Dennis Kucinich

[TotallyOz]

The last election, I had friends who were very supportive of Dennis Kucinich. They were in NYC and a group of artist, models, escorts, etc. They were the most passionate group I had met about any candidate. They even stripped and made a photo with Kucinich bumper stickers on their backs. I sent it off to a few thousand people and they said that it spread from there. I understood their passion when I watched the guy speak.

Perhaps more than most candidates, I do feel that he is honest and a straight talker. I am not sure he is a viable candidate. However, watch the link below and you will see why so many are drawn to him.

[AdamSmith]

Agree that Kucinich can be pretty compelling on the issues. Sadly electability is and from here on out probably always will be the litmus test. Tied to what Vilsack rightly decried yesterday when he dropped out -- that today it's all about $$$.

Seems tied in to the same thing I posted about Anna Nicole -- we live in The Society of the Spectacle. You have to be able to buy enough image to make enough impression on enough voters. Political freedom of choice has been perniciously supplanted by consumer freedom of choice.

I hate to be such a Marxist but, while its failings as a literal economic prescription have been made obvious, Marxist analyses of cultural production can be devastatingly accurate. And that's what U.S. politics, at least at the national level, is all about these days.

Anyone for bringing back Lincoln/Douglas-style afternoon-long debates? Maybe the Superbowl marketers could figure out how to package up such a thing.

[Guest PWIT]

>Anyone for bringing back Lincoln/Douglas-style afternoon-long

>debates? Maybe the Superbowl marketers could figure out how to

>package up such a thing.

You think you could find candidates that would agree to participate? And then there is the issue of being reduced to sound bites by the press, often out of context. Oh how I would love to see true debates take place, not the semblance of debates that has become the norm. Maybe we could have a political version of American Idol where the candidates debate for a period of time (to get longer each week as the contestants are winnowed down) and everyone calls in to vote.....call it American Suicidal (...you try to rhyme idol!) :+

[TotallyOz]

Maybe we could have a

>political version of American Idol where the candidates debate

>for a period of time (to get longer each week as the

>contestants are winnowed down) and everyone calls in to

>vote.....

I love that idea. I wonder if they would let a Jennifer Hudson slip through?

[TampaYankee]

>Agree that Kucinich can be pretty compelling on the issues.

>Sadly electability is and from here on out probably always

IMO that is only a third of the recipe for a President and Commander-in-Chief. He also has to have the good sense to surround himself with knowledgable level-headed advisors whose advice he seriously considers, and he needs a steady hand that... "knows when to hold em, knows when to fold em, knows when to walk away, knows when to run".

My modern era prototypical president is John F Kennedy. Not because I was captured by the Kennedy mystique. I was old enough back in the day to know he was rather unpopular in many sections of the country and the bets were not favoring his reelection possibilities. They mystique was, as yet, unformed. He was ahead of where the country was at that time -- to his credit. However, whatever his views, popular or not, he had the grit, steel, and brinksmanship to lead us through a Cuban Missle Crisis when lesser men might have committed us to a very long winter.

Harry Truman qualifies as does Lincoln, Regan and Bush I IMO. These men were not all sweetness and light. Nor did I agree with all of their policies. But I felt they had a steady hand and a rudder deeply submerged in the water. I went to bed at night confident that prospects for seeing the morning or the next week were much better than good. I haven't had as much confidence in several years, especially when viewing the field of candidates that offer themselves up for consideration.

Things have changed in some ways. The risks have changed, for the time being, from a moment of total conflagration to a chronic disease of insidious cancers popping up here and there with the potential for localized devastating catastrophes.

IMO this era calls less for a General as Commander-in-Chief than it does for a Surgeon -- committed to first 'Do No Harm' and second, rooting out cancerous growths before they can metastasize. Interestingly, the recipe is essentially the same regarding views, receptiveness to knowledgable advice and a steady hand.

[Guest Conway]

Very good post, TY. I wonder if our diminishing comfort level with our politicians has more to do with the fact that, as we grow older, we are more contemporaries with these men than we were with the previous examples that you cited.

I began working on my first political campaigns in the late 1970s in my native North Carolina. I was attracted to Jesse Helms as a candidate for the same reason that you were attracted to Kennedy. You never had to guess his position on an issue because he never hesitated to let you know what he thought. You might not always agree with him. But, he wore his ideals on his sleeve for all to see.

As I have grown older, and find myself less attracted to the platforms and political ambitions of social conservatives, I wouldn't support a Jesse Helms type candidate today because of his positions on social issues.I'm not as attracted to those issues as I am to issues of fiscal conservatism.

I can't honesty say that, as an adult, I have ever cast my vote over a social issue.

I look at the 2008 candidates more as my contemporaries in terms of maturity, philosophies and ambitions than I ever did Helms, or Reagan, Gorge HW Bush. And I seem to be looking at theire positions on issues with far more introspection than I ever have in the past.

OK, let the bombs begin dropping over my Helms admission.

[TampaYankee]

>I wonder if our diminishing comfort

>level with our politicians has more to do with the fact that,

>as we grow older, we are more contemporaries with these men

>than we were with the previous examples that you cited.

Maybe, but I'm not convinced that is all or even the main reason. With age comes experience and with experience, the long view that penetrates the surface. Those that live longer have seen more and had more time to reflect on that seen.

It is not essential that this come through longevity and acute oberserver status. It can be gained from a study of history and insightful analysis but few take the time to invest in such research. Yet all of us take the time to acquire the experiences and observations of our lifetime.

With experience we learn to look beneath the styling of an automobile and inquire of the safety performance and reliability, especially under adverse condtions -- or we should. So it is with our leaders. There is more to consider than just views on issues. Anybody can sail a ship in calm weather. We need a captain that also brings us safely through the storms.

I respected Helms for the same reasons as you, I think. I doubt I would ever have voted for him but that would have depended on the alternative, ultimately. But, as you say, he was a straight talker. You knew where he stood. I respect that.

[Guest euroskater21]

Kucinich is an intelligent and thoughtful candidate - alas he is at heart an old style isolationist under the guise of "Protect American Jobs".

I enjoyed the Clinton backlash last week on the fundraising issue. Hillary lost my vote long ago due to her blind support for Israel and while I consider myself a classical liberal, hell will freeze before I'll vote for the Senator from the great state of New York.

Bring back Howard Dean. A Howard-Barack ticket would be a fascinating match and would give the Fox News prophets plenty to huff and puff on. Watch out for further panic from the Clinton camp as Barack gathers speed.

[AdamSmith]

>My modern era prototypical president is John F Kennedy.

>whatever his views, popular or not, he had

>the grit, steel, and brinksmanship to lead us through a Cuban

>Missle Crisis when lesser men might have committed us to a

>very long winter.

>

>Harry Truman qualifies as does Lincoln, Regan and Bush I IMO.

>These men were not all sweetness and light. Nor did I agree

>with all of their policies. But I felt they had a steady hand

>and a rudder deeply submerged in the water.

Good points. Another crucial thing that Lincoln, Truman, Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton had (maybe not so much Bush I) was power and skill as Explainer-in-Chief. Nixon too, when he was telling the truth.

Critical element of leadership that -- though I voted for them -- who knows whether Gore could have marshalled, and Kerry resoundingly lacks.

Bush II is a conundrum in this respect. For the best part of six years, the force and forthrightness of his convictions looked clear and won over many, whatever the limits of his articulateness. (Saw a wizened old African American woman in D.C. interviewed on TV after Bush whacked Kerry. She said in effect, "I voted for Bush because I don't agree with him but I know what he stands for. I couldn't tell if Kerry stood for anything.") In fact those limits were part of his authenticity for many, something he knows -- he was a lot more articulate in his governor's-race debates with Ann Richards than once he started pursuing the presidency.

[AdamSmith]

>I began working on my first political campaigns in the late

>1970s in my native North Carolina. I was attracted to Jesse

>Helms as a candidate for the same reason that you were

>attracted to Kennedy. You never had to guess his position on

>an issue because he never hesitated to let you know what he

>thought. You might not always agree with him. But, he wore

>his ideals on his sleeve for all to see.

>

>OK, let the bombs begin dropping over my Helms admission.

Another thing one has to credit Helms with, for good or ill, is inventing and refining many of the campaign mechanics that were since brought to a fine art by that magnificent Machiavell Karl Rove -- namely the tactics of precision targeting of electoral sub-demographics for identification, fundraising and messaging that proved vastly more effective than what most candidates in either party had done up to that time.

And also, like it or not, for the tactics of personal destruction that are now part of most politicians' and parties' toolkits. Just one example -- you'll remember how, in the 1972 campaign that first put him in the Senate, Helms's rival was a Greek, one Nick Galifianakis. One of Helms's most often used slogans in that campaign was "Jesse Helms -- He's One of Us." My box of accumulated campaign junk still contains a peel-and-stick lapel label bearing those words.

[Guest Conway]

There was a very interesting article in the Atlantic prior to the 2004 presidential election in which the writer asserted that Bush's "dumb act" was exactly that.

He held that it was a coordinated strategy that the Bush campaign used first in the Texas gubernatorial race against Richards to develop a feeling of overconfidence in Richards and her staff. It was only when the first debates came around that the gloves came off and Bush looked like a stellar debate for much to the surprise of the underprepared Richards camp.

He held further that the "dumb act" in the 2004 presidential election would cause Kerry to talk more, thus publicly exposing his long time propensity to flip flop on issues.

[Guest PWIT]

>Good points. Another crucial thing that Lincoln, Truman,

>Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton had (maybe not so much Bush I) was

>power and skill as Explainer-in-Chief.

>

>Critical element of leadership that -- though I voted for them

>-- who knows whether Gore could have marshalled, and Kerry

>resoundingly lacks.

Very interesting point. Not sure Gore could have.....how long does it take? He wasn't able to develop that skill during his time as senator or VP. Remember his social security lock box plan? There were a lot of good ideas there, but he couldn't explain it worth a damn. Who can forget the SNL skit that came shortly thereafter.

Kerry - I kept getting so irritated with his 'I have a plan' or 'If you go to my website and see my plan' but he could never explain in person what his plan was. (I have despised him way before he entered the presidential campaigns just so you know I have a deep bias against him)

Don't forget self destruct Dean. Whatever your views are, if you can't keep the slip ups and stupid remarks down you are doomed.

As far as current contenders, below are personal opinions regarding the communication aspect:

Biden - see Dean comment above, always sticking his foot in his mouth. Too verbose. My advice, take time out of the senate - run for govenor of DE. Then try again.

Clinton - disappointed in her communication skills. Doesn't have any of the charisma in her delivery as her husband. How she sounds in speeches is one thing, but take notice of her in the debates. In debates she has a lot of Biden characteristics - lot of words, little detail.

Dodd - no charisma. Advice, you been in congress/senate too long, go home & run for governor then try again.

Edwards - has the delivery capability. Where is the substance? He doesn't come across as a man of convictions. Maybe it his previous experience as a lawyer that hurts since we know he can successfully advocate a position. But unlike a courtroom, in politics you need to be able portray the positions you advocate with some level of conviction. Big difference on advocating positions of the law verses positions on policy.

Kucinich - though he may do well in a prepared speech, he looks like a loon in debates. Not taken seriously by his colleagues in the congress and you need that type of respect to be taken seriously by the public.

Obama - has the delivery down pat in speeches. Very charismatic, easy to listen to. But is his message getting across? Here is an exercise for you; ask people where Obama stands on the issues. Other than the war, you may get a lot of blank stares. He has got to step it up and make sure he is not seen as a single issue candidate.

Richardson - Probably the most qualified candidate. Maybe he will get more press once he officially declares, but the media seems to have this down to a two horse race. Hopefully he will get a chance to shine before all the big donors have already committed to a candidate.

I am not trying to change anyones mind. Above are just personal opinions.

[Guest PWIT]

interesting. I have a different theory. If you have access to his gubernatorial speeches and debates, go back and listen. He had a much more effective and smooth delivery. Not that I have seen any discussion of his sleeping habits, but I notice my delivery seriously dwindles with lack of sleep.

just putting it out there as a theory without any supporting facts, but his delivery is definitely not up to the level it was 10 or more years ago.

[Guest Conway]

Those are all pretty good brief descriptions of the communication abilities of the major Democratic hopefuls.

I think that Obama has the same gift that Bill Clinton and Reagan possessed where communications are concerned. At the same time, I think that his rather narrow platform that exists at the present is one of purpose. Politically, I think that it is a good strategy to win the Democratic nomination. Obama has focused on two and only two issues. Both which resonate deeply with hardline party voters that drive the nomination process.

I think that the only time we will learn more about Obama is when he wins the nomination or in then next national election in which he participates.

While I agree that Edwards is a quite deft communicator, I think that his history as a personal injury attorney will hurt him.

In the last election, I reviewed some of the cases in which Edwards represnted plaintiffs in personal injury cases. He definitely relied upon what is commonly referred to as "junk science" in making a number of his cases. Junk science is scientific testimony given on behalf of personal injury plaintiffs by paid scientific advisors that is contrary to accepted medical norms (eg children born by ceasarian section are more likely to "develop" MS than those born by natural childbirth). It goes over well in front of a jury when the words are coming from a man who has an established look and a comfortable and passionate style of delivery. But, when it is subject to being printed in black and white and then vetted out by interested parties, it may make the person who made that argument look as if he was somewhat less than honest in his judicial approach to representing his client.

If Edwards wins the elections, and many Republican operatives are hoping just that will happen, it will be open season on every word he has uttered and written that is held as part of the public record in legal proceedings.

[AdamSmith]

>Richardson - Probably the most qualified candidate. Maybe

>he will get more press once he officially declares, but the

>media seems to have this down to a two horse race. Hopefully

>he will get a chance to shine before all the big donors have

>already committed to a candidate.

This all seems exactly right. Wonder if Richardson's main chance lies in Hillary and Barack grinding each other down early in the cycle?

[Guest PWIT]

>Wonder if Richardson's main

>chance lies in Hillary and Barack grinding each other down

>early in the cycle?

Interesting. Maybe there is some good to this teeth gnashing between the two.

[Guest eastburbguy]

Here's a slightly less flattering (read: DAMNING) take on Kucinich, from The Daily Kos:

Why I say "ugh" on Kucinich

by kos

Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:32:36 AM PST

When talking about Kucinich, I usually leave it at "ugh". I've found that much kinder than actually getting into Kucinich's record. But his supporters are OUTRAGED(!) that I would be so dismissive, and they DEMAND(!) I explain myself.

Honestly, it would be better for your guy if I didn't. But since you all insist...

1. Kucinich has never proven broad electoral viability. How many presidents have been elected straight from the House of Representatives? Kucinich could gain respect by running and winning in something a little more competitive than an urban 58 percent Kerry district.

2. 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.

His transformation to being pro-choice happened literally overnight -- a week after he announced his 2004 presidential bid. One moment he was virulently anti choice, the next he was a staunch defender.

3. "Department of Peace"?

We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence but the presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity. We can conceive of peace as a tool to tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love. We can bring forth new understandings where peace, not war, becomes inevitable. We can move from wars to end all wars to peace to end all wars.

Citizens across the United States are now uniting in a great cause to establish a Department of Peace, seeking nothing less than the transformation of our society, to make nonviolence an organizing principle, to make war archaic through creating a paradigm shift in our culture for human development for economic and political justice and for violence control.

"Higher evolution of human awareness"? "Transform consciousness"? "Paradign shift"? What the hell is this crap? I expect this kind of crap out of Deepak Chopra (or Tom Cruise), not a serious presidential candidate.

And by the way, the "Department of Peace" already exists. It's called the "U.S. Department of State".

4. The stuff above isn't even the worst -- check out this stuff from Kucinich's keynote address to something called the "Dubrovnik Conference on the Alchemy of Peacebuilding":

Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self. The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: One with the universe. Whole and holy. From one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental. We, the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling.

Clearly, Kucinich resides in a higher plane of existence than I do. But my plane is on the planet earth. I want my president to reside here as well.

5. The 1999 book The American Mayor by Melvin G. Holli, ranked Kucinich the 7th worst mayor in the nation:

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 chaotic administration. He barely survived a recall vote just ten months in 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 that he had met Shirley MacLaine in a previous life, seemingly confirming his critics' charges that he was a "nutcake." 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 "Dennis the Menace", as seventh-worst.

This survey spanned mayors in the United States between 1820 and 1993. Notching the "7th Worst" slot was a serious accomplishment.

6. He used his 2004 run for president to score dates. Luckily, he's married this time around so we'll be spared that pathetic display of desperation.

Kucinich fans -- I had no intention of writing any of this.

You should've let me leave it at "ugh".

Update: One good point people have made is summarized in this comment:

I'm not a Kucinich fan either, particularly, but some of this is IMO a little unfair. I tend to think he's just utterly unelectable on a national scale in this country, but he should be as free to talk about his "faith" as everybody else is, in theory, right? I mean, you can mock new-agey stuff -- it's pretty mockable in some ways -- but if you back off, is it really any sillier than any other set of faiths?

Here's the difference -- Kucinich is using his "faith" as the basis of his "Department of Peace". In other words, he's trying to inject his faith into the public sphere.

And that's not something I'm willing to tolerate, whether it comes from the Religious Right or from our side.

People are free to talk about the source of their values. But I believe strongly in the wall between church and state.

[Buddy2]

>

>My modern era prototypical president is John F Kennedy.

However, whatever his views, popular or not, he had

>the grit, steel, and brinksmanship to lead us through a Cuban

>Missle Crisis when lesser men might have committed us to a

>very long winter.

Isn't a president also judged on domestic policy and relations with Congress?

Johnson turned much of Kennedy's legislative program into law, particularly in the areas of civil rights and the war on poverty (head start, medicare).

True, historians and political scientists will be arguing about Kennedy's and Johnson's places in history for centuries. Kennedy did not have enough time; Johnson screwed up in Vietnam.

However, LBJ's biographer, Robert Caro, who is often very critical

of Johnson, still calls him the greatest civil rights president, next to Lincoln.