EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Dennis Kucinich and 'Wackiness'
Last week, Rep. Dennis Kucinich was defeated in a Democratic primary by Rep. Marcy Kaptur after re-districting pitted the two long-term incumbents against each other. Kucinich’s fate was basically sealed when the new district contained far more of Kaptur’s district than his. His 18-year stint in the House will come to an end when the next Congress is installed at the beginning of 2013.
Establishment Democrats have long viewed Dennis Kucinich with a mixture of scorn, mockery and condescension. True to form, the establishment liberal journal American Prospect gave Kucinich a little kick on the way out, comparing his political views to the 1960s musical “Hair” (the Ohio loser talked about “Harmony and understanding”!), deriding him as “a favorite among lefty college kids and Birkenstock-wearers around the country,” and pronouncing him “among the wackiest members of Congress.” Yes, I said The American Prospect, not The Weekly Standard.
The Prospect article also praises as “great” a snide, derisive Washington Post piece which purports to “highlight some of the particularly bizarre facts about” Kucinich. Among those is the fact that “he introduced impeachment articles against former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Cheney for their roles in the Iraq war” and “proposed a Cabinet-level agency devoted to peace.” What a weirdo and a loser. Even more predictably, a team of four interns at The New Republic – the magazine that spent years crusading for the attack on Iraq, smearing Israel critics as anti-Semites, and defining its editorial mission as re-making the Democratic Party in the image of Joe Lieberman – denounced the anti-war Kucinich as “ludicrous,” citing most of the same accusations as the Prospect and the Post. [...]
So let’s recap the state of mental health in establishment Democratic circles: the President who claims (and exercises) the power to target American citizens for execution-by-CIA in total secrecy and with no charges — as well as those who dutifully follow him — are sane, sober and Serious, meriting great respect. By contrast, one of the very few members of Congress who stands up and vehemently objects to this most radical power — “The idea that the United States has the ability to summarily execute a US citizen ought to send chills racing up and down the spines of every person of conscience” — is a total wackjob, meriting patronizing mockery.
Both the Prospect and Post recite the trite case demonstrating Kucinich’s supposed weirdness. He’s friends with Shirley McLaine, who believes in reincarnation, and he once (according to McLaine) claimed to have an encounter with a UFO. Is any of that really any more strange than the litany of beliefs which the world’s major religions require? Is Barack Obama “wacky” because he claims to believe that Jesus turned water into wine, rose from the dead and will soon welcome him to heaven? Is Chuck Schumer bizarre because he seems to believe that there’s some big fatherly figure sitting in the sky who spewed fire and brimstone at those who broke the laws he sent down on some stones and now hovers over him judging his every move? Is Harry Reid a weirdo because he apparently venerates as divine the “visions” of a man who had dozens of wives, including some already married to other men?
Neither the Prospect nor the Post would ever dare mock as “wacky” the belief in invisible judgmental father-figures in the sky or that rendition of life-after-death gospel because those belief systems have been deemed acceptable by establishment circles. ”Wacky”, like its close cousin “crazy,” is a term of establishment derision exclusively reserved for those who deviate from such conventions. And that’s the point worth making here: the real reason anyone with D.C. Seriousness, including many establishment liberals, relished mocking Kucinich is because he dissented from the orthodoxies of the two political parties. That, by definition, makes one wacky and weird, even when — as is true for the Obama assassination powers and so many other bipartisan pieties — the actual wacky and crazy beliefs are those orthodoxies themselves (we’ve seen this repeatedly with those who stray from two-party normalcy). In reality, the actual crazies are those who fit comfortably within that two-party mentality and rarely challenge or deviate from it, while those who are sane, by definition, dissent from it (just today, the Super Serious Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, a prime co-sponsor of the indefinite detention bill passed late last year, called for a naval blockade of Iran). [...]
Read the rest of this article including updates here.
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...
101 Comments so far
Show AllThankyou Glen. The paradigm shift must not be too far away. The zeitgeist is very busy these days.
Leave the Democratic Party Dennis!
Don't sully what's left of your reputation helping reelect the Oilybomber!
Show us that your morals and ideals are more important than protecting the kleptocrats.
What's an "Oilybomber"? Napalm?
Obamas nickname of course......
Telling us Deep water drilling is safe, letting BP off the hook, opening up large swaths of the artic to drilling, allowing fracking regardless of the environmental damage, running a mid east foreign policy to help the oil corps profit - etc etc etc
And of course the Bomber part is: the 1st action taken by Obama was a drone attack, endless war, bombing multiple countries, killing peaceful citizens knowingly including women and Children - drones attacking funeral processions, drones bombing an area and then when the 1st responders and medical personel show up drone bombing them again. Etc etc etc
The OILYBOMBER.
Perfectly and accurately descriptive.
Of course the post-Orwellian presstitute propaganda media cartel look on someone with a sense of justice and a moral compass as the lunatic fringe. Especially the despicable hypocrisy of so-called progressives that Mr. Greenwald wrote about some weeks ago. http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repulsive_progressive_hypocrisy/singleton/
Ron Paul and Dennis K. ought to leave their respective parties and get together for a lecture circuit, urging people to abandon the D/R duopoly and form alternative political oganizations and discourse.
Ron Paul needs to go sit in a cave somewhere and think about what evolution really means. Darwin was lost in this man's eyes.
What about his anti-imperialist stance? He and Dennis K are in agreement more than not. At least he voted no on NDAA and HR 347, all the "progressive democrats" voted yes. In merkan politics, that's all you get warts and all. Take it or leave it. The point is, a new revolution is necessary. Hopefully it can come without civil war.
BTW did you read the Greenwald articles about progressive hypocrisy and Ron Paul?
Meanwhile,
The puppet Emperor signed HR 347 amid a near total media blackout. The neo-fascist destruction of our rights is not newsworthy, even on so called progressive sites.
http://inthesetimes.com/ittlist/entry/12874/obama_signs_the_anti-occupy_law/
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich could run on an anti-war ticket. Won't happen, but they could. It would generate enormous hype.
Like many others, I hope Kucinich abandons the democratic party and keeps fighting. We will see.
I'd love to see Dennis join the Green Party.
He'd add gravatas to the greens, help legitimize them and he'd get to actually help a party that believes all the same things he does.
And if Dennis did join the Greens it would wake up many democrats to take a long hard look at the current democratic party.
And he could LET GO Of governing based on FEAR.
Cause that's all the dems have to offer any more - vote for us out of FEAR.
The Greens need a base and a real organization.
I know Kucinich would be a huge boost to the former, but I honestly have no idea if he could add the crucial organization factor as well.
Perhaps simply forming a real base would allow the organization to grow from it organically, so to speak.
IMHO this was one thing lacking in the alliance with Nader and his Public Citizen people. It was like trying to stretch one organization thinly across a proto-base and hoping they would have an organized base baby. It didn't work. ;)
Nader was a maverick and 20 years ahead of his time......
Nader saw what was going to happened and warned us -
Historically political parties have come and gone - it's well past time for Another political party to rise out of the ashes of the wholly corrupted parties we have now.
And those changes occured because leading figures of the day had the courage to stand up and go against the expedient and profitable way -
That isn't possible in the democratic party -
I'd like to believe that Dennis Kucinich is one of the people that would stand up -
We'll see -
And a shout out to the PIRG's out there - another Nader accomplishment
30 years ahead of his time
Well, we can wait for "leading" figures "anointed" as such by others, or we can "anoint" our own.
There are folks standing up - there are folks running - there are 3rd parties. All these things exist, and have for a while - what is lacking is our decision to choose them. We have no excuses, IMO, and, frankly, I get tired of hearing 'em ...
Are you waiting for Nader's imprimatur? Chomsky has given his to Stein ... and THAT'S saying something, IMO ....
http://www.jillstein.org/
Believe me I'm on board.
Voting Green party or other 3rd party from here in out.
Even if a nice liberal is running under the democrats
I'll never vote democrat again - just I will never vote for a republican.
I refuse to vote out of FEAR.
And that's all the demonrats have to offer.
Who will finally have the guts to stand up and prove that there is a desperate need in America for a progressive alternative to the Democratic demoralizers?
re: "the establishment liberal journal American Prospect gave Kucinich a little kick on the way out, comparing his political views to the 1960s musical “Hair”
This is the exact problem: The Dems and the Duopoly in general see all real solutions as positions to denigrate, to mock and suggestively undermine. Part of their own arsenal in this endeavor is their consistent posturing as 'the reasonable' or the 'compassionate' party. This couldn't be further from the truth. Their methods to undermine true democratic actions and sentiment are tangibly observable, as clearly demonstrated here by Glenn Greenwald, and even more sickeningly so in their reaction and attempts to dismantle the successes of the Occupy Movement. The Democratic Party is no more than a mockery of their own namesake.
This may have been said a million times here on this board alone, but it needs to be repeated 10 million times more until the Duopoly finally weakens and comes crumbling down under the burden of its own appalling weight.
"the establishment liberal journal American Prospect gave Kucinich a little kick on the way out, comparing his political views to the 1960s musical “Hair”
The resentment on the part of the "right" is captured very well here. (Although not only the "right" has this attitude).
I belileve it is rooted in the fierce and unreasoning envy and resentment, that I still remember from about forty years ago, that was directed against anyone who could be labeled a hippie, or as antiwar, or as vegetarian, or had long hair or a beard, etc.
. Back then there was a lot of anger and jealousy because of the idea that counterculture guys got lots of sex compared to "responsible" guys. And of course, the idea, rather exaggerated, was that "hippie girls" would sleep with everybody- anybody, that is except those "straight" guys (straight didn't mean the same thing then, but meant what the word "square" meant in the forties and fifties) - the "normal", responsible, stable, practical, law-abiding, war-supporting, guys.
The "straight" guys couldn't get any attention from the allegedly slutty "hippie chicks". And so they really hated the hippie guys because of it.
I'm serious. Jealousy is a very powerful emotion, and can last a very long time.
The hate for the "left" or the antiwar people or the Occupy people today is almost indistinguishable from the hate directed against the antiwar folks, hippies, vegetarians, etc. in the 1960's and early 1970's..
It is so much like racism in that it is taught from generation to generation, and does not need a rational justification in order to thrive.
Nowadays, all that is needed is for someone to use any one of many possible keywords or phrases - perhaps the word "vegan", or one of the phrases "9/11 truth" or "freedom of choice", or "yoga", even, and a response is triggered as surely and probably just as involuntarily as the response of a nettle plant is triggered when you brush up against it. It's hardly even personal- although it always seems as if it is.
After forty some years I am used to it, and I bet Dennis is too. But it never becomes pleasant.
So, it's Revenge of the Squares.
It should be a game show!
Great post Frodnonag. I look at so many on the right, and I see them primarily as bitter adults who, just as you say, are underneath it all essentially jealous of the sensualists, and anyone who embraces novelty and/or freedom of consciousness. This bitterness drives them, it focuses them over the years of their lives to make life difficult for those who seek to enjoy its greatest pleasures.. and they seek to steal these treasures for themselves, though they hardly know how to properly enjoy all their money can buy them.
I'd also add that conservatives from both the left and the right hold scorn for such types (which certainly includes me) and therefore both earn my skepticism. I think, what's the point of defeating the patriarchal, authoritarian, top-down hierarchical model if its not replaced by a bottom-up, individual empowering, open, non-hierarchical, and sensually awakened model?
I think there really is none.
Yet further confirmation DC stands for Depravity Central that applies to almost every one of its political denizens and their related media supporters: Practically everyone there is a Crazy as defined by Greenwald. Too bad Nichols in his article didn't go to bat for Kucinich as Greenwald does, and at least at The Progressive his service was positively reviewed, http://progressive.org/dennis_kucinich.html
But it should be very clear now that the Democrat Party is now the party of a crazy combination of Wilson and Reagan with a good dose of Stalin. And the best thing that could happen for the USA and World is for all the crazies to drop dead simultaneously, including the Head Crazy in the Whitehouse.
This Shows just how much {dis}Respect that 'main-stream' Dims & their mouth-pieces have for someone like Kucinich. If he wants to protect his credibility it's time for Dennis to say good riddance to the Dims the same way these so-called 'main-stream' Dims have Dissed him!
It wasn't what you call "dims" that redistricted his state. But he lost credibility when he changed his position on single payer health care. It was a decision he made and will have to own up to. He obvisiously didn't take his original position seriously. If he wants just team loyalty and blind support he should turn republican.
"But he lost credibility when he changed his position on single payer health care."
One can argue that Dennis helped doom the Dems in 2010 when he hopped on board Obama's healthcare law. That one law, with its sellout to private insurance mandates, probably tipped the balance of the House in the election in 2010. He folded under full scale pressure from Obama when in fact, Dennis saw more clearly than Obama what the law meant. I admired him going into that, but he just wobbled away in the crunch, and it was very disappointing, not to mention fatal to the Dems.
That said, I'm sorry to see him defeated now, in spite of his flaws ...
Terrific comments by Glenn Greenwald.
The little guy is weird. Just like Barrack, Newt, Hillary, Bill, Willard, John, Rick, Ron, Sarah and others. None of them are people I'd invite to a backyard barbeque or Christmas, end of Ramadan, Winter Solstice or Purim dinner.
I have to wonder why they're the only choices we're given when voting for positions in our government. They have the ability and power to affect our lives, when they have absolutely no concept on how the rest of us live.
They don't any of them worry about what the price of a gallon of milk is, or how they can afford the rent and pay for gas to get back and forth to work or fuel to keep their homes warm. They don't worry about getting sick, or providing for their own retirement. Their kids don't attend public school, they don't cook their own meals or clean their own toilets, even their haircuts are paid for. Campaign funding is their only worry.
Doesn't it embarrass you even a *little* bit to be so egregiously ignorant? Or does your meta-ignorance protect you?
?
I referred to the fact that gardenernorcal's apparently not only totally ignorant that Dennis is solidly working-class, with a history of poverty, parental illness, and homelessness in childhood, and of joblessness and near-foreclosure on his one and only asset (his house) as an adult, he's apparently --I'm being charitable-- also oblivious of his own ignorance.
I am guessing it would depend on how I define "egregiously ignorant" wouldn't it? But I am guessing you are relying on me to accept your definition.
Mairead, You mean by "egregiously ignorant" any criticism of Dennis your Knight in Shining Armor. You can't accept the fact that Kucinich betrayed millions of people -- yes, betrayed -- when he voted for Opharma "care." This wasn't just a small slight, but a betrayal of the most egregious sort, because it affected the lives of tens of millions of people.
Dennis has to work to win back the people he betrayed. Only a fool would embrace a man who betrayed them so completely.
At this point, no one knows what Kucinich will do. Will he go the big $ corporate TV pundit route? Or will he continue to fight for the people? Who knows?
It will be fun to watch and see where he lands. I am betting he'll never worry about where his next rent payment is coming from.
You seem to be under some kind of impression that US Congressional pay is wildly extravagant. It is certainly a lot more than I make, but nothing like even the lowest paid executive in a corporation gets. Congressional pay is $165,000 per year. No they do not get free medical insurance, they get the same normal federal employee plan and a 1/3 employee-share of the premium. No, they don't coverage after they leave - at best, they have to pay through the nose for temporary COBRA-like extension of coverage. No, they don't get an extravagant retirement - they get the same retirement plan that any other federal employee or unionized public employee like a bus driver or teacher gets, and everyone used to get before the current era of the beaten-down worker. I assure you that Kucinich and his wife cook their own meals and pay their own bills and transport themselves about in their own cars or on the metro.
Prior to winning his congressional seat, and following his Cleveland mayoral defeat (and a divorce) Kucininch, was so poor he was living out of a car.
I believe Kucinich thought the public option would remain in the health care law. Instead it was compromised away as though it had no value.
Those who call him kooky should read his proposals more carefully, especially his call for a Department of Peace providing for education in peaceful problem solving and conflict resolution from elementary school on through a Peace College for diplomats, politicians and generals who are now exposed only to the teachings of the war school, West Point. And such health care money-savers as having the US take over the remaining (35%) cost of research, development and testing of new drugs. The government would then own all patents and would introduce each new drug as a generic that all drug companies could produce and sell in competition with one another.
Tomcarberry -- So after reading Greenwald's excellent summary of Kucinich's career as an anti-war maverick--often crossing his own party lines to follow his conscience-- you attack Mairead because she/he blindly defends Kucinich as "your knight in shining armor."
So Mairead is irrational for defending him, but your sententious hyperbole about Kucinich "betraying millions of people" is clear-headed?
Essentially, you would flush all of Kucinich's contributions down the toilet because of his single vote on the Obama healthcare plan. Doesn't this obsession seem myopic and petty when viewed in the context of Kucinich's entire career in Amerikan politics?
It should be emphasized, of course, that the vote was not against single payer. There was not going to be single payer under any circumstances -- no matter what Kucinich did. Employing political skullduggery, Obama and Rahm Emmanual had already removed the "public option"-- undoubtedly at the behest of the insurance companies.
Personally, I was disappointed that Kucinich voted for the Obama health care program. My own view is that the Obama program is so flawed, despite certain benefits, that it is counterproductive for achieving equitable and affordable health care.
However, I can disagree with Kucinich on this vote without coming unglued and ranting that "he betrayed millions of people" -- as though he just signed a bill to ship 50 million people off to a Gulag.
As a recap, the final vote was 220 to 215. Anyone familiar with basic arithmetic will discern that 219 is still greater than 216, and Kucinich could not have blocked the bill with a no vote.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/08/representatives-pass-obama-healthcare-legislation
People who are interested in a fair appraisal of Kucinich on health care -- as opposed to sanctimonious grandstanding & silly excommunications -- should look at his entire history.
Kucinich voted against the first incarnation of the plan in November 2009, striving to force in a public option and ensure that individual states could pursue their own single payer systems.
On the second vote, Kucinich was faced with a thumbs up or thumbs down on the Obama plan. Perhaps he decided that getting something passed--however flawed -- was better than nothing at all.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/03/17/87180/kucinich-support-health-bill/?mobile=nc
Although you would never know it from the sour grapes, Kucinich has worked as hard as anyone in Congress for a single payer plan. He is one of the co-authors of H.R. 676, which would create a single-payer, Medicare-for-all health care system.
Also, Kucinich has been consistently one of the strongest critics of profit driven health care in Congress.
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153995
“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.
In regard to the legacy of Kucinish, I'll stick with Greenwald (and Mairead). He deserves a great deal of credit for taking principled -- and usually lonely -- stances on some of the most important political issues of the last two decades.
Washington DC, already a wasteland, has become a lot bleaker with his loss.
Thank you for the efficiency in your writing. A lot of folks posting on CD would waste a page or two giving a detailed well reasoned opinion explaining why a poster was wrong when they say anything adverse about your beloved hero Dennis.
It's nice to see someone, like yourself, who can save your energy and our time. Thank you for your current comment and all of your other comments by doing what you always do: hurling feces like the chimpanzee you are.
Completely unfair to lump Kucinich in with those folks this way.
For one, he has obviously put the People in front of his funding or else he wouldn't be where he is.
For another, he has actually been personally down-and-out in his life, unlike the others in your list. If you are saying he has forgotten this experience, it would behoove you to actually have some evidence for this, yes?
Big Money conservatives bought the Democrats, the A. Prospect, the WP, the New Republic, etc. Money turns libs into neo-libs and cons. Is there anyone besides DK who won't sell their soul to Mammon?
Direct democracy
No matter who you vote for, the Government gets in.
The use of terms like "wacky" and "bizarre" - in the context of what Greenwald aptly describes as "scorn, mockery and condescension" - appear in a wide variety of situations, always reserved for those who fail to conform to a narrow script approved by the establishment . In this case, the sneers directed at Kucinich shine a light on how far the establishment has drifted to the right. The insults serve a psychological purpose generally understood as reinforcement, much like the little mantras chanted by cult followers. They do not reflect confidence.
"They do not reflect confidence."
They need to reassure each other that they really are wearing a new set of clothes, although I think more of the public is seeing their nakedness--a fact Glenn is helping to uncover.
I respect and admire you, Glenn. Thank you for being 'here'. That being said.
Kucinich, to his credit, confirmed his ufo encounter publicly in one of the major primary 'debates' (and i use the term more than loosely). I believe it was one of the cnn hacks that asked him if it was true, as MacLaine's book had just come out.
But i do think he is too loyal to hierarchical systems, as in party politics and the 'church'. That has been his problem, from my own point of view.
Not exactly the first time he was considered weird, "From Cleveland Magazine, June 1978":
""You can tell he's never accepted discipline," one psychiatrist notes. "He apparently has always been self-reliant, not used to making decisions with other people - even working without anyone's support.
"So those childish reactions fit that attitude of 'You've been mean, so we don't want you around,' or 'It's our ball, and you can't play.' I suspect he's only nice to people when he feels one up on them."
The psychiatrists add that other standard measures of maturity - such as the ability to postpone gratification, effective inhibition, a consistency of character - have been noticeably absent from Kucinich's behavior not only since last November, but throughout his entire political career."
http://www.clevelandmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=E73ABD6180B44874871A91F6BA5C249C&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=1578600D80804596A222593669321019&tier=4&id=4054D8EFA76E4F52BB1728375B2DD45A
Well, if a psychiatrist said it 34 years ago, it must be VERY relevant, right?
Maybe, maybe not. He lost me when he caved on single payer. The fact that 34 years ago others had reservations to me supports that my skepticism isn't misplaced.
Or you are mad enough at him that you'll drag out anything you can against him?
The entire Prog Caucus failed on Obamacare, not just Kucinich.
I think people just put way more hope and expectations on Kucinich's back than they give him helping hands to carry them.
He's just one guy, on Congressmen, one political figure of prominence.
As usual, Glenn Greenwald has it just right. Those who don't have the slightest right to judge Dennis J Kucinich jump on him with both feet in this outrageous display what slime ball bullies and cowards they truly are, that most espeically includes this GOP president in the White House, the complete phony. He won't get reelected and for that we should be thankful.
If we must put up with a GOP president, then let's stop playing stupid, silly childish games and listening to such as this Guggenheim authoritarian personality as Greenwald correctly refers to this off the wall creature from where the hell ever I don't know and dont' really give damn.
Meanwhile it would be interesting to see how many of those who are so rought on Kucinich are near as rough on Jimmy Carter. I've just completely had it with all his excuses for losing. He threw it away. He keeps whining about Edward Kennedy, as if Carter was entitlled to be president but never has a rough word for Jerry Brown who also opposed Carter within the party contest. Give me a break. Excuses are lovely coming from those who take a whiz on the party base then whine as did the Al Gore supporters about him losing. Please! Better to have a George McCovern whom I've personally met any day of the week.
Also I didn't see Kucinich blaming someone else for his defeat. Why didn't he blame the current president. At least in this case it might be pretty close to right. People have had it with him. Seriously other than his own family and Rachel Maddow, who is going to vote for this nothing? I sure as hell am not. I'd rather vote for the Mitt any day of the week, and don't hit me with all that whiny BS about the GOP is worse. Likely you're wrong. The one elected in 1952 was supposed to be worse too. Even Winston Churchilll was concerned about what he considered a victory for the war party. Once in office all that was for naught. Now let's lighten up how terrible the GOP. We don't even know if W really was worse than Al Gore woud have been. That's nothing but speculation. Gore talking the talk after losing in 2000. He had his opportunity and threw it away even worse than Carter. I've never seen a more terrible campaign for president. Gore in one debate even said he could see any differences with W on the issues. Just how silly could anyone get? That was real loser if ever one was. No differences with W! He said it one of the debates. How silly can any politician be? He might as well have conceded the election before hand. Why waste people's time? He easily could have won.
McGovern told a story in his talk he gave locally when I met him of when he lost a senate race in South Dakota in 1960 with John F Kennedy personally calling to say he was sorry he cost McGovern that race. McGovern told the audience his response was "Jack you didn't cost me that race. I lost it, and if I won it I wouldn't give you any credit." That's what we need more of today in the USA. Somebody with some real guts who will stand up for the party base. And no it wasn't a foregone conclusion that McGovern would lose back in 1970. Were that so, why did the big wigs in the GOP come to the then GOP president after the midterm election results telling him he had better get out of Vietnam or he and the party were finished. The old cut and run special! "Our man" in the White House got the message and did the cut and run special. Reelection big time! McGovern with the his issue ripped out of his hands! Now so much for it was so inevitable! It was no such thing or these GOP elites would have known about it.
"We don't even know if W really was worse than Al Gore woud have been."
Even if Gore won, we wouldn't have known if he was worse than W, because it is doubtful that Israel could have resisted the temptation of moving a loyal Israeli from a heartbeat away from the presidency into the oval office. W probably saved Gore's life by stealing the election.
Though its a bit off topic Your point about Gore vs Bush 2000 is key. Why did/do so many main-stream Dim talking head apologists blame Al Gore's 'defeat' in 2000 on Ralph Nader?
There were 4 reasons why Gore didn't get into the White-House in 2000: 1} the Busites / Neo-Cons HIJACKED the election in FL... -2} The Supreme Court's [5 out 9 members] violated the Constitution's mandate that all votes be counted by ordering a halt to the recount - thus giving Bush FL... -3} Gore FAILED to Protect Either HIS &/or Clinton's Home States of TN & AR (reverse just this tactical error & Gore would have won despite FL & the Court)... 4} Nader's 2000 bid- which only became significant after the first 3 conditions were in effect. Yet Dem loyalist talking-heads only focus on the least significant factor [Nader] & scapegoat him, thus constantly ignoring &/or down-playing the other 3 FAR More Significant Factors in Gore's 2000 'defeat'- as a fear tool to keep progressives towing the Dims' line.
Main-stream Dim talking-head apologists like to 'wet-dream' over the theoretical virtues of a Gore presidency vis-a-vis the Bush / Cheneyites. YET- They seemingly forget [or ignore] that not only was Gore a main-stream Clinton Corp Dim- who in the wake of the 9-11 'New Pearl Harbor' event would have almost certainly went into Afghanistan in search of that 'Phantom Menace' Bin-Laden / Al-Qaeda- BUT Also that Joe Lieberman WAS HIS Running Mate!!! So how about this scenario:
If the official 9-11 story has any validity [& that's a Mighty BIG IF]- On 9-11 Pres Gore is taken out by an attack on Air-Force One -or- by whatever that hit the Pentagon crashes into Pres Gore's Oval Office instead. Thus Lieberman would have been the post 9-11 Pres. In that case would things really have been so much different under Lieberman than what happened under Bush??? Would he not have went after the Afghan Taliban, Saddam in Iraq, & even bomb-bomb-bombed Iran [in the words of Lieberman's GOOD-FRIEND JOHN {insane}McCAIN - who he probably would have picked as HIS VP or Sec of Defense]- All in the name of the War on Terror & ‘Spreading Democracy’ - the same way that Bush DID??!!
IMO: That scenario is just as valid as their theoretical scenario of a virtuous hypothetical Gore presidency.
And what of the other members of the Progressive Caucus who voted for ACA? Where is your scorn for them?
You're willing to condemn the man's entire body of service over one vote?
I'm disappointed in you, gardenernorcal.