Folks,

A simple fact us the citizens, the people and their best interests continue to be under dogs against the royal order of lobbies, is insane but real.

Apathy may be the lobbies best special interest, hence the mass media. 

Politically astute need to get the word out, somehow or some way, ye old web may be our best channel while we have it ailable. 

This means all of us!

Ernest Canning on 11/18 at 8:54 am
(1137 comments total)

Within such a system, ascending to the leadership position of a Pelosi or Hoyer is not a sign of accomplishment but an indictment of corrupt self-interest that is reflected by the post 1/1/06 agenda which has failed to end the war in Iraq or bring forth articles of impeachment even though a vast majority of ordinary Americans favor both.

***************************

EC:
We are actually closer than you think.  It’s not for nothing I use “Demo-weenies” for that party in Congress--you think Demo-squids might be better to describe their spinelessness? 

And Re-thug-lic-crooks seems perfect for the Greedy Outlandish Pricks (GOP).

Pelosi’s reign in the House has been, well, extremely disappointing.

I heard Edwards today bring up the problem of Corporate money fueling the policy in D.C.  He explained how even he has been influenced in the past.  He might be quite a reformer if he can withstand the heat of the fire he just started.  On this issue he will definately help Kucinich and possibly himself although I think he is gonna have to explain some of his sponsors.

I think there is a chance that by putting Edwards on the spot about the Impeachment issue, possible pardons, and the 9/11/2001 cover-up he will come up with responses that either back Dennis’s positions or he will identify himself as one who will participate in sweeping this TREASON under the rug.

Leefeller, your observation is spot on.  But it isn’t just that Mr. Kucinich went into Congress with integrity.  A good number do.  His real accomplishment is to remain true to that integrity, resisting the temptation of easy campaign money from special interest lobbyists, which, together with an utterly corrupt conglomerated corporate media, have so perverted the system.

ITW entered this fray by claiming that Kucinich is a failure because he has not maneuvered himself into a position of leadership where he could, among other things, “bribe” his fellow members of Congress into following his position.  That type of yardstick for “success” is but a reflection of how dysfunctional the system has become--a system which has corrupted the thinking of ordinary people like ITW who have bought into it.

Unlike Ralph Nader, I do see a difference between the Republicans and the corporatist sector of the Democratic Party.  The Republican party has been taken over by ideologues who are primarily devoted to the Milton Friedman school of radical capitalism: privatization applied through what Naomi Klein has aptly described as the “Shock Doctrine” and enhanced by allies from a neo-fascist Christian fundamentalist movement.  The corporate sector of the Democratic Party is made up of politicians who lack the radical Republican drive, but whose votes on a given issue can be purchased.  They are more committed to their prospects of re-election than they are to government of the People, by the People and for the People.

This is a problem that can’t be resolved by simply looking to see whether there is a “D” or an “R” listed at the end of a candidate’s name.  Jim Hightower’s “Thieves in High Places” (2003) noted:  “The great majority of Americans make less than $50,000 a year; half make under $32,000.  How many members of Congress come from such modest backgrounds?  Today’s Congress is made up of business executives, lawyers, and former political operatives....Nearly half of the people newly elected to Congress last year are millionaires.”

Comparing this to the .007% of Americans who are millionaires, Hightower asks, “This is the personification of democracy?”

Hightower goes on to note that members not only “descend into Congress from the economic heights, but they also tend to spend practically all of their substantive and social time with others from the heights.  Congress’s real constituency is no longer you and me, but the people who ‘matter.’ These are your top-floor corporate executives and the moneyed elites...who know members by their first names, who get every one of their phone calls returned--who get their agendas adopted.”

Within such a system, ascending to the leadership position of a Pelosi or Hoyer is not a sign of accomplishment but an indictment of corrupt self-interest that is reflected by the post 1/1/06 agenda which has failed to end the war in Iraq or bring forth articles of impeachment even though a vast majority of ordinary Americans favor both.

Conservative Yankee on 11/17 at 11:45 am
(Unregistered commenter)

For whom are you planning to vote?

*******************

I’ll be damned if I know. If Al Gore enters the race I’ll vote for him.  Other than that....I don’t know.

I do know one thing: There’s NO Republican I will vote for that’s running.  I will GLADLY vote for ANY of the Democrats up for the nomination over ANY of the GOP in the general election.

Integrity, Accountability and not beholding to special interests, seem like accomplishments to me.

Doomed to a ship of fools, not becoming a fool would be an accomplishment in itself. 

It is almost as if Congress is Plato’s Cave and Kucinich is the only person who knows the real world and the rest are blinded to believe only what they are fed or told to believe.

Hey, I hear Cynthia McKinney is seeking the Green Party nomination.  McKinney/Kucinich has a nice ring to it.

http://www.betterbadnews.com/

EC:
You say nothing new, merely repeating the same non-arguments over and over and over, each time more nastily and more insultingly.

The increasing invective gives your featherweight arguments no additional weight.

Since you have nothing new of substance to add, there is no argument for me to respond to.  You are just wasting bandwidth--I tired of it.

Once again, ITW, we see your posts sliding into intellectual dishonesty as you try to worm your way past a position you cannot defend.  You entered this particular post by asserting that Kucinich makes noise; that he doesn’t get anything done.  You then explained that he has “squandered” his time in the House by failing to “get into a position of leadership” where he can not merely persuade but “bribe” and “conjole” his fellow members of the House (your words, not mine) into following his lead.  You didn’t simply ask for a list of accomplishments, which CY provided and for which you now praise him for being the only one to answer his question, you asked me to list legislation he sponsored which was passed.

It was within this context that I said your entire line of attack on Kucinich was bogus.  First, at best it displays a fundamental ignorance of the workings of the House of Representatives, where the so-called leadership (Pelosi/Hoyer) is bought and paid for by the K-Street lobbyists who represent the rich and powerful and do not represent Mr. Kucinich’s constituency--the middle and working classes.  Unless and until the numbers change dramatically, the members of Congress corrupted by a system which has them spending more time trolling for dollars needed to get re-elected than in representing the interests of their constituents will continue to vastly outnumber the number of honest politicians like Mr. Kucinich--so much so that many Americans think of the words “honest politician” as being an oxymoron.  The only way Mr. Kucinich could move into a “leadership” role under present circumstances would be to sell out and become one of the corrupt corporatists.

You want to know what Mr. Kucinich’s greatest accomplishment is?  It is his integrity, his unwillingness to bow to the pressures of a system that, with each passing day, is growing more rather than less corrupt.  It is his principled stand in refusing to sell off Muni Light & Power to the privatizers even if that meant that corrupt banks would be calling in their notes on Cleveland.  It is Mr. Kucinich’s steadfast opposition to the war in Iraq, at a time when Edwards and Clinton, blown by the prevailing political winds, rolled over.  It is his willingness to stand up on the floor of the House, brilliantly utilizing an arcane procedure known as a motion of privilege, so as to force the “do-nothing” corporatist charletons you so admire to take a stand on articles of impeachment.  It is his willingness to expose the lie in Sen. Obama’s claim that Democrats don’t have the votes to end the war in Iraq, when, in truth, the Dems had to power to end it, starting last January simply by blocking all further funds--a move that requires either a simple majority in the House or 41 votes in the Senate.

In your claim that I evaded your question, you failed to sit up and take notice that in underscoring the bogus nature of your attack, I had done just that.  But you still haven’t answered mine, to wit:  Name a single substantive position offered by “any” Democratic candidate for President which has greater substantive merit than the position taken by Mr. Kucinich, explaining the basis for your conclusion.  And I’ll go one better by extending an invitation to anyone posting at Truthdig to provide a logical and reasoned response to that question.

I am not surprised that I did not receive a response to that question from you--a point which I think underscores that when it comes to questions of substance on issues that are truly important to the vast majority of Americans--the middle and working classes--Mr. Kucinich, though short in physical stature, stands head and shoulders above the rest of the field.l

Kucinich once stood at the podium and said “look no strings attached”.  That in itself is more then any other candidate can do.  If they tell you they can do something good for the people simply stated, they are lying.

The latest facist acts seek to allow our military to work side by side with federal and municipal police using military inteligence gathering on citizens.  Our government is now acting as though we are at war with the citizens of the United States because they speak too freely and don’t support this facist effort.

Here we are with our military might defending the Imperialists and the latter day global Robber Barrons against the evils of those who seek freedom, privacy, and a say in their government.

Conservative Yankee on 11/16 at 5:31 am
(Unregistered commenter)

**********************

You know what, CY? You are FIRST person to actually have the guts to TRY to answer my question: What has Kucinich done? I thank you for that, with total sincerity.

Everyone else heaps abuse on me and throws the red herring of trying to make the issue what have OTHER candidates done.  But they ALL dodge that very basic question. 
They claim it’s “unfair”.
Why?
They claim it’s “bogus”.
Why?

Why is it unreasonable to ask what a person has done who is asking for my vote and yours to be President?

And the FUNNY thing is: I LIKE what Kucinich is proposing.  Really, especially impeaching Cheney first.  As I said: He has many great ideas.

My point is that he has been totally ineffective at getting any of it done, or even rallying significant support within his own party until Wexler (?) helped out in the last week or so.

Again, CY, thanks for answering, and doing it without the ad hominem attacks or red herrings.  It what Kucinich has done, or tried to do is enough for you, that’s fair. It’s just not enough for me, at least at this time.

Even though Kucinich was given less time, he had more to say with solid thought behind the statements. It would be great to see a real debate with even time for all.  The fact that Gravel was not on the debate tells it like it is.

Thank you CY and sleeper for your astute commentary.  While my past posts highlighted how the do-nothing Democratic “leadership” consistently blocks meaningful legislative change, such as the Conyers/Kucinich single-payer plan, last night’s so-called “debate” reflects the manner in which corporate media conspire to shrink the scope of political discourse.

Despite Blitzer’s “everyone will get a chance to speak,” we were more than a half hour in before Kucinich received the first narrowly circumscribed question.  The early portion featured the accepted big three (Clinton/Obama/Edwards) dissing one another over which of their variable health care insurer subsidy schemes, aka “universal coverage” was best while Kucinich was deliberately bi-passed so that he would not be able to compare and contrast these scams to single-payer.  During the later stages, when the topics of Iraq, Pakistan, Afhganistan & Iran were covered in questions from the audience, there were these supposed CNN “moderators” astutely avoiding Kucinich.  Biden’s comment that an invasion of Iran would give rise to impeachment would have provided the perfect time to segue into Kucinich’s position that we need to impeach now, before disaster strikes.  Kucinich raised his hand; Blitzer said we’ll get to you as he pressed on for another, unrelated question.  When Kucinich was finally given the opportunity, he used the unrelated question to return to the impeachment issue, only to be immediately cut off by Blitzer under the “off-topic” rule he announced at the outset--a rule in place obviously to see that Kucinich would not be given the opportunity to address the subject, though Blitzer wasn’t able to prevent the sustained applause from the audience in response to Kucinich’s “Impeach Now!”

Just once, I would like to see a debate on PBS moderated by Bill Moyers and Amy Goodman--real journalists not afraid to speak truth to power, journalists who would force each candidate to answer questions on issues that truly matter.  Certainly in a real debate, there would be no place for “diamonds or pearls?”

I just read this article by Robert Parry that speaks to this type of denial as a policy tactic.  These infractions ar serious and they are the most important issue concerning who is allowed to control our nuclear arsenal or is allowed to comand our global military might.  This collective might of ours should not be sold to foreign interrest after it is robbed from the American people.

Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate who will even raise the issue of accountability.  Cheney and Bush need to be held accountable anything else is hypocritical.

Bush’s Clever Cognitive Dissonance

By Robert Parry
November 16, 2007

So, George W. Bush sees himself as the great defender of the U.S. Constitution.

Consortiumnews.com.

Since ITW can’t answer the question about what Hillary’s preferred legislation will do, I suggest he view this: http://www.politicswest.com/13546/video_clinton_thinks _naftas_consequences_are_funny

Ernest Canning on 11/15 at 9:47 pm
(1117 comments total)

I’ve just received the verdict.  You lost the argument.  Case closed!

*******************
What has Kucinich done?

You’re funny EC!  YOU’VE received the verdict? From whom? Like “Mad King George” from your “Higher Father”? I haven’t seen any “verdict"--wha’d I miss?  Another red herring?

Hey everyone! EC claims this is a phony question:

What has Kucinich done?

It’s a simple, ordinary question. A valid question. One that EC cannot answer at all.  So he calls it phony, tries to change the subject to other candidates, tosses out his red herrings.  Do other people think it’s bogus?

What has Kucinich done?

Is it a fair question? Yes or no.

So, ITW after spinning your wheels on a phoney question for the past several days, you admit you can’t come up with a single issue of substance by any one of the candidates you support that you could demonstrate have greater merit that those offered by Mr. Kucinich.

I’ve just received the verdict.  You lost the argument.  Case closed!

Re the defense authorization bill, I wrote, “But why and how did the [posse comitatus] language ever exist?  What catastrophic event is the author planning for us?”

Then the word “hell” appears.  I don’t recall writing that there...weird.

As regards to posse comitatus, from Wikipedia:

“The act was a response to, and a preemptive strike against the repetition of the then immediate past experience of the Confederate States to their military occupation by US Army troops during the ten (10) year period of Civil War Reconstruction, 1867 – 1877. Federal troops were withdrawn after the 1876 Presidential and Congressional elections rumored as part of a “Compromise of 1877” between the parties.”

Interesting in relation to carpet bagging.  Has Hillary been asked to opine on this language?  I’d guess not.

Here’s a question for you, ITW, name, on substantive grounds, one policy position of “any” of the candidates you support on any issue that you feel is superior to the policy position taken by Mr. Kucinich on the same issue, and explain to me why you feel that candidate’s position is superior to the position taken by Mr. Kucinich.  (This question, of course, presumes that you are capable of distinguishing said candidates true position from the media projected image of the candidate and their bland slogans).

EXACTLY the Red Herring I predicted you would throw!

Now if you or someone else wants to question what OTHER Dem candidates have done, (which is the next line of attack when you have no other defense of DK), that is for another thread, not this one.

You don’t have ANY defense against my questions about Kucinich except to attack and vilify me, and toss red herrings.

You get angrier and angrier because I keep asking the ONE question you refuse to answer: What has Kucinich done?

You refuse to answer it because the ONLY answer is: Nothing.

So you rage at me and come up with insults and attacks.  But you cannot get around this simple question:

What has Kucinich done?

Here’s a question for you, ITW, name, on substantive grounds, one policy position of “any” of the candidates you support on any issue that you feel is superior to the policy position taken by Mr. Kucinich on the same issue, and explain to me why you feel that candidate’s position is superior to the position taken by Mr. Kucinich.  (This question, of course, presumes that you are capable of distinguishing said candidates true position from the media projected image of the candidate and their bland slogans).

EXACTLY the Red Herring I predicted you would throw!

Now if you or someone else wants to question what OTHER Dem candidates have done, (which is the next line of attack when you have no other defense of DK), that is for another thread, not this one.

You don’t have ANY defense against my questions about Kucinich except to attack and vilify me, and toss red herrings.

You get angrier and angrier because I keep asking the ONE question you refuse to answer: What has Kucinich done?

You refuse to answer it because the ONLY answer is: Nothing.

So you rage at me and come up with insults and attacks.  But you cannot get around this simple clear question:

What has Kucinich done?

Mr. Livingston,

I think you’re criticism of Goodman is a bit extreme.  She obviously wanted to give Kucinich a chance to dispell the foolish UFO business and she has limited time to pose her questions.

The substance of the matter is article 1615 the Defense Authorization Bill is truly disturbing and deserves more time on DN, no doubt...as does 911 truth, but it seems that Goodman has decided it’s too divisive and could easily drowned out all other important discussion.

Take a look at http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4922 for an analysis of the bill in question.  It looks as if offensive language of this section has been removed?  If so, that may well be thanks to Kucinich.  One can have a lot of influence over legislation without actually introducing a bill.

But why and how did the language ever exist?  What catastrophic event is the author planning for us?  hell

#113759 by Ernest Canning

I concur with your view of Kucinich, his constituants feel sure enough of him to keep sending him back.  If measured by the same standards, Hillary, Barack, Bush or Cheney never sponsered anything of note either.

Hillary, a carpet bagger, caved into AIPAC along time ago, and being a senator from New York, it is a prerequisite.

Rubbish, ITW!  I have said nothing of the sort, and this argument, I believe, is becoming circular. 

There are only two things standing in the way of good government in this country.  The corrupt politicians who will block every honest piece of legislation offered by the distinct minority of members of Congress who have the integrity to offer them and the imbecillic members of the public who seek to conflate the matter by placing the blame for our present malaise from the degree to which corporate monies have corrupted our democracy to the few honest individuals who have worked tirelessly for meaningful change.

The key issues are integrity and where a candidate stands on matters of substance that affect the vast majority of our citizens. 

Here’s a question for you, ITW, name, on substantive grounds, one policy position of “any” of the candidates you support on any issue that you feel is superior to the policy position taken by Mr. Kucinich on the same issue, and explain to me why you feel that candidate’s position is superior to the position taken by Mr. Kucinich.  (This question, of course, presumes that you are capable of distinguishing said candidates true position from the media projected image of the candidate and their bland slogans).

The second video is extremely creepy. 

Reminded by Amy Goodman that his party’s leadership had not invited him to an important upcoming event, Kucinich-- who has appeared guarded throughout the interview, suddenly gets real.  He suggests that the election is already being manipulated by powerful interests.

He then relates that a passage in a bill he had read the evening before will give the executive sweeping powers in a catastophic incident.

“What is happening in this country? he asks Goodman.

Why then did Goodman suddenly pop her question about him seeing UFOs?

Goodman has confounded many in the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement, most notably Barrie Zwicker, Eric Larsen, and Kevin Barrett, for being reticent (if not antagonistic) about investigating significant questions many people have about 9/11.

Here once again-- she appears to be kicking a ball out of a court where inquiry might come into play.  (And Kucinich himself appears to have discovered the limits to what is considered fair on her program.)

Gonzalez’s and Goodman’s canned laughter to Kucinich’s answer about UFOs was frightening to me.

The second video is extremely creepy. 

Reminded by Amy Goodman that his party’s leadership had not invited him to an important upcoming event, Kucinich-- who has appeared guarded throughout the interview, suddenly gets real.  He suggests that the election is already being manipulated by powerful interests.

He then relates that a passage in a bill he had read the evening before will give the executive sweeping powers in a catastophic incident.

“What is happening in this country? he asks Goodman.

Why then did Goodman suddenly pop her question about him seeing UFOs?

Goodman has confounded many in the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement, most notably Barrie Zwicker, Eric Larsen, and Kevin Barrett, for being reticent (if not antagonistic) about investigating significant questions many people have about 9/11.

Here once again-- she appears to be kicking a ball out of a court where inquiry might come into play.  (And Kucinich himself appears to have discovered the limits to what is considered fair on her program.)

Goodman’s and Gonzalez’s canned laughter to K

Ernest Canning on 11/15 at 9:28 am
(1114 comments total)

Sorry, ITW, but as stated earlier, your entire line of attack on the only Democratic candidate who has the integrity to abide by his oath of office which mandates that he support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign or “domestic"--and Bush/Cheney embody the domestic enemy of the constitution and rule of law--by having the courage and tenacity to stick with his articles of impeachment as the sniveling, do-nothing Democratic “leadership” scurries to scuttle that effort, is a bogus diversion that evades both the substance of Mr. Kucinich in favor of the hollowed out images of the greasy politicians who are Democrats in name only as they slavishly serve the interests of the corporate elites.

*****************

In other words, you concede that Dennis Kucinich is ineffective and has actually achieved nothing and you have no evidence to the contray. Everything else is fluff to try to cover that basic fact up.

ITW, by your measure, we should allow Bush/Cheney to carry out their putch.  If the true test is simply effectiveness, why not eliminate Congress and the courts and entrust our government to a fascist dictatorship.  If standing for truth, justice, the rule of law, and the interests of the vast majority of the American people--the middle and working classes--doesn’t matter, if the only measure is “accomplishment” regardless of what how corrupt and immoral those accomplishments are, then let’s end this charade we call the democratic process and surrender all authority to a dictator.

Sorry, ITW, but as stated earlier, your entire line of attack on the only Democratic candidate who has the integrity to abide by his oath of office which mandates that he support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign or “domestic"--and Bush/Cheney embody the domestic enemy of the constitution and rule of law--by having the courage and tenacity to stick with his articles of impeachment as the sniveling, do-nothing Democratic “leadership” scurries to scuttle that effort, is a bogus diversion that evades both the substance of Mr. Kucinich in favor of the hollowed out images of the greasy politicians who are Democrats in name only as they slavishly serve the interests of the corporate elites.

Ernest Canning on 11/15 at 8:31 am
(1112 comments total)

The real measure of the man is to be found in the “substance” of his proposals.

**********************

Why?  That’s a fine standard for a philosopher, or even a social critic.  By that measure, both you and I are better qualified to be President than everyone running.

But I, in no way, accept that as the sole qualification to be President of the United States.

It’s an executive position. It’s a management position. It’s a position that to be EFFECTIVE, requires the ability to get people to work with you.  It’s a position that requires you to realize that every scumbag with an agenda is going to try to manipulate you, and control you (like VP Svengali and President Pinocchio) and you have to recognize and resist them.

These are skills that Dennis Kucinich has never demonstrated to my knowledge.  Instead, he makes his proposals, and is content to rant and rave when they aren’t enacted, but never is willing to roll up his sleeves, and get to work to get it done.

So he has great ideas.  Great.  I have great ideas, too. So do you. He will never be able to enact them--it will take others to do that.  That’s why he’s not qualified.

ITW, let me add something to my last post.  In posing the question “what legislation has Kucinich introduced that passed” you have attempted to “frame” the issue by suggesting that the measure of the man is to be found in the accomplishment of bills signed into law--a box I refused to be forced into given that the legislative process is thoroughly corrupt and under the control of K-Street lobbyists.

The real measure of the man is to be found in the “substance” of his proposals.  While Mr. Kucinich may be short in physical stature, the integrity of his positions places him head and shoulders above all the corporate-dominated pretenders to the throne whom you say you support.

Ernest Canning on 11/15 at 8:17 am
(1111 comments total)

ITW, the answer to your latest question is contained within my last post, #113163.

Not in this thread. Sure you have the number right? Or do you mean #113663?

Because if you do, you STILL don’t answer my question: What has Kucinich done? In fact, you continue to show he’s done nothing. Nada, Zippo.  You have not addressed at all my contention that he is a totally ineffective Congressman.

In fact, I think even my Re-thuglican do-nothing, Mr. Zero, ditto-head congressman, Rodney Frelinghuysen, a guy who wouldn’t stand out in a crowd of two, is more effective than Dennis Kucinich.  And that’s really sad as RF is consistently ranked as one of the less effective zombies on the Hill.

Now if you or someone else wants to question what OTHER Dem candidates have done, (which is the next line of attack when you have no other defense of DK), that is for another thread, not this one.

ITW, the answer to your latest question is contained within my last post, #113163.

Doug Chalmers, your suggestion that one of this nation’s pre-eminent scholars, Noam Chomsky, is crumbling into dust sounds strikingly reminiscent to Trotsky’s sweeping the old order into the dust bin of history, which is precisely what will happen to this constitutional democracy if we cannot awaken people like you from the corporate-induced, moronic slumber.

Hillary offers nothing but status quo, my discomfort with Hillary is her connection at the hip with special interests.  She offers news speak sound bites and the feeds us a diet of pablum, we deserve much more as a nation. 

Politics the Hillary way is a continued vision of status quo, so normal in most of Congress. 

Kucinich, offers change and is not beholding to special interests, maybe there is a connection?

What kind of whispering goes on between special interests and candidates, why should special interests have more of a say than the people?  Posters like Chompers and others must feel special interests should have direction of our country.

Kucinich seems to feel the people should have a say in the direction we take our nation. 

Sound bite Hillary is not worthy of my vote.

Ernest Canning on 11/14 at 8:57 pm
(1109 comments total)

Sorry, ITW, but if you ask a bogus question, you are gonna get “flamed.” Substance, ITW, substance!

**********************

There’s NOTHING bogus about asking what a candidate who wants to be President of the United States has actually achieved. 

Say we asked this question of George W. Bush. He could say:

“I presided over more executions than any other governor in history and made sure they all happened, even when there was doubt of the prisoner’s guilt.”

“I re-arranged the controls on the University of Texas’s endowment so my friends could empty over 1/2 billion dollars from it without fear of legal reprisals.”

Yet when I ask what Kucinich has achieved, I’m told the question is bogus.

Why is it bogus to ask what someone has done who wants to be President?

#113562 by Ernest Canning on 11/14 at 11:29 am: “ITW & Doug Chalmers are a product of media spin which has created what Noam Chomsky described in “Failed States” as a “democracy deficit"--the “substantial gap between public policy and public opinion.” .........Chomsky illustrates this by pointing to Reagan’s 1984 landslide election.  Polls “showed by 3-2, voters favored tax increases devoted to New Deal and Great Society programs.... The public preferred cuts in military spending to cuts in health programs by about 2 to 1.”......”

“None of this matters”, EC, as we have already discussed Chomsky in the Noam Chomsky topic recently. He has crumbled into the same dust where we find most of your opinions, uhh.

Its about time you stopped attacking people of merit (including Hillary Clinton) as you now have all the tenacity of a rag doll........

antispin, let’s take one piece of legislation, introduced by John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich, but bottled up by the corporatists--healthcare reform--and compare it to what the so-called “leading” candidates--Obama/Edwards/Clinton--propose.

The Conyers/Kucinich measure calls for a single payer system that would eliminate for-profit health care insurers and HMOs from the system, unnecessary middle-men who account for 31% of the spiraling healthcare costs in this country, as compared to administrative costs of from 1% to 2% in single payer countries.

Hillary Clinton is the second largest recipient of healthcare insurance lobby monies of any politician in these United States--second only to Geo. W. Bush.  None of the big three, Hillary, John & Barack, will touch single payer.  All talk about “universal coverage.” Each offers a variation on what amounts to be a subsidy scheme for the health care insurers.
All of these schemes ignore the core issue raised by “Sicko!” Having insurance does not mean that one will be covered when it comes time to receive carrier approval of a necessary procedure.

As an attorney who represents seriously injured workers I can attest to how carriers abuse utilization review (introduced into the Cal. Workers’ Comp. system in 2004 by our celebrity Governor) in order to deny necessary care whenever and whereever possible.  In one case I had to proceed to a full blown trial just to get physical therapy for a client who had lost both his arms and both his legs.

ITW’s entire line of attack against Mr. Kucinich is totally bogus.  The core problem we have is a legislative process so corrupted by corporate money that real reform, like the Conyers/Kucinich single payer plan, never makes it out of committee.  Instead of appreciating the fact that one has to begin to break the stranglehold of corporate money by electing candidates who will not be bought, ITW points to the fact that honest legislative efforts are blocked by the corrupt corporatists at every turn and say, “See, that honest guy of yours, Kucinich, is worthless.  He hasn’t passed anything!”

I don’t think there has been any legislation that has been good for anything for quite some time.  Everything lately has some perverse name attached to the latest rip off of the American people. 

We have free trade rip-offs that have served global worker exploitation scams.  I can agree that we can have the most positive effect on the world through trade, but this exploitation which gives away our markets to some of the most oppressive regimes in existence.

Since Hillary had her little fling with managed competition our healthcare cost have approximately trippled.  Do you really want some more of that sham? 

Big Brother is already able to look into our bedrooms with Infra Red sensors.  Now we learn that lisening and monitoring devices are aimed at us all.  Do we believe the extent that they tell us?  We’ve already been told that we need this in a post 9/11 world.  The problem is that it was being utilized prior to 9/11/2001 and our congress is considering blanket amnesty for these Constitutional crimes.  The bastards are selling the farm and middle America pays with their Blood and their unappreciated labor.

The squeeze is on and it is only going to get worse as foreign interrests are being sold the keys to our kingdom.  Our government will make sure we know our place in this global fascist society.

Special Interests, lobbies a mass media caterers of deception, so necessary for government to represent increased profits.  Why cannot some people see the hand writing on the wall, the nose in front of their face?  Take the light company episode in Cleveland, move it, to the federal government and you have our bought unchecked and unbalanced government.  Undue influence by special interests, lobbies bending ears of congress, while the people get the chaff, and go to war for profits. 

Who was it that said, we have the best government money can buy? (Mark Twain)?

Kucinich takes a stand, he cares for truth, the people and the future, while the other candidates seem to be dancing in the wind, depending on who is pulling the strings and which way the wind may be blowing that day.  Truth would be a nice change in government

Darn, didn’t mean to leave out Mike.  Mike Gravel: http://www.gravel2008.us/

He’d be my second choice.  Love this guy!

Re “what hath he achieveth?” we could have a score card listing pertinent legislative facts about Dennis, John, Barack, and Hillary (we’re so familiar, I use their first names.) The bills they’ve proposed, and a short analysis of each, the proponents and benefactors, the funding mechanisms, how each voted on them, etc.  Is that kind of information readily available in a democracy? I think Kucinich would come out favorably in such a comparison, but I don’t really have enough detail to be sure. 

There are various organizations devoted to the evaluation of fair political measures and practices, are there not?  League of Women Voters? Wall Street Journal?

Sorry, ITW, but if you ask a bogus question, you are gonna get “flamed.” Substance, ITW, substance!

Gee, how hard is it to answer a simple question: What has Kucinich achieved as a congressman?

For that I am flamed, and flamed and flamed again.

So, exactly what has the Hon. Congressman from Ohio achieved?

#113459 by driving bear on 11/14 at 3:45 am

• Bottom line Judge Thomas’ only crime was being Pro life.

#113363 by driving bear on 11/13 at 3:17 pm
• Judge Thomas only crime was being conservative.

So, here we have it from the Driving Bear. At 3:17 pm (PST) on 11/13/2001, Bitter Thomas’ only crime was “being conservative”. Then, just over 12 hours later, at 3:45am (PST) on 11/14, the same Bitter Thomas’ only crime was ‘being pro-life’.

So, what should we think about all of this, as unveiled by DB? Well, there’s the question of whether or not a sitting SC Justice should be guilty of ANY crimes. Then, should we wonder how either of them is an “ONLY” crime? Well, to give the benefit of the doubt to DB, lets say that they are the SAME crime, or that they mean the same thing, since I’m fairly confident that in DB’s neo-conned ideology, ‘conservative’ does in fact equal ‘pro-life’, since he’s used a similar sort of terminology in earlier posts, specifically in suggesting that “Christian Conservatives” would never –stand-by while a million babies were aborted.

So, take a lesson DB. The political ideology of ‘conservatism’ is NOT what you think it is, which is why we call you morons ‘neo-conservatives’; as in NEW (that’s what neo means) conservatives. The neo-conservative ‘brand’ of conservative ideology that you practice (based on the slogans packaged in the ads that you hear in Sunday sermons) has absolutely NO resemblance to the conservatism that has been the ideology of the republican party for the many decades prior to the highjacking of our democracy by the neo-cons. THOSE republican conservatives, (Christian or otherwise) based their ideology on a belief of fiscal conservation, (no WAY they would have allowed this sort of debt to run up) and a basic minimalist mentality. (less is better). They were committed to small government, (not huge mess that pretends to be a government today) and anti-regulation, (didn’t want to be confined to their methods of increasing their personal wealth). And, for the most part, they were good with the Constitution as it was written, including individual rights. (such as privacy, which is what Roe v. Wade was decided on.) They also weren’t the least bit interested in having the Church make laws for the State. So, what you like to claim as ‘conservative’ is NOT what has always been ‘conservative’ in the beliefs of the repugs. Rather, the Dick Bush style of neo-conservatism is downright RADICAL, and the complete OPPOSITE of what ‘conservative’ has always meant. It is more RADICAL than anything we’ve seen in probably a century. This is of course why so many formerly staunch republican conservatives have distanced themselves from the neo-con regime in place now.

The ‘pro-life’ slogan is new as well, and is the ultimate hypocrisy, since these neo-cons clearly are NOT ‘in favor of’ – LIFE! One does not show a preference for LIFE, by ordering wars that destroy literally MILLIONS of lives. So, Dick Bush can hardly be considered pro-life, and neither is Bitter Thomas. They might be ‘pro’ THEIR lives, but they truly don’t give a shit about any OTHER lives, or other forms of it. Starving people, withholding medical care and basic human services, outsourcing jobs, reverting to slave wages for the few jobs left, and killing the environment that we all depend on aren’t exactly in the nature of preserving or sustaining life either. Nor is it in line with the concept of ‘conservation’ as in conservative.

So DB, you’ve been neo-conned, in a very big way, by a bunch of radical crazies, using pathetic and unoriginal advertising slogans to make you believe that something means the opposite of what it does.

This has happened because it is so easy to fool the ignorant, and the ‘pretend’ -religion- has always been the most effective tool for controlling the ignorant. Don’t feel too bad. They used the same trick on the slaves, to keep THEM in line and stupid.

ITW says Kucinich was a “crappy, rotten Mayor of Cleveland"--an opinion for which he offers not one example of something Kucinich did that justifies the adjectives--"crappy, rotten.”

The usual spin for “crappy, rotten” is that Kucinich allowed the city to go into default.  Here is the reality, also taken from the recent Gore Vidal Nation Magazine article.  At “31 [Kucinich] was elected mayor of Clevland.  Once he had been stalled, in 1978, the city’s lordly banks wanted the new mayor to sell off the city’s municpally owned electric system, Muny Light, to a private competitor in which (Oh, America!) the banks had a financial interest.  When Mayor Kucinich refused to sell, the money lords took their revenge, as they are wont to do: they refused to roll over the city’s debt, pushing the city into default.  The ensuing crisis revealed the banks’ criminal involvement with the private utility of their choice, CEI, which, had it acquired Muni Light, would have become a monopoly, as five of the six lordly banks had almost 1.8 million shares of CEI stock; this is Enronesque before the fact.

“Mayor Kucinich was not re-elected, but his profile was clearly etched on the consciousness of his city; and in due course he returned to the Cleveland City Council before being elected to the Ohio State Senate and then the U.S. Congress.”

With much of the public domain in this country being placed on the auction block, as one public function or another faces the threat of privatization, I’d say America could well use someone like the guy you call the crappy mayor from Cleveland.

As with your insistence on reducing the electoral process to the idiotic race-track question as to which horse will win rather than which candidate best represents the interests of the vast majority of Americans, you erect passage of legislation introduced as a false measure of the man’s stature.  You chose to ignore that the reason a detailed measure like HR 1234, which provides a comprehensive plan that if passed when first proposed, would have had all coalition forces and all contractors out of Iraq six months ago, is not because of Kucinich’s lack of effectiveness but instead is due to the extent to which the “do-nothing” Democratic “leadership” would prefer to simply give lip service to ending the war, as they troll for the same corporate lobby monies from the military-industrial complex that two years ago was funneling the big bucks to Republican candidates.

If passage of legislation were the test, then you should get behind only those politicians that gave us the Military Commissions Act which resurrected the Kafka-like military tribunals that had been sharply rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court erstwhile disembowling the right of habeas corpus--a right that dates back to the Magna Carta.  If passage of legislation is the test, you should get behind those who brought us the Patriot Act, or Energy Legislation that gave away billions to the oil cartel, or bankruptcy reform that enhanced the bottom lines of the credit cartels, or those who successfuly brought us the Bush tax cuts which have driven the nation towards a bankruptcy of its own, or the bogus Medicare Prescription Drug reform designed enhance the drug mfg. bottom line.

Yeah, ITW, you seem to have come up with a real good standard for determining who we should vote for.  Indeed, if passage of legislation is the test, then I guess we should all be voting for the Republi-crooks, for they passed a whole lot of legislation under their watch.

Substance!  ITW.  Substance!  Where does the candidate stand on issues that truly matter?  Everything else is image.

ITW wants an example of successful legistation.  I couldn’t find much.  He cosponsored a successful bill to promote humane alternatives to animal testing and ban the importation of products made from dog or cat fur.  Yay cat and dog lobby!

Couldn’t find much else, but focusing on this is completely missing the point.  The point is that powerful supermoney is behind the suppression of representatives who speak for the people. He’s one of a small handful who propose good bills.  If good bills aren’t proposed then they won’t be passed. When they are proposed, you can see that outlines of the “invisible hand” of Exxon Mobile, et al, making sure they don’t advance.  So to say “look, Kucinich’s bills don’t succeed” is just to prove the points that EC has been making.

We need someone who will speak for what the majority of US citizens want.  Kucinich is one of a small few.  He embodies what’s left of the soul of the progressive dems.  I wrote “sould” by accident, but maybe it’s apropos.

If legislation origination were the sole criterium for evaluating the work of a legislator, then I don’t think congress would come out looking so good.  As for me, I think a good legislator/rep is one who faithfully represents in congress the will of his/her constituency, especially if the will is constitutional.  F*** legislation.  There’s more of that then we can handle. 

It’s a real tragedy when the leader of the free world has brought his country to the point where its main concern has to be that religious extremists don’t infiltrate and blow up its citizens.  His is a failed policy which has the support of most in congress.  Kucinich talks a different strategy and a different strategy is now called for.  Beyond that, I don’t care what law came from his desk.

EC:

Can you name me ONE piece of legislation that Kucinich originated in the House that became law?  Maybe there is some but I don’t know what it is.

What has he done in the House that is constructive? He’s made a lot of noise, but what exactly has he gotten done?

Anything?  Has he ever been even VAGUELY effective as a congressman?  Educate me.

The man was a crappy, rotten mayor of Cleveland, he’s never shown himself to be a leader or a manager of anything.

He may say some great stuff, but that doesn’t make him America’s future.  He’s simply the Dems version of Ron Paul.

ITW & Doug Chalmers are a product of media spin which has created what Noam Chomsky described in “Failed States” as a “democracy deficit"--the “substantial gap between public policy and public opinion.” US electoral campaigns are run by the PR industry--the same industry that devotes itself to selling products.  “Business spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year projecting imagery to delude consumers....As [Thorstein] Veblen pointed out long ago, one of the primary tasks of propaganda is the ‘fabrication of consumers,’ a device that helps induce ‘all the classic symptoms of state-based totalitarianism:  atomization, political apathy and irrationality, the hollowing and banalization of purportedly democratic political processes....’” Ominously, Joseph Goebbels “conscripted the leading commercial advertising me in Germany for his propaganda ministry,” stating that “he would use American advertising methods” to “sell National Socialism” much as a business seeks to sell ‘chocolate, toothpast and patent medicines.’”

In packaging candidates, the PR industry “resorts to the same techniques” it uses in “marketing commodities.  Deceit is employed to undermine democracy, just as it is a natural device to undermine markets.” In candidate packaging, the public is not presented with a detailed analysis of where the candidate stands on the issues of the day but on the projection of image.

Chomsky illustrates this by pointing to Reagan’s 1984 landslide election.  Polls “showed by 3-2, voters favored tax increases devoted to New Deal and Great Society programs....The public preferred cuts in military spending to cuts in health programs by about 2 to 1.” “None of this matters,” Chomsky concludes, “as long as elections are skillfully managed to avoid issues and marginalize the underlying population, again in Veblen’s terminology, freeing the elected leadership to serve the substantial people.”

A more recent example is the blind Democratic poll conducted last August which set forth candidate positions on issues but deleted their names.  One candidate, Kucinich, received a whopping 58% of the vote while the rest of the field was at or near single digits.

Time and again I have seen posters like CY give solid substantive reasons why Kucinich is by far the superior candidate only to see their rational arguments bounce off ITW & Chalmers who are so blinded by image that they have become impervious to questions of substance.  They can only repeat the mantra drilled into them by the propaganda network, aka corporate media, Hillary is “electable,” don’t waste your vote.  The effort by these otherwise intelligent individuals to cling to that mantra is a testament to the mind-numbing effect of the imagery cast by the propaganda network, aka corporate media, which has them asking the wrong question, who “will” win rather than the right question, who should we want to win.

Hillary is the neo cons favorite candidate.  She is all they talk about.  She is the leader when it comes to accepting the Corporate bribes.  Next to “W” she is the best candidate that money has been able to buy.

Edwards plays ball to some extent, but he did make his money as a lawyer getting some fairness for some real people.  He may be able to accomplish te most reform while still accepting many lies.  Dennis is standing for TRUTH.  It is a lonely job.  There is so much ugliness to hide.  He has real enemies on both sides and they have more backing then we can fathom.

ITW,
Giving pause can feel good, but the feeling is like, I got yah! Then what?

I agree with you, it can be tempting and could make the Hillary pill test less bitter. Change real change is not in the air, so you may have something there.  Hillary is business as usual, connected at the hip with special interests, plays the game by the rules, she may appeal to more neocons than you think.  Not being a man, may be the thing most unpalatable to them, her pandering seems to have helped her on the issues supported by the neocons.

Your giving pause comment is interesting, we have an opportunity to have Kucinich come to our community for a campaign speech, it would be nice to have him drop by this good old boy community, Hillary would never come to our little community. 

Hillary and Kucinich differences are, Kucinich tells it like it is and Hillary tells it like she is instructed to tell us like it is.  Truth compared to sos.

You Kucinich-Klowns are no better than the tin-foil-hat conspiracy fantacists.

Look, if Dennis the Menace gets the nomination I’ll vote for him.

The ONE thing I LIKE about Hillary Clinton (and there’s much I don’t like) is that she drives the right-wing-nuts to distracted insanity, like no other Dem.  They fear HER as President more than any other candidate...Doesn’t that give you pause? It sure gives me pause. I think she’s playing the game, and once in the White House will be far more progressive than “playing politics” allows her.

And I think the rightwingnuts know this.

Vidal is a CRITIC, not a source, nor a statistician!  You can defend him to the hills, but his opinion is his OPINION, no more.  And his audience is a tiny, non-random sub-set.

The comparison of MY description of Gore as irrelevant to the neocons’ mis-use of that word for the UN is absurd, childish, and just plain STUPID--and you know it!  That’s a child’s argument on the level of “You said ‘butt’--nah, nah-nah-nah, nah!”