View Full Version : Kucinich Video Links thread
12-20-2006, 11:42 AM
Rep. KucInIch - Global War of Error
House Floor 6/16/06~ 3:27
"worshipping the god of destruction...
Thine is the Kingdom, the Power, the Light..
-a Force that is above,...all-of-us....
the American People will become the...
"Out of Iraq Caucus"!
archive of 247! KUCiNiCH VIDEOS
Videos from his Official Campaign site = http://www.kucinich.us/video/
kucinich videosfrom Archive.org
YouTube archive- 88 videos
anyone has a favorite, or one you think is extra special/powerful, and needs to Stand alone, please give it a Home, in a "reply" !
CURRENT HEADLINE on Kuc*n*ch site->
HERE! is the story.. http://www.kucinich.us/node/1033
he addresses as running as an independent...
106 comments currently
BE a DJ for K. burning cd's for DjK
We're Not Locked <In>~*
kucinich+music= message+ !
"this is the kind of ferment, the kind of energy, that is going to be cyclYinG around- that's going to Cha-ChYang, CHANGE!..This Country"
12-20-2006, 01:01 PM
addresses concerns on running as independent.
SEE MY OP. http://www.kucinich.us/files/images/welcome.thumbnail.jpg
hey, he is on my email list and
always send him and Elizabeth a link to PI!
" A new, Spirit-u-aLLY based social ACTivism is beginning to assert itself. It stems NOT from hating what is wrong and trYING to fight it, but from LovYANG what could Be. And making the commitment http://www.lux-netz.de/NetzBilder/YingYang.gif to bring IT, Forth."
~Marianne Williamson~~Taken from "Healing the Soul of America: Reclaiming Our Voices as Spiritual CitiZenS"
12-20-2006, 03:11 PM
I think he will do a lot better in the primaries this time. I don't trust the Democratic leaders not to pull some funny stuff. He needs to be in the general election, regardless of that the Democratic Party pulls.
12-20-2006, 04:00 PM
and I don't see him doing that, after reading his "Independently Progressive" statement. It sounds to me like if he loses the primary he will support whoever wins the primary.
He can't run as both.
12-20-2006, 05:14 PM
What has changed since the 2004 election? Nearly everyone's attitude about the war has changed, except ours. I ran in 2004 to challenge the war, but, unfortunately, not enough Democrats felt strongly enough about it to make Iraq the defining issue. That was a mistake. Because if John Kerry had openly opposed the war in his bid for the Presidency, he would have won the election.
- this quote from the statement is Way too mainstream for my blood.
12-20-2006, 06:18 PM
Not enough Democrats felt strongly enough? Maybe not enough Democrat politicians, but what about the people, Dennis, the voters? The majority of Dem voters were against the war. And isn't that who you are working for? Not the other politicians or the institution called the Democratic Party, but the people?
I know it is all a matter of politics, but that's the problem, in and of itself, isn't it? Politics is a closed system that has nothing to do with (most of) the people.
12-21-2006, 05:02 AM
that's the hard truth.
My gut reaction is to wonder out loud if indeed he wasn't talking about the people? Why indeed didn't he, as an anti-war candidate, get more support from the "majority" of demonrats (I know this is a FR expression, but I think it's cute :roflmao: )?
12-21-2006, 08:53 AM
in and of itself.
The party apparatus itself has more influence over it than the voters do, and the media helps makes that possible. As with our elections in general, the primary is focused much more on 'electibility' than it is on platforms. Can the candidate be wishy-washy enough to both win in the general AND appease the corporate funders of the party? That is the big question.
Then there is the fact that many people, even within the Democratic party, are disillusioned by the process and don't vote.
And then, most importantly IMO, there is the almost half of Americans who have given up on the process completely, are unaffiliated with any party, and seldom if ever vote, let alone in a party primary. Why vote when you are convinced, with reason, that the system is a farce?
I know it is popular to blame the nonvoters for their own fate (if you don't vote you have no right to complain...) - but knowing what we know about how flawed and corrupt the system is, how can we possibly blame the least powerful among us? It may be useful in scapegoating but not in problem-solving - we should blame the powerful and elite who have created the system in the first place. The people in power actually benefit from disenfranchising people and they have perfected the art of it. If we can't truly identify how and why it got this way we can never fix it. (And for the record, I am not trying to discourage voting - I vote regularly - but I think we need to be more realistic about the people's influence over so-called electoral politics)
So even among Democratic voters, I don't think we can say honestly that they wouldn't have chosen Kucinich if they were given an HONEST choice. And we all know from the "Dean scream" that there is nothing honest about the primaries. If you take away the bullshit and look at platforms instead of people, I would wager that a majority of active, voting Dems would pick Kucinich. I just don't have enough faith in the process to think that will happen this time either.
I think running as an independent, Kucinich could spread the word about his platform so much better than he can within the primary. And in doing so, he would also open the doors to support from the 35%-ish of people who will never support either major party because of their lies and corruption. THAT would be a way to get the support of the people, especially the ones who need him the most.
Sorry, I totally started ranting way outside the bounds of what you were saying. I seem to be doing that a lot lately, LOL! I'm just trying to sort through this whole Kucinich endorsement thing .
12-21-2006, 08:56 AM
12-21-2006, 09:40 AM
Taking over the Congress on a wave of popular revulsion at the twin catastrophes in Iraq and Afghanistan, Democrats could have issued immediate calls for an end to those wars, a return of the troops, and investigations into the criminal causes of those costly fiascos. They could have initiated efforts to halt funding for further war and foreign occupation. Of course, taking such stands and actions would have opened them to charges of being "soft on terror," but the public clearly isn't buying that crap any more. With a little courage and leadership they could have handled it, and come out winners.
Instead, they took what they thought was the easy road, condemning not the criminal policies themselves, but only the administration's handling of the wars. This led some to call not for an end to the wars, but for more troops.
12-21-2006, 10:33 AM
but they don't care as long as they can save their own ass--because they aren't offering up an alternative or rallying any opposition. Betcha their cushy tushes would get uncomfortable if there was some counterforce from without the duopoly putting the pressure on. Watch them start to howl then.
So you have to ask why they don't howl over Kucinich. Is it because he is useful in coralling the party faithful, but at the same time poses no threat? Now, ask yourself--why does he ultimately pose no threat? One because he can be counted on to cave---and two because he is framed as a weirdo. Yes, you may object that he is framed as a weirdo, but there you go.
There is an apparatus that tends to favor the more 'electable' candidate. I am not sure who decides that one candidate is more electable than another, I know that opinion polls are used to determine at least some of it - in the beginning. Ability to raise money - including corporate donors has to be part of it because nobody gets elected without lots of television & radio ads these days. How can the Matrix be altered to allow for a fairer process? Should we set aside equal time for all candidates on the media outlets? They are 'our' airwaves supposedly - but then there's cable... :( I am sure election law could be crafted to allow equal & free media time for all. Eliminating the need for large amounts of money for media exposure would necessarily reduce the influence of the corporate donors on the candidate. Do you agree or do you think I am just being excessively optimistic again? It is the need for money that is the biggest corrupting influence - right? I realize that getting these reforms would take something akin to a revolution in this country, but right now I'm just looking to highlight what I think is the biggest problem.
Then there are those who are so cynical that they refuse to participate. I know a few people like this - many of them pine on and on about politics too - I find it puzzling that they don't at least go to the polls to vote against the party they dislike more, or write in their own favorite. I voted for Dean in the NH primary and I was disappointed at the result, but I was able to convinced myself that folks were afraid after the media went ape shit over his little scream. I went to see him in my town before voting - seeing a 'newcomer' live in a small venue can be very engaging. If the idiot talking heads in the media hadn't played Deans scream as if they held no responsibility for their influence in the media, things may have turned out differently. If the corporate and wealthy could be removed from the process through the types of reforms I mentioned in the first paragraph, wouldn't a significant number of the non-participants be drawn back into the process again?
I just started typing this response with no idea where it would end up. If the money to buy influence in the media was removed from the process (free and equal airtime and the restoration of the fairness doctrine, even for cable), do you think this would be a significant step in the right direction? Wouldn't volunteering for a candidate be a more desirable option since you would now know that individual people could have a significant influence in elections again?
12-21-2006, 03:06 PM
the dean scream. interrupting edwards speech
and they control the vote count in primaries which is
probably why nothing is done to stop election fraud.
would probably be best if no one voted to take authority away from
power. they survive because enough people give them creditibility.
Kid of the Black Hole
12-21-2006, 03:58 PM
the problem is, there's buying access and there there's, well, buying access. They are probably going to throw us a bone in the form of Clean Elections because its pretty clear nothing will change due it. Or, actually, the specter of electability goes away a little, and that is a two-edged sword.
The bad edge is that most of the people who make up the party faithful are so ridiculously partisan and so they will force extremist candidates through the primaries. But they'll lose the General, right? Nope, because Clean Elections don't alter the two-party system in the slighest, you just get your pick of extremists. We're talking about "Michaelangelo's David is pornographic!" liberals and god knows what slime the Repubs can come up with.
So why are the party faithful so out of it? Easy, most of the exposure doesn't come during elections per se. They will still be pounded with the same ol propagada 24/7 so their attitudes won't be changing, just hardening.
And finally Clean Elections do SQUAT about money in politics when it comes to elected officials. Just because some politico is not beholden to corporate donors for getting him elected, do you REALLY think he can't be bought off once he gets into office?
In fact, by encouraging more everyday citizens (who are off their gourd, naturally) to participate, it becomes more likely they will get bought off.
To me Clean Elections are likely to make things worse, AND cost us alot of money paying for all of these bullshit campaigns, both state and national ($$$). Let corporations pay the way for their lackeys is what I say :)
EDIT: and most of what I just said is not speculation it is already coming true in places where they already have Clean Election laws.
Kid of the Black Hole
12-21-2006, 04:06 PM
Most people regard stuff like veganism as so dumbass that they won't for Dennis because of it.
So you are saying that Clean Elections is just another ruse to get more extremists into government?
I guess my initial thought on reform is a bad idea - gave it a shot anyway. I am assuming you have an alternative direction here or should I have read your post assuming that your tongue was planted firmly in your cheek? :) I thought it would be fun to brainstorm this issue since the cynicism level is extremely high on this topic.
12-21-2006, 06:13 PM
evidence of the Media selecting candidates
"voting is the Right which secures all other Rights and confers legitimacy on the ultimate 'Commons' Our Representative Government"
Rather: "does John Kerry have enough "Elvis" to beat G.W."
12-21-2006, 07:03 PM
told us that a vote for anyone except Kerry or Edwards was "wasted."
I got up and said that the precinct caucus was my only chance to express a direct preference and that I wasn't going to "waste" my vote on someone who wasn't my first choice.
I got dirty looks from our neighborhood political poobahs, but Kerry just barely cleared 50% in my precinct. :)
12-21-2006, 07:47 PM
A striking San Fransisco Chronicle report, I remember on Iowa caucuses.
An Expatriated San Franciscan Goes Caucusing
(01-20) 04:00 PST Precinct 10, Iowa City, Iowa -- My friend Dianna and I head into the school administration building 20 minutes early and find the room packed with folks waiting for the Democratic caucus to begin. We make our way to the end of a long registration line and as we wait, listen to the excited conversations between supporters of the different candidates.
Dianna and I are both recent transplants from San Francisco and know little about what to expect. We know that at some point, the room will split into sections for each candidate, and that the ones with 15 percent or more of the crowd will get to send a delegate (or possibly multiple delegates) to the county convention. Those delegates may then move on to the state and national conventions.
One Iowan friend told me that the different camps set up tables full of cookies and cakes in hopes of luring the wavering and undecided folks into their fold. As an undecided myself, I was looking forward to dessert.
The official start of the caucus is supposed to be at 6:30 p.m, but by 6:40, the line of people waiting to sign in is still long and getting longer. The room is already too full, with people sitting on the floor and standing along the walls. I overhear a woman saying that she approached one of the caucus volunteers about the obvious fire code violation, to which the volunteer laughingly replied, "Well, there's the fire chief sitting on the floor right over there, go talk to him!"
Ten minutes later, a movable wall is opened, doubling the room size. The county expected 120 people to show up in this precinct, but 207 squeeze in.
I wander around and find that the only candidate table with cookies is the Kerry camp. Precinct captain Julie Jessen is apologetic that she didn't make them from scratch. I tell her I'm an undecided and expect to be pulled into the corner for a long talk about why Kerry is the man.
Instead, she offers me a cookie.
I had to laugh that people actually left their cars idling in the grocery store parking lot as they shopped. And this is a city of 62,000 people.
The caucus chairman sends the Liebermans, Clarks, Gephardts, Sharptons, Moseley Brauns (yes, Moseley Brauns) and undecideds into an adjacent room, while the Kerrys, Edwardses, Deans and Kuciniches stay in the big room and choose corners. I head to the other room and join eight people sitting in the glare of fluorescent lights. In a corner I see Dave Murray, an acquaintance from a circle of artist friends that I have met here. He tells me he's decided to be the lone Sharpton supporter, just for kicks.
It's quickly decided that because none of the candidates in the room has a chance of meeting the 15 percent threshold, we all need to join other groups. We head back to the main room where there is loud cheering from the Dean camp, who have the largest numbers.
The Edwards group seems to have a lot of people, and I spy Dianna among them. Her theory is that a Southerner has the best chance of beating Bush. I'm not convinced, and I wander around hoping people will try to recruit me, but no one does.
The Kerry people, whose ranks seem the thinnest, start to panic and try to enlist Edwards supporters. A debate ensues with a guy holding an Edwards sign pointing to the Dean camp and saying, "Take them, they have plenty to spare!" Each group but Dean's is worried they won't have 15% by the time the final count is taken.
Flustered Kerry captain Julie Jessen now tries the Kucinich camp, which actually has more supporters than Kerry. Iowa City is the Berkeley of Iowa, so it's no surprise that the left-leaning Kucinich has a strong following here. A Kucinich supporter shouts to Jessen that the Kerry folks should give up and join with them, to which she replies "No way, we want to WIN this election!"
Some verbal sparring over the Patriot Act flies across the room between the Edwards and Kucinich camps. "Edwards voted for the Patriot Act!" yells a Kucinich guy, and I hear a quiet voice in the Edwards camp say with disgust, "He did?" (((CO-Sponsor!)))
The room grows nervous and excited, with a tinge of desperation as the five-minute warning is announced. I have yet to pick a side, but notice that the Dean camp has enough for two delegates, so they don't need me, and the Edwards people have enough for one. That leaves Kerry and Kucinich.
As a lifelong lefty, my heart naturally goes to Kucinich. But like a lover scarred by past mistakes -- namely, voting for Ralph Nader (yes, I'm eternally sorry and ashamed), I'm resistant to following my heart. But I have to make a decision, and soon.
As I'm vacillating, I notice the Kucinich people have called for an unofficial count. Everyone raises their hands, and before they finish counting, I realize they will be one person short. At the last second, my heart defies all logic (as usual) and I jump forward with my hand up, counted as one of the Kucinich clan.
No, I haven't learned from past mistakes, and yes, it feels good to follow my heart.
In the end, my last-minute jump to the Kucinich camp didn't detract from the other stronger, better-for-beating-Bush candidates. Dean had 72 people, Edwards 47, Kucinich 44, and Kerry 42 -- good for at least one delegate each (Dean got two).
After the count, it's 8:30, and most people head out into the freezing night, leaving the hard-core politicos to choose delegates and committe members, and to vote on platform issues.
The walk back to the car is damn cold, but I'm happy enough not to care.
He was nasty toward the other candidates and acted like he was sombody who had "found his voice" suddenly - friggin' lying faker. I didn't vote for him in NH either.
12-22-2006, 05:09 AM
Like Kerry. Polling below Lieberman in the run-up to the primaries suddenly was cast as "most electable". Certainly not us who ultimately manipulated circumstances to present him as the best choice.
12-22-2006, 05:21 AM
from a self-descibed Lefty who was UNDECIDED at that stage of the process and who also felt the need to apologize for backing Nader.
As long as they keep us ashamed for bucking the system where is the incentive for the system to change? For the Democrats it is more important that we have no recourse but to back the Democrats-- than any threat of Democrats losing to the Republicans.
I guess I can't vote for him then - vegans are OK with me, but I'm not so cool with dumbasses :rofl:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.