Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Sorry, but isn’t satire supposed to be funny?

No.

In my opinion, it is sad that the public expects their candidates to have their views and ideas on what is good for our nation set in stone from the age of 18 on and be able to prove it. This is so unrealistic and quite frankly, if a candidate had not the flexibility to review information, learn new facts, and then change their view or policies accordingly, we would not want to vote for them because they would then appear like George W. Bush.

Kucinich’s stand on regime change in America in order to hand Iraq’s nation building over to the U.N. with far less participation on our part, seemed to me a sound idea. Research shows a high correlation between pre-school students 3 to 5 and their success in elementary school afterward.

As for Karl Rove, well, brilliant strategist one must say, but, the proof is in the pudding. We’ll see how things turn out in November ‘04. I frankly think he will win.

The reason is the American public that supported him will have to admit they were hoodwinked on Iraq and that the economic recovery was not what they expected. Or, they can deny they were wrong in supporting him and vote him back for another 4 years in order to save face. Or they can blame Bush for failed policies and not living up to his promises, but, that will require Bush opponents to make the case.

So, whether Bush is reelected or not depends upon how well opposing parties can make the case that Bush himself has been wrong on too many issues. The Green Party and MoveOn.org and Common Cause and a host of other organziations have been making the case, but, except for an 8% increase in Bush’s disapproval rating of late, I don’t see they are making much of a dent. Not yet at least.

In all seriousness, I do agree with a lot of things that Kucinich says. I wish a more effective person had advocated his positions.

Politicians are entitled to change their minds. I wasn’t bothered by the fact that Al Gore’s opinion about abortion appeared to have changed between the early 80’s and the year 2000.

In Kucinich’s case, the abortion flipflop was virtually simultaneous with his decision to run for President. In May 2002, Studs Terkel wrote a piece in The Nation encouraging Kucinich to run for President. Here is what Studs had to say:

“Dennis, there’s one thing I’d like to change your mind on—your stand on a woman’s right to choose. I know, because of your background, you are of two minds on the subject. I have faith in your honesty and in your belief in the dignity of the person that you will make the right choice: pro.”

Now, what do you know? Kucinich “changed his mind” and ran for President. Bit expedient, eh?

I almost feel like a bully pointing this out, but if someone’s going to hold himself up as the defender of the true faith, he deserves a little scrutiny, just like the front-runner.

In Kucinich’s case, the abortion flipflop was virtually simultaneous with his decision to run for President.

I agree, that circumstance is very highly suspicious. The question for me though is not whether he has personally converted, but, if he would work to enact the majority will of the people? I don’t believe a pro-life candidate who wins has to promote pro-life policies if the majority of those he represents are pro-choice. This of course, requires integrity as a person and politician.

I agree though, with your comment made in the last paragraph. Scrutiny is a vastly important activity in an election cycle and Dennis should be no exception.