Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 27, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Weather Extremes Will Be the Norm As World Warms




Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar
Fidel Castro: My Life: A Spoken Autobiography

Fidel Castro: My Life: A Spoken Autobiography

by Ignacio Ramonet and Fidel Castro
$26.40

more items

 
Report

Rep. Kucinich: Why I’m Running for President

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 12, 2006
Kucinich
AP / Luke Palmisano

Rep. Dennis Kucinich at a 2005 speech in Lakewood, Ohio.

By Joshua Scheer

The six-term Ohio congressman and 2004 presidential candidate, who has been one of Congress’ most vocal and longstanding opponents of the Iraq war, tells Truthdig why he again has his sights set on the Oval Office:

Rep. Kucinch spoke with Truthdig research editor Joshua Scheer*.



TRUTHDIG:  What made you decide to run?

KUCINICH:  Someone has to rally the American people, to let them know that the money is there right now to bring our troops home. Democrats were put in power in November to chart a new direction in Iraq. It’s inconceivable that having been given the constitutional responsibility to guide the fortunes of America in a new direction, that Democratic leaders would respond by supporting the administration’s call for up to $160 billion in new funding for the war in Iraq.

For me this is a call of conscience to stand up and speak out about what’s going on—to let the American people know that the money is there to bring our troops home now, that we need to begin now to take a new direction in Iraq, and that to pass a supplemental in the spring for another $160 billion would keep the war going until the end of George Bush’s term. Someone needs to stand up and speak out, and I decided it was my responsibility as the person who has been consistently opposed to this war since its inception, who has been a leader in challenging this thinking that led to war, that I would stand up and rally Democrats to change the course that the party has embarked on with respect to continued funding of the war.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
TRUTHDIG:  This is obviously your major issue, but what other issues are you going to base your campaign on?

KUCINICH:  We have to take these things in sequence. From now until the spring, this is the issue: $160 billion is more than three times what the federal education budget is. This is a huge amount of money, and all the other hopes we have as Democrats to create a new agenda for the American people in housing, in healthcare, in education, are going to be destroyed by the administration’s request for $160 billion.

So does that mean I’m a one-issue candidate? Of course not. I’m prepared to lead this country forward to create a universal, single-payer, not-for-profit healthcare system. I’m prepared to lead the way towards policies of environmental sustainability, to develop advanced technologies for alternative energy, for clean energy.

This campaign is about three imperatives: It’s about the imperative of human unity, of recognizing that this is one world, that we are all one, that people all around the world have an underlying connection, that we are interconnected and interdependent. And we need policies that act that interconnection. We need to affirm institutions which support the idea of human unity. And that means that we support the United Nations. It means we support treaties in working with other countries. It means we support the rule of law internationally.

The second imperative is human security, and that security has to deal with basic needs: Each person in the world has a right to survive, a right to food that is fit to eat, and water fit to drink, and air fit to breathe. Each person has a right to a roof over his or her own head. Each person has a right to have clothes on their back. Each person has a right to some means of being able to make a living. Each person has a right to be free of the fear of violence. We have a responsibility to work to secure the world from a nuclear nightmare. We need to look at what we can do to protect peoples everywhere by working for not just nonproliferation, not just disarmament, but nuclear abolition, which in fact was the promise of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The third imperative I’ll discuss in this campaign is the imperative of peace. There are those who believe that war is inevitable. A belief in the inevitability of war makes war a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need to be convinced in our innate capability to create structures for peace in our society. We need to be convinced of our potential as a nation to make nonviolence an operating principle in our society. This is the motivating reason behind a Cabinet-level Department of Peace, which addresses directly, in a practical way, the challenge of domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in the school, racial violence, violence against gays, community relations disputes.

The imperatives of human unity, human security, peace, all create a context for human prosperity. We have the potential to create heaven on earth. New Jerusalem is within our reach. It’s waiting to be called forward through the power of courage, emanating through our hearts, through our dreams, which come from the longing of our souls. This truly is a time where we can change the world and create the world that we long for.

TRUTHDIG:  You obviously have issues that you care deeply about, and it doesn’t seem like you’re going into this as a sort of popularity contest, but do you think you can win? Do you have a plan to win, say, the South, and parts of the Midwest?

KUCINICH:  Yes. The very fact the people put Democrats in power in November over the issue of Iraq means that there exists a tremendous amount of support for affirming the will of the people to set a new course, not only for Iraq but for all of U.S. international policy. That percolation, which resulted in the Democrats gaining control of Congress, is still there. It is fairly astonishing that Democrat leaders would forget that only a month ago we were given the control of the Congress because of Iraq. It is fairly astonishing that less than a month after being given that constitutional obligation to assume a coequal position in the government, [we] would capitulate on Iraq by publicly declaring support for up to $160 billion in additional funding to keep the war going.

I’ve said it before, I’ve said it again: It is not credible to simultaneously say you are opposed to the war and continue to support funding for the war.

So these are some of the reasons why I’m running for president. And I believe that I will win, because people are truly looking for a new direction. Not by incrementalism, not by capitulation, but people are looking for real leadership, people are looking for foresight. And I’ve demonstrated foresight by moving out front very quickly when the administration was talking about attacking Iraq—warning the country that this was folly, warning the country that we needed to avert this conflict, letting Americans know that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 or Al Qaeda’s role in 9/11, that Iraq did not have WMD, did not have the intention or capability of attacking the United States.

Everything I said turned out to be true. People want leaders who know what the right thing is to do in the moment of crisis, not people who will say, years later, “Well, you know, I agree, this is what should have been done.” This is a call for clearsightedness for foresight and for action, and in each case I’ve demonstrated an ability to step forward. And I’m going to do it again, and I expect that the American people are going to respond very powerfully to my candidacy.

TRUTHDIG:  John Kerry got tarred with the “flip-flopper” label in 2004 for his perceived wavering on the issue of Iraq. Do you think you’re going to have a better chance than someone like Kerry—or Clinton, who’s also been wishy-washy on some of the issues?

KUCINICH:  I haven’t talked about any other candidates, and I’m not going to now. I think that my consistency speaks for itself, and I think that my opposition not only to the authorization for the war but continued opposition to its funding puts me apart from all the other candidates. I’m the only member of the House and Senate who has consistently voted against continued funding for the war.

TRUTHDIG:  I saw Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institute on CNN saying that candidacies like yours are just an ego trip. Is this an ego trip for you?

KUCINICH:  I’ve spent the last five years of my life warning our nation about the path to war and about our occupation of Iraq. There are probably easier ways to pamper oneself.



*Truthdig interviewer Joshua Scheer worked as an entry-level staffer on Kucinich’s state Senate campaign and was later a summer associate in his congressional office. In this weekly interview series, Rep. Kucinich gives his take on the goings-on in Congress in the wake of the Democrats’ victory.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Lawrence J. McDonald, March 20, 2007 at 8:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dennis Kucinich says he’s insulted. The congressman and long-shot presidential candidate says it’s “an insult to the voters, and the height of cynicism for candidates to refuse to take the public stage and subject themselves to public scrutiny.” The congressman’s fuming because prominent Nevada Democrats, and several presidential candidates, have forced the cancellation of an August presidential candidate debate, sponsored by Fox News. One small problem with the congressman’s attack on politicians who refuse to debate is that Kucinich, himself, has refused to publicly debate any challenger to his seat in years. 

Most recently, Mike Dovilla, Kucinich’s GOP general election foe in 2006, was stood up by the congressman at two separate scheduled debates: First, at the prestigious City Club of Cleveland (where Dovilla debated Kucinich’s empty chair) and then at a major candidates forum, hosted by the League of Women Voters (LWV) at Cuyahoga Community College. Both times, Kucinich claimed “scheduling conflicts” prevented his participation. The previous April, the congressman stood up Barbara Ferris, his 2006 Democratic primary challenger, at another City Club forum. Ferris was so angry that, after leaving the event, she traveled to Kucinich’s Lakewood (Ohio) district office and, in ffull view of a group of veterans and a local TV crew, challenged the congressman to debate. (He refused). And in October 2004, Kucinich failed to show for still another City Club primary debate with Ferris (running then as an independent) and Ed Herman, the GOP challenger. Despite having confirmed his appearance beforehand, at the last minute, he cancelled saying “the people already knows where I stand”. How’s that for arrogance? I could go on but suffice to say, Rep.Kucinich has not debated a single challenger to his congressional seat since he was first elected to Congress in 1996. Talk about Chutspah.

Given his career-long track record of refusing to debate his challengers, Kucinich owes a public apology to the Nevada Democratic leaders, and the presidential candidates, whom he slandered unmercifully. Kucinich’s vicious attack has to be the heighth of hypocrisy and should be condemned by the voters in Ohio’s 10th district as well as his national supporters.

Report this

By Ben Takin, March 19, 2007 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

New Yorker,
You want to be safe; you need someone to protect you; your terrified of the big bad “wolf,” you want someone big and tough—-LOL.

You sound like a scared dog, running around with your tail between your legs. Is your paranoia,  caused by FOX news, or do you actually believe the White House press releases—you don’t deserve to be protected; your ignorance will never allow you to feel safe—-there will always be a new enemy to attack. 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1800575/posts

A miserable racist like Rudy doesn’t deserve to be president, and we certainly don’t need another crooked administration; Bush and his cronies have put Tony Soprano to shame. 

And isn’t interesting, that the NYC Fire Department hates creepy Rudy: “Considering Rudy Giuliani’s image as the hero of Sept. 11, 2001, and the nation’s ultimate first responder, burnished yet again by the warm reception he received at a firehouse during a recent campaign swing through South Carolina, it might surprise many of his supporters to learn that the country’s largest union of firefighters hates “America’s mayor” with a passion.”

So “New Yorker,” maybe you need to be protected by a slime ball like Rudy Giuliani; but I would feel safer with a President who has REAL backbone and some vestiges of decency.

Report this

By A New Yorker, March 18, 2007 at 6:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Love the way democrats go after the private personal affairs of a candidate when they see how popular he is. You sound just like the right wing Republicans who went after President Clinton for his acts of sexual misconduct. Rudy has done great things as New York City’s mayor for 8 years. He showed great leadership on 9/11 when the rest of the politicians in this country were in total confusion.
Yes, Rudy deserves to be President. His leadership is necessary to keep the United States safe against terrorism. Do you really think Hillary can protect us? LOL !  Rudy is also a liberal/moderate Republican and has no objections to women retaining the right of choice in the case of abortion. This of course will give him great difficulty with the Conservative Republican voters.
Bottim line, Rudy vs Hillary, no contest as to who the United State’s foreign enemies fear most and would hate to see get elected.
Need I say more for Rudy to become our next President ?

Report this

By Polly Ester, February 19, 2007 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Frank, I just hate to burst your bubble, but here’s some more info about your friend Rudy:

Giuliani is a comic book fantasy character created by MSM.  On September 10, 2001 is popularity was zero—-his second wife, Donna Hanover, was about to throw him out of Gracie Mansion; because he kept bringing his girlfriend Judi (now is third wife) to the Mayor’s residence.

Most ethnic groups in NYC hated him—-they considered him a racist fascist. http://www.openair.org/alerts/artist/nyhitl2.html

MSM’S super-fantasy figure was considered a creepy mayor who did not have a “pot to piss in,” but he became a main benefactor of 9/11—-isn’t it interesting how a penniless major, who didn’t supply his policemen and fireman with working radios—-hampering their interdepartmental communications, became a multi-millionaire:  “The only thing Giuliani has run since leaving office is the booming franchise of Giuliani. He has written a huge best seller and made a small fortune giving speeches all over the world. He has run a lucrative consulting business, one that enables him to fly down to a place like Mexico City for a few days, explain to them how they can reduce the crime rate and then he pockets big change.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776815/posts

“Witnesses who escaped from the tower tell a vastly different story than Mr. Giuliani. They say that in the north tower’s final 15 minutes, only a handful of civilian office workers were still in the bottom 44 floors of the building, perhaps no more than two or three dozen. Many of the firefighters who remained in the towers were between the 19th and 37th floors, having made slow progress up the stairs in their heavy gear.
It is clear, witnesses said, that even after the south tower collapsed, many, if not most, of the firefighters had no idea that they were in dire peril, or that it was time for them to leave. In contrast, police officers received strong guidance from their commanders to get out of the building, the commission reported, thanks in large part to the information sent to the ground by police helicopters.”

Report this

By Frank, February 19, 2007 at 7:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Polly, the similiarities to Giuliani end with “I have failed at two marriages”. Given the success Giuliani’s police policies had on crime reduction in New York, which significantly beat the national crime reduction trend, I don’t think most New Yorkers would call his tenure a “wash”, as that improvement alone benefited all New Yorkers (except maybe the criminals).

And Kucinich? According to Wikipedia: “Melvin G. Holli in consultation with a panel of experts, placed Kucinich among the ten worst big-city mayors of all time for reasons of temperament and performance in the book, Best and Worst of the Big-City Leaders 1820-1993 ”

Report this

By Mad As Hell, February 19, 2007 at 5:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why has Truthdig.com kept this advertisement for a fringe candidate up for 2 1/2 months?  Kucinch has a) no chance (has an incumbent Congressman ever been elected President?) b) a spotty resume c)public perception is that he’s a bit of a nut. d) He’s never shown himself to be an effective congressman or mayor. His colleagues won’t give him any positions of control, which means he cannot negotiate the currents and eddies of politics and power, even in the Democratic Party.

For all the Naderite-types who believed Ralph when he said there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Bush and Gore, we now see there was a Constitution’s difference between them.

I would LOVE to see Gore sit on the sidelines for several months, then, after it gets bloody, come in as the candidate to unify ALL Democrats and Bush-haters

Report this

By Polly Ester, February 16, 2007 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“My tenure as a mayor was pretty much a wash for everybody and I have failed at two marriages. So my resume isn’t that great.”

Frank,
Are you sure you are not posting a comment about Rudy Giuliani?

Report this

By Frank, February 16, 2007 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

(an imaginary conversation with Dennis Kucinich):

Me: Dennis, why are you running for President?

Kucinich: Well, Frankly, what else can I do? This congressional gig is getting old and I’m not really going anywhere in congress.  I don’t hold any chairs and I’m seen as more of a fringe oddity than a leader in my party. Outside of politics, I have no job experience in the real world so a significant corporate career is unlikely. My tenure as a mayor was pretty much a wash for everybody and I have failed at two marriages. So my resume isn’t that great.  I guess I may as well run for President.

Me: I see…

Report this

By Rabbit, February 9, 2007 at 6:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I guess liberals would rather elect a candidate who has been pre-screened and approved by corporate and foreign interests. The same interests that got us into the Iraq war.
  Personally I would rather vote for the one who is not a puppet of these interests which is why I support Kucinich.
  I put my money where my mouth is and sent $100 to him through http://www.kucinich.us.
  You should too. Send him something, whatever you can, even if it’s not much.
  I do not work for his campaign. I just want to bring democracy back to America.
  Rabbit

Report this

By Lawrence J. McDonald, February 8, 2007 at 7:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Two of the more celebrated speakers at the recent anti-Iraq war rally in Washington were Jane Fonda and Dennis Kucinich. Ms. Fonda remarked that it was the first antiwar rally that she had participated in in 34 years. From 1969 to 1973, Fonda was one of the highest profile activista against Richard Nixon and the Vietnam war. She was also an advocate for native-american rights as well as a supporter of Huey Newton and the Black Panthers.

Dennis Kucinich’s activities 34 years ago were dramatically different than Fonda’s: In the early 70’s, Kucinich was candidate a Cleveland city council seat who resorted to some pretty racist tactics against his opponents. Kucinch handed out campaign literature featuring a photo of Black City Council President George Forbes leering at one of Kucinch’s white female opponents with the title “What’s Going on Here?” As the Cleveland Plain Dealer describes, “It showed a lascivious-looking picture of Forbes gazing at a picture of Mary Rose Oakar (who was later elected to the U.S. Congress), who is white”. According to accounts in the Plain Dealer, it said Oakar was a pawn of Forbes and elements “east of the river,” a reference to Blacks and the racial dividing line of the Cuyahoga River.” In fact, Kucinich regularly attacked white politicians who supported Blacks in office as “puppets.” In 1974, Kucinich criticized political rival Ron Mott for voting in favor of instituting Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a legal holiday.

This may be a shock to Kucinich’s current supporters but, sadly, it’s very true. It should also be noted that Kucinich, although a very controversial public official, never publicly expressed any dissatisfaction or anger about the Vietnam war in those days. The war, apparently, was not on his radar screen in those days because he obtained a medical deferment for an alleged heart condition and was classified 4-F (unfit for military service). Funny, that heart condition never seemed to affect his ability to run for office TWENTY-FOUR different times in a 34 year political career.

Report this

By Afi K. James, February 5, 2007 at 11:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dennis is a good candidate, but he’s about to be truly destroyed in a nasty way by corporate media and the extreme conserative south.

I’m voting for wesley clark, sorry dennis, your good, but just not that great.

Report this

By TheRealdeal, January 17, 2007 at 3:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think the only way Kucinich or any other good candidate will ever win an election is if people stop turning to the corporate media.

It’s a matter of personal responsibility. Nobody forces us to swallow the lies of Faux News or any other supposedly ‘fair and balanced’ media corporation. We must turn our heads away from the corporate media and instead get our news from alternative media, such as blogs. The corporate media can say whatever they want, but if people stop listening and more importantly stop voting based on what they say it doesn’t matter.

Report this

By Marie2, January 17, 2007 at 10:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Instead of dwelling on the past we should look toward the future and steering this country in a better direction, not towards war.  We should let our representatives know that we care about such issues as global poverty and the Millenium Goals one, of which is to eliminate global poverty by 2015.  According to the Borgen Project only $19 billion is needed to feed the rest of the world for the year.

Report this

By Gerry Long, January 9, 2007 at 9:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Kucinich would make a wonderful president.

But his programs would take money away from the following industries:  big pharma, military, oil, auto, insurance, banking, and food, all of which is damned well justified.

But you would see those industries tell the media owners:  “You give this man one ounce of good publicity, and you’ll lose our advertising dollars.”

Now can you see the NY Times, the Post, CNN, Time, LA Times, NBC, CBS, Fox, etc., suddenly putting the future of this country before their profits, and supporting Dennis Kucinich?

They’ll destroy Kucinich overnight, just as they did Howard Dean.  We’ll be reminded of who controls this “democracy”.

Report this

By 127001, January 9, 2007 at 3:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It would be nice to have SOME candidate bring up the issue of restoring those lost basic Constitutional Rights that have been shoved out of the way and under the carpet. Pretending they aren’t gone doesn’t bring them back.

I’ll continue to support Kucinich anyway ...

I figure I’ll learn to spell his name.

Report this

By gary296, January 8, 2007 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m very glad to see you’re getting in the race Dennis! Now, how do we win this thing? I assume one step at a time. If the corporate media won’t give you fair air time then do what Dean did and use the internet. After all the people who are really interested don’t listen to them much anyway. Also left wing radio is a national stage. I realize you don’t want to belittle yourself by attacking your competition but in regards to Iraq for example Hillary has been the flip flopper. Edwards reminds me of Damien on the omen. Barack is a corporatist, and backed by Oprah. That’s scary. Anyway, good luck you have my total support!

Report this

By Polly Ester, January 8, 2007 at 10:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Kellina—-your comments are insightful and as you said idealistic—-hoping to find honesty in politics, is like believing in Immaculate Conception, well, maybe it does occur if we count In Vitro Fertilization.

Report this

By Kellina, January 8, 2007 at 7:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As long as we are being idealistic, I say let’s get someone like Cynthia McKinney to run for the Presidency. She took a stand with her questions about the gov’t's role in 9/11 (and got crucified for it). I admire her greatly. I was so sad that she lost in the ‘06 primary—she keeps getting defeated by a republican machine campaigning for republicans to “jump the line” and vote, in the democratic primary, for “anybody but McKinney.” The district is too full of democrats for the republicans to beat her fairly, so they do dirty tricks. See “American Blackout” (google video).

Max Cleland is terrific, too; he was on the “Omission Commission” but resigned when he realized that the report would be a white-wash.

We need a third party; I agree. In general, the repubs and dems are just alike. I think the previous comments have it nailed.

Report this

By Peter RV, January 7, 2007 at 12:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Stonefruit’s (#45682) given me an idea (which probably many of you have thought of- and rejected ) that, to obtain those measly 5% of votes to qualify for the financial support, we only need to convince a very known personality to head our movement.
  How about Jimmy Carter, who recently, has practically been ex-communicated from the Party by Nancy Pelosi because of his book? He is entitled by the Constitution to have another go at the Presidency.
  The hell, we have all the winning issues at our hands,our insane wars of agression, our budding fascist police state, the subjugation to AIPAC, our torture culture, our passion for rendition and lawlessness etc
  If we dont saddle our candidate with the hyper-progressive relics and declare a moratorium on gay marriages, domestic violence,racism,child abuse, school violence etc, we might win much more than 5% What on earth is wrong in claiming that certain problems are not so urgent (or are endemic) compared with those which are imminently menacing the existance of our republic.(I am sure that Nader lost lots of votes looking too cute to be believed)
  Bismark once said that some problems should be left for the next generations to be solved lest they die of boredom.

Report this

By Lee Dekker, January 6, 2007 at 9:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

One possible way allowing third parties to get a shoe in, is Instant Runoff Voting. Attempting to play this card this late in the game may seem futile, but what doesn’t after two Bush terms.

Naturally, both Democrats and Republicans hate any hint of instant runoff voting. Both parties, which are of course the same party, loathe any concept that threatens their self serving death grip on the American experiment.

Feeling more comfortable sticking our heads in the sand at this point is understandable. But working for and spreading the word about instant runoff voting might feel like a productive way to pass time.

http://www.calirv.org/

Report this

By Eleanore Kjellberg, January 5, 2007 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“I can count on one hand the politicians I truly respect and admire in the House and Senate (too bad they murdered Wellstone), those who are right on almost all of the issues and who aren’t whores to the transnational kleptocracy.”

Stonefruit,
An excellent analysis—-but is multiple-parties the answer or is it campaign reform—-if all candidates received THE SAME FUNDING and were not compelled to be harlots to big business, we would see diversity and an assortment of differing voices.  And perhaps, if MSM interrupted their Prozacian programs and showed a series of serious debates, the public might be become politicized.

But most importantly of all, as you pointed out, if an honest politician manages to circumvent a system endemic with corruption or even “reformed” corruption, he/she might very well land up like Wellstone.

Report this

By stonefruit, January 4, 2007 at 9:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Kucinich is a wise, compassionate, fully-evolved human being who says everything I could ever dream a politician would say.  I can count on one hand the politicians I truly respect and admire in the House and Senate (too bad they murdered Wellstone), those who are right on almost all of the issues and who aren’t whores to the transnational kleptocracy.  He is one of them.

Here’s the double-bind though.  Only the “major parties” (i.e. the two wings of the Money party) have the funding, personnel, organizational strength and access to the Media Echo Chamber to put people in the white house.  However, ever since Clinton destroyed the last vestigial traces of difference between the democrats and the republicans, the democratic party has proven itself beyond all shadow of a doubt to be the tool of opportunistic, poll-driven hacks with unconditional fealty to ruthless, blood-soaked, never-ending Israeli apartheid and no appetite whatsoever for defending the classic ideals of democracy (or even their own party) or challenging the status quo of corporate supremacy, perpetual war, the wholesale evisceration of the constitution, systematic criminality as routine government, an economy teetering on the brink of collapse, a bankrupt federal government, and the relentless devastation of the environment.  They have become Republican lite, but with legal abortions and a few meager morsels set out in an extremely modest “buffet of poll-tested social programs sure to please Democratic Party interest groups while not offending too many other Americans.”

The American experiment with democracy is all but over and the most pressing item on the “democratic agenda” is adding a few dimes an hour to the minimum wage?!

Clearly, the party is beyond redemption.  Therefore, any attempt for a decent human being to seek the presidential nomination through it is utterly pointless, especially as the media simulacrasphere, as the marketing arm of The Powers That Be, will never allow the appointment of any president willing to challenge the ongoing rapine of the world by those Powers. 

Kucinich is a dear, dear fellow but either hopelessly naive about the power of his ideas to move the party towards them and therefore to stupid to deserve any votes or (whether he would admit it to himself or not) a full-blown stalking horse to keep the most sane, intelligent, compassionate faction of the democrats (i.e. the “progressives” and the “anti-war wing”) ineffectually embedded in a party that cares not a whit about them and therefore he is to wily and/or deluded to deserve any votes.

And none of us who supported him with such intense enthusiasm in 2004 forget how quickly and effortlessly he rolled over into the hateful, insipid, disgusting “anybody but Bush” camp and lined up dutifully behind the Skull and Bone warmongering Kerry, asking nothing at all for his support - and receiving it in abundance.

I fully agree with comment #45037 by Peter RV “If his loyalty to the Party is more important to him than to the Country, he can forget my support.”

I campaigned for the man in 2004 but unless he bolts from the party, he can kiss my support goodbye. 

In this I agree with, of all people, the Chimp-in-Chief, the Unitary Decider himself, the man who hears voices in his head telling him to kill 600,000 Iraqis, George W. Bush: “Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. [Pause.] Fool me - you can’t get fooled again.”

All we need is for a party to get 5% of the vote and then they get $12 million for the next presidential election.  Then maybe we can have what many actually functioning democracies enjoy - multiple parties.

Report this

By Linda, January 4, 2007 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Kucinich has been my hero of government for years and a voice of reason crying in the wilderness.  Go Dennis!!!  I will gladly campaign for u.  Add John Edwards to the list as VP and the american people are the winners.  It’s time someone kicked the little emperor and the “crazies” right out on their a$$es.  God speed Dennis.

Report this

By Lee Dekker, January 4, 2007 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What a fun website and what a fun discussion about Dennis Kucinich. So much energy spent running down Kucinich would seem better spent on thugs currently in charge of both political parties. Of course he doesn’t stand a chance. What’s that got to do with it? At least the guy stands out a little bit. He deserves some credit for that.

If all the inner workings and vote stealing somehow fumbled and did allow Kucinich to be elected, I’d want to be the beneficiary of his life insurance policy.

But we don’t have to worry about that. The last time Mr. Kucinich ran for president he was universally and judiciously ignored. Cleverly, the media didn’t spend time criticizing him or calling him names. The media was loathe to even mention the name Kucinich. Never before have I seen an orchestrated back turning and ignoring so well pulled off. It was as if there was no such thing as a Dennis Kucinich.

The least likely to win candidates and those with little or nothing to say, were given vastly more air time and credence than the (not really even their) Dennis Kucinich. But being ignored to death is better than being put to death, which is what would happen in short order, if he ever did get elected.

Report this

By Osgard, January 4, 2007 at 11:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Unless Kucinich is willing and able to thwart the pro-Israel fanatics who are determined to keep dragging into self-destructive wars for Israel’s benefit, he will be ineffective.

He has shown no such willingness.

I’d say we’re pretty much doomed as a country. Our tombstone will read “Here lies the corpse of the USA - committed suicide for Israel (see next grave)”.

Report this

By Peter RV, January 2, 2007 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Kucinich would certainly be an enormous improvement over all Democratic candidates but since he will never be the Party’s candidate (whom are we kidding?),it is legitimate to ask him what are going to be his post-convention intentions.
Is he going to pull Howard Dean spectacle and field his anti-war followers behind the official pro-war candidate, acting as a Trojan Horse in the anti-war camp? Or, is he going to run as an independent? He has to give a clear answer to these alternatives before I would consider rooting for him.
Democratic and Republican parties have reached an unprecedented level of moral bankruptcy that I can’t possibly imagine voting for either of them, ever again.
If his loyalty to the Party is more important to him than to the Country, he can forget my
support.

Report this

By HeadlessHessian, January 1, 2007 at 7:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is old news now…

Report this

By Jon B, December 31, 2006 at 12:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Frank, your so called “viable candidates” are funded, picked and chosen by broad spectrum of rich and powerful special interests. Take your pick, middle and lower classes would end up losers.

If you want substance and what’s good for America, go for under funded candidates including Kucinich. These candidates are not liable and have no obligations to the rich and powerful.

Mainstream media can’t be trusted. They are the voice of rich and powerful. They have no choice. Their sources of income come from corporate advertising expenditure. They had to do what they are told.

Report this

By Frank, December 28, 2006 at 4:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Kucinich is an absolute zero as a presidential candidate. Anyone who thinks otherwise is hopelessly naive and out of touch.

I wish Truthdig would stop wasting page space on him and cover some viable candidates for 2008.

Report this

By hikus, December 28, 2006 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Kucinich stands for the highest ideals of the human condition—non-violent activism in favor of human dignity and fundamental civil rights.

Supporting these ideals in a candidacy is dismissed as impractical or horse-manure or a rat-hole of funds or impossible without changes in campaign finance laws, but, is it better, then, to tolerate or forgive slavery, the killing fields of Iraq, starvation and homelessness? 

Is that more worthy because it’s perceived as more practical, easier?

Is money better spent supporting a candidate who is willing to compromise on a few more thousand lives lost in Iraq and few more children sold in slavery and a few more years of genocide in Darfur ad elsewere and few more hate crimes and violence in the US against gays, blacks, muslims and women?

Is compromise of our best ideals a value we look to in our leaders?  Is that really who we want to reward with our votes and our dollars?

The measure of what’s achievable is what has been accomplished in the past.  Let’s strive ruthlessly for the highest ideals—doggedly fight to create a world that works for everyone—and perhaps we will accomplish more than we might dare hope.  In the process we may redefine our measure of what’s achievable.

Report this

By John Konop, December 28, 2006 at 11:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Child Slavery Threat To Justice

This was a very interesting article I found on The Conservative Voice. Do you think slave labor should be a moral issue in trade deals?

TCV-In the US, slavery was outlawed at the national level in 1865. “Oppressive child labor” was outlawed at the US national level in 1938. Yet child labor persists around the world as national and multinational companies seek lower labor costs and greater profits. Adult consumers around the world benefit with cheap goods made with child labor.

Will worldwide morality over this issue become so great that all countries will banish child labor forever as they did the once prevalent black slavery? Or will the benefits that accrue to consumers and corporations by child labor prevail? Will economics trump morality or not? Stanly asked. Read the rest of this entry »

Report this

By Polly Ester, December 26, 2006 at 6:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Until there is public financing, Kucinich doesn’t have a chance—-the public’s superficial analysis of a candidate is dependent on the campaigners appearance more than their intellect i.e., tall, attractive and of course male, all the attributes that will never portend a successful presidency.

Report this

By Jimmy Montague, December 26, 2006 at 6:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let me see if I got this right. Spinoza says:

1) “The only thing that makes Kucinich great is his pacifist platform.

2) “The point is that Kucinich is intellectually correct.

3) “We have to fight liberal scum and I don’t think Kucinich is the person to do it.

4) “[W]e should not worry too much about elections and worry about fighting fascism by any means necessary.  Get guns and get bombs.  FIGHT FASCISM.”

I think I got that right. Didn’t I get that right? I’m wondering if I got that right. Somebody help me here: Did I get that right? I believe I did.

Report this

By Spinoza, December 25, 2006 at 5:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The only thing that makes Kucinich great is his pacifist platform. It is people like Mr. Montague that makes me despair for the human race.

The point is that Kucinich is intellectually correct. Only a pro-active world wide peace campaign can end war mongering and capitalist imperialism.

We have to fight liberal scum and I don’t think Kucinich is the person to do it. He is too wedded to the Democrat Party. I think Ralph Nader (or any Green candidate would be better at it.

But in the near term only reactionaries can win in our anti-democratic political system.  Therefore we should not worry too much about elections and worry about fighting fascism by any means necessary.  Get guns and get bombs.  FIGHT FASCISM.

Report this

By Jimmy Montague, December 25, 2006 at 8:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Kucinich will never get anywhere spreading horse manure like this:

“The third imperative I’ll discuss in this campaign is the imperative of peace. There are those who believe that war is inevitable. A belief in the inevitability of war makes war a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need to be convinced in our innate capability to create structures for peace in our society. We need to be convinced of our potential as a nation to make nonviolence an operating principle in our society. This is the motivating reason behind a Cabinet-level Department of Peace, which addresses directly, in a practical way, the challenge of domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in the school, racial violence, violence against gays, community relations disputes.”

He’ll be lucky just to get elected. If he’s able to go forward from that point “to create a universal, single-payer . . . healthcare system, [develop] . . . policies of environmental sustainability, [and] develop advanced technologies for [clean] alternative energy,” he will have accomplished more than any U.S. president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Those are the points he should be pushing, and pushing hard.

To go on from there and start spouting all that namby-pamby, pie-in-the-sky, utopian bullshit—he’s just handing guys like Rush Limbaugh clubs to beat him with. At this point in the race, I’d say Kucinich needs to shut the hell up until he finds someone competent to manage his mouth for him. And (because what he’s already said will surely come back to haunt him) it may already be too late for shut the hell up.

I don’t doubt his principles. I’m convinced he’s a good person. But I used to think he also had some brains. . . .

Report this

By Stan Goltman, December 24, 2006 at 8:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Kucinich for President. Ross Perot as his running mate. What a daily double that would be!

Report this

By Spinoza, December 22, 2006 at 7:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

December 22, 2006

Where Was He When It Mattered?
Kucinich: Maverick or Stalking Horse?
By RAHUL MAHAJAN

Winter approaches and a young politician’s fancy turns to thoughts of the 2008 presidential campaign. Among the announced candidates is antiwar favorite Dennis Kucinich.

I have nothing against Kucinich. He’s one of the most progressive Congresspeople and a genuinely decent, honest person who seems to have no trace of the personal corruption so endemic to politicians. Overall, his values and political stances seem highly compatible with the transformative left agenda that so many believe in quietly.

I disagree with him on some issues. On trade, I want a fair international order with binding rules that apply to everybody ­ rules that embody values very different from those in the WTO ­ while Kucinich wants an essentially anarchic world order where the United States strong-arms other countries through bilateral trade pacts. A position he shares with George W. Bush—back when Bush had positions on issues other than “freedom.”

To be fair, Bush wants to impose better conditions for U.S. corporations and for militaristic U.S. imperialism on weaker countries, whereas Kucinich merely wants to impose “social clauses” that are protectionist in effect ­ which is, of course, the kind of “humanitarian imperialism” that Kucinich resolutely opposes in the military sphere. He also doesn’t seem to understand that this is impossible ­ the United States, beholden as it is to corporate interests and to its privileged position in the world order, cannot possibly be in the vanguard on this issue. Look to Venezuela, the G21, Mercosur, anywhere except the United States.

I also task him for not voting against the absurd congressional resolution blindly supporting Israel’s Lebanon war, whose avowed target was the civilian political supporters of Hizbullah ­ he voted “present,” a cowardly act for someone who wants to be a leader of the left.

Though these are important defects, Kucinich is in general very good, and, based solely on the issues, worthy of support.

Even so, if you are considering supporting him, I want to caution you.

Given the conservative-nationalistic populist refoundation of the Democratic Party, most likely Kucinich will stand out as the only even slightly anti-militarist and anti-imperialist Democratic candidate. Short of a run by Nader, Bill Moyers, or someone like that, he’ll probably also be the only worthy candidate with any public recognition.

Still, despite numerous fatuous proclamations of his, there’s absolutely no way he will win or even make a respectable showing, and so one must consider what is to be gained from supporting him.

Last time, his campaign spent $11 million—$11 million of activist money poured down a rat-hole, in my opinion, along with a great deal of time, effort, and enthusiasm.

His campaign was intellectually deficient on foreign policy, a crippling fault. His talks were long on platitudes about peace, but short on the specifics about real issues that might have spread the left message beyond the choir. So ignorant was he regarding the U.S.-backed coup against Aristide that, in a televised debate, he said what the U.S. was doing was good, but it needed to do more ­ it was left to John Kerry, oddly, to expose the extent of the Bush administration’s animus toward Aristide.

Although Kucinich’s “position” on Iraq was fine, he had very little to say about it and avoided the issue in favor of expansive visions on social programs that couldn’t possibly make any difference in a political campaign defined by Iraq.

MORE:

http://www.counterpunch.org/mahajan12222006.html

Report this

By Polly Ester, December 22, 2006 at 6:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We all know that Kucinich doesn’t have a shot running for president in a political system that requires you to be a high priced hooker—-how much money must a politician possess to run a successful presidential campaign, how many CEOS must a politician satisfy, in order for the cabal to feel comfortable—-I guess we have to ask Hilary and BO.

Report this

By liquified viscera, December 22, 2006 at 9:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thanks very much, TAO Walker, for some very solid analysis and honest speaking about what is needed if we really and truly ever expect to have PEACE.

And the question of “prosperity” continues to be the red herring of “economists,” particularly those who are apologists for a system of capitalistic consumerist materialism.  It is quite clear that such a consumerist-materialist economy cannot survive, as it is causing us to deplete the resources of our planet and create gigantic dumps of the end products of consumerist-materialist action: trash, scrap plastic/metal/rubber, nuclear waste, mining tipple, sewage sludge.

Will most Americans be able or willing to give up their 10 mpg SUV, their overlarge faux chateaux that waste energy and building materials and cooling/heating, their overpriced clothing that was made at inhumanly cheap cost through virtual slave labor?

People don’t want to look at what their lives create.  Among all the people I know, I can count only a handful of us who live with a conscious effort to minimize our footprint on this planet.  And we’re not the ones who need convincing.  So how does the message get written, how does it get spread?

Report this

By more ideas for reform, December 22, 2006 at 8:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

more things to consider:

real campaign-finance reform

ending NAFTA

making corporations pay their fair share of taxes: no more registering as a company in the Caymans but really operating in N.J., for example.

Report this

By Kellina, December 22, 2006 at 8:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

0) Restore the Bill of Rights.

1) End the Iraq War. Now. Period.

2) Initiate inquiry into why the war was started, prosecute those responsible for lying to get us into war, and for wartime atrocities.

3) Reinstate recognition of the Geneva conventions.

4) Conduct a genuine investigation of the events of 9/11.

5) End lobbying as we know it.

6) End Corporate welfare.

7) End lobbying by other countries meddling in our domestic and foreign policy (e.g., Britain and Israel).

8) Make reparations for the wounded and dead on all sides of the Iraq war. Rebuild Iraq.

9) Rescind those tax breaks for the wealthy.

10) Do away with income tax altogether—just tax consumption on luxury items. (This believe it or not will be enough, combined with us no longer having to pay the Federal Reserve interest on any new National Debt.)


I am not listing anything in order, necessarily, and I’m sure I left a lot out. In fact, I know almost nothing about how to run a gov’t and I’m really talking out of my ass. But I want a real conversation started about what it would take to turn things around. Not just from the damage done by presidents in the last two or three decades, but going all the way back to Wilson.

Report this

By Alfred N Godinez, December 21, 2006 at 8:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am really pleased to hear that Mr. Kucinich will once again bring his intelligence and vision to the national stage for a run for the Presidency.My wife and I agreed that he was obviously the most informed and positive of ALL the candidates in 2004.His candidacy in 2008 will raise the level of the debate on every topic.We can only hope that the American electorate will carefully listen to the ONLY candidate who is unafraid to challenge BOTH parties to actually do what they were elected to do.Unselfishly SERVE their employers;the American people!

Report this

By TAO Walker, December 21, 2006 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Conclusion to comment in response to Darya Calliha (#43201)

So already the material “prosperity” Mr. Kucinich wishes for must, at the very least, be deferred indefinitely, pending payment of just the moral and ethical component of the country’s colossal obligations.  This doesn’t even begin to touch the tens of trillions of dollars in public and private red ink that there aren’t even sufficient artifactual assets in the nation’s entire inventory to cover, when those IOUs are called in.
For a people as mired in debt as Americans are, even to daydream about prosperity betrays a pretty serious disconnect from the harsh realities of the capitalist system.  A nation of perpetual wage-and-debt slaves, a condition into which Americans have been tricked and sold (by both their homegrown privateering predator class and many of their duly-elected but seduced and suborned ‘public servants’),  are not even remotely in-control of their own economic destiny.  How, exactly, does Mr. Kucinich propose to work around that inescapable fact so that he might then show the way to solvency and an equitable sharing among themselves of Americans’ necessarily much-reduced share of the world’s goods.
Simply chanting the “Peace and Prosperity” mantra is not a solution to this Gordian Knot of interlinked “problem sets.”  And it wasn’t, if memory serves, the Sword of Damocles, hanging by a thread over everybody’s head, that Alexander used to cut through the prototype.  So if brute force won’t serve here, a candidate offering to address the situation better have, and be able to spell-out in plain language, an alternative approach.  What exactly, it seems both fair and necessary to ask, is Dennis Kucinich’s?
The other notion in Darya Calliha’s comment that gives cause to pause and wonder is the Kucinich potential to actually pose “....a threat to the very sinister powers that be.”  (As a ‘southpaw’ myself, and the father of a daughter who is,too, this is not a very reassuring choice of adjective….but let that go for now.)  Along with that idea goes the suggestion that candidate Kucinich is only exhibiting a serpentine wisdom in dissembling about his plans, if any, for dealing (gently?) with those “powers.”
Some of us surviving primitive savages have been watching for quite awhile now how the global gangsters run their global wrecking-and-killing machine.  These practiced con-artists probably aren’t going to be that easily fooled.  If Dennis Kucinich was seen as a threat to their material self-interests he’d've been neutralized already.  Ironically, if he isn’t that kind of threat to them, he’s really not much good to himself or the rest of you, either.
This is sure a tough one alright.  HokaHey!

Report this

By TAO Walker, December 21, 2006 at 7:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Darya Calliha (#43201) offers an obviously sincere and, in some of its particulars, even compelling case for supporting the presidential campaign of Dennis Kucinich.  Lots of others here do that as well, and the strong undertone in many of their comments, of a recognition that playing the political “percentages” is a luxury Americans can no longer afford (Considering where it’s got ‘em today, it is clearly a gamble they never should’ve taken to begin with.), may bode well for what will certainly be portrayed as a “maverick” candidacy, especially if significant numbers of the populace respond positively to the Ohio congressman’s populist ‘progressive’ appeal.
A couple of things in Darya Calliha’s comments, though, strike this ol’ Indian as inconsistent with the actual condition America’s condition is in today, and don’t bode so well, either, for her hopeful (possibly naive) expectation of getting some relief if the Kucinich program were, against all odds, somehow put into effect.  The first of these is the real-world prospects for “.....peace and prosperity.” 
“Peace will come,” as Bob Dylan sings in one of his more poignant anthems.  The question is:  How   does it get here?  Probably it won’t be realized by making it a plank in a party platform.  After all, it invariably gets that kind of lip-service every four years already.  It cannot come about at all, as so many fine people have observed, apart from justice.  Justice requires righting wrongs done to others…..to the satisfaction of those wronged.  The American nation has a big bill to pay in that regard, both here on Turtle Island and all around the world.  Getting free of this debt will mean significant, tangible reductions in the amount of the world’s goods disposed of by all Americans.  This is going to be extremely difficult and painful, maybe virtually impossible, for many of you.  Will you muster the resolve to pay the price of peace?

(To be concluded in a subsequent comment)

Report this

By Darya Calliha, December 21, 2006 at 11:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dear Folks,
After reading all of your comments, I am encouraged to know that there are so many intelligent and thoughtful Americans out there.  It’s easy to forget.  And, though there is considerable disagreement over Kucinich’s candidacy, the most compelling criticisms involve his lack of a solid position on righting the wrongs of the Bush administration (911, war crimes, etc) by holding the guilty accountable. 
I wrote to Dennis during the 2004 campaign about the need for our country to seek truth and atonement before we can move forward.  He placed a personal phone call to me to thank me, and we spoke about the contents of my letter.  Because of this conversation, I truly believe that there is far more to this man than is presented publicly, and that he is very savvy and well aware of the need to bring this country to truth and justice.  I have to believe that his current strategy is to focus first and foremost on a positive message of peace and prosperity.  I don’t necessarily agree, because it’s clear his campaign will lose the interest of some very good people, but I also can’t help but wonder if he is not also wise enough to understand the real danger to his life should he be “perceived” as a threat to the very sinister powers that be. 
Dennis seems to be a man for whom the phrase “wise as serpent and gentle as dove” applies perfectly. 
I hope this true, and hope against hope I will support him again in 2008.

Report this

By David, December 21, 2006 at 9:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We need Dennis Kucinich in this race, period.  And if a candidate could win based on his or her positions on issues, Mr. Kucinich would be the next POTUS.  But regardless of who wins, Mr. K’s voice belongs on the national stage speaking unabashed, insightful truth to voters.  This is the one arena in which the media has no choice but to listen to and relay what Mr. Kucinich is saying.

Report this

By Dayne, December 20, 2006 at 9:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If you are serious about running for President I hope you will tell the people the truth about Emperor Bush.  He lied us into the Iraq war without a plan to win or get out so that he could have an ongoing war to give him the clout to get the big tax cuts and other benefits for the super rich and to protect them for as long a possible which meant he had to get reelected.  Why did he do this?  He did it because he has been controlled by the super rich ever since he learned that they would take care of him if he took care of them.  He expects to get really wealthy after leaving office with benefits like the Bin Laden family and others gave him after he drove his oil companies into the ground.  They gave him the interest in the Texas Rangers to be their front man and he has been that every since.
Why does he oppose stem cell research?  Because the super rich that own the drug companies and hospitals and insurance companies would lose Billions if cures for diabetes and other such illnesses were found.
If you look behind every thing Bush pushes you will find it benefits the super rich whom he expects to pay him back when he is out of office.

Report this

By Polly Ester, December 19, 2006 at 8:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“When Dennis starts talking about the CIA, FBI and DEA being at the top of the U.S. drug pyramid and creating huge amounts of money for clandestine operations and secret, private armies, I’ll start listening.”

If this is the case and knowing that Afghanistan is the drug capitol of the world—these agencies must have a ton of secret cash.

Report this

By Happy New Year, December 19, 2006 at 5:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When Dennis starts talking about 9/11 and prosecuting the actual criminals that perpetrated it, I’ll start listening.  We do know who they are and they don’t live in Saudi Arabia.

When Dennis starts talking about the CIA, FBI and DEA being at the top of the U.S. drug pyramid and creating huge amounts of money for clandestine operations and secret, private armies, I’ll start listening.

When Dennis starts talking about the Insurance industry and how it’s controlling the aftermath of Katrina in conspiracy w/the Bush administration, ruining the lives of thousands of children living in virtual concentration camps, then I’ll start listening.

Otherwise, it’s just more of the same…

Hey, Dennis!  You want Peace?  First work for Justice and an end to Poverty.

Report this

By janie still, December 19, 2006 at 3:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Haven’t had time to read through article but have been an avid fan Mr Kucinich from afar, love him very much, I , among many will be praying for his much needed success. Thankyou so much for existing Mr; Kucinich. God bless.

with love

Janie Still

Report this

By Alejandro, December 18, 2006 at 8:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rep. Kucinich is certainly speaking truth and should be considered by the Dems. as a good choice in the Presidential primary. However, me being an independent voter; the only people that will get my support are the ones that activily, seek impeachment and criminal prosecution for this entire administration. To kiss and make up is not acceptable; in my view. I’ve heard alot of retoric coming from the Democratic leadership, and I have a bad feeling that all these hearing that are supposed to happen after the first of the year, are going to be nothing but a sham, and the status quo will continue. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

Report this

By Justice must first be served, December 17, 2006 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

First order of business must be to remove the hands of the criminals in this administration from the wheel - and place them in cuffs. They are murdurous corporate whores, and they must be brought to justice NOW!

Then let Dennis have his day.

Report this

By James M Damon, December 17, 2006 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Of course we will support Dennis again.
And we’ll support him longer and harder if he comes out against the Holocaust Industry and the rogue settler state of Israel!

Report this

By Jaded Prole, December 17, 2006 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dennis’s record speaks for itself. There is no better candidate—which is why the DLC would never nominate him. It will take a real movement to make his candidacy viable. He is up to the task. Are we?

Report this

By rabblerowzer, December 17, 2006 at 9:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Has any other president ever revealed more determination to make himself Dictator
than George W. Bush? This “Unitary Executive” has usurped the balance of powers, seizing more power unto himself than all other president combined. Bush and his authoritarian idolizing political appointees, along with goose stepping congressional supporters are stomping our Constitution.

Has our “Free Press” failed to notice, or are they enabling this blatant dead-end detour to fascism? Has the Supreme Court failed to notice, or are they ideological mutants for tyranny? Have a majority of Americans failed to notice, or are they simply blowing in the wind, hoping for some great and courageous leader to emerge and save them? Great and courageous leaders don’t reveal themselves until they are absolutely certain which way the wind is blowing.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) IS THE EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE.


We the people can’t wait for timid Democrats to grow a backbone. Every day that George W. Bush retains power, he will commit more crimes against humanity. We must demand the impeachment of the entire Bush/Cheney criminal cabal. We must gather like a hurricane and rip through Washington, cleansing the capitol of hate-mongers, war-profiteers, corrupters, polluters and fascists.

Report this

By C. Scott Littleton, December 16, 2006 at 5:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dennis Kucinich should be strongly supported by ALL progressive Democrats. I will do everything I possibly can to see that he gets the nomination. Not only do I wholeheartedly agree with his plan to end Bush’s stupid war immediately, but also, as a senior citizen, I warmly applaud his advocacy of a single-payer, non-profit health care system in this country. Indeed, it’s about time we joined the rest of the civilized world in this regard. Go Dennis!

Report this

By Harriet Thurstlic, December 16, 2006 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In 2004 Dennis remarked that he intended to win the election.  If not then I believe 2008 will be his year. He can win if you support his candidacy and share his message.  There are still too many people who do not know that we have a statesman, Dennis Kucinich, running for the presidency.  It is certainly possible to fund universal health care, social security, and education K through college.  Dennis knows it and will fight for us.  Perhaps the tragedy of Iraq was needed to wake up Americans.  Without the right people in office we’ll see the draft once more.  Let’s send a message before that happens.

Report this

By Larry M. Elison, December 16, 2006 at 11:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No one says it better.  Full speed ahead!

Report this

By Chris Rahe, December 16, 2006 at 10:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I supported Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and I will do so again. He is exactly what the Democratic Party (and the country) needs right now.

I’m sure we could all find some flaw or another with him, but seriously, isn’t he so much better than the rest of the crop of self-serving politicians out there.

I am amazed at the hypocricy of “Stephen Hesse of the Brookings Institute on CNN saying that candidacies like yours are just an ego trip. Is this an ego trip for you?”

Somone who earns his living working for a think tank and then going on national television spouting off his opinions saying Dennis Kucinich’s campaign is an ego trip?

Report this

By Pounce, December 16, 2006 at 9:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I would offer Mr Kucinich one bit of advice while running for president. “Be very careful how you travel during the campaign. Principled positions such as your frequently cause small airplanes with candidates aboard to fall from the sky”.

Report this

By jedigypsee, December 15, 2006 at 9:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

a politician who will not talk about another politician…? this is refreshing. if he is sincere and his intent matches his words : we just might have something here. still i wonder with skepticism, after all he is still a politician and trusting a politician is not something that comes naturally to me…further even if his intention is sincere, what then? what’s his master plan for withdrawl, for health care, etc…potential exists here, I think he would make a good running mate with someone who has less to say about whats wrong and more to say about how to make things right…

Report this

By darby1936, December 14, 2006 at 8:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Who would you buy a used car from? The guy that started this war and hasn’t listened to anyone but the neo cons from day one; or the guy who opposed it when most of the pols were for it or were too afraid to vote against it?

Report this

By Eleanore Kjellberg, December 14, 2006 at 5:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Run—just to bring political issues to light—debate and tell the public that we need to get out of Iraq NOW!  Talk about universal healthcare and why the middle-class will soon be an anachronism—but unfortunately this corrupt political system will never let you win or become a real threat.

Report this

By liquified viscera, December 14, 2006 at 10:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Someone below posted, “I wrote Obama suggesting he sit this next election out for two reasons,” and then cited two reasons that really aren’t the best reasons why this should happen.

The very best reason is, Barack Obama is a phony, he is a corporate tool, he is no different from the other members of the Democratic Party who believe in appeasement and incrementalism, the two things that Kucinich says are very problematic for the Democrats now sitting in the Congress.

Please do not think Barack Obama would make a worthy President, unless you think Dubya Bush is a worthy President.  The mere fact that Obama is part African-American doesn’t absolve him of his fakeness.  His phony implorings of passion and empathy strongly resemble the last great Democrat phony, Bill Clinton.  Remember that there are plenty of African-Americans who are willing to sell their souls for wealth, political power and/or publicicity… Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell, Alan Keyes.

Barack Obama = Corporate Oreo

Report this

By John C, December 14, 2006 at 1:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hurray for Dennis - but he should drop that part of his argument about “having the money to bring the troops home”. Nobody sees that as a “problem”, and to make a point of it sounds silly - even wierd.

Report this

By yours truly, December 13, 2006 at 11:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hey, are we nuts?  We’ve got Dennis Kucinich running for president on a platform that features TROOPS OUT NOW*, yet here we are quibbling about this or that, is he or is he not for real and so on and so forth. Why are we holding back? Is it that we’ve been losers for so long now that we’ve given up?  If so, it’s a hell of a time to call it quits, being that Kucinich wins, we win and one victory for us, that’s all it’ll take.

*via a cut-off of all funding for the Iraq war

Report this

By tenstring, December 13, 2006 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

My first presidential election that I could vote in was 1976.  Dennis Kucinich is the only presidential candidate I’ve ever actively supported because he’s the only one that isn’t pandering to the dogs of war (military-industrial-congressional complex that currently run the U.S.).  Go Dennis!  You’ve got my vote!  If you start getting some serious support, for God’s sake watch your back!

Report this

By zenseeker, December 13, 2006 at 6:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I wish Dennis Kucinich the best because he is currently demanding unambiguos immediate troops withdraw, now!  I wrote this regarding our military leaders wanting another chance to gamble on Iraq.
Why are we still gambling again?  Didn’t we go to the polls last month precisely because we didn’t want to gamble any more?  Our losses have become too great, remember?  This is just like a gambling addict saying: ‘Just one more time, please, just one more time at the race tracks or Indian casino and I’ll be set.  I promise.’  Isn’t this what our military is saying?  Haven’t we heard all of this before?  Sure there is a chance you can turn it around, but it is slim to none!  Our military leaders need to get their acts together and stop being a door mat for Bush/Cheney and the defense industry.  And where is Colin Powell on this?  Can you tell us if spending another 160 BILLION DOLLARS by the Democrats will bring us any closer to victory?  Or will all that money go down into another drain into the hands of filthy insiders building things up so they can destroy them again.  Over and over.  Stop it please!  We have had enough and if it turns out that the will of the people performing their civic duty to vote to win back both houses mean: NOTHING, then the hypocrisy runs deeper than any of us could have imagined, from both sides.  Saying no to the war and continuing to fund it, is a disgrace and a sham and all those who goes on record voting for it will be remembered and held accountable.  Do you actually think we can’t tell when you speak out of both sides of your mouth?

If you are as fed up as I am from both these houses of congress then Slap them for me at my Slapping Hall of Shame.
Take care and keep up the good fight.

Report this

By Ion C. Laskaris, December 13, 2006 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think a run by Kucinich in 2008 accomplishes 2 good things. I say this as a voter who has chosen to vote for Nader in 2000 +  2004, and will certainly not vote for the Democratic end-game choice under any circumstances.

First, this man can rally progressives and independents who do not give a damn about the “But can he win?” syndrome and test the revenue $ springs that opened up with Howard Dean’s safari into presidential politics.

Second, it costs him nothing to speak the truth as he understands it, while the rest of the Demo. candidates are going to be the latest batch of call girls grovelling at the altars of corporate capitalism and our Catholic and Fundamentalist religious Krazies.

At some point such initiatives may encourage enough energy, talent and sense of mission to begin a grass-roots new party movement that can challenge and politically kill off as many Demo- crats and Republirats as soon as possible, to make a new Republic for the people. A tall order to be sure - but there is nothing else of any moral integrity on the U.S. national scene.

Ion C. Laskaris,Burlington,Vt. + iclrevusa.com

Report this

By Kevin McDermott, December 13, 2006 at 5:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dennis, you are and will be the one true populist candidate.  And the one true democrat.

The fact that you were right about the war in Iraq is exactly why no one on the right will listen to you.  But that does not deter you.

The fact that you call for universal health care makes you unique to either party and a threat to many.  I have faith that if elected, you will (unlike Clinton) succeed in this.

Create a “Department of Peace?”  Can you imagine?  Another threat to the warmongers.  I have faith you can do it.

I love your integrity and honesty in speaking truth to power.

I will continue to support you and I thank you for running.  We need you now more than ever.  I hope the American people will come to their senses and vote for you.

I know I will.

Report this

By einsteinstoe, December 13, 2006 at 5:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

With some research at http://www.kucinich.us one can find answers to many of these pertinent questions and comments.
Kucinich has spine. Kucinich has honor. Kucinich has wisdom. Kucinich has the plan(s). And Kucinich can win, if the media and the corporate centrists do not black out the campaign. Which they will work vigorously to do. I think with the webroots efforts and the fact that this is round 2 for Dennis that we have a fighting chance to beat back the media and their corporate masters and get the message out.  I have begun my effort to once again campaign as a county delegate for Kucinich in Idaho. This is how we can do it. Infiltrate the democratic party and change it from the ground level. We were 6 votes from establishing support in the Idaho democratic platform for a cabinet level Dept of Peace in 2004. This time the plan is to win. Among other victories. Just waving the Kucinich flag while discussing depleted uranium munitions, lands mine treaty, Kyoto, renewable energies, cancelling NAFTA/WTO, single payer health care, repealing the Patriot act are small victories inside the party infrastructure. Small victories can snowball all the way to the national delegation. Where The Kucitizens can fight like dogs to shake up the institution and maybe even win.

Report this

By hettie, December 13, 2006 at 4:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I, too, gave money to Rep. Kucinich and will do so again.  I will not vote or give money to anyone who voted yes on the war resolution or yes on money to support the war.  Kucinich is the only one.  My prayer is that Gore will come in at the last minute then pick Kucinich or Dean as his running mate.

Report this

By Byron, December 13, 2006 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I supported Dennis K in 2004. I met him in San Francisco and had the chance to participate in some Q&A forum. He came across intelligently and so warm. I really like him. Aside from opposing future funding for America’s occupation of Iraq, he supports single payer health care which is a deeply cherished wish of mine for this nation. I have to support Dennis K again even if he wouldn’t support impeachment proceedings against George W (who should be impeached and thrown in jail for all of his legal transgressions.) I was hoping that Senator Feingold was going to run as the true, only liberal democrat in the Senate. Then he bowed out. Until another candidate can come out as strongly opposed to America’s occupation of Iraq as Dennis K AND supports single payer health care AND supports signing of the Kyoto protocol, then Dennis has my support until the end.

Report this

By Tony Arrott, December 13, 2006 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I concur completely with
Comment #42031 by Troy Parrish on 12/13 at 9:33 am.

and

Comment #41999 by doug lewis on 12/13 at 7:12 am, which said:
Dennis,
I gave you my donation limit in 2004…you’ll get it all again in 2008…where do I send the check?
————-
We need Dennis on the platform to remind us all of the many costs of Iraq.

Cheers

Report this

By vet240, December 13, 2006 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Kucinich is a seasoned politician. He has always stood for the people. He knows his limitations so he won’t talk “pie in the sky” to us. He believes his job is to represent the voters. Can he accomplish all he wants to? Not without help from the voters. Americans need to get involved in their government more than just voting.

One writer pondered if Kucinich would live long enough to take on the corporatocracy. I wondered the same thing while watching his speech on C-SPAN. I hope he has lots of security around him. This man has always been up-front with his positions, so what do you see as a problem?

I wrote Obama suggesting he sit this next election out for two reasons. First the next president will have to get us out of Iraq, and the talking heads will be all over that person, as there is no graceful or heroic way to exit Bush/Cheneys outrageous blunder in the pre-emptive attack in the first place. Second Obama lacks any of the necessary skills/experience to function effectively at the National level. Of course, compared to Bush he’s much better, but then so am I.

Report this

By Jon B, December 13, 2006 at 12:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Special interests contribute to selected candidates who would do anything for them. With heavy war chests, these candidates will monopolize the airwave. The only way for Kucinich to surface is grass root wildfire thru internet.

Report this

By Jamie Berry, December 13, 2006 at 11:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Editors of TruthDig, this is an excellent example of the fact that all politicians are crazy. Within Rep. Kucinich’s monologue on peace we find these statements, “We have the potential to create heaven on earth. New Jerusalem is within our reach.” If Rep. Kucinich were running against George W. Bush again, this would be your choice: 1) Bush’s view of New Jerusalem, professedly the premillennial dispensationalism of his right-wing Christian supporters, (that Jesus Christ will return to earth and set up New Jerusalem for 1000 years), which is not supported by the Bible; or 2) Rep. Kucinich’s view of New Jerusalem, which agrees with the view expressed in Albert Pike’s Morals and Dogma, first paragraph of Chapter 16, Prince of Jerusalem, (that we do not need God to create New Jerusalem). These are white and black versions of the same idea, that heaven on earth, New Jerusalem, will exist at some point in the future, an obvious self delusion as to what the world is and how it works.

Report this

By Carl, December 13, 2006 at 11:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I saw Dennis on cable news yesterday, and it was refreshing to see a politician give real answers to bogus questions, and to question the interviewer.

Kucinich is small in stature, but large in true character.

The sad part is that the MSM treats him as a joke.

Report this

By Sheldon Lichter, December 13, 2006 at 11:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In such difficult and uncertain times as ours, we have to remain alert and cognizant of our own weaknesses.  In particular, as I see it, our all-too-human propensity to think and act according to old habit.  The “known” is not safe.  The “known” is not wise.  The “known” is not really in control of things, except quite temporarily.  And we see and hear and feel the actual fruits of cleaving to the “known.”  A new direction, a new basis, is no longer an option.  In the media, even the standard broadcast media, the warnings are everywhere, and even modestly spoken they are dire.  Giving a chance to a radical “dark horse” candidate like Kucinich is no longer an option.  We must have him in office, or someone like him — someone whose kinship with the spirit of “The Founding Fathers” is indisputable.  I think we must turn away decisively from the habitual and all that is corrupt in spirit (or attitude) — despite the fine and fancy words and rhetoric and polemics of the merely clever and “worldly wise.”  We are not markets and masses of consumers: We are humanity.  And our Earth has become a fragile thing in our rapacious hands.  We need truly wise, courageous leadership, not another dreary Administration of puppets.

Report this

By Gladwyn d'Souza, December 13, 2006 at 10:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dennise needs to say how are we going to conserve so we use 10% of the fossil fuels we presently consume so that we are not lead into these fuelish wars.
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/45395/

Report this

By chasbass.blogs.com, December 13, 2006 at 10:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sentient beings all know, feel and see how desperately America needs to repair it’s soul and the only presciption at this midnight hour is six term Ohio state Rep. Dennis Kucinich.  What can we all do to make this happen? Anyone? Hello? is there anyone out there with some juice that can make this happen?! echo….

Report this

By SA, December 13, 2006 at 10:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am putting my money in Kucinich campaign!

Report this

By Troy Parrish, December 13, 2006 at 10:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I contributed to his campaign and I voted for Dennis Kucinich in 2004 because I supported his platform, and I’ll do it again for the same reason. Do I really think he has a chance in hell of winning? Honestly, no, but that won’t stop me from voting for him. I’m going to vote for the America I want to live in instead of one I feel I must apologize for all the time.

Report this

By The Dude, December 13, 2006 at 9:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Dude abides…...

Report this

By bob kealy, December 13, 2006 at 8:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dennis Kucinich appeals to the better angels of human kind’s nature everywhere. He has a signature program that will move the world forward in the happy direction that all people of goodwill are looking for!

Report this

By Marge Wood, December 13, 2006 at 8:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

HURRAY for Kucinich!

Report this

By doug lewis, December 13, 2006 at 8:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dennis,

I gave you my donation limit in 2004…you’ll get it all again in 2008…where do I send the check?

Report this

By David Hamilton, December 13, 2006 at 8:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dennis rolled over without a wimper for John Kerry and fighting a more efficient war at the Democratic Party platform committee hearings in Miami in 2004.  I didn’t give him $100 to merge into “anybody but Bush”.  He will not get it again.  The antiwar sentiment is now strong enough to merit a stronger representative.

Report this

By Robert Cunningham, December 13, 2006 at 5:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dennis Kucinich is one of a very small handful of Democrats that I, as a Green Party member, respect, admire, and would be happy to give my vote. I supported his candidacy in 2004 and would gladly do it again.  And, unlike the other candidates running, or getting ready to run, Dennis has been against this war even before it started. Does he have a chance at winning?  I have no idea, but his ideas about Iraq, single-payer insurance, meeting human needs, etc, put him light-years ahead of the competition.  Go Dennis!

Report this

By Huzzi, December 13, 2006 at 2:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I would like to know if Mr Kucinich is a practicing or lapsed Catholic?  This has come up in a discussion about him.

He sounds a lot like Perot… maybe the country is finally ready for this.  We will have had 12 years of ‘bushes’ and ‘weeds’... time to cultivate our garden.

Report this

By Impeachment is Imperative, December 13, 2006 at 12:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I do believe that Kucinich is now joining the ranks of collaborators.  I recently read that he is against Impeachment.  I cannot support this candidacy right now, as I have more important duties to uphold our constitution.

Report this

By TAO Walker, December 12, 2006 at 11:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let’s give candidate Kucinich credit for his good heart….and noble intentions.  How clearly he sees the whole panoply of “altered reality” those he is appealing to are having to negotiate without a map, or even a native guide….well, based on his pretty much run-of-the-mill rhetoric he looks to be about as far behind-the-curve there as they are. He articulates a ‘view’, but so far no real VISION.
He is, after all, basically an establishmentarian.  No blame, just fact.
The essential question, though, is whether Mr. Kucinich, or anyone in his prospective national constituency, has the STOMACH to take-on the ruthless privateers who’ve replaced the one-time constitutional republic here with the insensate machinery of their ruling national security state.  So far nothing he’s said on-the-record gives any reason to believe he wants to even address this all-consuming colossus, let alone challenge its now near-total dominance of at least the domestic scene.
He says he has consistently opposed the ill-starred adventure in Iraq.  He has yet to disavow, however, his support for the larger criminal project, of which Iraq is meant to be merely a jumping-off-point, sold so successfully to fear-ridden Americans as “The War on Terror.”
Maybe the Congressman has connected those dots in his own mind.  Can, and will, he do it for those who are looking to him already to lead them out of the once too comfortable confinement in which they are lately beginning to suffocate? 
In short, is Dennis Kucinich really what us Indians would call a “HokaHey!  It is a good day to die!” kind of guy?

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook