Kucinich Stiffed For Nobel Peach Prize

Al Gore got it instead for his work raising awareness of climate change, which is bull because Dennis has done so much more to spread peace throughout the world.

9/11

For the first time since 9-11-2001 I watched one of those 9-11 shows reliving that day. This one is the MSNBC rebroadcast of the MSNBC coverage of 9AM-Noon that day.

Yes, it is heartbreaking. And brutal. Those are the two words that come to mind.

But I'm almost as shocked how I'm not as moved as I'd expected. The real 9/11 was so horrifying and -- I don't want to say I'm used to it -- but I'm amazed that I'm not more shocked. And as someone who basically changed dramatically that day, that's not what I expected at all.

Over the past 6 years I've often marveled at how so many people just don't seem to regard 9/11 as the same world-changing event that I do. Life goes one and we adjust to new realities.

My conclusion went something like this -- we will not stand for countries and people who don't play by the same fundamental rules that we do. Specifically, perpetrators and supporters of terrorism should expect the free world to use all means available to go after them. We will not take a defensive posture.

Dennis Kucinich is probably in a different category. He's an "anti-war" guy probably above all. Before 9/11 that position had credibility with me and frankly I wondered if Dennis was right. I know his supporters still believe he is correct. Me, I can't imagine him being more wrong.

The irony of Kucinich is that his positions logically lead to more war, more suffering, and less freedom. He doesn't see how "blessing" Assad with his presence emboldens Syria to explode bombs in downtown Beruit or to look the other way as extremist Arab fighters pass through Syria to join up with AQ in Iraq. He doesn't see how touring Hizbollah-land in southern Beruit just validates the Hizbollah strategy of provocation and death of it's own to win stupid PR battles. He doesn't get that it's a cycle that can't end unless we oppose it.

There's no point in going on too far. The arguments are all pretty obvious and well worn on all sides. I don't think I'm changing any minds. Least of all Dennis's. Not tonight anyway.

You Fought In Iraq? You're No Democrat

It's nice to know that Dennis thinks a guy like Paul Hackett is a "Democrat in name only." This because Hackett, though disagreeing with the Iraq War, fought in it anyway. So apparently anyone who is serving in the armed forces is not really a Democrat according to Kucinich.

You know, I read this and think back to that big memorial service at the IX Center to honor all those fallen soldiers stationed in Brookpark and Lima. Kucinich stood on that stage and honored those people. He stood shoulder to shoulder with family members. I thought it was one of th high points of his career and was relieved that he refrained from any sort of anti-war grumbling at such a time of sorrow. But to think that not long after this Kucinich was referring to Hackett this way is very depressing.

Even if you love Dennis and support his policies, this kind of thing is proof that Kucinich has no clue how to interact with other people. There's a reason why he's never managed to pass a bill. He can't even build a concensus with people who, for the most part, agree with him. He's been a disastrous COngressman for Cleveland for that reason. And it's the same reason that his run for the presidency is a total waste of time, money, and carbon.

Two Jobs

Dennis is getting some more attention from the national media... only this isn't the kind he usually angles for. MSNBC notes that Kucinich has Two Jobs... and that maybe that's not such a good thing for the Congressman of the poorest city in the United States. The final paragraph is the most significant -- noting that Kucinich shows up to vote, but is MIA doing the hard work behind the scenes for his district.

In the meantime, Kucinich continues to worship at the altar of Michael Moore by co-promoting his new movie "Sicko," that makes the point that the phamaceutical industry in the US is a terrible thing despite the fact that it is home to pretty much all of the drug research and innovation in the world. And HMOs are bad, and not having insurance sucks, and Cuba is where it's at if you want excellent medical care. Sweet. Way to go. What does all this have to do with Northeast Ohio again?

Momentum for the Fairness Doctrine

Momentum appears to be building for Kucinich's idea to revive the Fairness Doctrine and "balance the airwaves" of talk radio. Nevermind the pros and cons of such a policy. The only important thing to know is this: bringing up the Fairness Doctrine will mobilize right-wing talk radio listeners. Don't Kucinich and these other politicians see that? Don't they realize that merely suggesting this sort of regulation is picking a fight on someone else's turf?

Politically the way to deal with an oppnent is to bore them, to keep them unmotivated, and to be somewhat friendly to them. The Fairness Doctrine is instead a declaration of war. And it's a war against a group that Democrats managed to defeat in the 2006 elections. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Can't wait for Dennis to hold hearings on the matter.

A Little Light

OK so the Immigration Grand Bargain has gone down in the Senate. I wouldn't characterize this as "good" but it is a better outcome than passing a very bad bill. The real story isn't really immigration though, it's the way the Senate reacted to a clear and overwhelming response from all parts of the electorate; people universally didn't like the bill and, eventually, it was voted down in the Senate.

Unfortunately along the way many Senators were exposed as being entirely craven and willfully ignorant of both sensible policy and the will of the people. While I respect those Senators who truly want to "solve" immigration issues and understand compromise is necessary, the fact is that a comprehensive bill was never desired by the American people. And instead of building public support and proposing legislation that reflects that support, the Senate instead attempted to disregard the people completely. Regardless of the issue being debated, that is a dishonorable way of doing business.

Along the way our Ohio Senators were unimpressive, to say the least, although both thankfully voted against the bill. Sherrod Brown hemmed and hawed and hedged, then taking the contradictory position of saying he was against it but would vote for it. George Voinovich said almost nothing, declining to disclose his own position while voting for the bill until today when he joined in against it. Neither made clear his views on the subject. It's reasonable that both their votes were available if the political calculus worked out differently. And it's reasonable to conclude they both correctly concluded that the overwhelming opposition made a vote for the bill too damaging. It could be far worse, but I don't know how anyone who cares could now be enthusiastic about either of these Senators.

Ultimately, this entire exercise has been enormously damaging. We had a weak president before; now we have an entirely incapacitated president. There's a war going on (whether people like it or not) and no one is in charge. A newly elected Democratic majority in Congress has failed to accomplish anything yet. The Republican party is split over immigration and the Democratic party will be soon enough. And both sides are now claiming that since a comprehensive bill has failed, now nothing can be done to improve immigration policy. That may be true politically, but that's because our leaders are not actually leading. And that is concerning.

None of this has much to do with Dennis or his hapless run for the Presidency. It might have been interesting to see how Kucinich would have voted on such legislation though.

Despair

I am sick of politicians. As one might infer, I am no fan of Dennis Kucinich. I think he's entirely craven and mostly just pathetic. His decade plus in Congress has contributed to the ongoing downfall of Northeast Ohio and the fact that he is routinely re-elected by wide margins is profoundly depressing to me. That's it on Dennis.

But our representation is failing us terribly just about everywhere else as well. Incompetent, corrupt, or just plain overmatched politicians are something of a rule in Cleveland, and you didn't have to look hard to spot them at the highest levels of American government either. But these days I am having trouble spotting anyone who is providing any real leadership. I define leadership as the ability to prioritize issues in good faith and push them to resolutions that benefit the country. Who is doing that? Name me one person in the Executie and Leglislative branch of federal government who is doing that.

My personal political history is kind of typical. I grew up in a Democratic household, my dad being influenced by the anti-Vietnam war movement in the late 60's and early 70's. I enthusiastically supported Clinton in the first two presidential elections I could vote in. I respected Gore running for president, but was confounded by the last months of his campaign when he started talking about "powerful forces consipiring against" common folk. That seemed awfully strange coming from a guy who was second-in-command for the past 8 years, and I concluded it was a dishonorable ploy. I voted for Nader because I didn't want to vote for anyone, though on election night I was still pulling for Gore. During the early Bush administration I braced myself for the worst.

Then of course 9/11 occurred and it affected me deeply. A lot of people back them commented on how 9/11 would be the death of sarcasm. It wasn't, of course. But it was for me to a large extent. Political gamesmenship could be vastly entertaining, but 9/11 made clear that politics was not entertainment. I don't think those people who died in NYC would ever appreciate the sort of political maneuvering that typically goes on during Sunday morning talk shows, Congressional hearings, and presidential photo-ops.

Anyway, I was suprised and impressed with Bush's response following 9/11 and relived that the country was united for a time. I was enthusiastic about going into Iraq for humanitarian and politcal reasons, not for WMD. Maybe that is why my feelings haven't changed much on Iraq in the years since. And maybe that is why I am so depressed to see all the politcal back-and-forth that has gone on regarding Iraq in recent years. But I also understand that many people who are anti-war are anti-war no matter what, and that many others blow in the wind. Still, I've always expected that a typical Senator would, at the end of the day, concede the merits of the effort even if they were critics.

But all this is just my imagination. On every single other issue that confronts our nation and our world the president and Congress have accomplished nothing or pursued solutions that are not worth the paper they're written on. Take Social Security -- anyone with a brain can see it is an untenable situation that is likely to leave millions of Americans counting on retirement income that simply won't be there. But I've never heard a politician describe it so plainly and accurately. How is it leadership to placate the masses that something is viable when it so obviously is not? America needs only to look to other Western countries who are struggling with more ambitious types of entitlement programs to see what we are facing in the coming decades. Yet we hear very little of substance from our leaders, and absolutely nothing has been put into law that will be part of a solution. In fact, all we've gotten is an additional prescription drug program that, while important for those who need it, only adds to the burden the nation faces. There is simply nothing even resembling leadership on this issue from any prominent politician from either party.

Other major issues are the same way. The Western world is obviously facing a growing threat from Islamic radicals yet there is no clear strategy from America or the West. In fact, we can't even get most politicians to acknowledge was is happening. We get half-baked ideas, concepts that are tossed about with no real analysis to back them up. The UN has no track record of success. No Western nation has ever successfully dealt with the problem, even on a smaller scale. Heck, no Middle Eastern country has either. Isn't it time for our leaders to at least identify and prioritize the issues at hand? We may all disagree about what those are, but then the first order of business is to clearly understand where the fault lines of such disagreements are. Until that happens we will be merely plugging holes in a dam. That is not leadership.

The final straw for me is the immigration "compromise" now going through the Senate. This really is an issue where there ought to be broad concensus. The country obviously favors legalization of currently illegal immigrants, but the terms of which are important. And the terms laid out by this bill are opposed by somewhere between 70% and 80% of the American public, and polls show that the more people learn about the bill the more they oppose it. How can a bill that is so unpopular come this close to being law? What are our Senators doing? People on all parts of the political spectrum have serious problems with the bill -- that is a signal to go back to the drawing board, not a sign of productive bipartisan support. Where are the leaders? Why aren't our Senators listening to the people? The bill itself is not the issue; it's the fact that our government is doing something that is so clearly against the will of the people.

I've written both our Ohio Senators repeatedly. Voinovich's office has never responded to my inquiries. Totally pathetic and unforgivable on such a major piece of legislation. Sherrod Brown, on the other hand, provided the unbelievably insulting response that he has "serious reservations" about the bill, but would vote to proceed so the Senate can "move on to other business." I am just floored by these two guys. Here we have two politicians from two different parties and neither can provide anything substantive regarding their position, and apparently their votes for or against are not necessarily indicative of whether they actually support the bill. As a voter, then, it follows that we should ask not only, "What good are they?" but also, "How do we get rid of them?"

If you browse around the internet you'll find that voters everywhere are having similar experiences with their own Senators and it is clear that something is seriously wrong. And the impression I get is that something is completely broken. Whether it's with our system, with our culture, or with our politicians is not totally clear. Perhaps it's all of those things. But the current situation is not only untenable, it is dangerous and damaging.

I wish I had a course of action in mind to change things. But right now I am just despairing and at a loss. A total loss. Kucinich seems like an afterthought, one little leech in an ocean of full of problems. And it doesn't seem like there is any way back.

Kucinich To Be Challenged in Primary

Via Buckeye State Blog. This is great news. Here's a woman who, mostly, agrees with Dennis. Yet even she says, "We need a full-time congressman."

Impeachment: I'm asking you. Do you think it's time?

Dennis Kucinich has just sent out and email with this subject line: Impeachment: I'm asking you. Do you think it's time?

I admit, at first I was excited -- I thought perhaps Dennis was asking about he himself getting impeached.

Instead, and predictably, Kucinich is asking: whether you think impeachment of Bush is an appropriate decision. He doesn't say exactly who he wants this feedback from -- his Congressional constituents or prospective presidential voters? Anyway, here's some of Dennis' message:

Today is the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq. We know it was wrong to go into this war and it's wrong to stay in.

Do we? Reasonable people disagree on whether it was "wrong to go into this war." But what about whether it is "wrong to stay in"? This is very much an open question and, I believe, a very difficult conclusion to come to even if you think it was wrong to "go into this war."

Kucinich also assumes the reader shares his impression that the US freely chose to go into this war. It's true that the US chose the time and place of this engagement. But it did so, whether you agree with the wisdom or not, as part of a larger effort to combat terrorism and its root causes. And that war is a war the US is in whether it wants to be or not.

For four years I have been working to end this war, including leading the effort to cut off continued funding for the war. There is enough money to bring our troops home and we should do that.

"There is enough money to bring our troops home and we should do that." What the heck does this mean? Is he referring to current attempts to reward Congressmen with pork barrell spending in exchange for opposing the war? If so, I guess I can see how it would cost a lot of money to "bring our troops home." That's a lot of people to pay off!

Or perhaps Kucinich is referring to the possibility of funding some sort of international/UN coalition of peacekeepers and how much that might cost. That kind of undermines the argument not to fund the war, doesn't it?

But the Bush administration, with the help of some in Congress, wants to pour more money into this war. Worse than that, the Bush administration now is signaling its intention to wage war with Iran. We cannot allow that to happen. So I'm asking you. Do you think it's time? I'm talking about time for impeachment. I ask because we are now have a condition in this country where we are told to take impeachment off the table, and keep on the table a U.S. military attack against Iran.

OK, stop. Impeachment? For what exactly? You can't impeach someone because you don't like something they did or might do. You have to provide evidence of a crime. If Dennis has it, I'd like to see it. And don't tell me this is an "illegal war" when it was authorized by Congress. Kucinich might think it was unwise, but that doesn't make it illegal.

This situation calls for us to reconsider very deeply the moment that we're in – where our Constitution is being trashed, where international law is being violated, where our hopes and dreams for the education of our children, for the health of our people, for housing, for our veterans, are being set aside as we go deeper and deeper into war. We need a whole discussion in America. And with your help, we're about to have one.

Uh-huh. The Constitution is being "trashed." It is? Kucinich sounds like a guy who couldn't even make the high school debate team -- all bluster, zero evidence. International law is violated? Where and how? Guantanamo? Please cite some international law that applies, and while you are at it please cite where it says the US is subservient to it. Hopes and dreams for the education of children? Dennis, go back to sociology class and read how security is a prerequisite for society. Housing? Are you kidding? Who says housing in a problem? Show me the evidence that the "housing" situation is poor or at least poor compared to past decades. Veterans? Dennis, do you have any poll numbers regarding your support among veterans?

Dennis claims that, "We need a whole discussion in America." How unbelievably condescending. Apparently Dennis does not think there's been enough discussion about these matters in the past 5 1/2 years. He doesn't appear to think voters might have considered these issues during the 3 Congressional and one Presidential election since 9/11. He doesn't seem to recall world debate at the UN or across the globe. He must not pay very close attention to newspapers, television, radio, or the internet. Or maybe he just discounts all that because that debate largely ignored him.

We're four years into Iraq and over five since 9/11 and finally Dennis wants to have a big discussion with us. Hey thanks Dennis. Keep up the good work.

Me personally, I've tried to discuss this with Dennis several times by voting against him.

Here's the rest of Kucinich's email. It ends with the real purpose of the impeachment talk -- to raise money. No surprise there.

Please go to my website, and watch the video posted today, "Impeachment: I'm asking you. Do you think it's time?" ... http://kucinich.us/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?q=195831&u=310

You may find the printed transcript of this video at ... http://kucinich.us/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?q=195831&u=311

Or you can see this video on my YouTube site, at ... http://kucinich.us/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?q=195831&u=312

Once you've watched or read this statement, please send me your comments. Over this past weekend there were thousands of demonstrations against this war being waged by the President with the consent of Congress. This must stop.

Then talk to your friends, family, and neighbors. Get them together for a house party to discuss this war, and our options to stop it. Click here for information on a house party kit.

Please join with me on this day by signaling your continued support for ending this war. Your voice is important.

And so is your contribution. We need your help to carry our message forward. Our goal is to raise $50 million for this campaign, $50 at a time from one million concerned Americans: http://kucinich.us/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?q=195831&u=314;id=1

Be One of a Million. Please contribute today to show your support for ending this war.

More On Lebanon

Check out this interview with the Kucinich's (mostly Elizabeth). At around 15 minutes Lebanon is covered. Even though I don't agree with much she says regarding politics, I really like Elizabeth -- she's genuine (in a way that her husband does not appear to be so).

But I urge you to consider the following part of the interview around 17:30. And ask yourself if you really agree with this sentiment:

Q. "What do you see as the largest obstacle to ensuring peace in (the Middle East)?"

A. "An honest broker."

16 Tons

Considering Al Gore

[Not Dennis-related]

Al Gore is starting to look more and more like Jimmy Hoffa as the years go by and he gains a little weight. The best speech Al Gore ever gave was when he stopped challenging the 200 election, and not because I was "rooting" for Bush. I was, in fact, a very big Gore supporter in 2000 and viewed Bush _extremely_ negatively. But when the race tightened towards the end, Gore's stump speeches got sort of crazy and that, I think, turned off enough voters to cost him the presidency. If he'd campaigned in the final weeks by giving speeches that were similar in tone to his last one in December 2000, he would have won.

Of course, Gore faced a decision in late 2000 as to what to make of his political career. I think he chose wrong, drastically. Instead of building on the goodwill he had after the election (even adversaries admired his gracious last speech) and working practically on the concensus issue of pollution/global warming, Gore went way, way partisan. His once very sensible views on foreign policy got replaced by fervent anti-war stances popular with Democratic primary voters. And ultimately the crowing achievement of his wilderness years is An Inconveninent Truth, where Gore opts for pathetic scare tactics and dubious and sensational claims of an enviromental day of reckoning instead of sensible policy that would counter the great risk man-made global warming would present.

Gore's Oscar on Sunday night marked a culmination of this effort. There may even be another one coming when Nobel prizes are announced, and this will elevate his status in the world. But his status in America is irrevocably flat, and it's much, much lower than it was in 2000.

I watched Oscar highlights of Gore with sadness. I miss the old Gore, a guy with real promise to advocate progressive principles from the center and to achieve progressive ends without resorting to populist themese. That guy is gone forever. In his place we have a bloated Jimmy Hoffa of the international union of man-made climate change. Maybe it is toward a good end. But it's a lot less than what Gore could have been.