Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Kucinich: Generals Who Spoke Publicly on Afghan Strategy Should Lose Jobs
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) this week said that U.S. generals who spoke publicly about the nation's Afghan strategy during the president's deliberations should lose their jobs.
Kucinich, who is known for his anti-war views, told Russia Today in an interview Wednesday that Congress should be making the final decision on whether to go to war, not the president or his generals.
"Some of his generals made remarks publicly, which is really unheard of," he said. "You know, generals are subordinate to the president who is the commander-in-chief. He's the boss. And when generals start trying to suggest publicly what the president should do, they shouldn't be generals anymore."
Kucinich's comments come weeks after he introduced a resolution in Congress calling for American forces to withdraw from the war-torn country.
U.S. and NATO commanding Gen. Stanley McChrystal was known for speaking publicly about the need for more troops in Afghanistan. The top general in the country made several media appearances after it was reported that he requested that President Barack Obama send 40,000 additional troops or face "mission failure."
McChrystal's words came as Obama and the nation's top military and diplomatic officials weighed a new strategy behind closed doors for months. Obama announced on Dec. 1 that 30,000 additional troops will be sent to Afghanistan and U.S. forces will begin to withdraw in July 2011.
Kucinich blamed Obama for the the generals' willingness to speak out, saying that he gave them too much leeway.
"President Obama, who is a good man, has given his generals a little too much leeway," he said. "Congress has the obligation under our constitution to make the decision whether to go to war."
WATCH:
39 Comments so far
Show Allcongressman kucinich, please start a new party with sanders and other progressives.
give people a real choice.
Nice idea, but that is as far as it will ever get. The "2 party system" will SHUT THEM OUT. They will get no coverage from the media. Anything they do get will be at 10 times the cost. They will get major heat from both sides. If by chance, they do make headway and they don't heed "Guido's" warning and back off, the "Orginazation" will have them killed, blame Iran or Chavez for it and reap some more grim profits from the new war. Oh yeah...they will most likely name a holiday after him or put his face on a new coin, just to show how sincere they really are.
also from a post above: "she thinks Dennis Kucinich could or should team up with Ron Paul, about which she doesn't say 'yes', but has good words to say about Ron Paul's work in Congress."
The political spectrum is not a straight line with the ends far apart.
It is a broken circle with the ends close together.
The One party system is on the other side of the circle.
We own 2/3 of the political power in this country.
If only we would use it.
Kucinich/Paul in a co-Presidency makes a lot of sense.
Here's an honest congressman who has spoken truth to power. I agree with curiousteve that a new party should be considered. Two parties manipulated and subservient to lobby groups just doesn't add up to a healthy democracy. Patriotism is built on a falsehood and decent people are denigrated. Take a look at Ralph Nader's lifetime of advocacy and achievement for Americans -doesn't he merit the title of true patriot?????
No, he is not a true patriot, he is a true politician and there for not to be trusted
This is how you fix Congress and the Senate:
The proposal is to promote a "Congressional Reform Act of 2009." It would contain eight provisions, all of which would probably be strongly endorsed by those who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (but not the incumbents).
I know many of you will say, "this is impossible." Let me remind you, Congress has the lowest approval of any entity in Government, now is the time when Americans will join together to reform Congress - the entity that represents us.
We need to get a Senator to introduce this bill in the US Senate and a Representative to introduce a similar bill in the US House. These people will become American heroes.. Please add any ideas on how to get this done.
***********************************
Congressional Reform Act of 2009
1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension: A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security: All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans..
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people..
8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/10.
The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
Service is not raping the country and states you supposedly work for. How much does a congressman or senator make a year? How much do they make in retirement? Those are rhetorical questions, the answer is about 450.000 a year, working or retired.
You are suggesting that they legislate these measures to reduce their pay and benefits. What next, Bush prosecute himself? The military asks to disband?
Never happen.
Of course we will not disband
after all, no matter what you think we are here to keep you posting.
It is about revolution though after all. not an violent over through but one of ideas and votes
I have thought along similar lines of restraints on Congress. However, I agree that Congress will not restrain itself, human nature being what it is. There is intense pressure from forces both within and outside of Congress to keep the status quo going and a couple of senators or representatives will have no chance of enacting sweeping reform, even if that reform gets us closer to the constitutional form that was intended.
You are right, though, that it is about revolution. Revolution can take place in several ways, as we've seen in eastern Europe. However, it takes a somewhat cohesive populace to come together and exert enough force on the power system. And/or, it takes someone with enough vision and charisma to pull together some kind of critical mass big enough to get something done. Dennis Kucinich is a principled man, but I don't think he is the kind of "leader" who could do this. Neither is Ralph Nader. Seems to me, it will have to come from the people. Maybe, that's as it should be.
Kucinich certainly is correct about the generals' eagerness to influence Obama with their militarism. Unfortunately he most certainly erred when he called Obama "a good man." How can Kucinich, a lover of peace, possible believe that Obama, who is obeying the advice of his generals by granting them their soldiers and ordering air strikes and drone missiles into Afghanistan and Pakistan, is supposed to be a good man? This seems to be a sad and tragic case where Kucinich's allegiance to his party has overruled his principles. Just another example why Kucinich should bolt from the savage mules and do the right thing by aligning his ethics with a third party such as the Green Party [or the Peace Party?].
Changing parties would give Kucinich less rather than more power. Better still, we should organize a democratic take-over of the Democratic Party and work to defeat corporate Democrats in the primaries and work to seat more Democratic representatives like Kucinich and Alan Grayson.
Our electoral system is rigged to only have 2 viable parties which aren't very different from each other. If the Green Party ended up replacing the Democratic Party without changing the electoral system it would, over time, become just like the Democratic Party and not be very different from the Republican Party or the other party of the duopoly. The 2 parties are dictated by having only one person elected to represent a given area in a given election and then by our plurality rule system. With only one representative only the constituents that agree with the representative are represented, while the rest of the citizenry has no representation at all. In a plurality rule system like ours you don't need a majority of the votes to win, you just need more votes than the next candidate. If the vote is split between 3 candidates, a candidate with 34% can win if the other 2 candidates split the vote evenly with 33% each. The winner could be despised by 66% of the voters, while only a minority of those eligible to vote might actually vote, in part because they know they will never be able to get anyone elected that really represents them. The winner might then be seated while over 80% of the nominal constituents despise him or her.
We need to establish a Proportional Representation system, like most of the world's democracies have, to establish a legislature that proportionally reflects the diversity of views, values and identities of the populace. We also need a ranked choice voting system such as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for executive positions that allows you to state who you want your vote to go to if your top choice is eliminated in the first count or a previous count of the ballots. We would have to figure out how to do this without rigable electronic voting. This would eliminate both most of the incumbent advantage and eliminate the need for term limits. It would also eliminate the "spoiler" problem when you vote for an independent or third party candidate and it splits the vote of people that think more like you. This in turn allows a greater of evils candidate to win because you didn't vote for a compromised front-runner.
As 'Erroll' said, Obama is not "a good man".
A non-believer, I quote what is a common saying but comes from the Bible: Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Whether he's likeable in person, presidential-looking, can string ten words together, is a 'skilled politician', is the first black prez, plays basketball, is 'not Bush', etc. is irrelevant; he produces no fruits.
VERY WELL-SAID dus7 !
thank you for putting it so crystal-clear.
it is not what a person APPEARS to be..but what he or she DOES that decides whether that person is bad. that's simple enough.
"President Obama, who is a good man, has given his generals a little too much leeway," he said.
He has also given too much leeway to the Secretary of the Treasury, Wall Street and the Federal Reserve Bank. But what can we expect when our alleged representatives have abdicated their constituional obligations and responsibilities while placing themselves and the executive branch above the Rule of Law?
What we need to keep in mind is this:
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” - Supreme Court
Amen.
The question may be who has given whom the leeway. Many of us may err in assuming that the president runs the country. In reality the military and associated war profiteers in the Military Industrial Complex may have more power than the president. Then add the bankers, Wall Street and the rest of the global Corporatocracy and the president has less power still. Everyone should see this recent Laura Flanders interview of John Perkins (who wrote "Confessions of an Economic Hitman") and Russ Baker who wrote "Family of Secrets" about the Bush family.
www.blip.tv/file/2837830/
If the link doesn't work a search of the 3 names will bring it up quickly. In this and in his new book "Hoodwinked" Perkins makes it clear that the US presidents are treated little differently than third world leaders in the bribery then escalating series of threats used to ensure they serve the global Corporatocracy rather than their citizens. Presidents that get out of line get dealt with one way or another. Obama wasn't kidding when he said that he can only provide the opportunity for US to make the change, and that he can't do it unless we make him do it. Only the united efforts of the American and global peoples can control this global Corporatocracy.
Stewart,
Thanks for saying so well what I've been trying to say for a while.
This bus is not being driven by what appears to be the driver - it is being driven by proxy. The M.I.C., through the use of big money and high appointments (people in "places"), is using the president and Congress as proxy drivers for this nation. While there are a few on the bus who may speak out, they have no real power.
It absolutely amazes me how many good progressives still cling to the illusion of a savior, be it in the form of a president, a congressman, or whatever, to come from on high and set things right. This is not only an illusion, it is a deadly one that can only lead to one thing - total fascism.
"Only the united efforts of the American and global peoples can control this global Corporatocracy."
Amen, brother!
I just heard a little piece on NPR about the Czechoslovakian "velvet revolution." It is amazing what the people can do when they are united against a common enemy. Granted, there needs to be someone from the grassroots to lead people (Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, etc.), but the energy and "push" must come from the bottom, not from the top. The problem is, the M.I.C. is a master at dividing the people through propaganda and "entertainment" so that we have neither the wits nor the will to join together and fight back.
If we hope to claim this space for the people, we had better figure this out fast.
Precisely. Thank you.
Dear Mr. Kucinich,
I am glad to hear that you say you are attempting to deal responsibly with the f***in mess that you and the other feckless Congressional morons started back in 2001 when you supinely succumbed to George and Dick's lies and deceits and politcal blackmail.
I suggest that you re-examine Public Law 107-40.
You know, the law where Congress declared war on enemies to be named later (by the President)
Bush: the war on terror begins with al-Qaeda
Bush: the Taliban will be treated the same way
Obama: our war is against al-Qaeda and its affiliates
Hey, Mr. Kucinich, don't you think it would have been a good idea to put a time limit on when Presidents can add enemies to the list?
Did you vote for P.L. 107-40, Mr. Kucinich? Evidently, you and your fellow minions didn't keep any record of who voted for this monstrosity. Barbara Lee voted against it. Why didn't you?
Why don't you do something about this mistake of yours?
While I enjoy you berating generals for trying to do the job that you set them to, I am still waiting for you to be useful.
Thanks for nothing, dude.
Another pathetic teabagging asshole trying to slander a Progressive figure.
Whatever vote was cast by Kucinich on PL 107-40 is irrelevant to the position that he details in the interview.
q
Dear Mr. Kucinich,
YOU voted for a declaration of war against enemies to be named later by any President.
YOU set the goal for the US military as 'preventing future terrorism'. (Would you mind explaining how we tell when the military has succeeded in preventing future terrorism forever and ever? - or did you intentionally start a war that cannot be won?)
YOU refused to keep a record of who voted for this nefarious declaration of war. YOU must have been very proud to erase evidence of your actions - but do you think this is healthy for a democracy?
Congress-reptiles who fail us so badly for so long should lose their jobs.
Actually, the House conducted a roll-call vote on PL 107-40 (#342).
q
Starting a new party, making a revolution--all those things that might eventually happen will take much too long. The need for immediate action is urgent.
Give Dennis Kucinich your support, financially, politically, spiritually. Who else on the hill has the integrity, the fortitude, the right judgment, the understanding and wisdom of this man?
Mr. Obama needs to listen to Mr. Kucinich instead of to the people who currently have his ear. Mr. Obama has lost all of the considerable esteem I used to hold for him by listening to the wrong voices.
There are very few honest politicians left in the USA. Kucinich is one of them. There are very few patriots left in the USA. Kucinich is one of them. There are very few people left in the USA who act on Christian values. Kucinich is one of them. Bless you, Dennis Kucinich. Bless you.
If Kucinich were an honest politician, he would not have supported Obama for President, he would've denounced him instead. He could still do it today, of course. He could denounce Obama as the liar and war criminal that he is. He could resign the Democratic Party and not be part of this vile criminal enterprise that's furthering each and every of Bush's policies. But DK's not an honest politician, not by a long shot.
And I see that he still manages to fool a lot of so-called progressives in this country, that's the sad part.
Dear Ardath Bay,
See my earlier post regarding courage. Now, honesty. Kucinich supported Obama in the end against far lesser candidates (Ds and Rs). He never gave verbal support to policies with which he disagreed. He made a pragmatic decision to try to work within the system rather than copping a Ralph Nader-like position, which has only ever had symbolic value and no serious political clout. You may disagree with him on positions he's taken, or strategy, but you discredit yourself with accusations of cowardice and dishonesty against arguably the bravest and most intellectually honest public servant in Congress.
mcchrystal lied to pat tillman's family and got away with it. then, he stopped the red cross from inspecting his torture camps in iraq and got away with it. next, he targeted sunnis all across iraq, particularly in baghdad, for assassination or imprisonmnent, even if they were mere baathist sympathizers not engaged in any insurgency against coalition forces. and, he got away with that too. so, there should be a rope left at nuremberg for mcchrystal, one of the ones they didn't use on himmler or goering, each of whom cheated his hangman by taking a capsule of cyanide before his scheduled execution.
Searching the RussiaToday (RT) channel at Youtube (YT) also shows that there's at least one other RT video with or about Dennis Kucinich and doing a simple Google search using "RussiaToday Kucinich site:youtube.com" without the other quotes turns up links to other videos, two, though likely being the same, of which are for 9-11 first responders and Dennis Kucinich calling for re-investigation of the 9-11 attacks, or challenging the official story (i.e., conspiracy theory), anyway.
The RT channel is at,
www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday
Sorry Serious Citizen, but if you listen to the people who started this whole mess, it was so called christian values that got us into this clusterfuck in the first place. That is how they get us into these messes, they hold up the flag and tell us how barbaric the unchristian people who we want to drop bombs on are. Then they invoke the christian god as their moral authorization and "Presto" our troops are preforming security duty for EXXON/MOBIL or what ever legalized group of gansters that want to steal some third world countries natural resources for god and the american way! (Reference: "War is a Racket" Smedley D. Butler U.S.M.C.)
Religon, like government is just another way of controling the people! Usually not for the benefit of the people either! Had Major General Butler lived a while longer he probably would have written a sequel to War is a Racket, it would have been entitled "Religon is a Racket"!
The "so called christian values" part of all of this is only smokescreen and support, for the real "elites" behind U.S. war-making, etcetera. There may possibly be some members of the Congress who are said to be Christian and who supported the wars and other corrupt U.S. foreign policies for their "so called christian values", but this is NOT the reason that most members of the Congress authorised recourse to war and continued to authorise the war every time the Congress agreed for more troops to be sent, and more war funding.
I think we can safely say that most of the times that "so called christian values" are used [in the U.S.] for actions against laws the country's bound by and human rights, legitimate liberties, etcetera, it's really just a matter of politics. The politicians who go with these "values" publicly use them mostly because they need or want supporters one way or another from the electorate, voters. In politics, we have plenty of practioners of deception(s).
The false, phony Christians in the U.S. are the loudest and most meddlesome, compared to other Christians in the U.S., including the socially and politically active members of the latter group. Jesuit priest Fr Berrigan (spelling?) found SoA Watch and the organisation holds good protest activities every year against SoA, but these people aren't LOUD and meddlesome in U.S. politics; the corporate "news" media hardly publishes anything about SoA Watch and its just and necessary protests. Catholic Workers isn't loud and meddlesome, only working to try to help the poor, etcetera. The "right-wing" and "so called christians" are very loud and meddlesome; like AIPAC is.
They get the public attention, while the real drivers of U.S. war-making and other corrupt foreign policies, and their puppet or pal politicians, get relatively little public coverage from U.S. corporate "news" media in terms of the real reasons for the MANY crimes of the government of the USA and its drivers or rulers.
Politics highly consists of hypocrisy, lies, deceptions, disguising crimes in order to try to make them seem like justified acts, ..., and this requires smokescreens and propaganda meant to deceive the public. There's also incompetence, but I think it is certainly the lesser of these problems. There's an awful lot of ILL will in politics. This is additionally necessary, in strategically evil or wicked terms, because the U.S. legally is a democracy, the U.S. has a Constitution that forbids many or all of the crimes of the government, and the U.S. has the Bill of Rights, besides also being co-signatory to international laws, etcetera. So the ruling "elites" don't want the true nature of their control of the government to be obvious, for they realise or believe that the public, most or very much of it anyway, would seriously rise against the tyrany that's really in place; instead of real democracy, etcetera. Hence, they need to strategically employ a lot of deception(s).
If Kucinich had any courage at all, instead of saying "President Obama, who is a good man, has given his generals a little too much leeway," he should say, "President Obama, who is a war criminal, is perfectly happy to hide behind generals when major war decisions are concerned."
This is why Kucinich is in Congress where he at least has a serious platform from which to be heard on a broad array of important subjects and a vote to curtail some of the worst excesses and to offer and advocate for some of the most progressive legislation our government collectively produces while others, like this poster, relegate themselves to taking potshots at passing articles on the net for a tiny audience of relatively like-minded disenfranchised blogospheriacs. If the poster had any courage, he or she would run for office or commit themselves to serious political organizing. Just a guess that he/she does neither and should think twice about judging (never mind commenting on) the courage of stalwart public servants like Dennis Kucinich.
Not a bad interview, however Dennis Kucinich still believes it was okay for the U.S. to militarily act in Afghanistan; disregarding that the 9-11 investigation needs to be re-opened and that this actually relates to determining whether, or not, the war was ever justified. And that's just for starters. He neglects the fact that the war was launched on the government of Afghanistan, called the Taliban regime by some people, and that they never had anything to do with the 9-11 attacks, and that they offered, on two occasions, to hand over Osama Bin Ladin. He also neglects or disregards the fact that the UNSC, of which the U.S. is a permanent member (until the UNSC is finally reformed as it should be, anyway), refused to give its authorisation for the war on Afghanistan, any part of it.
He's awfully weak in this regard and it tells me that he may've done the same as was done, launching the U.S. military on Afghanistan, if he had been President on 9-11, 2001.
Only one member of the U.S. Congress refused to provide her authorisation for recourse to war on Afghanistan, so Kucinich was among the rest who did give this authorisation, which was wrong to give; because there was no actual proof to back up the claims of the Bush Jr-Cheney administration. There was circumstantial evidence, but not strong enough to justify recourse to war on another government when no government attacked or even threatened the U.S.
So while I appreciate enough of what he says in this interview with Russia Today, I would not feel comfortable voting for him for U.S. President. Otoh, if he stuck to what he says in this interview regarding the Congress being the body having sole authority for declaring that the U.S. is at war, and believing he'd never lie about anything important to the U.S. or any other country, then I would be able to vote for him.
He can't admit his error though and this is disturbing.
If you do a search of Youtube using "Dennis Kucinich", quoted, and "9/11", no need to quote it, then you'll find some videos in which he speaks relatively well regarding 9-11, including one short video in which he, in Congress, basically accuses the Bush Jr-Cheney administration for having [let] the 9-11 attacks happen, due to having had forewarnings, but also had received warnings the day before Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, warnings that informed the Bush administration that it'd be disaster. Kucinich points out the dereliction of duty in both cases.
He, however, neglects or ignores that we do not have actual proof that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9-11 attacks; that Osama bin Ladin denied responsibility; that the Taliban had offered, two times during the weeks following 9-11 to hand over OBL, if only adequate preliminary proof that he was guilty for these attacks was provided; and more.
These things or facts, and more, need to be taken into full consideration before we can justly believe that the war on Afghanistan, really on the Afghan government at the time, could be justified. Congress gave the authorisation for recourse to war BEFORE having adequate proof for providing such authorisation! Kucinich seems to refuse to examine this [closely] and in sufficient detail.
But, and again, if he was elected President, then I think he would respect the constitutional authority of the Congress regarding it being the body in charge of declaring war, etcetera. And he definitely would have acted if he had been President instead of Bush on 9-11 and the day prior to Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans.
So, yah, I could vote for him for the presidency. It just makes me nervous to realise that he doesn't closely and fully examine the details about the 9-11 attacks. Maybe he's just been too tied up with plenty of critical issues to be able to dedicate adequate time for a very serious, thorough study of what 9-11 researchers have found, and the video-taped interviews with retired Lt Col. Robert M. Bowman, US military, AF, I think, major Doug Rokke, and other U.S. military officers, active or all retired, as well as Ray McGovern and other former U.S. government officials. It's certainly not something that can be reviewed ... quickly, in very short time, and he has been working on multiple critical issues without getting adequate support in the Congress.
His wife, however, agrees that the 9-11 investigation needs to be re-opened, freshly restarted. There's a video at Youtube for a brief interview with her on this question and whether, or not, she thinks Dennis Kucinich could or should team up with Ron Paul, about which she doesn't say 'yes', but has good words to say about Ron Paul's work in Congress.
Dennis just needs to brush up on what 9-11 researchers, the good ones, have found and compiled, in articles and videos, about the attacks and how the official story is bogus and the 9-11 Commission report is severely flawed; as well as how Bush Jr, Cheney and the CIA obstructed (criminally) the work of the 9-11 Commission(ers). The mere fact that he can explicitly say that the Bush Jr admin. [let] the 9-11 attacks happen and did not act to protect the population of New Orleans when the administration received a grave warning the day before should be enough for him to realise that the Bush admin. certainly could have plentifully lied about the 9-11 attacks.
Several of the alleged hijackers weren't on those planes, for they were found to be alive and well since 9-11; and no one survived from the planes hitting the WTC towers. And Osama bin Ladin hasn't been charged by the U.S. DoJ for the crime of the 9-11 attacks, nowhere to be found for this on the FBI's wanted or top wanted list.
And the U.S. is the biggest, most powerful, most repetitive, ... terrorist on Earth.
Kucinich has some waking up to do, but should be able to make a good President.
Also, much of his argument in this video interview with Russia Today is based on the economic crisis in the U.S. and the U.S. government majorly funding the wars and giving a huge amount of U.S. taxpayer dollars to Wall Street, while ignoring the economic plight of many millions of citizens.
Would he be demanding withdrawal from the war on Afghanistan if it the economy was doing well in the U.S.? I sure hope not, but it's certainly not possible to test this question, so I'm left with this question. If he demanded withdrawal based on the fact that the war's criminal and that the UNSC refused to authorise the war or recourse to war, and no government attacked the U.S., then we'd have the answer to my question; but he mentions none of these points or facts, only arguing based on the economic crisis, as well as only Congress having the authority to declare the U.S. at war and that the President is C-in-C of the military, not the generals. Those are all excellent parts of his argument, including the economic crisis, but the argument is flawed because of what it critically lacks.
Still, I think he could make a good President as long as he maintained his present view about the Constitution granting only the Congress the authority to declare the country at or into war, as well as regarding funding and troop surges or numbers. For troop numbers, generals would certainly need to provide their input, but Congress should make the final decision. For surges, it's like he says; only for Congress to make these decisions, instead of the President and/or generals.
He has a lot right, but lacks some critical points or facts.
He's not going to be able to reform the Dem. Party until its corrupt leadership is replaced though, and voters keep electing these corrupt "representatives". So reforming the party doesn't seem to be achievable in the near future.
Dennis Kucinich has always been on the side of the working class.
Dennis's votes in Congress and his consistent support of the people, of peace and social justice, are actions of a true public servant and leader.
We need to support Dennis with our voices and with our money whether he runs for President or not.
Dennis not only represents the city of Cleveland, he represents us all.
Dennis J Kucinich is right on the mark.
AD
I must have missed the vote in Congress last week to declare war on Yemen.
The political spectrum is not a straight line with the ends far apart.
It is a broken circle with the ends close together.
The One party system is on the other side of the circle.
We, the far left and far right, own 2/3 of the political power in this country.
If only we would use it.
Kucinich/Paul in a co-Presidency makes a lot of sense.
Neither is it a circle.
Although I find a lot to like in your conclusion, there do seem to be differences between the Kucinich and Paul parts of the spectrum that need be resolved to some degree and would make a Kucinich-Paul ticket far different from a Paul-Kucinich ticket, for instance.
Both Kucinich and Paul would argue for a relatively non-coercive state and a major withdrawal of imperial presence, but they would have large differences over health insurance, education, and other social programs.
They would agree about coercion, but not about cooperative action.
To my mind, a field works better than either a line or a circle, though I suspect there's something better somewhere. To be in the same quadrant, people seem to need some measure of agreement on two underlying principles: coercion vs voluntarism, and private ownership vs cooperation.
On the other hand, I would surely have voted Kucinich-Paul or even Paul-Kucinich above the current crop of rodents or their oppositional allies.
Kucinich, who is known for his anti-war views,
---------------------------------
Think about how weird that is, that The Hill categorizes Dennis as "anti-war". To have to point that out as a special case, as a defining characteristic, means that the vast majority of Congressmen are "pro-war".
---------------------------------
Kucinich, who is known for his anti-rape views,
Kucinich, who is known for his anti-murder views,
Kucinich, who is known for his anti-theft views,
Kucinich, who is known for his anti-bar-fight views,
Kucinich, who is known for his anti-soccer-riot views,
Kucinich, who is known for his anti-street-fight views,