Americans are marketable people. Give us the shiny object and we will vote for it. Kucinich is not seen as being very "presidential looking" so why bother covering him?
I really need to be a better voter and do my research NOW. I saw ONE Ron Paul sign the other day. ONE! That is the ONLY one I have seen.
Ron paul is the perfect conduit for the type of discontent with the political situation. People feel disenfranchised from the distant and centralised political authorities, who cater to large narrow self interests and lobbyists.
I watched Obama's victory speech last night and was really very impressed. It was quite simply a brilliant speech that could only come from someone who genuinely understood what he was talking about. Good luck to him.
true, he sounds impressive, but I really don't see anything serious in him. For instance his voting record on Iraq is identical to Clinton's, his position on Iran is the same, social security and health care same as Clinton. He keeps talking about change but I don't really see what he's gonna change I think its politics as usual. I like Edwards though, he actually is attacking the right sort of people, the lobbyists, corporations with too much power. Its interesting, and he's the only candidate saying he doesn't just wanna be a corporate democrat or a corporate republican, he actually talks about why he would be a change. I'm behind Ron Paul though, i sent him $25!!!
put it this way if he was truly radical or "anti-establishment" like the bbc and cnn are describing him, they wouldn't even be talking about him. Ron Paul is the only radical candidate in the race, aside from maybe Gravel, who will make wholesale changes to the US and their role in the world. watch out for his videos and he may shock some people in New Hampshire!
Looks like the Kucinich and Ron Paul crowds might have something in common :
Nick Michelewicz asks Dennis Kucinich who he would choose as a running mate if he had to choose from the GOP. Without hesitation Kucinich chooses Ron Paul
This does reaffirm the thought that Ron Paul could be a friend of the traditional left {or that he is the desirable Republican when viewed from the left}.
As such, an ideal run off for President would be Obama (with Kucinich as VP) versus Ron Paul.
that would be an amazing run-off! Edwards or Obama, with kucinich VP, Ron Paul/Nader. The contest would be all positive, serious discussion about limited gov vs social programmes and a mixed economy, limits to non-interventionism, fiscal and monetary policy.
That would be ultimate 'mare for special interest groups corporations!
that would be an amazing run-off! Edwards or Obama, with kucinich VP, Ron Paul/Nader. The contest would be all positive, serious discussion about limited gov vs social programmes and a mixed economy, limits to non-interventionism, fiscal and monetary policy.
That would be ultimate 'mare for special interest groups corporations!
This would be the reverse of the present situation when the main runners on both sides promoted the special interest groups/corporations [MIC = Military Industrial Complex]
Gravel: All three leading Democrats are politics as usual
Transcript:
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR: Do you distinguish between the three leading candidates coming out of Iowa and going into New Hampshire, in terms of the polling? You know, Obama and Edwards and Clinton. Do you distinguish between them in any way?
MIKE GRAVEL: No. I think that they're the product of the celebrity nature of American communication. And that's the sadness of it all. You know. They have the same level of celebrity attention as Britney Spears has.
JAY: When you get down to the policy level, there are some differences between them. Are they significant differences?
GRAVEL: No, not at all. They're not significant. All three of them want the health care paid for through business enterprise, which cripples business enterprise. What's the difference? And as far as education, they're all three endorsed by the NEA [National Education Association]. You're not going to see any changes in our educational system. What else? Education, health care. Two vital ones. The rest is just rinky-dinking around.
JAY: Edwards has certainly been talking more aggressively about taking on corporate America.
GRAVEL: Oh, yeah. Tell me how you're going to do that. No. I mean, how do you do that? I don't know how to do that. I know, if I can empower the American people, that they can sustain some policies, that I would do that.
JAY: Certainly there are laws Congress could pass. I mean, a president working with Congress—.
GRAVEL: Oh, Congress could do a good job, theoretically, but it can't. Why? Its owned lock, stock, and barrel by corporate America. So you think you're going to become president and you're going to turn to the Congress and say, “Let's really straighten out corporate America.” This is foolishness. It's fantasy. But it sounds good on the stump. I could make that kind of speech. Oh, man. Just listen to me. What am I going to do to corporate America? You can't believe. And I know a lot about corporate personhood and POCLAD and all of that. But so what?
JAY: But in a campaign like this, if someone has the potential of winning and makes some kind of promises, in theory they can mean something.
GRAVEL: In theory what it means is you're a hypocrite. That's what it means in theory, because if you're smart enough to know you can't deliver, and you tell them you can deliver, what are you doing? You're raising expectations and you're lying to the people. Or you're too dumb to know you're lying to the people.
JAY: Do you distinguish between the leading Democrats and the leading Republicans?
GRAVEL: Oh, the leading Republicans, in my point of view, are nutty as loons. They really are. I mean, they're warmongers. I mean, the Democrats at least—here, I'll give you this example. The Republicans and Bush. Lump them together. You've got boiling water. You take a frog, you throw him in the water, and the frog jumps out. You get the Democrats. You get tepid water. You put the frog in the water, and you turn the heat up slowly, and you cook the frog, and nobody knows the difference.
JAY: Okay, but that's an argument for saying there isn't significant differences between the Republicans and the Democrats.
GRAVEL: Where are the Democrats raising all their money right now? Wall Street.
JAY: No, wait. Hold on. When I asked you first, you said they're nutty as loons. That kind of implies the others aren't nutty as loons.
GRAVEL: Well, they're not as bad, no, they're not as bad. Well, no, they're not as bad. Far from it. They're not as bad. But they're pretty bad. Here. The Democrats are raising more money from Wall Street than the Republicans are right now, from the same people who own the Republican Party.
JAY: So, then, what do you make of Obama's promise of change and all the rhetoric that's been going along with his campaign?
GRAVEL: It's foolish. Foolish. Dangerous. Dangerous, because he doesn't even recognize that he can't deliver. That's dangerous. I would rather - Hillary. At least she knows what she's talking about. He doesn't.
JAY: Edwards?
GRAVEL: Edwards? He probably knows better, what he's talking about, than Obama. Obama of the three is the most dangerous, because he raises greater expectations of the youth and can't deliver. And the worst thing a leader can do is raise expectations, and they don't happen. You create a whole new generation of cynics. And that's what he's doing. And he’s used the line [inaudible] reason out what he's saying. You know, the statement I like that I've heard from young people: there's no ‘there’ there. And listen to the words. Make a speech and use the word change ten times—what specifically are you going to change? You're going to change the health care system? Not really. You're going to change the military-industrial complex? Not really. He wants another hundred thousand more troops. Are you going to change anything about your relationship with Iran? Not really. Nukes are on the table. Are you going to change anything with respect to Israel? Not really. He's supported by AIPAC. Are you going to change anything for education? He's on the education committee. He's supported by the NEA. Where's change? I don't see any change. But he doesn't say any of those things. He lets you figure out what the change is. So it's like an actor. What does an actor do? He gives you a scene, and you read into it what the scene means to you. And that's what he's doing. It's terrible, because what you read into it isn't what's going to happen, 'cause he's going to have the reality. The simplest one of all is we have a $50 to $70 trillion fiscal gap. There's no money to do anything, never mind this imperialism, which is why there's no money to do anything. Here. You recall that Hillary, Edwards, and Obama all said, when asked by Tim Russert, would you have the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2013? And all three of them equivocated, weren't sure that they could do it. And then you heard just last night, oh, yeah; I'm going to start withdrawing them immediately. What are they talking about? Say one thing; say another thing. You know, withdrawing immediately, what does that mean? We'll withdraw ten this month, and then I'm going to change my mind next month? It's gross hypocrisy - is really what it is. It's politics as usual, and that's sad, because we're at a turning point in '08. If we continue with American imperialism, we're done as a nation. Truly are. And two things coming at us. We're going to be irrelevant in the world. You see this in foreign affairs when you see all these other countries making arrangements by themselves; don't even invite us to the meeting. Why? We come to a meeting; we think we know it all. We're the superpower—you've got to listen to us.
JAY: Which meeting do you have in mind?
GRAVEL: Oh, they have meetings between China and India, between India and Malaysia, between Pakistan and India. You name it. There's meetings going on all over the world, and we're not invited.
Kucinich Asks for New Hampshire Recount in the Interest of Election Integrity
DETROIT–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the most outspoken advocate in the Presidential field and in Congress for election integrity, paper-ballot elections, and campaign finance reform, has sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State asking for a recount of Tuesdays election because of unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots.
'I am not making this request in the expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of votes that were cast on my behalf,' Kucinich stressed in a letter to Secretary of State William M. Gardner. 'But, Serious and credible reports, allegations, and rumors have surfaced in the past few days. It is imperative that these questions be addressed in the interest of public confidence in the integrity of the election process and the election machinery not just in New Hampshire, but in every other state that conducts a primary election.'
He added, 'Ever since the 2000 election and even before the American people have been losing faith in the belief that their votes were actually counted. This recount isnt about who won 39% of 36% or even 1%. Its about establishing whether 100% of the voters had 100% of their votes counted exactly the way they cast them.'
Kucinich, who drew about 1.4% of the New Hampshire Democratic primary vote, wrote, This is not about my candidacy or any other individual candidacy. It is about the integrity of the election process. No other Democratic candidate, he noted, has stepped forward to question or pursue the claims being made.
New Hampshire is in the unique position to address and, if so determined, rectify these issues before they escalate into a massive, nationwide suspicion of the process by which Americans elect their President. Based on the controversies surrounding the Presidential elections in 2004 and 2000, New Hampshire is in a prime position to investigate possible irregularities and to issue findings for the benefit of the entire nation, Kucinich wrote in his letter.
Without an official recount, the voters of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation will never know whether there are flaws in our electoral system that need to be identified and addressed at this relatively early point in the Presidential nominating process, said Kucinich, who is campaigning in Michigan this week in advance of next Tuesdays Presidential primary in that state.
Breaking the Sound Barrier: Democracy Now! Re-Hosts NBC Las Vegas Debate to Include Kucinich After NBC Wins Appeal to Exclude Him
Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich was missing from the stage at last night’s Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC in Las Vegas after he lost a last-minute legal fight with the network over his participation. Last week, NBC told Kucinich that he had met the criteria for the debate. Then, less than two days later, the network changed the criteria and declared that Kucinich was no longer qualified. On Monday, a Nevada judge ordered NBC to include Kucinich, but then NBC appealed the ruling and actively fought to keep him off the stage. On Tuesday night, less than an hour before the debate, the Nevada Supreme Court sided with NBC. Democracy Now! decided to break the sound barrier and give Kucinich a chance to take part. In an exclusive broadcast, we re-braodcast excerpts of the debate and give the Ohio Congressman a chance to answer the questions he might have faced if he hadn’t been silenced.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
that would be an amazing run-off! Edwards or Obama, with kucinich VP, Ron Paul/Nader. The contest would be all positive, serious discussion about limited gov vs social programmes and a mixed economy, limits to non-interventionism, fiscal and monetary policy.
