Briefly: We thought he was great. Then the more we saw, the more shocked we were. Now we know Dennis Kucinich is just not an acceptable choice for President.
Check the record. He failed as mayor of Cleveland. He thinks he knows it all and refuses to work with others. So he's passed next to no legislation.
He voted with right wing anti-choicers for years. Now that he wants to be President, aware most Democrats are pro-choice he's denying his extreme anti-choice record.
Kucinich flip flopped and sided with right wingers on other issues too. He helped them impeach Bill Clinton, but now he won't help us impeach Bush.
He keeps attacking other Democrats more than he attacks Bush. We don't care who you support, just as long as it's not Bush or Kucinich.
Contact Kucinich about his lies and flip-flops. Tell him to help beat Bush and stop bashing other Democrats.
Email: info@kucinich.us
Kucinich for President
11808 Lorain Ave. 1st floor
Cleveland, OH 44111
Call Toll-Free:
(866)-413-3664 or
(866)-4-1-DENNIS
If you're looking for a word to describe your reaction to that announcement, you might try absurd. Or how about ludicrous? Here's a 56-year-old congressman from a Rust Belt state with virtually no name recognition, no money, and a political résumé that only his opponents could love (Cleveland went bankrupt while he was mayor).
He hangs out with New Age notables (Shirley MacLaine is his daughter's godmother, Marianne Williamson a political adviser), confounds liberals with his pro-life/pro-choice abortion stand (he's so serious about the sanctity of life that he eats a vegan diet, but does support Roe v. Wade), and believes the cornerstones of civilization consist of "polka, bowling, and kielbasa."
Meanwhile, the cries of "spoiler" are beginning to rise. In a recent column for the liberal Web site workingforchange.com, Alexander Cockburn lamented the arrival of influential leftists Barbara Ehrenreich and Marcus Raskin on the Kucinich bandwagon.
"Though he's hotly touted across the progressive spectrum, Kucinich hasn't a prayer of becoming a serious contender," Cockburn writes, "and I'm amazed to see people like Ehrenreich acting as the Pied Piper, calling all the erstwhile Greens, the Natural Law Party, and other exiles back under the Big Top."
- posted by Dennis @ 10:11 PM
For a while yesterday, Cuyahoga County's western suburbs appeared to have taken a stunning political left turn, thanks to erroneous comments made by U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Speaking at a forum for Democratic presidential hopefuls, the congressman from Cleveland implied that he was responsible for a seismic political shift - from Republican to Democratic - in the 10th Congressional District.
"I represent a district in Cleveland, Ohio, that when I first ran was a 66 percent Republican district," Kucinich told supporters of Emily's List, a network of Democratic women who are for abortion rights. "And through working on progressive issues and running consistently a progressive-oriented campaign, I took that district from a 66 percent Republican district to a 74 percent Democratic district."
But Kucinich later acknowledged that he may have given the wrong impression. "It wasn't any intention" to mislead, Kucinich said. "I was attempting to demonstrate that I was able to take a district and turn it around." Democrats, however, have long had an advantage in the 10th District, Hoke's term not withstanding. It has more Democratic voters than Republican ones, so the odds favor a Democratic candidate.
"The congressional district that he won in where he beat Martin Hoke was a 54 percent Democrat district," Ohio Republican Chairman Robert Bennett said. "And it is a little bit more Democrat now" because the boundaries changed after the 2000 census. See: Kucinich's Incredible Lies About His District
- posted by Dennis @ 9:59 PM
The Kucinich campaign is sending around email claiming:
IT'S BEGINNING TO LOOK A LOT LIKE KUCINICH
Dennis Kucinich's campaign has been catching fire ever since the December 9th
debate in New Hampshire. [Screaming red headline in original.]
You have to admire their enthusiasm, but is it true? No, it isn't. Check
the recent polls. Kucinich is at 1% to 2% in most. Kucinich is hardly "catching fire." He even lost ground according to the latest CBS News/New York Times Poll.
Kucinich fanatics claim the polls are biased against their candidate, and perhaps
they are. Maybe they underrate his appeal by 400%. Still, no one expects Kucinich
to crack 10% in Iowa, New Hampshire or anywhere else - including his home state.
No one that is, except Kucinich and his fanatics.
But as long as Kucinich and his supporters continue to viciously, often dishonestly attack fellow Democrats rather than focus on Bush, he won't even garner 5%
of the vote. So why do they do that? Only Kucinich and his misguided supporters
know. Hopefully they'll stop soon, but in any case they'll have to stop when
reality crashes down on their heads.
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Dec. 15-16, 2003. Democrats and
Democratic leaners nationwide who are to vote. "Next,
I'm going to read a list of people who may be running in the Democratic
primary for president in the next election. After I read all the names,
please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support
for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2004. . . ."
Names rotated
12/15-16
12/11-14
12/5-7
11/14-16
11/10-12
%
%
%
%
%
Howard
Dean
27
31
25
17
17
Joe Lieberman
12
13
10
13
15
Wesley
Clark
12
10
17
17
14
Dick Gephardt
7
8
14
13
12
John Kerry
7
10
7
9
10
John Edwards
6
4
7
6
7
Al
Sharpton
6
5
3
5
3
Carol
Moseley Braun
3
3
5
4
4
Dennis
Kucinich
2
1
2
3
3
Other/None/No
opinion
18
15
10
13
15
CBS
News/New York Times Poll. Dec. 14-16, 2003.
Likely Democratic primary voters nationwide.
"Who would you like to see the Democratic Party nominate as
its presidential candidate in 2004: [see
below],
or someone else?"
Names rotated
Keep in mind we are approaching this as progressive activists. We are more anti-Bush than anything else, and we can look at other candidates with clear vision if not objectivity. We should stipulate that Kucinich and the other candidates are all "playing politics." That's what politicians do.
We have been engaging Kucinich supporters about what we consider troubling conduct from the official Kucinich campaign and bizarre actions by some Kucinich supporters. To answer the attacks and complaints we've gotten from them, we worked up this response.
We support most of Kucinich's ideas and positions. Other than his radical anti-choice votes, we find few flaws in Kucinich's record. As ardent progressives, we should be natural Kucinich supporters. We're not, and we think that says a lot about the Kucinich campaign. So why don't we support Kucinich?
We researched the Kucinich record after receiving email from his campaign which claimed he was the most if not the only pro-choice candidate in the race. We had heard that Kucinich was anti choice, which surprised us. We also heard that he had changed his mind. Until we looked into it, we had no idea the degree of Kucinich's complete and long-standing hostility to the Constitutional Right to Choice.
The Constitutional Right to Choice is a huge issue for us. It goes to basic respect for basic Constitutional principles vs. religious dogma as a basis for our law and society. It measures respect for individual privacy and freedom against abusive, intrusive governmental authority. The refusal to respect the rights of women as human beings capable of determining their own life-choices is a personal failure no less serious than bigotry against African Americans, gays or any other segment of society.
Someone willing to favor theology, paternalism and other fundamental violations of Constitutional Rights on reproductive choice is willing to favor theology, paternalism and other fundamental violations of Constitutional Rights other issues. Willingness to trample the freedom and rights of women signals willingness to abuse anyone. After supporting these outrages throughout an entire career, claiming to change your mind a few months ago is no guarantee against support for similar outrages a few months from now.
We agree with Kucinich supporters that he may suffer unfairly from media disdain and disrespect. He has more to explain and less to go on than some others, and that might not all be Kucinich's fault. Still, some of it is his fault. In any case he - like any Democrat, especially a liberal - must rise above this unfairness to win the nomination and beat Bush. What matters more than that?
A Kucinich supporter complained, "With so many writing negative things about him or misrepresenting his policies or simply discounting him outright as a lunatic fringe, he leaps upon any article that paints him in a good way at all." We believe that concedes the Kucinich campaign hasn't made the same impact others' have, for whatever reason, and cannot justify self-defeating or deceptive practices by the Kucinich campaign.
We think it's obvious Kucinich has gotten almost no media attention, and much of the scant attention he gets focuses on his lack of support. While we don't think anyone in the mainstream media misrepresent him, much less call him a "lunatic," We welcome any examples his supporters may offer to send to me.
Efforts to excuse Kucinich's conduct - specifically misrepresenting his record such as pretending only he will defend Roe v. Wade and attacking other Democrats - raises a serious question. Does that mean he can't win the nomination? Let's look at this as objectively as we can.
About a year ago, Dean and Kucinich were in essentially the same position. Far from the limelight, relatively unknown, and without money or people-power. Since then, Dean pushed through the pack into front-runner status. This although Dean has even more people writing negative things about him than Kucinich. We would say Dean's success rests at least in part upon his ability to attract attention and overcome attacks.
Kucinich joined most of the other Democratic hopefuls, the Democratic Leadership Council, the Republicans and their allies in the media "misrepresenting [Dean's] policies." Many critics try to discount Dean outright as a far-left fringe candidate. Dean worked through that static to become the front-runner. Dean is not complaining about the media and others who are against him - even though many are. He is not making any excuses. He doesn't have to. He just keeps moving ahead.
Dean won every contest so far - the Wisconsin Democratic Convention, the Minnesota straw poll, the MoveOn primary - all by huge margins. Dean gets the biggest crowds in Texas, Arizona, New Hampshire, Iowa and elsewhere. He rose to the top of the polls among Democrats nationally and in the key states. He dismissed the charge he can't compete for contributions by raising the most money in tiny amounts without any corporate or PAC support.
Why can't Kucinich rise above similar obstacles and make a splash as Dean has? Is it because Kucinich is too far to the left? Perhaps, but if so, then things won't get any easier for him. In fact, if Kucinich ever pushes into the top tier, things will get much worse. Is it because Kucinich's message simply isn't resonating? If so, then he has to change that message and / or his approach, making his campaign more positive and uplifting. Can Kucinich withstand the nonstop attacks Dean has endured?
Primary politics - like all politics - remain largely media-driven. There's only room for two at the top: a front runner and a challenger. The media mock the rest - if they pay any attention to them at all. Is that fair? No. Is it so? Yes. So what if Kucinich squares off against Dean, or what if Kucinich rather than Dean confronts Clark, Edwards, Lieberman, Gephardt or Kerry for the nomination?
If the others fall by the wayside, the media will probe every flaw and quirk in Kucinich's life and record. If his supporters think the media unfairly treated Kucinich has up until now, just wait until they really focus on him. What will the media report?
Kucinich caused a fiscal crisis in Cleveland in his only attempt at executive leadership. No other major city went into default since the Great Depression. Kucinich says this is because he refused to sell the Cleveland-owner power company, Muny Light:
"The Muny Light issue came to a head on December 15, 1978, when Ohio's largest bank, Cleveland Trust, the 33rd largest bank in America at that time, told me that they would not renew the city's credit on 15 million dollars worth of loans taken out by the previous administration unless We would agreed to sell Cleveland's municipally owned utility to CEI." See: Power to the People by Rep. Dennis Kucinich: http://truthout.org/docs_03/082503C.shtml.
Kucinich conveniently starts his story on the eve of default, even though he became mayor several months earlier and served in city government for years. Why didn't he take the necessary steps to head off the crisis long before it was too late? He blames his failure to find a solution entirely on others, not on his youth or inexperience, not on any flaw in anything he did.
Typically, Kucinich blames others and excuses his role in this catastrophe by claiming a bank bankrupted Cleveland. But mayors of Cleveland both before and after Kucinich didn't sell Muny Light either. Somehow they all successfully avoided default. What was different about Kucinich that made this beyond his capacity? There may be a plausible explanation for this, but we have yet to read or hear it.
By contrast, after Bill Clinton failed in his first term as governor he admitted he tried to do too much too fast. He understands he stepped on peoples' toes. He doesn't say he was wrong on the merits, except for when he was, but accepts that he tried to do some good things the wrong way. We don't see that level of maturity, self-awareness or humility in Kucinich's explanation of his own failure. We see no sense of personal accountability, only finger-pointing and self-serving rationalizations.
Then there's choice. Kucinich's voting record has been 100% anti-choice, and 100% anti-family planning. Although he tries to hem and haw about this, he maintained his full-out opposition to choice and Roe v. Wade until he decided to run for president. This may not set off any alarm bells for some of his supporters, but he has yet to explain this to our satisfaction. When many Kucinich supporters learn about the depth of his opposition to choice, they choose another candidate. That may explain Kucinich's refusal to level with us about his snap decision.
We think Kucinich should explain his "campaign conversion" on choice honestly. We see Kucinich's political strategy as hiding behind a facile, false claim that other Democrats are less willing to defend choice than he is. We are not the only ones who see this as cynical and self-serving. When pro-choice Kucinich supporters we know learn of his life-long anti-family planning record and lack of leadership in the House on this issue to date, they get upset with Kucinich.
We cannot overrate the problems Kucinich is creating for himself by doing this. We see the (supposedly) popular Bush trying to evade responsibility for his failures and sinking. The media - heavily predisposed to cover for Bush - keep raising questions about this. We don't think you can assume Kucinich will have any more success dodging or dismissing the questions about his tenure in Cleveland, his long anti-choice record and abrupt change, or his campaign's misstatements about these and other matters
We understand the danger the Kucinich campaign has created for him by making outrageous claims. With his dismal record on the choice issue, why would he claim he is not merely the best on choice, but that he is the only real pro-choice candidate? It's ridiculous and wrong. It's also self-destructive.
If Kucinich ever does make any kind of move into the top tier, the first thing the media will do is rip into his flip-flop on choice. Can he explain that and maintain any support among the pro-choice Democrats? If we're any example, he can't.
Most troubling, we find an overarching consistent pattern of willful deception by the Kucinich campaign. This is even worse among "friends" of the campaign like "Feminists for Kucinich" and the reporter Bob Harris who we believe take their cues from the official campaign. Kucinich has the right to run any way he wants. However we wish he'd treat other candidates and voters with more respect than he's shown at times.
Kucinich supporters say he has to leap at any favorable half sentence in any article, and we agree that's true. Still, we wonder about a candidate who accepts he has to hope we'll ignore the rest of the sentence he's chosen as a headline. A serious and viable campaign faces all the facts in articles they hand-pick to distribute, not just the positive one-half-liners.
A quick click on links sent by the Kucinich campaign reveals even his top supporters admit he has less support than his rivals. Kucinich is relying on non-endorsements, misleading materials, and articles which show him as an also ran. This under headlines which claim he's been endorsed, proclaim he's the best on issues on which he's been horrible, and designate him a rising star.
Maybe it wouldn't bother us so much if Kucinich changed his mind on choice, if his views evolved slowly over the years. Maybe it wouldn't bother us if he would just admit this marks a 100% change from his past record. We don't know what to think about this total about face and his refusal to face up to it.
Kucinich's excuse - that the right wing has played politics with the issue - makes no sense to me. He voted in lock-step with the right wing for a decade or more while they were playing politics. Also, if Kucinich really believes life begins at conception, then how can someone else "playing politics" change that?
Either choice is a Constitutional Right (as we believe) or it's killing a human being - homicide - as Kucinich has steadfastly asserted, at least until very recently. Others' political motivations cannot make exercising choice one thing or the other. Kucinich's explanation seems like blaming someone else for his own dilemma - something Kucinich does all too often for our comfort.
Rather than accept he has a long way to go on this issue, Kucinich is bashing all the other Democrats who have a perfect record on choice. We got email directly from the Kucinich campaign - drafted by "Feminists for Kucinich" claiming he's the only one who will protect choice because he promises to apply a "litmus test" on judicial appointments. This although Kucinich is the least likely to do that, based on his record.
The right wing National Review reports: "During his first three terms in Congress, Kucinich compiled a consistently pro-life voting record, earning a 95-percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee in 2000. 'He absolutely believes in the sanctity of life and that life begins at conception,' Kucinich's spokeswoman explained last year."
"But the feisty 56-year-old Catholic, whose political career is littered with upset victories, has changed course. 'We support a woman's right to freedom of choice,' Kucinich says now. 'We do not believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.' He vowed last week to an Iowa audience that 'as president, I would protect that right [to choice], and I would also make sure that appointees to the Supreme Court protected that right.'"
See: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich022003.asp
These new positions represent a 100% reversal for Kucinich. Kucinich voted against the Constitutional Right to reproductive freedom over his whole career dating back to the Ohio state legislature, until he decided to run for President. He got a 0% from NARAL - the top pro-choice group. He received a 95% approval rather than a 100% grade from anti-choice groups like Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition and the extreme right wing Concerned Women for America because he voted for the Shays / Meehan campaign finance reform bill.
Kucinich claims he changed from the most anti-choice candidate imaginable to the most or only pro-choice candidate overnight. We hate to say this, but we think he's just claiming to be pro-choice to get votes in the primaries. Either that or his bedrock moral stands are "flexible" at the very least. This makes us really wonder about him as a candidate. Of course we'll support him if he gets the nomination, but we can't imagine why he thinks the media wouldn't hammer him to death on it?
Kucinich not only voted anti-choice every time for year after year, but also anti-choice, anti-family planning, and anti-contraception for 100,000s of women with federal health insurance. Just since Bush stole the White House, Kucinich backed Bush's bans and gag rules. He voted against what he claims he now believes every time until just a few months ago. He has never explained this with anything close to real personal accountability or sincerity, so it looks like a "campaign conversion" to me. We just can't see any other explanation.
Maybe Kucinich's most ardent supporters can dismiss this conduct and claims which fly in the face of the actual facts and quotes showing virtually no support for Kucinich even among Democrats who agree with his views. We cannot. Some Kucinich supporters rely on hopes that if people get to know Kucinich, they will flock to his banner. But the Kucinich his campaign is trying to introduce is not the real Kucinich. This conduct shows us Kucinich isn't running his campaign well, he isn't running honestly, or both.
It's not just Kucinich and his official campaign which keep misfiring and turning off potential supporters. We got a lot of thumbs-up emails about this site from other victims of vicious attacks from Kucinich fanatics. Although all candidates count rabid, rude and abusive people among their ranks, we see more hysterical behavior from the Kucinich Clique than from all the other Democrats combined.
Does all this mean Kucinich can't win the nomination? We think that's exactly what this means. That's our opinion, and people can disagree of course. That said, you should ask, if Kucinich is turning off a political activists like us by running this way, what is he gaining? Where can he hope to get support? What does this say about him as a leader?
We see no way Kucinich will escape the obscure lowest tier the way he's going. All he can do is make enemies on the left, help Bush, and hurt his own career. If anyone reading this has any influence on Kucinich or his campaign, please try to get them to focus on bashing Bush rather than badmouthing other Democrats. Otherwise he's just hurting Democrats, perhaps himself most of all.
- posted by Dennis @ 10:49 AM
November 17, 2003
We get hate mail From a Kucinich campaigner
From: Robin Rae Art4Peace@comcast.net Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 6:53 PM Subject: Re: (ditto)
ARE YOU ARE COMPLETELY INSANE??!!!! Saying I am in a "blinding rage"?? you say you offered advice "in kindness"?? that I'm "creating an enemy", and that I "lash out rather than trying to be undersood"??? As I said in my last email....you obviously did NOT read all of my "nice" email a few days ago!!! You are the most rediculous, arrogant, screwed up idiot and Dean (should) be ashamed of YOU!!! And YES...after all the insaneness you've been sending to me, I am NOW very angry with YOU!!!
There are numerous other statements you've made in recent emails which are at least as rude & interrogating!! YOU are the one digging yourself in the hole with your rudeness and hatred!! The only hatred I have is the way you twist everything around and try to make the OTHER person seem like the angry, revengeful attacker. I don't care what you say because I KNOW what I've said, and I am open enough to read into what you've said!! Ripple.....ripple.....ripple.....,',',',',',',',',',','
Just in case you might want to REALLY read my previous email: (but be careful...there's no meaness in it)
I would hope that you could understand WHY most of us Kucinich supporters "seem" so angry and/or defensive. It's the media's TOTAL ignorance, avoidance and unfairness of Kucinich. I'm sure you don't notice what goes on like we all do....but MANY times, EVERY day, we find television spots or newspaper articles where they are speaking about (say) which candidates are talking out 'against' the Iraq war, then they say "Howard Dean is the ONLY candidate who's been against the war all along" (THAT is a TOTAL lie!!)...or they may be speaking of which candidate has a plan to bring jobs back to the U.S., then they NEVER even mention that Kucinich is the ONLY candidate who promises to 'cancel' NAFTA & WTO....and so on & so on!!!! We see this SO MANY places EVERY DAY!!!
I personally contact media people (either by email or phone calls) at least TEN times each day in response to this type of bullshit!! And when we work so hard in trying to get the TRUTH out about where our candidate stands on important issues, only to have the mainstream, 'national' media churn out lies, then not ever give him any airtime to SPEAK his views....it makes us VERY angry!! (most of us are typically NOT 'angry' people) I happen to be quite a soft-spoken, peaceful, compassionate and very friendly person. I have NEVER been involved in politics in my entire life, until now....and I'm 39 yrs old!! I have only now become involved because I heard Dennis speak at an event about a year ago and EVERYTHING that Dennis passionately spoke of is what I've always wanted to see in our government!
Then I became one of over 30,000 people who constantly emailed to persuade him to run for President. I promised him that if he decided to run, I would help work the campaign in the Los Angeles area. When he finally came out with his decision to run in the end of February, I've been excitedly working my heart out ever since! I've now spent alot time with Dennis, on numberous occassions, and I KNOW how honest, intelligent, and deeply compassionate he REALLY is!
I have a VERY strong sense of intuition and am really good at 'reading into' people, or 'getting a feel' for them (hard to explain). Dennis IS the REAL DEAL. And I'm sorry for bringing this up again, but Howard Dean does NOT give me a good 'feeling', at all. This is by what I 'sense' about him, his actions, and what he says. (my 'gut' feelings)
I'm sorry to go on so long about this....but I think it is VERY important to make you understand that we Kucinich supporters are NOT angry, attacking, horrible people. I think it's important to point out the fact of what the media is doing. The media is against Kucinich because he speaks out strongly about the wrongs in the government, details of Pentagon spending, and the strong corporate control of our government (the media are controlled by big corporations, as well).
This lack of mainstream media coverage is the ONLY reason Dennis Kucinich is not at the top of the tier!! If he was on the airwaves, even as much as Clark, the general public would be able to hear his strong message and Kucinich would become the 'frontrunner'. Instead, the media has taken it upon themselves to 'choose' who THEY want as the frontrunners. THIS is one of the main reasons Kucinich is so low in the national polls (besides the fact that the polls are bias)...because they either don't know who he is or have not seen enough of him. This is going to begin to change as the debates progress....and once we can get a grip on this media conspiracy!!
I'm truly NOT ranting to you, I just NEEDED to clear up a few things that have bothered me from your emails. Yet, I will re-state to you that if Howard Dean wins the nomination, I would NOT vote for him in the election. That certainly doesn't mean I'm unpatriotic....just that I can only vote with my "conscience". (The thing I say to most people I initially speak to about Kucinich, since they usually say they LOVE everything that he stands for, but the media tells them he's "unelectable", is that "Kucinich IS electable if you vote for him...vote with your conscience!!) That's ALL I will say. Thanks for your patience!!
PEACE & Many Blessings, Robin Rae =^. .^=
Lucky this wasn't angry or mean. We can't even imagine what that would look like? Better Robin would show a "standoffish attitude" than this "rediculous" rant.
- posted by Dennis @ 5:13 PM
Kucinich has an "Achilles heel: abortion. His first two terms in Congress, he voted anti-choice. Skeptics contend he 'flip-flopped' in order to seek the Democratic nomination. [Kucinich claims] 'I became increasingly disturbed about politicization by the Republican Party and moves toward the criminalization [of abortion].' [To explain this change] Kucinich cited extremist legislation proposed to ban contraceptives."
Yet Kucinich voted for that ban for women in federal employee insurance plans and other extremist legislation according to Kucinich's Planned Parenthood report card:
In other recent Kucinich votes:
He Opposed Insurance Coverage For Contraceptives
He Supported the Global Gag Rule
He Opposed International Family Planning
He Supported Confidential Access To Family Planning For Minors
He Opposed Mifepristone (Formerly Known As RU-486)
He Opposed Minors' Access To Abortion
He Opposed Abortion Access For Military Service Members
He Opposed Medicaid Choice (Was for the Hyde Amendment)
He Supported Bans On Abortion Procedures
He Supported so-called "Fetal Rights"
Who does Kucinich think he's kidding?
- posted by Dennis @ 12:06 PM
Kucinich, meanwhile, announced he had changed his position to favor abortion rights last February on the day he kicked off his campaign, reversing the position he had held on the issue during seven years in Congress, when he has generally opposed abortion rights and consistently opposed federal funding of abortion for poor women.
- posted by Dennis @ 11:44 AM
Kucinich ... decided to jettison his old views in favor of the Democratic Party orthodoxy. Rather unaccountably, Kucinich argues that he has done no such thing, that there is no discrepancy between his now-rabid pro-choice position and his voting record.
When confronted with the fact that this record earned him a 90 percent National Right to Life Committee rating in his first term and a 95 percent rating in his second -- with the imperfections attributable to his support of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill, not any directly abortion-related vote -- he responds that this shows he was pro-choice but opposed to taxpayer funding of abortion.
However, his votes for the partial-birth abortion ban and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act went beyond opposition to publicly funded abortion to support for legal protection of pre-born life. The main advantage Kucinich has in his efforts to bob and weave on the abortion issue is that during his time in Congress, the pro-life movement has focused on incremental reforms rather than sweeping changes like the human life amendment.
While he is on record affirming his belief in the sanctity of human life and that life begins at conception, he has never had to vote on whether Roe v. Wade should stand -- although according to the Katha Pollitt column that Sean Higgins credits in part for his shift, he did tell Planned Parenthood that he disagreed with the substance of the decision in 1996. [continued]
- posted by Dennis @ 11:38 AM
I couldn't be more shocked. Honestly. Nathan put a bug in my ear, and with a little research, did I ever get the shock of my life.
Some facts for you about Dennis Kucinich:
*While in the Ohio state Senate, Kucinich voted to ban partial-birth abortions.
*the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy counted Kucinich as one of a handful of "anti-choice" Democratic newcomers when he was on his way to Washington.
*As a congressmen, he voted with the National Right to Life Committee on every single abortion vote in his first two years. That was more pro-life than three Ohio Republicans that year!
* Also while in congress, Kucinich voted twice on both banning partial-birth abortion and blocking aid to International Planned Parenthood (Last in 2001)
His decision that he suddenly respected a woman's right to choose? Boys and Girls, it came after he decided that he was running for President. Because let's face it: American Democrats, as a whole, would never support an anti-choice candidate.
If you're voting for Kucinich, can you trust him? Is he really pro-choice, or is this a wolf in sheep's clothing, out to steal our right to choose? Amazing how it just "hit him" that women deserve a right to choose after years of trying to take that right from us while in the state senate and congress.
- posted by Dennis @ 11:30 AM
At his website, Kucinich claims: "I support Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose, and will select Supreme Court justices who affirm this Constitutional right. I've had a journey on this issue that a year ago, before I became a candidate for President, caused me to break from a voting record that had not been pro-choice."
A voting record "that had not been pro-choice"? That doesn't pass the laugh test. Well after Bush stole into power, Kucinich kept voting for Bush's gag rules and bans on choice, contraception, family planning, and prenatal care. Kucinich voted "for" or "present" on key anti-choice legislation as recently as 2002!
Don't take our word for it. Please read about Kucinich's life-long extreme hostility to the Constitutional Rights of women to run their own lives. Please see other articles here and on the web about what Kucinich cleverly calls "a voting record that had not been pro-choice."
- posted by Dennis @ 11:01 AM
The Bizarre Biography of Dennis Kucinich Kucinich supporters question other Democrats' families and backgrounds. Shouldn't they answer questions Kucinich raised in his official biography?
Rep. Kucinich touts his background, claiming it makes him "desire to be of service to humanity." His bio at his official House website explains: "Kucinich was born in Cleveland, Ohio on October 8, 1946. He is the eldest of 7 children of Frank and Virginia Kucinich. He and his family lived in twenty-one places, including a couple of cars, by the time Kucinich was 17 years old."
Since he brought up his bio as a reason for us to support him, we should consider all aspects of Kucinich's childhood. Some aspects are troubling. Why did Frank and Virginia Kucinich have to move their enormous family so often - more than once a year? Why were they homeless, living in "a couple of cars" some of the time between 1946 and 1963? Why did they have so many children - seven - when they couldn't maintain a stable, secure home life?
How have his first seventeen years continued to mark Kucinich's attitudes and actions as an adult? Has this rootlessness contributed to his willingness to discard lifelong fundamental beliefs and adopt irreconcilably contradictory positions? These questions are important because we much know now - before supporting Kucinich for President - how turmoil throughout his entire pre-adult life affects and directs Dennis Kucinich's current behavior.
Professor Melvin G. Holli, Ph.D., an expert on American History provides some insights: "Kucinich earned seventh place [among worst mayors in US history] the hard way: by his abrasive, intemperate, and confrontational populist political style, which led to a disorderly and chaotic administration." According to Dr. Holli, Kucinich's record shows little achievement but a lot of "Bad judgment, demagoguery, and default [which] spelled political failure."
Professor Holli reports, "[Kucinich] barely survived a recall vote just ten months into office, then disappeared for five weeks, reportedly recuperating from an ulcer. When he got back into the political fray, his demagogic rhetoric and slash-and-burn political style got him into serious trouble when he stubbornly refused to compromise and led Cleveland into financial default in late 1978 - the first major city to default since the Great Depression." See: Melvin G. Holli, The American Mayor: The Best & The Worst Big-City Leaders.
How did this chaotic childhood affect Dennis Kucinich? Did disruption during his formative years contribute to his inability to work with his peers and his reflexive resort to strife and confrontation rather than cooperation? Does this explain his total failure as mayor and lack of any demonstrable success in the Congress? Kucinich and his supporters often question other Democrats' families and backgrounds. Fair enough. But they should answer these questions raised buy Kucinich's own biography as well.
- posted by Dennis @ 8:02 AM
Kucinich says, "Dear Friends: I want to hear from you!" So please contact him and ask him to tell the truth about his life-long hostility to women's rights - especially reproductive freedom, family planning, and of course choice. Ask him to stop lying about other Democrats.
Kucinich says, "I look forward to hearing from you!" So please contact him and tell him to run a decent and honorable campaign, and to call off his hateful and abusive campaign staffers and supporters. Ask him to help us beat Bush rather than help Bush beat us.
Kucinich pimps himself
Despite having long-term, live-in lover Kucinich lies about being a "bachelor"
"As a bachelor, I get a chance to fantasize about my first lady. And you know maybe Fox will want to sponsor it as a national contest or something. But in any event I would want definitely want someone who would not just be there by my side, but be a working partner because I think we're in a day in age when partnerships are imperative to making anything happening in the world. And I certainly want a dynamic, out-spoken woman who was fearless in her desire for peace in the world and for universal single-payer health care and a full employment economy. If you are out there call me." - Democratic Presidential candidate [sic] Dennis Kucinich, 11/05/03
This is not an important misrepresentation. It's pretty comical and silly. The point is, as a non-serious candidate, Kucinich gets a chance to fantasize about what he'd do as President and make up a goofy platform with bogus overpromising. The whole Kucinich campaign is based on fantasy and - sadly - dishonesty.
- posted by Dennis @ 9:40 PM
Among contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean edges out Gen. Wesley Clark in the poll. Sixteen percent of Democratic voters and those who lean Democratic said Dean would be their first choice, while 15 percent said Clark would be.
Rep. Dick Gephardt was third with 9 percent; followed by Sen. Joseph Lieberman at 8 percent; Sen. John Kerry and former Senator and Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun at 7 percent; Sen. John Edwards at 6 percent; the Rev. Al Sharpton at 4 percent; and Rep. Dennis Kucinich at 2 percent.
- posted by Dennis @ 12:59 AM
November 11, 2003
Contact Kucinich about his lies and flip-flops.
Tell him to help beat Bush and stop bashing legitimate candidates.
Call Toll-Free: (866) 413-3664 or (866) 4-1-DENNIS. Fax: (216) 251-5974
Write: Kucinich for President Committee
11808 Lorain Ave. 1st floor
Cleveland, OH 44111
The Kucinich website claims: "Right-to-Choose, Privacy, and Civil Rights
In a Kucinich administration, a woman's right-to-choose will be protected as essential to personal privacy and gender equality. Only those who agree to uphold Roe v. Wade will be nominated for the Supreme Court."
But look at Kucinich's life-long "pro-life" anti-choice record:
Kucinich's platform is farthest to the left, but he has virtually no chance of winning the party’s nomination. And he has only recently undergone a 'personal journey' distancing himself from his own conservative past. In 1998, Kucinich voted for Clinton's 'Iraq Liberation Act,' promoting regime change in Iraq, and he still calls for a 'strong and efficient military.' His reversal of decades of staunch opposition to women’s right to choose roughly coincided with the launch of his presidential campaign. [complete article]
- posted by Dennis @ 11:14 AM
Does a Democrat deserve your vote? "Kucinich is an extreme long shot to win the Democratic nomination"
Kucinich's "long history as a supporter of the anti-abortionists"
"Kucinich's real role ... deliver [the left] to the eventual nominee."
Kucinich, in particular, is winning support from activists. Earlier this month, for example, a group of well-known women writers led by Barbara Ehrenreich issued a statement titled "Feminists for Kucinich." Oddly, the statement implies Kucinich's support for a woman’s right to choose abortion--without mentioning his long history as a supporter of the anti-abortionists, until he "changed his position" recently.
Nor does it come to terms with the fact that Kucinich is an extreme long shot to win the Democratic nomination--since the big-business interests that control the party’s purse strings despise his liberal politics. Anyone who doesn’t admit this is avoiding the key question--of what they would do when Kucinich fails to win.
The Feminists for Kucinich statement concedes that left wingers should "vote your head in November." Translation: Oppose a left-wing third party campaign, like Ralph Nader’s in 2000, and support whatever Democrat emerges with the nomination, no matter how conservative, in the name of defeating Bush.
This dynamic shows how--rhetoric aside--Kucinich’s real role in the Democratic Party is to round up the left and deliver it to the eventual nominee. Complete Article
- posted by Dennis @ 10:57 AM
In their desperation to get rid of Bush, many antiwar activists are turning to the Democrats. Dennis Kucinich, a self-proclaimed 'peace candidate' for the Democratic presidential nomination, came to Seattle on July 19. The audience of more than 500 came largely from Sound Non-Violent Opponents of War, a Seattle pacifist antiwar group. They warmly applauded his calls for 'peace, prosperity and optimism' and to 'make nonviolence a principle.'
But Kucinich's concrete proposals didn't match his rhetoric. He is only asking for a 15 percent cut in the military budget--putting it back to where it was when Clinton left office. [continued]
- posted by Dennis @ 10:38 AM
In 1998, Kucinich voted for the 'Iraq Liberation Act,' Bill Clinton's call for regime change in Iraq. 'It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime,' reads the Iraq Liberation Act.
And before the invasion, in a February 23 interview on Meet the Press, Kucinich argued for the continuation of sanctions on Iraq as an alternative to war, despite the fact that sanctions killed more than 1 million Iraqis--and despite the fact that he opposed the sanctions in a Progressive magazine interview a few months earlier. [continued]
- posted by Dennis @ 10:35 AM
Garance Franke-Ruta - The American Prospect - Web Exclusive: 10.29.03
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) incorrectly declared that the city had suffered 300 murders in September; actually, the number was 35, as [local TV newsperson Huel] Perkins pointed out later in the debate. "I think it's horrible," [Detroit Mayor] Kilpatrick later said of Kucinich's blunder, according to columnist Rochelle Riley of the Detroit Free Press. "I think not only was it grossly inaccurate, but he never really came back and cleaned it up, and then ended the debate with a message of despair." complete article
- posted by Dennis @ 7:19 PM
Washington- After refusing for more than a year to reject a controversial campaign donation, Rep. Dennis Kucinich yesterday reversed his stance and said he would give back $500 to a man who has voiced support for groups linked to Middle East terrorists.
This came after a Plain Dealer reporter informed Kucinich, a Democratic presidential candidate from Cleveland, that the contributor was arrested on Sunday and accused by federal prosecutors of accepting payments from Libya and supporting terrorists. Continued
- posted by Dennis @ 6:26 PM
I was a big fan of Dennis the Menace when he was Mayor. I was a lot more radical in my youth. Now I am a moderate independent who still takes radical positions on certain issues. My favorite Democrat is Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. My favorite Republican is Senator John McCain of Arizona.
I got Kucinich's phone number in 1989 from liberal columnist Roldo Bartimole. I liked Dennis at first. My dad, who went to Case Western Reserve, and I had dinner with Dennis in 1991 and had a good time. I thought in the old days that Dennis was a maverick in the mode of Jesse Ventura or Ross Perot.
I had a conversation with Dennis in 1994 that changed my mind about him forever. You see I am very good friends with Richard Hongisto from the bay area. I was upset with the way that Kucinich fired Hongisto on local TV on Good Friday. The national press asked why did the Jerry Brown of Ohio fire California's Lone Ranger as his police chief?
I just figured that it was a clash of 2 reform minded politicians that couldn't see eye to eye. Maybe it was like the modern day feud that happened between Rudy Giuliani and William Bratton when Bratton got fired as his police chief over personality issues.
Anyway largely because of me Hongisto and Kucinich talked again in 1991. They played down their differences and blamed the feud on Kucinich's 3 top aides, Bob Weissman and Betty and Tanya Grdina, for fueling their misunderstandings and disagreements that led to Hongisto's firing.
I did my own independent research. What Hongisto told me was right on the money and Kucinich can't sugar coat it anymore. The main reason why Dennis fired Richard was over a man named Ron Turner. Turner was a black police patrolman and the limo driver for Dennis and his mentor Bob Weissman in 1977 during the Mayors race. Because of his loyalty Dennis and Bob wanted him transferred to a first class Detective job.
Hongisto promised nothing but said he would look into it. What he found were reports of an officer out of control who was despised by the community and his fellow officers. Richard told Dennis that Turner had questionable moral values and was a suspected drug user in his off hours. He said in good conscience he couldn't promote him to Detective.
This all happened during Hongisto's first month as police chief. Kucinich and his keystone cop advisors never forgave Hongisto for this slight and felt he was not a team player. So Dennis ran against former Mayors who engaged in nepotism and favoritism for their friends but he felt it was ok for him to do the exact same thing!
I was in the car with Dennis in 1994. I had talked to media people and had done my own research. I asked him about this mess and told him what Richard told me. He shocked me when he said what Hongisto told you was essentially right.
A new administration has a right to make their own appointments and Bob Weissman felt Hongisto was wrong in blocking our recommendation of Ron Turner for this promotion. When Hongisto got fired that set off a recall that Kucinich won by less than 300 votes.
Kucinich is a total hypocrite. He claims he loves the Democratic Party but his actions say otherwise. In 1971 he headed up a group called Democrats for Perk. He got Ralph Perk, a right wing mental case, elected over a black progressive Democrat backed by former Mayor Carl Stokes.
Kucinich flip flopped all over the map on impeaching President Clinton. He didn't give a rat's ass about Monica Lewinski but he felt Clinton was bad because he bombed Serbia and removed the democratically elected Milosevic.
Milosevic was elected in a sham election. Besides Muslims the people that Serbian Milosevic killed were Croatians. Dennis Kucinich is Croatian and did not care about his own people being slaughtered in the former Yugoslavia. When it comes to electing Kucinich to anything here is some smart advice: Just Say NO! - Kurt GILLESPIE
- posted by Dennis @ 6:17 PM
Tom Diemer Plain Dealer Why not Dennis for president, supporters ask 09/21/03
Recent polls show Dean leading in Iowa and New Hampshire - states that host the first major Democratic contests in January. "Dean has the highly educated, highly liberal, suburban, liberal and progressive wing. And that's a group that's very intense for him," said New York-based pollster John Zogby.
Early on, Dean posted his positions on a campaign Web site and solicited donations. He also established a blog - or Web log - offering a campaign diary and an opportunity for supporters to share their views. He linked his online operation with moveon.org, a popular liberal-oriented Web site, and meetup.com, one that helps candidates organize meetings electronically.
As Dean gains momentum, he increasingly refers to himself as a moderate, pointing to his 10 years as governor of Vermont, during which he balanced the state budget and delivered a health insurance plan for children and the poor. 'You have Dean also leading on self-identified centrists,' said Zogby.
Former Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, who endorsed Kucinich in his successful 1977 mayoral campaign, is backing Dean for president. complete article
- posted by Dennis @ 5:56 PM
Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich's key votes against choice within the past few years. Note: the National "Right to Life" Committee uses clever euphemisms like "Mexico City Policy." That Bush policy which Kucinich voted for banned US support for organizations providing pre- and post-natal care, family planning and other medical and humanitarian treatment. None of these programs involved choice, but some of the groups had some ties to pro-choice organizations. The ban Kucinich supported increased infant mortality and deaths among pregnant women. In this case, the so-called "pro-life" position condemned people to death.
General Wesley Clark and Rep. Dennis Kucinich appeared in identical all-black suits with mock turtlenecks, as if channeling the otherworldly spirits of 1992 candidate Jerry Brown and his bereted guru Jacques Barzaghi. Coleen Elstermeyer, a 21-year-old volunteer from Braintree, Mass., gagged later at the image. "Mock turtlenecks do not identify with our generation," she fumed.
[T]he Kucinich spin team ... managed to corner [CNN reporter Joe] Klein once he climbed down from his perch. "I have absolutely no say on who gets on that podium," he sputtered to a visibly annoyed Kucinich, as if his earlier comment was only about denying him a shot on CNN. The excuse didn't fly, and soon I watched in wonder as the journalist wrenched himself away from the candidate, the opposite of the usual dance.
- posted by Dennis @ 4:15 PM
October 12, 2003
Kucinich Claims He's Catching Fire. He Isn't.
Kucinich had 2% support among likely voters in Iowa - site of the caucuses which kick off the campaign - according to the latest polls, DOWN from 3% in April. See: Zogby International Poll
Kucinich remains "Unfamiliar" to 65% of "likely primary voters in New Hampshire" the home of the first primary. This is the same mark Kucinich had in August. See: Zogby International Poll
- posted by Dennis @ 11:55 PM
"But while the Founders wanted to provide religious freedom, this nation was also founded on profoundly spiritual values." - Kucinich February 2003, shortly before announcing his candidacy.
- posted by Dennis @ 1:39 AM
Flip: During a July 1998 Hardball appearance, Kucinich rejected efforts to impeach President Clinton. 'To flat out call for an impeachment without the evidence takes us back to Alice in Wonderland,' said Kucinich.
Flop: In October 1998, Kucinich was one of 31 House Democrats who broke ranks and voted for the unlimited impeachment hearings sought by the GOP.
- posted by Dennis @ 2:39 PM
The Flip-Flops of Dennis Kucinich
What he said then. What he says now. What happened.
By William Saletan and Avi Zenilman: September 18, 2003
Flip: In Congress, Kucinich voted against the RU-486 pill, "partial-birth" abortion, and funding for international family-planning programs that support abortion. In 1996, he said, "Life begins at conception." In 2000, his voting record earned a zero rating from the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.
Flop: On May 17, 2003, Kucinich leapfrogged his Democratic rivals, declaring, "It's going to be important for the next president of the United States to tell the American people that he or she will cause any appointee to have to answer on the question of Roe v. Wade, that there must be a litmus test on this question, and that no one should be appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States unless they are ready to keep Roe v. Wade in place and protect a woman's right to choose." Continued
"Feminists for Kucinich" organizers say the group wants a candidate committed to working for peace, helping the poor, eliminating discrimination based on sexual orientation, defending abortion rights, promoting universal health care, and fighting "the Republican Party's use of stereotypes to spread division and fear," among other things.
While these are all Dean positions as well, the petition noted that Kucinich has proposed establishing a cabinet-level Department of Peace, cutting the Department of Defense budget and abolishing the death penalty. [Vermont State poet Grace] Paley said Dean was the only other Democratic candidate for whom she was willing to vote.
Dennis Kucinich may talk about being a populist and bringing 'power to the people', but the truth is he's in the pocket of special interest groups and big contributors. Public records for the 1998 election show that Kucinich raised over $700 thousand dollars (3½ times more than his opponent) and that 79% of these contributions came from PAC's and big donors. Only 20% of his funds came from small contributors - the people he says he represents.
Click here to see the full report from the Center for Responsive Politics
Source of Funds
1997-98 Total Receipts: $704,370
PAC contributions $366,678 (52.1%)
Large Individual contributions ($200+) $189,664 (26.9%)
Small Individual contributions (<$200) $142,965 (20.3%)
Candidate self-financing $0 (0.0%)
Other $5,063 (0.7%)
Business/Labor/Ideological Split
Business $181,557 (39.2%)
Labor $231,500 (49.9%)
Ideological/Single Issue $50,645 (10.9%)
Kucinich is no political powerhouse. He is the type of quirky congressman who tends to be loved at home but commands little notice in Washington. His official Web site notes proudly that he is "one of the few vegans in Congress." Nonetheless, it provides a helpful link to The Sausage Shoppe in Cleveland (Current special: 8 brats, 8 buns, 8 bucks).
The nation came to know Kucinich as the "boy mayor" of Cleveland, but forgot his name after he was forced from office after one controversial term.
Few listened then, or hear Kucinich now. He creates annoying static, best tuned out.
Kucinich Voted For Iraq Liberation Act Of 1998, But Against 2002 Resolution Authorizing Use Of Force In Iraq.
KUCINICH'S ABORTION FLIP-FLOP: A Formerly Pro-Life Congressman, Kucinich Now Stands With Pro-Abortion Lobby, Conveniently Timed For His White House Run.
If even the right wing Republicans can figure out there's something wrong with chucking life-long life-and-death moral commitments to pander for votes, can't progressive Democrats? What moral imperatives will Kucinich sacrifice next?
"Bad judgment, demagoguery, and default also spelled political failure in the eyes of twenty-five of our experts, who ranked Dennis, whom the press called 'the Menace,' as seventh-worst."
Next, and seventh, is Cleveland's Dennis Kucinich (1977-79). Only thirty-one years old when elected, Cleveland's 'boy' mayor had failings that were not the sins of venality or graft for personal gain, but rather matters of style, temperament, and bad judgment in office. Kucinich earned seventh place the hard way: by his abrasive, intemperate, and confrontational populist political style, which led to a disorderly and chaotic administration.
He barely survived a recall vote just ten months into office, then disappeared for five weeks, reportedly recuperating from an ulcer. When he got back into the political fray, his demagogic rhetoric and slash-and-burn political style got him into serious trouble when he stubbornly refused to compromise and led Cleveland into financial default in late 1978 - the first major city to default since the Great Depression. That led also to Kucinich's defeat and exit from executive office.
Out of office, he dabbled in a Hollywoodesque spirit world and once believed he had met actress Shirley MacLaine in a previous life, seemingly confirming his critics' charges that he was a 'nut-cake.' After that, he experienced downward mobility, losing races for several other offices and finally ending up with a council seat; but more recently, he climbed back up to a seat in Congress. Bad judgment, demagoguery, and default also spelled political failure in the eyes of twenty-five of our experts, who ranked Dennis, whom the press called 'the Menace,' as seventh-worst.
Excuse me, but Dennis Kucinich as a presidential hopeful? How outrageous a notion. This is the man, the mayor, who brought Cleveland to its knees financially. Under his 'leadership,' the city went into default. We were broke by the time George Voinovich took over.
Voinovich brought the city back by working with corporate CEOs and visionaries in a consortium that helped bring renewed vibrancy to the city in terms of companies investing in real-estate development and manufacturing, revitalizing downtown after years of decline under Kucinich.
I can't believe Kucinich's constituents have been so gullible as to elect him for four terms as a congressman. What has he done for them - in Congress or as mayor? Think back. The city had no money. Standard & Poors downgraded Cleveland's bond rating during Kucinich's outgoing year.
This man is to be considered to lead our great country? Get a grip, all you blue-collar workers and voters who cling to the hope that Kucinich is the answer. Forget it. He doesn't know how to lead or to bolster an economy.
With no name recognition, almost no money and no real chance at winning.... To say Kucinich hopes for a miracle is an understatement. Positioned squarely at the bottom of a field of nine Democratic candidates for the party’s nomination, many wonder what reason he could have for doing it. As it turns out, there is a reason. It has to do with guts and ego....
Some are troubled by his changed position on abortion. After decades of voting anti-choice, Kucinich now has come around to saying that abortions should be "legal and rare" and that Roe v. Wade should be defended. He still says he believes on a spiritual level that life begins at conception....
Thank you, Katha by Laura Flanders Single Voice Points Out Democrat Darling's Tragic Flaw
WorkingforChange.com May 16, 2002
It took Katha Pollitt to point out the obvious: Kucinich is a valiant progressive on many fronts, but he doesn't have a prayer when it comes to running for President because Kucinich is anti-choice. And choice, for those in the ether who've forgotten, is a decisive issue for a massive mainstream — let alone progressive — voting block.
'I haven't been a leader on this,' the Ohio Congressman told columnist Pollitt. But it's worse than that—he's pulled the wrong way. Check out the record compiled by the Planned Parenthood Federation: his anti-choice history 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.
But it's a small matter to Pollitt's Nation pals: 'There's one thing I'd like to you change your mind on,' Terkel added parenthetically in the column titled 'He's the One.' David Corn casually counted Kucinich's pro-life stance among several positions the Ohioan's adopted that are 'not widely shared by his fellow elected Democrats,' also helpfully pointing out that Kucinich has never supported overturning Roe v. Wade or prosecuting people for abortion.
But it's not quite true: Kucinich voted for a ban on dilation and extraction abortions (so-called 'partial birth' abortions) that included fines and up to two years in jail for doctors who perform them (except in cases to save the woman's life). That's criminalization....
The Dirty Rag - On Dennis Kucinich in the Fray - Josh Frank: "Dennis isn't perfect. He only recently announced that he is pro-choice, this after years of voting with the pro-life cartel. His turnaround, and his lingering anti-choice votes yield much criticism...."
[Dennis] Kucinich also possesses one of the most anti-abortion voting records of any Democrat in Congress. During his eight years in the House, Kucinich voted with abortion-rights advocates barely 10 percent of the time. Twice in the past three years, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America, gave him a rating of 'zero.'
On the stump this past week, and in an interview with The Chronicle, Kucinich now describes himself as 'pro-choice.' He said he has undergone a slow evolution that has led him to the conclusion that legal abortions are not only constitutionally sound, but also fundamental to a woman's equality.
Yet his candidacy poses a test for the Democratic Party that has made abortion rights a top-tier issue that it believes will be instrumental in its quest to unseat President Bush, a longtime abortion foe.
Can liberals embrace a candidate who as recently as 2001 voted to support Bush's decision to withhold international family-planning money from organizations that perform, or even discuss, abortions?
Will the Democratic Party, let alone the Bay Area, open its arms and wallets to a presidential candidate who, during 1999 and 2000, sided with the National Right to Life Committee on 19 of 20 votes?
A friend forwarded this "thoughtful critique" of our humble blog from Robin Rae:
(www.dennisthemenace.blogspot.com), this is obviously a 'bash Kucinich' site. These people like to take information and twist it around to make it have a negative effect on the person. I think you get great joy over making people angry over your rediculous, harrassing stupidity!! What angers me the most about you is how you try to base your brainless comments on unreliable information!
By the way......Mr (supposedly unelectable) Kucinich is in FIRST place in the Univision Channel poll, which was the network that hosted the debate on Thursday night!! He was at 75% at last check!!
He is also in FIRST place in the Newsday poll, which at last check he was almost 2,000 votes above Dean!!
Kucinich also continues to lead in the poll at Democrats.us, as well as many others!!
We all know those Gallup polls are totally biased! I, nor anyone I know, have EVER been called for one of those polls!!
END OF "DEBATE"
Robin Rae =^. .^=
Talk about grasping at straws. No doubt Kucinich is also "in FIRST place" in a poll of his campaign staff?
Not one refutation of anything we wrote, just personal attacks. This from a "peaceful" Kucinich supporter too. Insult anyone who doesn't agree with you. Ignore all the information you don't like and all the polls that don't say Kucinich is winning, and you don't have much to choose from. Wow! That's some "debate!" Is there any wonder the Kucinich Kampaign is going nowhere fast?
The National Right To Life Committee (NRLC) Gave Kucinich High Marks: a 90% and a 95% (with 100 being perfect) from the NRLC for his voting record in the 105th and 106th Congresses, respectively.
In 2000, The Columbus Dispatch Described Kucinich As "Pro-Life." "Kucinich, despite his liberal bombast and the baggage of a bankrupt Cleveland, can solidly articulate what he believes is a true 'pro-life' position...." ("Democrats On Other Side Of Abortion Issue Pushed Aside Darrel Rowland," The Columbus Dispatch, 8/15/00)
In A May 2002 Article In The Nation, Kucinich Is Referred To As "Solidly Anti-Choice." "In his two terms in Congress, he has quietly amassed an anti-choice voting record of Henry Hyde-like proportions. . . . That a solidly anti-choice politician could become a standard-bearer for progressivism, the subject of hagiographic profiles in The Nation and elsewhere, speaks volumes about the low priority of women's rights to the self-described economic left, forever chasing the white male working-class vote. Supporting an anti-choice Congressman may have seemed pragmatic; trying to make him President would be political suicide." (Columnist Katha Pollitt, "Regressive Progressive?" The Nation, 5/20/02)
On Late-Term Abortion
Kucinich Disagrees With Kerry, Lieberman And Edwards On Late-Term Abortion. Kucinich voted in favor of banning Late-Term abortion, but Kerry, Lieberman and Edwards voted for women and against the ban. (H.R. 1122, Senate Vote #71, Passed 64-36: R 51-4; D 13-32, 5/20/97; H.R. 1122, House Vote #65, Passed 295-136: R 218-8; D 77-127; I 0-1, 3/20/97; S. 1692, Roll Call Vote #340: Passed 63-34: R 48-3; D 14-31; I 1-0, 10/21/99)
Kucinich Disagreed With Lieberman And Kerry On Overriding President Clinton's Veto Of A Ban On Late-Term Abortions. In 1998, Kucinich voted to override President Clinton's veto of a ban on Late-Term abortions but Kerry and Lieberman voted with women and Clinton against overriding the veto. (H.R. 1122, House Vote #325: Passed Over Clinton Veto 296-132: R 219-8; D 77-123; I 0-1, 7/23/98; H.R. 1122, Senate Vote #277: Veto Override Rejected 64-36: R 51-4; D 13-32, 9/18/98)
Kucinich admits he was "one of the few Democrats" who voted for the U.S. House to proceed with the procedural steps needed to impeach President Bill Clinton. However, he excuses his craven vote to help the Republican dirty tricks campaign by protesting that he eventually flip-flopped and voted against impeachment.
Of course by then, thanks in part to Kucinich, the right wing attack undermining our system was under way. The flip-flop was was too little too late to stop the Gingrich / DeLay impeachment from passing. The Senate refused to convict President Clinton, but only after Kucinich helped the Republicans tie up our government in knots, preventing progress on health care, education, the environment and other priorities.
"I thought, as a member of Congress, that there was enough reason to go forward," Kucinich says about his decision to back the Republican drive that wasted the President's and Congress' time and attention while Al Qaeda terrorists were plotting to attack us, millions lacked health coverage and other critical needs languished.
By enabling this right wing effort to disrupt government, Kucinich hurt millions of Americans, helped the Republicans keep control of the House, and handed Bush a critical wedge issue: "honor and dignity." Thanks Dennis! As noted, Kucinich opposes any effort to investigate grounds for impeaching Bush.
- posted by Dennis @ 8:10 AM
"The evidence of an imperial presidency almost grows daily," said another Democratic lawmaker, who said he would vote to impeach Bush. But some of the war opposition's usual suspects have rejected entreaties to join the impeachment campaign.
"I'm not interested. I think it would be destructive for this country. This country needs healing, and that's why I'm running for president," said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, the Progressive Caucus chairman. [Impeachment leader, Professor Francis] Boyle said Kucinich's refusal to be involved in the impeachment planning was politically motivated.
"I think Kucinich might have done it if he had not decided to run for president," Boyle said. "I guess he concluded that might hurt his run for president.'"
- posted by Dennis @ 7:53 AM
August 28, 2003
Profile: Dennis Kucinich Not much achievement for all those years in politics
William Saletan and Avi Zenilman - Slate June 10, 2003
Political experience: councilman, Cleveland (1969-1973, 1983); clerk of courts, Cleveland (1975); mayor, Cleveland (1977-1979); state senator, Ohio (1995-1996); congressman, Ohio (1997-present).
Asserted achievements: Refused to sell off Cleveland's city-run power plant while mayor; co-chair of Congressional Progressive Caucus; saved a provision of Clean Air Act.
Previous jobs: Has been a politician since age 21.
"The bravest thing he ever did." William Saletan and Ben Jacobs
Slate Magazine - August 21, 2003
Reality check: Banks expect borrowers to show responsibility. Muny Light was one of Cleveland's few remaining assets and had been losing money for a decade. The banks wanted the city to sell it to cover previous loans. As one bank director put it to Kucinich (in the Cleveland Magazine article Kucinich selectively quotes), 'You have the opportunity to straighten up some of your house by selling your losing Muny Light plant. If you're going to ask us to roll over these notes, you've got to show some financial responsibility.' In exchange, the banks offered to throw in an extra $50 million loan.
Kucinich rejected the offer. He asked the banks to wait a few months to let him hold a special election on an income tax increase to pay off the loans. The banks said no. Kucinich then tried to force the tax increase in a last-minute city council session and was rebuffed. Cleveland Magazine concluded, 'It was [Kucinich's] love of confrontation that eventually forced him into this ultimate confrontation.' The default made Cleveland a national laughingstock and led to Kucinich's overwhelming re-election defeat. In 1995, a panel of 25 historians ranked him the seventh-worst mayor in American history.
