View Story | 559 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
The diarist is making the extremely salient point that the Democratic leadership is fraudulent, and has been openly labeled as such by Kucinich.
Nixon and Paul have nothing to do with this fraud. However, this fraud has everything to do with Democrats and their constituents.
We don't have time for short-term thinking.
by Compound F on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 08:16:40 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
by LithiumCola on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 08:22:30 PM PDT
who appointed to the Congress certain politicians (Democrats) to represent "us" on issues like the war.
They ran against Bush and the war, and have completely failed to carry out their mandate, and have no intentions of succeeding. Fraud.
by Compound F on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 08:32:24 PM PDT
Let's do as they do and leave the voters out of that loop. Their fraud our foolishness
Diapers and politicians should be changed often...and for the same reason.
If we want peace, why do we give weapons and call it "aid"?
by gdwtch52 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 10:14:00 AM PDT
is that Pelosi never stated at any point that the Dems would end the War once they got control of Congress. Sure, they said how they'd hold Bush accountable, but if you can find me a single statement from before the election in which Pelosi said, "A Democratic majority in Congress will end the War in Iraq" it'll be the first time I've ever seen such a statement.
Lots of Dem voters inferred a whole lot about the intentions of the Institutional Democratic Party before the 2006 elections. I think it would be wise to reflect on what's happened since when guessing at what the Presidential candidates would do once elected, as well.
"Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968
by Pesto on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 10:27:01 AM PDT
It is pure nonsense to "hold a president accountable" for a war that you actually support.
The ethical reality IS: either it is good (good in the general sense) for us to be in this war, or it is not. If it is not (which seems obvious to me), then we should begin the process of coming home.
An illusion can never be destroyed directly... SK.
by Thomas Twinnings on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:24:05 PM PDT
That was an admission that there is significant crossover between the two.
"It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08
by Salo on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 09:04:25 PM PDT
An admission to a significant cross-over between whom?
Paul and Kucinich? This diary has nothing to do with Ron Paul. You simply keep bringing him up, and in the process roil the waters concerning Kucinich versus the fraudulent Democrats. Why?
by Compound F on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 09:10:51 PM PDT
Kucinich's wife only said there "could be some moves towards bipartisanship". She mentioned a few points of agreement, and stated her own interest in exploring more what monetary policy is about re the Fed, and the need to "democratize" the latter.
I'm sure K. has said "let's not alienate Ron Paul supporters". For one thing, RP is not running for the Democratic nomination. And also, there are many naive and unsophisticated young voters -- like my stepson -- who are looking at Paul because he stirs them up over at GOP because of his antiwar stance. They even like, in their rebellious way, that he's a kind of crackpot.
K. will not win over these voters by saying, oh RP, he's terrible. He will polarize them. Whether you like it or not, many voters, especially young adults, are not very well informed or sophisticated.
Didn't you see Liz's smirk when she got the question?
This is a diary hijack thread. But K's support is now so deep, that even here, in the land of mainstream Democratic Party politics, which is what Daily Kos has become (you don't get a column at Newsweek without being mainstream), a diary hijack is not enough to sink a good DK diary.
War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus
by Valtin on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:22:01 AM PDT
The question was whether he'd consider being a running mate with Ron Paul, and she answered affirmatively.
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin
by leevank on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 01:36:47 PM PDT
It was whether DK would consider running in a third party candidate "like Ron Paul". (emphasis mine)
She replied, "Well, it's a consideration, absolutely..." (again, my emphasis) She then went on to talk about RP voting 100% right on the Iraq War.
Bingo for the interviewer, and not the most politic answer from Elizabeth. But very far from saying DK is considering either a third party run, or being a running mate with Ron Paul.
This is all about not trying to alienate the young Ron Paul supporters, who are neophytes to office, and have to see the difference between their crackpot hero and someone with real principles, like Dennis Kucinich.
"Gotcha" politics at work...
by Valtin on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:33:13 PM PDT
the YouTube interview. It seems HuffPo did sounds bites from the whole interview (referring to the link that started this diary hi-jack). "Gotcha" politics is exactly it.
Valtin, you are correct, and this has been blown out of proportion, I assume from anti-Kucinich people trying to marginalize him.
Republicans: Your history has earned you a new mantra: "War and waste." ~~ Marta Jorgensen (CA-24 in '08)
I am an Edwards Democrat!
by Scubaval on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 09:34:55 PM PDT
Because one would expect someone running on the America for Kucinich ticket to bash the Democratic party on his way out of it. It's not at all irrelevant.
That said, what he has said about the Democratic leadership is a fair comment. What he has said about the leading presidential candidates is a fair comment. He should be drawing sharp contrasts right now.
But Ron Paul is beyond the fucking pale. If you support Ron Paul, you believe in:
If there is any truth to this at all, Kucinich is dead to me, and should be to anyone who can read.
Meet John McCain.
by DelRPCV on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 09:33:37 PM PDT
...but he is honestly anti-war (the notion that he's lying about that is utter nonsense). Most of his other views are, unfortunately, a mass of paleocon lunacy that ought to keep progressives from supporting him.
The problem is that among all the major party candidates, only he, Kucinich, and Gravel are anti-war (by which I mean not only opposed to the Iraq War, but opposed to the militarist assumptions that underwrite it).
Saying that should in no way constitute an endorsement of Ron Paul, who has more than enough wrong with him on other counts that he doesn't deserve progressives' support.
But even those of us who are opposed to Paul need to be honest about his stands on war-and-peace issues, and why so many voters, frustrated by the pro-war views of the leading candidates of both parties, are turning to the most successful (in terms of fundraising and self-packaging) anti-war candidate in this race.
This nicely summarizes what's wrong with American political life today. (Source)
by GreenSooner on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:00:55 AM PDT
Most of the Paul stickers i've seen are pasted right next to W stickers. That juxtaposition is frightening if you think about it for a minute. He represents a form of madness. I can't quite put my finger on it yet but he reminds me of Oswald Mosely.
by Salo on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:17:36 AM PDT
Ron Paul = Liebertarian = no acceptance of the idea of the 'commons' = no regulation of government = might is right = corporate dominance = eventually an oligarchy = individule power reigns supreme = too bad for the rest of us = evolves into dispotism and surfdom
Ron Paul is an honest man, as opposed to all of the Republican Party and much of the Democratic leadership. I think his honesty was what Mrs. Kucinich was talking about. And I don't think it is a full endorsment.
Kucinich is correct in calling out the fraud that has permeated the Democratic leadership. And I begin with Polosi saying that the illegality of the President is off the table, as far as accountability is concerned.
So far all the comments about Kucinich being unelectable have kept his run for President on the low burner nationally. But he is saying the very things we progressives want to hear. It is us that are spoiling his chances.
Maybe a bet less about his unelectability and more of how he is so high in almost all the straw polls I hear about, would be more helpful.
by socks on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 06:21:06 AM PDT
though.
Nope, no danger of that at all..
On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place
by o the umanity on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 07:09:14 AM PDT
Paul and Kucinich, or Paul and Gravel, as "top friends."
This is a test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a test.If this had been an actual emergency, I'd already be locked up.
by ben masel on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 08:39:03 AM PDT
you've made my point, as to the need for DK to rope in and win over these jejune new young voters, whose politics is more about sticking it to the establishment than it is about serious questions of policy.
You don't write them off immediately. Obviously, the mainstreamers don't have the slightest idea how to win over these disaffected voters. Nor do they care, I think.
Does the fact that half of Americans don't even vote ring a bell with anyone?
This whole RP thread is a lot of BS over nothing. There will be no DK/RP ticket. To even intimate there will be is to besmirch DK's own integrity. His wife did not say Dennis would run with Ron if DK failed to win the nomination. So... let's stop the BS here.
by Valtin on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:26:18 AM PDT
The GOP is full of racists and creeps. I'd much rather have W supporters turning to Paul than turning to Giuliani, if only because a little real disagreement in the ranks of the GOP would be good for us all.
by GreenSooner on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:29:45 PM PDT
In a week in which a completely mainstream, Beltway "moderate" like William Saletin, the national correspondent of Slate magazine, is writing a series of openly racist articles claiming that Black people are genetically inferior to white people, it seems truly foolish to focus on the awful racist connections of a fringe GOP candidate with no chance at the nomination.
Racism of the most virulent sort, under the guise of pseudoscience, is endorsed by such mainstream pundits as Saletin and Andrew Sullivan.
Those concerned about an American Oswald Mosely should look a lot closer to the seats of power than Ron Paul.
by GreenSooner on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:35:57 PM PDT
instead of getting hysterical about his libertarian wacko stuff. Why aren't any establishment candidates addressing the issues and policies that have brought us to this. The outlying candidates in both parties are the only ones who are why is this? This is why people listen to them. This is whats disturbing to me, that reality is now off the table, and our party is requiring we ignore it in favor of the inevitable status quo which will continue unless the Democrats opposse and offer change.
"And if my thought-dreams could be seen They'd probably put my head in a guillotine" Bob Dylan
by shaharazade on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 10:10:22 AM PDT
The bashing of Paul here is very ill-informed. If you want to bash, go right ahead but at least get your facts straight first.
Ron Paul doesn't want to eliminate Social Security - where did you get that from? As a matter of fact he's working to try to preserve it: H.R. 219
From his website:
Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, I have introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors’ income and raise their standard of living. Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security.
Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, I have introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors’ income and raise their standard of living.
Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security.
"enforced" prayer?
Paul sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment: H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55: Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools. H. J. RES. 78 (1997): To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.
Paul sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment:
H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.
H. J. RES. 78 (1997):
To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.
And stop the Racism B.S. already - He lists MLK and Ghandi as two of his heroes.
Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance. - Albert Einstein
by posse comitatus on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:16:06 PM PDT
Fear them and run!!!!
Don't look over here, please.
the essence of contract is agreement not coercion or obedience
by Fernando Poo on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 09:46:19 PM PDT
Sorry, your username made me do it...
NFTT Progressively supporting the troops
by Timroff on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 07:49:34 AM PDT
But I am changrined to admit, I do not recognize the username reference.
-Discordia
Psst! Don't panic
by Quicklund on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 09:25:19 AM PDT
where Hagbard Celene took his citizenship after revoking his US passport in Illuminatus Trilogy.
Fernando Poo was later bombed by the US in the book...
by Timroff on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 01:10:21 PM PDT
At least, I think that's where it is.
The way to win is not to move to the right wing; the way to win is to move to the right policy. -- Nameless Soldier
by N in Seattle on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:07:21 PM PDT
I stumbled upon 2 books of an Illumnati trilogy in a used book store once. But I can't say I remember enough of it to say it is the same work. Most of my familiarity is through the Steve Jackson card game. (An excelent, cutthroat, hard to master multi-player game.)
Fnord.
by Quicklund on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 07:26:47 PM PDT
and an excellent reason to post on any board.
"It was the year when they finally immanentized the Eschaton. On April 1, the world's great powers came closer to a nuclear war than ever before, all because of an obscure island named Fernando Poo."
We must always strive to immanentize the Eschaton.
by Fernando Poo on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 06:29:38 PM PDT
Bar
by Fernando Poo on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 06:30:55 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 559 comments