Kucinich Getting Some Pwnage Too
December 12th, 2007 by MarkRon Paul has finally climbed out of his previous obscurity. With more fourth quarter earnings than any other Republican candidate, a fierce independent campaign orchestrated by a former Google employee, and surprising support from a few rank and file GOPers, he’s a bona-fide top-tier candidate.
What’s more impressive to me, though, is that the other guy out there who wants to end the wars, and restore our civil liberties and reign in the military industrial complex is starting to get some attention. That’s right, Dennis Kucinich is actually getting some press. Like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich voted against the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq; in fact, he and Paul co-sponsored a bill (ACLU) to replace it in 2003. Kucinich also wants to end the drug prohibition that’s filling our jails with non-violent drug offenders, and he’s for impeachment, too.
The frustrating thing was, that all through the Democrat debates, he’s basically been laughed off the stage. The Democrat debaters are much more uniform in their views than the Republicans are, and there really wasn’t much dissent tolerated at all. When Guiliani took a swipe at Ron Paul’s stance on Iraq, he got a thunderous applause, but Ron Paul came back strong and got his own applause. When Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich tried to attack Hillary Clinton for her vocal support of the war and wiretapping out citizens without a warrant, she just laughed at them. Then the crowd laughed at them, too. It was a painful thing to watch.
Sometime over the last few weeks, something has changed. In poll after poll, mainstream Democrats have been supporting Kucinich’s positions all year. One by one other candidates have had to slide closer to his very views they mocked only months ago. He’s also looking more confident, and people are starting to react. I realize that if Ron Paul’s bid for presidency is like shooting for the moon that Dennis Kucinich’s must be like shooting for Gliese 581 c, but seeing this hit the top of youtube was heartening.
He and his wife are adept at handling the media that try to trivialize them, too.
Kucinich: Well, the most important thing I would tell you, Hannah, as a professional, is it’s important not to trivialize a woman who has worked on international humanitarian matters, you know, helping people in Africa get access to energy and to housing and education, helping poor people and children in India, working with a group connected with Mother Teresa, working with the Mission To Seafarers in London. Here’s a woman of great accomplishment with a Master’s degree in international conflict resolution, and I hope that you’re going to talk about more than a tongue stud.
Well done, Dennis!
Related Posts:
Youtube Fame Propels Ron Paul
Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable
Youtube Promotional Videos: Barack Obama vs. Ron Paul
December 13th, 2007 at 4:04 am
Donate to Kucinich on Dec 15.
December 13th, 2007 at 5:55 am
Kucinich would be ok, except I heard that he tried to push a gun ban bill the DAY after the virginia tech shooting. Kinda sketchy don’t you think. Do the research, gun ownership is a good thing. Ron Paul is the better candidate.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:38 am
Wow, 4th on reddit. Nice
The more I see and read of Kucinich, the more I like him.
Also, favorite quote ever:
CBS: “Can we see it [the tongue stud]?”
Elizabeth: “No…”
Kucinich: “That’s my privilege”
Yes.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:44 am
“gun ownership is a good thing.”
No, it is not. It leads to needless deaths of innocent people.
I think both Kucinich and Paul deserve serious attention, even though I disagree with some of Paul’s views.
December 13th, 2007 at 8:28 am
quote ms: “Kucinich would be ok, except I heard that he tried to push a gun ban bill the DAY after the virginia tech shooting. Kinda sketchy don’t you think. Do the research, gun ownership is a good thing. Ron Paul is the better candidate.”
gun control isn’t the only issue out there and voting on one issue is even worse. singling out that one issue to give a man a bad rap is dishonest.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:24 am
If he loses, your loss. I’m hoping he’ll move to Canada so we can vote him in up here. Note to Americans, before you vote, visit this site: http://www.dehp.net/candidate/.
It quizzes you on the issues before attaching those issues to names, and then recommends candidates based on what you think about those issues, as opposed to other important considerations such as height, presence/absence of flag lapel pin, blackness, etc. And don’t forget to check the breakdown of all previous visits to the site before you leave.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:27 am
On behalf of the rest of the world I’d just like to say that Kucinich is the best candidate by a long shot.
As far as I can see, the others (with the possible exception of Gravel and Ron Paul) are just playing this game where they’re trying to attend to corporate interests while paying lip-service to public ones.
The thing that bothers me about Libertarians though is that they seem to what to privatise and de-regulate everything… an experiment which has been catastrophic in other countries… and as far as I can see is simply giving up on democratica accountability and handing power back to the people who have all the money.
Kucinich’s policies on the other hand are working in other countries.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:32 am
WTF is an reddit.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Sonia, I submitted it myself actually. I don’t know why, but somehow it seems my stuff seems to get voted up. Between this post, the two logic puzzles, the Friedman interview on PBS, the Gravel interview and the RP goes to Google one, most of them make it all the way up to #1.
Maybe I’ve been exposed to so much redditing that it’s had a sub-conscious effect on what I decide to write about. In fact, I feel like drawing a lolalien…
December 13th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Mike, Reddit is a news site compiled by the hordes of internet users who read it.
December 13th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
“gun ownership is a good thing.”
“No, it is not. It leads to needless deaths of innocent people.”
Yes, it is. Our founding fathers sure thought enough of the right to bear arms to make it the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, following only by freedom of speech.
December 13th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Kev your ignorant if you don’t think the second amendment is up to interpretation. “a well regulated militia” This phrase doesen’t sound like it was meant to allow regular citizens to own guns, but an entity like the national guard maybe. So stop with the “our founding fathers wanted it” bullshit.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Those of you debating the 2nd Amendment might find this post interesting:
George Orwell on Weapons and the Concentration of Power
It has things for people on each side of the debate, but his basic premise is that certain weapons such as the musket have inherent democratic qualities, whereas others such as missiles and aircraft carriers have inherent authoritarian qualities.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Kucinich does not want to ban guns. I suppose you could actually research his positions from the man himself, but why spoil a good polemic? For those of you not so intellectually lazy:
Muskets vs. missiles and aircraft carriers. Guess who’d win that fight?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Kucinich does not want to ban guns. I suppose you could actually research his positions from the man himself, but why spoil a good polemic? For those of you not so intellectually lazy:
Muskets vs. missiles and aircraft carriers. Guess who’d win that fight?
December 14th, 2007 at 3:44 am
Prince Roy, Orwell wasn’t arguing that muskets would beat more modern weapons. He was saying that when the modern weapon was cheap, easily manufactured and easily used, that had certain effects, and that when dominant weapons are expensive (e.g. fighter jets), or difficult to use (e.g. swords) that had different effects.
Since Orwell, many other writers have included grenades and a variety of weapons in the same category as muskets. Ultimately, though, our current state of weapons technology doesn’t lend itself to democracy in the same ways that the state of weapons technology in 1776 did.
December 14th, 2007 at 5:24 am
Mike,
National Guard of the United States is a reserve component of the United States Army (the Army National Guard) and the United States Air Force (the Air National Guard.)
Military reserve force is a military organization composed of part-time military personnel
Militia: A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
2nd amendment: “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
ignorant: is a lack of knowledge.
December 14th, 2007 at 5:41 am
Prince Roy,
“Kucinich does not want to ban guns.”
Direct quote from Kucinich himself when addressing the NAACP Presidential Primary Forum on July 12, 2007. “It is time that we ban handguns.
I’m not sure how much clearer he can be on this issue.
December 14th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Let’s look at the definition of a “militia”
“a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.”
“# An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
# A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.”
If a militia is anything it is a specific group of qualified citizens. I don’t know what they intended that group to be, but it’s a stretch to define a “militia” as meaning EVERYONE has a right to own a gun. If they thought any American should be able to own a gun, a “well regulated militia” wouldn’t be in there.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Mike,
I think the problem my lie with the definition of “regulated” - 18th Century definition of regulated would have been: “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped.” It
does NOT refer to a professional army.
17 Century people used the term “STANDING Army”
to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia.It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity.
A well regulated [equipped] militia [body of citizens] being necessary to the security of a free state, [therefore] the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
A organized military would not and does not need a constitutional guarantee to grant it rights to arms, it’s the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Patrick Henry: “The people have a right to keep and bear arms.” (Elliott, Debates at 185)
(17) “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776, 1 T. Jefferson Pa- pers,334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed.,1950))
(7) “…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
(8) “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
The Supreme Court views the words “the people” in the Second Amendment to have the same meaning as in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. If “the people” really meant the right of states to maintain a militia, then we would be left with the absurd notion that only the states have the right to peaceably assemble, only the states have the right to be secure in their persons and property, etc. The Supreme Court’s position is indisputable: the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms. Also instructive is the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982):
December 14th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
(February 1982):
The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
I think most rank and file democrats have been against the war for a long time. There are a lot of progressives who like Kucinich’s positions, but feel he is not very good at presenting them and making himself a viable candidate. They argue that he hasn’t done a lot to actually campaign, like opening up a campaign office in Iowa. I guess it could be argued that campaigning isn’t as important as ideas and policies, but campaigning is also about convincing people of those ideas and policies.
As for Ron Paul, I like his positions on the war and some other things I’ve heard him say, though I’m a little less impressed by his voting record on other issues. David Neiwert has put together his votes on important issues:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
December 14th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Kev:
your definition of ‘militia’ is grossly incorrect. From American Heritage:
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
There is nothing in this definition that says it is an inherently private enterprise. Militias can be both, and in fact during the colonies, were often enacted by state legislatures. You are wrong.
Re Kucinich and guns: Just like I thought-too lazy to actually read what he says at his website. And even if your datamine is accurate, if you equate a handgun ban on a total ban of guns, then you are either weak in logical reasoning, or you are intentionally distorting his position.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Wulingren, I think most rank and file Democrats will vote for anybody with a (D) next to his or her name, regardless of that individual’s actions concerning the war or our civil liberties.
David Neiwart has been distorting Paul’s views for a long time. It’s been one hit piece after another. In many cases, Paul votes against things that he would support in principal due to the fact that they just aren’t any of the federal government’s business.
Considering that the crooks Neiwart supports are slaughtering millions abroad, stripping our liberties at home, and filling our prisons with poor but non-violent black people, I have little respect for his values. They just clash too much with my own.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:29 am
Prince Roy,
“if you equate a handgun ban on a total ban of guns, then you are either weak in logical reasoning, or you are intentionally distorting his position.”
Total ban of guns?
Your insulting to say the least, and I’m not even sure you’re aware of what it is exactly you’re debating in your own posts.
No where did anyone say “TOTAL BAN ON GUNS”
someone earlier posted he wants to ban guns and you called him out…
handguns are guns
all guns are not handguns
Kucinich said: “it’s time we ban handguns.”
Kucinich does want to ban guns, handguns. As well as semi-automatic guns: Ban sale or transfer of semi-automatic guns. (Nov 2006)
“We have babies dying in the streets; ban handguns.” (Jul 2007)
December 15th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Kev:
the language used is precisely a common scare tactic used by the gun lobby. When the NRA says things like “X tried to push a gun ban bill” without specifying exactly what types of weapons are involved with what kinds of restrictions, then most people interpret that to mean X wants to ban guns full stop. The NRA uses this tactic repeatedly, in fact it counts on it.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
before supposing what the writers of the constitution meant by certain things they say in the constitution, you ought to read through the federalist papers to see if theres an explanation for it already written.
http://books.google.com/books?id=WSzKOORzyQ4C&dq=federalist+papers&pg=PP1&ots=KY4RRQdH5-&sig=6e0tkrJ3LXnV0erp-hStJTKKL34&prev=http://www.google.com/search?q=federalist+papers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail&hl=en#PPP1,M1
December 15th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
However one feels about the Second Amendment to the Constitution, it is clear that gun ownership was seen by the amendment’s authors as an individual right. I’m not a fancy lawyer or anything, though, so if you’re interested in a nice discussion of individual rights in the Bill of Rights–as well as a bit on the role of the National Guard vis à vis the Federal military–please see the following fancy law article:
And speaking of Mr. Kucinich, I found this article in his local paper to be informative, especially if you are into–as I am–urban politics, black-versus-Irish-versus-Pole style:
December 15th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
You know, for some reason, the law article link ended up in the Kucinich paragraph, and the Kucinich article didn’t appear at all. Here it is again. Have a great night.
December 15th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Sorry, I’m still new to this commenting thing. The Kucinich article from the Cleveland paper is here:
http://www.clevescene.com/2007-12-05/news/the-king-of-spin
December 16th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Kucinich is my hero because he got a beautiful and smart wife (my God, she worked with mother Teresa!)
First, US constitution is not perfect, and don’t forget the people who wrote it are all slave owners.
I believe our constitution meant to allow everyone to have guns. Also, most guns used to kill these days are illegally owned. So it really doesn’t matter you outlaw it or not. It is fine to require checks for purchasing guns but there shouldn’t be any gun prohibition. In addition, most people who really owns a lot of guns, you won’t even know it. My best friend has over 60+ guns in a safe storage facility and zero in his house.
December 16th, 2007 at 1:51 am
No one is advocating the prohibition of guns but the sensible regulation of guns. The NRA is against the most obvious safety measures like background checks, waiting periods. They equate these safety measures with an effort to ban all guns and to undermine civil liberties. It’s pathetic. They won’t even compromise.
December 16th, 2007 at 2:39 am
arty,
you shouldn’t forget that openly interpreting something is dangerous because you can justify quiet a lot of things with the constitution. the current administration believes that they’re behaving constitutionally as well…
oh and finally don’t forget that the people interpreting the constitution are the same people who have used more world resources than any civilization, EVER, through out history combined (Lester R. Brown, Plan B 2.0).
December 16th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
This is really sad. The day after I posted this, it was announced that the Democrats have decided to exclude Kucinich from the next debate.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
not surprising. Dennis Kucinich is a reminder to Hillary especially, and to a somewhat lesser extent Obama and Edwards, just how far they have betrayed the values of the Democrat party.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Well, I think most rank and file Democrats will vote for a Democrat over a Republican in the general election, but they are still, for the most part, against the Iraq War, as are many Independents and Republicans now. But Democratic voters have been against the war for a long time. That was the single biggest issue when I went canvassing around my West Philly neighborhood in 2004. It was a big reason behind Howard Dean’s rise in 2003. Of course, Kerry won, but he was also selling himself as an anti-Iraq War candidate, even though he voted for the war. It was why Lieberman lost the Democratic primaries in Connecticut. He won in the general election as an independent by getting much of the Republican vote and enough of the Democratic and Independent vote. I’m not really happy with any of the candidates now, though I would vote for any of the Democrats–even Hillary (though she is definitely not my first choice. I would prefer Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson) over pretty much any of the Republican candidates. I remember a lot of people back in 2000 saying there was no different between Gore and Bush. They said the same thing about Kerry and Bush. I don’t believe that for a moment, even though Gore wasn’t exactly talking the same kind of talk he is talking today. Still, I know a lot of Democrats, including myself who were attracted to McCain, and would have been torn if it had been Gore v. McCain. As of 2004, I still thought it would be good if Kerry and McCain had run together. My views of McCain have changed considerably since then. As for Ron Paul. If by a miracle he is the Republican candidate, I’m sure there will be Democrats and Independents that are attracted to him. Most likely, though, the Republican candidate will be Romney or Gullianni or Huckabee (he’s the real surprise)–maybe McCain. But I guess only time will tell.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:01 am
you shouldn’t forget that openly interpreting something is dangerous because you can justify quiet a lot of things with the constitution. the current administration believes that they’re behaving constitutionally as well…
That’s why I also mentioned most gun used in crime these days are illegal ones. I think the number is 1%, too lazy to find the link. I am actually a democrat but I believe finding solution through understanding of the real problem. For example, I see most people talk about increase in income disparities in the US, and blaming on the policy of the US government. However, there are also studies suggested that one of the main contribution factors has to do with broken families and low income families having too many children while rich families has less children. If that’s the cause, then it will be extremely hard for the government to solve it because you just can’t stop people having children without violating their civil rights.
December 25th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
But does Ron Paul accept evolution? Or is it just a ‘theory’?
December 27th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
He was one of the seven who raised his hand indicating he believed in evolution during the TV debate this spring. According to one reddit story I saw, he said something like “God created us, but who knows for sure how”. I don’t think Paul has much of a chance at the evangelical vote with Romney and especially Huckabee out there.