Thursday, November 29, 2007

Kucinich and Paul: The evidence (UPDATE)

Here's the mp3 evidence -- Ron Paul is Dennis Kucinich's first choice for VP.

He says he got the idea while talking to Elizabeth, who really does seem to be playing the same "Lady MacBeth" role in 2007 that Arianna Huffington tried to play in the early '90s. (If she mirrors the Arianna template, she'll be a divorced conservative by 2020.)

Kucinich argues that he would unite with Ron Paul to unite the country. But note that his pretty puppetmistress had ruled out any support for Hillary Clinton, Obama, Biden, Dodd, Richardson or Edwards. They are too compromised -- Paul isn't.

Disgusting. The Kuciniches are vile.

Over on PseudoDemocratic Underground, some now wail that no-one on the Democratic side deserves a vote. Why? Because -- get this! -- all other candidates are DINOs.

Others support the Kucinich-Paul match-made-in-Hell.

Newsflash, jerks: You're a DINO if you cannot stomach any of the fine leaders that most Democrats prefer to the 2% elf from Ohio. If you have such disdain for the way most rank-and-file Democrats think and vote, then you are an elitist swine, and you are not a Democrat. Period.

Suppose those progressive purists could travel back to 1968: Would they be able to stomach Bobby Kennedy? After all, he had once supported the Vietnam war, and even in '68 he did not call for an immediate pull-out. RFK had also worked for HUAC, as few now recall.

In Kucinich-vision, no-one must ever be allowed to change over time: Your former self damns you forever.

The 1968 equivalent of today's Kucinich-Krazed Kooks were the protesters who -- to their everlasting shame -- shouted "SIRHAN POWER!"

Nearly four decades separate that era from now. In all that time, have the purists ever accomplished one single positive, practical thing? I defy my readers to name one accomplishment. Progressive purists have done nothing but harm -- as when they voted for Nader in 2000 and thereby inflicted W on the world.

Go back to England, fair Lizzie. Or learn some American history.

Update: The Kuciniches may be too pure for Hillary, but she just got the endorsement of that notorious reactionary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who seems to have formed the crazy impression that she wants to end the war. My progressive purist readers will no doubt presume that he knows less than they do.

Will the purists dust off those old "SIRHAN POWER!" signs? I wouldn't be surprised if they did. "Progressives" make me physically ill.


Anonymous said...

first of all Kucinich says "he is thinking about" Paul as a potential candidate..why?..because he is also aware of the deep divide that exists in our population today and the impossibility of reconciliation with the current polarities.
I see nothing wrong with reaching out to a person that has a couple of ideological and/or theological, and or economic differences of opinion. Apparently, according to the interview you posted, Ron Paul and Dennis have many points of view that are similar and have voted together in the past in the far more important issues regarding this damnable war.
What we have at stake here is a war that is pouring blood money into the pockets of a few at the cost of the many and it needs to stop now!
If Paul and Kucinich can accomplish that Herculean feat be it. We can let the electorate decide about the philosophical Democratic vs. Libertarian views in the legislature where it belongs not in your puny twisted argumentative "find a fault in Kucinich" brain.
You are just another reactionary that spews hatred whenever in the words of King Juan Carlos to Chavez.."shut up"

Anonymous said...

Ok, Joseph, fair point about Kucinich's ridiculous choice of a running mate. But let it go at that. Where you go off the tracks is first, the DU-bashing. I used to frequent DU because some years ago there was some good investigative digging/ insider story/ whistle blowing there. That seems to have mostly gone, and most of it is just opinions & second-hand reporting with no further research. However, opinion there is a long way from monolithic, so while you can find all sorts of fools to make your point, there is really nothing you could call representative. I don't see your point in bashing them.

Second, while voting for Nader was understandable although wrong-headed, I think there's plenty of evidence that it did not affect the results of the stolen election. For you to continue saying the naderites put bush in office ignores a number of other much more important factors, the Florida pack of thieves and the supreme court in particular.

Anonymous said...

Damn it, Joe! You ask us all to not be insulting, and here you go with this Nader crap again. I get so sick and tired of hearing this, particularly coming from someone talking about "party purists." Nader got votes because Gore didn't make himself as appealing as he otherwise could have been. So top blaming people who voted for Nader for Bush's victory. It's unbelievably disrespectful and, every time I see you do it, I'm more inclined to ignore you. Why do you feel the need to stoop to this level all the time? If you want myself and others to keep it respectful, than please be respectful yourself and let this one go. I voted for Nader, not Bush.

As far as Kucinich and "purists," he can no longer even claim to have such a following, nor can you really accuse him of having that following. He now has uneducated loons that have a script they want to believe, and will not bother researching a damn thing unless it is handed to them and says exactly what they want to hear, with a Kucinich seal of approval. With such a crowd, I imagine Kucinich and Paul will be choosing Alex Jones as the White House Press Secretary.

Either way, it was a possibility that Kucinich would have gotten a vote from me in the primary. With this Ron Paul nonsense, that's no longer the case. He effectively cancelled himself out from progressives. I've got nothing against people wanting to work with different parties to get things done. But, Kucinich's choice of Ron Paul shows either a blatant attempt at whoring or, at worst, an extreme lack of foresight. It's an oil and water match.

Joseph Cannon said...

A: You and Kucinich support Ron Paul, and *I'M* a reactionary? That word no longer has any meaning. The "reaching across deep divide" cant is meaningless if Kucinich disdains all of the Democratic candidates who stand a chance to win.

His (her?) real goal is to CREATE a divide, and you damn well know it.

snow, you are right about what has happened to DU. And you are right that the opinion is hardly monolithic. But one must always judge by one's experience. My experience is that the progressive purists and the Kucinich Kooks, who represent only about 2% of the Democratic electorate, generate about 40%-50% of the DU commentary.

You are just wrong about Nader. I have published the numbers from Florida several times before. Nader got 90,000 votes. That's no small number. The Bush/Gore divide was a VERY small number.

Swinish purists, who are just as bad as the neocons when it comes to their willingness to re-write reality to accord with their biases, think that Nader was not a factor in that state -- the machines were rigged. I doubt that you could talk Brad Friedman into that position, and I doubt that any of you know something about the 2000 vote count that I don't. Seems to me that the GOP would not have fought so hard to prevent blacks from voting if they possessed a magic machine that could give Nader 90,000 votes out of the ether. There is simply no evidence of such a thing occurring.

Besides, how much of the Democratic vote was suppressed because guys like Michael Moore had denounced Al Gore as a right-winger?

Repeat: Al GORE.

Those Gore Vidal campaigners I supped with back in '82 denounced Jerry Brown as, quote, "to the right of Ronald Reagan." Unquote.

Repeat: Jerry BROWN.

And the marchers in '68 shouted "Sirhan Power!" after the death of Bobby Kennedy, whom they considered a war-monger.

Repeat: Bobby KENNEDY.

Fuck you, purists. After the neocons are the Jesus Christers, you are the most dangerous and despicable force on the American political scene. I hate you and always shall.

AitchD said...

Point of order, Joe: you didn't mean HUAC; it's not amazing how many people your age make that mistake. Speaking of Jesus Xters, how many Jew haters do you know, how many antisemites? Some of my best friends are Jew haters or antisemites. They're not Nazis or anything like that, and they'd definitely vote for Russ Feingold over David Duke. They don't say things like 'Jews smell funny' or "Jews killed Christ', but they're not convinced that Jews aren't deserving of the suspicions these antisemites harbor. So I'll put a Nader question to you: how many people do you suppose voted for Nader or Bush, who would have voted for Gore but didn't, because Lieberman was on the ticket?

To the main point of Young Bess: how many votes do you suppose Albert lost because Tipper got Zapped when she went all mental over the debbil's music? A lot of Twentysomethings in 2000 were kids when Tipper was sucking up all that Allan Bloom crapola. Alternate history: Bill Bradley is in his second term as President; Ralph Nader debates because he got more than 5% of the votes in 2000 and 2004; and George W. Bush has a blog called Bushfire, which he dictates in his prison cell to Karl Rove.

John said...

I wholeheartedly agree with every word you wrote.


Anonymous said...

"Fuck you, purists. After the neocons are the Jesus Christers, you are the most dangerous and despicable force on the
American political scene. I hate you and always shall."

Right back at you, Joe. It's always amusing watching full grown middle-aged men act like children.

Anonymous said...

I am the guy who said in the comment section a few days ago that if Dennis himself said that he could support Ron Paul I would drop him like a hot potato. Well, he did and I have. It is so dissappointing that I am literally sick.I thought that in Dennis we had someone with real vision and good ideas for what this country needs so desperately, an example being his position on healthcare. His was the only position that took the "for profit of insurance companies" out of the picture and citizens getting the care they need back in, The other candidates seem to think that insurance is the only way to go and that will never solve the problem. Ron Paul's America would even make Bush's America look good. I will of course support whoever the Dem candidate is. I could never support any Repug or anyone who supports them. They have pretty much destroyed this country and I have doubts as to whether it can ever be fixed.

Anonymous said...

Joseph..regarding "history" and the reach across the aisles for a healing handshake. Seward ran against Lincoln and threw tons of dirt on the man but Lincoln whipped his ass in a very critical time in our history. The nation was even more divided than it is now (if possible). In other words we were on the verge of that horrific civil war. So what id Lincoln do as an act of political one upsmanship? He invited Seward to sit on his cabinet and the chemistry was terrific. He won a friend and a valued comrade and the nations' spirit was pleased and the good guys won that bloody "great divide".
Now I do not know much about Paul like I should since he is raising so many hackles but if Dennis gains some brownie points and attracts a significant number of voters and generates true dialogue, in his efforts to provide universal health care, stop that terrible war, stop NAFTA in its tracks, put the money back in Social Security that the politicians have looted from it (during Viet Nam and who knows when else), revise the tax schedules for our corporations and super rich so that they share equally according to the wealth they harvest, eliminate the "off shore" hiding of corporate monies and treasure, force Halliburton and the other multi nationals to stay in the United States or lose our monetary contracts entirely, stop the private armies (Blackwater Gestapo) from messing around in our behalf, dismantle the CIA and all the dummy fronts that have been created since 1947, reopen the investigation of the Kennedy assassination and the 911 travesty, rebuild our infrastructure (highways, bridges, schools, VA hospitals and other health care facilities, clean up our disgusting waterways, bays and harbors, finish the long overdue monument in Washington DC to the greatest president of the twentieth century Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and press charges against the criminals and traitors currently commanding our ship of state, then I could care less who his vice president is.
Yes that is a big “if” but as Kipling has already declared.

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating, (Cannon)
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!

--Rudyard Kipling

Anonymous said...

I consider myself a "Fedupican" and can hate whomever and whenever I wish.

Anonymous said...

mwah says.. I consider myself a "Fedupican" and can hate whomever and whenever I wish.

Atlas shrugged and says.."and you will remain an imbecile". "Try Gatoraide iinstead of Tirade"

Anonymous said...

John in Wva is amoral. Bush has helped kill a million innocent Iraqis-as has anyone who gave him power to do so --Clinton, Edwards,
but not Kucinich (or to be fair, Obama.) Ron Paul's policy would have saved that million. Doesn't matter to those of small concerns.

Anonymous said...

When I referred to "Bush"s America" I meant conditions within the United States and I certainly agree that Bush is responsible for death and maiming taking place in Iraq. Sorry "Hoop" if this makes me "amoral" and of "small concerns". I think anybody who can't see how bad things would be under Paul would have to be considered of "small concerns"