OH-10: Kucinich refuses to talk to the Plain Dealer because he only likes the 1st amendment when it's good for him
He gets more ridiculous by the day. Now he is apparently refusing all communication with the major newspaper in his district. From Openers:
Heretofore a champion of a free press, congressman (and former Plain Dealer copy boy) Dennis Kucinich has cut off nearly all communication to Plain Dealer political reporters.
Kucinich has not returned calls for several weeks to the newspaper's Washington bureau, which covers his actions in Congress and his presidential campaign. As noted in Monday's newspaper, he uttered a string of non sequiturs -- albeit pleasant ones -- when a Plain Dealer reporter attempted to interview him outside the House of Representatives chamber.
His presidential campaign staff for weeks has not returned Plain Dealer calls and e-mail.
Natalie Laber, Kucinich's publicly paid spokeswoman in Congress, also has not returned phone calls and e-mail during this timeframe. That includes multiple inquries from reporters asking about Kucinich's votes in the House, his positions on congressional issues and matters unrelated to his presidential campaign.
Laber apparently has attempted to exclude Plain Dealer reporters another way, removing them from her list of media contacts who receive Kucinich news releases, news alerts, hearing schedules and notices of public appearances via e-mail. We use the word "apparently" here because we cannot confirm this from Laber. She won't return our calls and e-mail. But we know she sends them to others, as we have obtained bootleg copies. (Under normal circumstances, we might request them under the Freedom of Information Act, but Congress, perhaps anticipating the day that Kucinich would wish to shut out the press, exempted itself from the public records law.)
So let me get this straight. He whines and whines and whines that the big news corporations won't give him the same treatment/coverage they give to Clinton, Obama, Edwards, etc., but in his home district he is actually attempting the block media coverage by refusing to talk or pass information on to reporters.
This sounds suspiciously like Kucinich's constant complaining that he is left out of presidential debates while he refuses to debate challengers for his congressional seat. (BTW its been 24 days with no response since Rosemary Palmer challenged Kucinich to a series of issue debates) Why is this double standard allowed to exist? I wonder if all the folks who love the fact that Kucinich stands on "principle" believe it is ok that he has two conflicting sets of principles depending on what forum he is in.
If it's presidential candidate Kucinich, then by god freedom of the press and fair access for all! However, Congressman Kucinich apparently doesn't believe that he needs to provide any press access at all. This is reminiscent of the Bush policy of cutting out White House reporters who didn't write favorably about the president or his policies.
Dennis Kucinich is one giant example of hypocrisy at its finest. He has demonstrated yet again why he needs to be brushed off the national stage and out of Congress for good. Cue sputtering Kucinich apologists now.
Hypocrisy is "the act of condemning or calling for the condemnation of another person when the critic is guilty of the act for which he demands that the accused be condemned"
Since Dennis consistently, and admirably, votes his conscience- often against the advice and guidence of his party, he's the guy that most aligns with my political views whether I want to admit it or not.
Therefore if I decided to condemn him and support some other candidate I think I'd be guilty of hypocrisy.
I'm not sure if Palmer is a better candidate than Kucinich... She may be- I really don't know.
But I DO KNOW that we currently have a DEMOCRAT in office who is loved by his constituents and who will continue to get re-elected in his district as long as we don't start throwing primary challengers his way.
And so it seems the reasonable question to ask now is: do you really want to screw with that?
Seriously?
The question is isn't it hypocritical for him as a Presidential candidate to bemoan the MSM from reporting on him when as Congressman he ignores and active avoids the largest newspaper in his district because he thinks they criticism him too harshly (such thick-skinness would bode well for the First Amendment if he WERE to become President).
I didn't ask Joseph if YOU were being hypocritical. Isn't D.K.?
Votes his conscious is debateable. Some would argue it's nothing more than political theater grandstanding sometimes. (When he voted solidly pro-life and now 180 degrees from that position, which was him voting his conscious?)
Give me a break. How's Kucinich's effort to impeach Cheny going anyhow (Answer: it's DOA and going nowhere, just like every other legislative initiative D.K. has ever proposed in Congress.)
How the hell do you even claim that D.K. has put "pressure on the leading Dem candidates to move to the left on almost all policy positions"? On Iraq, each of the top three candidates said at the last debate that even if they are elected large amounts of U.S. troops will still be in Iraq before the end of their first term.
Healthcare? Do you honestly think it was D.K. who got the candidates to talk about healthcare? You'd think after 1993, Hillary Clinton would run for President and NOT talk about health care? Does any of the leading candidates plans reflect D.K.s? (No, they don't).
I am so sick of this myth of D.K. that despite the fact that he has never polled close to the double digits nationally, he's somehow this political threat that is affecting where the other candidates's position themselves. If a candidate who has constantly polled at or below the margin of error in support is such a threat, then what impact Richardson or Biden must have.
Have any of the candidates stopped taking PAC money because of "No Strings" Dennis? No. Did any caniddates rush to announce their own support for lowering the drinking age to 18? No.
I am so sick and tired of hearing how D.K. is this visionary leader who has never achieved anything in politics except bankrupt the City of Cleveland to keep a public utility open. And how the reason people don't take him seriously isn't because of his own odd behavior, but instead must be some corporate conspiracy to make D.K. look ridiculous.
D.K. is a hypocritical politician. Who bemoans exclusion in political debates selectively when it's to his own political advantage. Who cries how the media won't cover them, but then, doesn't return phone calls and actively seeks to exclude members of the media.
When the leading Democratic candidates announced that they would not appear to a Congressional Black Caucus debate co-sponsered by Fox News, D.K. appeared on Fox and said it was wrong for the candidates to cherry-pick who covered him like this (which, as a measure of D.K.'s influence on the leading candidates, had no affect.) Now, here is not just cherry-picking who can ask him questions in a debate, but actually deciding who can cover him at all. How can you look to these two instances within just a few months of each other, and not see a politicial hypocrite?
Kucinich's effort to impeach Cheney hasn't gained traction because of timid Dems who aren't willing to uphold their Constitutional oaths. If Cheney isn't impeached then no one else will ever meet the standard.
Why are the Dems timid? Because political consultants say it's to their advantage not to impeach. That's really sorry. Especially when you have Clinton supporting the Lieberman/Kyl admendment to put Iran's military on the terror list which doesn't fit the definition of terror. And Obama didn't even vote on Lieberman/Kyl. Don't you see that Cheney and Bush are ramping up another war in which the U.S. will strike first? Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter are giving us the same warnings again.
Maybe you are right about Kucinich not moving all the candidates to the left. But, certainly John Edwards gets pushed that way by Kucinich.
I'm not in Kucinich's district. It's perfectly legit for a primary challenge. But I think you make a huge mistake by undermining one of the few Dems who has shown leadership to take on the crowd that could care less about the Constitution.
But hey if you are all about the Dems consolidating power and being Republican-lite then keep undermining Kucinich and it won't be long and you'll be dealing with a serious third party.
just a guy taking a walk.
a progressive is, by definition, forward thinking and forward moving. at times that means showing a willingness to put pragmatism ahead of idealism in order to get something done. But DK continually demonstrates that he prefers rigid idealism in the mold of the far right. it is insulting to progressives everywhere to refer to him as the "true progressive" when he can't even fairly be associated with the root of the word. It is also obnoxiously self-righteous, which is what many dislike about DK and his supporters.
My God, which is it? Is D.K. a true progressive who forces the other candidates to shadow his positions, or is he the "brave" hero who introduces resolutions he knows ahead of time won't go anywhere because of the "timid" leadership?
It can't be both! And, yet, you're last two comments have taken both contradictory positions.
Just because Democrats aren't doing what D.K. wants doesn't make them Republican-lite. Quit with the stupid traitor talk. Do you really want us to talk about which votes D.K. has missed or we disagree with?
Edwards isn't getting pushed by D.K., he's pushed by the political reality that if he doesn't find someway to distinguish himself from Obama and Clinton, he's campaign will wither on the vine. D.K. has nothing to do with it!
Never in my life have I have seen such delusional thinking about a candidate's political influence who can't even poll above the margin of error.
NEWSFLASH: the rest of the political world doesn't live and breath D.K.'s every thought or political move. He's normally a non-factor, that's why he's at the bottom of the field!
Modern Esquire,
If Kucinich is such a non-factor then why do you power-consolidating Dems put so much energy trying to sabotage him? I swear, it seems like Kucinich and some two bit mayoral candidate (Bill Todd) get made into colossal political giants around here at the expense of much more important issues.
Look, I'm not even supporting Kucinich. I'm for Edwards.
My question remains unanswered and Dick is one day closer to bombing Iran:
Do you consider it "Progress" to impeach Dick Cheney????????
I think that Kucinich is certainly a true progressive. Edwards and some other candidates do get pushed by him in debates. Obviously his influence is limited on Capitol Hill.
You revert to a Republican tactic bringing up TRAITOR talk. My point is that the Dem Leadership is going along with many things---funding the war, not impeaching, supporting Lieberman/Kyl (to make war w/ Iran)-----because they think it is politically expedient and that's messed up.
People voted the Repubs out of office to bring most of the troops home not to start another war!!!!!!!!
Just because an admendment to abolish slavery in 1830 wouldn't have a chance to pass doesn't mean that it would have been wasted to offer it.
In case you didn't realize, I don't just sit here on the site waiting to respond to everyone who wants to throw down the gauntlet and cybe-duel at high noon. I have to appear in court, and today, I had to draft a brief. In other words, I have to work for a living.
To answer your initial question, no, I don't think impeachment is a progressive idea. It's a constitutional act, not a progressive one, even when the officerholder being impeached is an arch-conservative like Cheney.
As to your second question, I do not support the basis D.K. asserts in his resolution as grounds for impeachment. D.K.'s resolution sounds very similar to what was Article V of the impeachment resolution for President Richard Nixon over his bombing of Cambodia. That particular article was widely rejected in a bipartisan manner by the House Judiciary Committee.
I believe that historical precedent would argue that D.K.'s framing Cheney's impeachment around misues of intelligence in his advocacy for a war with Iraq is not an impeachable offense. I would note that there was no measure to impeach over the Spanish-American War or the Gulf of Tonkin incident, either.
So, no, I don't support D.K.'s resolution to impeach Cheney. I think as stated its on weak legal and constitutional grounds. It does not have the necessary votes to pass or remove Cheney from office. It would drain the Congress' time in pursue more productive ventures that could actually achieve something. And the idea that Cheney would have no influence in this Administration if he wasn't the Vice President is laughable.
Also, let's say I'm wrong and Congress impeached and removed Cheney from office. Who do you think Bush would nominate to replace him? Be careful what you wish for, you could regret it.
Impeaching Cheney is the right thing to do to protect the Constitution and would benefit Dems politically. John Nichols of the Nation Mag has written alot of excellent articles about this. John Dean knows something about government and the Constitution and supports impeachment starting with Cheney. But, maybe you are like that Democratic lawyer who led the defense of Scooter Libby.
The impeachment process would stunt an attack on Iran and set a precedent that future runaway Administrations will face consequences.
I suggest you turn your activism to countering the Republican Agenda instead of undermining Democrats who take the lead on the most important issues. The conservatives don't shoot their scouts.
Impeachment was never meant to be a product of public sentiment, but a political quasi-criminal remedy for an abuse of power.
Dean has said there is a case for impeaching both, but has also said there are serious things the Democratic majority must consider before pursuing impeachment. Most of which I just touched. There is not bipartisan support for impeachment. To impeach either Bush and Cheney in the absence of the necessary bipartisan support to obtain the necessary supermajority for removal (conviction on the articles of impeachment), any impeachment is going to look like a crass political act with no significance. Very much like the impeachment of President Clinton.
You don't impeach an elected officeholder and overturn an election simply because you're in the majority, and presumeably, have the votes to pass articles of impeachment. You don't even do it simply because everyone now hates that officeholder. Impeaching the President or the Vice-President is a Congressional indictment requiring an offense so egriegous to require the political death penalty of removal from office before their terms expire.
Any prosecutor would tell you you don't indict someone with capital murder unless you think you've got a case that will win. We simply don't have the votes in the Senate, assuming without evidence, that we have the votes in the House.
The precedent set very much could be that if the opposition party control Congress, they could impeach you for any reason, regardless of whether they have the votes to remove you from office. If you read the interview I linked of John Dean, he expresses this very concern. Republicans in Congress could have used a similiar rationale against Cheney against Clinton as it related to military involvement in Kosovo or Somalia.
Political benefit to the majority party should never be a justification for impeachment, especially when that impeachment will not result in the removal of office.
Impeachment isn't necessary to "stun" an attack on Iran, either. The reality is there simply isn't anyone left in the military to open up a war with Iran.
My whole point is that what D.K. is advocating aren't the "most important issues," but political stunts to feed his ego. He knew all along that his impeachment resolution would go nowhere, that's why he introduced it. It gives him a foil to make him look like he's showing leadership while making himself stand out from the crowd.
But if any D.K. supporter could stand up and just answer my questions as to why they defend him, I would gladly be willing to stop talking about him.
Don't you find it at all hypocritical for D.K. to castigate any hint of exclusion he has in the presidential debates while he has a history continuing to today of not debating his congressional opponents? Can you justify why as a Presidential candidate, D.K. blasted the leading candidates for refusing to debate on Fox News while he refuses to respond to the Plain Dealer?
Believe me, I'd love to not have to keep asking these questions, but supporters for D.K. refuse to address them and instead come up with some tripe about how I'm "just like Scotty Libby's attorney" or some other non sequiter.
A frickin war was started with lies! ("There is NO DOUBT that Iraq has WMD," said Dick)!! Torture! Illegal and unconstitutional wiretaps! Gonzo-gate! Do you realize what would have happened if Gonzo-gate had never become public. There would be hundreds or thousands unjustifiably in jail today just like that ex-Gov of Alabama, Don Seigelman.
The goods would come out in the impeachment trial and then public sentiment would create the political will to remove both Cheney then Bush. Pelosi doesn't have to President. Cheney should be impeached first then Bush and Congress could agree on a replacement for Cheney before Bush is impeached. Maybe someone like Dick Lugar.
I agree, impeachment shouldn't be about political advantage. But that is why I think the Democratic Leadership is holding back from proceeding.
About Iran---Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter are ringing the alarms that an attack is going to happen. They have been right about everything else. Cheney/Bush feel that they must attack for the sake of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
http://openleft.com/tag.do?tag=Dennis+Kucinich
Maybe you guys can help them field primary challengers to people they and you disagree with!
They'll rail against Bushdog democrats, you rail against Kucinich and his "peace" nonsense (delusional!), "universal health care" drivel (communist!), and the "fair trade" baloney (protectionist! All trade is GOOD!).
He's an egomaniac! He must be stopped !!! Or, better, TASERED!
He's as dangerous as .... Amandinijad! yeah! that's right! He has worked tirelessly to harm the people of NE Ohio with all that "populism"~ PINKO nutcase! Whackjob! Just like the 60 or 70% of his district who votes for him, what a bunch of dummies. Why can't they see how damaging he is? How is it that they are so ignorant?
Don't you people see you are speaking in a vacuum? You are talking to each other, just like the Hacket thing.
Now, isn't there a target worth pursuing maybe? Isn't there some issue....hmmmm... what could that be...
I noticed that this blog didn't even give any coverage to the March on Washington~
By the way, I was in Iowa in 2004 and I can tell you the Edwards was indeed influenced by Kucinich, they were friends and allied in the caucuses. That upset some DJK purists, since Edwards had yet to repudiate his war vote. Kucinich was the reason Kerry "voted against the $87 billion before he voted for it" business. It was during the debate that Kucinich as unequivocally "NO" when asked if he would vote for the funding, leaving the other candidates, like Dean, sputtering.
Face it, he's been way out in front of many in the Party but right on with the American People who are against more funding (look at today's polls).
Again, I invite you to direct your talents to attacking the real enemies of the Constitution, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. One fine day, it will be.
Slay the Kucinich dragon after we're safe from BushbinLaden.