Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditDennis Kucinich is running for President again and, yes, he would love to cure what ails the United States.
But, first, he wants to cure what ails his own Democratic Party.
The Democratic disease, he says, is caution regarding the antiwar position it should be taking.
"Democrats were swept into power on November 7 because of widespread voter discontent with the war in Iraq," says Kucinich. "Instead of heeding those concerns and responding with a strong and immediate change in policies and direction, the Democratic Congressional leadership seems inclined to continue funding the perpetuation of the war."
That is not the typical opening salvo for a presidential primary bid.
But Kucinich is not a typical campaigner for the presidency. His aggressively antiwar run for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination captured the imagination of many activists but only won around 70 of the 2,162 delegates he would have needed to secure the nod. He remained in the race to the end, however, and left in place a network of supporters across the country that evolved into the effective activist group Progressive Democrats in America.
As the 2008 race approached and sentiments regarding the war soured, attention on the part of the growing mass of antiwar Democrats focused on the potential candidacy of Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, who opposed the war from the start and was the first senator to call for a withdrawal timeline. But Feingold decided after the November 7 election to remain in the Senate, where he will chair key subcommittees on the Constitution and foreign relations.
So Kucinich saw an opening to run a message-driven campaign on the war issue. The Congressman, who was re-elected with 66 percent of the vote in November by Cleveland-area voters who appear to be comfortable with their representative making longshot presidential bids, says he will take a blunt antiwar message to the campaign trail and to every debate.
In particular, he will challenge Democrats who have voted to keep funding the war. Kucinich argues that Congress should provide the money for an orderly withdrawal of US troops from Iraq--one that assures the safety of the soldiers and the smoothest transition--but that it should not continue to meet Department of Defense demands for continued funding of what looks more and more like a permanent military presence in the Middle East country.
"Unless and until Congress decides to force a new direction by cutting off funds, the United States will continue to occupy Iraq and have a destabilizing presence in the Middle East region," argues Kucinich.
Can Kucinich win more votes in 2008 than he did in 2004? That's an open question. Concern about the war runs deeper now, and frustration with the Democratic Party's failure to develop a clear stance on an exit strategy runs higher. But there may be another candidate who, while not as pure or precise as Kucinich on the issue, can point to a record of opposing the war from the start and to his support for a redeployment timeline.
Like Kucinich, this other candidate has a name that a lot of Americans still have trouble pronouncing. But, if the media frenzy that surrounded Barack Obama's trip to New Hampshire last weekend was any indication, it's a good bet that Obama will be given more opportunities to introduce himself and deliver his message than the Congressman from Ohio.
That said, Kucinich's presence in the debates could well sharpen the discussion among Democrats regarding the war. And as Kucinich rightly points out, that sharpening is needed.
Indeed, Kucinich argues, the fate of the Democratic Party could rest on the question of how it responds to the desire of Americans to bring the troops home.
"On November 7, 2006, the American public voted for a new direction for our Iraq policy. That direction is -- out. As Democrats prepare to take the majority for the first time in twelve years, Democrats now have the responsibility to act on the overwhelming mandate issued by the American public," says the congressman. "Will that new direction mean an exit from Iraq? Because, if not, America will be held hostage by the skyrocketing cost of the war in Iraq even as President Bush leaves office at 11:59 am on January 20, 2009. And, the voters will not forget who let them down. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism has been hailed by authors and historians Gore Vidal, Studs Terkel and Howard Zinn for its meticulous research into the intentions of the founders and embraced by activists for its groundbreaking arguments on behalf of presidential accountability. After reviewing recent books on impeachment, Rolling Stone political writer Tim Dickinson, writes in the latest issue of Mother Jones, "John Nichols' nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic, The Genius of Impeachment, stands apart. It concerns itself far less with the particulars of the legal case against Bush and Cheney, and instead combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the "heroic medicine" that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
The "democrats" aren't going to honor anything but their commitment as a party to the future of United States imperialism. I'd say it's a shame that liberals don't understand that, but what it really is is farsical.
Posted by hureaux at 12/12/2006 @ 09:54am
I have the greatest respect and admiration for Dennis Kucinich. The Democratic Party needs to hear his views (which I totally support). But running for president again is pointless. He is a nationally recognized voice now. The Party cannot ignore his anti-war/ pro-peace position. (It is the majority position in the Party.) I think John Edwards or Obama stand the best chance of getting elected and supporting a moderately progressive aganda. I have listened to Obama, and I have concluded he is a progressive in his heart, although he is trying to appeal to the power/money structure to become president. Once in office, I believe he would do what he says: push for national healthcare, promote energy independence and stop running up the national debt. Sounds like a progressive agenda to me. Obama is VERY smart, and is the most charismatic politician since JFK. He can win.
Posted by philbq at 12/12/2006 @ 10:07am
Look, there's only one important line in this whole article...
"His aggressively anti-war run for the 2OO4 Democratic presidential nomination captured the imagination of many activists but only won around 7O of the 2,162 delegates he would have needed to secure the nod."
Dennis Kucinich WILL NOT become the Democratic nominee for President in 2008. (alluding to a previous bet on impeachment)...and I'll bet my kid's college fund on it.
He's in it to be a "gadfly" as Mr Nichols has all but said. He's in it to "push the candidates to the Left", just as he tried to do in 2004.
Well, what happened in 2004? You had a "Dean" and a "Kerry" and the "Kerry" won and Dennis was allowed to give his little speech and recite his lines and propose his "Department of Peace"....and Kerry was able to position himself as "centrist" by separating himself from Kucinich and making Dennis look like the "hippie brother-in-law you let ramble on about hemp at the family Christmas but nobody takes him serious".
Or more charitably, the retort goes down like this "Well, my good friend Rep. Kucinich's heart is in the right place, but I don't think we need such radical solutions. I have some more moderate proposals that I think would lead in that direction".
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2006 @ 10:19am
Great post, thanks. Don't know if you've seen these two short videos from Iraq yet or not, but both show the US Military engaging in some very dubious actions. I have them up on my site at www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com ..You have to wonder what these soldiers were thinking when videotaping this stuff...
Posted by MinorRipper at 12/12/2006 @ 10:59am
This is tough. Who shall I vote for, Kucinich or Barak Hussein Obama??? Barak Hussein Obama is the darling of the press, at the moment, but Dennis Kucinich has vowed to change the party. Kucinich or Barak Hussein Obama...
Posted by woodyee at 12/12/2006 @ 11:43am
This is tough.
no, this is premature.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/12/2006 @ 11:45am
just like the last dem primary in the pres elections, there will be a half dozen more or less legitimate candidates. they will again each make a contribution to the dialogue. Sharpton was great and Kucinic too, though neither of them had a shot at winning. the dem voters will have plenty of time to select. let's not blow a lot of hot air in the meantime, OK?
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/12/2006 @ 11:48am
What would change even if someone like Kucinich won? What, is he only partially bought and paid for compared to the other wolves he associates with? Until the majority nominates instead of just a small minority, there will be a narrow range of ideas put forth by the images who launch themselves to the stars in 2008...
Posted by chimichenga at 12/12/2006 @ 12:04pm
This is tough. Who shall I vote for, Kucinich or Barak Hussein Obama??? Barak Hussein Obama is the darling of the press, at the moment, but Dennis Kucinich has vowed to change the party. Kucinich or Barak Hussein Obama...
Posted by WOODYEE 12/12/2006 @ 11:43am
Yes, many will have a shot, and go home,....any of these guys is a Republican wet dream, or better yet, a combo of Gore and Nadar...but Hillary will be the nominee...Obama will be on the ticket with a promise of backing "next", after he gets experience,(whatever that means)if Hillary gets elected and re-elected..kinda like Gore got from the Clintons...with Obama, she gets 99% instead of 88%-93%, of black vote, which she will need everyone of those..
And even if she loses, Obama will be the talk of the next election before old one is certified..MSM will have even bigger orgasims and OB will not be hurt by Hillary loss nationaly...
Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2006 @ 12:10pm
"Until the majority nominates instead of just a small minority"
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/12/2006 @ 12:04am
What "majority"? A majority of what? Democrats? The majority of the American people?...what?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2006 @ 12:14pm
"The "democrats" aren't going to honor anything but their commitment as a party to the future of United States imperialism. I'd say it's a shame that liberals don't understand that, but what it really is is farsical.
Posted by HUREAUX 12"
Here is what is farsical..
1. That any one thinks America is imperialist and expects that view win win at the polls.....the only ones who thinks America is imperialist are left over dried out communists sitting on the ash heaps of their nations as they sink farther behind the rest of the world, hard left , half the enviro movements, and well, ah, the kooks....(see above post as example)
2.That the democrats would even consider "honoring their commitments" to their voters at all...
3. You think we actually are imperialist..if we really were on that track, the world would look much different and the Islamo/oil issues would never have happened...they would have been dead in the 40s amnd the oil would have been "ours" long ago...the true imperialist did not waste time with dissent....
Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2006 @ 12:20pm
"The Party cannot ignore his anti-war/ pro-peace position. (It is the majority position in the Party.) "
But the rest of America will,...
Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2006 @ 12:21pm
MAASCH,
Even Stevie Wonder can see that though the majority elects, it is a small minority that nominates the candidates who are up for election. This is why H.G. Wells referred to US elections as "selections" instead...
Posted by chimichenga at 12/12/2006 @ 12:52pm
Maasch, you're such an expert at divining what will happen to dem candidates, etc. what about the Tories? everything clear cut over there? frontrunner cementing his candidacy? hahahahahah, no fucking way, they are all running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/12/2006 @ 1:00pm
it is a small minority that nominates the candidates who are up for election.
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/12/2006 @ 12:52am
It's called "party politics"....the general electorate doesn't vote for the nominees, otherwise we'd just go straight into the general elections and not have primaries.
Which, the astute would note, would SHUT OUT guys like Kucinich, since it would be only the top vote grabbers AT THE START who would win the nominations....
ergo, before Dennis could even open his mouth...or Duncan Hunter on the other side....Hillary and McCain would be the nominees.
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2006 @ 1:21pm
I've got to stop confusing MASK with MAASCH. It is the latter who is the real loon.
MAASCH,
You're splitting hairs here, for the nature of imperialism has changed throughout the centuries. US imperialism isn't that of the earlier and more crude Spanish, French and Dutch versions, nor is it as blunt and bold as the English or German sort. US imperialism relies on economic warfare dressed in grand terms such as "free trade", "deregulation", "structural adjustment" and "capital flow". The reality is, the US is heads a system whereby money has more freedom than people as it proves daily by running across the world like a wildcat without need of passport or visa, while people struggle to overcome borders and la migra in order to seek employment and link-up to the international job market.
Foreign debt is used as a mechanism of hegemony, as poor countries led by corrupt leaders who we lavished loans on throughout the years are now the victims of the payback, as risk and cost are socialized by those already on the brink of poverty if not already in its jaws. Tools such as the agricultural subsidies in the US are used to disempower local production of crops when utilized to dump goods in foreign markets, such as what the US did with cotton in Colombia 60 years ago or what the US does in Latin America - undermining local production, forcing peasants to the cities to work in sweatshops (take a tour through northern México and talk to people about what they did before NAFTA and what they do now. Then ask them how drastically the weather has changed in 12 years as a result of all those poisonous factories spewing toxins into the air, ground and water with impunity.) Sure, there are plenty of developing world markets that are in bad shape, but the US has made a special effort to force development towards the exterior, creating a paternalism and backwardness that has greatly hindered the effort needed to mature and consolidate internal markets, thus decreasing foreign dependence (this is why the US hates the growth of Mercosur and the new trade deals between Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Uruguay, Argentina, Brasil, Chile and Colombia, which are uniting a region that should in reality have formed a single nation long ago.) Just think of what it means to depend on another nation for your food supply in a world with a constantly growing population with a limited amount of resources and an increasing problem with natural disaster and pollution. What kind of sovereignty do the people of Honduras feel when many of them rely on rice and beans produced in the US because the local varieties are more expensive?
You've obviously not spent much time in any poor country or made any real effort to understand the mentality of the vanquished. I'm not blaming the US for all the problems of Latin America, for example, but I am saying it has greatly exacerbated them while cultivating new ones throughout the decades. The US may not be Godzilla, but it is a monster of energy and the world's motor of war, using the latter quite often and with zeal in order to satisfy its need for the former when it can't bribe, extort or simply squeeze what it needs via the arsenal it has created via the international economic bureaucracy...
Posted by chimichenga at 12/12/2006 @ 1:37pm
"You've obviously not spent much time in any poor country or made any real effort to understand the mentality of the vanquished."
Odd, I thought Chimi told us these were "proud, independent people making their own destinies" (under the watchful eye of beloved leaders like Hugo)??!?!?! They're "vanquished"?!?!?!
"I'm not blaming the US for all the problems of Latin America"...no, just 99.5529328711184% ...but not ALL...jeez!
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/12/2006 @ 1:37pm
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2006 @ 1:45pm
JR -
You really shouldn't pay attention to any of Maasch's predictions at this point.
He crowned Hillary over a year ago and he will "stay the course."
Posted by Hman23 at 12/12/2006 @ 1:57pm
MASK,
What do you know about being the artificer of your own destiny? You've no idea what it means to merely be born in the US. Pride? Leave it to a greedy gringo to pound his chest while mocking everything he doesn't know or understand, which in your case is closer to the percentage you spit above. And vanquished is the history of the developing world, it's what it means to be on the other side of the colonial system. But you'd never know it because Thanksgiving is your ideal of colonialism, a truly American farse celebrating the supposed mutual friendship and understanding engendered by rape, pillage and plunder.
Yeah, you had to work soooooooo hard to get where you are MASK. Growing up without shoes on your feet, all those nights without food in your stomach, the violence inflicted upon your nation with military coups sponsored from afar, assassinations planned by the CIA, fascism blessed by leaders of the Big Country...
You know nothing of anything that isn't hurled at you by the television, plain and simple. Trying to ridicule the sentiment of the nation of Venezuela without the slightest inkling of what it means to be Venezuelan is classic MASK or Latino for that matter is classic MASK.
You're a complete cipher, MASK, boldly going where everyone else goes, spitting the same commentaries as the rest of the ignorant herd. What great lineage go you boast, by the way?
Posted by chimichenga at 12/12/2006 @ 2:02pm
Hman, of course. but I want him to train his argus eye on the future repubs. for entertainment value, if nothing else.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/12/2006 @ 2:02pm
Chimi,
So, what should the US do as it attempts to work with these vanquished countrys? Forgive debt? we do that. Send in advisers from Peace corp to industry and universitys? we do that. Send in businessman to buy their products and therefore start improving the LOCAL economy? we do that...
What, exactly, in your opinion, which has weight since you live and funstion their, should be done?
Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2006 @ 2:05pm
"Maasch, you're such an expert at divining what will happen to dem candidates, etc. what about the Tories? everything clear cut over there? frontrunner cementing his candidacy? hahahahahah, no fucking way, they are all running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/12/2006 @ 1:00pm
True enough, and I have been wrong on my predictions..and owe drinks...but I still predict....the BIG H!!!!
Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2006 @ 2:10pm
JR,
The repubs are still trying to find their ass with both hands...and to no success as of yet...but they will....and you are correct, no one has really surfaced as of yet...
Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2006 @ 2:11pm
Hillary (and her husband) are basically moderate Republicans. They are corporate pols all the way. And the Demos are turning away from corporate trade policies, and the entire corporate agenda. Hillary has carefully manipulated herself to pile up so much money that she would be coronated with the nomination. But when the primaries start, if Obama runs, he will blow Hillary away. He is electrifying on the stump. In contrast, Hillary has all the charisma of Nurse Ratshed.
Posted by philbq at 12/12/2006 @ 2:28pm
MAASCH,
You want to help Latin America? Leave it the hell alone!!! By this I don't mean stop exchanging goods or terminate diplomatic relations, but let them solve their own problems. It's called "cutting the strings", which is what you should also do in Iraq. Let them have it out, then lend a hand once they're done killing one another, that is, if they want it. Latin America is much more blessed by Mother Nature than the US and has more than it needs in order to unite and form a powerful continent acting alongside other big nations on the world scene.
Peace Corps? I served in Latin America. The first trip to the US embassy we were lectured on how Kennedy sired it as a "Cold War weapon" with the intent of creating a US presence in the developing world. No development plans, volunteers were (and are still) allowed to take two 40 lb suitcases. For decades they were advised to fill one with books...
World Vision? Red Cross? Doing good work, but at a very limited level. The best thing the Great Benefactor you live in could and should do is actually monitor the money it so magnanimously "gives" to poor people. This region is home to the most polarized societies on earth, and US "aid and donations" have bolstered the 5-8% of elites while leaving the 90%+ in the same or worse position as 30-40 years ago.
However you look at it, what you're seeing now in this region is a rejection of Washington and a desire to follow an independent path. There are more and more Chinese here all the time, and they are welcomed, whereas the gringo is often distrusted. Let Latin America free lift itself up, as Argentina has done with the aid of Venezuela. Leave Colombia and Chile alone as the forge a Free Trade deal (the US claims it has the last say in such deals and has caused much anger here in Colombia). What would you guys think if China insisted on having the final approval of who you did business with?
Posted by chimichenga at 12/12/2006 @ 2:32pm
He is electrifying on the stump. In contrast, Hillary has all the charisma of Nurse Ratshed.
Posted by PHILBQ 12/12/2006 @ 2:28pm | ignore this person
true, Phil, but I have had it with charisma, preferring quiet competence. Gore in '08.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/12/2006 @ 2:40pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/12/2006 @ 2:02pm
I may be a "cipher", CHIMI...but Geez Louise, you're a stereotype!
The expatriate American who is now "fully emeshed in his adopted culture and homeland". Who discusses how everything that's gone wrong in Central and South American for 100 years is America's fault (then throws in a throwaway line about "But hey, I don't blame all their problems on the US"....No?....then name some that AREN'T our fault for a change, huh?)
And then discusses how the only way "bad leaders" got into power in the Motherland is by CIA machinations...and NEVER because maybe the Latin Americans aren't saints who are corrupted by evil Yanquis...but just human, with the same "Gandhis" and "Hitlers" as everybody else.
You're the apostate of Americanism, CHIMI...and like all apostates, you MUST prove your bona fides to your fellows in Medellin that you're "more Che" and more "evil Yanquis holding us back" than everybody else down there, so they don't think you're "slipping into your inherent Ugly American" standard, by saying something somebody BORN in Colombia might disagree with!
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2006 @ 2:50pm
"There are more and more Chinese here all the time, and they are welcomed, whereas the gringo is often distrusted. '
Have they no idea about the Chinese history and human rights ? What do the Chinese do that the US does not? Do the Chinese give them access to their markets? Does China give aid in charitys? The Chinese are there to TAKE, and if you don not know how to cut a deal or work with them, you will be left naked, and they like nothing better than idiots who ramble on about anti US politics and then they pick the pockets of those anti US allies while smiling...you will see Chavez can't sell his pil to them...too much sulfur and US built Chinese refineries use only sweet crude..Is it not in LAs interest to be close to the US and not China? What are they gonna do? Export into China? What? We up North should forge a hemispheric trading unit to compete with Asia and Europe as a single unit. Asia is where the markets will be in the next 25-50 years..LA seems to be stuck in it own circular toilet bowl model, going around and around in circles slowly going dowwn the tube as they jump back and forth between leftist, hard leftist every couple of years...they should work towards the US as the biggest market for its goods not against the US...
Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2006 @ 2:52pm
"He is electrifying on the stump. "
So what?..what can he do? A good salesman can probably give a better speech...in fact, many average guys would do better in the WH than anyone on the scene of any party...trouble is govt is so big it has a life force of its own...unm anagable....if I were in office, in the first 6 months I would fire every other govt employee at random and see if govt quality of govt service degraded or slowed down...course the unions thugs would have me assasinated..
Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2006 @ 2:56pm
Maasch -
I see where you are going on Obama re: inexperience, but where was that analysis from Republicans in 2000? There wasn't too much on W's resume worth bragging about - even his supporters acknowledged he was no Rhodes Scholar. But, hey, Bush will "surround himself with bright advisors." Something along those lines, wasn't it? Yet Obama somehow doesn't have the background.
Posted by Hman23 at 12/12/2006 @ 3:04pm
MASK,
Perhaps I am more "foreign", at least internally, than I think, and though I cast blame north, if you read I don't attribute it all upon los yanquis as I live and breath here and see native miscreants as well, whether wearing fatigues or a suit and tie.
But to use the word "apostate" leaves you on the same Manichaean ground as your pal CPT, backing up a little further into your star-spattered corner of the earth, pretending you're not the minority on this planet. I don't hate the US as you so crassly think. I do, however, despise mindless "patriots" like you, so debased and stiff-necked you believe not only do you understand all that you don't know, but that you own it.
And not everyone here "hates" los yanquis, though you insist on believing it is so, but then to believe this you must truly think there is reason for such an opinion. As I've done often, I'll mention a few names from the past century and you, with your expert knowledge and unorthodox wit, can tell me why I and the people here should hold them in more esteem.
Duvalier, los Somoza, Rios Montt, Montenegro, Fujimori, Goulart, Noriega, Adolfo Alvarez, Trujillo, Pinochet. I'm sure you'll have fun with that last name, truly believing fascism was the only way to save Chile. This is why you'll accept fascism in the US during your lifetime as well, so long as your leaders tell you it's the antidote necessary to protect and save the Homeland and the only way to salvage your identity and way of life...
Posted by chimichenga at 12/12/2006 @ 3:04pm
Hman,
How are you?
I felt that since Bush was a businessman and the fact he went down was not a bad thing, in fact most successfull businesman do go down and more than once...this is not a badge of dishonor...he was elected to one of the largest states as governor with BROAD support on both sides....more than enough of a record there to qualify...
now I know you never liked him and it really wouldn't matter what he did,... he was a repub and therefore he is unqualified seems to be your view.
I would feel much beter about OB if he had SOME track record besides a civil rights lawyer and harvard...sorry, but not so good...means nothing..and we are up to our asses in lawyers in govt, now....explains why we can't read our car insurance policy....sorry, I know you are a lawyer, but they clog up the works way too much and kill off incentive and risk taking...
BTW, what is it about OB experience that has you quivering?
Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2006 @ 3:12pm
and kill off incentive and risk taking...
this is obviously NOT happening in this country. you're always going on about our entrepreneurial superiority. how about Apple. they are taking risks and getting a huge payoff. that Itunes thing could have fizzled. everybody was making mp3 players. what makes Apple the big winner they are all chasing.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/12/2006 @ 3:18pm
And not everyone here "hates" los yanquis, though you insist on believing it is so, but then to believe this you must truly think there is reason for such an opinion.
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/12/2006 @ 3:04pm
CHIMI, I DON'T think all Central and South Americans hate "los yanquis"....
just you.
And "apostate" can refer to any belief system. I have a sneaking suspicion that in an earlier, "ignorant youth" phase, you probabl were a "gung-ho America All The Way'er"...maybe voted for Reagan...hehe.
But now that you've rejected "the faith"...you MUST prove, as all apostatic anti-believers must, that you have fully, completely, 100%, beyond 100% rejected the "old evil ways" and so you come off sounding like a stereotypical Blame-America-Firster.
Probably some of your native Colombian friends think, if not say, "Hey, Chimi, hombre...not so harsh, America isn't all bad!"
And if any of them DARE to think about immigrating to the States, YOU are the first one to try to talk them out of it, telling them endless horror stories of our bigotry, corruption, materialism, etc.
Why?...you must. One little slip-up...one thing that sounds even SLIGHTY "pro-American"...and you fear that your amigos might not think you are "reformed", but slipping into that "genetic predisposition" of all us evil imperalist Yanquis into "attacking the people and culture of the Latinos"!
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2006 @ 3:23pm
Chimi,
I saw the movie "Apocalypto" last week..great flick..and here I thought all natives were peace loving, nonpolitical earth caring tribal gentle people just living in harmony....after reading your list of peole the US has worked with and therefore is a justifacation for being anti yanquis...the name Cortez flys to the top...why don't the LAs despise the Spanish? After all, the evil USA was not even in existance and the Spanish came in, with the church , and tore the place asunder, even leaving a foot print on all LA..the language...Cortez,babe,Cortez, has a longer negative legancy than any American President or policy....
Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2006 @ 3:23pm
JR,
Killing off, I mean more like coffee spilled in lap nets cash...
Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2006 @ 3:24pm
Too many litigaters, laws, rules, fines, fees, ect..the Constitution was only 4 pages long for 200 years...now it weight 40 pounds and we can't read the later parts with out lawyers..
Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2006 @ 3:26pm
I think there are plenty of qualified Republicans . . . just never thought Bush was one of them back in 2000 . . . or that he was ever qualified to be governor going back farther. It was never a question of "liking" him or not. I do not "hate the man" just the policies. If Bush had been the compassionate conservative advertised, and acted "conservatively" when it came to foreign entanglements, personal liberties, he might not have gotten my vote in 2004, but he would have had my respect.
OB's lack of experience could be a detriment (at least it will be cast as such if he is going against McCain).
Finally, lawyers wouldn't exist in such numbers if there weren't clients lining up to hire them. So (like the saying goes re: abortion) if you have a problem with too many lawsuits clogging up the system, do your part and don't hire a lawyer to sue someone!!!
Posted by Hman23 at 12/12/2006 @ 3:27pm
Maasch, it's only a movie.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/12/2006 @ 3:30pm
Too many litigaters, laws, rules, fines, fees, ect..the Constitution was only 4 pages long for 200 years...now it weight 40 pounds and we can't read the later parts with out lawyers..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/12/2006 @ 3:26pm | ignore this person
this really dumb. the phone book is also a lot bigger than in 1798
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/12/2006 @ 3:31pm
if you don't like lawyers, the next time you're in legal trouble hire a blogger.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/12/2006 @ 3:33pm
or represent yourself. warning, a person who represents himself has a fool for a client.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/12/2006 @ 3:33pm
Maasch -
"We are a nation of laws, not men."
As such, what is your solution, besides kill all the lawyers. Shouldn't parties be able to enforce a contract in court? protect intellectual property rights (talk about killing innovation)? receive compensation for defective products? I could go on.
If you are mad with the system, then go for that - not "the lawyers". Lobby and push for "reform" bills and change the laws.
Posted by Hman23 at 12/12/2006 @ 3:34pm
MASK,
That was just a totally gay response. Not even going to bother responding. Bottom line: you guys aren't as great as you think. The US isn't the worst, not by a long shot. Just extemely selective in when and where it perpetrates its Great Works for Humanity, and riddled with blindspots. And I've got nothing negative to say to anyone who wants to make some bucks cleaning up after you pigs, especially the girls who go to the manifold marriage agencies and hook-up with corpulent, middle-aged Americans with white sneakers and tube socks looking for "love". It's so funny when girls here lure another sucker into marriage and a visa, then ditch his ass back up north...
Posted by chimichenga at 12/12/2006 @ 3:35pm
I agree boys, we all hate lawyers until we need one....I know, ...
Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2006 @ 3:37pm
Democrats "say" they are going to be bi-partisan! IT IS A FARCE! There is no such thing - there never was! Republicans talked about being bi-partisan - they were joking - we knew they were joking - people who listen to NPR might not have known - but most Americans knew. There is no bi-partisan.
Republican Authoritarianism has HURT America too deeply for too long. Democrats talking about being bi-partisan is just part of the warm-up. Even if Democrats wanted to be bi-partisan, we can count on Conservative Authoritarians to force them to take a side. Republicans wont let Democrats be bi-partisan even if they wanted to.
Posted by LiberalPride at 12/12/2006 @ 3:37pm
MAASCH,
To see how wrong you are about your assumed civilized roots, do some research on the art of "scalping". The Amerindians actually learned it from the Europeans, Big Guy.
Posted by chimichenga at 12/12/2006 @ 3:38pm
Chimi,
"To see how wrong you are about your assumed civilized roots, do some research on the art of "scalping". The Amerindians actually learned it from the Europeans, Big Guy."
I am not so sure I am civilized or live in a civilized culture...whats up with scalping? My questions regarding China down there and a natural trade block of our hemisphere seems to have gone un noticed by you...whats up with the Chinese down there ?
Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2006 @ 3:43pm
JR,
"Maasch, it's only a movie.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/12/2006 @ 3:30pm "
So is Gore's...
Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2006 @ 4:05pm
Chinese are taking advantage of the US being bogged down on the other side of the world, wasting their money, and making trade deals all over the continent. Meat and soy from Brasil and Argentina, iron from Brasil, oil from Venezuela, copper and tin from Chile, oil and bananas from Ecuador... But they're looking for resources everywhere these days. The Chinese are very well-respected here and run good businesses, but this seems to be the case pretty much anywhere.
Posted by chimichenga at 12/12/2006 @ 4:05pm
Under Clintononomics, NAFTA was signed and allowed the hemorraging of U.S. jobs to increase. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowed the increased consolidation of the corporate media. (not reported in the corporate media, of course.) Under Hillary, expect the same. I have NEVER voted for a Republican in my life (54 years), and I couln't vote for Hillary either. Kucinich can't win. Feingold isn't running. Gore won't run. Kerry is toast. That leaves Edwards (any lawyer who has battled giant corporations is a hero to me), or Obama. So I would support either. Common sense.
Posted by philbq at 12/12/2006 @ 4:08pm
Kucinich! I want to visit the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland next summer and know Dennis is working diligently for what is right. Hmmm. Wouldn't it be great if there were impeachment proceedings to tune into at that time.
"What did you know about ______________(pick ANTHING to do with this "foreign entaglement" that is Iraq) and when did you know it Misters Cheney and Bush?"
N.P.! N.P.!
Posted by lewwelge at 12/12/2006 @ 4:10pm
JR,
"Maasch, it's only a movie.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/12/2006 @ 3:30pm "
So is Gore's...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/12/2006 @ 4:05pm | ignore this person
Good point
Posted by CPT at 12/12/2006 @ 4:11pm
Yeah, Edwards and/or Obama. Of course, N.P. being the incumbent in 11/08 is my fervent wish for our country.
Nichols' timely tome on impeachment is exciting!
Posted by lewwelge at 12/12/2006 @ 4:13pm
CHIMI
Scalping may have orginated in Europe...but the Indians popularized it.
Posted by CPT at 12/12/2006 @ 4:15pm
LEWELGE
Dont get too excited....its a liberal wet dream.
Posted by CPT at 12/12/2006 @ 4:16pm
That was just a totally gay response.
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/12/2006 @ 3:35pm
Is homophobia "okay" with your friends down in Colombia, CHIMI?
Posted by Mask at 12/12/2006 @ 4:23pm
JR,
"Maasch, it's only a movie.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/12/2006 @ 3:30pm "
So is Gore's...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/12/2006 @ 4:05pm | ignore this person
Good point
Posted by CPT 12/12/2006 @ 4:11pm | ignore this person
one is a documentary, one is entertainment. one is fiction, one isn't.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/12/2006 @ 4:33pm
CHIMI
Scalping may have orginated in Europe...but the Indians popularized it.
Posted by CPT 12/12/2006 @ 4:15pm | ignore this person
how about the tubercular blankets?
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/12/2006 @ 4:34pm
MASK,
My English has gotten progressively worse ever since I first studied Spanish, and I often mix-up the two when thinking in one and writing/speaking in the other. So to answer your question, yes, "gay" and "homo" are very common phrases here, though I didn't mean to label yours as such.
A common saying here in Colombia is "¿qué hubo marica?", and though you probably don't understand hubo, I'm sure you can figure out marica. It doesn't sound good, but it's slang for dude or brother. But it's better than Honduras/Nicaragua where "¿qué pedo?" (what's farting) is a normal greeting...
Posted by chimichenga at 12/12/2006 @ 4:50pm
MASK
Dont you love the internals of polls
According to Gallup Bush's approval rating up a little bit, from 33 percent Nov. 9-12 to 38 percent Dec. 8-10.
Gallup also asked quite a bit about the Iraq war, and the bottom hasn't fallen out of public support the way you might expect. Asked, "do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?", 37 percent say going to war was worth it, 62 percent say not worth it.
Asked who is winning, 16 percent think the US and its allies, 17 percent say the insurgents, and 64 percent say neither side - the highest ever percentage saying that answer.
Sixty percent say the U.S. can win in Iraq, but only 35 percent think the U.S. will win. Seventy-six percent of respondents think Iraq is in a civil war, 22 think it isn't.
Asked, "How much longer do you think the U.S. should have a significant number of troops in Iraq?", 30 percent said "less than six months," 25 percent said "six months to a year," 25 percent said one to two years, and 15 percent said longer than two years. Two percent volunteered, "bring them all home now."
Again 2% are for an immediate withdrawal
Interestingly, asked, "How important is it that the United States succeeds in Iraq -- extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not that important?" 29 percent said "extremely important," 29 percent said "very important," 23 percent said "somewhat important," and only 15 percent said "not that important."
Asked, "Do you think the Bush administration should or should not implement most of the recommendations made by the Iraq Study Group, or don't you know enough to say?" respondents are refreshingly modest. Only 29 percent say "Yes they should," 6 percent say "no they shouldn't," and 63 percent say, "don't know enough to say."
So you can take alot from this poll...but what you cannot say is American want an immediate pullout and the importance of that success is inconsequential
Posted by CPT at 12/12/2006 @ 4:58pm
CPT,
You're a despicable pollparrot. If you frame a question properly you can illicit almost any desired response. So you begin by saying, "The president believes the US can win in Iraq", or "most Americans think the US will prevail in the war in Iraq". Then you ask your question. Or you begin by stating the opposite, then ask away, depends on who is doing the polling. I'm not saying this is what happened with this particular poll, but it is done more than you think...
Posted by chimichenga at 12/12/2006 @ 5:08pm
If that's the case, then all of the polls saying that that the American people want a withdrawal are equally suspect.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/12/2006 @ 6:08pm
THRAWN
Dont you love the internals in polls...far more illuminating
Posted by CPT at 12/12/2006 @ 6:19pm
CPT - The only thing illuminating is that 37%, 16%, 22%, 15%, 6% agree with your views. (the lowest percentage for each question, I might add).
Posted by Hman23 at 12/12/2006 @ 6:54pm
If that's the case, then all of the polls saying that that the American people want a withdrawal are equally suspect.
Posted by THRAWN 12/12/2006 @ 6:08pm | ignore this person
short of a plebiscite, polls are all we have to judge the mood of the people. that and elections, which provide that view but very indirectly and not unequivocably so
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/12/2006 @ 7:12pm
So to answer your question, yes, "gay" and "homo" are very common phrases here, though I didn't mean to label yours as such.
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/12/2006 @ 4:50pm
I thought the South Americans were more "advanced" socially and culturally than us.....yet they throw out "gay" and "homo" as synonymous with "bad" as OUR homophobes do?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 12/13/2006 @ 09:26am
What fucking "mandate," John? You and your pwoggie voters handed your party masters a blank check with no demands what-so-ever. They owe you nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Understand, John? They will do whatever they like, including sending more troops to Iraq, and you have no fucking say at all because you asked NOTHING of them.
And '08 will be exactly the same, John. Exactly.
Posted by AlanSmithee at 12/13/2006 @ 11:14am
Here is why I voted for Kucinich in the Primary in 2004 even though Kerry had the better chance to win the general: Department of Peace. What a beautiful idea to keep out in front of people. And I like the idea of being for Peace as opposed to the oopositional approach of 'anti-war, which only breeds discord.' So yes, its a good thing that Kucinich is going to be out there on the hustings again. As for hillary, why is it that I fear she will be more hawkish than not, to prove her tough-person credentials? Like one of the commentors said, we need someone who can win who has stood firm for Peace from the beginning and protects the environment from corporate interests. Might I suggest the once and future President, A.G.?
Posted by dsteven2 at 12/13/2006 @ 1:23pm
apropos Dept of Peace, the defense department used to be known as the War Department. I guess it never occurred to them then that a war would be anything BUT a defense. and so language defines the debate.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/13/2006 @ 1:33pm
"Why?...you must. One little slip-up...one thing that sounds even SLIGHTY "pro-American"...and you fear that your amigos might not think you are "reformed", but slipping into that "genetic predisposition" of all us evil imperalist Yanquis into "attacking the people and culture of the Latinos"!
Posted by MASK 12/12/2006 @ 3:23pm
Wow. Proof that you can create more than just simple little boxes. Let's see...first we assign a personality disorder, wherein Chimi needs the adulation of his peers. Then we arbitrarily define the responses of his peers...throw in quotes around something he didn't say and...viola!.. a perfect cicular argument for claiming he doesn't actually mean what he says, he's just posturing.
I bet even lillian couldn't "poof" that box.
More of a sphere really...much stronger. But, with issues with surface tension...
POP!
---------------
"I thought the South Americans were more "advanced" socially and culturally than us.....yet they throw out "gay" and "homo" as synonymous with "bad" as OUR homophobes do?!?!?!"
Posted by MASK 12/13/2006 @ 09:26am
In my (admittedly limited) understanding of their culture, latinos do tend towards macho posturing and homophopia.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the topic of how does US foreign policy effect the politics and economic picture of LA.
And yes, Mask. Their homophopes are bad too.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/13/2006 @ 1:51pm
JR,
"Maasch, it's only a movie.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/12/2006 @ 3:30pm "
So is Gore's...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/12/2006 @ 4:05pm | ignore this person
Good point
Posted by CPT 12/12/2006 @ 4:11pm
If I make a movie about the sun rising and setting, will that magically turn daylight into a partisan, liberal concept?
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/13/2006 @ 1:54pm
Mal, in Bush's time the very facts are partisan, as they actually have claimed.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/13/2006 @ 1:56pm
"..if I were in office, in the first 6 months I would fire every other govt employee at random and see if govt quality of govt service degraded or slowed down.."
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/12/2006 @ 2:56pm
Wow! That sounds like as coherent a plan as chimpy had, going into Iraq. Let's fire some competent people along with the incompetents and fill the vacancies with...i dunno...whatever.
Would your foreign policy also be "random"?
--------------------
".why don't the LAs despise the Spanish? After all, the evil USA was not even in existance and the Spanish came in, with the church , and tore the place asunder, even leaving a foot print on all LA..the language"
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/12/2006 @ 3:23pm
Maybe, John, because the Spanish left the scene, long ago, and are not continually fucking with them.
I don't really know (LOOK! we have something in common), but I doubt the Spanish conquistadors are held in high esteem, in latin America.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/13/2006 @ 2:02pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/13/2006 @ 1:51pm
Well, first Eric, my socio-psychological analysis of CHIMI didn't evoke as much defense from him as from you. Plus, I didn't say that it was SOLEY the influence of having to be "more anti-American" than his compadres in Medellin....after all how would one explain all the Blame-America-Firsters....HERE!...hehe
But he has yet to produce a post on Latin America that DOESN'T blame all their troubles on the USA, despite his protestations that he isn't. When it comes, I'll welcome it.
Second, the claim to superiority is ALSO part of CHIMI's modus operandi. He talks of the babes, beer, and lifestyle (or "chicas, cervezas, y formas de vida" if you like) and how MUCH BETTER he likes it down there.
Ergo his homophobic "put-down" to my post...and later admission (by him AND you) of the Latinos' homophobia, despite their innate "superiority" ...is strange.
Posted by Mask at 12/13/2006 @ 2:10pm
the US had its boot on the neck of Latin America for a long time. it is no wonder that they remember.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/13/2006 @ 2:37pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/13/2006 @ 2:37pm |
JR, the French, Polish, Ukrainians, etc. seem to get along with the Germans these days, don't they?
Posted by Mask at 12/13/2006 @ 2:44pm
I don't really know (LOOK! we have something in common), but I doubt the Spanish conquistadors are held in high esteem, in latin America.
Eric
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/13/2006 @ 2:02pm | ignore this person
I don't know why you would assume that. the Latin Americans are the descendants of the spanish invaders. you might be able to say that of the indigenous population.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/13/2006 @ 2:45pm
BTW, back on topic...
is there ANYBODY here who thinks Dennis Kucinich will "force" the Dem candidates to the Left any more than he did in 2004?
(I'm totally discounting that anybody here actually thinks he can WIN the Dem primaries)
Posted by Mask at 12/13/2006 @ 2:45pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/13/2006 @ 2:45pm
Are you claiming that more latin Americans are of spanish descent, than of native descent?
I am not saying you're wrong, as I don't know the statistics, but that seems very improbable to me. I would have to say, the few latinos I know well enough to have any idea, seem to not acknowledge any European descent.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/13/2006 @ 3:14pm
Mal, I don't know the percentages either. I do know however that, like in this country, the native population was decimated, if not exterminated. have you looked at the photos of Latin America's rulers? do they look indian to you?
"the few latinos I know well enough to have any idea, seem to not acknowledge any European descent."
while I cannot speak of your acquaintances, I am sure this is not the case by and large.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/13/2006 @ 3:35pm
On this one.....I think I can speak authoritatively-
Latinos range from minimal Western European (not just Spanish) blood to almost completely indigenous.
Also, there's quite a bit of racism involved, with "lighter skinned" Latinos looking down on darker skinned ones and indigenous people like the Mayans particularly.
CHIMI can correct me if he likes, but again, I speak from some personal experience.
Posted by Mask at 12/13/2006 @ 4:01pm
Posted by MASK 12/13/2006 @ 4:01pm
All I know is, most of my latin american friends and neighbors look more Mayan, than Mediterranean. Any clue where we could find such information?
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/13/2006 @ 7:07pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/13/2006 @ 7:07pm
I'd Google "Latino inter-racial relations". But more recently was an article on the Mayans and their poor treatment by other Mexicans in a related article on Gibson's new film.
Posted by Mask at 12/13/2006 @ 9:37pm
I don't know. I think one would have to look at one country at a time.
The Mexican population is composed of three main groups: the people of Spanish descent, the Indians and the people of mixed Spanish and Indian ancestry, or Mestizos. Of these groups, the Mestizos are by far the largest, constituting about 60 percent of the population. The Indians total about 30 percent.
that would leave 10% pure european descent. other countries may have similar numbers. how majority perceive themselves and how the conquistadors figure in that is not clear.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/13/2006 @ 9:37pm
BTW, back on topic...
is there ANYBODY here who thinks Dennis Kucinich will "force" the Dem candidates to the Left any more than he did in 2004?
Posted by MASK 12/13/2006 @ 2:45pm | ignore this person
Just curious Mask, who are you quoting?
John Nichols says "...Kucinich's presence in the debates could well sharpen the discussion among Democrats regarding the war." That's obviously quite different from your claim that someone has said Kucinich will "force" the Dem candidates to the left. As far as I can tell, you are the only one making that claim.
So, are you quoting yourself?
Posted by Lillian at 12/14/2006 @ 12:04am
Posted by LILLIAN 12/14/2006 @ 12:04am
Care to chip in for my gift of a new keyboard for Mask, this xmas?
His, apparently, adds random quotation marks, around things, that are not quotes.
This, sadly, causes alot of folks to think he is full of shit.
Poor guy.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/14/2006 @ 01:14am
Kucinich is a good man, and the Presidential campaign gives him an opportunity to share his dream for America. The best part of the 2000 campaign were the debates between the Democratic candidates, and the ideas of these candidates who lost the nomination, but represented the soul of the Democratic party. We need people like him to remind us of our values as Democrats and Americans.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/14/2006 @ 4:07pm
Kucinich is a good man, and the Presidential campaign gives him an opportunity to share his dream for America. The best part of the 2000 campaign were the debates between the Democratic candidates, and the ideas of these candidates who lost the nomination, but represented the soul of the Democratic party. We need people like him to remind us of our values as Democrats and Americans.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/14/2006 @ 4:10pm