More on Kucinich challenger Rosemary Palmer...and statement of Paul Hackett supporting her...

[SaveElmer]

Antiwar Challenge to Kucinich

By Sarah Wheaton

By March, Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio will probably know the fate of his presidential bid. At that point, he might have to worry about his party’s nomination for his own Cleveland-based House seat. The race is already heating up, as his challenger for the Democratic nomination in the 10th Congressional District today accepted the endorsement of Paul Hackett, the Iraq vet and bitter war foe who himself sought a seat in Congress.

You can’t really get much more anti-war than Mr. Kucinich, who boasts his consistent opposition to the invasion and subsequent funding measures. But his challenger, Rosemary Palmer, is an antiwar activist who lost her son in the war and supported Mr. Kucinich in the past. She, like Mr. Kucinich, backs “fair trade” policies to alleviate Cleveland’s sagging industrial economy.

“I can remember her wearing a Kucinich button in class and being the subject of a number of very good-natured jokes,” said John C. Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, where Ms. Palmer is pursuing a master’s degree. “She certainly comes from the same kind of political background” as Mr. Kucinich.

Rather, her objections are largely to his approach, and she is casting herself as a more pragmatic leader. For example, she called his “Texting for Peace” campaign, during which he asked supporters to text the word “PEACE” to him for delivery to the Pentagon, “hardly a serious attempt to end the war.”

Ms. Palmers press release...

I believe that Congressman Kucinich is as determined to bring an end to the Iraq war as I am. His problem lies in his inability to work as a legislator to make it happen. Mr. Kucinich will have been a Member of Congress for 12 years by the time this term ends. Through that tenure, he has accomplished very little, and has been ineffective in working with his colleagues to negotiate a common sense Iraq withdrawal plan. The war has now spanned almost five of those 12 years.

The Congressman was elected to fulfill his role in the Congress, cast votes and work with both Democrats and Republicans to reach an agreement on responsible conditions of withdrawal from the war. Instead, he has chosen to run for President, twice. In his first run, he was able to garner one percent of the overall primary vote in 2004. In 2006, in the weeks leading up to his re-election to Congress, he promised he would not seek another run at the Presidency so he could concentrate on matters in his own district. Then, just weeks after his re-election, he announced his candidacy for the Presidency once again.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/antiwar-challenge-to-kucinich/#more-2276

Jerome Armstrong at MyDD seems to be endorsing Palmer here

Supportive DIary at Kos...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/16/114036/530

While Dennis Kucinich travels around the country on his presidential pursuit, some in Ohio's 10th congressional district (Cleveland's West Side and West inner-ring suburbs) are becoming disenchanted with his increasing lack of attention to the district, his rigid positions which have led to some strange votes, and his inability or lack of desire to work with his colleagues to move his progressive agenda forward. About two months ago, former Kucinich supporter Rosemary Palmer announced that she is challenging Kucinich in the Democratic primary for congress.

...

Many activists in the area have come to know Rosemary in the last couple of years since she and her husband, Paul Schroeder, formed Families of the Fallen for Change, following their son Augie's death in Iraq in August, 2005. The group is dedicated to finding better solutions to the situation in Iraq than those offered by the Bush administration. Rosemary is a good progressive and on most issues, her positions as far ultimate goals are not that different from Kucinich's. What is different is her approach. She favours building coalitions to make steady progress toward those goals.

And of course Majopr Paul Hackett has endorsed Palmer...

"I think that the quality and caliber of Rosemary is what we need in our leadership in Congress in the United States, and I would like to highlight the word leadership and say that that is one of the key qualities that is absent in Congress today ... Frankly it's been absent in Ohio's 10th district in Mr. Kucinich's tenure in Congress."

[ulysses]

1. "and she is casting herself as a more pragmatic leader"

Because, of course, the "pragmatists" have been so much more successful in ending the war than Kucinich has.

Please.

[MuseRider]

2. Sounds kinda like another

Democrat who will work with the Republicans to end the war by giving Bush** more money, time and bodies to wage it.

[The Sushi Bandit]

3. She would really help the party...

if she moved to a repuke district and ran!

[IndianaGreen]

4. Hopefully Palmer will replace Kucinich, as Dennis take the oath as President of the United States

Hillary is stuck in New York, her dynastic ambitions in shambles. Deep depression and despair ails the DLC collective. Al From and Joe Lieberman joint the Republican Party.

:-)

[MissWaverly]

21. yes, I agree

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. "It is not pragmatic to end the war quickly"

"It's not pragmatic to have single-payer universal health care for every American"

"It's not pragmatic to have new labor laws to insure than when the majority of workers want union representation and collective bargaining rights they will get it"

"It's not pragmatic to have policies that discourage outsourcing work to to impoverished dictatorships with subsistence wages and no rights"

"It's not pragmatic to have REAL campaign finance reform and REAL corporate lobbying reform to tame corporate control of government"

"It's not pragmatic to open REAL dialog with Syria and Iran instead of belligerence leading toward an even more devastating and unwinnable war"

"It is not pragmatic to move American away from endless military adventurism and endless war."

--

"It is pragmatic to keep the war going indefinitely with no REAL end in sight."

"It is pragmatic to have health care run by and for the insurance corporations and pharmaceutical industry"

"It is pragmatic to keep in place labor law which is stacked against worker representation and collective bargaining rights"

"It is pragmatic to encourage corporations to move jobs where desperate people with no rights will work for next to nothing."

"It is pragmatic to let big money endlessly increase its control over elections and corporate special interest to control the government for their interest."

"It is pragmatic to continue a policy of ever increasing belligerence with Iran and Syria until we find ourselves in an even far more devastating and hopelessly unwinnable war."

"It is pragmatic to keep America on the path of endless military adventurism and an endless series of wars."

____________


---- Was it not the "pragmatist" who voted for this war in the first place? -----------

---------



Congressman Dennis Kucinich on the issues:

http://www2.kucinich.us/issues

[elaineb]

6. Once AGAIN, I ask...

...since you didn't reply in your first "Rah-Rah Rosemary" thread:

What specifically is Kucinich neglecting in his district, SaveElmer?

Any answer???

This is at least your second posting on Rosemary Palmer's candidacy. Any answer this time?

Interesting how Clinton running for President is not considered neglecting her district, but Kucinich running for President is causing all sorts of neglect in his district, although I haven't yet heard HOW. Nasty, nasty, nasty politicking here.

This quote's especially amusing: "She, like Mr. Kucinich, backs “fair trade” policies to alleviate Cleveland’s sagging industrial economy." Okay, so Palmer admits he's doing at least THAT much right, yet won't say (like you won't) what specifically he's not doing for his constituents (unlike I, and others, who have posted examples of ways he DOES continue to directly help his constituents).

Any answer this time?

[elaineb]

7. Oh, and the "nasty politicking" comment...

...was not directed at Rosemary Palmer but a certain someone, whom I see almost exclusively on pro-Clinton & anti-Kucinich threads (for SOME odd reason). Do you post on any anti-"other candidate" threads with such prolificness? Because I sure haven't noticed it. Really can't see why a candidate who is so "unelectable" inspires such verbosity and frequent posting.

[SaveElmer]

13. It is flattering in a bizarre way you have paid so much attention to what I post on...

However I have posted on a wide variety of topics...but being a Presidential campaign season, that is now my primary interest...

I like the sneaky implication there, the new meme among those here that simply cannot get their heads around the fact that there are those of us that honestly support Hillary, that we are in some way being paid...an example of the type of arrogance that keeps "progressives" from achieving anything like a majority...

Funny how I am being vilified for opposing Kucinich, but the daily witch hunt on Democrats that don't meet the "progressive" purity test doesn't seem to be a problem...

[SaveElmer]

10. Dennis Kucinich is not a serious legislator...

Constituent service is the very basic function that all legislators do, and is only part of their job description. Palmer described Kucinich perfectly in her statement, an unaccomplished legislator more interested it seems in pandering to his base than in actually making progress on the issues he says he cares about. Which has led him to some very bizarre votes, allying himself with Republicans, and refusing to lift a finger to aid the Democratic leadership in its effort to make progress. And he seems unwilling to expend any political capital to make such progress. More intent it seems on quixotic runs for the Presidency than in actually doing anything....

If Kucinich were a serious threat to win the Presidential nomination such inattention to his actual job would be excused, even in the face of his false statement during the last campaign that he would not run for President again, a pledge he was quick to break. For an example of this look at Barack Obama. Hillary does have a legitimate chance, and has shown the capacities for legislating that Kucinich has not...thus her constituents seem more than happy to have her run, knowing it would redound to their benefit to have her in the White House...Kucinich's constituents have no such ecpectation

Put simply, Rosemary Palmer seems more interested in actually being a Congressman with all that implies than Dennis Kucinich does...

[knight_of_the_star]

20. Just to point out

Hillary made the same pledge last time I checked.

That and if Dennis loses his district then the people of his district will have made the determination if he is unfit, if he keeps it then the people of his district will have made the determination they still want him.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Tell that to those 2,000 workers in Cleveland whose jobs were going to be outsourced by BRAC

Kucinich was one of two Congressmen that went to bat for these workers, and not only saved their jobs, but got the BRAC Commission to reject the Pentagon's recommendations and increased the number of jobs in Cleveland.

The DLC "boys," like their "girl," never have their facts on their side!

You just want Palmer because she will be another of those of Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table types," playing the tiresome BOHICA game with the Republicans.

Dennis has H Res 333, the Cheney impeachment resolution, languishing in Conyer's Judiciary Committee because Pelosi is protecting Cheney.

Does Palmer support impeaching Cheney? NO!

Does Palmer support impeaching Gonzales? NO!

Do you?

[knight_of_the_star]

42. Just a couple things

"Does Palmer support impeaching Cheney? NO!

Does Palmer support impeaching Gonzales? NO!"

Neither of those will be an issue in 2008 as both will be out of office anyway.

[dailykoff]

29. This is how they got rid of McKinney, twice.

I wonder who's behind Rosemary's campaign?

[IndianaGreen]

31. The same scum that are against defunding the war and impeaching Bush, Cheney, and Gonzo

The same people that told us that Iraq is not an issue!

[dailykoff]

34. That would be my guess, too.

And it's very hard not to assume that HRC is in league with them.

[elaineb]

35. I'm officially admonishing you, dailykoff!

Seriously! (See below)

I just happen to be reading this thread, which is why I feel the need to be consistent, at least for the threads I'm otherwise posting on (since I don't post very often).

I'm sure we're brothers/sisters-in-arms, but I think there ought to be a moratorium on no-evidence aspersions coming from ALL sides. I, too, might think that Palmer's candidacy is very suspicious, but I would never accuse anybody in particular. The opponents of progressives in Congress are MANY. If there was somebody nefarious behind Palmer's campaign, there are countless possibilities. And, of course, it's entirely possible that we're being overly suspicious (something that centrists ought to understand, considering the tactics the Republicans have used on the WHOLE Democratic Party for years). Since she has Hackett's backing, it's probable that Palmer herself is a centrist, which means she could legitimately be running on her own, with no hidden backers at all. I just hope, if she has a centrist view on most of the issues that she makes that quite clear in her campaign and doesn't try to hide her centrist positions behind the smokescreen of being an "anti-war" candidate.

Accentuate the positive......

Eliminate the negative.....

C'mon, everybody! Sing along! :)

Oh, well...anyway...

[TSIAS]

37. Lets home Ohio has a closed primary

I still remember all the Republicans crossing over to vote for Majette against McKinney in 2002. I don't think OHIO has open primaries, but given that state's history in regard to election fairness, I wouldn't be so sure.

I want to see if national Dems like Bill Clinton and Barbara Boxer rally to Kucinich's aid the way they did when the left had the nerve to challenge Lieberman in 2006. Somehow, I doubt we'll see the Big Dawg or Hillary campaign on Kucinich's behalf in the primary.

[SaveElmer]

41. McKinney got rid of herself...

Palmer is the mother of a soldier who was killed in Iraq, and is apparently more interested in actually doing something about the war than talking about it, or running quixotic campaigns for higher office...

[MadHound]

8. You know, I think that in a twisted sort of way, this thread is a compliment!

Gee, the Hillary uber alles group is now starting to consider Dennis a threat. Now they are going to post the most slanted, baseless hit pieces that they can find in a vain attempt to bring Dennis down.

But hey, this is good news. It means that more and more people are actually supporting Dennis, that this nomination doesn't have to be a cakewalk for Hillary Inc. That a candidate who cares for people more than corporations, who has been right all along on the issues, actually has an increasing chance to win the primary.

My only question is will the Hillary supporters, the DLCers, the centerists, will they vote for Dennis in the general election? Or will they do like the craven corporatist cowards did in '72 and utterly refuse to vote for McGovern, the Democratic nominee.

So SaveElmer, answer me this, if Dennis gets the nod, will you vote for him in the general election?

[elaineb]

9. I sort of agree with you that the # of anti-Kucinich threads is telling

But that also must mean that SaveElmer has considered Kucinich a major threat from the very START of the campaign, since that's at least how long I've been seeing his anti-Kucinich comments. And if SaveElmer DOESN'T consider Kucinich a threat, but rather thinks that he's "unelectable" (I always put that in quotes because it doesn't make any damned sense. He's been elected by the good people of Cleveland over and over and over), then there must be some other interesting reason that SaveElmer posts negatively around the clock on Kucinich and takes what must be significant amounts of time seeking out negative articles on Kucinich from all over the Internet (usually from centrist blogs or the Cleveland Plain Dealer, a right-leaning paper that's NEVER had a decent thing to say about Kucinich). Hmmmm, I wonder what that reason could be...?

[SaveElmer]

12. Kucinich is not a threat to be Pesident...

He is a threat to be reelected to Congress...and as he is not a part of the working majority, I would rather have someone there who is more willing to legislate than pontificate...

[IndianaGreen]

25. You want Democrats that will suck Bush's dick and do the BOHICA dance!

The Vichy Democrats that rubber stamped all of Bush's power grabs and crimes, those are the "working majority" you like.

No defunding of the war!

Keep troops in Iraq beyond 2009 to protect the oil and Israel, as your "girl" Hillary told the NY Times.

No impeachment of Cheney, Bush, Gonzales>

Be kind to Joe Lieberman!

Yep, we got your number. We know that the Democrats you want are a sugar coated version of the GOP, quite happy to support the bankers against consumers, and very strong in pushing for neoliberal globalism even if military force has to be used.

[SaveElmer]

26. Did you say something sweetie?...nt

[SaveElmer]

11. Absolutely...

As I have said on numerous occasions, I will vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is...and will work enthusiastically no matter who it is...

Your history on 1972 is wrong, a discussion that can be saved for later...however, in the bizarre "progressive" world some inhabit, apparently it is not ironic that you question the loyalty to the party and the nominee of those of us who have repeatedly expressed it, while ignoring the quite significant chunk of those here who have said they will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances...

So MadHound, let me ask you...will you vote for Hillary in the general, and what will be your level of commitment to her victory?

[elaineb]

14. Here's my issue with DU'ers like you...

First of all, I could have told MadHound that you'd answer his question exactly as you did...that you would, after all was said and done, vote for Kucinich if he got the nomination. Because I do believe you're an honest-to-God Democrat, but again, I do find your pattern of posting on anti-Kucinich threads very odd. There are lots of other DU'ers who consistently jump all over the anti-Kucinich threads, but I see them posting on a lot of other anti-candidate threads as well, so I figure they're just being consistently partisan in favor of their own candidate. But it's funny how your postings seem constrained to Kucinich on the actual anti-candidate threads (not talking about other "issue" threads), almost like you have your work cut out for you.

On a different plane, what is the point in posting negative comments on ANY candidate unless you disagree with their position on issues? Since there's only so much time in the day and a world of work to do, why waste time on doing anything other than posting the positive points about your own preferred candidate?

Since you're asking MadHound regarding Hillary Clinton, "what will be (his) level of commitment to her victory", might I ask you what your level of commitment is to a Kucinich victory if you're posting as many negative things as you can PRIOR to the 2008 election? I'd say your commitment is worse than "none", I'd say it's a negative one! I'd say posting anything even remotely negative about any Democratic candidate could be construed as NO level of commitment to their future victory in an election. And yet DU'ers like yourself are the first to imply that one should support the candidate with a (D) after their name, no matter what their actual positions are. So you say one thing, but you demonstrate quite another when you post anything negative on ANY Democratic candidate. Honestly, does Clinton not have enough positives going for her that you need to waste one iota of time saying negative things about Kucinich?

[SaveElmer]

15. Don't you think it is ironic however...

That we are treated to daily, and I mean daily threads threatening this Democrat or that with electoral reprisal, withholding of funds etc...on every vote they make that is not to their liking, yet when anyone expresses opposition to Kucinich we are met with incredulity.

I do not believe Dennis Kucinich is a good Congressman, and in a close majority I would much rather have someone be a party to a working Democratic majority, than someone saying they are a Democrat, but refusing to work with their leadership...his entire history in Congress shows he is more wedded to his hard line positions than in making actual progress...which is either a willful grab at publicity or an ignorance of the legislative process...

Like Democrats here who rejoice when there is a primary challenger to whatever Democrat they don't like, or publish lists of Democrats that need to be taken out, I am quite pleased there is a viable alternative to Dennis Kucinich in that district. I am quite pleased that there seems to be a possibility, however small, that we can replace someone unwilling to be a working part of that majority with someone who is. Kucinich is more liberal than I like (which in reality means I agree with him 80% of the time rather than the 95% for other more moderate Democrats), but my problem with him is not his ideology but his view of his job, and his view of his necessity for a strong, cohesive working majority to undue the damage that has been done over the last 6 years. Keith Ellison, ideologically akin to Kucinich, and only a freshman does seem to understand this, as does Bernie Sanders, and as did Paul Wellstone....

Typically, when there is a primary challenger to a moderate or DLC member of Congress, people here rejoice that there is an alternative, that Democracy demands leaders be held accountable, and it is healthy for the process. So in that vein, I will be supporting (monetarily) Rosemary Palmer's primary bid. And if she loses, I will certainly support Kucinich against whoever the Republicans put up against him.

As to your question whether I post on threads that criticize other candidates, I most certainly do, when it is warranted. But the fact is, ideologically speaking, there is very little difference between Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, so when I do criticize them it is on the campaign they are running...and though it may seem differently to you, I do not post more about Kucinich than the other candidates running. And I do post many threads extolling my candidate, her positions and qualifications, but alas they tend to drop like rocks so don't stay on the front page as long as I would like.

[elaineb]

16. Yes, I agree that there's too much negativity, PERIOD

The only reason I replied to your OP (as you can see, I'm a low-count "no account" poster, although I've read DU almost every single day for three years) is that I see the same posters hitting almost every anti-Kucinich thread, but I ALSO see their names on other anti-candidate threads as well. I think the only place I've seen your name on non-Clinton, non-issue threads is when that thread goes negative on Clinton. Perhaps this is a misperception on my part, and if it is, I sincerely apologize, but I really do read DU a lot, so my perception is honestly come by, one way or the other.

I can actually agree with you that there's WAY too much threatening of vote-withholding and negativity against the centrist candidates on DU. I'm against negativity on all sides. But consider the fact that many of us on the left feel like we've been completely shut out of the process. Poll after poll seem to suggest that the positions held by candidates like Kucinich are right in line with the majority of what citizens want for this country right now. When will the Democratic leadership start paying attention? After 7 years of a megalomaniac in charge, the suffering caused by the U.S. in Iraq and the destabilization of the Middle East, the tearing apart of the Constitution, the economic damage done to all but the wealthiest class in this country, and every other kind of harm that will take years, if not decades, to ameliorate; if we can't get the ears of the majority of our Democratic representatives at this time of crisis, when will we ever? Have we even been thrown a bone? Words don't count. We all know what they SAY they will do in 2008, but what are they doing NOW? Kucinich has introduced a number of bills that apparently are getting no support from the centrists in Congress? Why? You talk about Kucinich not wanting to spend any political capital, and I have to laugh! Sure seems to me like the centrist Democrats are the ones hoarding political capital, not Kucinich. When will they back his bills? More to the point, WHY won't they back his bills? (Something about "political capital" comes to mind).

[SaveElmer]

17. Kucinich has voted against...

Every Iraqi funding bill that would set a date certain for withdrawl from Iraq...making common cause with Republicans...

Now, the normal person would view a date certain as preferable to no date whatsoever...yet Kucinich, holding out for what cannot happen in this Congress, and immediate withdrawl, voted against it. That is not the act of a responsible legislator, that is the act of someone not willing to get his hands dirty, not willing to expend the political capital it takes to make real progress...

Keith Ellison, who campaigned on the same platform as Kucininch, did vote for it, and took an enormous amount of heat from his liberal constituency for doing so...while only a freshman, he was willing to expend a little of his political capital to make an actual difference...

Kucinich does this time and time again, introducing bills he knows, and everyone on the planet knows, have no chance of passing...while opposing bills that would get us part way to where we want to be...

[elaineb]

19. Of course he's expending "political capital"!!

That's why he's catching heat like this from some of the centrist-Dem and conservative constituents in his district!! That's why he continues to catch hell from the right-leaning Plain Dealer, from which you like to post articles and commentaries. Rosemary Palmer is an exception, if her (or is it your?) main argument against Kucinich is sincerely held...that he's not compromising/pragmatic enough. His district ain't as left-wing as you seem to think it is! Or are you admitting that, really, most people agree with his stance on issues, so that by voting his stance, his constituents are always pleased because they largely agree with him? It seems like you're trying to argue two sides: 1) That Kucinich is "playing it safe" by voting according to his ideology, because his constituents largely agree with him on national issues and 2) That Kucinich should be challenged because he ISN'T representing his constituents.

Unless we're using two entirely different senses of the term "political capital", then yes, Kucinich IS sacrificing some of his political capital, and no, the centrist Democrats in Congress are NOT willing to sacrifice any of theirs, because they're afraid of the political consequences at home! (Not that I think they SHOULD be. That's my entire point--that the liberal and independent voters are far leftwards of where the centrists *think* they are--but the centrists don't seem to understand that yet, so they continue to play to the right, or what THEY like to call the "middle"). You'll know this if the 2008 Congress finally shifts leftwards, as I suspect it will. (...with the exception of races where it's a centrist Dem running against a Republican...then it might be a toss-up!)

Perhaps you could explain why the bills Kucinich has introduced have "no chance of passing"? Is it because the centrist Democrats don't want to expend political capital by voting for them? Is it something else? Are the bills too politically "radical" for this country? Do you really believe that they have no chance of passing, aside from your astute and prior knowledge that the current majority of Democrats have proven that they are almost all either centrists or politically spineless (before you assume I'm one of those who is for "progressive purity", I have no problem with centrist Dems who were elected by their own constituents (unlike you do with Kucinich). What I do have a problem with is those Democrats who are wishy-washy and have no spine who continue to vote the safest way, which I think by anybody's definition (even yours, I hope?) is right down the middle. Centrist Dems who vote sincerely on behalf of their constituents...good. ANY Dems who vote with their finger stuck up in the political wind...bad!

And, by the way, you never answered my point about how committed YOU are to Democrats in the abstract, when you go negative on them? How can you be fully committed to supporting a future Kucinich presidency when you've already spread negative crap (that he is neglecting his constituents at home) without any response when challenged for evidence?

[SaveElmer]

22. His base is not his district...

He is attempting to present himself as the voice of progressivism in the country. If he started compromising with those that constituency views as anathema, he would be expending political capital. Given his performance in Congress, and the fact he runs for President with no chance of winning, its hard to reach any conclusion other than he views his congressional office a stepping stone to this goal...which is what I think is finally ticking off some of his constituents...

As to going negative, if I review the negative posts on the other candidates, will I see an admonishment from you there? And I do not believe I am being unfairly negative, I am not attacking him personally, not commenting on his looks (as Edwards and Hillary supporters about attacks of that type)...I am expressing my opposition to him for his renomination to Congress...

As to centrists who are taking positions out of political safety, it would be better if you pointed out specific examples. There is a misconception that centrism is simply a wishy washy attempt to have it both ways...it is not...most centrists view it as an ideological position, as valid as any other....

[elaineb]

27. I'm confused...what is his primary constituency, according to you?

His district or "progressives"?

Your words: "He is attempting to present himself as the voice of progressivism in the country. If he started compromising with those that constituency views as anathema, he would be expending political capital. Given his performance in Congress, and the fact he runs for President with no chance of winning, its hard to reach any conclusion other than he views his congressional office a stepping stone to this goal...which is what I think is finally ticking off some of his constituents..."

If Kucinich is presenting himself as the voice of progressivism (according to YOU--I heard no such thing from him...I believe he just stands for what he stands for), then I guess I'll just throw out a mirror accusation that Clinton presents herself as the "voice of centrism". (I don't really believe she ever said that, but since we're tossing aspersions around blithely, I'll throw one back at ya). So is she voting in a centrist way on most issues because she's trying to uphold her role of being the "voice of centrism"? Or is she merely voting her own beliefs? I wonder which one you think it is. She shouldn't really be doing both, should she? Shouldn't her votes be based on one or the other role? I wonder which one it is? And where do her local constituents enter in, if their desires conflict with either her beliefs or her role as the "voice of centrism"?

But you're suggesting Kucinich should go against his own beliefs and positions in order to prove that he's willing to "expend political capital." Why...just to prove that's he's willing to? Do you believe that Clinton is losing voters when she takes centrist positions, or do you believe that she's simply voting her own viewpoint? Can you point out a bill she voted on which was contrary to her own beliefs, just to satisfy the will of her supposedly centrist constituents? (locally OR nationally...I get confused as to which you think are of prime importance).

YOU are unhappy with Kucinich's "performance" in Congress. Many of us on the left are quite happy with it and very glad we have a few people like him on the national level that represent US. Apparently a few are too many for YOU. But that's okay, because I think Kucinich is going to be in Congress for a few more years yet, if the people of Cleveland have anything to say about it. Thank God we've got at least a few like him. Sorry for your sake that centrists have to endure their unhelpful, unpragmatic, and obstructionist presence.

You wrote: "Its hard to reach any conclusion other than he views his congressional office a stepping stone to this goal."

Gee, I won't even say what I'm thinking, considering who your favored candidate is. Unbelievable. Did you not learn anything when a certain other candidate was being accused continuously of the same thing? And yet you would point that canard at someone else? It was wrong for others to use it against Clinton, and it's wrong to use it against Kucinich. Honestly, it was wrong of you.

You wrote: "As to going negative, if I review the negative posts on the other candidates, will I see an admonishment from you there?"

You would if I was going to be on DU 24/7, constantly admonishing both sides! No, you won't find what you seek, because as I said in one of the above posts, I agree with you completely that there's too much negativity from both "sides" here, but I rarely post (once every 6 months maybe?). But seeing yet another negative thread on Kucinich posted by you (and the second-half of a two-parter you started the other day, no less!) finally moved me to respond, because I was a little suspicious of your motives and pattern of posting. It's really that simple. So now that I've said quite clearly that there's too much negativity on BOTH sides, will you kindly stop posting negatively about Kucinich if you have no clear evidence to support your negativity? (I know you won't, but I just thought I'd give it a try!) Your opinions on Kucinich are one thing. Posting Plain Dealer-inspired crap like suggesting he's not serving his constituents properly is quite another.

You wrote: "As to centrists who are taking positions out of political safety, it would be better if you pointed out specific examples. There is a misconception that centrism is simply a wishy washy attempt to have it both ways...it is not...most centrists view it as an ideological position, as valid as any other...."

But that's exactly what I said in my post! I agree that "centrism" is a valid political position, and I said that I have no problem with centrist politicians who are voting their beliefs or for their constituents (well, I don't think they should be voting for their beliefs if it goes AGAINST their constituents, but I assume the ballot box will eventually take care of that anomaly). What I think is foul are those who only vote a certain way based on an attempt to maintain their position in office, and if you think that doesn't occur...well, I'm flabbergasted. If you believe that Republicans can do it (and I assume you do), then you have no reason to think that some Democrats would never do it.

This all started because of your suggestion that Kucinich should be challenged in the next Congressional election because he wasn't serving his constituents properly because of the time-consuming nature of a presidential campaign. (Apparently Clinton can multitask a lot better than Kucinich can??). Yet you seemingly keep changing the argument from 1) he's not serving his OWN constituents to 2) he's not serving the interests of the country as a whole (because, in your words, he's not pragmatic enough). To whom is his primary responsibility, if the two conflict?

P.S. I'm off DU for the day. If you post anything that needs a response, I'll probably check in again tomorrow. Thanks for the interesting debate (really!).

[SaveElmer]

28. I'll respond tomorrow when I can concentrate on it...

Thanks...

[elaineb]

32. No response necessary

...unless you really feel the need to. We kind of both delineated our positions, and I don't think those twain are EVER going to meet. I just get a bee in my bonnet every few months, usually over a negative post, and yours was it for me. Most of the time I don't think I have anything new to add to an existing thread, so I just keep quiet. (Probably would have been wise here, too.) No hard feelings, I hope. In future, if I have a problem with a poster who's posting what I think is ill-considered and unsupported stuff on Kucinich or any other of my favorite candidates, I guess I need to call them on it right then and there. (Or maybe I'll go back to staying off the candidate threads). And believe me, I have THOUGHT about admonishing some of the posters on threads negative to other candidates (including those negative to Clinton), but it just seemed like putting one's finger in the proverbial dike. Who really has time to do anything but defend their OWN candidates? (It's sad that one has to make a statement like that on DEMOCRATIC Underground).

Anyway, have a good evening. Fun to butt heads with someone every now and again. (Even though you're a negative, centrist sum-a-gun!) ;)

[MadHound]

18. Hard for my history to be wrong when I lived it

I worked on the McGovern campaign. I remember the struggle to get simple office operating funds. The lack of ad support, the noticable abscence of leading Democrats helping the campaign, the great cry of rage from the McGovern haters and their fulfilled vow of working and voting for Nixon. Go do your research, and you will find just how utterly abandoned the Democrats left McGovern.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

30. This was discussed in the doc. "One Bright shining Moment".n/t

[goodgd_yall]

24. I have a problem with "favours building coalitions"

Those who "get things done" unfortunately get done what is not in the best interest of Americans because they give up too much to find agreement.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[TSIAS]

36. All I'll say is this

I have to be consistent on this matter. I favor liberals taking on primary challenges against Blue Dog Democrats. If the DLC and their ilk want to take on Kucinich, I support their right to do so. However, I strongly support Kucinich in the primary and the general. The biggest disappointment comes from Paul Hackett, who has done an about face in the past year and attacked John Murtha and now Dennis Kucinich. I remember the days when he was lauded as a progressive hero, and folks here were aghast that the more liberal Sherrod Brown would dare enter the primary to challenge Hackett for the nomination.

[IndianaGreen]

38. Thank you for reminding us that Hackett attacked Murtha's call for troop withdrawals

and Sherrod Brown was too liberal for Hackett. I wish Hackett had challenged "Mean" Jean Schmidt again, but he didn't.

The last thing we need is more Pelosi Democrats that will endlessly cave-in to the GOP.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. I was annoyed that Kucinich didn't vote for the Iraq Timetable

Which is good evidence of what Rosemary is saying that he's not willing to vote for imperfect legislation to make progress because he wants instant results.

I don't really care about him "ignoring his district" because I don't live there, so that's up to his district to decide. I'm interested to hear Rosemary's position on the Drug War. If she's for it, I'll probably support Kucinich because I believe that we need as many anti Drug War people as possible

[IndianaGreen]

40. A timetable without teeth, just as the previous benchmarks were meaningless

Bush laughs at the Democratic Congress! Dennis Kucinich was right! There was no need to even bring a bill out of the House for funding the war. There was enough money in the pipeline to fund a total troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Pelosi's Iraq Timetable was as much a dog and pony show to fool the voters as the vote against the Alito nomination.

The vote that really counted was Kerry's filibuster of Alito nomination.

The vote that never should had taken place, was the vote for addtional funding for the war. Pelosi could have blocked it from even coming to the floor, but she didn't, and then she caved in.

Enough of these Beltway games in which the Democrats surrender to Bush once again, then they turn to the voters and call it a great victory and that Bush is on the ropes.