With Support Like This...

Seems a little quiet on the campaign trail at the moment. But there's no shortage of Kucinich-mentions around the country. here;s one:

Only Rep. Dennis Kucinich sees the futility of a mission impossible. If we are to be the planet's policemen, the costs will be at the expense of social programs.

That is sort of true -- things like fighing a war or having a robust military do take dollars away from other possible uses (be they social programs, or tax cuts, or whatever). But c'mon, if you 1) accept the fact that terrorists exist and want to hit the US, and 2) terrorism flourishes in large part due to root causes like repressive Middle Eastern regimes or a warped sort of Islamic fanaticism, then it follows that US government ought to work hard to prevent terrorist attacks and help change the underlying causes of terrorism. It becomes a matter of how much and where to invest the country's resources. Whether Iraq is a wise move in this regard is obviously debatable, but there should be no debate on whether there is a fight going on.

So argue for spending less on fighting terrorism if you'd like. Argue that it can be done more effectively through other, less expensive means. Put forth another vision on how the world is changing and how America can be a positive influence. Kucinich at least tries here. But much of his support seems not to.

Remember outsourcing? Dennis states that "Canceling NAFTA and the WTO will enable the U.S. to protect high-tech jobs from outsourcing."

I've got one of those "high-tech jobs" and would like to point out that Dennis is wrong. Kucinich is not the only politician prone to panicky overreactions in this regard (Sherrod Brown comes to mind), but since Kucinich is basing so much of his presidential campaign on the Iraq issue, it seems worthwhile to remember his stances on other important matters.

2004 Campaign: Kucinich a No-Show for 13.5% of Votes

During the 108th Congress (2003-2004) while Kucinich last ran for president, Dennis Kucinich missed 13.5% of House votes. In other words, about 95% of the country's Congressional districts had representatives who did a better job of showing up than Mr. Kucinich did while he was last off running for president. Dennis has traditionally been good about showing up for votes -- during the 107th Congress Kucinich missed only 0.8% of the votes. It's pretty clear Kucinich's run for the presidency -- and the accompanying spotlight -- had a detrimental effect on his attendence in Congress.

Of course, flagrant no-shows in Congress are not new. And most of the worst are involved in tough re-election campaigns or other campaigns. If anything, this is proof positive how running a campaign takes a toll on a Congressman's ability to be present on Capitol Hill. You can judge for yourself the wisdom of pursuing a presidential nomination and the effect it will have on Kucinich's ability to represent the Ohio 10th district. Especially when Kucinich got virtually no support when it came to actual votes in the primaries last time around.

Lebanon Update

Elizabeth Kucinich was kind enough to respond to a comment I'd left asking for more info. Here's what she said:

Hello Mike,

Thank you for your comments and questions. Our visit to the region was a personal trip with no notification to the State Department. We wanted to meet the people, breath their air and open our hearts to theirs, in Lebanon, Israel and Palestine.

We went to the areas with an open heart and that is exactly the response we received back from the people. It was an incredible journey that completely changed our lives.

We speak of human unity, but in Lebanon particularly we really felt it. In the dust and rubble of destroyed homes, we were greeted with love, a craving for dialogue and peaceful existence.

We saw only cooperation between each of the religious communities in Lebanon. Religious divide is a theme that the media likes to portray, but we saw none of it.

People in the villages of South Lebanon had lost everything, yet had the capacity to express their dignity and humanity which was truly life transforming for us.

We made the trip so that we could learn about the people and the politicians, the policies and the reality on the ground, with the aim of finding a way of learning how to bring parties in the region together.

She also linked to Kucinich's original report, A Message From Qana.

Read it and judge for yourself. I'm happy Elizabeth was kind enough to respond, and it's helpful. Some of my worst fears are laid to rest in that their trip appears to be born out of empathy, and I can appreciate that. As they went along with a trip sponsored by the American University in Dubai, they personally may not have had to deal with many of the Hizbollah-types. But I still think it was unwise because the trip also functioned as a PR win for Hizbollah by the mere fact that an American Congressman showed up to legitimize them. Kucinich has always had integrity, of a certain cort anyway. I don't doubt that he means well. But, like a lot of his actions, I do not see what good could have come of this. If anything, to show up on the scene in Hizbollah-land it could only bolster the perceived strength of Hizbollah. And what good does that do?

What Did Kucinich Do In Lebanon?

On December 6th, Dennis' wife Elizabeth posted on the Kucinich web site an article about their August visit to southern Beruit and southern Lebanon in the aftermath of the war between Hizbollah and Israel. Accompanying the article was this picture (click for full size):



Stare at that picture for a moment.

It's well documented that Hizbollah controls all access in and out of southern Beruit and much of the south of Lebanon. They ARE the government there. Nobody gets in without first arranging access with Hizbollah officials. The press is escorted around, and there are many accounts of potential staged scenes that subsequently get reported on. Journalists must submit their passports to Hizbollah to get access. Descriptions of the off-camera and off-the-record machinations that journalists have had to go through to get into this part of Lebanon are downright creepy.

That's for a journalist or an independent blogger. Now imagine what happens when a sitting American Congressman comes by for a visit. Think Hizbollah might have been a bit more interested?

---

For some backround on getting journalistic access to this part of Lebanon, see the experience of the Anderson Cooper show. Or the experiences of independent blogger/journalist Christopher Allbritton where he descibes how Hizbollah copies journalists' passports and threatens them. Or the experiences of another independent blogger/journalist Michael Totten in Hizbollah-land Or a summary of Hizbollah's media actions at C.A.M.E.R.A..

Israel bombed the Hizbollah-controlled parts of Beruit and Lebanon. Unless Kucinich happened to visit a non-Hizbollah area that was also bombed (either mistakenly or for reasons only known to the Israeli military), I think it's very concerning to wonder who Kucinich dealt with and how he was used by the Hizbollah propoganda machine. In her article Elizabeth mentions that their visit was covered on television in Lebanon, so it was obviously a big event.

---

It would be interesting to know:

1. How did Kucinich's office arrange the trip to Lebanon?
   
2. Who were his contacts in the Lebanese government?
   
3. Who were his contacts for arranging access to southern Beruit? Who accompanied him on his forrays into south Beruit and the southern part of the country?
   
4. Who provided his security?
   
5. Who took the picture(s) and was there any oversight by Hizbollah or allied government officials?
   
6. To what extent was Mr. Kucinich's visit a propoganda opportunity for Hizbollah?
   
7. What did Mr. Kucinich do to mitigate the risk that Hizbollah would abuse his visit for propoganda purposes?
   
8. What was Mr. Kucinich's purpose of this trip? What does he feel like he accomplished?
   
9. While in Lebanon Kucinich met seperately with various faction leaders of the Lebanese government, including the leaders allied with Hizbollah. What messages did he send and what messages did he receive from each of these leaders?
   

These are important questions. Hizbollah is declared a terrorist organization by the US Government (fairly or not, and whether Kucinich agrees with that designation or not). We have a right to know who he had to deal with on this trip and what he did. Maybe I've missed it, but I didn't see any real coverage of this trip. Certainly no one appears to have asked Mr. Kucinich the above questions yet.

---

Some notes on Elizabeth's article...

• She recounts the tale of their bellman, who apparently lived in the bombed out area of south Beruit. No mention is made of whether this man is a Hizbollah supporter, however he apparently lived in or very nearby Hizbollah areas.
  
• In fact, Elizabeth keeps mentioning the "bombing of the southern suburbs of Beirut." That's geographically correct, but it doesn't acknowledge the nature of the conflict or why it was being bombed. A more accurate discription would have been "Hizbollah controlled areas of Beruit."
  
• She summarizes the bellman's story without noting where this unfortunate man stands in the various Lebanese conflicts. To hear Elizabeth tell it, this man was an unbiased victim who had no stake or opinion on the Lebanese Civil War or Hizbollah's power grab. Well, it matters. It matters because Hizbollah is a state within a state. And it was no accident that certain areas were bombed (leaving aside whether it was justifiable).
  
• Elizabeth writes "Bombs made in the US, many paid for by US foreign military aid were being used to take Lebanon’s economy back 20 years..." but makes no mention of Iranian and Syrian arms and money funding Hizbollah terror. In fact, she descibes it entirely passively as "Then came this wave of terror..." and it's not even clear what side of the recent conflict she is referring to. Perhaps it doesn't matter to her.
  
• On whole, the bellman's story is terribly sad. And she conveys the sense of helplessness most Lebanese no doubt feel. It's tragic. She's got that nailed. But the only conclusions she can reach is that American arms are perhaps a root cause and America can't stand "idly by."
  
• Not once in the article does she mention Hizbollah.
  
• Not once in the article does she mention Iran.
  
• Not once in the article does she mention Syria.
  

Like Elizabeth, I have great sympathy for Lebanon. But the Kucinich's just don't seem to get it. That's fine for most people, and it might even be fine for some Congressmen. But not for a Congressman who willfully injects himself into the Lebanese conflict by flying there and arranging a whole itinerary to tour areas and meet with leaders of various factions. We need to see and hear Mr. Kucinich intelligently speak of the dynamics there, and the conversations has to acknowledge what Hizbollah brings to the table. Otherwise it is just willful ignorance and the worst of the criticisms of Kucinich are true.

Dec. 11th - the Kucinich-Paul Congressional Hearing on Civilian Casualties in Iraq

Kucinich managed to assemble a panel of "experts" on Dec. 11th to discuss civilian caualties in Iraq, a topic that no doubt deserves very serious discussion and is no laughing matter. But who did Kucinich bring out for the press to provide their expert opinion? Three guys who's work is anything but widely accepted, and in fact their work is quite commonly rejected -- two authors of the wideley discredited Lancet study on civilian casualties in Iraq, Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response and Prof Les Roberts from Columbia University. Joining them was Prof. Juan Cole of U. of Michigan, a supposed "middle east expert" who's work and comments regarding Iraq have been dressed down do many times in the blogosphere it's amazing anyone considers him a middle-east expert anymore. Nevertheless, apparently Dennis Kucinich is happy to have these guys and happy to trumpet their controversial (and that's being generous) views from Capitol Hill.

I'm not qualified to summarize al the criticisms of the Lancet study and Juan Cole, but some other resources are below. A few key points -- this Lancet study studied a few hundred deaths and extrapolated that an astounding 655,000 civilians died in 2 1/2 years. That number surpasses even the wildest previous estimates by a wide margin, including all those by all major newspaper reports, the United Nations, and even the Iraq Body Count project. It's more than the number of people who died in the American Civil War, or the number of civilians killed in the WWII Allied air campaign when entire cities were firebombed. Think the study might be just a bit off the mark? Yet Mr. Kucinich is inviting these people to Congress to testify, and doing so without even one whisper acknowledging the very low regard that most of the world, even holds this study.

• Iraq the Model -- Lancet study is "fake research"
  
• Check out this YouTube video of the Lancet's editor -- thankfully he wasn't part of Kucinich's hearing, but his partners and his study certainly was.
  
• Lancet links from Instapundit.com
  
• On Juan Cole at The New Republic
  
• Some right-wing criticism of Jaun Cole here and here. If your liberal you probably don't like these blogs, but the points made are accurate.
  

It'd be nice if some reporter would ask Kucinich why he selected these particular experts. And how much faith he himself places in the Lancet Study. And, assuming he agreees with it's conclusions, how he squares those results with all the other similar estimates that come no where near the Lancet's numbers. And does Kucinich think by only presenting the most extreme "experts" he can actually win over Americans to his point of view? At the very least, I think people in his Congressional district would be interested in a little backstory on Kucinich's latest hearing on the Hill.

Feagler: Candidacy No Laughing Matter

Dick Feagler of Channel 3 and the PD likes the Kucinich candidacy. Feagler likes the fact that Kucinich was (in his opinion at least) right about the war and thinks Kucinich is good for the national debate. Fair enough. Those are, in fact, pretty good reasons for Dennis to run for president. And that's why we have elections. Cool.

But along the way Feagler puts for a few highly debatable bits that a reader shouldn't pass over without questioning. Here are a few:

Some people, especially in this town, thought he was quirky.

Yes, some people in this town thought he was quirky. Actually, I think most people in and around Cleveland think Dennis is quirky, even Dennis himself. He's a different sort of breed, and I suppose that is part of his appeal. Quirky is not the problem...

But let's not laugh at the fact that Dennis Kucinich is running for president again.

I agree -- it's no laughng matter. But it is not the good thing Dick Feagler describes it as. If it goes anything like the 2004 run it will garner little support yet Kucinich will continue his run long after he is out of the race. He'll do this to make a point, to influence debate, etc. But in the process the Democratic race will have unnecesary noise. He'll probably weaken the eventual Democratic candidate. Frankly, Kucinich will become another face of the Democratic party that will not appeal to the large centrist portion of the American population. That's not joke. Although it's all probably quite funny to people in other parts of the country when they wonder, "Where the heck is this guy from anyway?" It's also probably pretty funny if you are the sort who doesn't want the Democratic party to be taken seriously.

The knock against him, locally, was that in his quest for the presidency, he was neglect ing his parochial role in Congress. Not paying enough attention to his own constituents.

There are two things wrong with this argument. First, Dennis got to be Dennis with retail politics. He understands how important it is to have somebody in his district return phone calls. I've never heard a credible argument that he has forgotten where he comes from. He understands his base. He has lived in the same house on the West Side for 30 years. He knows his neighbors and how they think. He's a working-class guy.

There is a lot more to "paying enough attention" to your Congressional district than returning phone calls (which Kucinich's office does well), or not forgetting where he comes from, or still owning the same house. It's about being a legislative presence for Cleveland at the Congressional level. And on this count Kucinich already has a paltry record without going off and running for president. I want someone who will, above anything else, help implement a positive vision for Northeast Ohio. And frankly, if you do a poor job of that anyways, I don't see how running for president is going to improve that situation. On that, Feagler doesn't comment.

But I would have a hard time voting for anybody who gave the go-ahead to get us into this war.

Ahhh... OK, now I get it. It looks like Feagler's voting options could be slim in 2008. Though I suppose there will be candidates emerge who never had to express an explicit opinion on it because they weren't in Congress at the time.

The war is still very much the thing. It is an un-American war. It goes against our grain. It is not America's kind of fight. Unless we do something rapidly, more of our kids will get killed in Iraq. And they will die when politicians can't find a way out.

I don't want to turn this post (or this blog) into a long conversation about Iraq. But Feagler is obviously motivated by what he feels is a clear failure of America's presence in Iraq. I am not exactly sure what he means by "It is an un-American war. It goes against our grain. It is not America's kind of fight." but I'm pretty sure such statements are only true if you believe American interests in Iraq are less than honorable. And it begs the question what is an American-type war? What is American's kind of fight? I think Feagler would come up with an interesting essay on the subject, although I wonder if Feagler's answer would square with Dennis Kucinich's stated ideological stance.

We make fun of him because he's ours. But he was right two years ago, and he's right now.

I really don't think we make fun of him because he's "ours." If anything, he is made fun of because he embarassed himself to most Americans last time around. That sort of damage does not in any way help Greater Cleveland, whether you love or hate Dennis Kucinich. And about being right... Kucinich's basic stance is that war was only for defensive purposes, and at that a very last resort. And along the way we should take all kinds of steps to reduce military power and not project power. Is that really the "right" answer? I'm willing to entertain the possibility, however I seriously doubt Democrats or the American people at large would adopt that. Nevertheless, that does fall into the category of a good reason to attempt a presidential run. If you have a chance to win or at least shape the debate. If you won't stay in the race too long. If you won't split your own party. If you aren't going to leave behind a district in turmoil.

Frankly, to our shame, we should have listened harder to him last time.

It might be possible that people _did_ listen last time. In fact, a lot of people listened to Kucinich long after he had no shot of winning. But as Kucinich was campaigning outside of Ohio, the people Kucinich was trying to win over probably weren't the Ohio 10th Congressional district.

Plain Dealer: Run for Presidency Hurts OH-10

Here's a Plain Dealer editorial, noting that Kucinich stated in late September while running for reelection that he had no plans to run for president yet now, after he has been reelected, he's decided to run:

The people of Greater Cleveland and the 10th Congressional District need a representative who will make them his No. 1 priority. By setting himself against his party's leadership, by committing himself to months of trooping through Iowa and New Hampshire, Kucinich risks squandering whatever clout he might finally bring to bear for the people who have so patiently put their trust in him.

It's about the tenth district. It's fine for Dennis to run for president, I wish him the best and perhaps he can at least shape the national debate. But he's also misled voters who were concerned his national aspirations might again eclipse his district obligations. Perhaps Dennis should forgo another Congressional term while he seeks the presidency. There are probably several bright, worthy Democrats who would do an admirable job if appointed in his place.

No vote - H.R.5948 - Reauthorization of Belarus Democracy Act of 2004.

Dennis voted against this bill. You can read about it here. It's summary is as follows:

Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006 - Amends the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004 to extend and specify authorization of appropriations for: (1) democracy and civil society activities; and (2) radio and television broadcasting to Belarus.

Establishes specified economic and U.S. entry sanctions against Belarus until its government makes progress in meeting specified conditions respecting: (1) release of political prisoners and accounting for the disappearances of opposition leaders and journalists; (2) cessation of political harassment; (3) prosecution of senior government leaders for embezzlement of state assets and administration of fraudulent elections; and (4) holding free presidential and parliamentary elections under independent supervision.

It passed the House 397-2. Kucinich and and Jeff Flake R-AR were the only members of Congress to vote against it.

Site Launch

Yesterday Dennis Kucinich announced he will again seek the Democratic Presidential Nomination for the 2008 election. Today, this site has begun. The purpose of this site is to track the actions of Representative Dennis Kucinich, both as the Congressional representative of Ohio D-10 and as a presidential candidate.

In fact, the motivation for this site is for OH-10, which is basically Cleveland and much of its south and west suburbs. The Cleveland area has more than its share of problems, most the result of a shrinking economic base. It is absolutely critical that Cleveland is represented well at all levels of government. We need active representation and results.

There is no debating that Mr. Kucinich has been overwhelmingly popular and comfortably won re-election for over a decade now. However, he also occupies a fringe place in the Democratic Party and has usually taken broad, ideological positions over pursuing enact-able legislation. Kucinich is known as the foremost "Peace Advocate" and has proclaimed that the Department of Defense should be recast as the Department of Peace. He's also known for a certain type of dramatic press conference, usually staged outside some sort of closed Ohio factory surrounded by laid-off workers. And, it seems, actual tangible results to help his district rarely follow. Certainly legislation being enacted that Mr. Kucinich has proposed very, very rarely, if ever, is passed in Congress. It is somewhat mystifying to me why my fellow citizens continue to reelect Kucinich by wide margins. While I respect that people may be attracted to his ideological stances, in terms of getting results he has clearly failed the 10th district.

In 2002-2004 Kucinich ran for President. He toured the country. He tramped through the primary states. He hobnobbed with various celebrities enthusiastic about his campaign. He stayed in the race almost until the Democratic Party convention. All this despite garnering little more than a few percentage points of support in each state. In fact, Kucinich continued to run long after he was mathematically eliminated. All the while, the economy of Greater Cleveland continued its steady decline.

Since 2004 Dennis has continued doing what he does best - leading a sort of Peace movement, opposing many of the actions that his own party pursues, and even traveling to tour southern Lebanon to condemn violence (something that deserves much closer inspection, at least by this blog).

And so -- this blog is intended to track Dennis Kucinich and note his stated actions and positions. It will try to keep track of his campaign and how (or if) he manages to still represent his Congressional district. It will try and keep up with the various news stories covering Dennis around the country and the world. It will look into some of his more controversial positions and actions. And ultimately it will help everyone, particularly my fellow citizens in OH-10, get to know this Congressman and what he is really achieving as a representative of the people.