[-V-]

Now that Dennis is officially running again the challenge for any left minded individual is not finding reasons to vote for him. It is finding one legitimate reason not to vote for him.

He was my Primary candidate in 2004 and right now he is my Primary candidate in 2008. But I will not split the progressive vote if he does not win the Primary.

Last election LiberalHearts.com flew the "Who Wants To Be First Lady" contest winner to New Hampshire for a breakfast date with Kucinich. This time around he has picked his own candidate to fill that position. He married Elizabeth Harper last year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061212/ap_on_el_pr/kucinich2008_11 (AP photo by Mark Duncan)

[Michael DeM]

Reasons to vote for Dennis Kucinich (as opposed to one of those other Democrats):

Dennis Kucinich is calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

He supports single-payer, universal health care for all Americans.

He supports instant runoff voting, paper ballots, public financing of campaigns, and other much needed electoral reforms.

He is strongly pro-environment and has a job creation program that includes investment in environmentally sustainable infrastructure.

He is advocating the repeal of NAFTA and withdrawal from the World Trade Organization.

He is against the death penalty and wants to bring an end to the War on Drugs.

He supports creating a cabinet-level Department of Peace and working toward nuclear disarmament.

He's a friend to the animals.

Those are just some of the things that separate him from the more moderate Democrats. Like -V- said, the choice isn't too difficult for liberals. Dennis Kucinich represents true progressive values. Be sure to check out his website.

http://kucinich.us

Also, there's a good amount of Kucinich merchandise on Cafepress if anyone's interested. Click (http://cafepress.com/buy/dennis+kucinich)

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Dennis Kucinich was my first, and my very enthusiastic candidate choice for President of the United States in 2004. I'd like to see a Dennis Kucinich/Barbara Lee ticket. Democrats at the next Democratic National Convention who will be making the descisions about who the Democratic presidential nominee will be need to take note of those of us on the left who are registering and re-registering liberal, Green Party. As of today, 12/21/2006, Democrats do not, defacto, have my vote by virtue of being a registered Democrat because, today, I mailed my new voter registration card wherein I officially re-registered Green Party. YEAH!

[cat's meow]

Great guy but then again I though Bill Bradley was great too along with Michael Dukakis, Ralph Nader, and John Anderson...look where those votes got me :o :blah: :D

[Jane of Arc]

Cat's Meow ~ What does Kucinich have in common with Dukakis, Bradley, Nader, etc? Are you trying to say he's "unelectable"? And that would be because ...? He's too short? He's too intellectual? He's too real? He's too honest? He isn't handsome enough? Thank you for contributing to the brainwashing effort of corporate media. Excellent job.

I would like to see Democrats grow some BALLS (women too ;) )! Because Dennis Kucinich has an amazing pair! He was the only member of Congress to stand up and vote against a constitutionally illegal war, while all the tall, handsome, glib, rugged BUFFOONS, we call our Congress, aided and abetted criminals.

[haus]

I agree with the gist, 100%, Jane, but gotta fact-check ya:

He was the only member of Congress to stand up and vote against a constitutionally illegal war...

Representatives who voted against the IRW
Well, hell there were 133 of 'em. The list is here. (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml) I'd be surprised if there was a member of the CPC that voted 'yea.'

Senators who voted against the IRW

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyde (D-OR)

[Jane of Arc]

Thanks haus. I knew when I was typing it I should of said 'one of the small amount' ... but I was on a roll on my imaginary soapbox!

In 2004 ~ I did the same thing. Even though I liked what Kucinich said more than any other candidate ... I agreed with the herd ... BAHHHH ... and chose to see him as "unelectable." So many of us bought that hype. Not this time.

[FDRfollower]

I never thought of Dennis as un-electable. I got to see the guy up close when he came through Oakland with his Vegi-Bus. He is well meaning.

I only have problems with his lack of knowledge of economics which is his greatest weakness, although typical of political leaders his age group.

[JamesP]

Are you trying to say he's "unelectable"? And that would be because ...? He's too short? He's too intellectual? He's too real? He's too honest? He isn't handsome enough? Thank you for contributing to the brainwashing effort of corporate media. Excellent job.



Jane:

We should aim high, I agree.

Kucinich would probably do our country and the world the most good.

He probably is too intellectual, too real, too honest and too good to be elected.

More importantly, "we, the people" of the USA are probably not good enough, courageous enough or smart enough to elect him over the "corporate" candidates.

My view is that we are too in love with adolescent concepts of what it means to be strong to elect a man like Kucinich (for too many Americans strength = violence) and we're too superficial and too easily misled by marketing campaigns.

It's certainly worth a try....

... But I'm also prepared to compromise in order to avoid another nightmare like the Bush administration.

I won't buy Hillary, but maybe I could live with an Edwards if it's what it will take to to keep "strong & wrong" McCain out of the White House.

[haus]

I have mixed feelings about recommending this post where Kos goes off on Kucinich (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/23/113236/176?detail=f). On one hand, the post itself is crap. On the other hand, the 1200+ comments cover a pretty startling array of topics and viewpoints.

I think there is valid, constructive criticism begging to be given to the Kucinich campaign. However, Kos not only completely fails to make it, but ventures into the O'Reilley Zone in the process.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

VERY disappointing:

Is the portion of the Daily KOS article below true, and did Kucinich flip flop on his constituents and his voting record during his campaign for President of the United States in 2004?

"Did you know that Kucinich was once ardently anti-choice and anti-stem cell research? From a 2002 Nation article:"



One thing you won't find on Kucinich's website, though, is any mention of his opposition to abortion rights. 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.

[Lionhearted]

After reading the Kos blog haus linked and the bazillion comments on the post, I went to Project Vote Smart and looked at Kucinich's voting record (http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC032003&type=category&category=Abortion%2BIssues&go.x=9&go.y=5) on abortion and the Interest Group ratings (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BC032003)on him regarding abortion. Yeah he was pretty consistant anti-abortion until 2003. Not much of a surprise since I understand he was raised a Catholic. Perhaps his change of heart was political expediency, perhaps he had an epiphany, I personally don't really care, I'd still vote for him, though I do agree with those who consider him unelectable. I believe the man is true to his heart, but I also feel that most voters, even many who consider themselves "liberal" or "progressive" see Kucinich as some sort of New Age whack job.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

In the religio-political climate and pressure therefrom that exists in America today, I ABSOLUTELY cannot chance Kucinich's natural and innate inclination and propensity to remove woman's right to choice by the imposition of Federal control over women's bodies replete with legal penalties that would certainly follow should Roe v. Wade be overtuned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Michael DeM]

I think I can forgive Kucinich for his previous stance on abortion. What matters is where he stands now. More importantly, he has been consistent on every other issue. Perhaps I'm being a little naive, but I honestly don't think that he flip-flopped for political expediency. The fact that he has stood resolutely on his other positions, particularly his refusal to accept corporate donations, tells me that he's not the type to compromise on his principles in order to get votes.

[-V-]

I second that post.

[Lionhearted]

Ya know, I'm beginning to like this man more and more.

Kucinich Blasts Democrats (http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070324_kucinich_blasts_democrats/)

Not everyone was celebrating the passage of the Iraq spending bill on Friday. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, told Truthdig it’s “a disaster for the American people.” The presidential candidate went on to explain his dissatisfaction with his party: “It’s the same kind of thinking that led us into Iraq— that we didn’t have any alternatives.”

[-V-]

http://pol.moveon.org/townhall/iraq/report_back.html has the transcripts of the candidates responses to Iraq questions and allows you to vote on the candidates. My comment was:

From the beginning, Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate who had the courage to speak the truth about Iraq and he is still the only condidate with the courage to promote the right course of action now, regardless of political pressure from Republicans or Democrats.

They also have a facility to donate to the candidate of your choice, which I did because it doubled as a message to moveon.org to stand behind this candidate.

[FDRfollower]

COMMENTARY:
Impeachment Talk: Doonesbury, Dennis and Dick
by Dave Lindorff
Aside from Kucinich, there is little evidence of a growing groundswell for impeachment in Congress, where the word “impeachment” has the same effect upon Democratic Party leaders as a crucifix on a vampire.
Impeachment has finally made it into the mainstream press, but it’s taken a cartoonist to do it.

Gary Trudeau, over the past few days, has been running talk of impeachment in his “Doonesbury” comic strip.

Soon impeachment may reach the news pages, with word that Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is planning to introduce a bill of impeachment in the House against Vice President Dick Cheney. (Of course, it wouldn’t be surprising if the mainstream media ignored that action, just as they’ve studiously ignored Kucinich’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.).


There does, in these two moves, and in the ongoing campaign for impeachment resolutions in state houses and town halls across the country, seem to be a growing groundswell for impeachment. So far, aside from Kucinich, there is little evidence of this in Congress, where the word “impeachment” has the same effect upon Democratic Party leaders as a crucifix on a vampire.

And yet...

The Bush administration seems hell-bent on testing Congress’s limits:
The federal prosecutor firings, which would probably have disappeared as an issue by now had the administration simply dumped Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez a month ago, is mushrooming into a giant political scandal, replete with suspiciously deleted emails, lies, an admission of guilt by a Gonzales aide who has said she would “take the Fifth” if ordered to testify, and evidence that other prosecutors may have engaged in politically-motivated prosecutions in order to keep their jobs. This could easily turn into an impeachment bill against the president.

The president’s continued instransigence regarding continued funding for his splendid little war in Iraq is infuriating the American public, which in turn is pressuring a reluctant Congress to take an increasingly hard line on setting a deadline for withdrawal. Again, as Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has opined, at some point Bush’s refusal to acknowledge that Americans have given up on the Iraq War and just want the troops home, could lead to impeachment as a remedy.

The president is seeking a rewriting of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to grant him a freer hand in spying on domestic phone and internet use without the need to obtain a court order—all at a time that the public is growing increasingly uneasy about the erosion of civil liberties protections since 2001. Here’s an issue that unites left and right and that could lead to impeachment, particularly as a federal judge has already declared the president to be a felon for repeatedly violating FISA.
There is certainly no shortage of reasons to impeach this president. All that is lacking is a member of the House with enough sense of duty (members of Congress are all sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic) to submit a bill. Then the members of the House will have to stand and be counted on the crucial issue of whether they stand for the rule of law and the survival of the Constitution, or are just hack politicians trying to ride through the next election.

With cartoonists and Dennis Kucinich leading the way, we may yet get to see that challenge laid down.

We may yet see this president impeached.
Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Another book is of CounterPunch columns, titled This Can't Be Happening!, is published by Common Courage Press. Lindorff's latest book is The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky. Visit his website for more information. Lindorff may be reached at dlindorff@yahoo.com. This story is published in the Baltimore Chronicle with permission of the author.

Copyright © 2007 The Baltimore Chronicle. All rights reserved.

[FDRfollower]

Strange co-incidence, huh?

Dennis was ready to introduce his impeachment measure unto the floor of the House of Representatives, when the Virginia school massacre happened. Dennis delayed it for a week.

[Thelonious]

Ya know, I'm beginning to like this man more and more.


I am too.


And now the latest rumour is that he is planning to propose articles of impeachment against Chenney in the near future.
I applaud this decision.

[FDRfollower]

Let the impeachment process begin!!

impeachment resolution page (http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm)

:thumbup: :jumpjoy:

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Thank you, FDRfollower, for that post.

The left KNOWS what is good and right. Now, from the left, it is being done at last.

Impeachment: An overview of Constitutional Provisions, Procedure and Practice

Summary

The impeachment process provides a mechanism for removal of the President, Vice President and other federal civil officers found to have engaged in "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The Constitution places the responsibility and authority to determine whether to impeach and to draft articles of impeachment in the hands of the House of Representatives. A number of means have been used to trigger the House's investigation, but the ultimate descision in all instances as to whether impeachment or not is appropriate rests with the House. Should the House vote to impeach and vote articles of impeachment specifying the grounds upon which impeachment is based, the matter is then presented to the Senate for trial.

Under the Constitution, the Senate has the unique power to try an impeachment. The descision as to whether to convict on each of the articles must be made separately. A conviction must be supported by a two-thirds majority of the Senators present. A conviction on any one of the articles of impeachment brought against an individual is sufficient to constitute conviction in the trial of the impeachment. Should a conviction occur, then the Senate must determine what the appropriate judgement is in the case. The Constitution limits the judgement to either removal from office and prohibition against holding any future offices of "honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." The precedents in impeachment suggest that removal may flow automatically from conviction, but that the Senate must vote to prohibit the individual from holding future offices of public thrust, if that judgement is also deemed appropriate. A simple majority vote is required on a judgement. Conviction on impeachment does not forclose the possibility of criminal prosecution arising out of the same factual situation. The Constitution precludes the President from extending executive clemency to anyone to preclude their impeachment by the house or trial or conviction by the Senate.

[FDRfollower]

Dennis was on CNN, and he *GASP* spoke with common sense!! :eek:

He said that he's doing it nowis because the Vice President is beating the same drums of war against Iran that he beat against Iraq under false pretenses.

Imagine that, Dennis thinks that if Bush were impeached, Cheney would become president. Reality spoken by a sitting Congressman!!

Hugs for Dennis!! Yayyy!

However, Sen. Chris Dodd(ering) from Conn. said that he's got other, more important things to worry about when a friend of mine asked him about this.

[Thelonious]

Dennis was on CNN, and he *GASP* spoke with common sense!! :eek:

He said that he's doing it now

Imagine that, Dennis thinks that if Bush were impeached, Cheney would become president. Reality spoken by a sitting Congressman!!

Hugs for Dennis!! Yayyy!

However, Sen. Chris Dodd(ering) from Conn. said that he's got other, more important things to worry about when a friend of mine asked him about this.


Chris Dodd?? Other things to worry about??
Maybe his own futile campaign for national office. Dodd has no worries. Dodd should be leading impeachment. (actually as chairman of the banking comittee he should be cracking down hard on the poor-people-get-mortgages-they-can-never-afford scams)

[MAGI]

However, Sen. Chris Dodd(ering) from Conn. said that he's got other, more important things to worry about when a friend of mine asked him about this.

I'm not the least bit surprised!

Yayyy, Dennis.........., Right On!

:thumbup: :thumbup:

[Michael DeM]

I just saw on yahoo.com that Dennis Kucinich was #1 on Today's Search Highlights. This was a funny coincidence because I was thinking to myself yesterday how the top searches are always about celebrities and never about anything important. I guess it had to do with Kucinich's performance on the debate-- or with his support for impeachment. Maybe the world isn't as tuned out to politics as I think it is.

[FDRfollower]

I just saw on yahoo.com that Dennis Kucinich was #1 on Today's Search Highlights. This was a funny coincidence because I was thinking to myself yesterday how the top searches are always about celebrities and never about anything important. I guess it had to do with Kucinich's performance on the debate-- or with his support for impeachment. Maybe the world isn't as tuned out to politics as I think it is.

C'mon Michael DeM, you call that a debate? He he he. :rolleyes:

As far as I'm concerned, the Democratic primary race should be listed as Dennis Kucinich and the seven dwarf's.

If a candidate isn't for impeachment of Cheney (at the LEAST), then they have no moral qualification to even be a candidate, much less a elected official. Impeachment is more popular than ice cream these days as the old sage said.

The only moral choice at this point is to vote for Dennis.

Its great to be back guys. The internet was down for a while here, and I missed you all.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Missed you too, FDRfollower. You're correct about Dennis in that way! Heavens, I didn't want to say you were "right."

[MAGI]

I missed you too. Welcome back!

:sunny:

[Michael DeM]

As far as I'm concerned, the Democratic primary race should be listed as Dennis Kucinich and the seven dwarf's.

Ain't that the truth. And you know, Dennis didn't even get asked that many questions in the debate compared to most the other candidates even though guys like Bill Richardson had the exact same poll numbers. What is up with that? Hey, it's great to see you back FDRFollower. I was wondering why you weren't posting here as much.

[Jane of Arc]

And I missed you, as well, FDRfollower! Glad to have that BIG brain of yours back at POL. I'd send you a 'gooey mash note', but I don't know what that is? (A missive from a military doctor in love? Beats me?) :sunny:

[FDRfollower]

Cool! Dennis and Maxine Waters in a press conference announcing her co-sponsoring the Impeachment bill.

Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-24336588108100595)

[Shauna]

I agree with JamesP here. "He probably is too intellectual, too real, too honest and too good to be elected. More importantly, 'we, the people' of the USA are probably not good enough, courageous enough or smart enough to elect him over the 'corporate' candidates."
Do I think Kucinich is the best man for the job. Of course. Do I think he stands a chance of winning against a Republican if he got the nomination? Of course not. His only problem, sadly, is that he isn't electable. I mean, I have utmost faith in the American voters...*remembers 2000 and 2004 presidential elections*...nevermind.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Cooool peace sign, Shauna. I know it is always the best thing to do what is best, right and good to do and to work to help other people to see the way. Then we have a clean conscience, and we rest well knowing that what we have done is the best to have done. Shauna, thank you, and welcome to POL! ;)

[Jane of Arc]

:sunny: Welcome to POL Shauna! :sunny:

[FDRfollower]

Greetings to our new poster, Shuana

:)

[NeoCon Newbie]

Why would you want to impeach Bush he is doing a fine job.Terrorism is war they wanted a war so we gave it to them.FDR did the same thing we where attacked by Japan and we went to war and u liberals dont bitch about that it seems to me you are being hypocrits.

[FDRfollower]

A fine job at what, killing young people, organizing destruction?

Read the resolution you silly kid. I put a simple link to it for crumb sake.

[CHUQ]

Why are those who are afraid of Kucinich, if he has no chance? Read the link or read HR 333. There is a wealth of info there, but I guess if you are a conserv it is all lies, huh?

[CHUQ]

Kucinich is suing Willie Nelson


A federal judge next week plans to hear a lawsuit brought by U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and a famous Texas supporter, Willie Nelson, that questions the legality of a long-standing loyalty pledge required of Democrats running for president in Texas.

Kucinich, of Ohio, is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. He applied last week to appear on the state primary ballot March 4 but scratched out a portion of the pledge on the application stating he'd support the party's nominee for president, whoever it is.


LINK (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/01/04/0104kucinich.html)