August 15, 2003
Why I'm Voting for Dennis
Politicans and Presidential candidates use the media and the web to try to convince voters that they deserve their support, but often it is the opinions of ordinary people that sway my opinion. If you haven’t given Dennis Kucinich much thought, or if you don’t know what Kucinich stands for this blog entry from the sometimes political “Something’s Got to Break” is an excellent primer on the candidate.
“I’m pledging my vote to a Polish-American vegan with radical ideas and Hollywood friends who believes in holistic medicine, who looks like a shriveled voodoo doll, and who has no hope in hell of winning against Bush. Trust me, I’ve already heard all about it. Here’s what I have to say to the inevitable shrieks of indignation.”
With that the author of the post takes on five arguments for not voting for Kucinich and explains his reasons for disagreeing. The author’s viewpoint on Kucinich is an interesting one as he grew up in an American socialist environment (the United States Army). The post is fairly passionate, and includes a number of links to news articles on Kucinich (both pro and con).
One theme that runs through this post is a sense of hope for the future. As gaijin writes:
"That's what Kucinich represents to me: a chance to not be afraid for the future anymore. Hell, isn't that what we're all running on these days? Fear of what's to come, where the next terrorist attack'll be, when the market'll crash again, when we'll be "downsized" and escorted out of the office -- it's all part of the way we live now, and I'm sick of it. But isn't it too "expensive" to do the things Kucinich says he wants to do? Nope, not in the grand scheme of things. Education, healthcare, and social programs are a drop in the bucket compared to things like tax subsidies for big corporations and missile defense shields that don't even work right. The money's already out there; it's just a matter of re-prioritizing things."
If Kucinich can rekindle the hope for a better future for Americans and turn that hope into votes, then there's a good chance that he will be a serious contender for the nomination. Posted by Lefty at August 15, 2003 11:45 AM
Nice post. Just out of curiosity, are you aware that DK is blogging over at Larry Lessig’s blog? (http://www.lessig.org/blog)
Obviously slanted, but this site touches on some important issues about Kucinich: http://kucinich.com/What You Need to Know.htm
I think defaulting Cleveland is enough to cause raised eyebrows, some of the other stuff reeks of Right-Wing muckraking though.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at August 15, 2003 01:52 PMLets just see..
1. The most liberal person in the race.. Check
2. Raised almost no money.. check
3. Possible Green endorsement.. check
4. No support from the DLC. Check
5. No national name recognition.. check
6. Never been in a position higher than the House.. check
He is an intersting guy but supporting him is about as pointless as Ms Brawn and Joe ( GOP )Lieberman.
Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at August 15, 2003 02:09 PMWow…I’m flattered for the link, seriously; I should state, though, that I didn’t write it as an attempt to proselytize or anything like that, but mostly to get things straight in my head.
As for the bit about defaulting Cleveland when Kucinich was mayor, I’d take that with a grain of salt. I’ve read several different takes on his tenure as mayor, and some are actually pretty complimentary. The reason the city defaulted was because it was being squeezed by CEI, a private power company, in order to force it to sell its own city-owned municipal utility. CEI had leverage because bankers who held the city’s debts were tied to the company and wanted it to take over the entire Cleveland market (thus making them money, naturally).
These banks refused to roll over the debt to the new fiscal year unless Kucinich sold the public utility (Muny Light), but he refused. They followed through on their threat, and the city suffered. I’ve never been to Cleveland, so I don’t know how the folks back home all see the guy, but several local magazine articles I’ve read have vindicated Kucinich, in part because the company he refused to sell became one of the most successful publicly-owned utilities in the country. According to Kucinich’s site, the Cleveland City Council gave him a commendation, in fact, essentially for pushing the city into default by not selling Muny Light.
Again, there’re many different sides to the mess, I’m sure, but I’d say there were some heavy-duty extenuating circumstances there.
As for Kucinich having no name recognition, support, or money, so what? Neither did Carter during much of the primaries, and I’m told nobody figured Clinton would ever get the nod, either (I mean, come on, a bubba governor from Arkansas?). You never know…
Posted by: Jeremy Hart at August 15, 2003 10:05 PMTake it from a compassionate conservative…
Jake really hit the nail on the head with his comment. Nice work buddy.
Also Dennis is one of the worst public speakers I have ever seen. He screems like psychotic guy on the street. I saw the Democrat/Labor debates and he yelled at the other democrats. I was waiting for Dean and Kerry to go slug him. You can watch this at Cspan.org and he comes off really bad.
Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at August 18, 2003 03:49 AMOh, I saw the AFL-CIO debates, believe me — although I guess I viewed his speaking somewhat differently than you did, because I heard genuine, angry feeling, not psychotic screaming (slight difference, I know). Granted, he was very confrontational, but doesn’t anybody who’s going to go up against Bush need to be confrontational? Dean has been aggressive in his criticisms of Bush, and Kerry’s even gotten harsher; I don’t think the emotion is going to be a detriment.
Also, while I liked his performance, the AFL-CIO was not a particularly good night for Kucinich. He is actually a very intelligent, very understandable speaker — if they ever re-run his televised Q&A sessions with the folks in Iowa (do they do re-runs on C-SPAN?), watch ‘em. Good stuff, and probably more what you’re looking for — he was merely in fire-and-brimstone mode in Chicago, I think.
As for the pointlessness of voting for Kucinich, sure, he may well not have a chance — if enough people think he has no chance, he definitely won’t — but part of the point of my original piece (the one linked to in this post) was that he doesn’t need to win, but merely to be in the race. The more liberal candidates in the race are already forcing the more right-wing — er, “moderate”, sorry — candidates to address progressive issues that people like the DLC would like to see avoided. So in that sense, even if my vote for him in the primary is wasted, it’s a win-win deal in the long run for liberals in general.
Posted by: Jeremy Hart at August 21, 2003 01:30 AMKucinich is a good enough guy, but he’s not owning up to his flip-flop on choice and other flaws in his record. His accomplishments in office are somewhat meager.
See: http://dennisthemenace.blogspot.com
Posted by: Dennis T. Menace at August 29, 2003 04:32 AM
