In the last few days, Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has done pretty much a complete 180 on the health-care "reform" being debated in Washington (one would be tempted to think it's the ONLY thing being debated). While he was critical of the bill and had opposed it for various reasons, he has apparently changed his mind overnight after a ride in Air Force One with the President. At Huffington Post, Tom Hayden seems to think Kucinich has not only saved health-care but apparently also himself, because obviously the entire future of America rests upon whether or not Kucinich has principles and is willing to compromise them for the sake of accomplishing half-goals and preserving party unity. Strangely, just a few days ago, he was singing a different tune: A fair assessment, I feel. Is this the reason he was oft-quoted as saying that the "reform" was a bailout for insurance companies? That it actually had provisions for allowing insurance companies to raise prices by up to 25% or something thereabouts? While I would confess that he is in some ways just too liberal for me to be behind him all the time, he has struck me in the past as someone who at least had an independent mind... a certain degree of autonomy from the typical party fare. He seemed to have had some principles, including on this matter. He has taken positions I have agreed with. Heck, even though it seemed to be mostly symbolic, there was the impeachment motion that he introduced. So what has happened in those few days between his article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer and his statement here? here: That last quote seems a little puzzling, and a bit troubling, to boot. For a good take on his turnaround, we have this opinion piece by Dr. Watson (not really a doctor, but I thought it was funny) I'm sincerely at a loss to explain exactly why he has just thrown in the towel and compromised on his own ideals that he has been pretty unwavering on for so long simply to appease the Democrat agenda and pass a health-care bill with which he has, even now, some major contentions with. What gives? Does anyone find this remotely disturbing? Does he worry that much about party unity and Obama's image? Is he afraid his reelection is threatened? Is something more ominous hanging over his head? Up to now, I've had a certain respect for the guy, but sheesh! Again I say, what gives? :shrug: Any thoughts, peeps?
I don't really give a rats ass about what Dennis Kucinich thinks. Once this Health Bill passes I will be able to get private insurance again. I was dropped after developing type2 diabetes(which they misdiagnosed for years). Medical isn't an option since the illegals have almost crippled the system in my state. This is a win for me, eventhough I didn't get everything I wanted in the bill.
Kucinich is one of the few members of Congress who is ideologically dedicated--almost unswervingly [well, for a Congressman, that is]--to his principles; only about half of which I actually agree with. But, I have to hand it to Dennis: you generally know what you get with him. Even when I disagree with his voting record, I have to grudgingly give the guy a nod: he says what he believes, and he usually acts according to those beliefs, even when it's seriously unpopular (a habit he can politically afford since he's from one of the ten-or-so most liberal districts in the USA and has little to worry about in the way of political contenders). In the end, ALL OF US in the Cleveland area knew how he would vote. It's not so much that this bill was a compromise for him (it was) as it was--what he considered to be--a good start down the path towards a single payer system which is what he really wants. Personally, I think it's going to be a fiasco, but eh, we'll see. ~String
I don't see Kucinich being in any way untrue to his stated beliefs. He did vote against the House Bill because he wanted a single payer system. The Senate bill was not enough change for Kucinich. In the end Kucinich had to decide if some change was better than no change. I think he made the right decision. I agree with Kucinich that the Senate bill is pretty watered down and does not go far enough to reform the American healthcare system. But it is a start. It reminds me of Confucius. "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.".
Totally agree here. He was a bit too liberal on some issues, but he was strong in certain areas I agreed with and he often seemed willing to completely stand in a corner with little support from either side. I always have respect for that. REAL MAVERICKS. Not the ones who simply think they're being "outside the box" by siding with the other party. How exactly did anyone know that? I would have thought that his disagreements as they stood, as well as other things he may have considered but didn't mention, would have been enough to keep him from giving over his vote. And as close as that vote was (wasn't it basically right down the middle?) maybe his one vote was the difference between passage and defeat?!?! All I can say is, he has lost considerable respect from me for this. I thought his sudden switch was pretty weird, though. Within two days he went from criticizing it to supporting it. I really wonder if he was made some offer? Or *gasp* even threatened in some way?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Maybe there is a potential scandal that someone said might just come out? I know at least one author has offered speculation about that.
Better hope that single step isn't.. off.. a cliff... ... ... ... ... ...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The hardcore left (libertarian and authoritarian both) take on Kucinich has been, for many years, that he talks a good game but will not stand on principle in a crunch. And that is not cynical - talking a good game, throughout the Reagan Era now collapsing around us, has been a respectable accomplishment. Credit where it is due. But no more credit than is due. No one on the hardcore left is "disturbed" by this latest completely consistent event in the K's voting record. example: http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/
Lots of politicians were bought off on this vote one way or another despite their previous refusal to vote for it. Ben Nelson of Nebraska is a prime example. That said, you be the Democrat who doesn't vote for the President's baby and see how much Federal dollars for your state seem to dry up overnight.
You have quite an imagination. There is no evidence that Dennis K. did anything wrong. Dennis K., while I don't agree with much of his agenda, is an honorable man.
Glambattista, I am going to have to draw the line at picking on Kucinich. He is obviously eccentric, but you should know by now that he is not a real power in the Democratic Party. He does, however, represent some of our more noble ideals and intentions, so hands off. Seriously.
That's probably closest to the truth you can get. It's disgusting how few people CAN'T be bought, one way or the other.
First, that's not a quote from me - I was quoting the author. Second, it's a comment on Kucinich's voting record in matters like this - he tends to make good, clear speeches on principle and carry the water for the sensible and reality based "progressive" or left; then when the vote comes he rolls into the Democratic Party "mainstream". I give him full credit for speaking out, and taking a lot of flac, for years now. But he does roll over, when the crunch hits.
Just this: http://www.democracynow.org/2004/7/14/did_dennis_kucinich_sell_out_anti Any number of other examples exist, that one was sort of memorable for the author, and he counted on it jogging others' memories.
