 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
(I have always supported Dennis Kucinich, whenever possible but after the 2004 Convention and his failure to stand up at the Convention against the war and support the peace activists who were hauled off the convention floor, with their anti-war signs, and given his inability to run a strong campaign, I can no longer back him. I do respect his positions on many issues.)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/volatile1.html
How about gaining more information on that event?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=2004+convention+Dennis+Kucinich+anti-war+police
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0714-12.htm
Published on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 by DemocracyNow! Did Dennis Kucinich Sell Out Anti-War Democrats? by Amy Goodman
Is that relevant?
How about a change on the search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=2004+convention+Dennis+Kucinich+anti-war+riot
I took out 'police' and added 'riot'.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0724-01.htm
Some people fear that antiwar protesters will blow it and undermine the "Dump Bush" effort, which they view as the overwhelming priority. Others are angry that a powerful liberal advocacy group, MoveOn.org, is playing an active supporting role for the Kerry campaign. To them, "giving the Democrats a pass" means not staging convention protests despite the fact that Kerry and many other Democratic lawmakers voted in favor of the resolution for the war in Iraq and helped to overwhelmingly pass the Patriot Act after the Sept. 11 attacks. There is talk that "progressive" delegates will stage a surprise antiwar action on the convention.
http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-2/508/508_04_DNC.shtml
NO MATTER how unlikely his chances, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) refused to the very end to abandon his liberal campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Even after John Kerry had the nomination locked up, Kucinich kept running--"to give people an opportunity to voice their concerns," he said.
As Kucinich told an audience during a panel discussion on the antiwar movement at the Boston Social Forum last month, "I ran for president as a Democrat to bring these principles into the party." Fine words. Only when he said them, Kucinich had abandoned his campaign and endorsed Kerry--and given up on any attempt to get a call for a definite withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq into the party platform. Following the time-honored tradition of liberal Democrats who fail to win the party’s presidential nomination, Kucinich fell in line behind the more conservative nominee.
He even had the gall to attack independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader. "It’s entirely consistent for Democrats to choose someone who they feel has the best chance of defeating George Bush and, simultaneously at the grassroots, support the principles that my campaign was about," Kucinich explained. But it’s not consistent at all.
Kucinich proved that when he gave up on the fight he promised to make to get a set date for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq written into the Democrats’ platform. Under pressure from Kerry’s operatives, Kucinich told his supporters on the platform committee to back down. Outrageously, the plank adopted by the committee says that "people of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq."
See this?
Why are the "NEWS" people hired by Corporate Television (Mass Media) asking Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich if they will support their 'party' 'when' they fail to gain the 'party' nomination?
What is the fetish concerning this angle?
It is based upon this:
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/
Here:
For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least.
And here, again, is the failure to invent the better of two best goods. The POWER of falsehood hides good things - on purpose.
That POWER is criminal by nature, by definition, by action, and deed.
We do not have to become that which we despise, abhor, and cannot stand or tolerate morally, economically, and logically.
We can return civility to civilization and this is as simple as flipping on a light switch in a dark room once the POWER is ours to command. This is as simple as day is simply not night.