 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 24, 2007 at 06:51:02
A Commentary Directed To Dennis Kucinich And His Campaign Managers by William Cormier Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
These are tough words to write, however, they are meant with no disrespect intended, as I’m a Kucinich supporter myself and acknowledge that you possibly represent America’s only hope in returning our country to its Constitutional mandates, the Rule of Law, and in restoring our country to its constitutional beliefs is our only hope for survival as a free and democratic nation. Since I do believe in you and what you’re attempting to do for our country, I am obliged to speak honestly and bluntly - and to do otherwise would negate my responsibility to my country as well as expressing my support for your Presidential Campaign. First, it should be obvious to you and your campaign managers by now that the Mainstream News Media is not going to give fair and honest attention to you in the Democratic Presidential Debates; the MSM has already chosen their candidate, and America as well as the GOP are already aware it’s Hillary Clinton. Even I was a Clinton supporter until I understood that it was Bill Clinton, whom I used to admire and support, that pushed for and passed NAFTA, which has had a disastrous effect on our economy, and the loss of American jobs still continues unabated. NAFTA was initially pursued by conservative governments in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. It appears that the Clinton’s have been “sleeping with the enemy” far before I had imagined. Whether you are right or wrong doesn’t matter, and even the GOP is betting on Hillary Clinton walking away with the Democratic nomination for President - and that would indeed be the death-knell for liberty and democracy in America. Mr. Kucinich, America needs you to win this election, and it’s time to forget party affiliation and set yourself up as an Independent. It’s more than obvious that you’re not bringing in enough campaign contributions, and the American people are not dumb; they see what’s happening, and knowing that Hillary Clinton will be crowned the Democratic Presidential Candidate, whether the people like it or not, is already a foregone conclusion; if you expect people to contribute the kind of money it takes to win the election, then you have to be in a position to win, and running as a Democrat against Clinton is a prerequisite for defeat! However, if you throw-off the Democratic Party for the time being and run as an Independent, choosing a VP wisely, the “people” will know that you will appear on the Presidential ballots and therefore will actually be in the race and in a position where a real grassroots campaign will allow you to have a chance of winning. You need to purchase enough air time where you can educate the American people and tell them what the MSM refuses to report, and inform the public through a blitz of TV commercials that apprise the American people of the real danger(s) we face as a nation.
Perhaps you should look at “Rocky” Anderson in SLC, Utah, as a viable VP contender, or in the alternative, maybe even Ron Paul, although I believe that Mr. Anderson has the gift of moving the people as evidenced by his recent speech as reprinted in the below article:
A True Patriot Speaks-Out For America, Is Anyone Listening?
America desperately needs candidates that will step-up and be truthful with the public and will pull no punches in fighting for our country. We need men that can communicate the danger we face as a nation, and very few are courageous enough or have the ability to successfully disseminate those facts in the tradition of the great orators of our time, including but not limited to John F. Kennedy! Therein does lay a danger, as we all know what happened to President Kennedy and his brother Bobby, both patriots in the tradition of America, and it will only be someone that actually speaks the truth that will be able to wrestle this Presidency away from the “dynasty families” and the ultra-wealthy that control American politics and our government.
Mr. Kucinich, it’s time to change tactics and make a real run at the Presidency, one that America can get behind and know that you have a real chance of winning the election. If you do anything less Sir, I believe that your bid at the Presidency is doomed, as well as our democracy and freedoms(s). In desperate times, people take desperate measures to insure their success, and the “times” couldn’t be more desperate than they are today, so if you’re truly going to have a chance at winning, changing your bid to an Independent is the only way I can imagine that you will be successful - even if it means teaming-up with Ron Paul or “Rocky” Anderson.
One last note Mr. Kucinich; if you do choose to campaign with a message of truth and power, then it’s advisable that you ramp-up your security ten-fold, as we have seen what happens to real patriots in this country, and no one would wish that upon you except for the traitors whom are doing their best to steal the America Dream and our freedom and democracy right before our eyes - and they feel no compunction against destroying America in the process.
William Cormier
http://justanothercoverup.com/
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 36 comments |
|
Kucinich as Independent
If anybody could split the Democratic vote and ensure a Republican victory it would be Kucinich running as an independent. Losing would also be the end of his political career. On the other hand a loss in this election could place him in a position analagus to that of Churchill vs. Nevil Chamberlain when Churchill was called for after Chamberlain's appeasment policies failed. So with one like Clinton who will favor the oil multies and continue the occupation until the American public rebells and calls for the previously rejected Kucinich who had it all right from the beginning. by Arthur M. Howard-Scotoni (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 8:32:07 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Not Necessaily
It depends if you believe the independent polls that show Kucinich is favored by the majority of those that vote in Internet polls (Democrat). Galvanize all of those millions that do know the truth and that is a true grassroots campaign. What if he teamed-up with Ron Paul, who has the war chest to make a difference. I'll admit I don't know much about Ron Paul, but do know he has always voted in favor of the Constitution, and he is known as an extremely strict constitutionalist, which isn't a bad trait when you consider what ignoring it has done to our society and the world. William Cormier by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 419 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 8:47:53 AM (0+)
|
|
Kuch as Independent
I too had the thought of Dennis Kucinich running as Independent and thought it might be his best chance. I don't think he would suffer in the same vein as Perot because Perot just approached it all wrong. Even with the MSM trying to marginalize DK, there are enough people out there completely fed up with the status quo and sick of losing our security through the compromising of civil rights and freedom. The worst case scenario? That the corporate Fascists will again win out and we get what we deserve because too many still want to sit on their asses and have it come to them. by HarpMan1224 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 9:53:02 AM (0+)
|
|
Earth to Billy. Come in please
William wrote: "..only hope in returning our country to its Constitutional mandates,.. by Mark Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 10:56:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Educate?
Mark, you lecture on silliness and you don't know how to use "refrain" in a sentence when that's what you mean to say? BTW, the Constitution says "a well-regulated militia", not street thugs with AK-47's, high-powered handguns stolen from legal gun stores or weapons stolen from private citizens or collectors. Please refrain from commenting in a knee-jerk fashion and use reason instead of emotion before condemning someone's considered commentary. by HarpMan1224 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 11:09:31 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Sorry for the typo
In the day the constitution was written "well regulated" meant “well trained.” by Mark Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 4:07:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Dennis for the next Speaker of the House
Dennis! Don't listen to this guy. He is a Ron Paul supporter behind whom all the GWB supporters are hiding, just hoping the Democrats will fragment into such silliness. It is the only way they can win. They hate Hilliary because she is the most Liberal Progressive of the bunch. Those who attack her never quote her positions or her votes in the Senate. They attack by insinuatin, innuendo and ad hominem. I am for Edwards, but Hillary is second on the list. Hey Dennis! Don't listen! Go for being the next Speaker of the House. Remember Carl Albert and the immense power he held. He was a little short guy, too, but so was Napoleon. Remember! President is only for eight years, but speaker can be thirty years. Dennis Kucinich, Speaker of the House of Representatives. Has a majestic ring to it, don' t you think? Phil. by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 11:31:59 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I'm A Ron Paul Supporter?
That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. I stated quite clearly that I don't know much about Ron Paul except that he is a strict constitutionalist. Furthermore, perhaps you should read what Mr. Kucinich's wife had to say about Ron Paul. After watching the video, you might have to change your stance on the matter. As I stated, knowledge is power!: Elizabeth Kucinich: My Husband Would "Absolutely" Consider Running With Ron Paul William Cormier by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 419 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 11:51:15 AM (0+)
|
|
Show the data
Please show the polling. Its a nice fantasy to imagine Kucinich winning, but if he runs as an independent, he is doing so because he doesn't believe he has a chance in hell of winning regardless. by ncvoter (19 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 112 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 11:33:12 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: OK, No Problem.
Shocking Results from National Poll: Dennis Kucinich Leading Democrats Usually, when people are talking about the Democratic contenders for the 2008 presidential campaign, the names heard most often are Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. They seem to be getting the most press, anyway. William Cormier by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 419 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 11:59:32 AM (0+)
|
|
Kucinich
If things are to change, then great risks need to be taken. One such risk is for Kucinich to go "all in" with one last ditch effort to save this country. That risk is running as an independant and hoping that most of the voters are so disillusioned with the staus quo, that they will dump the two-party system. The fear is that it will split the democratic vote and insure Giulinan, Bush's logical successor, will win. The other risk that he would be taking, regardless of his party affiliation, is that of losing his life. That, however, is what it will take to wrest this thing away from the elite. by Bill Cain (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 434 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 12:00:27 PM (0+)
|
|
What are you people smoking?
Hillary Clinton walking away with the Democratic nomination for President - and that would indeed be the death-knell for liberty and democracy in America. Get serious. What's all this sudden Hillary-terror that's sweeping the Democrats? If I remember correctly, she was half of the couple who inhabited the White House when last we balanced a budget, paid down a share of the national debt and actually concerned ourselves with civil rights and civil attitudes. There isn't a single Democratic contender who couldn't run the country well. but 'Clinton as disaster' is simply ludicrous. by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 53 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 386 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 12:42:44 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: MR. FREEMAN!
They are smoking some outer space weed supplied by the GWB and the Ron Paul crowd with a little Huckabee thrown off in the back drop. They have had their brother Pat Roberson raise Tim O'Leary from the dead so he could give a very special type of acid to them so they will never have to look at facts again in their lives. I guess they want us to believe Pat Robertson, James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Richard Land (head of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Life Committee in Washington, D.C) Bob Jones, Jr of the Bob Jones University all hate Senator Cllinton because of her right wing politics. I don't know what they are smoking; I sure don't want any of it, and I sure ain't buying their garbage either. Phill Phil. by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 1:01:47 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I beg to differ.
I was a huge Clinton supporter and remember the days when the economy flourished under Bill Clinton. Listening to Hillary now in a debate is sad; she beats around the bush (no pun intended) and seems to mirror many of Bush's policies in regard Iraq. Most important to me is NAFTA, which Bill Clinton pushed through, and we all know that NAFTA and CAFTA has been among the single-most destructive agreements that have impacted our economy and the Middle-Class workers. Hillary is not supporting the impeachment of two of America's criminals, and that's not speculation, but a fact. Pelosi is as bad, if not worse for "taking impeachment off the table." The two party system is failing America, and even though the Democrats smile and get along generally better with the public, they still represent corporate America, not the people, and that to me is reason enough to say NO to Hillary Clinton. William Cormier by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 419 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 7:31:24 PM (0+)
|
|
William
Okay, William, I believe you are not a Ron Paul supporter and will not vote for him in the General Election, but many on this blog are Paul supporters seeking only to divide the opposition to the Republicans. If you do not believe me, write an article critical of Ron Paul and if you are a real Progressive Liberal that should not be hard for you to do. When you do, watch the Paulites attack in tandum with thirty or forty making comments and all backing up each other and telling you how stupid you are and how un-American. Just read some of the comments on Mike Kuykendall's November 15 article. Wow! I still like Dennis Kucinich for Speaker of the House. Running as an independent will just allow the Republicans to retain power by dividing the Progressive Liberal vote. One more Supreme Court Justice and they will have a controlling majority for the next twenty years on SCOTUS. No difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush? Just look at the two Bush boys placements on the Supreme Court: Thomas, Roberts and Alito. Now compare Thomas, Roberts and Alito to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer put on SCOTUS by Clinton. No difference, in a pig's eye. Fight with every thing you have in the Primaries, but be very sure you fight just as hard for the Democrat nominee when November elections take place. Sorry, I called you a Paulite. I would feel very insulted, too. Phil. by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 12:48:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Federal Govt is broken - give up on dems and repubs
I agree with Mr. Cormier. Yes, there is the risk of splitting the democratic party if Dennis runs as an independent. But if there really are any Hillary supporters, they are as much out of step as the republicans. If we are ever going to change the federal government, it will not be by trying to fix a hopelessly broken system. It will be by starting something new. After Bush and Iraq, then the dems after 2006, I believe the nation may have reached critical mass for actually launching a viable new party. by Steve Slocum (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 1:16:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Kucinich/Paul Independent ticket
William, I also support Dennis Kucinich. Were he not in the Democratic primaries, I would be considering registering Republican and voting for Ron Paul. Any rate, my thoughts on why a Kucinich/Paul independent ticket might be a good idea... ... though there are some issues that these two men do not agree on. Ron Paul's opposition to abortion being legal on a federal level will not float with any of us who consider ourselves pro-choice on the matter; his argument is that Roe vs. Wade is unconstitutional, and that abortion should be legislated on a state level. Also, Kucinich opposes NAFTA and CAFTA. Paul is in favor of free trade, though he opposes NAFTA as an example of "managed trade." On Constitutional issues: both Kucinich and Paul, in their respective debates, have done admirably in squeezing the important matter of defense of the Constitution between far more irrelevant questions posed by CNN/FOX, and both have spoken against the current executive power's abuse of our Bill of Rights and the right of Habeas Corpus. On October 15, 2007, Ron Paul introduced HR 3835, legislation that would, among MANY other things, repeal the Military Commisions Act, restore habeas corpus, illegitimize confessions or evidence extracted through torture. On the Iraq war: Kucinich has voted against it 100% of the time. Paul was the only republican to vote against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, though I'm not sure whether he has consistently voted against actual funding of the Iraq invasion. Campaign contributions: Out of 435 members of Congress, Ron Paul ranked at #375 and Dennis Kucinich ranked #376 (ranking over-all based on PAC, lobbyist, and "small-money" contributions). Of greater surprise to me than the 1 point difference in their ranking was that Kucinich didn't rank at #435. I think that despite the differences on certain issues, both Kucinich and Paul have their roots in that common and principled ground that would withstand some bad weather. I also think that such a Dem/Rep presidential ticket gone Independent would both a) gain greater attention in spite of the constipated mainstream media, and b) sidestep any potential media-induced "spoiler" hangover, at least to the extent that Ralph Nader suffered in 2000 and since. William, thank you for your post. I strongly agree that the U.S. is in desperate need of candidates who will speak the hell up on what is really important. No more "diamonds and pearls", or "(noun)(verb)(9/11)" BS. All info here came from Wikipedia. PAC contributions info confirmed by Clean Up Washington (http://www.cleanupwashington.org... click on "key reports" to find out where your congressperson ranks. HR 3835 info obtained from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3835) by Chris Check (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 6 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 1:28:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Nadar did not "split the vote"
and cause Al Gore to loose the election....the election was stolen...SCOTUS choose Bush, it was planned that way!)...an UnConstitutional act...look it up..SCOTUS is not allowed to be political..(but they are, aren't they) 2002 and 2004 were also stolen (through caging, disenfranchising voters and miserable hours waiting in the rain and cold ) ....and just what the hell do we intend to do about that..let the GOP and the MSM choose our political candidates again...? by Susan Nelsen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 287 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 1:42:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Kucinich as Independent? Please, no!
What a groundless fantasy! by Daniel Clark (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 2:17:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Because the democrats don't want him
Dan, As much as I would like to take your suggestion, it is plain that the party and it's key leaders want nothing to do with the radical, progressive change that Dennis stands for and that we all long for. The old guard democrats that run the show will vomit him out of the party. It is not a groundless fantasy, but an unavoidable fact. As progressives, we need to find a common ground that we can all agree on, and come together to make it happen. As long as we are splintered up with our own various ideas, we won't change the system. I don't know what that answer is, but we need to figure it out or we will be living with the present system indefinitely. One of the key missing ingredients is leaders with an existing platform to bring the grassroots together as a unified force. I think Dennis could be a key man to bring that about. by Steve Slocum (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 3:23:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Undercut by bad advice
Dennis followed his instincts (evidently) plus very bad advice, and so has run AGAINST the Iowa Caucus this time. The campaign's implausible, insulting complaints that "the game is rigged" might fool followers outside our borders, but I challenge you to find more than a handful here who buy it. He's scarcely set foot here, and he's simply not a factor. (No "progressives" in Iowa, eh?) Okay then, it's up to would-be supporters EVERYWHERE to see to it that he makes a decent showing in New Hampshire and Nevada in the wake of a ZERO showing January 3. He won't be a contender for the White House from ANY party if his candidacy hasn't caught fire by February 5. by Daniel Clark (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 4:15:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: My simeon is bigger than yours
What every one misses is that governments change at the whim of the middle voters those who straddle the line between Dem and Republicans.In saturday's election the conservatives where dumped by 5% of the population Those who were die hard Conservatives up to 47% of the voters stayed by their man. 47% dyed in the wool lefties voted for him anyway.The battle is the middle 5-10% (swinging vote) . Or in US case who can muster their voters and the battle for the middle ground. Rove played on energising the GOP base. DC simply frightened the horses or has allowed others to frighten them about him. Democracy doesn't guarentee the Best person for President unfortunately who ever advised him to run was thinking with their heart not a pragmatic head. Clinton is wanted by the republicans as they think they can beat her. They're going to demonize her as jezabelle a woman who doesn't know her place, a victim to an evil letcherous hubby how is she goingstand up to others. She'll be the laughing stock of the inernational forum they won't take her seriously. et al You think it's nasty now just watch the GOP wallow in the cess pit. by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Monday, Nov 26, 2007 at 2:31:15 AM (0+)
|
|
Dennis would be foolish to run as an independent
No independent stands a chance at getting elected at this time even with money which Dennis doesn't have. I'm a strong Kucinich supporter but I'm also realistic; he doesn't stand a chance until we progressives get to work at the precinct level and take over the Democratic party much as the extreme right wing did with the GOP a few years ago. When are we going to learn,wishing doesn't get it, hard and sometimes unpleasant work does. I've been a precinct committteeman and will be again if other progressives will get off their duffs and join me. by Kenneth Briggs (186 articles, 88 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 142 comments [6 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 5:36:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Again, maybe not.
As I demonstrated by the interview with Mrs. Kucinich, and from what I've read on their site, where I also post and am a member, they would consider Ron Paul as a running mate. Those two together running as Independents could, with the proper support from millions on the Internet, make it happen. I'm tired of being told what can't be done, and as it stands, Hillary is going to walk away with the Democratic nomination - and I believe it's already a foregone conclusion! I want Dennis to win, and taking the attitude that something can't be done is admitting failure before it even becomes a real point of serious conjecture. Americans are tired of the war, gas prices, our economy for Middle-Class and the poor is in shambles and it's getting worse. Howard is gone, Blair had to step-down, and even the Spanish government was changed because of their support for Bush. There is one country left that has to finish-off the job, and that's us. One of the mainstream Democrats that still bow to corporate America may lessen our problems, but will in no way actually provide a long-lasting solution. William Cormier by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 419 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 7:40:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Dennis has already said that
his candidacy is "a long shot" and that Hillary is his friend. He's not expecting the Democratic Party nomination, and he's not going to split his friend's vote. Dennis will be rewarded with something for keeping the progressives within the party and for convincing many of them to vote for the pro-war nominee in '08. But he isn't likely to become Speaker of the House, as they need somebody there who is pro-war and can continue the neo-con agenda the way Pelosi is doing. More likely he'll replace Howard Dean as head of the Democratic Party, since he is the most popular and could raise the most money by speaking out against any war crimes and human rights violations the Democrats commit during their tenure. His fundraising letters will say, "Dear Peace-Lover, You and I are committed to peace, and we have to show our party that we mean business. Sign the enclosed petition and return it to me with your donation to the Democratic Party so that we can prove to them that Democrats want peace." Hillary is the only candidate acceptable to Poppy Bush, and when it comes to selecting Presidents, he's the decider, not his son. Bill pardoned some of the Iran-Contra felons working for Poppy at the time, and he later placed them in policy-making positions in his son's administration. Poppy knows that if anyone doesn't happen to get their immunity from the Military Commissions Act, Hillary can be counted on to uphold Bill's precedent and pardon anyone from the previous administration who still needs pardoning. I had an interesting discussion today with a librarian friend who is a liberal Democrat. We talked about the war, politics, and elections. My friend said that people who don't vote are apathetic, and I didn't agree. I said that people who don't vote are likely to know that elections are rigged, that there aren't any candidates on the ballot who would represent their interests, and are less apathetic than voters. A few minutes later, when I mentioned that there was plenty of proof of elections being stolen, my friend said that people had said so, but my friend didn't actually know that for a fact. I said I would forward some bibliographies with a few hundred links to credible (mostly state and federal government, but some from scientists and researchers) sources, but that anyone who cared would already have done their homework. My friend gave me a funny look and said, "Okay, I see what you mean about it being the voters who are apathetic, not the nonvoters." If you think that you are going to make a difference by voting for whichever you consider to be the lesser of two evils, in my book that's apathy to the max. If you're judging candidates by their positions on abortion, gun control, or gay marriage, instead of on how much money they've gotten from the military-industrial complex, I don't think you really care about the Constitution or about your country very much. And if you don't yet know that our elections are rigged, or you know it but intend to continue to vote in rigged elections anyway, don't come crying to me when the candidates you think you elected don't do the job you think you elected them to do. by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 7:40:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: OUCH!
Dude, that was tough to hear, but you make a good point. What a circus! So what should we be doing, besides not voting? by Steve Slocum (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 10:37:26 AM (0+)
|
|
Please read the Congressional voting records before voting
Hello folks May I suggest strongly that it is terribly important to check the Congressional voting record prior to commenting. We all know that politicians don't talk where their feet walks: To say that someone did such-and-such is to comment on outward appearances, when the actual footwork may be walking in a very different direction. If we, the people want OUR America back, then we must check the voting record before putting our endorsement behind any Candidate. We are all at fault for the current Fascist engulfing of America by not checking out the facts--the voting record and also who is funding any given Candidate--- before we vote. Then we bemoan our fate like victims. Hillary Clinton voted for the unconstitutional Patriot ACt not once, but twice. It's amazing to see how the Patriot Act legal analyses of the ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights. Electronic Frontier Foundation, Common Cause, People for the American Way, and Gun Owners of America all agree: The Patriot Act gives rise the new police state in America, including (in the case of National Security Letters) gag orders with five-year jail sentences to anyone who talks, and no probable cause required for being served with such a letter. And, no probable cause for being arrested from our own homes, with no judicial review or warrant: Merely an FBI agent's individual whim is all that is needed. The overwhelming statistics of those cracked down on as "terrorists" is peace and religious groups: Even Rep. Lynn Woolsey's auto-response to Patriot Act inquiries says that. I myself having served on an ACLU Chapter Board, also know the statistics well. And I have read the ACLU's website at length, plus other sites as well. Kucinich had the spine and the foresight to write on his website about the Patriot Act: "I took an oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution. I will vote no". This while anthrax was going around Congress at that very moment, and while Bush strong-armed the Congress to vote for the 320+ page bill on 48 hours notice: If they did not pass it, he threatened them, he would publicly characterize them as "Soft on terror". Just weeks after 9-11 occurred, the Congress was frightened and complied. (All of these facts, including the timing of the Anthrax attacks, can be verified on the ACLU's website if you enter "Patriot Act fact sheets" into the search box). But Kucinich did not cave to fear. Good man. NO WONDER HE IS BEING UNDERMINED! Remember? "Kucinich will not win": Someone wants us all to think that. And they know that it is not facts which win the public over, but simple word-smithing. ANd no wonder there is a media black-out on Kucinich. THey all know he will talk truth to power, has the kind of integrity to expose the truths to the light, and they are all quaking in their boots! A media black-out and government sabotage job is a badge of honor: That's all the more a sign that we must support him! And will such a sabotage effort stop just because he masquerades as an Independent instead of as a Democrat? I doubt it. Given that, it is up to us as civilians to take the ball in our hands and to publicize Kucinich's cause. Is Kucinich really in the lead of the polls? CAREFUL HERE! IT'S PART OF AN ELECTION HEIST EFFORT THEN, TO CHARACTERIZE CLINTON AS THE TOP. ALL THE MORE REASON FOR US TO GET WORD OUT: IF THE PUBLIC REALLY BELIEVES THAT CLINTON IS IN THE LEAD, IT'S TOO EASY FOR THEM ALL TO WRAP THE WOOL OVER OUR EYES AND TO HAND OVER THE ELECTION TO HER. OR SOMEONE ELSE. EVEN IF KUCINICH WINS! TIME TO TAKE OUT OUR TRUMPETS ON KUCINICH'S BEHALF, EVERYONE, AND BLAST THEM ALL OVER THE PLACE! BECAUSE PEOPLE MUST UNDERSTAND THAT IF HE REALLY IS IN THE LEAD, THEN IF HE DOESN'T WIN SOMETHING WENT WRONG SOMEWHERE! THIS IS NOT ABOUT KUCINICH WINNING: IT'S ABOUT HONEST ELECTIONS! CENTRALLY IMPORTANT. As for Hilary Clinton being a liberal? Trust where the feet walk, not where the mouth talks. That's my advice. Repeat: She voted for the Patriot Act not once, but twice. Some "liberal". My vote is going either to Kucinich or Chris Dodd. Dodd introduced the "Restore the Constitution Act", which would have restored Habeas Corpus, nix'd the immunity granted our president un-elect for torturing terrorists (most of whom have been proven innocent, FYI), and done other things to restore freedom to America. Once again, trust where the feet walk, not where the mouth talks. by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 1:31:57 AM (0+)
|
|
ron paul--give me a break
i agree with those who fear for the life of kucinich. they did in paul wellstone and his family and he was even running-but was very powerful as a communicator with ability to win votes on both sides of the aisle, as they say. as for ron paul--he is very good on issues like the codex and freedom of health access. but his positions on other things is typical bush neo-con. while supporting legislation to prevent further rip off of social security in order to protect current older seniors, he supports privatization of retirement funds. he supports vouchers for religious schools but not vouchers in wash dc where a larger % of the population is african-american and would try to attend better public schools. he supports the creeping crud of religion in our political decision-making. he may take an anti-war stand, but for what reason? because he doesn't like government spending! his libertarain belief in the free market as a equalizing force--if people aren't lazy, is devoid of the typical lack of understanding of racism, sexism, classism, etc and the structure of, and role these oppressions play in capitalism. his free market economy is based on unfettered corporate behavior. what makes this different than the neo-cons who believe they are free to do whatever they want regardless of who is hurt. that is the free market that paul supports. it is delusional to this that capitalism will find a heart and soul --other than the $$$$$ and power to control. that is the nature of this beast. paul's laissez-faire stance runs counter to democratic principles of humanism. i find libertarians a bit scarey since they often sound like they support a progressive position but if you scratch the surface you will find another beast altogether. by tanya (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 3:19:58 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: agreed, Tanya
Excellent points. Thanks! by Steve Slocum (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 10:35:17 AM (0+)
|
|
It's a complcated subject.
This is a mess, no matter how you look at it. I’ve seen the debates, wrote an article when I caught the Huffington Post marginalizing Dennis Kucinich, going along with the MSM. http://justanothercoverup.com/?p=307 I think this proves without a doubt that I'm a Kucinich supporter. I'm also a realist, and we must take America back from those who are attempting to destroy it. Of Course, I support a Kucinich President with Ron Paul as the VP, and those two could rock America. If each is the patriot they claim to be, I hope they can past the part of ego on who is VP and President; I often offend people by being blunt, and there’s no offense intended, but looking at our past and feeling the political energy by being well-informed, I still think Hillary will be the Democrats choice. It appears to be a predetermined decision by those that influence and control our elections. William Cormier by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 419 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 8:34:32 AM (0+)
|
|
Steve, besides not voting....
....we should be educating everyone we know about how corrupt our system is and how our elections are rigged. http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_e___071117_republic_vs__democra.htm We need to engage everyone we know in discussions about what democracy is, why we don't have one, and what we'd need in order to have a democratic form of government. Elitists, those who don't want ordinary people to have a voice in their own governance, will always oppose democracy, but they are less than 25% of Americans. About 50% of eligible voters don't bother to vote, so they already know the truth. It is the voters we have to educate. Many voters already know the truth, but keep voting out of habit. They know that even when somebody is elected, it doesn't necessarily mean that they'll take office. Congress can choose to swear in somebody else, the Electoral College or the Supreme Court can select somebody else, or the elected candidate can concede to their opponent. They know that if the voting machines are programmed to give one candidate 54% of the vote, it doesn't matter how many people vote or who they vote for. They know that candidates are beholden to big money interests, not to us. And they should know, if they don't already, that if Dennis Kucinich was President, the Democratic-controlled Congress would continue the war no matter what he did, since only Congress (unless the President is a Republican) has the power to declare war. Google DNC Republicans and you'll find articles like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/unmasking-the-dlc_b_39287.html His link for right web's analysis of the DLC doesn't work, so here's the correct link: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463 But showing people the facts is the easy part. Convincing people to act on what they know is more difficult. And then we come to the completely impossible thing that we need to do: We need to convince all the very nice people, and they really are very nice people, who go about their lives from day to day knowing that it is important that they get the kids to school on time, important that they get to work on time, important that they remember to put gas in the car, and important that they remember to stop at the store on the way home, that the fact that we've killed over a million innocent Iraqi men, women, and children for no reason at all except so Halliburton could make a lot of money, is ALSO important. Because in order to do the things that they know are important, they can't let themselves think about unimportant things like wars of aggression in far off places. And unless we can get them to not just pray for peace on Sundays, but to add peace to their everyday priorities, we're not going to end the war. This site is an excellent one to recommend to very nice people: http://rosecoloredglasses.org/http://rosecoloredglasses.org/ But I don't doubt for a moment that we can do what we need to do. We're Americans, and just because something was thought to be impossible, it has never stopped us from doing it and never will. by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 11:39:21 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Oops, sorry, that last link
pinted twice and won't work like that. Here it is: by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 11:53:51 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: One of the most effective
things that people can do is enrich themselves. By simply refusing to donate money to political parties and candidates, no matter how much you love them, you will have more money to spend on yourself and your loved ones, or to give to charity if you prefer. Keep in mind that when donations aren't set aside for future war chests, they are used mostly to purchase advertising on the mainstream media which happens to be owned by the big defense corporations. So you might as well donate money directly to the war as donate to a political party or candidate. Candidates can have plenty of free exposure and coverage in the alternative media without it costing them a dime. Remember when Kerry asked people to give him more money so that he could ensure that every vote was counted? He didn't follow through and most of that money is still sitting in his war chest. Dennis introduced a bill of impeachment against Cheney, but how much support did he get from his own party? Do you think that if he was President he'd get any more support from them? Sure he'd TRY to keep his campaign promises, but would Congress and the Supreme Court let him? Remember that our electoral system doesn't let us throw the bums out and we don't get our money back no matter what happens. So keep your money in your pocket and call your representatives and your local, state, and national party officials ever day (you have a cell phone, so it is no longer impossible the way it was before when their office hours and your working hours coincided), and gloat about all the money you're not going to send them. When you get a return postage paid fundraising letter, write IMPEACH all over it in big black marker letters and mail it back with no money. Don't vote and don't donate. How hard is that? If you're afraid of speaking out against the war at work, for fear of losing your job, speak out while you're standing in line at the supermarket. If you're afraid of putting a peace bumpersticker on your car, keep some peace buttons in the glove compartment that you can wear whenever you feel it is safe. Sign up for the free mailing lists of all the peace organizations you can, like CODE PINK, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc., (you don't have to join or pay dues), and when they send you something good, forward it to everyone you know who hasn't become a peace activist yet. There are lots of safe, easy things that anyone can do for peace. You don't have to go to rallies, protests, and vigils if you don't want to. But if MoveOn has a peace protest and you take the family and kids instead of going to a movie or a ball game, you'll probably find that your family has just as much fun and you saved a whole bunch of money. Most Americans want peace. It just hasn't become a priority for many yet. As more people understand that making peace a priority in their daily lives is safe, easy, and saves them time and money, more people will do it. The best way to have national security isn't to spend trillions of dollars on wars, but to keep your hard-earned money and work for peace. Our job is to keep our own priorities straight and spread the word. Peace out! by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 12:34:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: rose colored glasses
http://www.rosecoloredglasses.org/ by Steve Slocum (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 10:37:45 PM (0+)
|
|
Checking the candidates' voting records
I think Kathryn Smith makes a most important point - to see what elected officials are likely to do if elected to other posts, one must note what they have done in the ones they presently occupy. For this reason I checked the roll call (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll895.xml) on H R 1400, the so-called «Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007», yet another unfortunate milestone on the road to a US attack on Iran. While Mr Kucinich has early demonstrated admirable backbone, on this issue, which I should contend is the most important facing your country and the world today (in my opinion, a war on Iran risks putting paid to the whole Homo sapiens sapiens experiment on this planet), he seems to have ducked, choosing to refrain from voting. While I certainly agree with posters like tanya, who point out the less desirable side of Ron Paul's political philosophy, it must be admited that on this particular issue, Representative Paul is staying the course - he was one of only four Republicans (and only 12 Democrats) who voted against the bill, which could do for Iran what the infamous (and unconstitutional) «delegation» of war powers to George Walker Bush in 2002 did for Iraq.... Henri by mhenriday (0 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 157 comments) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 2:26:25 PM (0+)
|
|
No more 'lesser evil-ism'!
"They hate Hilliary because she is the most Liberal Progressive of the bunch." You're kidding....right? Her nomination would be the death knell for what's left of the Democratic Party. If she's nominated, the "Democratic" Party (as currently constituted) deserves to die--a victim of the cynicism and triangulation of 'leaders' who decided some 30 years ago that "winning" is more important than political integrity. It's no wonder that so many Americans are screaming for a political party that will actually represent the interests of The People, rather than the Big Money campaign contributors. The People should have gotten the message by now that if the Dems couldn't beat the Reps, they were quite willing to join them. The DNC sold their souls to the 'Democratic Leadership Council'--a reactionary organization that offers neither democracy nor leadership. It's time (actually, it's past time!) for a major political realignment. It remains to be seen whether the coup de grace for the erstwhile 'Party of The People' will be delivered by a Hillary loss in the next election or by a Hillary win which will complete the transformation of the Democratic Party into a pseudo-Republican Party. In any case, I'm hoping that either eventuality will convince voters that an alternative party is definitely needed. The building of a third party should have started 8 years ago when it became inescapably obvious that the Dem Party 'leadership' had every intention of continuing the metamorphosis that was hurried along by the Bill Clinton administration and furthered by the next two "Democratic" presidential campaigns whose standard bearers were afraid to run as anything other than Republican-Lites. The DNC should have learned a lesson from the 2000 campaign which they claim was "spoiled" by the participation of Ralph Nader (a GENUINE progressive!); but, instead of reclaiming their Democratic roots, they went and nominated another candidate who fell for the bad advice of the party geniuses who insisted that a real Democrat couldn't win unless he ran as a Republican-Lite. They wanted to field a ticket that was "electable". Well, we know the rest of that story. Their only strategy was to run as an alternative to "Republican Party corruption." It failed because it's really just a toss-up between which of the corporate parties is more corrupt. As we rush into the 2008 election, it is apparent that the DNC have still not learned to trust their progressive base to carry them to the White House. Once again, they are poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Given the mood of the electorate and the state of our national self-image, a candidate like Kucinich could run away with the election simply by being his honest, intelligent, progressive self. With a united Democratic Party behind him, Kucinich (or any other TRUE progressive) would wipe up the floor with whatever jerk the Republicans put up for election. If the Dem Party again (as seems probable) nominate a Clintonista, the need for a third party candidacy will become eminently obvious. I say Kucinich should run as an alternative candidate...even if his candidacy results in a loss for Hillary. It's time we 'bit the bullet' and steeled ourselves for another 4 years in the political wilderness while the Republicans continue to be ruled by the greed and mean-ness that comes so naturally to them. We should have done this 4 years ago (or even 8 years ago), in which case we could have reclaimed the mantle of respectability we forfeited by running both Gore and Kerry as Republicanesque caricatures. by Bill Tower (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 4:36:29 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
