Watching the AFL-CIO/MSNBC debate from Chicago I was impressed against all my previous opinions of him by Dennis Kucinich. Some points:
– Of all the participants, he gave the closest thing to straight answers to questions.
– He gave the audience at the debate his direct attention… most of the others were aiming at getting their propaganda to the national media.
– He didn’t attack his associates as much as he attacked the Republicans.
– He was clearest of all the candidates on issues like NAFTA and the Iraq War.
Oddly enough, he also showed a small glimmer of charisma which I really didn’t expect. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have the money that the top 3 (Clinton, Obama, Edwards)have and he doesn’t get the same amount of attention that they do.
Now, as to whether I think he would be a good President. I still would prefer the person with the greatest experience and the real support of Americans… Al Gore. But I would not rule out Dennis Kucinich as Vice President. Or perhaps Speaker of the House.
Dennis generally tries to explain how he is going to get something done, which is probably why you felt that he gave straight answers. The problem is that on every single issue, his solutions or plans are unrealistic. In some cases, like single-payer health care, I’m just glad someone is up there saying we need it. But straight talk isn’t always that straight when it is pie-in-the-sky talk.
here’s a link to 10 issues highlighted by Kucinich:
http://www2.kucinich.us/issues
I’d really like to hear what you consider to be unrealistic about his approach to each issue.
Thanks for putting up that link. I continue to be a bit flabergasted at far far too many progressives denial about Kucinch as a serious contender for President…while he seems to embody all the issues progressives care about. It’s like he’s the Rodney Dangerfield of democratic candidates..he gets no respect. I don’t get it.
Unrealistic means that Kusinich’s perspectives undermine the traditional oxymoron, honest politician. While he hasn’t got a chance in hell of even making it to the primaries, he deserves all the respect in the world for trying to represent the peoples’ best interests.
you will find a different meaning for “unrealistic”.
I was asking for substance re: the claim Kucinich’s solutions are unrealistic, i.e. pie-in-the-sky.
I think that what shergald meant is that there is no room for discussing substance, when the candidate in question is refusing to practice politics as usual, i.e., to defer to the determination of the powers-that-be of what objectives are “realistic”.
“Unrealistic” is a code word for something that the American people want and that is required for America to be a flourishing society, but that is getting blocked by corporations and the ruling elite invested in empire.
Single-payer health care is unrealistic. Getting out of Iraq is unrealistic. Impeaching Bush and Cheney is unrealistic.
And changing politics as usual is unrealistic.
You have hit the nail on the head. It is unrealistic to get out from under government by corporation, so let’s be realistic and accept that corruption ala K Street is here to stay.
Kucinich’s politics were not unrealistic in the 60s and early 70s. That’s one reason many of us have difficulty with 2007 realism. But realism today is as Booman says.
So realism is DLC/AIPAC Republican Lite K Street politics henceforth. Really? So why is everyone on the Left down on Bush-Rove?
Well, in the end you may be correct. Daily Kos and all the small left wing blogs kin to it have readily admitted that they wield absolutely no weight at all when it comes to electing candidates. Lamont proved that much. To think so is unrealistic.
I thought that the netroots were about restoring democracy to government. But it turns out they are just about doing away with Republican-style criminality, not Democratic-style K Street corruption.
If the blogs you speak of “wield absolutely no weight at all when it comes to electing candidates”, I don’t see what they would lose by supporting a truly progressive candidate up through the primaries. As it is, they just follow the line of the corporate media about which candidates are “serious” and which are not.
Even when the only candidate that comes close to representing the real values and wishes of the American people is dubbed “unserious”.
So what is the point of the netroots? To provide the (misleading) impression that there still exists in America a civil society that is not controlled by corporations, I suppose.
According to Kos, it is to influence the party agenda. Is it really doing that? I wonder.
plan and his standing out as a supporter of tradtional labor … seems to me to have led to deep underfunding of his campaign compared to Obama’s and Clinton’s. Anyway, we’ve seen Wellstone and Jerry Brown and others run low-money but pretty succesful campaigns. But in general Booman is right on how lack of money limits political chances. Especially for conventional politicians like Edwards (and that lack of creativity is a big part of his problems). He needs a lot of money to run his traditional campaign and have a chance at winning.
Maybe a reasonable and realistic progressive politician should choose which progressive battles to fight and which ones to bail on. I’m not gonna vote for a Dem if he/she bails on all the important battles (let’s say, these big three: for a non-imperialist foreign policy, against corporate free trade / globalization, for health care for all), which I think is the case with Obama and Clinton so far.
That may well be shergald’s point, however, my original comment was directed at Booman’s comment. Booman has labeled Kucinich’s solutions as unrealistic pie-in-the-sky; I’d like to know his reasons for doing so.
My implication was that Booman has bought into the corporate media’s position that since Kucinich refuses to accept as immutable the current power structure, he must not be treated as a serious candidate.
I too would like to know if Booman had a different sense of “unrealistic” in mind than the one I gave, namely, that something is “unrealistic” if it is good for the people but bad for corporations.
But since Booman is not replying, I assume that what he meant is that Kucinich’s health care plan is “unrealistic” “pie-in-the-sky” because it cuts out the insurance companies. Apparently, Booman thinks that the system is so corrupt that in cases where it has to choose between the interests of the people and of corporations, the corporations will win every time, so that there’s no point in even proposing programs that benefit the people at the expense of corporations, never mind fighting for such programs.
Of course, this is precisely the strategy of pre-emptive surrender that the Democrats have been following ever since they took control of Congress.
what Booman based his comment on, hence the link and the request for clarification. Keep in mind, Booman didn’t just address Kucinich’s health care plan, he said Kucinich’s solutions were unrealistic on every single issue. Were I to guess about his meanings and motives I would be less charitable than you, so I will wait and see if he responds before forming an opinion about the possible meaning of his comment.
Yes, we deserve a clarification. We must not let this matter drop.
I have had it with latter-day American politics as usual. Already, we are in lesser-evil mode, comparing candidates who would consider using nukes to “fight terrorism” with ones who would invade our allies without using nukes to do the same.
His health care plan is both a case in point and an exception. We need non-profit health care in this country and it is affordable, even more affordable, than the status quo or his opponents’ plans. Kucinich explains this. But he doesn’t explain how he can overcome the pharma, medical industries and get it done. Why? Because there isn’t an answer.
He talks about a number of issues in the same way. He’ll lay out plans, explain how he’ll pay for them, but never explain how (first of all) he’ll ever get elected or how he’ll convince even Democratic politicians to support his plan.
Many of his proposals are good, some great, some a little goofy, but none of them are likely to become reality even if he somehow did become president.
Notice I didn’t say that he should get out of the race or stop proposing idealistic policies. My main point is that he seems to be a straight talker but that he really isn’t because he makes all kinds of claims that he can’t back up.
That’s not all his fault, by a long shot. But it does make him less than a straight talker.
I want to address a few of your points.
1)AFAIK, there are between 10 and 15 main party candidates running for POTUS. They are all running for office in pretty much the same way. This campaign process is how each and every one of them expects to get elected.
2)Bush offered no explanation about how he would get Congress to pass the recent FISA amendment yet he was able to get both opposition controlled Houses to pass it. To suggest that a President with so little public or political support can manipulate Congress while a freshly elected, full of political capital, President would be unable to convince Congress to pass popular legislation doesn’t seem reasonable to me.
3)It should be fairly easy for any President to use her/his bully pulpit to put pressure on Congress to pass popularly supported legislation (if they really want to). The name of the game is Hardball.
4) He backs his straight talk up as much as he can short of being elected. No candidate can push through their agendas without being elected.
In a world where Golden State beats Dallas, Kucinich can win if people want change and vote for the candidate that most closely represents their views.
But I agree with all of sfflyman’s points, which I think he makes very well.
The problem of needing to overcome the resistance of the ruling elite and the media that work for them in order to enact legislation in the common good has been with us for a long time. FDR had this problem, even though he was very much from the ruling elite himself. One of the main ways he overcame it was with his Fireside Chats, talking “straight” directly to the people, bypassing the media, which was very much against any New Deal programs.
A president could do the same thing today with single-payer health care if he really wanted to. I am sure of it, because it is so superior to for-profit schemes, as you note. All he would have to do is explain it directly to the American people often enough, and keep on attacking whoever stood in his way until he succeeded.
The problem is getting such a person elected. That is why it is so important to the corporate media that people like Kucinich are not taken seriously.
Nevertheless, you do make a good critique of Kucinich’s general approach. Part of the problem I think is that he is so isolated: he does not have something like the DLC and a network of think tanks, not to mention media outlets, that he can rely on.
I agree with sfflyman that Kucinich would stand a good chance of enacting single-payer health care if he got elected. But otherwise, I agree with you that there is an other-worldly quality to his pronouncements. Still, that is no reason for him not to be the progressive blogosphere’s flagship candidate at this stage, which he most definitely is not, except at sites like Democrats.com.
Of course, Kucinich could make his discourse more of this world, by talking about the interests that stand in the way of the American’s people’s getting what they need and want. But then he wouldn’t be allowed to participate in the debates, just as Mike Gravel wasn’t allowed at the last one. If Kucinich were more of a straight talker, the media would ignore him even more than they already do.
And that brings us back to Kucinich’s isolation and to the netroots. If he were the netroots’ favored candidate and could rely on its support, he would be in the position to be more of a straight talker.
By not embracing Kucinich, the netroots have already fallen into lesser-evil mode, as is exemplified by your piece yesterday on Obama and his foreign policy adviser.
you don’t understand. I don’t support Kucinich for a variety of reasons, including his shitty job as mayor of Cleveland (which is legendary). I don’t much like him. I certainly don’t and won’t trust him with this country or with my agenda. He’s about the last person I would hire to represent me for anything. You’re missing that if you are hung up on a couple of policies you agree with.
You don’t use your point guard for a jump ball or lead-off hitter when you need a grand slam. He’s not a vehicle for progressives. He makes us look like fools.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0123-04.htm
Those crazy Clevelanders, they have such a strange way of rewarding failure. The guys an embarrassment as mayor, hey, I know, lets elect him to the House…
Anyway, it’s your blog and your opinion, my curiosity about your reasoning has run it’s course. Your dislike and distrust are what I suspected was behind your original comment.
Thanks.
It’s your right not to like him, and not to make a candidate’s proposed the main criterion for judging them.
Unfortunately, none of the other candidates is exactly an FDR, either. None of them inspires confidence, as far as I’m concerned. At least Kucinich has the right policies.
The only potential candidate who has shown that he can run things is Michael Bloomberg. (If Bill Richardson is an unusually great governor, I’m not aware of it.) And we don’t even know if he’s going to run. (The least that can be said for him is that he is probably more liberal than Hillary.)
http://www.superiorpics.com/magic_johnson/
So much for conventional wisdom…
good point, but if you are suggesting that DK is MJ then I gotta ask, WTF?
MJ was easily one of the best to ever play the game. A few years ago I had an encounter with him I will never forget.
Like Kucinich, I’m a member of IATSE. We had set up the Macy’s Passport fashion show on a pier in SF. This is a non-profit show, the proceeds of which go to fight AIDS. Magic was one of the “celebrities” participating in the show.
We built the stage in the end of the pier that was over the water. Behind the stage was the pier’s office area. The space over the office was accessible by 2 stairways as part of the pier’s original construction. The show’s designers designated the area a Green Room and we set up different areas there, for caterers and such, with pipe and drape.
One thing about working in the IA, often you work 12-14 hour days with no time off until the job is done (I did this once for 6 weeks with no days off, but that is another story). The only way our families know we’re alive is because the pile of dirty laundry keeps growing. If I recall correctly, this show took about a week to set up, so most of us were a little toasty by the time the first show was upon us.
I was sitting, in my show blacks, backstage on the edge of the stage. I was near the location of my first cue; I was preset. I also happened to be only a few feet away from the Green Room’s “down” staircase.
As I sat there, waiting for the show to begin, I witnessed Willie Brown, an elitist if there ever was one, come down the stairs all his regal glory, surrounded by his fawning admirers. A few moments later I saw Magic. He, too, was coming down the stairs with an entourage. As he neared the bottom of the stairs, his head towering over the sea of heads engulfing him, he looked over to me and asked “How you doin’?”
I replied “How are you?”
“Great” he said. By then he had reached the bottom of the stairs and so he started walking away. He took two, maybe three steps and then stopped, turned around, and looked at me. “But how are you doing?” he asked.
“I’m fine, thanks, have a great show.” was my reply.
He then continued on his way with his crowd of admirers. I sat there and thought how cruel fate was to have made me acknowledge that glorious humanity exists even in a fucking Laker.
Given that Kucinich is the only candidate, Democrat or Republican, who significantly reflects the American people’s values and wishes, I find it hard to understand why the progressive blogosphere dismisses him so easily. The only answer I can think of is that it is more beholden to the Democratic Party than it is to the will of the American people.
As it is, when it comes to Kucinich, the blogosphere just tends to parrot the corporate media.
Kucinich fate was that he is an Alfred W. Neuman lookalike. He doesn’t worry about telling the truth. Neither does Gravell, even though it cost him a disinvitation to the AFL-CIO debate.
Hillary is talking positively about government by corporation because she got a few bucks from social workers and nurses. And the rest came from who, Hillary? And she will get away with it.
When it comes to facial expressions rather than ears, Bush resembles Alfred E. Neuman more than Kucinich does, but that did not stop him. (Also, Bush is short for a presidential candidate. He is shorter than both Gore and Kerry. In normal elections (i.e., ones that are not stolen), the taller candidate usually wins.)
are by and large mainstream media wannabes. Their point of view is part of their job resume. Therefore, you get way too much mainstream media conventional thinking in the ‘progressive’ blogosphere.
Do you mean the media’s perception of the progressive blogosphere? Or perhapos do you mean the MSM is trying trying to define the progressive blogosphere and therefore it’s candidates along certain lines?
Sorry for being confused. It happens to easily to me :'(
The mainstream media gives coverage to and just plain likes the portion of the blogosphere that they’re comfortable with poliitically. And anyone with a ‘name’ in that conventional-thinking ‘progressive’ blogosphere who is similar in outlook to the mainstream media way of looking at things has a chance of getting a ‘real job’ in the mainstream media. And that’s one motivation behind making and keeping yourself acceptably conventional-thinking.
Hey, I’m not the greatest at explaining stuff, sorry. Maybe that wasn’t too clear either.
That’s what I read in some story from the corporate media recently. What the person writing that story was saying was that given how deep in the shit the Republicans are, even Kucinich would stand a good chance of winning the general election!
So given that Kucinich is the only progressive Democratic candidate, why isn’t the so-called progressive blogosphere embracing him with open arms, and in droves?
The only reason I can think of is the following. I am beginning to think that progressives are hostile to people who are challenged in the area of height, and to people whose ears remind them of 60s sci-fi TV shows.
Our society is based on image. This is human nature to some degree, yet our system has put this trait on steroids. We are a consumer based society in which advertising is God. Jackson Browne hit the nail on the head when he wrote this:
This whole ‘electable’ thing is such a stupid straw man…as for the media-they can sell anything and if they wanted to they could turn Kucinich into a suave sexy dude if they chose to. The publics perception about anything turns on how the media packages/promotes or denigrates anyone. They took a soulless chimp with no brains and turned him into a down home kinda guy with sunny nobility who you’d want to have a beer with.
I get more pissed off with each passing day that the media is choosing who the dem candidate is going to be instead of the general public.
I sent Kucinich a modest donation today. No matter what happens, I want him to keep speaking up and challenging the status quo.
Yes, but according to Chris Matthews he’s unelectable, according to Tucker Carleson he’s a far left fruitcake, and according to David Broder he’s not a serious person.
The oracle(s) have spoken.