Hot News!
• Register to Vote, Right Now, at The Beacon!
• Cincinnati Progressives on the Bailout
• EXPOSED! Two sets of rules on Fountain Square
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
Events
 |
|
|
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Candidate for peace drops Presidential bid
Posted by Justin Jeffre
After being shut out of the debates by corporate media outlets, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich announces he’s dropping out of the presidential race. Kucinch has been critical of corporate control of the media and represented the voice of millions of Americans on single payer health care, election reform, impeachment and ending the war. He’s facing serious opposition in Ohio’s 10th Congressional district.
The Congressman from Cleveland’s east-side says he wants to continue to serve in Congress. “I’ve been able to represent the aspirations of people in this community, and communities like it across the country on health care, peace, for jobs. There is a point at which you just realize that you, look, you accept it, that it isn’t going to happen and you move on.”
Kucinich is looking to serve his seventh term in Congress, but now has four Democratic opponents. He says he’s proud of his impact on the race. “If anyone has watched the debates, they have been able to see that I’ve been able to do more than hold my own,” he told reporters. Kucinch, the only Democratic candidate to vote against the war and against all funding says he won’t endorse any other Democrat in the primary.
(Clinton voted for the war, all funding and has refused to apologize for her vote. She said that she will keep a permanent force in Iraq throughout her presidency. Obama has voted for war funding, says he’ll expand the Pentagon’s budget and will likely keep a small permanent force in Iraq also. Edwards voted for the war, but has since said it was a mistake. He says he will withdrawal in ten months and will not support permanent military bases in Iraq. They all claim to support universal health care, but they all keep the big insurance companies profits included in their plans. Hillary was the top recipient of health care industry payola until Obama recently passed her.)
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
24 Jan 2008 at 08:32 pm | #
You don’t get a much more principled Liberal than Kucinich; his Thought Leadership on Liberalism in the debates will be missed.
Fingers crossed that Ron Paul keeps sticking it to the Republican Establishment, though.
If he’s still on the ballot in Ohio come March, he’s got my vote!
24 Jan 2008 at 10:20 pm | #
See Urbanist, there are some things we can agree on.
25 Jan 2008 at 11:07 am | #
FYI, Dennis is from Cleveland’s WEST side. The distinction matters in Cleveland, maybe even more than it does in Cincinnati.
25 Jan 2008 at 01:33 pm | #
Chris Anderson, he represents the East side.
25 Jan 2008 at 05:52 pm | #
There’s no one more disgusted with the Democratic Party than me. The way they locked out Kucinich, the only guy with real Democratic values is shameful and disgusting. I reject and return fundraising letters and e-mails with my demands. First, commit to leaving Iraq, second impeach both Bush and Cheney. I’ve begun to refuse to even sign petitions for things I believe in until I see some commitment to change from the candidates. I also clearly explain to the dozens that call for contributions exactly why I won’t be contributing and get a commitment that my information will be relayed to the candidate. It probably won’t be but if more people do this, voices may be heard. Those replies that I do give always voice my dissatisfaction with the broken promises, no matter what the subject.
I can either try to change the Democratic party or call it a day and abstain from voting all together leaving subsequent generations to deal with the mess. That’s becoming more and more appealing. Voting Green, which I have done in several past years, wasted my vote and aided the Republicans. A noble gesture, but only symbolic. And you see what that’s gotten us. The only chance is for Democrats to take back their party and force the candidates to fulfill their promises. That can be done if the money stream is cut off.
27 Jan 2008 at 09:05 pm | #
Obama for President! Change we can believe in! Got Hope?
28 Jan 2008 at 06:26 am | #
Obama and Clinton are one in the same. The only difference is that Obama names a Republican, Ronald Reagan, as his inspiration. Some choice.
28 Jan 2008 at 09:30 am | #
While Clinton and Obama may have similar views on policy that is where the similarity ends. Obama has the power to unite the country across demographic and political divides and actually change the country for the better. Clinton on the other hand has said that in the general election she will pursue a strategy similar to that of President Bush’s election campaign (As a result of have the country saying they will never vote for her). I’ll refresh your memory as to what that was, Divide and Conquer. I don’t know about you but I’m tired of all the hate amongst parties and peoples. Let’s just all sit down and communicate and try and make the country better for everyone.
28 Jan 2008 at 09:52 am | #
There are clear differences between Clinton and Obama...and Suz, don’t misquote Obama. He didn’t say Reagan was his inspiration. He simply stated that Reagan had cross over appeal to some Democrats and that while Reagan was in office, the Republicans were the “party of ideas”, meaning that they challenged conventional thinking during his presidency. Obama didn’t agree with the Republican policies...he only agreed with challenging conventional wisdom. Big difference. The fact is that a President can’t get anything done unless you can bring people in from across the political spectrum. Hillary can’t do that because she’s too polarizing. Either you love Hillary or hate her but the same cannot be said about Obama. That’s why Obama is being endorsed by probably your favorite liberal Ted Kennedy.
Obama in ‘08.
28 Jan 2008 at 12:31 pm | #
cincysuz, I agree with you about Kucinich and cutting off their funding. The problem that you fail to realize is that they aren’t depending on you for funding. They are raising more than the Republicans and they do take lots of corporate and Republican money. Didn’t the Democrats promise to impeach and get out of Iraq in 2006? Where’s the beef?
The only time you throw your vote away is when you hold your nose and vote for a lesser evil instead of voting your values and for who’s the best candidate. When you vote Green your voting for peace, civil liberties, fair tade, not for profit universal health care, a living wage, clean elections, tax relief for working people and ending corporate welfare, crime, fraud and abuse.
You voted for a pro-war candidate that voted for NAFTA, the Patriot Act and he was no different than Bush. He won the election and allowed Bush to steal yet another election. Stop throwing your vote to a party that doesn’t represent you on the issues. By doing so they take you for granted. Power is only responsive when it is insecure. The Green Party represents the issues the Democratic Party should, the more people support the Green Party the more the Democrats will steal our issues.
Michael and L.G., Obama just passed Clinton who was the leader in both corporate parties of raising health idustry payola. If you really think either one of these two are going to “fix” our wealth care system and end the bipartisan quagmire, I know a bridge that’s for sale.
Charismatic politicians can speak of unity and change, but that becomes pretty meaningless beyond the campaign trail. Has our Mayor united our city and brought real change? People who vote based on personalities instead of policies shouldn’t vote at all. The Republican slime machine will hit him as hard as anybody.
Obama has to talk about real policy changes and he’s not. He says he’ll expand the Pentagon’s budget and keep a small permanent force in Iraq, just like Clinton. At least Edwards says he wouldn’t keep permanent military bases there and he’s gotten more specific on dealing with corporate crime and poverty. I have little faith in politicians, our public servants must feel the pressure of strong movements for change that demand more than lip service and feel good rhetoric.
28 Jan 2008 at 01:52 pm | #
Justin, I don’t remember a promise to impeach. When the Dems won back Congress, she immediately stated “Impeachment is off the table” which was disappointing. I do agree that they promised to get out of Iraq and they failed doing that. But, then again, it’s the President’s war. If the Democrats would have cut off funding, they would not be in the position they are in currently and that’s recapturing the White House due to the spin the Republicans would have hit them with. At this point, better to have an Obama White House than McCain or Romney.
Universal health care is what everyone is screaming for, which I don’t have a problem with, but how will it get paid for? That’s the biggest problem. I agree with Obama in his theory on health care. Average citizens would buy health care IF IT WAS AFFORDABLE. If health care is made affordable for average citizens to buy, they will buy it and it will not cause the health care industry to go bankrupct which nobody wants.
I don’t think we can compare Mark Mallory and Barack Obama. Obama isn’t the President yet...Mallory, as sitting Mayor, has not brought real change to Cincinnati and he should be held accountable for that. Obama has, at the very least, changed the political landscape with his historic presidential run. Whether that translates into change in the White House we’ll have to see. Right now, I think the majority of America believes that he has the best chance of changing America from the White House.
28 Jan 2008 at 02:03 pm | #
And Obama was against the war from the very start (as well as Kucinich, I’ll give him that.) While Obama may have voted for funding, he did not put the troops in Iraq. His vote protected them from vulnerability in the field and protected from the Republican Party scaring people into voting Republican in 2008. The U.S. can’t just walk away from Iraq at this point. Bush has made such a mess that if we do leave in an unresponsible manner, neighboring countries will end up fighting for the region and real terrorists will attempt to take over as well. A phased redeployment is reasonable while we use diplomacy in Iran, Syria and other neighboring countries of Iraq to help stabilize Iraq and rebuild our national standing/credibility. Once Iraq is stabilized through diplomacy to other neighboring countries, then all troops should be out of there. If after diplomatic efforts with Iran and Syria, the Iraqis wants a dictator, let them have a dictator. Everyone doesn’t like democracy and the U.S. should recognize and respect that stance.
28 Jan 2008 at 03:34 pm | #
L.G., they did promise to impeach, John Conyers and others did. She didn’t take it off of the table until they were voted in. It isn’t “the Presidents war”, it was always a bipartisan war and as much as these politicians try to spin and backpeddle, the Democrats voted for it, except Kucinich.
Obama, didn’t have a vote on it. It’s easy to take a stand when you don’t have to vote on it. How do you know what position the Democrats would be in if they cut the funding? The American (and Iraqi) people want a withdrawal and it is the Democrats that have taken withdrawal off of the table because they aren’t an opposition party, the are a pro-status quo, corporate war-party.
At this point it’s better to stop voting for pro-war corporate owned politicians and work to make real change and create a real opposition party. The whigs and Democrats used the same line to keep abolition off of the table until a third party brought the change.
Universal health care is what the American people have been screaming for, but corporate Democrats like Clinton and Obama are the leading recipients of health industry payola so their plan will keep feeding big pharma and insurance companies instead of cutting out those greedy bastards.
We have the most inefficient system in the world. We pay more and get less. Cut out the for profit middle men that take at least 25 to 30% of every health care dollar. Every industrialized nation on the planet spends less and covers all their people craddle to grave.
If Obama expands the Pentagon budget and continues America’s imperial foreign policy while taking money from the wealth care industry we won’t get a desperately needed over haul of the health care system. 14 permanent military bases (the current plan) keeps our troops vulnerable.
Obomba has said he might strike Pakistan and redeployment isn’t withdrawal which is what we need. The bipartisan occupation is irresponsible and the only reason Iraq had a dictator is because the US supported him, like the Shah of Iran, House of Saud and Kuwaiti regimes.
The US doesn’t like democracy, supports puppet regimes around the world and a two party corporate dictatorship at home that leaves you only with the illusion of choice. All anti-war candidates are excluded from the debates. Obomba will only change the face of American imperialism. He is an appeaser, not a challenger. These corrupt policies must be challenged!
Obomba is just a good salesman for the status quo. Follow the money!
28 Jan 2008 at 07:22 pm | #
I watched a few minutes of one of the presidential debates and turned it off in disgust. Obama AND Clinton BOTH talked about invading Pakistan. Invading Pakistan. More war. More saber rattling. More commitment to wasting and devaluing human life. More American domination of the world.
I dismiss Hillary all together. But IF Obama wanted to be the real “people’s candidate” he would take the golden opportunity to attack the million ways the Republican’s have screwed up the country and spell out exactly how he would do things differently. I don’t see him differentiating himself at all. Americans DO want to hear that. Of course Republicans don’t and he wants so much to appeal to them, that he’s just going for the “America has great potential, we can do anything we set our mind to” patriotic, nationalistic, whip ‘em into an emotional frenzy message. He wants to create a bunch of Republicans for Obama, like the Democrats for Reagan bunch.
The democrats haven’t come up with a candidate that’s worth shit.
29 Jan 2008 at 06:19 am | #
Actually, I totally agree with Justin. We just disagree on the road to take having this knowledge.
29 Jan 2008 at 12:17 pm | #
What Obama has said about Pakistan is that if he receives information that Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan, he will strike it. Again, that’s reasonable...Osama Bin Laden needs to be killed or captured. He is a threat to America. Iraq and Saddam were not...this is where Bush messed up, by making a case to go into Iraq when we had no business to go there. Obama is being specific in some regards and not others. Health care...he’s specific on. Iraq...he’s specific on. Other issues, he is not. Why? Because neither Obama nor any other candidates, Democrat or Republican, have all the answers. However, Obama has the incredible and unique ability to bring everyone together in order to figure out how to address those problems. Neither Hillary, Edwards or any of the Republican candidates have this ability. Neither does Cynthia McKinney, who I respect a lot. America needs Obama as President if we want to all come together regardless of political affiliation and solve problems that have nothing to do with partisianship.
29 Jan 2008 at 06:01 pm | #
cincysuz, they had Kucinich who was very good on the issues, but they worked to exclude him from the debates and marginalize his campaign. (It’s very similar to the lack of support the Democratic Party gives to progressive candidates locally.)
It reminds me of how they wouldn’t let his peace delegates have their peace signs in the Democratic National convention because Kerry was pro-war. Though many people that stand for peace support the party it has a pro-war, corporate and imperial agenda.
L.G., Obama says he’ll expand the Pentagon’s already bloated budget, that’s not reasonable. Permanent military bases in Iraq aren’t reasonable either. We still have no business in Iraq. The country is in chaos and there’s already a blood bath. Our continued presence inflames the region and allows more massive fraud and war crimes.
Obama is bad on health care. He says universal, but continues a scandalous system where the blood sucking greedy corporations put profit over people. He’s taking more money from the industry than Hillary or any Republican.
He’s really not specific on anything and he’s only giving us feel good rhetoric about unity, hope and change. It doesn’t mean a damn thing and it certainly doesn’t mean he has a unique ability to bring the country together. Bring the country together around what? Feel good rhetoric and the status quo.
The problems with this country were created with bipartisanship. Stop saying Bush’s war, the Democrats voted for it and yes Obama supports the funding. You can’t fund a war and honestly say your against the war.
The Democratic Party doesn’t oppose the war or the Patriot Act, they say ‘we don’t like how Bush is running them and we’ll do a better job’. We need a change in these policies not in the faces that sell us the current ones.
30 Jan 2008 at 02:16 pm | #
simply not true. pelosi said in march of 2006 way before the elections that impeachment was off the table. try google it can be a friend
30 Jan 2008 at 08:46 pm | #
added45, I said Conyers and others were promising impeachment hearings and that is true. That should’ve read “he” didn’t take it off of the table until after the election. The fact that the American people want impeachment hearings and an end to the war shouldn’t stop the Democrats from ignoring them and doing whatever their corporate paymasters tell them to do.
31 Jan 2008 at 10:09 am | #
“Permanent military bases in Iraq aren’t reasonable either.”
Justin, I respect you a great deal and I consider you to be a great American and political mind, but this is a statement that Obama never made. He never proposed permanent military bases in Iraq. He wants to keep troops there to only protect the Embassy there and other Americans who may be in that country. I agree that we had no business invading Iraq. But since the President made the bad decision to do so, we must now reasonably deal with the Country so that terrorists do not take over the government.
“You can’t fund a war and honestly say your against the war.”
Justin, you’re sounding like Hillary. Hillary voted to give the President authorization to go to war. Obama did not. You can be against the war and fund the troops. Just because you take funding away from protecting the troops does not mean Bush will pull them out and Bush would not pull them out.
The theory of Obama is true: if you made health care affordable, people will buy it. People do not want to walk around without health care. Are you saying that people should not have to pay ANYTHING for health care and that’s how universal health care work? That simply is not reasonable in a capitalistic society. What Obama proposes is reasonable in the society we live in and is universal. Make health care affordable. People buy it. People are covered. Everyone is happy. Further, he’s not proposing to cut Medicare or Medicad. Therefore, if you’re above the poverty line and health care is made affordable, you are able to buy it. Everyone being covered is universal health care. Everyone getting free health care is not a good universal health care plan. Obama is very specific on that issue as well as the war issue. You just don’t like his specific plans and that’s ok. But to say he’s not specific on at least these 2 issues is not truth.
31 Jan 2008 at 01:32 pm | #
that fine can forgive a mistyping but in the future remember that it is the speaker of the house who would dictate such action and pelosi did say it was off the table. sorry if you thought otherwise
31 Jan 2008 at 05:54 pm | #
LG says about Obama:
He wants to keep troops there to only protect the Embassy there and other Americans who may be in that country.
How is that any different than what Bush proposes? We don’t need the enormous complex that we’re told is an embassy but which is actually a permanent military base and Obama knows that. And any American that’s there should have to bear the risk. We shouldn’t be wasting lives and money to assure that Americans who want to get rich in a war zone, can do that safely.
And what’s affordable health care? A senior not only has Medicare deducted from their small social security check but also has to select a supplemental plan for a minimum of $75 per month. With prescription costs, potentially their entire income goes to health care coverage. Is that a good deal? What’s Obama going to do about that?
31 Jan 2008 at 06:09 pm | #
military68, John Conyers, the House Judiciary Committee Chair has a lot of influence and if he and those other Democrats put pressure on her she would feel a need to represent the majority of voters who feel that impeachment is appropriate for a number of good reasons.
More importantly, remember, Pelosi and the Congress swore an oath to uphold the constitution. The constitution specifically says what Congress is supposed to do when there are high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the executive branch of which there is a long list to choose from.
They have a responsibility and duty to hold the executive branch accountable for things like lying to Congress to get us into a war that the administration is profiting from, sorry if you thought otherwise.
Not that I would accuse the Democrats of giving a damn about the constitution or the will of the voters.
31 Jan 2008 at 08:59 pm | #
research robert barr who was on the judiciary committee and drew up articles of impeachment against clinton pretty much nonstop. conyers is the democratic version- a blowhard who is worthless when it comes to accomplishing anything.
In march pelosi flat out said that impeachment was off the table. You cant get much clearer than that and any dream of anyones that bush would be impeached after that was a pie in the sky dream.
To state that “Didn’t the Democrats promise to impeach and get out of Iraq in 2006?” simply isn’t true. A handful of rough legislators dont speak for the democratic party. The speaker of the house does and she said impeachment was off the table. TO paint the entire party with that brush is an unfair attack
01 Feb 2008 at 08:57 am | #
LG says about Obama:
He wants to keep troops there to only protect the Embassy there and other Americans who may be in that country.
How is that any different than what Bush proposes
The troops will be non-combat and are for security purposes only. That’s a big difference than being on the offensive.
Colin Powell said it, “You break it, you own it.” That couldn’t be more true. The U.S. now owns Iraq. A redeployment is neccessary and Obama’s plan of having all troops out of Iraq 16 months after he takes office is a far better plan than withdrawing immediately so genocide can occur or McCain wanting to stay in Iraq for “100 years”.
02 Feb 2008 at 02:09 pm | #
Sun 93, as I said, John Conyers has a lot of influence and there was a lot of Democrats in the house saying that if we elected a Democratic majority they would end the war and push for impeachment. They were the ones saying this, so they are liars.
I guess expecting Pelosi to live up to her constitutional duty to impeach the President over high crimes and misdemeanors is just a pie in the sky dream. I certainly don’t expect her or the Democratic Party to represent the will of the majority on impeachment or ending the war. They are the status quo. Also, doesn’t a question mark indicate a question and not a statement?