EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What America Lost When Dennis Kucinich Lost
Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a two-time presidential candidate who for the past decade has been the most consistent critic of war and militarism in the U.S. House of Representatives, was defeated Tuesday in a Democratic primary that pitted him against fellow progressive Marcy Kaptur.
Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a two-time presidential candidate who for the past decade has been the most consistent critic of war and militarism in the U.S. House of Representatives, was defeated Tuesday in a Democratic primary that pitted him against fellow progressive Marcy Kaptur. (File)
Kucinich was the first electoral victim of the current round of redistricting, which saw congressional districts redrawn in states across the country after the 2010 Census. A Republican governor and legislature carved up northern Ohio districts with an eye toward eliminating at least one Democratic seat, and they achieved their goal by forcing Kucinich and Kaptur into the same district.
That district favored Kaptur and, after a hard-fought race she prevailed by a 56-39 margin, with the remainder going to a third candidate.
Though the race in Ohio's 9th District received scant attention compared with the Republican presidential contest in the state, the result will have national consequences.
A Congress without Dennis Kucinich will be a lesser branch. It's not just that the loss of the former leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus will rob the House of its most consistent critic of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and one its steadiest critics of corporate power.
Kucinich has since he arrived on the Hill in 1997 been one of a handful of absolutely engaged members. When issues have arisen, be it domestic or international, low profile or high, Kucinich has been at the ready -- often with the first statement, the strongest demand and the boldest plan.
A master of parliamentary procedure, and a Constitutional purist, Kucinich has given Democratic and Republican congressional leaders their share of headaches. And he has been more than willing to break with Democratic and Republican presidents on matters of principle. But even as he frustrated the most powerful players in Washington, Kucinich won an enthusiastic base of supporters who backed him for the Democratic presidential nominations in 2004 and 2008.
Though he never got near the nomination in either year, Kucinich earned high marks for forcing the other contenders to address fundamental issues of war and peace, civil liberties and trade policy. At the same time, he remained sufficiently in touch with his blue-collar Cleveland area district -- turf that had previously elected a Republican -- to keep his seat in the face of primary and general election challenges from candidate backed by the political and media elites that had been after Kucinich since his days as the uncompromising "boy mayor" of Cleveland.
Had his district remained intact, Kucinich would have won Tuesday's primary. But the 2010 election put Republican Governor John Kasich and his conservative allies in charge of the Ohio redistricting process. With encouragement from House Speaker John Boehner, they targeted Kucinich from the start. Everyone knew Kucinich was threatened, and the congressman even entertained the prospect of moving to Washington state, where he has long been a favorite of progressive activists and where population shifts had created an open seat that might be friendly to his ambitions.
Ultimately, however, Kucinich opted for a race in a redrawn Ohio district that included portions of his Cleveland base. The district also included Toledo, the home of Congresswomen Kaptur, a Democrat with whom Kucinich had frequently allied over the years.
Kucinich and Kaptur have both served in Congress as outsiders, members of the Progressive Caucus, with records of opposing wars, free-trade deals and economic policies that favor the one percent over the 99 percent. Both have 95 percent AFL-CIO records. Both have 100 percent ACLU records.
There were, to be sure, distinctions. Kucinich, who for many years voted with opponents of reproductive rights, switched his position before the 2004 presidential election and ran this year as the more socially liberal contender. Kaptur, the longest-serving woman in the House and a champion of many feminist causes, was ranked as "mixed choice" by NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Kucinich was always the purest anti-war champion, and he made a point of highlighting that in the race with Kaptur, a ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee who the Cleveland congressman argued should have done much more to cut the Pentagon budget.
But Kaptur, who came to national prominence as an outspoken foe of the 2008 bank bailout, emerged as a national hero of union and community activists who shared her determination to "bust the banksters." She was a star of the film "Capitalism, a Love Story," in which she told filmmaker Michael Moore that the 2008 bailout was a "a financial coup d'etat."
Kaptur's boldness in opposing the big banks and Wall Street, as well as her passionate advocacy on behalf organized labor, would have been missed, as well, in a Congress that needs all the economic populists it can get.
But losing Kucinich will be hard. In some of the toughest days for the American experiment as a Republican administration plotted to wage a war of whim in Iraq, Democratic "leaders" stood down. It was Dennis Kucinich who spoke up for peace and who kept speaking up with a determination that gave hope to activists across the United States and around the world.
The Republican mapmakers in Oho may have drawn Dennis Kucinich out of his district, and out of Congress. But they will not draw him out of the history of these times. Indeed, when the story of America in the first years of the 21st century is told, Dennis Kucinich will be remembered as the rare member of Congress who opposed wars that could not be justified, who defended rights that could not be surrendered, who demanded accountability from the presidents and vice presidents who could not be allowed to have their way with the republic.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
199 Comments so far
Show AllAh yes, another history re-write. In fact, Dennis stopped voting anti-choice in '02, well before the '04 campaign. I know, because it would have been a deal-breaker for me.
It will be quite interesting to see what happens now. It's possible that this will turn out to be something the GOP fervently wish they hadn't done.
Mairead wrote:
"It's possible that this will turn out to be something the GOP fervently wish they hadn't done."
How so?
Maybe he'll run for president on an independent split right/left "duumvirate" ticket with Ron Paul. Of course he'd be better off without Paul, but would have no chance of winning. Together, who knows?
(I grew up not far from Cleveland and have been cheering Dennis on since I was a teenager.)
Never. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have nothing in common except for being anti-war.
Ron Paul is a corporate libertarian who would destroy the ability of that "big government" that he so hates from protecting people from corporate abuses, such as all of the terrible things the government does in protecting people from pollution, preserving our planets biodivesity, ecological treasures and so on from corporate looting. Ron Pauls policies would massively expand corporate power through his hatred of democracy and elected government. Ron Paul does not believe in good government because he believes in no government. No government is not good government.
The fact is corporations would get along fine with Ron Paul,. thjey would be free of all of those evil government rules that Ron Paul so hates that stop from from working children, workers 15 hours a day, beating workers , polluting the environment, and massive wealth concentration by the rich.
Ron Pauls agendas are in fact mostly in line with the mainstream republicans and tea party, except for the war issues, he wants to further collapse and destroy the middle class with tax cuts for the rich which will allow them to profit even more from layoffs and wage cuts for commoners and deregulation that would leave common people without a voice and without any protection from corporate greed, he would pull food out of the mouths of children, kick the poor onto the street leave them for dead, shut down public schools and colleges, make it so only the wealthiest americans can afford health care or education, laugh as the poor, homeless and those in need of medical care are left to die on the alter of Ron Pauls psychopathic Ayn Rand alter of free market puritism.
Ron Paul does exactly what corporations want him to do, and he would destroy the ability of our countries workers to solve our problems, income inequality, pollution, collapse of the middle class, through civil government policy.
So you're saying there's no way a politician would do a politically-motivated thing. Hmmm.........
My thought was that he should team up with Ralph Nader and Alan Grayson, the Florida Congressman who tried to make voters aware of the link between profligate military spending and vanishing, quite necessary, domestic programs. The three of them, can form the nucleus of a new party, one in place to contest the manner by which the other 2 have largely morphed into one pro-business entity.
Because 90% of the time big money buys the seat under consideration, big money tends to back those who retain the status quo. Naturally, this presents a no-win for voters, or the 90%.
There already is a party doing that, the one Ralph ran with a couple of times, and they have a Pres. candidate - a worthy successor to Ralph, IMO ....
http://www.jillstein.org/
As if Ralph Nader'd be seen in the same room as Kookcinich! After he folded on Obamacare, he's not welcome in any group of true progressives! Finally Gov. Kasich does something worthwile! Maybe they'll take him in Mass, Go write a book Kook! I'm sure a few might sell!
>^^<
A bit harsh, certainly. I quite agree that Kucinich waffling on the Obama Health Care sop to corporate profit over the nations health was a blemish on his record. But his overall positions were on the mark and his career was, on balance, a good one from any progressive standpoint.
Kasich is a POS who has never done anything worthwhile in his entire life. He's living proof of what a shithole Ohio is and what morons Buckeyes are, in general. If I didn't have family here I would never have come back here, and now I'm stuck here with these cretins. Buckeyes electing the pigs who gerrymandered Kucinich out of congress is just more proof of my point.
It remains to be seen if Dennis Kucinich decides to retire or cut ties with the Democrat party & help spear-head a truly independent non-corporate controlled alternative people's party- perhaps w the likes of Nader, Cynthia McKinney, maybe even Ron Paul, etc...
I always thought that while Dennis was officially a Dim he was more inclined to tow the party line than even Ron Paul is/was as a Repug- even before he was forced to fold on the so-called Obama{Romney}Care issue. Take the 2008 Presidential Conventions. Kucinich was allowed to speak at the Dims' Confab as long as he agreed to endorse Obama's candidacy. which he did. BUT- At the 2008 Repugs' Confab Paul refused to endorse McCain / Palin & the Repugs refused to allow him to speak there [In fact they refused to even allow Paul to even have a seat there!]. That told me that while both are mavericks who are none-the-less officially attached to their respective parties - in the final analysis Dennis was less inclined to buck the Dims [while he was still a Dim] than Paul was to buck the Repugs.
Thus unless Dennis decides to Retire- IMO The way forward for him is to reject the corporate controlled Dims {& Repugs}- & work to make an true alternative Independent people's party viable.
I don't think we've seen the last of DK. He is not the type to throw in the towel, ever. To me, his crowning moment was when he read the 35 articles of impeachment into the congressional record. I have met him and his wife and they are the real deal.
WRT Ron Paul, I like him a lot. Yep, he is way different from DK but they do have one major thing in common, an abiding trust in the aims of our founding fathers and their writings, especially the Constitution. None of the GOP pretenders running care a whit about the Constitution, except for RP. The Constitution has become a revolutionary document because of the accumulated shift away from it by all governments since 1913 with the biggest shift occurring right after 9/11.
I don't know, AN, and obviously could be totally wrong. Certainly he's a different, more battered person now than he was 33 years ago when he staked his job on saving Muni Light. He's been let down by us twice now, in really major ways. "Betrayed" wouldn't be too strong a word for what was done to him. The people of Cleveland didn't support him after he saved Muni Light, instead listening to the lies of the corporatocracy. And then we didn't support him in '04, after begging him to stand against The Chimp.
So it's possible that he's worn out, and won't do anything except possibly see whether he can scrounge up another seat in the House. Or even just say t'hell with it and go home.
But he certainly has a uniquely courageous record. Afaiaa, *nobody* else in Congress has ever taken on the corporatocracy, said No to them, and made it stick. Everyone else just quietly takes the money and slithers away.
So I can imagine --with some difficulty, but still-- a concatenation of circumstances in which Dennis, feeling adrift and uncommitted, says "screwit" just as something arises out of the grassroots and makes itself available to him and others as a vehicle for change.
I can't easily see a third party coming out of it, because everyone who's studied the political structure at all knows that the very structure (single-seat FPTP contests) kills third parties at the national level, and what the structure doesn't kill, the dirty tricks (documented by Theresa Amato) do. But an insurgency within the Dem establishment? I don't believe that's out of the question. Gutting the Dems from within would be harder to stop, since the whole structure is designed to preserve the hegemony of the Duopoly, not resist an insurgency.
I don't know whether it will happen, but I'd bet money that if there's anyone with the guts and experience to take on such a job, it's he. Whether he still has enough left for one more go is an open question, but if he doesn't, no one does.
"Betrayed".... yes, that is exactly the word. I worked on Dennis' '04 campaign, and I worked hard. I did so because of his "Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction", "Homelessness is a weapon of mass destruction", etc.
Then midway into the campaign, he sent out an email, asking supporters to rate their issues. Poverty didn't rate, so he dropped it. BETRAYAL. Some leadership. When I don't count, then I give up.
The next time I saw him in person and tried to talk to him about it, he gave a wimpy "All issues are related." So much for poverty and poor people.
Now, he is teaming more and more with Ron Paul, who wants not only to do away with ALL forms of assistance, but is just fine with people dying. That says it all about Kucinich for me.
When I joined his campaign, I was passionate about ALL issues. Now that I have seen how few "progressives" and "Leftists" care about poverty, I have narrowed my focus.
I no longer give a DAMN about anything except poverty. When the rest of you can begin to care, let me know..... then, and ONLY THEN, will I again be interested in any of your other issues.
And don't lecture me about how important YOUR issues are... and "It's all connected", blah blah blah.
Walk in my shoes, and see what it feels like when your very existence doesn't matter.
Dennis grew up poor. Didn't you know that? His homelife was disordered by his Mum's emotional illness, they were homeless more than once.
And he's right: it is all connected. You cannot point to anything and say "this stands alone".
That's really why people who are poor in material things don't perceive themselves as poor if they live in a culture without wealth gradients. When everyone is on a fairly even footing, there's no perception of unfairness and therefore no perception of poverty. It's just how life is.
It's also how the overprivileged can say with real sincerity that they're not well-off. They're not, compared to those who have twice or ten times as much! And those are the people the rich compare themselves to, not to us. We're nothing to them, just as the Cuban farmer who lives happily in his dirt-floored hut is nothing to us. He's happy because he has as much as everyone else he knows, and so there's no poverty--there's just a lack of "stuff".
Don't talk to me of "they" and "them"! I am one of "THEM", and you are NOT describing me.
Dennis is not the first person to grow up poor, then turn his back, and he won't be the last.
It was all of YOU, who turned your backs, because all you cared about was the WAR, so now what little is left of the safety net is being cut, because they knew none of you would speak against the cuts. And they were right. It was all about WAR for you... except the war against us poor people. That didn't matter to Dennis, and it doesn't matter to you.
So, you will fight YOUR battles alone, because you left us alone.
The lack of compassion is in your words.
It is plain to see.
It is inescapable.
We see and hear the lack of compassion, and have for a long time now.
We are NOT fooled.
Correct, the kook has done nothing that can be considered stand-up in quite awhile. Mostly we remember him turning coat on the single payer option to Obamscare, after his little plane ride with the Bummer!
We'll never Forget!
>^^<
Mairead, I like your thinking. I met Dennis in '04 at a political rally at Illinois State University. When the over-filled room started cheering, they expected another typical rally by a typical politician. Boy, were they surprised. I already knew Dennis was not a "typical" anything. If you have ever read "The Story of B," it was like that. Dennis gave a quiet, sincere and intelligent talk that absolutely catapulted people off their chairs in thunderous applause! How could we NOT vote for Dennis when he believes in everything that we need for this country? Part of the reason is that the media WILL NOT cover his speeches or campaigns EVER!!! He is a threat to the corporatocracy, so they ridicule and marginalize him.
I interviewed Dennis when he came to Washington State for an online journal that I write for here, and had every hope that he would make WA his new home. I'm really sorry he didn't. He has a big following here. But perhaps you are right, he may not be finished yet. He needs to go "social media" and "viral." His wife may help with that?
Addendum: Plan "B" coming up?
I don't know, Inanna. My sense is that it really could be the opportunity for "Plan B", but I'd be amazed and a little horrified if he tried to go it alone again. That didn't work so well for him either time in the past. He trusted us, and we let him down both times, nearly finishing him off. In his place I certainly wouldn't trust us a third time --- not without a major, solid display that we'd grown up, become adults, and given the psychological millstones the push.
This really does feel a stand-at-the-crossroads moment, for him and for us.
"let him down"? What, precisely, does that mean?
He "trusted us"? To do what? Go on hunger strikes? Bankrupt ourselves?
Trust goes both ways - i have no feeling that I "let him down", rather it is the other way around ....
Unexamined, uncritical devotion to a politician, any politician, is not a mark of a "grown up", IMO ....
No person is indispensable to a 'cause - if that is so, that cause is in big trouble
Cross-roads? For some, perhaps, - I have already crossed that road ...
If you don't know enough history to understand what I mean by "let him down", then I can't imagine what your thought processes are like. For heaven's sake what do you SUPPOSE "let him down" means? It means *he delivered* and expected to be supported with our votes, labor, and money. *He did his part* in '79 and '04. We did not do ours either time.
After he saved Muni Light, the people of Cleveland thanked him by electing Voinovich instead -- throwing Dennis into the street and almost costing him everything he owned (i.e., his cheap-arse house. I believe it was valued around $24K). The corporatocracy did everything but shoot him down in the street. They made him *pay* for standing up to them. Fifteen years out of his life.
In '04, his platform was *everything* on the progressive laundry list. Single payer, including dental and vision. An end to WTO and NAFTA. An end to the War Against (some) Drugs, full legalisation of pot, and a switch to a medical model for other drugs. Public-paid tertiary education. Full support for unions. Decriminalisation of poverty and restoration of the safety net. Full employment program to rebuild US infrastructure and restore our manufacturing base. Withdrawal of forces from abroad. The "peace dividend" at last. Rebuilding the rail network. He offered us everything, and we refused to support him. We supported creatures like Dean and Kerry instead, creatures whose political records were *exactly opposite* what we claimed we wanted.
That's what "let him down" means.
Can't answer for the folks in Cleveland - don't live there.
As for 'O4 - " ....we refused to support him. We supported creatures like Dean and Kerry instead, "
Who's "we"? You? Me? Who? The reason i gave my extreme examples is to draw out just how much time, money, energy and effort would you consider "enough" support? I am trying to figure out YOUR thought processes ....
It's obvious a lot of folks didn't "support" him - but, out of curiosity, as he didn't get the Dem. nomination, who did you vote for in the election?
Who's "we"? You? Me? Who?
-------------------------------------------
All of us who claim to want what he was offering.
--------------------------------------------
The reason i gave my extreme examples is to draw out just how much time, money, energy and effort would you consider "enough" support?
--------------------------------------------
How badly do you want what he was offering? That's how much is "enough". Evidently we were lying when we said we want the stuff on the list. Or else we're children, who think we deserve to have it handed to us on a plate.
Dennis was offering an almost immeasurably large change for the better, but we treated him worse than we treated Dean and Kerry, a known scoundrel and a known dud. We let him down, and then complained when he finally threw in the sponge. That takes *real* immaturity. Nothing fake about that immaturity -- that was the pure item, distilled from raw entitlement.
(And I voted for Dennis: I wrote in his name)
When I hear Kucinich and letdown in the same sentence...only one thing comes to mind....Air Force One. Nuff said
The Swiss developmental psychologist Jean Piaget found that a major developmental milestone in human cognition is the ability to conserve and use 2-valued logic.
Before they make that transition, children will watch a liquid be poured from one clear container into another of a different shape, and say with all seriousness that it's now a different amount of liquid.
If they're fixated on (e.g.) the height of the containers, and it's poured from a tall, narrow one into a short, wide one, they'll say the amount is less than it was before. Or if they're fixated on width, they'll say it's more. The idea that both height AND width have to be considered is too much for them, as is the fact that it's the same liquid regardless of container.
I bet someone could get a doctoral thesis out of studying people like you, nominal adults who boast of their inability to use adult-style reasoning. It's pretty bizarre, seeing someone who's apparently actually proud of their cognitive childishness.
Excellent reply!
"How badly do you want what he was offering?"
Badly enough to vote for someone who was offering the same thing who was actually running and ON the ballot - Nader, while you stuck with someone who had dropped out.
So now, will you write him in again or support someone who stands for the same stuff and has, and is fighting for more, ballot status - Jill Stein? What is your loyalty to - the person or what the person purportedly stands for?
That was 04 long before his 2009 betrayal of all Americans! Too many compromises will do that to a person I guess :(
>^^<
Because Kaptur's word on "Capitalism" show her to be adamantly opposed to the GOP money machinists...aka lobbyists et al
The progressive movement will miss Denis Kucinich's voice and vote in congress. But there will be other opportunities for him to influence the movement and to advance the causes of peace and social justice. I don't believe he sold out. Perhaps he compromised on occasion. Perhaps he supported the President in the face of the most uncompromising political climate ever. That's how politics used to work; through negotiation and compromise. But that was before the sophomores took over.
>>The progressive movement will miss Denis Kucinich's voice and vote in congress.<<
The progressive movement will miss Denis Kucinich's voice and votes for war funding in congress?
Kucinich spoke out against war, and voted against it, more consistently than any other congressperson over the last 10 years.
true enough - he was one of the "good" guys - no wonder they did him in. he got better than sen wellstone
but who can forget his plane ride with obummer where he changed his mind on obummer care - making that monstrosity possible
just wait til they start deducting that from your take home earnings, for essentially lousy care
what was needed and dennis knew it was single payer - no profit health care - just like the rest of the industrialized world
nothing else will do...
I do believe Dennis sold out on health care in 2010 and have not supported him since. (Though I will give him major credit for returning the donations (mine included) he had received within the few days before he caved to Obama.) I've always wondered what he was threatened with to get him to renege on his promise to stand firm for single payer.
Even before that happened I felt that Dennis would be more effective as an Independent or even a Green. Too bad he didn't drop the Democrats years ago and start building what this country really needs -- a political party not owned by corporations.
Too bad people didn't support him when they had the chance, in '04.
That's the thing, you know. So many people focus on what they think *he* should have done or not done, but they seem unable to grasp that they might have had any possible responsibility for the outcome. It's as though "personal responsibility" is a concept being expressed in some dead language -- a sound devoid of meaning.
How in hell will we ever take government away from the psychopaths if nobody has any sense of personal responsibility or agency? And if taking it away isn't our goal, then what exactly do we think we're doing here---posturing and bloviating as a way to pass the time til we die?
"How in hell will we ever take government away from the psychopaths if nobody has any sense of personal responsibility or agency?" Sorry Mairead, we won't. People are too immersed in privilege and wetigo sickness. Our time, as a species, is almost expired. Soon to come: the great nuclear extiction; when all our "power plants" (really nuclear weapons manufacturers) decay and explode in the wake of our civilization's collapse. My strategy? Eat lots of bacon, have lots of unprotected sex, and abandon all hope that humanity will regain sanity.
That's an incredibly discouraging thought. I'm not sure I'd find it worthwhile to keep going if I thought that our cause is hopeless.
Condolences for Kooch. If there's any future for humanity to look back at this era in an historic perspective, he'll be lauded by free-thinkers as one of the last few who desperately tried to oppose the crime syndicate that controls the US govt.
Re your question of 'how we'll ever take our govt away from psychopaths,' this is why history (again, provided there's much a future ahead for our species) will not be kind to america; from a historic perspective it makes sense that there will be tyrants who manipulate and plunder, it's a given, to be expected, for that's what Power does. Where america FAILS is in the lack of any serious collective response and fighting back against the pitch black fascism that's apparently become an accepted par for the course for our brainwashed populace...provided, that is, that one doesn't call it by name. As soon as you refer to it as fascism, all the 'good' brainwashed people are eager to shout you down.
I think the corporatists (fascists) who now control our economy and much of our Congress have convinced too many people that they are the ones who are "conservative" and "moderate" and very patriotic and very concerned with protecting folks from a government that creates dependence. The Koch Brothers, the National Chamber of Commerce, Grover Norquist, all the corporate members of the American Legislative Exchange Council and their right-wing think tanks are one arm of our fascism. The other is the cadre of neoconservatives who seek to rid the world of the Axis of Evil and spread democracy to all (Here it comes, ready or not, wanted or not. America is the Greatest Country in the World).
I thought Koos-koos went on board airforce one and cut a deal with O on the insurance care act so just this sort of thing wouldn't happen. Koos koos was obviously reluctant about voting in favor of O's corporate goodiebag giveaway legislation ...
.
A few days before vote K said; "I do not think this is a step toward anything I have supported in the past. This is not the bill I wanted to support ...However, after careful discussions with Obama ... I've decided to cast a vote in favor of this legislation" .... and .... "(we need) to keep pushing single payer even at this dark moment."
.
That was from a democracy now interview/debate with ralph nader on March 18 2010.
.
It's pretty clear that Kucinich was somehow forced into voting for Obama's corporate welfare bill ... He called it a "dark moment", and he wasn't kidding. I had assumed he cut a deal where O would expend some political capital in order to preserve K's house seat as a favor for K's support of O's fake health care bill. A little quid pro quo ... at the time it seemed plausable.
.
I think it's pretty clear now that there was no quid pro quo deal ... it's more likely that O had some nasty dirt on Kucinich (drugs? hookers? drugged hookers?) that he used to twist K's arm.
.
I think it's pretty clear now that there was no quid pro quo deal ... it's more likely that O had some nasty dirt on Kucinich (drugs? hookers? drugged hookers?) that he used to twist K's arm.
--------------------------
That's nonsensical. If he were vulnerable on those levels, he'd long since have been done over.
No, all Obama needed to say was "do it with a smile or else we'll make sure the GOP gerrymanders you out of your seat".
...and yet Kucinich did lose his seat. So what exactly did he gain by voting for Obamacare? Are you saying that Kucinich is a political rube, naive enough to take Obama at his word .. naive enough to think that Obama would actually help him out?
.
"Dennis, listen, you need to vote for my bill because your seat in the house depends on it. Vote for my bill and I'll get my good friend and golfing buddy, the Boehner, to convince his people in the Ohio legislature not to gerrymander your district."
.
"Oh, well golly gee Mr President sir ... thanks for inviting me on your fancy plane! Aww shucks, course I'll vote for your bill!"
.
or is this exchange more plausable ....
.
"Dennis, listen, we have a bit of a problem here. I need your support for my bill and you're going to give it to me. You see Dennis, this bill is very important to me. I am convinced that this bill can potentially make or break my presidency, and I don't want to be a broken President, Dennis. You don't want me to be a broken president either, let me assure you. So, you see, it is very important to me. And it's important to you, too Dennis, because if your support isn't forthcoming, well ....
.... Look, Dennis, I know that no one's perfect. No one can make it through life without an indiscretion here or there. Now just hear me out on this Dennis! We all saw what happened to Eliot Spitzer a couple years ago. It's not a pretty way to go. These things can ruin families and destroy marriages. His kids probably either hate him or have no respect for him, too ... all that stress and heartache. It's an undignified way to end to a really brilliant and promising political career. Things like that reflect badly on the Party, too. You're loyalty to your wife is none of my business, really. But I need some reassurance that you're still loyal to the Party. You are loyal to the Party, right Dennis? ...
... So, you're going to support my bill, Dennis. Do it for yourself, do it for your family, do it for the Party. I don't care why you do it. You're a reasonable man, I have the utmost confidence that you will make the right decision. In two years when Ohio is redistricted .. well, you can retire honorably from public life with your beautiful wife and family, and this conversation will have been long forgotten. Thank you for your time congressman."
.
That's my take anyway ... haha
I think your second scenario pretty much nails it. Lots of bullying and implied vague threats. Kucinich really believes in the political system, though he thinks it's corrupt and broken, and he wants to change it from within. I have no problem with that strategy. I wish him the best and hope we'll see more of him.
I believe Dennis is above any kind of disloyalty to anyone! Obama probably pulled him in by confiding something BIG to him. Dennis is an intelligent, thinking man. It had to be something reasonable or else it was an outright threat.....like, the hint of some kind of "plane crash" or something.
Disloyality?
Dennis threw poor people under the bus in his '04 campaign....so yes, we poor folk consider him disloyal to US.
It was EXPEDIENT, and the rest of you were so concerned about the war and so little concerned about poverty, that you went right along with it.
Dennis and the rest of you are to blame, if you want to cast blame.
Throw vulnerable people away, and you lose support.
It really is that simple.
Ah, so he sold his soul to save his seat .... I think you are right
See, that's the problem - if he would do it once, he would do it again .... so what is the point in having him there, if he folds in the crunch?
Show me one politician in the history of the world who hasn't had to compromise, lose a few battles, or do what is practical rather than be ideologically pure. Kucinich is about as good as they come.
If he still wants to fight there is nothing holding him back from running for prez as the independent peace man who is not unknown which is what I have been telling him to do for a couple decades now.
The problem is he knows if he does it would help the Republicans win by splitting the progressive vote.
He could have more influence for peace now by staying out of the "vote for me" game.
Rush has more power than any Republican and never ran for anything.
Snort.