Skip to main content

There Markos goes again. Insulting and hating on Kucinich:

Here's what too many people still don't understand -- there's nothing loony about the netroots. This isn't fertile territory for the McKinneys and Kuciniches of our party.

Markos, are you trying to say that this blog is not fertile territory for:

- Holding our elected representatives responsible for their actions, up to and including impeachment where warranted by law?

- Abolition of nuclear weapons

- Doing not just something, but enough, to actually stop global warming based on a Global Green New Deal

- Labeling genetically modified food

(more on the flip)

Hopefully, most folks read Dennis' detailed policy proposals while he was running for President. They were far more progressive than the other candidates', including Obama, Edwards, and Clinton.

Many of Kunicich's positions are much better than Obama's. Unlike Obama, Kucinich is not a sycophant for the nuclear power industry, and has never embraced the lunacy of "Clean Coal" like Obama has.

Dennis was the only candidate who has called for the full repeal of NAFTA, which has devastated communities on both sides of the border.

Dennis was the only candidate who has demanded we hold our elected officials accountable for their lawbreaking actions.

Dennis was the only candidate who had a plan to stop global warming, not just "do something" without doing enough.

(Obama's current plan is totally inadequate - the emission cuts are not enough; under the Obama plan, our coastlines will be flooded, unfortunately. Let's hope he drastically overhauls the plan when he's elected.)

Markos: why do you hate Dennis Kucinich?

We didn't rally around Webb, Tester, Schweitzer, Trauner, Brown, Massa, Burner and so many other moderate Democrats because they were little Kucinich clones,

"Little Kucinich clones"? Markos, don't you want to leave the ad hominem attacks to the Republicans?

Oh and how about this gem:

We are not the elites, we are America, and we're situated squarely in its ideological center.

Speak only for yourself, Markos. You might be America, like Stephen Colbert. I however - and I suspect, many likely - am a human being, whose ideology is not left, right, or center. My ideology is forward. I am a progressive. I believe in stopping climate change - really stopping it, not just pretending to - exiting from ruinous trade agreements, abolishing nuclear weapons, and holding elected officials accountable when they break the law.

I don't frankly give a shit what you or America or the media or the elite or the press thinks about any of these positions, ones that I believe in with every fiber of my being - and ones that are supported by scant few politicians, Dennis Kucinich being one. What matters to me is not whether these positions are popular, but that they are right.

I thought Markos was motivated by what's right not what's popular.

At one time, slavery was popular.

At one time, Jim Crow was popular.

At one time, the Iraq war was popular.

At one time, George W. Bush was popular.

We need politicians who will not simply advance positions that are supported by "America" and "The Center."

We need politicians who will stand up and tell the truth and propose policies that are right. And eventually, the people will support those policies.

That's what it means to be a progressive. And if Daily Kos is not fertile territory for that kind of politician, I hope someone will start a truly progressive blog.

. . .

Seems I've turned into a one-man "Kos hating on Kucinich" watchdog. Some of my past entries:

Markos: Support Kucinich's Bush impeachment. Stop your hate.

Hey Kos: Want a better health care plan?

Kos on Kucinich: Ugh or Hoorah?

The Truth about Kos and Kucinich

Update 1: Some commenters say I have "disparaged" and "taken a dump" on Obama. I did no such thing. My comments above are legitimate and appropriate criticisms of Obama's policy positions. If we actually want to accomplish key progressive goals - like stopping Global Warming - we will have to pressure Obama to take much better positions on energy and the environment once he's in office. We will have a small handful of elected officials who will apply that pressure - Kucinich is one. My criticism of Obama was meant to highlight that even this blog's current standard bearer politician, the democratic nominee for President, is not taking good enough positions... so is this blog going to be "fertile territory" for Kucinich and his ideas, or not? Without those ideas, how will we stop the seas from rising?

Originally posted to mrmatthew on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 10:51 AM PDT.


Daily Kos...

57%95 votes
21%36 votes
5%9 votes
15%26 votes

| 166 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Who's This "Us?" (18+ / 0-)

    Have you got Dennis Kucinich in your pocket?

    No seriously do you, because we totally wouldn't be able to tell.  Because he's small.

    Get it?  He's all.... small?

    --- It's SPELLED "TooFolkGR" but it's pronounced "Throat-Warbler Mangrove."

    by TooFolkGR on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 10:52:32 AM PDT

    •  DailyKos is plenty inclusive. (22+ / 0-)

      The loony part about Kucinich probably stems from the UFO fiasco.

      And you can easily support Kucinich without taking pot shots at Obama.

      This diary is silly. I think rather than you being a watchman for "kos's Kucinich hate" you just have an axe to grind.

      I stand by my original analogy between the Joker and bin Laden and the Riddler and Hussein. -- Greasy Grant

      by TheBlaz on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 10:57:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Simply put, the hatred for Kucinich (36+ / 0-)

      puts the lie to all the baloney about being a "progressive blog." As for its motivation, who can say? It is irrational. The model is that of a business investment, and so only backing a likely winner makes sense; there is no room for the soul and conscience of the party.

      Kucinich has never left the party, only tried to drag it towards the light. For this kos vilifies and mocks him. Maybe OH-10 voters know something kos doesn't. It is just barely possible, isn't it?

      What's so hard about Peace, Love, and Truth and Progress?

      by melvin on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 10:57:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's been explained to me that this is (11+ / 0-)

        a Democratic blog.    Progressive, sometimes.

        •  There's plenty of love for right wing (22+ / 0-)

          Dem candidates, only ridicule for Kucinich. That doesn't add up to progressive.

          What's so hard about Peace, Love, and Truth and Progress?

          by melvin on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:04:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Rooting for laundry. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slatsg, vox humana

          If it truly were just a "Democratic Blog", and that was all that was significant, then it would make no distinction between anti-War democrats and pro-War democrats. There would then be no distinction made between Joe Lieberman and Howard Dean. It would make no distinction between the Mainstream press and its opinions, and the advocacy on the blog.  

          If, on the other hand, DKos is based around the concept of "crashing the gates", then clearly more is required than simply rooting for laundry (Democrats).  

          We cannot easily identify politicians who are not "crashing the gates"  (Nancy Pelosi, Joe Liberman, etc.), and those who really are (Dennis Kucinich) on issue after issue.

          The "gates" will never be crashed at all, if the important issue advocacy is not included and encouraged.

          If you want just a pure "Democratic Blog", the DNC web site accomplishes that little.

          "Crashing the gates" is the more noble goal here.
          Nobody embodies that objective more than Dennis Kucinich.

          •  No (0+ / 0-)

            It amazes me that someone could so competely misunderstand what crashing the gates means.  There is probably no elected Democrat who has contributed less to the Democratic revolution over the last couple of years than Dennis Kucinich.  Kucinich has no influence on anyone or anything.  Zip.  Nada.  He is beyond irrelevant.  He passes no legislation. He does nothing to help elect other Democrats.  He just sits in his safe Democratic district and makes speeches and introduces resolutions no one will support.  

            The Democrats have crashed the gates by getting rid of dead weight like Dennis Kucinich.

            •  Utter nonsense (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              slatsg, vox humana, swampus

              Dennis Kucinich was one of the earliest voices against the Iraq War, and led the House coalition into opposing the War (He built the "Out of Iraq" coalition).

              Kucinich dedicated himself to the drafting and co-sponsorship of H.R. 676, the non-profit, single-payer Health Care (Medicare For All) legislation with John Conyers, and has built a coalition of over 130 co-sponsors. If Obama wins, and the House becomes more Democratic, this may finally be the breakthrough on solving the Health Care problems in this Country.

              Kucinich stood up and opposed the Unconstitutional U.S. Patriot Act, and NAFTA. We need more people like this, not less.

              He, unlike Obama, is not fooled by these false solutions of "clean coal", "drilling", and "nuclear power", but instead supports a transformative Green Energy Apollo project. That's where the focus needs to be.

              He opposes taking away your tax dollars to bailout the Wall St and Banking crooks and drive up the deficit.

              He is also the one Democrat who stood up unapologetically to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution, and our liberties, while it was repeatedly violated and trampled by Cheney & Bush.

              You are wrong.  You cannot possibly crash the gates with follow-the-crowd, status-quo politicians like Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi. Kucinich is the guy who is pushing the Democrats in a progressive direction, and putting the progressive agenda in the news. We need more advocates like this.

              The suburban Sun Newspapers, which blanket all of Cuyahoga County and adjacent areas, today endorsed Congressman Dennis Kucinich, ( D-10) for re-election, noting, "He’s not afraid to speak out about anything," and his "experience and seniority can’t be ignored." The editorial further points out, "Kucinich also is highly visible in the district...often greeting constituents by name. This personal touch, coupled with the service provided by his staff, makes him extremely popular."
              -Sun Newspapers

              •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

                Of course, nothing Kucinich sporsored has ever passed.  Kucinich doesn't push the Democrats anywhere because he is such a clown - he has no standing in the caucus at all.  If anything, Kucinich discredits issues because he is such a loser.  Any chance for impeachment died when Kucinich put his name on it.  

      •  beg to differ (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        capelza, Philoguy, TheBlaz, TooFolkGR

        You can bemoan Markos' cyclical bile-spewing about Kucinich all you want, but it's a stretch to denounce it as "irrational." He gave his reasons here. You don't have to agree with them, but they're hardly "irrational."

        •  I reject all those reasons. (4+ / 0-)

          Some are merely shallow calculating ("He didn't win last time"), some based on lies, some a reflection of the writer's own shallowness of imagination, and my favorite, the one always dredged up, his former opposition to abortion. He has said repeatedly that he changed his mind after discussions with a number of women.

          That is not good enough, according to kos and others. Because he once held that view he is damned forevermore. Why then is a different standard applied whenever anyone dares to bring up kos' own words from long ago opposing gays in the military? "Oh that's different." Bullshit. Either it is right to change your mind in the light of new evidence or it is not.

          What's so hard about Peace, Love, and Truth and Progress?

          by melvin on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:25:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  that's fine (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JillR, TheBlaz, Geiiga

            I myself reject your contentions that "the hatred for Kucinich puts the lie to all the baloney about being a 'progressive blog' . . . It is irrational . . . The model is that of a business investment . . . no room for the soul and conscience of the party . . . " etc., etc., ad infinitum, etc.

            But I'm not going to call your contentions "shallow," "calculating," "based on lies," or "irrational." ; )

        •  I still say the driving force is irrational. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peace voter, slatsg, vox humana

          The reasons are cooked up, and rather obviously cooked up, later.

          What's so hard about Peace, Love, and Truth and Progress?

          by melvin on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:26:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  towards the light you pompous ass? (0+ / 0-)

        In a permanent minority, but feeling full of light?  Listen, asshat, if we are moving away from Bush and Cheney, we are certainly moving toward the light.

        Fuck off and go blog with the other whiny ass losers. I suggest Larry Johnson - he needs a shoulder to cry on.

        •  Recipe for boiling water (0+ / 0-)
          1. Fill pot with water
          1. Bring to boil
          1. Remove pot from flame and turn off stove. (I put that in because you don't seem to be bright enough to figure that out for yourself.)

          Excess ain't rebellion. You're drinking what they're selling. - Cake

          by slatsg on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 08:03:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You left out Mumia (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman

      seriously, if you are going to push one wingnut cause might as well throw the others in, too.

      by denniswine on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:17:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Amen. Well written and reasoned. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattman, Notus, deutschluz, Joe Beese

      Kucinich is a hero and should be supported at every turn, not scorned.

      I'm tired of Dem leaders and pundits being cautious and "pragmatic." I'd prefer for more of them to stand unabashedly for a progressive vision of the truth, like Dennis.

      I think a let of scorn directed at Dennis by guys like Kos is based on the fact that Dennis is a practicing Catholic.

      I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.--Oliver Wendell Holmes

      by Timaeus on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:20:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  oh bullshit that is a baldfaced lie & you know it (5+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        capelza, UncleCharlie, TooFolkGR, Mia Dolan, Geiiga
        Hidden by:
        Joe Beese

        so KOS and moderate Dems are now anti-Catholic now, too?

        fuck off and go away

        to make it easier for you here is a full list of sites that will welcome your lies with open arms:


        hell, send it to Drudge, maybe he can make something of it!

        by denniswine on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:25:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gosh, you're a pleasant fellow. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stephan Kuttner, Pager, TomP, Notus

          I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.--Oliver Wendell Holmes

          by Timaeus on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:30:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  how can you defend the post above (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            UncleCharlie, Mia Dolan

            the poster above was claiming that progressives don't like Kucinich because he is a Catholic.

            nice, eh?

            how can you defend such?

            that is the kind of crap I expect elsewhere. not here.


            by denniswine on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:33:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm the poster. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I just commented that I've long suspected that the fact that Dennis is a practicing Catholic is PART of the reason he attracts scorn on leftie websites. Not the main reason. Not the only reason. Maybe not even a conscious reason. But there IS an anti-Catholic bias on this site (with MANY counterexamples) and this IS part of the anti-Kucinich position, even if only a very attenuated part.

              It's not a big foam at the mouth complaint, just a passing observation, which I've often thought about.

              You can disagree with that, but it is inappropriate to launch such a vicious ad hominem counterattack.

              Methinks you protest too much.

              I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.--Oliver Wendell Holmes

              by Timaeus on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:38:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  yeah I'm protesting (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                UncleCharlie, Mia Dolan

                but that was a nice ad hominem on your part

                defended yourself and called me anti Catholic. good.

                and you don't even know my religious beliefs

                here is why I "protest too much":

                because you all but claimed that Kos and other progressives are anti Catholic

                come on. one week before the election?

                don't project personal issues on to others. And don't make accusations like claiming that people you don't know and have never been to mass with are somehow anti Catholic


                by denniswine on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:46:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Gosh, you really don't read very well. (0+ / 0-)

                  I did not call YOU anything, except to comment wryly that you seem to be a very pleasant person.

                  But I agree that there is no point in arguing about this one week before the election!

                  Let's take this up later, after Sen. Obama wins.

                  I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.--Oliver Wendell Holmes

                  by Timaeus on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:50:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  As a casual observer, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  it seems you might be twisting Timaeus' comments. Perhaps it's best to just walk away from threads like this.

                  •  hard to twist this one (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    UncleCharlie, Mia Dolan

                    Timaeus wrote: I think a let of scorn directed at Dennis by guys like Kos is based on the fact that Dennis is a practicing Catholic.

                    Hard to twist that one. It is what it is.

                    But I am walking away.

                    Actually I'm driving. to the county dem office to go help put up signs on street corners.

                    Perhaps we should all just walk away. And go walk our precincts and counties. At least until next Tuesday.


                    by denniswine on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 12:03:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes, but... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      he thoroughly explained what he meant by that comment. He was not advocating any opinion and was merely making an observation, be it correct or not.

                      With that being said, thank you for your volunteer efforts.

                      •  an observation based on what? the comment (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        denniswine, Mia Dolan

                        was a direct accusation of anti-Catholic bias based on a 'sense'?  Please, it was a baseless accusation.

                        •  I only got involved in this because I believe (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Timaeus, Alec82

                          that denniswine was distorting and overreacting.

                          I never said that I agreed with what timaeus said. I never said that his reasons for making such claims were well-founded. But they were his observations and he had every right to make them.

                          And please note that there is a difference between accusation and speculation. If you believe that there is not an anti-religious contingent on this website you are dead wrong, and for timaeus to speculate that this is part of the reason that people come down against Kucinich is perfectly valid.

                          With that being said, I shall take my own advice and walk away from this thread.

                          •  I never said anything regarding 'anti-religious (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            denniswine, Mia Dolan

                            bias, did I?  And it was most certainly and accusation of anti-Catholic bias. Timaes did not 'speculate' he stated the bias as fact, as observed, as something he knows.

                            A lot of people have no love for organized religion.  For me, I want it out of politics - a place where it barely belongs, and especially out of governance, where out Constitution clearly prohibits it.

                          •  I agree with your second paragraph there. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            But, I just read some of your comments below.

                            Anything to support that bullshit you asshole?

                            I have no desire to continue a discussion with an anti-intellectual who resorts to name calling over a disagreement. Let's remember that we're all working for common goals here.

              •  Catholics (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                musing85, denniswine, blueness

                You have to remember that until a few years Kucinich was one of the most anti-woman, anti-choice and anti-science members of congress.  He even voted to allow health plans to pay for Viagra but to deny coverage for contraception for women.  His excuse was his catholicism, which is where that may come up.  

      •  anti-Catholic bias alleged based on what? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        denniswine, Mia Dolan

        Anything to support that bullshit you asshole?

        •  Total troll comment. (0+ / 0-)

          That kind of insult is contrary to the FAQ.

          I've been reading on this site and many other political sites since 2003. That's five years and millions of comments. So I'm generalizing based on a huge amount of data. This topic of anti-Catholic bias among lefties is frequently discussed, here and elsewhere.

          A fairly good recent book on this is Left at the Altar: How the Democrats lost the Catholics and how the Catholics can save the Democrats by Michael Walters (2008).

          But guys that talk like you are not interested in reason.

          I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.--Oliver Wendell Holmes

          by Timaeus on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 12:32:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            So I'm generalizing based on a huge amount of data

            Data?  What kind of data do you have?

            •  I just said--from reading millions of words. (0+ / 0-)

              On the Intertubes these days there is often an unreasonable fetish about "links" and unreasonable demands for supporting documentary evidence.

              Personal testimony, when consistent and persuasive, is perfectly good evidence. I say that speaking as a lawyer. It is nice to have documentary evidence, or other kinds of scientific data collections, where it exists. But a personal statement (such as in a sworn affidavit) legally and logically often can stand completely on its own.

              What kind of data would you like?  Would you like 100 links to anti-Catholic comments? Would you be satisfied by that, considering the millions of comments?  How about 1,000, or 10,000?  At what point would it get more "datalike" for you?

              Do you see my point?

              I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.--Oliver Wendell Holmes

              by Timaeus on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 12:40:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  LOL (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                denniswine, UncleCharlie

                As a lawyer myself, after reading that statement, I have serious doubts as to whether you are a lawyer, or at least a practicing one.

                And while a sworn affidavit can constitute evidence, it does not constitute "data."  If your point had been that you had read numberous anti-catholic statements, that would be one thing.  An argument that there was data supporting an anti-catholic bias based on you reading the site for five years would get absolutely laughed out of court.  

                •  You have no class. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mia Dolan

                  I've been a practicing lawyer for more than 20 years and I also almost got a Ph.D. in social science at one point.

                  You are confused about what "evidence" and "data" mean.

                  My own comment is quite precise about the difference.

                  You're not having a civil discussion, you're just throwing mud. Crawl back under your rock.

                  I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.--Oliver Wendell Holmes

                  by Timaeus on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 01:16:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wrong (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    denniswine, UncleCharlie

                    You can tell there is a problem when you get comments like this:

                    On the Intertubes these days there is often an unreasonable fetish about "links" and unreasonable demands for supporting documentary evidence.

                    You are accusing people of anti-catholic bias.  But then you turn around and complain that people want too much documentation?  And I am the one throwing mud?  That is balllsy.  Sorry, but you are a cheap smear artist who can't back up his claims.  It is you who are behaving like a troll and not having a civil discussion.  Karl Rove would be proud of your work.  I am just calling you on your bullshit.

                    You may be a practicing lawyer, but you sure aren't a litigator.  Because your kind of garbage would never fly in court.

                    •  Gosh, you sure keep digging a deeper hole. (0+ / 0-)

                      Obviously that is an inappropriate HR.  I hope you felt potent to throw it due to disagreement, in violation of the FAQ. It just makes you look small.

                      Litigator?  I've won more than 15 federal appeals this year. What are you, a junior associate in some big firm somewhere?  You jumped all over an idle, passing observation of mine with woefully inappropriate emotion.  Just because you have a sore point doesn't give you a right to dump on people you disagree with!  And I darn sure don't have to kowtow to your unreasonable demands for "data" the way I need to document a case for a federal tribunal.

                      The spittle is really flying out of your mouth on this last post.  You sound just like Hannity.

                      It's too bad you don't have the ability to calm down, back up, and actually thoughtfully read what I wrote above in this thread, which is perfectly reasonable and accurate. Perhaps you need a less stressful job.  You'd be pretty good on a TV game show!

                      I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.--Oliver Wendell Holmes

                      by Timaeus on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 01:57:40 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  LOL (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        denniswine, UncleCharlie

                        Litigator?  I've won more than 15 federal appeals this year.

                        Well, now I know you are full of shit.  I'm guessing you are probably in your second year of law school.  

                        I didn't jump on a passing observation of yours.  You are accusing the site as a whole of anti-catholic bias. Someone who makes that kind of claim should have to back it up.  It even says that in the site FAQs in the event you would ever care to look.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

                        Instead, you bemoan the need to provide any evidence or documentation to support your claims, and rely solely on the "data" you have compiled from reading the site for five years.  I am calling bullshit on your "data" because it forms the basis for a blanket smear of the users of this site.  

                      •  Reasonable and accurate is horseshit. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        denniswine, Mia Dolan

                        You act like your mind somehow notes anti-Catholic bias form this site, and that you could find even 100 examples?  I call you on your bullshit.  And keep in mind that disagreeing with Catholic Church dogma does not count as bias.   Doing so makes you a fool, like your fifteen appeal comment, unless you are talking about specialized courts like immigration.  

                        Someone should check their own spittle.  By the way - I am right - you cannot back up your accusation at all. And to accuse Markos of it - as if he controls what other write here, is pretty puerile and very weak shit for an alleged litigator.

                        •  The bile is disproportionate. (0+ / 0-)

                          It reveals you, not me.

                          Why does it get you so upset to have somebody mention a perception of an anti-Catholic bias?

                          I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.--Oliver Wendell Holmes

                          by Timaeus on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 03:50:44 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm a practicing Catholic (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        denniswine, Mia Dolan

        And I still think Dennis Kucinich is a loon.

    •  Your head and heart will be calmer (10+ / 0-)

      when you accept that Markos is not a progressive.

      He's a partisan populist who occasionally takes progressive positions.

      We need a Democratic Party to the left of Markos, esp on economic issues.

      •  Amen. (5+ / 0-)

        And with ECFA, unions will grow under Obama.  Working people organized colletively will change America and the Democratic Party.  A true blue/green alliance is possible, and it is to the left of Markos, but not most Americans.  

        There is overlap with Markos in making change, but he stops far too short for real change we need.

        "What we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed." -- Barack Obama

        by TomP on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:30:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I really hope you're right about unions. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          My mom is a retired NYC school teacher and she actually gets a <gasp> pension and has incredible medical benefits (she still pays a lot for medications, but much less so than most others).  And it is all because of the teachers union.  In this day and age, she is a rapidly shrinking anamoly.  And what she has should be the norm.

          •  I have to respectfully disagree, in part. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            While the pension and benefits secured by teachers' unions are excellent and something to strive for in other sectors of our society, they also perpetuate the ill-advised practice of tenure. This leads to complacency among teachers once their jobs are secure. Obviously this is not the case with every teacher, but it is a prevalent problem.

            •  Prove it. Where is your evidence? (0+ / 0-)
              •  Right here. (0+ / 0-)

                First, there is the basic logic behind it. When we as individuals know that there is reduced accountability and responsibility for our actions, we tend to not try as hard. Not all individuals, but many.

                In my high school the teachers were represented by a very strong union. Of course this is anecdotal, but there was no small number of teachers who did the bare minimum that was required of them. I find it hard to believe that you never had a teacher who would have been better had his/her job depended on his/her performance.

                But don't just take my word for it, here are some stories for you to read:

                Time Magazine
                USA Today

                Hope this helps!

                •  So you're saying that most teachers don't go into (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  teaching because they love to educate?  Or that they do so only at first and then stop wanting to do that?

                  So I looked at those links and they are, as you yourself say about your high school, only anecdotal.  Sure there are some bad teachers, and sure it should be easier to remove teachers who, for example, are arrested multiple times for drunk driving, but I think you'll find that teachers unions are all for evaluation and accountability and have proposed ways to do so that don't attack the principle of tenure.

                  You want to have a discussion about how to properly evaluate what and how students are learning?  That would be great.  But don't forget that tenure protects the right of teachers to say and do things that some people (many on the right) would find unpopular.

                  •  I wrote a whole long response to your comment. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Aunt Martha

                    But then I realized that maybe one of us should just write a diary on the subject after the election. I think you bring up valid points and, of course, I think that I have some valid points as well. This is not a cut and dry issue and it would probably be interesting to see how the community at large sees things. I'll let you know if I end up writing one, and if you do, please return the favor. Or heck, we could even do a collaborative diary!

    •  While I support many (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      denniswine, milkbone, Geiiga

      of Kucinich's positions, I do not think he is a good face for the party and often works to our detriment.  You need to understand this from the standpoint of rhetoric, which is every bit as real and important in politics as the rightness of positions.  As wrong as it may be, Kucinich invites public ridicule and mockery.  This means that when he advances particular positions he's actually hurting the credibility of those positions and making them more difficult to implement and pass.  What we need is someone who supports a number of the positions he supports with the gravitas and rhetorical acumen to garner support for those positions.  Kucinich is not that man, which is why I find myself deeply irritated when he attempts to put something on the table.

      •  A thousand times yes! (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        denniswine, Philoguy, Mia Dolan, milkbone

        Kucinich isn't ridiculed because he's wrong, he's ridiculed because he's ridiculous.

        •  You mean you think he's ridiculous. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slatsg, vox humana

          And that's fine.  But don't state it as fact; there are many others who don't see him as ridiculous.

          •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

            and there are still others who think he is both ridiculous and wrong.

            •  And as long as they talk about it as opinion, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              slatsg, vox humana

              and explain why, for example, they think he's wrong about Iraq, bully for them.

              •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                Its all opinion to some extent.  But when you are an extreme anti-choice and anti-science nut who works with right wing Republicans to opress women like Kucinich, I feel pretty strongly in just calling him wrong.

                •  Actually (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Kucinich changed his position on abortion quite some time ago.  I'm not sure how he's an antiscience nut, but even when he was antichoice he was pro lots of things like sex ed that right wing Republicans were not.  I'm not excusing that position, just trying to put it into a more accurate context.

                  •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                    it was four years ago, when he decided to run for president.  And he wasn't just pro-life - he was an absolute monster who voted with the worst of the Repubican wingnuts.  He opposed stem cell research.  He opposed contraception.  He supported the gag rule, which prevented doctors from discussing legal procedures with their patientsm, while supporting related legislation requiring doctors to lie to their patients.  Four years ago, Kucinich was a guy who no progressive would ever dream of supporting.


                    •  Four years ago lots of progressives supported him (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      slatsg, vox humana

                      AND pushed him because of his then anti-choice politics.  Which have changed, whether for political expediency or not.  But he has kept them.

                      Listen, I'm not saying that he or anyone is perfect.  And I agree with you that he was wrong at that time.  If you want to continue to hold that against him, go for it, but I'm glad he has evolved, especially as he is, for me at least, right about so much else.

                      •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                        I hold it against him, but it doesn't matter because I wouldn't support him anyway.  The reason I (and Markos, who the diary was about) don't like Kucinich is because he is absolutely worthless.   He has contributed absolutely nothing to the Democratic resurgence of the last couple of years.  He is a free loading, grandstanding, waste of space.

  •  Sorry, but you don't speak for (15+ / 0-)

    me.  Even some Republicans have signed on to good legislation -- that doesn't mean I support them completely.

  •  ever consider starting your OWN blog? (19+ / 0-)

    Dennis Kucinich has consistently failed to gain traction even with those who agree with him policy-wise, like me.  Why?  Because he's a wacko.  He presents his positions in a manner that many of us find, at best, off-putting.

    Fear. Fear. FEAR. FEAR! Um, fear. And fear. FEAR! Fear fear fear. FEAR! Fear?

    by Orbital Mind Control Lasers on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 10:56:00 AM PDT

  •  Neither you nor Kucinich speak for me (9+ / 0-)
  •  Kucinich (7+ / 0-)

    was my top choice for president but Americans hate elves apparently except in keebler commercials.  

  •  This is how Republicans ended up in their current (10+ / 0-)

    state. They tried to please everyone, including the extreme wings of their party who do not necessarily represent the views of the majority.

    There are many wonderful things to say about Kucinich. He is a good person. But I would not be interested in voting for him because I do not think he will represent everyone. I have been for Obama from the beginning because he is not an "us against them" politician. He will listen to opposing viewpoints and not be so worried about "flip-flopping" that he will keep staying the course of disaster rather than admit he was wrong.

    I'm sorry, but calling Markos out over the Kucinich comment is out of line and unproductive. As another commenter in a different diary said:


  •  Who is this "us" of whom you speak? (15+ / 0-)

    Dennis Kucinich does not speak for me. Markos is right--the man's a loon. Lovely, but still a loon. Sure, he's done some good stuff and taken some hard stances. But the man's also had some proposals that are, frankly, just out there and making us look bad. ("Department of Peace," anyone?)

    •  My biggest beef is that he has never ever gotten (9+ / 0-)

      issues passed.  The man knows how to talk but can not lead.

      McCain = "A whine, a swear word, and P.O.W."

      by ETinKC on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:02:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hey, he led the city of Cleveland to bankruptcy. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        •  I think you're leaving a little bit out here (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slatsg, Silverbird, vox humana

          Like the fact that Cleveland went bankrupt because Kucinich, as mayor, refused to sell the municipal light company to private interests, and the banks who supported the privatization scheme pulled the plug on the city's debt.  IIRC, and I'm not sure I do, because of what Kucinich did, Cleveland now has lower electric rates than many other places.

        •  Wrong: Kucinich saved Cleveland $$$ (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slatsg, vox humana

          By preventing the privatization of electric company that wanted to monopolize electricity and drive the price up.

          Kucinich saved consumers and the city of Cleveland a whole lot of money.  He was right, and he was proven right (which is why he was elected as a U.S. Congressman).

          The "bankruptcy" was just a temporary bit of orchestrated chaos by the banks to try and make Kucinich pay a political price for stopping them from taken over the city's Energy.  That wasn't Kucinich's fault.  He did the correct thing, and the private bank interests caused the bankruptcy.

          History has vindicated Kucinich.
          He did the what was ultimately best for Cleveland.
          We need more politicans who have the guts to stand to corporate seizures of public operations.

      •  He's Not Much of a Talker Either (0+ / 0-)

        His house floor speeches are usually kind of crazy and over the top.

        --- It's SPELLED "TooFolkGR" but it's pronounced "Throat-Warbler Mangrove."

        by TooFolkGR on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:34:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  A "Dept of Peace" is a great idea in my opinion. (10+ / 0-)

      It's exactly what is needed.

      2008, the Year the Republican Party dissolved into a puddle of goo

      by shpilk on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:06:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll bite... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DoGooderLawyer, milkbone

        I agree that peace is an important goal that our government ought to be pursuing. If advocacy for a "dept of peace" is simply a way to say that the govt should prioritize peace to the same degree it prioritizes other things that have departments, I'm all in favor.


        What would they actually DO all day? If you're an employee of the department of peace, what's your job description? Show up and not argue with your coworkers?

        The people who need to be thinking about peace are the ones in the EXISTING departments that are currently busy destroying it. Seems to me that allowing them to pass the buck for responsibility for peace to a different department wouldn't necessarily actually help anything, any more than declaring a war on drugs reduces drug use.

        John McCain, 2008: "Can someone look up my position on John McCain 2000?"

        by sab39 on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:25:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't ask, but ye shall still receive (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shpilk, slatsg, Silverbird, vox humana, sab39

          They would have plenty to do. From Kucinich's website:

          Cabinet-level Department of Peace and Nonviolence which embodies a broad-based approach to peaceful, non-violent conflict resolution at both domestic and international levels. The Department of Peace and Nonviolence would serve to promote non-violence as an organizing principle in our society, and help to create the conditions for a more peaceful world.

          Domestically, the Department would be responsible for developing policies which address issues such as domestic violence, child abuse, and mistreatment of the elderly. Internationally, the Department would analyze foreign policy and make recommendations to the President on matters pertaining to national security, including the protection of human rights and the prevention and de-escalation of unarmed and armed international conflict.

          The Department would also have an Office of Peace Education that would work with educators in elementary, secondary and universities in the development and implementation of curricula to instruct students in peaceful conflict resolution skills. In addition, a Peace Academy, modeled after the military service academies, would be established to provide instruction in peace education and offer opportunities for graduates to serve in programs dedicated to domestic or international nonviolent conflict resolution.

      •  Considered sui generis, maybe (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        But as a government department? Preposterous.

    •  Yes, peace is really a *crazy* idea (8+ / 0-)

      And wanting to promote it makes you certifiably insane.

      He makes WHO "look bad"?

      •  The idea that any one government (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        (or government department) can affect it is certifiably insane, yes. I'd also love it if you could point out to me the place in the Constitution where it says that's the responsibility of the federal government.

        •  It's a matter of focus (4+ / 0-)

          I always took the Department of Peace as more of rhetorical point: if we value peace then why don't we create a department to focus on it.  The Department of State implies a selfish focus on our concerns in relation to the rest of the world.  The Department of Defense is as often a Department of Offense.  Where in our government do we have people actively committed to finding alternative resolutions?

          The Quakers and others have given a lot of serious thought to alternatives to violence.  You don't have to be a pacifist to find value in their work. While there is plenty of mushy and unrealistic thinking about peace, that doesn't mean all of it is.

          Mushy thinking can be found on every side of an issue. Look at the neo-cons.  They thought they were the big realists.  Look where that got us.

          •  Wha-huh? (0+ / 0-)

            Of course the Department of State focuses on our concerns in relation to the rest of the world. That's their job function. It's not the United States government's job to look out for the interests of Belize--that's the business of the government of Belize.

            And given that it takes an act of Congress to go to war, I think that process has all the built-in scrutiny of other options that is legally or morally required.

            •  You mean the scrutiny Congress gave to the AUMF? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              slatsg, vox humana, nutmegan

              Congress rolls over and plays dead when the president starts the war drums beating.  When was the last time Congress prevented a president from going to war?  For that matter, when was the last time Congress officially declared war?  The AUMF was too vague to meet that definition.

              We went to war not simply because we had bad leadership, but because our government is geared to going to war.  We are spending $10 billion a month on a chimera.

              Is the Department of Peace practical?  Probably not, given that many people in this country are driven by fear and think that an aggressive stance is the best way to protect this country.  However, that aggressive stance has lead to our being viewed as a bully even by our friends and has reduced our status in the world.
              So much for the practicality of the neo-cons.

              To simply dismiss the Department of Peace as insane is to miss what the idea behind the department has to offer us. Yes, the Department of State engages in peace-making activities, but too often the focus is on creating a narrow advantage for our nation rather than looking at what opportunities are created by looking at the mutual advantages of all parties.

              I am reminded of a story by a stock broker friend (this was several years ago) who handled the investments of a family acquaintance even though they were only worth a few thousand dollars.  This client was so excited by his service, that she recommend the stock broker to her boss.  His account was worth hundreds of thousands.

              So yes, maybe we should concern ourselves with Belize.  Who knows what benefits may accrue in the long term?  

        •  Good Idea (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slatsg, vox humana, blueness, miranda2060

          There is nothing wrong with introducing non-violence as an organizing principle within our government (and its institutions).

          Ever since the end of WWII, this Country took a sharp excessive Militaristic path and we lost our soul, and our original purpose as a Nation.

          We were not meant to be an Empire, with 750 Military cases sprawled all over the World, and secretive operations (violent) and detention camps.

          We were meant to be a Republic defending liberty here at home.

          That was the original purpose of this Country.

          •  We don't need a Cabinet-level department (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mia Dolan

            (or a department of any kind) to do that. And I disagree with your take on what the original purpose of this country was.

            •  Wrong: it's not "my take": It's HISTORICAL FACT! (0+ / 0-)

              "America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.  She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. America's glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind."
              -John Quincy Adams

              "My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth.  Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."
               -George Washington

              Of all the enemies of public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded. The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.
                -James Madison

              "Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."
               -George Washington

              "It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."
                   -James Madison

              My paraphrasing ("We were not meant to be an Empire. We were meant to be a Republic protecting liberty here at home.") is almost a word-for-word extraction of the writings and sentiments expressed by our Founding Fathers.

              Their judgement is far wiser than yours.

              •  oh-oh (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Do you really want to get into a back-and-forth--particularly with musing--on what the Founders intended?

                I can turn on my radio right now and listen to wingnuts reading extracts from the works of the Founders "proving" that they intended this to be a nation composed exclusively of bible-beating Christians devoted to the worship of capital.

                Or I can navigate the tubes until I get to a page devoted to the speeches and writings of Thurgood Marshall, where I will learn that the Founders were motivated by a desire to protect and extend slavery, which they feared, rightly, would soon be abolished in England.

                Arguing about what the Founders "intended" is like arguing about what the bible "means."  

                •  The intent was clear (0+ / 0-)

                  What right-wing radio does, is of course, dishonest to begin with, and involves both misquoting and selective out-of-context cherry-picking. This naturally should be discounted.

                  With respect to the great issue of the founding purpose of America (human liberty), and the warnings against Militarism, Warfare, and Entangling alliances abroad, seeking enemies abroad, etc., the founding fathers were quite clear.  

                  There is nothing ambiguous about those word-for-word quotations from the earlier post, nor anything by the founding fathers to contradict it. If one can read, the intent and the purpose is very clear.

                  Read those quotes.
                  They are powerful and the meaning is very clear.

                  The purpose of America was not to be a global empire. Our founding fathers sought independence from that system when they separated from the British Empire. The fundamental principle of our Nation was human liberty.  That is something no Empire has ever provided or ever will.

                  The founding fathers knew this.
                  Too bad you don't.

                  •  lol! (0+ / 0-)

                    The founding fathers knew this.
                    Too bad you don't.

                    Yes, that's right. I am a veritable icon of knuckle-dragging ignorance.

                    I predict a rocky road for you here, UID #190382, until you learn to ease off a little.

                    Good luck. Be well.

              •  Since you conveniently omitted (0+ / 0-)

                both dates and sources for all of your proof-texts, and since I don't have time to go hunt them all up to refute them, I'll simply point to a few obvious (well, obvious to anybody who doesn't have an axe to grind and who still has a couple of functioning brain cells to rub together) counter-arguments:

                • The Barbary Wars
                • The Monroe Doctrine
                • Manifest Destiny
                • The Mexican War
                • The Spanish-American War and its sequelae, especially in the Philippines
                • The annexation of Hawaii

                •  Non-sequitor (0+ / 0-)

                  Since when were the Founding Fathers responsible for The Spanish-American War, The Monroe Doctorine, The Mexican War, etc.-??

                  Those things all came later on.

                  If you build a garden, and then someone else comes along and bulldozes it down later on, that does not change the fact that the original goal was to build a garden!

                  •  Uh, no (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Mia Dolan

                    Since the people responsible for the Spanish-American War, the Monroe Doctrine (and, hello? James Monroe was kinda one of the Founders, given that he was in the Continental Congress from 1783-1786, and also a member of the Virginia Convention that ratified the Constitution; he was also one of the first two senators from Virginia, elected in 1790), the Mexican War, and everything else that I mentioned did what they did under the auspices of the Constitution and without making any substantial changes to it, you have to admit either that (a) they were operating within the framework established by the Framers, or (b) the framework established by the Framers contained within itself sufficient latitude to allow those later developments. (Personally, I think it's both A and B; but either one destroys your contention, which is based on exactly the same kind of lame-ass strict-constructionist argument that Thomalito are prone to haul out whenever they want to rave against some activist judges--which of course means "Judges that aren't being activist in the way they want them to be activist.")

                    We're still living in the garden the Framers established. No bulldozing going on here. And that's not a problem.

                    •  Founding Fathers (0+ / 0-)

                      You are correct that the framework of the Constitution was not strong enough to protect against future expansion of powers and future expansion of borders.

                      But that is not the ideas that the founding fathers themselves wrote about, and what they tried to build were enough checks and balances to prevent that from happening.

                      For example, here's another important quote:

                      "War should only be declared by the authority of the people, whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens, instead of the government which is to reap its fruits. The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."
                      -James Madison

                      If we followed their advice, we wouldn't have 3/4 of the problems that we have today.

                      •  Funny that Madison didn't bother (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Mia Dolan

                        putting that in the Constitution he largely wrote.

                        And I note, again, that you're conveniently omitting both sources and dates for your proof-texts, which effectively prevents anyone who doesn't have time to hunt them down from seeing just how badly you've mangled them.

                        Since you seem to have an inexhaustible store of these to hand, and since I have more important things to spend my research time on, I'm done wasting my time on you.

                        •  It's called google (0+ / 0-)

                          You or anyone else find all the James Madison quotes you want.
                          The only thing "mangled" is your respect for history of the American Revolution.

                          And yes, James Madison did attempt to put those very ideas in the U.S. Constitution, through the separation of powers and provisions that "only the Congress can declare War".

                          The problem is that neither the U.S. Congress nor the Executive branch have actually followed the Constitution.

                          Bush even declared that the Constitution "is only just a piece of paper".
                          Maybe you are more comfortable with quoting him.

                          No thanks, I'll take Madison!

  •  Wait - isn't he saying that kucinich is very prog (3+ / 0-)

    but that liberal blogs take a pragmatic approach to whom we back?  I don't see what the problem is with what he says.

    And Kucinich sold out the people and progressives in Iowa 4 years ago for his own petty reasons - I have no use for him.

    McCain = "A whine, a swear word, and P.O.W."

    by ETinKC on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:01:43 AM PDT

  •  Who give's a shit about Dennis Kucinich, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TooFolkGR, Mia Dolan

    we have a race to win!

    Shelve your intolerance for mainstream Democrats for seven more days, k thanks!

  •  I love Dennis, but . . . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    capelza, TheBlaz, TooFolkGR

    what's at stake in this election is a bit more than trying to squeeze a candidate into a Kucinich mold.  

    Forgive the imagery.

    •  From the comments I see that the worst (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mrmatthew, slatsg, Silverbird, lisastar

      that can be (truthfully) said about Kucinich is that he's wacky.  So why single him out for opprobrium and ridicule?  Considering what the 2007-2008 Democratic Congress has achieved (FISA and other cave-ins) and failed to achieve (hold anyone accountable, get us out of Iraq, ensure honest elections), it seems to me that criticizing Kucinich for his wackiness-based ineffectiveness is a double standard of the highest order.

      Silvio Levy

  •  Please, Markos has a site and reputation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to maintain.  He has to distance himself from the "Nutroots" if he's to have mainstream credibility and marketability.  If you want radical lefty stuff, go to AlterNet or ICH.  We don't WIN unless we're mainstream.

  •  The aliens programmed Kucinich to want to abolish (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    nuclear weapons so they could invade Earth much easier.

  •  I appreciate a lot of Kucinich's policies. (5+ / 0-)

    I also think Kucinich himself comes off as a nut.    

    If he spoke for us, we would have supported him then, eh?

    Witty remark here.

    by CJB on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:02:51 AM PDT

  •  I love Markos and DailyKos.... (16+ / 0-)

    ....but sometimes I think as one's influence and esteem grows (as Markos' has in the past few years), one gets kinda of a big head, an "arrogance of power" so to speak. An attitude that their way or vision is the correct way and all others are just "crazy" or "loony" or simply "ugh". The thing I hate about this attitude is that it reinforces and legitimizes the negative views of the left that the right wingnuts throw our way. There is really NOTHING wrong with ANYTHING that a Dennis Kucinich stands for, most of it (pro-labor, pro-national healthcare, anti-NAFTA, anti-war, pro-environment) are not only MAINSTREAM within the Democratic Party, but mainstream with the public at large as well.

    I would like to think that there is room at the table for all of us and that these labels, (most of which are fictitious constructs created to divide us) will become more and more a thing of the past.

    "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

    by lams712 on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:03:01 AM PDT

    •  bullshit. to hell with your insults to Kos (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stevej, Treg, capelza

      he has led an important faction of our party to push for victory in parts of the country we never competed in

      he has given voice to the rank and file of the party who now have a voice

      and in case you haven't forgotten, we are about to have an historic win

      and you come here and accuse him of having a big head or an "arrogance of power"

      fuck off and go away

      we are going to win an election. it is going to change America. And Kos had enough sense to steer this site and the progressive community to the mainstream of America. Not to the Kucinich space alien nuts or to the Naderites.

      We are winning in Montana and maybe in Wyoming and in Virginia and North Carolina. Does that mean nothing to you?

      by denniswine on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:08:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  bullshit to you... (6+ / 0-)

        ...I did NOT "insult" Markos, (did you even READ the fucking comment???). He DOES get a big head at times. He has DONE ALOT of great things for the Democratic Party as a whole. I just wish the OPEN HOTILITY expressed by Markos at time to Kucinich would be toned down a bit. I think that Republicans sometimes get better treatment that our own do around here (you telling me to "fuck off and go away" is a PRIME EXAMPLE).

        I am calling for a place at the table for all of us. I am a FIRM BELIEVER in the 50 STATE STRATEGY. I have done nothing but support the dreams, desires, and ultimate goals of most of us here at DailyKos. Your hostility was insulting and unwarranted.

        "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

        by lams712 on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:16:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You've got a lot of stones to accuse the founder (5+ / 0-)

      of this site of having a swelled head on stuff.  Markos has consistently not been in the Kucinich camp since Day 1.

      "An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot." Thomas Paine

      by Cait Strummer on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:12:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nor have I (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        But attacking Kucinich when you present yourself as "anti-establishment" and in favor not only of more, but "better" Democrats has always seemed a bit nonsensical to me, particularly for someone opposed to the DLC and the so called "Republican lite" faction of the Party.  I've still received no plausible explanation of "better" Democrats, as we are often reminded that this is not a "liberal" site.  

        Kucinich may seem "out there" but he represents, you know, a very large contingent of the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party is not coterminus with the founder of this site.  Just as it is not equivalent to the DLC, to Barack Obama or to me.

        "We're half awake in a fake empire."

        by Alec82 on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 01:36:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yup, I admire both Markos and Dennis. (14+ / 0-)

      And even though Kos is wrong, he's still OK in my book.

      Dennis has been wrong on some stuff .. and he's still OK in my book, too.

      The lack of TOLERANCE on the part of Kos, now that's disturbing.

      Big tent, big tent ..

      2008, the Year the Republican Party dissolved into a puddle of goo

      by shpilk on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:21:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  uh, no, for a few reasons: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    capelza, TheBlaz, TooFolkGR, punkdavid

    (1.) Some of us want Dems to win elections. We like it when we win. This site is all about winning. Kucinich? Not so much. Issues over victory means never winning to enact any change.
    (2.) Many of us have never seen a UFO. Hell, a lot of us doubt that they even exist.
    (3.) Some of us think that it is nice to have the public face for the Democratic party not look like a bunch of off-their-meds jackasses. See point one, above.
    (4.) The whackadoo faction of the party serve a good purpose and do some good work. But the center of this party - the Dean and Obama faction - is where our future lies and better represents the needs of our country.

    So, no. For many of us Kucinich does not represent our views or our thoughts on what we need to do to win. But I'm glad that you like him. We can't all think alike.

    by denniswine on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:03:42 AM PDT

    •  The center? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slatsg, Silverbird, TomP

      Well, lots of think that the center is what gets us in trouble.  See, e.g., DLC, which just loves that center.

      As for your point #1, some of us want better Dems to win elections, no just any Dem.  Kucinich was a flop as a presidential candidate, but he consistently wins his House seat AND consistently takes progressive, i.e., better Dem, positions.  Why do you have a problem with that?

      •  the center isn't DLC it is Dean and Obama (0+ / 0-)

        and that is where we win

        and did you see my last two sentences?

        lets leave this fight behind and go back out and win this next week

        by denniswine on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:37:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You'd Better Work Harder at... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...getting them nominated then.  The class of 2007 was about 33% blue-dog and 33% progressive.  I'm guessing the class of 2009 will look about the same.  This party is a big tent... the only one left in American Politics... and the day we decide that needs changing is the day we find ourselves in the same sinking ship the Republican party is now.

        --- It's SPELLED "TooFolkGR" but it's pronounced "Throat-Warbler Mangrove."

        by TooFolkGR on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:40:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The DemocraticUnderground likes Kucinich (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NCrefugee, capelza, elwior

    Is there something wrong with Dailykos?

  •  Diarist... (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JillR, stevej, Treg, capelza, TheBlaz, TooFolkGR

    who exactly is the "us" you've decided that you speak for?

    "2009" The end of an error

    by sheddhead on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:05:10 AM PDT

  •  You do know (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    capelza, Mia Dolan, elwior

    About how this is a partisan Democratic blog, and not a liberal blog per say.  Ergo, you have many moderate Democrats around here as well as liberal Democrats.  Part of being a Big Tent Party and all that good stuff :)

    Early Voter: Mark me Down for That One, Biden and Boccieri

    by marcvstraianvs on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:05:29 AM PDT

  •  I disagree with Kucinich some times and agree (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    capelza, TooFolkGR, Joe Beese

    with him on others.  I can confidently say he does not speak for me nor do I endorse some of the decor for which his presents his view on the issues but I can understand why he and others are so angry.

    Also, you did dump on Obama.  You are voting for him, right?

    "An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot." Thomas Paine

    by Cait Strummer on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:05:30 AM PDT

  •  Markos carries exactly as much validity (12+ / 0-)

    as anyone else here. And he can be wrong, too.

    Dennis Kucinich is a valid, functioning and respected member of the Progressive Caucus. Kos taking a dump on him was wrong.

    But you are just as wrong to disparage Obama and other Democrats.

    There's enough room in this Big Tent [hey, remember that guy? LOL] for everyone.

    I will say, I'm disappointed in Kos than you, since he does have a favored position here. You being wrong, is just being wrong, most people won't see you diary. But Kos being wrong means everyone has to see it.

    2008, the Year the Republican Party dissolved into a puddle of goo

    by shpilk on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:05:34 AM PDT

  •  Dennis has lots of good ideas (7+ / 0-)

    A good heart and fair communications skills.

    And a couple of loony ideas whose time has not yet come.

    That is why he remains a fringe candidate.

    As a US Representative he is great. As President I just don't see it.

    My Rep is a great guy and perhaps even more progressive than Dennis, but I don't see him as President either.

    The biggest threat to America is not communism, it's moving America toward a fascist theocracy... -- Frank Zappa

    by NCrefugee on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:10:01 AM PDT

  •  I don't believe in the abolition of nuclear weapo (0+ / 0-)

    ons, certainly not in the way Kucinich believes in it.

  •  I love Kucinich but I don't think (7+ / 0-)

    Markos is the reason why some perceive him as being a bit out on the fringe. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

    I'll always remember Kucinich was the one who brought impeachment to the table when no one else had the balls.

    So lets bury the hatchet. I doubt Kucinich would want anyone distracted from the task at hand and I'm pretty sure ol' Dennis supports Obama as much as Kos does.

    Besides, "Daily Kos" and "Dennis Kucinich" have the same initials. ;-)

    This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

    by Snud on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:16:45 AM PDT

  •  'kos won't reply (deaf ears) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He slings his insults because it's HIS website and he'll cry if he wants to, but he won't respond to reasoned rebuttals.

    Methinks he is trying to secure his future in the  mainstream and is concerned about his "associations".

    It's the Constitution, Stupid!

    by Civil Defiance on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:20:26 AM PDT

    •  Especially your (6+ / 0-)

      reasoned rebuttals eh? This is a site with tens of thousands of active users and you are complaining because he won't communicate with you personally.

    •  Oh, boo fucking hoo. (6+ / 0-)

      If kos responded to everyone who called him out, he'd have no time to do anything else.

      Quit whining because kos didn't respond personally to you.

      And that wasn't a "reasoned rebuttal," it was an insipid and baseless attack on kos.

      Get over yourself.

      I stand by my original analogy between the Joker and bin Laden and the Riddler and Hussein. -- Greasy Grant

      by TheBlaz on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:35:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Settle down. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It used to be considered polite around here, to read the comments and respond when posting a diary.

        Kos wrote about how he "purged" the site of fringe types. I wrote an, ahem, Reasoned Rebuttal (TM), not a baseless attack. You can call it insipid, that's a judgment. But you can't call it baseless-it wasn't-that's a fact.

        Secondly, it was addressed to the Grand Master, not you. The beauty of the new leveled media is that I don't have to go through a "screener" (i.e. you).

        Kos is doing good things for the party, don't misunderstand me. I'm gladly participating in many of his initiatives. However, it's my understanding that the spirit of Daily Kos is such that the grass roots can talk to the top brass on a nearly peer-to-peer basis, and I will exercise that connectivity whenever I am so moved.

        It would just be nice if, when issuing a blanket insult to an entire class of users, he would take a few "questions" from the back of the room. Instead, he lobs the grenade and walks away.

        It's the Constitution, Stupid!

        by Civil Defiance on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 05:07:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for writing this (8+ / 0-)

    Markos has been a progressive leader and I respect his contributions to the change in our country's government.  That said, the very spirit of the tubes is that we can debate him.  

    I never supported Kucinich for president, but I've disagreed with some of Kos's attacks on Kucinich - they remind me of some of the attacks on Dean circa 2003-05 ("angry left" "unelectable" "wacko" "not mainstream"....).  Kucinich is a progressive champion.  He will never be president, but I'm glad he spoke out and I wish Kos didn't consistently marginalize Kucinich.

  •  The problem is that he's Dennis Kucinich (8+ / 0-)

    It's not so much a matter of policy as that he's a total flake.

    Nobody has a problem with Bernie sanders and he's to the left of Kucinich.

    Fight the stupid! Boycott BREAKING diaries!

    by VelvetElvis on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:24:03 AM PDT

  •  as a Kucinich supporter (13+ / 0-)

    I usually ignore the negative comments on this website. But Markos' remarks the other day comparing him to Palin were really below the belt:

    And ideologically, she'd be the equivalent of us picking Dennis Kucinich to run our party, only even less popular.

    There was no need to do this. No politician is perfect and Dennis has his flaws. But he stood up for impeachment when no one else in congress did and pushes for many many progressive issues that we WISH could be enacted.

    Not that he gives a shit, but I really lost a lot of respect for Markos when he said this. Petty and totally unnecessary from someone who is so influential and successful.

    If we cannot elect this man, we don't deserve him.

    by lisastar on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:24:46 AM PDT

  •  Kucinich isn't the best messenger (12+ / 0-)

    but he doesn't deserve the abuse that gets heaped on him here.  Two things here.  We need progressive leaders who aren't as easily caricatured.  But we also  need to fight back when the caricature starts to take hold.  That hasn't happened with Kucinich at all.

    D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

    by dday on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:28:25 AM PDT

    •  What Role Does the Media Play in This? (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dday, TracieLynn, slatsg, Silverbird, bluemonk

      After all, they made moderate Howard Dean look like a whacko too.

      Maybe they've done the same to Kucinich.

      I think there are a few odd things about him, and I don't think he is the best messenger for the left wing of the party, but I respect him for his principles.

      He is caricatured as a whacko because the media has a vested interest in marginalizing any voice that does not fit their preconceived notion of what is acceptable political discourse.

      And fighting against this is what blogs were supposed to be all about.

  •  Kucinich (7+ / 0-)

    Here is my no cheap shot analysis of Dennis Kucinich and why Markos is not a fan:

    Put simply, Dennis Kucinich is all talk and no action.  

    Kucinch takes very progressive positions on issues, but none of them ever see the light of day.  His legislation doesn't get passed.  And its not just because he is to the left of most Democrats.  Legislation comes about as the result of hard work and compromise.  Kucinich isn't willing to compromise, and more importantly, he isn't willing to work to convince other Democrats to support him. Instead, he is content to simply grandstand.

    The other problem with Kucinich is that he does little to help elect other Democrats.  He has a safe seat and should be out raising money and campaigning in other districts for other candidates.  Instead, he can't even pay the required party dues.  And its not that he can't raise money - he raised a ton of money for his presidential campaign - its that he is unwilling to raise money for anyone but himself.

    •  well put (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mia Dolan

      it also doesn't hurt that he sometimes comes off as a caricature of the looney liberal hippie peacenik image (as opposed to the robust movement fightin' progressive image) that we, as the netroots, are trying to distance ourselves from.

      I agree that kos is sometimes needlessly hard on Dennis, and I recognize that definitely, some of his ideas are good, he's definitely really funny and has good stage presence, and that it's good he exists.  but, esp. given your comments and mine, I definitely understand why kos has picked him to be the scapegoat.

      It is not upon you to finish the Work, but neither shall you, O child of freedom, refrain from it. Also, Gobama!

      by DoGooderLawyer on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:43:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well On The Second Part (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mia Dolan

      I don't know how much help he would actually BE getting other Democrats elected.  He's kind of like our Ron Paul?  He can poll in the middle-single digits just about everywhere, but his supporters are too widespread and on the fringe to have any actual impact.

      I mean... what candidate anywhere would ACTUALLY have anything to gain from having Kucinich come stump for them?

      --- It's SPELLED "TooFolkGR" but it's pronounced "Throat-Warbler Mangrove."

      by TooFolkGR on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:44:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  sorry, I think Kucinich is wacko. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mia Dolan
  •  Dennis Kucinich should be our House Speaker!!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, Silverbird, TomP

    For anyone who advocates the "crashing of the gates" and cares about protecting the U.S. Constitution, and holding corporations and government officials accountable, there could not be a better spokesman for the Netroots than Dennis Kucinich.

    Dennis Kucinich is that rare uncompromising, uncorrupted, "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" type of politican that actually has a spine.

    Kucinich should be the Democratic U.S. House Speaker!

    1. He stands for efficient, single-payer, non-profit Health Care that can never be taken away (Medicare For All).
    1. He was right about Iraq, Iran, and the brutally reckless and bankrupt NeoCon agenda, and has spoken out forcefully, and tried to stop the War, every single step of the way.
    1. He is against NAFTA and these other false "free trade" agreements, which are really low wage agreements to benefit the profit interests of global corporations.
    1. He supports investigating Dick Cheney and Bush and ensuring that their actions get properly recognized and established as unlawful conduct, rather than letting their unconstitutional actions go unaccounted and set a dangerous precedent for all who follow.
    1. He supports a committment to renewable energy policies, and is not fooled by false solutions such as "clean coal" or "drilling" or "Nuclear power".
    1. He is against the bailouts to Banking/Wall St. crooks using your money.
    1. He advocates for monetary reform, and stronger regulation of the Federal Reserve manipulations of our money supply and economy.
    1. Kucinich is an unwavering outspoken critic of corporate corruption and greed, and seeks to reign in their abuse of power and taxpayer perks.
    1. Kucinich is capable of working with Independent minded Republicans, as well as members of his own Party, and hails from a midwestern battleground State. He is the only candidate that appeals to progressive liberals, Ralph Nader independents, Ron Paul libertarians, and can bring all those non NeoCon factions together.
    1. The man is honest.  He walks the walk. His word is good.

  •  Dennis "gag rule" Kucinich (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    musing85, blueness, milkbone

    Prior to his 2004 run for president, Kucinich was one of the worst anti-choice members of congress.

    In his two terms in Congress, he has quietly amassed an anti-choice voting record of Henry Hyde-like proportions. He supported Bush's reinstatement of the gag rule for recipients of US family planning funds abroad. He supported the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits anyone but a parent from taking a teenage girl across state lines for an abortion. He voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a crime, distinct from assault on a pregnant woman, to cause the injury or death of a fetus. He voted against funding research on RU-486. He voted for a ban on dilation and extraction (so-called partial-birth) abortions without a maternal health exception. He even voted against contraception coverage in health insurance plans for federal workers--a huge work force of some 2.6 million people (and yes, for many of them, Viagra is covered). Where reasonable constitutional objections could be raised--the lack of a health exception in partial-birth bans clearly violates Roe v. Wade, as the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart--Kucinich did not raise them; where competing principles could be invoked--freedom of speech for foreign health organizations--he did not bring them up. He was a co-sponsor of the House bill outlawing all forms of human cloning, even for research purposes, and he opposes embryonic stem cell research. His anti-choice dedication has earned him a 95 percent position rating from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from NARAL.

    Excuse me if I don't get to excited about this "progressive."  

  •  You would not have ANYTHING BAD to say about (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, Silverbird, lams712, turthlover, TomP

    Dennis IF you lived in HIS district....

    The City of Cleveland STILL benefits from his wisdom (unknown at the time) back in the 1970's.

    If you call his office, you get an answer.  And NOT a form letter.  This guy is for real, and he really knows how to take care of his people.

    He may be thought the foole, but he is OUR foole!

    And we love him in Northeastern Ohio.....

    Call it, Friendo......

    by Sadameatsit on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:44:36 AM PDT

  •  Dennis is one of the very very few democrats... (5+ / 0-)

    who actually has a spine.  Markos, are you playing golf with Pelosi?

    •  what (0+ / 0-)


      Markos lives in Barbara Lee's district. You remember Barbara Lee, don't you? The only member of Congress to vote against George II's AUMF, the original sin from which all the evils of the War on Terra have flowed.

      Where was the saintly, pure, and holy one, Dennis Kucinich, on that day? Voting in favor. Maybe left his "spine" at home that day, ya think?

      Put a sock in it. The congressmember Markos votes for was right, when Dennis Kucinich was wrong.

      •  What does living in Barbara Lee's district... (0+ / 0-)

        have to do with it?  Is that like being able to see Russia gives you foreign policy experience?  Your reply is complete horseshit and I won't put a sock in it.

        •  what it (0+ / 0-)

          has to do with it is that your sainted Kucinich is more likely to be out there on the links with Pelosi, having first stuffed his spine into a golfbag, than either Markos or his congressmember, Barbara Lee.

  •  I love Dennis, best health care plan as well.. (5+ / 0-)


    1. Health care plan
    1. Global Warming plan

    One thing that drives me crazy in the nuclear coziness of each party.

    Don't they realize that nuclear power can used as a front for developing nuclear weapons (Iran anyone).

    We need to develop an energy strategy that DOESN'T include nuclear power so that every country has the capability meet its energy needs without nuclear power, and therefore loses the ability to the the nuclear power excuse as a shield for weapons development.

  •  I Take huge offense - (8+ / 0-)

    "We didn't rally around Webb, Tester, Schweitzer, Trauner, Brown, Massa, Burner and so many other moderate Democrats because they were little Kucinich clones, but because they were perfectly suited for the states and districts they seek to represent. It's that simple."

    It is wrong of KOS to pick on Kucinich. He was a total asset to the democratic Primary and convention. He has the GUTS to openly call the BUSH crime family - Out!!!

    I know it would be political suicide for most Candidates to be like Kucinich.

    But Please give Kucinich some respect. He is truth to power and I think a majority of Americans are starting to realize how Criminal the Bush Administration is. They would believe the message even though they think the Messenger is radical.

    Kucinich is just ahead of his time.

    All my friends think Bush / Cheney are criminals - but would not agree with Kucinich because of the reputation he gets from people like you - KOS

    Kucinich "We know the State of the Union... It's a lie."

    by SkiBumLee on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:54:38 AM PDT

    •  Dodd (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I didn't really like it much when KOS made fun of Dodd.

      I liked how Dems were inclusive in the primaries.
      Totally a great sight compared to the Republicans.

      I Really think that the Dem Candidates fed off one another in those early debates. Obama took alot from Edwards. And in the middle of the financial crises Obama used that Populous theme to woop McInsanes ass.

      Dodd was Cool!

      Kucinich "We know the State of the Union... It's a lie."

      by SkiBumLee on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 02:01:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  if he ever deigned to read it, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Civil Defiance, Mia Dolan, lams712

    Markos would probably be laughing loudly over this diary. We've been down this road before and he obviously doesn't care what we think about this issue.

    I wish the diarist had left the "us" out of the title - that's always guaranteed to get smacked down.

    Hopefully one day we can embrace the truly progressive ideas of folks like Kucinich and quit pandering to paid for hack's like Pelosi and Reid.  In the meantime, we need to get out and get Obama elected.

    If we cannot elect this man, we don't deserve him.

    by lisastar on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:57:16 AM PDT

  •  Progressive goals (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Here's the reality of America folks and this election.

    People say that this is a referendum on conservatism.  It may as well also be a referendum on progressivism. Whether anyone wants to admit it, the middle controls the fate of elections.

    Kucinich, though not my representative, is from my hometown and as noble as his causes may be, they are too left, generally speaking, for mainstream America.

    If you immediately believe that Obama is going to govern to the left, think again.  Above all, he's a pragmatist and realist.

  •  Dennis Kucinich winning in a landslide!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The DKos poll shows that Dennis Kucinich is winning here in a landslide.

    The message therefore is unmistakable that the majority that form the DKos community here do want and support this courageous politician, who speaks truth to power every step of the way, and is the most unafraid progressive advocate in all of Congress.

  •  "Dennis was the only..." (0+ / 0-)

    Mike Gravel.

    The War on Drugs is $40 billion a year of Government waste.

    by ben masel on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 12:14:51 PM PDT

  •  Markos speaks for me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Dennis Kucinich does not.  

    Markos contributes more to the Democratic party and progressive causes in general on an average day than Dennis Kucinich has in his entire life.

  •  got your back, 'Kos (0+ / 0-)

    AND I'm curious as to why you'd want to slam the "loonies" though. Are we seeing some erosion on the left, a la Nader in FL 2000? Whatever, I was surprised by the name-calling, the labeling, in your post today.

    But then my personal background includes no experience with the type of cycle of violent political war engendered by Orden vs FMLN. Perhaps Kucinich seems inherently provacative to such elements for someone with a family background in El Salvadoran "situations".

    So while I'm staying on the watch for extremist tactics coming from the militarist fronts associated with fascist tendencies now embodied in the fringe support for the GOP, you can keep up the hard line against the pinkos, or I guess the label here is "Loonies" (though I though observers of Sun Myung Moon's Universalists and the Washington times had snarking reference to that orb capitalized).

    And Mia can wield the judgements and wear the lipstick - woof.

    Inspired by ideas and programs advanced by Kucinich, not scared by his oddities I'll trust you've got my back on that front -  but that's not why I think this site rocks! g'Obama! Your site has been really valuable for years. Change seems to be coming, much needed. The community associated with this site is catalytical to the change we need. So I got your back.

  •  Good diary. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg, Alec82

    It led to a very interesting discussion and shone a very bright light on some things for me.


    The faux mask of anonymity amplifies the courage just like whiskey. And it just as graceful and eloquent as whiskey.

    by Pager on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 01:50:55 PM PDT

  •  Here is Markos' diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    on why Kucinich sucks.

  •  I liked the diary. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Please read the comments carefully.

    Welcome to November 5th.

    The law is slacked and judgment doth never go forth: the wicked compass about the righteous and wrong judgment proceedeth - Habakkuk 1:4

    by vox humana on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 07:21:51 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site