Dennis The Menace
I'm not exercised very much either way by Rep. Dennis Kucinich's rather surprise announcement on Tuesday that he was once again running for President.
A surprise not only because there had been earlier speculation that Russ Feingold might come forward as the peace candidate (until he announced he wasn't running) or that Barack Obama might now take up that banner, but also because Kucinich's 2004 campaign was such an unmitigated flop.
I know Dennis, have spent time with him on several occasions, and there's no question he's a principled and often courageous (and sometimes tragically lone) voice on so many crucial issues. But his previous presidential campaign was more or less a disaster, picking up only 3.8% of the total vote in the 37 Democratic primaries he participated in.
In several places I was able to see the campaign up close and personal -- especially in Iowa and California-- and let me tell you that it was not a pretty sight. In spite of Dennis' extraordinary personal character, his campaign attracted a collection of marginalia and remained only marginal. His was sort of the reverse of the Howard Dean experience. I thought Dean's supporters were so much better than the candidate they were supporting. And I thought Kucinich was so far above many of the very strange folks he was attracting.
I'm sure there are plenty of whys and wherefores when it comes to sorting out Kucinich 2004, but in politics what counts are the numbers. And Kucinich was able to win the preference of less than 4 out of every 100 (already more liberal than not) Democratic primary voters. Translation=Toast.
This means the self-proclaimed peace candidate starts out with what is clearly only a symbolic campaign -- precisely at a time when the imperative to end the war in Iraq is a pressing, concrete reality and hardly symbolic.
As I said at the top, this isn't keeping me up at night in any manner. But it seems that another Kucinich campaign offers the opportunity for anti-war voters to syphon themselves off into a dead-ended detour. It will give them a pleasing emotional catharsis to have their "own" candidate. But wouldn't it be better if they could influence other, more competitive, candidates to come their way? Given, precisely, the ambiguity of many potential Democratic contenders' positions on the war, I would think that anti-war voters would be more efficiently exercising their clout by bringing their voice and their arguments and their passion into one or another of the other incipient campaigns.
What, for example, is the benefit of anti-war Dems lining up so early for Kucinich (who can't win the primary let alone the general) as compared to, say, helping build a strong Edwards (or maybe Obama) campaign that actually can win? Win AND offer strong opposition to the war?
I know the counter-argument. That Kucinich in the mix will force other Dems to run to the left, to compete with him for anti-war voters etc. etc. A nice idea. And one that didn't work in 2004. Why think it will fly this time?
P.S. Meanwhile, the verbose and annoying George Lakoff now claims credit for the Democratic mid-term victory. The Democrats finally took his advice, he says, and learned his lessons of "progressive framing." Geez, and all this time I thought the Democrats won because everyone was just so turned off by Bush. What do I know? How was I to figure out that I might be one of those "biconceptuals" that Dr. Lakoff refers to (Man, is this guy ever full of gibberish).
P.P.S. One more straggler Pinochet-related follow-up. The dictator's idiot grandson and namesake got booted out of the Chilean Army today. Why? For making an inflammatory speech at Gramp's funeral disdaining democracy and justifying dictatorship. These folks are priceless.
December 13th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
I say give the kid a break. I thought you felt that it was, well, unAmerican to rule someone out of running. Of course he won’t win but HIS IDEAS will be heard, as they were in the series of 2004 debates which, taken as a whole, gave a clear demonstration of the Democratic Party view of the issues. If Ralph Nader had run in the Dem Primaries in 2000 - as Herold Meyerson wrote at the time - his ideas would have received more attention and might very well have affected how Gore would have run. Instead we all know what he did and look what happened.
I won’t support Kuchinich. I like Edwards, Clark, and - hopefully - Gore. But I welcome his entry. Now don’t get me started on Al Sharpton! There’s a guy who had some strange bedfellows as Doug Ireland and the VILLAGE VOICE revealed. Him, I might ban!
December 13th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Re Pinochet’s grandson. Maybe the “New” Iraqi Army can use him.
December 13th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
“What, for example, is the benefit of anti-war Dems lining up so early for Kucinich (who can’t win the primary let alone the general) as compared to, say, helping build a strong Edwards (or maybe Obama) campaign that actually can win?”
None. But so far I haven’t seen any sign of antiwar Dems lining up for or with him. With Feingold out, I’m hoping Edwards will come out with something strong. He has appeal in my neck of the woods, too.
Obama? No way. He’s made war-on-Iran noises, and contributed nothing but the kind of pablum you rightly deride in other Dems to the debate on Iraq.
While not planning to go anywhere near his presidential campaign, I give Kucinich huge credit for taking on topics others won’t. Exhibit of the week: his oversight briefing on Iraqi casualties with the authors of the Lancet report and Juan Cole on Monday. It’s in the C-SPAN archive, but for readers and those on dial-up, Cole has the transcript.
December 13th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Dennis has been married three times.
December 13th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Marc,
Was that the grandson in the car with him during the 1986 assassination attempt?
December 13th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
come now Marc, you’re forgetting Dennis’s glorious victory in, er, Maui
December 13th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Randy,, I think so.
Carlito: yeah, dont make me laugh too hard. That’s when Kucinich got 30%…. out of a total 3,000 votes cast in the caucuses. That was night that most of Hawaii stayed in to watch a local boy on American Idol. Some folks actually hailed that as a Kucinich “surge” if u will remember :).
December 13th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
The Dems ‘re-deploy’ ploy, thier non-response to the ISG’s ‘we can’t let them have the oil’ recommendations, and the lack of a viable, true anti-war candidate all tell me that the only hope for ending the war is people taking to the streets.
Anyone still talking ‘Iraqi exit strategy’ is really talking ‘keep the oil’ strategy’. Iraq no longer exists. Even if there were the political will to beef up the troop presence to hold the former Iraq together, it would prove futile.
The question is how many more casualties are the American public willing to accept in a doomed effort to maintain US control of a large portion of middle east oil…
Kudos to Michael Balter for his daily list of casualties - it is probably the most effective anti-war strategy we have! How about a legal challenge to MSM’s self-censorship of coffins and wounded returning from the middle east?
December 13th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Interesting to hear someone who has continually mocked and sprayed vitriole at Nancy Pelosi for supposed triangulation, but then turn around, pussy out, and all of a sudden sing the praises of John Edwards and Barak Obama. Being confusingly hypocritical is not the same thing as being a contrarian. How is it, pray tell, that a John Edwards and a Barak Obama are any different than Pelosi or Harry Reid (another fave target on here).
I have my own problems with Kucinich - I think he is far more polite than I would be with the Chris Matthews types, who constantly reserve their “hardballs” for straight talking people like him, but go to the softballs for the same old, same old talking heads (if I had been dumb enough to agree to appear on Matthews show today, as Dennis did, I would have at least taken this blow dried yuppie to the wood shed for his snarky interruptions and juvenile contempt).
Still, Kucinich tells it like it is, and whatever one might say he still shares the same viewpoint of, apparently, 55 percent of the American people. My task as a Kucinich campaign volunteer (which began yesterday) is to help that 55 percent see past the demagoguery that will inevitably be thrown Dennis’s way this year courtesy of Bill-O, Dimwit Dumbaugh, The Democratic Leadership Council, and, apparently, blogs like this.
A good answer to the question put forth above about Dennis’s candidacy in 2008 compared to 2004, “Why think it will fly this time?” is quite simple: the support for this war has fallen by a factor of nearly two. In the early part of this decade, Donald Rumsfeld was identified as one of People Magazine’s “Sexiest Men Alive,” in the pre-Abu Ghraib days when imperialism was just so gosh darn sexy. Much has changed since 2001, and I dare say that much has changed since 2004 in attitudes out there in the public. If I had to pick a Eugene McCarthy darkhorse for 2008, I don’t think he will be found in the form of Barak Obama or John Edwards, nice guys who are little more than shills for state power.
December 13th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Gosh, David, you sound like one of those Fightin’ Dems. I m not singing anyone’s praises and as I said dont care very much at all about this eather way.
However, if you think Kucinich is gonna do better this time around, Id love to take a bet from you. I’ll give u great odds and u’ll lose ur shirt.
“shills for state power” ? I love that one, comrade.
December 13th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Setting aside his bizarre ideas, Kucinich is just so–well, creepy.
There are still a few folks who wear Earth Shoes and drink soy milk and will be happy supporting him.
December 14th, 2006 at 12:26 am
Marc, the one problem I have with your comments is the implicit assumption that finding an antiwar candidate is a key part of the antiwar strategy. This may be true in educational terms, but the antiwar strategy should be to end the war well before November 2008. This could be achieved by a combination of pressuring the Democratic Congress to end it by cutting off funds, something that Kucinich by the way is the only one strongly proposing, and MILITANT antiwar demonstrations that really get down to business Vietnam war style. So yes, we want an antiwar candidate, but we also want an antiwar movement that means business, as I have been saying to Nell whom I am pleased to see here despite my disagreements with her.
As for why we don’t have much of an antiwar movement, such interesting thoughts from Jacob Weisberg in Slate. I agree with much of what he says, although he doesn’t seem too bothered by it whereas I am very bothered about it.
http://www.slate.com/id/2155442/nav/tap2/
December 14th, 2006 at 12:28 am
“some” interesting thoughts, I meant to say.
December 14th, 2006 at 12:30 am
A couple of our right wing friends have suggested in the past that we on the left are happy to see casualties in Iraq because it helps our “cause.” I have to say that every day I go on the Times site to get these names it I get a real shock. How can we let this go on?
The Department of Defense has identified 2,927 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
COTE, Budd M., 21, Lance Cpl., Marines; Marana, Ariz.; Marine Wing Support Group 37, Third Marine Aircraft Wing, First Marine Expeditionary Force.
DILLON, Matthew V., 25, Cpl., Marines; Aiken, S.C.; Marine Wing Support Group 37, Third Marine Aircraft Wing, First Marine Expeditionary Force.
DUNKLEBERGER, Brent W., 29, Sgt., Army; New Bloomfield, Pa.; First Cavalry Division.
FORD, Philip C., 21, Specialist, Army; Freeport, Tex.; 25th Infantry Division.
GIBSON, Brennan C., 26, Sgt., Army; Tualatin, Ore.; 25th Infantry Division.
McANULTY, Brian P. 39, Master Sgt., Marines; Vicksburg, Miss.; First Marine Division.
MILLER, Clinton J., 23, Lance Cpl., Marines; Greenfield, Iowa; Marine Wing Support Group 37, Third Marine Aircraft Wing, First Marine Expeditionary Force.
MURPHY, Shawn M., 24, Pfc., Army; Fort Bragg, N.C.; 25th Infantry Division.
December 14th, 2006 at 12:31 am
The names of the dead are awaiting moderation, but in the meantime there are 8 names there today.
December 14th, 2006 at 1:40 am
Michael, I hope you’ll read and respond (here) to my comments late in the “surrender monkeys” thread.
I’m genuinely interested to know what kinds of actions you’d like to see happening now, in addition to the ones I mention there, and who should be organizing them.
Jacob Weisberg mixes in some truths (all choices being bad, hence pro-withdrawal stances being much more muted and complicated than Viet Nam) with a lot of tired, cliched garbage. Weisberg was for the war, as was Paul Berman. I just don’t think either of them have a lot to offer antiwar activists, even if I thought they were speaking in good faith.
The fact that people of your and my generation are mostly leading the antiwar movement gives it a different character than the one we were part of in our youth. The absence of the draft makes a difference. But Iraq vets are organizing, and hooking up with Viet Nam vets.
Code Pink, Military Families Speak Out, Quaker House in Fayetteville NC (by Ft. Bragg) — none of these are seedy sectarians; yet they play leadership roles in the movement to end this war. The rallies at the big demos have been the weak point up until the UfPJ concert last September, but the creativity and spirit and numbers have been there, in the people who’ve participated.
You’re right that doing what we can to bring the reality of the war here is an important task.
Because I’ve been reading at icasualties.org the names of US troops killed daily since the summer of 2003, I don’t get much from your postings of those here, but others do, I’m sure. Still, might it not be even more effective to demand that your local paper have a daily item on US/coalition and Iraqi casualties? You could organize others to do so as well. McClatchy is now putting out a daily summary of the violence in Iraq, by province, so the burden’s on a given paper to say why they won’t pick that up.
There’s room for the entire range of actions, from polite to militant: letters to the editor to delegations to Congressional offices to visible demos outside those offices to sitting in at those office — and onward and upward.
Visible pressure on Congress now is necessary to lay the groundwork for even broader support for wider nonviolent resistance to the war, because the non-activist public needs to see that the pols are not going to solve this without a lot more pressure.
In most communities, militancy for its own sake isn’t going to be the winning approach between now and January. But pushing the ‘Mandate for Peace’ demands clearly and consistently and visibly for the next two months will lay the groundwork for escalated pressure if Congress doesn’t respond.
December 14th, 2006 at 5:21 am
Nell, I will answer your comment in more detail later, once I get off of a vicious article deadline for Science. Meanwhile, let me just say this: The most important thing is the principle, and the actions follow from that. The principle is that antiwar Americans, not just antiwar leaders, have to start demonstrating that they really care enough to be inconvenienced enough to build a real antiwar movement and not just one that trots out every few months. The faith-based activists are some of the most dedicated, for sure. I visit Santa Barbara every year, where my brother lives, and there is a vigil–I think every Sunday, but others would remember better–by a small number of people on State Street. It is very dramatic and effective. That kind of thing should be multiplied in every town and it should happen every day, bearing witness, a very important action in my view. There should be a demonstration in Washington every weekend, no matter how big or small, and in front of Federal buildings everywhere, every weekend, maybe every day. Just a few thoughts, more to come later, but my criticisms are not just of leaders but of antiwar Americans who just can’t be bothered to do much more than take satisfaction that an idiot like Bush is responsible for all this (oh, and maybe spend lots of time blogging on blogs like this one, and that goes for all of us.)
December 14th, 2006 at 5:28 am
Okay, my editor is still working on my story, so a few more thoughts on Kucinich. I think the issue is not so much whether antiwar forces are going to campaign for Kucinich, as whether they will withhold their support and endorsement of candidates who do not take a clear antiwar position. I now think that something close to immediate withdrawal is the right demand, because phased withdrawal has come to mean no withdrawal. The Baker report amounts to this because it only says that troops could be pulled out by early 2008, not that they would be, and that just does not cut it in my book. When the moderation is lifted on the names of the dead, read those 8 names carefully, where they are from, think about their families, and then ask yourselves whether you want that to happen every day for the next year and a half or more.
Bush is fucking with us now, delaying his announcement until “early next year.” That could mean March. Time for action, folks. I plan to come over for the Jan 27 march, but make me proud in the meantime.
December 14th, 2006 at 6:15 am
This much about the anti-war movement is certain:
Marc Cooper won’t sign on until six months after the battle’s won and over.
Until then, he’s hedging, whinging and sniping about anyone trying to assert leadership in the movement. Where are your ideas Marc? Who do you support? Anyone? Not Bush, not Hillary, not Kucinich, not Gore, not Clinton, not ANSWER, not Galloway, not Sheehan. You’ve got nothing but dopey ad hominem and snide dismissals for all of them.
I guess you feel that makes your position easy to defend, since, well, there’s nothing really to defend, only to attack.
If all these leaders fall too short of your standards, where are you own ideas about how to end the war?
Kucinich, at least, has a consistent, articulate, principled program for opposing the war. What have you got? The Euston Manifesto? Whatever thin support Kucinich and his ideas have, it’s many, many times more than you’ve got, though it’s really hard to say, because you’ve never bothered to articulate a strategy to end the war.
Apparently, you’ve spent all your bullets sniping at those who do?
I’m by no measure an anti-war leader, nor a political or military strategist nor a professional political commentator. Yet even I could stretch my mind enough to form my own ideas about how to end the war. And guess what, if you go back in this forum and read them, you’ll find they are pretty much spot on where things are headed now:
1. Use U.S. diplomatic clout to force Israeli concessions–as the Palestinian leadership is incapable of providing any–as a means to gain dramatic progress in solving the land and human rights disputes in Palestine.
2. Use U.S. diplomatic clout to compel the Saudis, Jordan, Pakistan, Libya, Algeria, Kuwait and Egypt, etc. to finance Iraq reconstruction projects and provide manpower for training of Iraqi police forces, including the Shiites they fear and loathe.
Leave it up to the Arab allies of the U.S. whether and when to include Iran and Syria. All of this is timed to a deadline for a transition away from U.S. military involvement. If they refuse, no more aid, no more military cover. No more freebies.
They know Iraq’s a mess they’ll eventually have to clean up themselves, one way or another–at least the more progressive elements know that. A U.S. initiative forcing the point has the second benefit of expanding the political space for the more progressive elements, even in places like Saudi Arabia. The present U.S. policy benefits the most reactionary.
The key is full support for moderate Muslim elements across the region. They offer the only hope for containing radical Islam.
December 14th, 2006 at 7:00 am
Michael Balter:
Aside from his unfamiliarity with the Left’s vision, Weisberg made some good points (esp the ‘Free Mumia’ comment - we’d be better off with the faith-based organizations running the show than the CWP!).[Come to think of it, the CWP is a faith-based org also - what else do they have to go on? Anyway, you know what I mean]
MSM’s complicity in prolonging this war profound. From agreeing to ‘embedding’ to not challenging the Pentagon’s refusal to allow photos of the coffins. There is so much of this war that were not seeing - it took the ISG to bring to light that violence in (the former) Iraq is being under reported by a factor of ten.
The only MSM stories on wounded GIs that I’ve seen are ‘feel good’ stories on how some are overcoming thier disabilities, usually ending with trite B.S. about the price they paid to bring democracy to the middle east.
As a healthcare professional with contacts inside the VA, I know that the VA (quite dysfunctional before 2003) is now totally overwhelmed by the task of caring for the GIs. Has anyone seen a story on this crisis/scandal in the MSM?
December 14th, 2006 at 8:41 am
I respect Dennis Kucinich too….but the job of someone like him is to siphon left (not to mention “new age” - of which he’s a demigod) voters back into the Democratic party to vote for pro-war Hillaryor Obama (who may have “opposed” the war but is in no way against it)…. Kucinich is also the only Dem trying to cut off funding for the war - something he may now have less time to do.
The Left in 2008, as it did in 2000 and to a lesser extent in 2004, should threaten - and follow through - with refusing to vote for a Democrat unless they are firmly comitted to ending America’s wars. As Eugene Debs put it “I’d rather vote for who I want and not win than for who I don’t want, and win”
Of course The Nation said a year or so ago that it would refuse to endorse pro-war candidates. Then of course it was busy putting torture apologists like Sherrod Brown on their cover, Brown who recently told Amy Goodman that “Habeas Corpus is not a priority to him right now.”
No amount of mildly progressive economic policy will make up for support for US Imperialism. Edwards could believably recant, and seems an honest, progressive guy. Labor, which opposed war and supports Edwards, should push him to recant. Kucinich should stay busy trying to defund the war.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:48 am
“There are still a few folks who wear Earth Shoes and drink soy milk”
I’m not sure whether this shows your age, ignorance, or both. The “Earth Shoes” shows your age, clearly (I had no idea what these were), but you might want to stop by your local supermarket and see all the varieties of soy milk we have today. Yup, soy milk’s mainstream, Gramps! All those crazy Gen-x’ers and Gen Y’ers love it in their coffee, especially at this obscure leftwing hippie establishment called “Starbucks”. What a crazy world, huh?
December 14th, 2006 at 8:55 am
“The Left in 2008, as it did in 2000 and to a lesser extent in 2004, should threaten - and follow through - with refusing to vote for a Democrat unless they are firmly comitted to ending America’s wars.”
Pretty much all the Democrats are giving at least lip service to this now. How about if the left refuses to vote for any candidate who does not commit to cutting funding for the war? That would draw a line in the sand.
By the way, I do not criticize anyone who does not have this position, or think that someone who is not for immediate withdrawal is somehow for the war–unless, of course, they really are. But those who do have this position should be pushing it strongly, and that is a plus for Kucinich in my book. I would vote for him if I had the chance but never in a million years would I vote for Hillary Clinton.
December 14th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Balter-I agree. A litmus test for anyone purporting to be antiwar is willingness to defund it. Nader in 08!
December 14th, 2006 at 9:40 am
I’d hate for there to be primaries and debates without a Kucinich or even a Sharpton. Hell, I even appreciate Gary Bauer’s role in the GOPer primaries, not to mention Alan Keyes. (There’s something wonderful about watching someone who’s totally crazy getting deferential treatment on television from a bunch of rank opportunists who are loathe to overtly offend fanatical niche voters.) For better or worse, these guys say things the “smart money” refuses to say and often doesn’t want to even touch - but they can help clarify the debate within parties and, at the least, force other candidates to address issues they may not want to if they can avoid it. This is especially important when something like Iraq looms over everything else because they force hands and might even shift the context. They also, frankly, make politics just a tad more lively, if not necessarily more honest. I got a kick out of my mother’s comments in ‘04 - she was living in a retirement community deep in the reddest region of a “red-state” and noted that the elderly people there really liked watching Al Sharpton in the Democratic debates - not for his politics so much as his rhetorical style which she said was reminiscent of the old-school politicians they had grown up with.
December 14th, 2006 at 9:44 am
jcummings, I really wish you had not mentioned the N word. Now we have to duck for cover.
December 14th, 2006 at 11:31 am
He’s a NADER. He’s a NADER. Thirty years ago he would have told us to wear seatbelts. (Bad Michael Richards joke through)
All I can say is I was being slightly facetious…but anyone truly and principally opposed to the war should withhold their votes from Democrats. If on the other hand you are comfortable with kindergentler imperialists, g’ahead/
December 14th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Off topic, but:
Oh lordy. So now Iraq needs a Pinochet. One of the worst columns I’ve read in a while (on what’s become a rather dull LA Times op-ed page)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg14dec14,0,5277475.column?coll=la-opinion-center
Thank God we got rid of that other brutal, murderous dictator. Now we can give them one that likes free markets. And don’t think about cutting and running.
December 14th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
“I THINK ALL intelligent, patriotic and informed people can agree…” that the L.A. Times demeans even the current shell of itself printing mindless drivel from The Spawn of Lucianne.
December 14th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
“I love that one, comrade.”
And I love it how we as Americans are told that the best we should expect or hope for come in the form of Barak Obama and John Edwards, both of whom have not ruled out supporting another additonal 260 billion dollars for Iraq sinkhole that is going to be requested from the next Congress (but at the same time, of course, being against increasing troop levels).
Perhaps I was the only one spewing chunks listening to these two guys giving their pre-fab conventions speeches in 2004. I guess wanting something or someone genuine rather than the same old makes me a comrade. Whatever Cooper.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Were Marc around in ‘68, he’d have been a Hubert Humphrey supporter, by default, whose rhetoric against the anti-war movement was in line with that of William F. Buckley.
Those who think Democratic party equivocation and ambivalence about ending the war is good politics need to remember Nixon and Vietnam.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Anyone considering voting for Dennis Kucinich should try to catch his performance on the CSPAN program called “Funniest Person in D.C.” or something like that. It included newspeople (like Jamie McIntyre of CNN), congresspeople (Gloria Sanchez won, featuring jokes about her proletarian preference for Miller beer and Katherine Harris’s breasts) , and others.
Kucinich…I kid you not…appeared with Ed Gillespie of Repub Nat’l [now Virginia] Comm. They each brought ventriloquist puppets. Kucinich had a right-wing doppelganger, Gillespie a leftie. There was some good-spirited ideological sparring and I think they sang a song.
It made me wonder whether Kucinich would favor a Republican or a dummy as running-mate.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Michael I hate to tell you this but Weisberg is a frequent “winner” of Atrios’ “Coveted” “Wanker of the Day” award. And his slate article shows why. I have no doubt that a draft would find campuses alive with the sound of 21st Century Marios and Marks (Savio and Rudd, that is). But ‘ol jake gives it away when he decides the Vietnam adventure wasn’t such a bad idea after all. Know why? Because Weisberg is another Marty Peretz clone from the NEW REPUBLIC who decided that if America doesn’t show slavish committment to every war she might (shudder!) abandon Israel. And that is what this is all about now.
Go over to TALKING POINTS MEMO and read a piece by Josh Marshall. He talks of sessions with neocons (like the TNR boys) that have a grand scheme for the middle east. Back tye Shia in Iraq since Israel’s enemies in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are Sunni. When the Shia of Iran see how good our democracy is they will overthrow their government and become pro-Israli and thye Shia who form the majority in the Saudi Oil Fields will seccede and all will live happily ever after in an Israeli controlled mid east where Hamas and Hezbollah fade away. Not to mention the PLO.
Sound like insanity? Well Marshall says they believe this.
Of course Jonah Goldberg is another frequent “Wanker” ands his column shows why. I understand he spends a lot of time at the “Corner” discussing Science Fiction. That is what happenjhs to those who read Heinlein at an impressionable age. Norman Spinrad once wrote a satirical SF novel called “The Iron Dream”. It waas suppossedly written by a German immigrant to the US named Hitler who came here in 1923 after dabbling in politics and became a much loved SF writer and painter even though he had eccentric ideas about master races!
I still think Demos will do no good as it appears that Bush listens to no one but his “Higher” father. Besides his whole political career has been a sort of repudiation of those Yale lefties that didn’t give the Skull and Bones Frat boy the deference he thought he deserved. Not like Gary Trudeau for example.
If we’re still in Iraq, in a big way, in 2008 people like McCain, and Hillary can forget it. It won’t be Dennis but you can take it to the bank that it will be the person, in either party, who pulls and Ike and says he’s getting us out.
December 14th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Come on, Marc. Isn’t this attempt at getting us riled a little too obvious? I mean you’re questioning the wisdom of running a good loser candidate because he might cost another decent candidate some support and throw victory into the hands of a more conservative opponent. Isn’t the precisely the kind of logic you rejected in your support for Nadar? At least this is in the Democratic primary. And as that odd comment, “Kucinich was so far above many of the very strange folks he was attracting,” indicates, you’re not too concerned about Kucinich siphoning off the best and brightest. So what gives?
December 14th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Nader and Kucinich serve different purposes. One is to keep them in the party, one is to lead them out - hence truly pressuring the party.
December 14th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
No jcummings one was a genuine idealist and the other was a meglomaniac spoiler. Guess which one is which!
December 14th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
i’m not nterested in all this premature gringo b.s.- wankfest about who will be the next presidential inheritor of decrepit U.S. corporate imperialism. I’m much more excited that llende’s kickass last speech is now on youtube.com or that Gen Prats’s grandson spat on the fascist Pinochet’s casket.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
ALLENDE. missed the a
December 14th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Thanks for letting us in on this week’s preoccupations, Sergio. Talk about wankfests…
December 14th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
(1) Thank you Mavis and Bunker, for, um, stating the obvious.
(2) “And I thought Kucinich was so far above many of the very strange folks he was attracting.”
In contrast, presumably, to John Edward’s ultra-hip liberal supporters, lapping up every word of his grotesquely Clintonesque “If your grandpa/grandfather/momma/daddy/brother/sister says that they can’t pay their bills, you tell them, HOPE IS ON THE WAY” speech in between doing that innovative macarena thing a couple of years ago at the Dem Convention. And we could go into Barak Obama’s lib express, but I will spare us.
I for one won’t withhold support from a candidate just because someone like Marc Cooper doesn’t think that his or her supporters aren’t hep cats. Anyone who does isn’t really serious. It is too bad that our politics these days are shaped by what seems “cool” in the pages of Vanity Fair.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Hey Dave you want to work for Dennis go for it! But don’t be surprised if he doesn’t get the nomination. Being there to influence the debate is, perhaps at this time, more important. And he will keep the others honest on Iraq if we’re still bogged down there.
But don’t sell John Edwards short. He now admits he was wrong to vote for the resolution and he is still the only potential candidate that talks about the scandal of poverty in this country. We could do a lot worse.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
RLC:
“he is still the only potential candidate that talks about the scandal of poverty…”
If ‘talk’ gets you off soooooo good then maybe you should try phone sex! What has Edwards DONE for the poor in this country? What bills has he sponsored that address poverty related issues?
I’m dying to be proven wrong about Edwards but unless you can come up with something tangible, I am going to be forced to continue believing that he’s just one more blow-dryed, Kennedy-liberal wind-bag brandishing an arsenal of eloquent sound-bite pronouncements, hoping that nobody gets past the rhetoric to actually look at what the MFer has done…
December 14th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
“Just” one today, another female major.
The Department of Defense has identified 2,928 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the death of the following American yesterday:
DAVIS, Gloria D., 47, Maj., Army; St. Louis; Defense Security Assistance Agency.
December 14th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
btw, the military’s plans to send up to 35,000 more troops to Iraq should help to sharpen contradictions and make the job of antiwar organizers easier. Yes, sometimes things do have to get worse before they can get better.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:04 am
RLC -
You seem to have motivation crossed with effect.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:37 am
Let us see. While in the Senate he sponsored a bill that would have curbed predatory lending practices and he voted against the bankruptcy bill. That is off the top of my head. So he did more than talk.
December 15th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Kucinich bombed because left-liberal ideas are marginal to current American politics. No one else with his positions would do better. We’re not going to win power in 2008 either, or ever if we try to do it using the Democratic Party. This is not a reason not to use the quadrennial ballyhoo as a platform to get ideas out there. However, Kucinich does need a new makeup crew-on TV he is a dead ringer for the leader of the Heaven’s Gate suicide cult.
Pinochet’s grandson should have gotten a pass given the occasion he chose for his venting. Now the fascists have a martyr.
December 15th, 2006 at 11:52 am
Ho Ho Snorri and Obama’s middle name is “Hussain”! There!
December 15th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
RL>Ho Ho Snorri and Obama’s middle name is “Hussainâ€! There!
That’s better than having “Clinton” for a last name
December 15th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
RLC:
WOW! He moved his lips on two occasions, both unsuccessful. John Edwards also sought to “shine a bright light on poverty” and raise the minimum wage to a whopping $7.25/hr (the increase to be spread out over a year so as to not unduly burden the business sector).
Campaigning in ‘04, he said he wants to “finish the job of (Clinton’s) welfare reform”. Given the disasterous results of that mid-90s fiasco, Edward’s comment should send shivers up the spines of tens of millions of Americans living one paycheck away from our nation’s sick excuse for a ’safety net’.
PS: He voted for Bush’s ‘No Child Left Behind Act” which is doing to our education system what Clinton did to our welfare system.
December 15th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
So did Ted Kennedy. And Paul Wellstone. They were duped. How’s that song go - “won’t be fooled again!”
Gee I’m shocked that progressive proposals didn’t make thru a GOP controlled Congress. Think last month’s election might have been about that?
Nah!
December 15th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
and again, and again, and again, and again…
April 11th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Greetings Members:
Hope To Contribute
==========================================================================================================================================
I Know People
See What I Mean:
http://electricrider.com
==========================================================================================================================================