Burnt Orange Report

Hippies... *sigh*

I've always had problems with Kucinich and his supporters. My biggest problem with Kucinich is that he is probably the most dishonest and calculatedly valueless person who ran for president this year. Prior to 2003 he had a 100% rating from the National Right to Life Coalition- he was very very pro-life. Then, he decides to run for president and immediately he goes to being 100% pro-choice. Talk about flip flopping- if you really believe that a fetus is a living human with a soul (so much so that you voted 100% pro-life for years) and you decide that its okay to support killing it in order to get votes, you are a scum bag. Kucinich is a scum bag.

His supporters are crazy. To look at him and think that he ought to be president makes you so out of touch with reality it is shocking. See, Obama is a liberal too- but his rhetoric and his priorities stress a diverse and hopeful Democratic Party. Kucinich's rhetoric and priorities would put us in the L column for decades, they seek to shut out non-Leftist voices and they have a negative tone and message. They would destroy this party to "save it." Screw Dennis Kucinich and screw his nutball supporters.

I welcome Kucinich supporters to the fold. I really respect their ideals and their pragmatic approach.

I appreciated Kucinich as a speaker and would be happy to see him stumping for Kerry, and continuing to champion Progressive/Liberal policies within the party.

Moderates... *Sigh*

Andrew is right about Kucinich's flip-flop on choice. But does that make him "probably the most dishonest and calculatedly valueless person who ran for president this year?" More dishonest and calculatedly valueless than the person who told us "the British government has learned Iraq recently attempted to acquire significant quantities of uranium from Africa?" Is a man who flip-flops on abortion to run for his party's nomination more dishonest than one who gins up a war under false pretenses in order to give his party an advantage in a midterm election, Andrew?

John Kerry has stated that he agrees with Catholic docrine that "life begins at conception." Andrew says "if you really believe that a fetus is a living human with a soul...and you decide that its okay to support killing it in order to get votes, you are a scum bag." Is John Kerry a scum bag, Andrew?

Andrew says Kucinich and his supporters "would destroy this party to 'save it.'" As opposed to Ralph Nader and his supporters, who are risking a Bush victory by running an independent challenge, instead of working within the party, as Kucinich has done?

No. Andrew's real problem with Kucinich is betrayed when he says, "Kucinich's rhetoric and priorities would put us in the L column for decades...." Andrew is afraid that progressive positions are losers; he agrees with the DLC that Democrats need to move further to the right to win. The problem isn't only that such a strategy frequently fails (re: 2002) but that even when it works (1996), it leads the country further and further to the right. Bush wouldn't have been able to get away with half the stuff he's done, if Congress weren't filled with right-wing Rethuglicans from eight years of Clintonian "triangulation." Sometimes it's better to stand for what you believe in, even if it costs you an election (1964).

I do agree with Andrew that Kucinich and his supporters "have a negative tone and message." But the difference between Kucinich and, say, Obama isn't in their policies, nor is it that Obama didn't run for President because he "knows" progressives should never be so audacious. The difference is that Obama is much better at framing his positions than Kucinich.

We live in a liberal country. It's just that most of us don't know we're liberals (yet)! We need more progressives like Barack Obama with the skill to reach the "inner liberal" inside all of us, but we also need fewer naysayers like Andrew who would squash every attempt to make the Democrats stand for something in pursuit of increasingly meaningless "victory."

"His supporters are crazy. To look at him and think that he ought to be president makes you so out of touch with reality it is shocking."

My sentiments towards the Bush supporters, let's keep things in perspective here. Show me a politician who does not flip flop for votes, it's the nature of the beast.

You can keep thinking that its a liberal country, but more than anything it is a selfish country. That's not a bad thing, selfishness can be a virtue, but people want schools, roads, jobs, free health care, etc. but they want very low taxes. What are we to do? Come up with a middle path, a third way to give them all of the benefits while keeping the cost down.

Yes, I am a New Democrat. And you are wrong that it fails more than it succeeds. Name the last publicly identified liberal to be elected president. Give up? John F. Kennedy, who really wasn't that liberal at all- he ran his campaigns for congress/senate with the slogan "Dynamic Conservativism" and was known to be contemptuous of the liberal wing of the party. If you want a true, died in the wool liberal you'll have to dig into Truman and FDR's days. Moderate Democrats have ruled the roost since then.

Furthermore, when I was talking about "the worst guy blah blah blah to run for president" and the insanity of his supporters I wasn't comparing him to the GOP- Bush beats everyone short of LaRouche hands down- I was comparing him to the other mainstream Democratic candidates (by mainstream I am excluding people like LaRouche or Randy Crow who ran virtually nonexistent or ultra-fringe campaigns).

And when you point out that it is a problem of framing, you make my point. Kucinich and his people have a negative, anti-American, anti-Capitalist world view that is built upon the rhetoric of blame. That is what is the matter with him and his supporters will ruin our party. You are goddamn right I am more interested in winning than ideological purity- the Left is far to interested in getting 100% of nothing rather than 50% of something. Compromise is the name of the game. Read your Federalist Papers- moderation is what our founding fathers intended and Kucinich (and Bush for that matter) undermine their vision.

As much as I am disinclined to support Andrew due to his use of obscenity in a reasoned (albeit passionate) argument, I must throw my vote to him.

Pragmatism, in deference to belief, is somewhat contradictory. While one can express views contrary to his or her true beliefs, one should not express these to the point of public office: such deep hypocrisy is eagerly dangerous.

However, I AM an optimist- which leads me to another point. I met Dennis Kucinich, he dropped by my high school while in New Jersey towards the end of the school year. His method of speaking rang deeply with the heavily liberal school I attend. But still, his positions- while inspiring- are remarkably impossible.

Before you accuse me of 'viewing the world through the wrong lens' or what not, lemme explain something: politics is not, and never will be, about individual perspective. It is a multilateral system which demands rigorous competition and cooperation, mirroring the natural kingdom in its evolution of both tactics and presentations.

Kucinich's ideas, like the architecture of Claude Nicolas Ledoux or the work of Etienne L. Boulee, grandiose and absurd, is meant not to be practical (which, as we all know, is the essence of politics) but rather serve as a long-term set of a goals. I do not necessarily believe in weighing down the Democratic party with heavy concerns of absurd (yes, I think a lot of his goals are quite unrealistic) policy. I realize and enjoy the idea of having a left-wing, but when ANY wing agitates so thoroughly so has to damage the party structure as a whole (which it is threatening to do) that wing has become impractical, in my belief.

"If all other tongues are silent, then mine must speak."
--
John Bright.

I wrote a paper on this general question for a college class this last year. Basically, I compared the modern Dems to those in power in the 1960's (i.e. JFK). I think that it is safe to say that JFK is considered by many to be the last great Dem Pres (It's a toss up between him and Clinton, who ran as a moderate). If you compare the policies of JFK and G.W. Bush, you find striking similarities. But I digress.

My main point for this writing is that the "Far Left" has set it up so that the only way they look good, or appear right, is if something bad happens to the USA. They only get political traction if more soldiers and civilians die in Iraq, or if more people lose jobs (which isn't happening; we are in the best economy expansion in 20 years). This can't be a good way to set up party policy. I admit, I'm a conservative. But as long as my only disagreement with a Democrat is on domestic policy, as long as I feel that Democrat will do what is necessary to protect the country, I can accept that Democrat as President. But the only voices that I hear from the party are Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. Joe received little support in the primaries, and Zell has been basically ostracized by the party structure. This tells me that the party is heading off the left end. How can this be good for the country?

Please understand, I don't have a problem having a debate. I am not questioning anyone's patriotism. I am not blaming anyone, or labeling them as "evil" or anything like that. I just have to question whether the current standing of the Dem Party is really good for the country.

jbsaff wrote "we are in the best economy expansion in 20 years." Firstly, that has now slowed dramatically. Secondly, it follows three years of horrible economic degradation, including the loss of millions of jobs.

Apotheosis wrote: "his positions- while inspiring- are remarkably impossible." It's funny what we think of as "practical." Is peace an impractical concept? It's good for certain businesses, but bad for citizens. Is national health care impractical, when we already spend enough just on premiums to have full coverage universal national health care? (National health care, by the way, was on the national Democratic platform for decades, until Clinton had it removed in 1996. A bit of an embarrassment, I guess.) Many entrenched positions are not sustainable, and it requires vision and courage to see that.

As for Andrew's comments: "Kucinich and his people have a negative, anti-American, anti-Capitalist world view that is built upon the rhetoric of blame. That is what is the matter with him and his supporters will ruin our party." Maybe you had a bad translator when you listened to Dennis. Anti-American? You sound like Rush. Negative? Hardly. His whole campaign was about hope and providing positive, practical solutions to major problems in our country. A real patriot doesn't just fall in line to support unity.

Interesting that you seem to assume that centrists like you own the party. The Republicans re-invented themselves through spin and improved marketing. By doing a better job of marketing, even with an inferior "product", they've beaten the Democrats. How did the Democrats respond? By learning from them that better marketing skills can make a big difference? No, they decided to move to the right to try and match the worse product. The last time the Republicans had a candidate with vision, they flocked to him, elected him, and then re-elected him. The Democrats got a candidate with vision, and they ran screaming.