit there isnt a whole lot of debate going on anyway.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. but why are most here content

to see them limited to the top 8?

There are dozens of Democratic candidates.

[orleans]

30. dozens? is there a list somewhere? n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

32. yes

http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_search.php?type=alpha&sort=partyname

[orleans]

35. thank you. n/t

[bamacrat]

68. Really? Well I guess if you count all people who would want to.

Have more people declared their candidacy? I think there needs to be a more concerted effort to help America get familiar with the bottom four. (Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, and Gravel)

[madmom]

10. DK is quite relevant even if only for bringing up issues that others won't touch!n/t

[Donnachaidh]

17. Spare us the entertaining and humorous candidates.

Oh gee - Kucinich changed his mind -- STONE him, will ya?

Gravel, while bringing up the occasional point, is USELESS. As to restricting the debates - let's start with the humorous and entertaining ones, shall we?

[MiserableFailure]

19. At least Gravel is consistent

nt

[provis99]

6. hmm. "Miserable Failure" . Is that a reference to the DLC?

this article sounds like the typical Clintonista/DLC plant story. Please go away, DLC trolls.

[MiserableFailure]

7. what a ridiculous statement,

Dick Gephardt is the one who originally coined the term, and he was referring to Bush.

[scarletwoman]

15. You mean Dick "Rose Garden" Gephart? I notice HE became quite "irrelevent".

You apparently don't like Kucinich. So what. Don't vote for him in the Primary.

But I do not see how advocating for limiting public debate is useful for democracy.

[MiserableFailure]

16. Well Dick Gephardt ran last time

And had way more support than Kucinich ever did. Kucinich is running again, but it's clear he's not in it to win. Everyone with a brain knows this. I wonder if Dennis might be delusional though. He says stuff like, "when I am elected president, my first action will be to....." He can't seriously think that he has a shot at the nomination.

[scarletwoman]

25. "Everyone with a brain..." Right. I'll leave you to talk to them.

[orleans]

34. some people around here like kucinich. and don't they ALL use

the "delusional" expression of "when i am elected president"?

[dmallind]

21. What does that D stand for again?

Go away Green party trolls...or change the site to "far left underground".

BTW I don't give a rat's ass what DK used to think about abortion either.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. pointing out the truth about Kucinich's record

makes someone a troll?! LOL

[flvegan]

11. Jesus, this POST is a miserable failure

So 5 years ago, he changes his mind on something. Why don't you see where he stands on some of the other issues.

BTW...he voted AGAINST the war. Just like, uh...erm...who was that one guy...

Pro gay marriage, wants to repeal the Patriot Act, universal not-for-profit health care...

Yeah, you can take your silly little right-wing-coined "flip flop" tirade on an expired issue and dance with it all day long, though.

[MiserableFailure]

13. ok male

keep eating the veggies and ignore the flip flop on abortion

it's not right-wing. pro choice groups monitored him for years as one of the most anti choice Democrats in Congress and some people still doubt his sincerity. I'm one of them.

[flvegan]

14. What the fuck

does my being male have to do with it? You've got a shit post and resort to schoolyard tactics like "keep eating the veggies" What the fuck ever. I'm strongly pro-choice, though I don't think my opinion should even matter.

Single topic voters...

[ulysses]

28. I think you're being baited.

[flvegan]

39. And it's a miserable failure of a baiting at this point.

[LanternWaste]

63. For while some call it flip-flopping, I call it growth.

As I'm still completely undecided at this time who I'll vote for in the primaries, anyone could win me over. Having said this, you appear concerned that Kucinich has changed his position on this issue. It begs the question-- is there *any* candidate, member of Congress or the Senate (in effect, any politician) that has never changed their position and stayed absolute throughout their career?

For while some call it flip-flopping, I call it growth.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. "silly little right-wing-coined flip flop"

on the most basic of rights for women?

It's fine to like Kucinich, but dismissing this as a non-issue is ridiculous.

[MiserableFailure]

27. notice it's a male who said that

i told him he can just go back to chewing on the lettuce while we discuss important issues. run along now peter rabbit, and we'll discuss what you think is a non-issue. haha

nice to see that the little guy thinks that abortion is an expired issue. maybe he'd like it to be.

[MonkeyFunk]

33. what cracks me up

is the Kucinichites use the war vote as their "single issue", but bring up abortion, and they decry single-issue voters.

They also hold Kucinich up as some paragon of integrity, when he's a politician just like any other, who will change positions as need be.

[MiserableFailure]

37. probably because most of them never have to worry about getting pregnant

but they are being delusional, no doubt about it.

[flvegan]

40. What I noticed is your FAILURE to answer

to the accusation above.

Utter bullshit. Talk about a miserable fucking failure.

[LeftyMom]

41. Are you new here?

The poster in question is pretty rabidly pro-choice and decidedly feminist (you can check back posts if you don't want to take my word for it.) It's actually rather sexist to tell him he's not entitled to an opinion on this issue due to the whole mismatched chromosomes thing, especially since the issue is not abortion itself but the authenticity of DK's change of heard on the issue and last I heard a working bullshit detector was not a sex linked trait.

As for Kucinich, he's hardly afraid of having an unpopular or politically dangerous opinion, so if he says he's changed his mind I trust him to tell the truth. As somebody who was also raised Catholic I know it can be difficult moving past one's upbringing to form one's own opinions on emotionally charged issues but that it's certainly doable.

[flvegan]

38. I didn't dismiss it

Please point out very specifically how I did, Monkeyboy.

[MonkeyFunk]

43. Do you ever post anything

that doesn't sound like it comes from a steroid-hyped high-schooler?

[flvegan]

44. Answer the question.

[MonkeyFunk]

47. No

veganboy

Quit ordering people around as if you're important.

[MiserableFailure]

49. He is important

And so are vegetables. Always make sure to eat your vegetables

[flvegan]

52. Awesome.

Thanks for proving up that you have absolutely nothing.

Well done!!!!!!

[MonkeyFunk]

53. hey soyboy

you called it a "silly little right-wing-coined flip flop"


that's pretty dismissive.

[MiserableFailure]

59. lol @ soyboy

haha. it's easy to be dismissive when the most important decision of his day is choosing between chocolate and vanilla soymilk.

[Connie_Corleone]

18. That's old news from the last primary season.

You're a little late there.

[MiserableFailure]

20. Just making sure people don't forget

I was glad when he went down in flames last time, and looks like he's gonna do so again without any trouble. I feel bad for the people who waste money donating to him.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. If you are a single issue voter,

and your issue is choice, then by all means vote for a candidate that has always gone along with your way of thinking.

Personally, I think you have to look at more than one issue to decide for whom you will vote. And you need to look at not just their words, but their actions.

I am interested in impeaching Cheney. Kucinich has introduced H. Res. 333.

I want to end the war. Kucinich has never voted to fund the war.

I want universal health care. Kucinich has signed onto H.R. 676.

Yes, I am pro-choice. I am glad Kucinich is voting pro-choice now. But that isn't my only issue.

[ProudDad]

50. That would be gooliani, right?

"vote for a candidate that has always gone along with your way of thinking."

Gooliani's pro-choice...


Kerry was "anti-abortion" too...

[MiserableFailure]

56. kerry wasn't anti abortion

he's always supported reproductive rights, as has giuliani.

[ProudDad]

67. I didn't say that he didn't support the right

I'm saying that his anti-abortion religious position as a Catholic is probably similar to Kucinich's.

Now they are in the same camp...their personal religious positions have no bearing on how they'd act as President.

As far as reproductive rights, Kerry and Kucinich are on the same page...

As for gooliani -- I was making the satirical point that if you're such a one issue voter you could vote for gooliani since he supports choice... Here's the smilie I should have put in the post :sarcasm:

[AtomicKitten]

31. he saw the light

that's what matters

[draft_mario_cuomo]

51. "he saw the light that's what matters"

;)

[Bjorn Against]

36. So if a candidate is wrong on an issue they should just continue to be wrong?

Can't have them switch to the right position because if they did that they would be inconsistent.

I am glad Kucinich changed his position, the only people who are 100% consistent in their positions tend to be arrogant and cling on to their positions no matter how wrong those positions are.

I would much rather have a politician who is right than a politician who is consistent.

[dsc]

42. How many times has this particular candidates supporters told

us that Edwards and others can't be trusted since they changed their minds on the war? Hint: a ton. Now this same candidate's supporters cry foul if someone dares apply the same standard to Kucinich. Frankly, one big reason I don't support him is that his record on gay rights stank until he decided to run for President as a far left candidate. Now he is for everything. If you care about the war more than issues such as abortion and gay rights, and that is a defensible position, then fine, his flip flop probably isn't a huge deal. But just like some people care more about the war others may care more about these issues. If so, they should vote accordingly.

[PurityOfEssence]

45. Be fair to the guy: he's very ethical and there's an inherent consistency to him

Lest we forget, he was somewhat for impeachment of Bill Clinton at the beginning of the Monica/Paula phase of the ongoing impeachment movement. I don't blame him for this either: he's deeply committed to truth, and anyone who doesn't have trouble with what Clinton said to the nation and said under oath in a civil trial has some problems.

Still, Kucinich weighed the issues and decided that this mendacity didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

Now let's talk about the main issue: on this, he's also got a core decency and consistency. He's against the killing of sentient beings for food, he's against capital punishment, and he was against abortion for much the same reason. Anybody who doesn't have the slightest wince of difficulty with the issue of abortion is missing the point or has never seen a sonogram of a developing fetus. The issue of abortion is a classic one of degrees, and this rankles most people because most people demand a black-and-white world that frees them from the unspeakable horror of thinking and weighing different issues.

He's a bit too far to the left for me and has some unsustainable policies, he's unelectable by definition, but he's got a heart of gold and he's morally and spiritually as decent as they come.

As the endless marching music propels us forward in our communal quest for everything to be simple and easy, I have to pause on a regular basis to barf. Kucinich embraces the grey areas of life and he's got a moral compass that's as true as they come. (This is also one of the reasons he and John Edwards are--or at least, were--such good friends.)

Having the character to admit mistakes or changes in one's stance on certain things is a sign of great maturity and strength; consistency of morality is different from and more important than consistency on policies, and people who demand the latter are the true weaklings.

[penguin7]

48. very well written.

[penguin7]

46. Reproductive Rights www2.kucinich.us

April 2006

Why have a Republican House and Senate never even offered one vote proposing a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion? If the issue were truly important to them as anything but a wedge issue, they would have. The truth is that Republicans have hidden from an honest up or down vote on abortion and will never allow one to take place in the Congress. Instead, they will continue fooling well-intentioned voters who feel strongly about abortion that they "feel their pain," when clearly they do not. Even if the Supreme Court were to do the unlikely and return abortion to the states, it would merely mean that the rich could travel to blue states for abortion, while the poor would have less access to terminating their pregnancies.

The fact is that most Americans, including myself, are uncomfortable with abortions and feel there are too many of them. At the same time, the vast majority of Americans recognize that there are circumstances in which a woman and her doctor should be allowed to make this most difficult decision without government intervention. To return to the days when woman could self-abort without penalty, but to imprison doctors who would help them, seems senseless, especially recognizing that a new abortion law would likely become known as "The Abortions for the Rich-Only Bill."

I have a plan to reduce abortions by encouraging family planning, including abstinance training, combined with a full economic and health care plan that would clearly alleviate the number of abortions. Voters have a choice: Choose Republican rhetoric that will never allow the issue to come to a vote or a real plan to reduce the number of abortions with a program of economic justice. Factually, all the Republican rhetoric and phony issues surrounding abortion have never directly addressed the legality of abortion and have had no or negilible impact on the number of abortions.

[LWolf]

54. Congratulations.

You've finally got your DK flame war, lol, and you did it without that disastrous comparison I mentioned the other day.

I'll simply repeat what I've already said to you previously. On that other thread.

First of all, I'm one of the people who have had a face-to-face, one-on-one conversation with Dennis Kucinich. I've had a couple of them, as a matter of fact. I also sat nearby while he chatted with others who brought their concerns and questions to him. I think that qualifies me to say that when people bring their concerns, he listens. He looks at them, he focuses on what they are saying, he thinks about it, and then he responds, not with talking points, but with empathy and respect. I saw him do this repeatedly, on more than one occasion. When he says he had conversations with people on the issue, and thought carefully, I can say I've seen him do just that.

Secondly, DK spends less time bashing opponents than any politician I've ever listened to. That strawman won't last 2 minutes in anyone's garden, lol.

Third, I am not rabid. I've had all my shots, just had my teeth cleaned and my annual checkup, and have been given a clean bill of health! You, on the other hand, show definite signs of foaming at the mouth. :D

Fourth, as long as we're going to hold our candidates responsible for wrong positions or votes, I guess we'd better dive in and eviscerate the rest of them. They've been grossly wrong on a critical issue quite a bit more recently than DK's last pro-life vote, and at a much higher cost.

Lastly, I'm comfortable with DK's position on reproductive rights, despite your rabid attacks, here and elsewhere. I see them as a rather desperate attempt to distract attention from other candidates' flaws.

I am the 3rd generation of single mothers in my maternal line. I almost lost my mother to an illegal abortion in the early 60's, and I had (a legal) one myself in the 70s. I think I'm well-versed on the issue of reproductive rights, and don't feel like I need your help, thanks.

Of course, I'm not the only independent, thinking woman that approves of Dennis Kucinich. There are many. Kucinich currently has, of course, a 100% approval score from NARAL, as you've already mentioned. Here are just two more of many, a group and an individual:

His reelection campaign was supported in 2006 by a NOW PAC:

<snip>
NOW's political action committees help elect feminist candidates to federal, state and local office through grassroots organizing, activist volunteers, and direct candidate support. We seek to increase dramatically the number of women's rights supporters elected to public office for the purpose of achieving full equality for women. Join us to change the face of politics.

https://www.now.org/pac/donation.html

2006 NOW PACs Voting Guide: Ohio

Federal Races

Name Office District Election Result

Victoria Wulsin U.S. Congress 2 lost
Dennis Kucinich U.S. Congress 10 won
Stephanie Tubbs Jones U.S. Congress 11 won
Mary Jo Kilroy U.S. Congress 15 lost
Sherrod Brown U.S. Senate - won

http://www.nowpacs.org/2006/oh.html#federal

Congratulations, Congressman Kucinich. The National Organization of Women sees you as a supporter of Women's Rights!

and, while NOW endorses HRC for '08, DK still enjoys some support from that corner, too:

<snip>

The following NOW members announce their endorsement of Dennis Kucinich in the 2008 Democratic primary:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona and Ava
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
former NOW member Trina of Trina's Kitchen
Gina of the gina & krista round-robin
Krista of the gina & krista round-robin
Martha, community member
Shirley, community member
Kayla, community member
Keesha, community member
and me, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

http://katskornerofthecommonills.blogspot.com/2007/03/now-members-endorse-dennis-kucinich.html

I really enjoyed Ani DiFranco's performance for DK, as well as her endorsement, in August of '03, 4 years ago:

<snip>WASHINGTON - August 15 - Singer/songwriter Ani DiFranco, the latest artist to support Dennis Kucinich for President, will join Willie Nelson in a concert to benefit the campaign. Ani is a successful, staunchly independent performer -- a poet and feminist who launched her own record company, Righteous Babe Records, at the age of 19.

Don't forget, of course, the "Feminists for Kucinich" :D

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/feminists_4_kucinich/

I'm happy to note that there are many strong female supporters of Dennis Kucinich. :hi:

[MiserableFailure]

55. I'm not trying to help you

I don't see what being the 3rd generation of single mothers has to do with anything. You do know that married women get abortions too, right? I'm sure you do.

Your personalization of this argument fails because I'm not some idiot anti-choicer like Dennis used to be. lol

[LWolf]

57. What is it, then, that you are trying to do?

If not attempting to help us females who don't have your perspective about DK and choice, to realize how "right" you are, or how "wrong" we are to support him, what, exactly, is your goal with this thread?

Er...My mother was married a couple of times. So was I. Married people can be single parents, too, when the father doesn't stick around to raise the kids. I don't think you can find anywhere that I inferred that married women don't have reproductive rights. Are you always this random and illogical?

Of course I personalize reproductive rights. I'm a woman, and I have first hand experience with "choice," with and without Roe v Wade.

Why wouldn't experience inform anyone's political point of view?

All I can say, this late in the day and this late in the thread, is that your goal with this, whatever that may have been, is obviously a miserable failure.

Is that a common problem for you?

[MiserableFailure]

58. What makes you think I was talking only to females?

I wasn't. I was talking to both sexes.

I'm aware that married people can be single parents, but again, that has nothing to do with the discussion. Being the 3rd generation of single mothers does not mean anything. My wife had a couple of abortions a few years back. We didn't want to have a fourth kid, 3 is enough. We have since wised up on the importance of birth control. So trust me, I have a pretty personal view on the subject as well.

Experience informs my views as well, and there's nothing wrong with that. But your experince has nothing to do with Kucinich's blatant flip-flop on abortion rights. He used to be a rabid anti-choicer and I don't trust him. You guys may think I'm trolling and trying to disrupt the site, but if I really wanted to do that, wouldn't I pick one of the top tier candidate to pick on instead of Kucinich?

The last couple sentences of your post are snippy and baiting, and there's no point responding to those.

And if you look up in the thread, at my exchange with flvegan and Monkeyfunk, you will see that at least one person(Monkeyfunk) agrees with me on this.

[LWolf]

64. What makes me think you are talking only to females?

Reading your, er, uplifting remarks upthread:

#13: ok male

keep eating the veggies and ignore the flip flop on abortion

#27 notice it's a male who said that

i told him he can just go back to chewing on the lettuce while we discuss important issues. run along now peter rabbit, and we'll discuss what you think is a non-issue. haha

This sure doesn't sound as if you want to include males in the conversation.

Somehow, your experience is legitimate, but mine is not? MY comments are "snippy" and "baiting?"

I can't remember the last time I saw a better demonstration of projection.

I'm so glad you found one person to agree with you. That one poster certainly carries more weight than the more than 2 dozen that don't.

You didn't answer the question, though. If you are not trying to "help" us see how "right" you are, what, exactly, is the purpose of the thread?

Finally, even though I am on "summer break," I can no longer resist stepping in to say that there is a grammar correction needed in your thread title. You've made it present tense when it should be past. It should be WAS wrong, not IS.

Unless, of course, you are trying to say that "pro-choice" is the wrong stance to take on reproductive rights.

[cyclezealot]

61. For Christ;s sake how many times do we have to reinvent the wheel.

He has explained that so many times. He had an epiphamy. His sister hassled the crap out of him until he changed his position. He grew up in a family of seven. And the family was destitute. He took his Catholic upbringing seriously. And he finally realized the inpractically of religious doctrine. This is just another bit of old trash. If anything Kucinich's change of position from his upbringing confirms his morality, not denies it. I find it a relief that Kucinich is able to overcome his religous upbringing rather than let that upbringing cause his to be inflexible.
And if the Likes of Naral can't see through the relevation, then I will have nothing to do with Naral ever again . Kucinich has made a brave promise about choice no other cowards such as Hillary would make claim to. He promises that any Supreme Court nominee will be SPECIFICALLY asked. 'Will you overturn Roe v Wade. ' few will go that far and make that promise.

[Vidar]

62. Thirty years ago, I was a conservative republican. So what!

These days, I'm a socialist who mostly votes democrat.

[mrgorth]

65. Kucinich is irrelevant

but he is right on choice. You can go to hell.

[rucky]

66. Anybody who takes an honest look at the abortion debate

can see at least some merit (and plenty of bullshit) on both sides of the issue. If it were as clear on the choice side as you assume, it wouldn't be such a touchy issue. Most of the arguements from both sides get muddied up with posturing and heartstrings-pulling. The central question is "when does life begin?"