digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Kucinich 'Comes Closest to Embodying the Ideals' of Nation

news.yahoo.com — The influential publication The Nation has named Kucinich the candidate who most matches its ideals.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dannyapplesauce, on 12/28/2007, -19/+151Honestly, he is the only candidate that I can seriously say that I am in favor of right now. Alot of the other democratic candidates are taking note of him and his policies and are changing theirs to reflect his.
    • gmillerd, on 12/28/2007, -7/+31A large number of his ideas are no brainers but get lost easily in the media hunger to destroy someone. His 'department of peace, separating humanitarian work from cia involvement and military intervention' for example is a awesome idea, but can easily be knocked by ***** heads on fox.
      • p0s3r, on 12/28/2007, -14/+3We should outlaw Fox News!
        • ghosteater, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4yeah! make a 'department of free speech'! i bet the guys at fox would love the idea actually, in fact i bet they are glad to be called a ***** head by someone they would label as a liberal.
          • Telvin, on 01/02/2008, -0/+0ghosts eaters the patriots at fox are the only people keepin them terrerorists from stealin our liberty and freedom! shame on you!
      • InfiniteNothing, on 12/28/2007, -3/+6Do two censorships make a freedom?
      • breckinshire, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1"***** heads on fox"? Is that their new morning show?
    • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -37/+9Kucinich wants to ban handguns, for one. I think that he needs to reread the 2nd Amendment.

      Also, Kucinich wants Health care for everyone. This isn't in the Constitution, and it's more Socialism. This country is BANKRUPT.

      I know you like your free *****, but this country's already broke.
      • Sigma0, on 12/28/2007, -5/+44I know...heaven forbid the worlds largest economy would actually consider spending its money on healthcare for citizens than more guns. What is the world coming to.
        • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -22/+6What the ***** does banning handguns have to do with the government spending money on guns? What the ***** are you talking about?

          We spend WAY TOO MUCH on Defense.

          Debate me on points. my points are true. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

          Why does he wants to ban handguns? Where is his precedent? If he can't understand "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" then why the Hell should I trust him?

          Respond before you digg, you weak minds. The head of the Government Accountability Office has been on record as saying "We can't afford the promises we've already MADE, much less to be piling on top of em."

        • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -19/+3Wow, people are digging him up when he is equating banning handguns with "The Government is spending less money on guns".

          I quote:
          "heaven forbid the worlds largest economy would actually consider spending its money on healthcare for citizens than more guns. What is the world coming to."

          And he gets dugg up when I'm trying to debate the continued assault on our Constitution.

          Wow. What a circle jerk.
      • InfiniteNothing, on 12/28/2007, -6/+21Second amendment is open to interpretation. The commas make the thing confusing. A right to a militia that bears arms or a right for everyone. The supreme court has generally favored the first possible interpretation.

        With that said, I don't really care that I disagree with Kucinich on guns. The guy doesn't back down to pander. He's one of the very few people that see through crap (ie Iraq war) consistantly.
        • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -15/+9The Constitution does not enumerate what the government can NOT do.
          It enumerates what it CAN DO.

          So, not only is there no mention of arms, but the ONLY MENTION OF ARMS in the Constitution reads, and I quote, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

          So, with these facts:
          1) The Constitution enumerates what the Government CAN DO, not what it CAN'T do.
          2) The ONLY mention of Arms in the Constitutition is "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

          Any questions? It doesn't matter how nice Kucinich is as a person. He doesn't understand that he's just leaving the systems of centralized control in place that will allow Tyranny by future, unelected-as-of-yet leaders.
          • fantasticFlan, on 12/28/2007, -4/+10Here's the actual quote: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
          • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -11/+8mi·li·tia /mɪˈlɪʃə/
            –noun
            3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

            Oops. Guess what 'militia' meant in their time, genius? :D (Here's a hint: The National Guard didn't exist)

            The Constitution enumerates what the Government CAN DO. Not what it CAN'T do. Your argument is destroyed. Hell, they even clarify it by saying 'The Right of The People' Right AFTER!
          • InfiniteNothing, on 12/28/2007, -3/+3I think both ways are valid interpretations of what the constitution tells us we CAN DO. If states want to add more laws in addition, I don't think that would be unconstitutional. If you don't like it, get an amendment passed. Seriously, I don't go into an election assuming I can find a candidate that perfectly aligns with me. That's why there's checks and balances that filter out some of the more extreme stuff.
          • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3"That's why there's checks and balances that filter out some of the more extreme stuff."

            GEORGE BUSH is our President. We live in a time of an unprecedente level of 'shimmying around' the law.

            PLEASE wake up and stop assuming these balances just check themselves out. They're ALL sold down the river.
          • Gerz1219, on 12/28/2007, -4/+6"A well regulated Militia..."

            reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
            tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
            1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.

            See, it's that "well regulated" part which seems to imply that the government can restrict the people's right to bear arms, within reasonable limits.

            If you take out that first phrase before the comma, then clearly the Second Amendment would be enumerating an unequivocal right to bear arms without any government interference. But that first phrase is wide open to interpretation, and deliberately so. Even going by your definition of "militia", what do you think the framers meant by "well regulated"? Does it mean that the state can regulate which arms the people may bear? Does it mean that the people only have a right to bear arms if they do so as part of a well regulated paramilitary organization?

            Personally I think the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of citizens to arm themselves in defense of their homes, but I think there is sufficient ambiguity to support many different levels of government interference. Kucinich's position, which would ban handguns but not rifles, does not flatly contradict the Second Amendment using a narrower interpretation.
          • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -5/+2"I think both ways are valid interpretations of what the constitution tells us we CAN DO."

            You get this out of an Amendment, the 2nd of Ten that do nothing but clearly exist to deny powers to the State, that clearly gives to The People the Right to bear arms. It clearly states it.

            "The Right of the People to keep and bear arms" is a direct phrase. It's a clear statement. Do you need an English lesson?

            And you somehow twist this into the Amendment having 'several interpretations of what you can do'?

            Twisted ***** like what spews from your mouth is how the establishment maintains its rule over this Country by fiat, because morons like you think the damned law defends itself.
          • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -8/+2"Kucinich's position, which would ban handguns but not rifles, does not flatly contradict the Second Amendment using a narrower interpretation."

            Except that the State is never expressly granted power over Arms, and the only mention of it ever made is to expressly deny it to the State, reserving it to the People, in a document that expressly says that only the things it enumerates are what the Government can do.

            This is a small little fact you can't ignore, and the reason you attempt to doublethink your way through it is because you types have already bent the Constitution over itself twice over for your social programs and you know it.

            You have to legitimize Government control over people's lives by default for your social programs to not be unconstitutional. This was the same type of battle that was fought over the New Deal and FDR, remember? Yeah, I know my history.

            It's really too bad, though. This country might operate that way NOW, assuming people's rights are the State's rights unless they let you have it, but that's not the way it's SUPPOSED to be. It's slippery sloped, you know it, and you're exercising doublethink.
          • niczar, on 12/28/2007, -0/+8Here's a sentence: "If he likes to have sex with children, Tilon is a pedophile."
            Here's another one: "Tilon is a pedophile."
            The second one is included in the first, yet the first doesn't /quite/ mean the same thing.
      • ChileanGoD, on 12/28/2007, -4/+8Tilon.... emmm.. amm... naahh.. forget it. I just can't deal with people that are somehow deeply frustrated to begin with, just like talking to a brick wall.
        • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -7/+2You clearly show your lack of an original thought process. Way to go, at least there's one clueless one I've managed to befuddle.
      • supremebeing18, on 12/28/2007, -3/+2I think people need to stop getting hung up on the constitution, and think about what is right and wrong. Most of the stuff in the constitution is great stuff, don't get me wrong, but some aspects, especially the 2nd amendment, should definitely be revised in some way to make the guidelines more clear. If this takes over riding an amendment, so be it. And even if his stance on gun control is the complete wrong one (which I believe it is most certainly not) what other candidate is legitimate? Don't you dare say RP.
        • GhostyBoy, on 12/28/2007, -5/+3...

          ...


          ...

          ... .... ............. ........................RRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!

          Sorry, I couldn't help it.
        • jgzman, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2*****. Utter, utter *****.

          There can be no overriding of amendments. There CAN be new amendments, which may negate old amendments, but anyone suggesting that we ignore the constitution when we need to is enabling the excesses of our current administration. After all, the right of habeas corpus is just an amendment. So is the right to trial by jury. And the prohibition of seizing my property. And hell, the only reason Bush isn't running for a third term? Yea, that's an amendment too.
        • supremebeing18, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1By overriding the amendment I meant a new amendment negating or more directly defining the second. Once again it comes down to right and wrong. The government could make an amendment and say you can kill whoever you want, but only on Tuesdays, but would they? Do what Jesus would do (just kidding, Jesus got crucified so his decision making skills were probably not that great).
      • alphasixtyone, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2the constitution doesnt say the federal government can build roads. i think we should stop using the interstates, its pretty unconstitutional
    • TwinTurboMike, on 12/28/2007, -2/+5I wouldn't say they're changing their policies, but rather regurgitating a bunch of crap they think you want to hear in order to pander to a larger audience and gain more votes.
  • Shatzi, on 12/28/2007, -17/+59Dennis Kucinich: Give me back my country!
  • grendelboogie, on 12/28/2007, -12/+25This is a release from the Kucinich campaign. I'm not sure why yahoo reprinted it as is.
  • woshka, on 12/28/2007, -53/+18Kucinich is too much of a globalist. There is a lot that I like about him, however. I've had to go with Ron Paul due to his extreme protection of our national soverignty. However, if Ron Paul wasn't a candidate, my vote would be for Dennis Kucinich!
    • StandupShowcase, on 12/28/2007, -19/+26Another paultard. Too much a globalist? Because he wants to trash the current trade agreements we are in now? Or the one where he is against any type of premeditated war.
      • Beatmiser, on 12/28/2007, -17/+9If you can't have a conversation without saying 'Paultard' I can't honestly be bothered to read or even consider what you have to say.
        • StandupShowcase, on 12/28/2007, -9/+14That's what they are, sorry. If you approve of his extreme right wing policies you are a d*ck. if you don't know about them and are still fervently supporting him, you're mildly to somewhat retarded.
    • reddevil3, on 12/28/2007, -7/+31What is wrong with you Paul supporters? If you really are libertarian then you are for completely free trade, exchange of ideas and people. Which is what globalization is.

      Kucinich is far from a globalist...he is in favor of protected trade. The complete antithesis of globalization. Are you guys nuts?
      • StandupShowcase, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3they have no idea what they are supporting. either fan boy or paultard fits just fine.
    • marc123, on 12/28/2007, -4/+15Too much of a globalist! that's like saying he's too humanitarian! "dude i don't like him he cares about people too much. not just rich white american people but everyone man, in the world!"
      • Minarchian, on 12/28/2007, -3/+3Equating "globalism" with "humanitarianism"?

        You need to read up man. You're seriously deluded.
      • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -7/+3Yeah America really needs to be feeding the whole world at a time when we're completely bankrupt.

        Socialism. Save the world...by feeding people! So they can have MORE kids!
        What a solution. Check into your global 'philanthropy orgs' sometime. the World Bank just makes the Third World bankrupt, enslaving it in debt.
        • niczar, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3Who said "America needs to be feeding the whole world"? Why don't you stick those strawmen of yours up your filthy anus?
    • pintomp3, on 12/28/2007, -5/+13i'de rather not vote for someone who is so tied up in religious doctrine that they can't acknowledge reality like evolution.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q
      ron paul "evolution is a theory and i don't accept it"
      • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -4/+3What business does Government have in Evolution?
        • whorunbartertwn, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4For many it's not what it has to do with, it's what it says about the man some would elect leader.
          • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -3/+2That slippery slope of 'the man not his beliefs' is what caused our crisis of law in Government right now, buddy.
    • p0s3r, on 12/28/2007, -16/+8These people just show what kind of complete brainless sheep exist. There's is absolutely no way Ron Paul can be your first choice and Dennis KooKooKucinich can be your second.
    • linuxgeek, on 12/28/2007, -3/+12I can't help but notice that Kucinich voted against the Though Crimes Bill of 2007 and Paul abstained.
      http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll993.xml
      • renzien, on 12/28/2007, -3/+2I believe he was absent, but I could be mistaken. The man has been campaigning non-stop lately.
        • pintomp3, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4so campaigning is more important that doing his job?
          • Tilon, on 12/28/2007, -4/+1The age-old slander. What a low blow, you should be ashamed of yourself.

            Oh, nevermind, this is politics and you have to steal from another 'fringe' group to benefit your own. Leech.
  • LetsGoHawks, on 12/28/2007, -52/+156I went with Kucinich because Paul is against a woman's right to choose and separation of church and state. Also, Paul is all for Big Oil doing whatever it wants. Plus, I've never seen where Paul explains why the gold standard is better and there is no way I can support a national sales tax.

    Frankly, I think Paul is good on civil liberties and a crackpot on everything else.
    • wedgemartin, on 12/28/2007, -24/+58I can't believe some idiot dug you down for stating that Ron Paul is against a woman's right to choose and against separation of church and state. Perhaps that person should revisit Paul's own website to see where he stands on these two issues. Granted, his stance on abortion sort of negates the comment about civil liberties... The idea on the gold standard isn't the best, but it beats the 'central bank' system any day.
      • Pake, on 12/28/2007, -21/+22I can believe it. Remember, there are people on digg who are paid to spread his name and to digg down all negative comments about him.
        • mooseontheloose, on 12/28/2007, -13/+18I just got a bonus for digging you down too
        • mdgypsygirl, on 12/28/2007, -16/+12Aaaahhh.....that makes sense! Seriously, I admit my own naivete, being a new digger. Honestly??? People do THAT??!! Not that I HATE Paul (I simply think he's wrong), but I just can't for the life of me figure out why a primarily liberal group of people, us diggers, suckle on an ultra-right-wing, pro-life, oil-monger like Paul's every word. I happened to check out Digg Candidates today, and if you look at the number of diggs per candidate, the SECOND RANKED Republican HAS AS MANY DIGGS AS THE 6TH RANKING DEMOCRAT. I don't have to tell you who's on top of the Republican side. Where oh where has my little Digg gone???
        • jon30041, on 12/28/2007, -4/+2Gypsygirl, I dugg you up for "suckle." Considered digging down for not including 'teat' to go along with suckle, but... I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

          Or something.
          • mdgypsygirl, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Well thanks - I thought "teat" to be a little graphic - our dog just had puppies and thats all I could think of...*shudder*
      • jordanau, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1Ron Paul is not contradicting himself on Civil Liberties. We all have freedom as long as we don't infringe on the freedoms of others. If (and I mean if, this is not about abortion being right or wrong just about consistency of reason) you consider a fetus alive, you have infringed on its rights by aborting it.
    • ethsen, on 12/28/2007, -14/+9The Gold Standard Conference (1983)
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-235461819 ...

      Ron Paul debates Charles Partee of the Federal Reserve making his case for the gold standard.
    • StandupShowcase, on 12/28/2007, -11/+19well put lets go--paul fan boys on here see his opposition the iraq war (which a 5 year old could figure out) and for civil liberties. they don't understand the EXTREME right wing policies he has otherwise.
      • Akronos, on 12/28/2007, -5/+2Such as? I've studied his policies for many, many hours. I would say probably in the hundreds. I notice many people say his policies are extreme, but never even name one extreme policy. So go ahead, name it. And if you're talking about the gold standard, then you're an idiot. The gold standard idea is supported by at least 2 nobel prize winning economists (Hayek and Friedman), and many other economists (Steve Forbes, etc.).
        • StandupShowcase, on 12/28/2007, -2/+6no anti-trust, no minimum wage, no right to unionize, no fda, no epa, no funding for scientific research or the arts, no universal health care, on and on and on
          • fractalman, on 12/28/2007, -5/+2So, what's your point. None of those is provided for in the constitution. Ron Paul says, if you want change, amend the constitution. Until there is an amendment stating that there should be an FDA, EPA, support for scientific research, support for the Arts, or for Federally provided health care, they are not constitutional. By doing away with these bureaucracies, billions can be saved. Federal spending will be reduced. The IRS can be eliminated. And the federal deficit can start to be reduced. Sounds real good to me.
          • alphasixtyone, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2hmm, ever hear of the elastic clause?
      • NovaBandit, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3Paul is against Network Neutrality. Kind of hard for the free market to sort itself out on that one... just like other monopolistic utilities that would run rampant if Paul has his way.
        • HippyInASuit, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1RON PAUL IS NOT AGAINST NETWORK NEUTRALITY. He is against federal regulation of the Internet. Gets your facts straight before spreading incorrect information. You put too much credence behind the names of the bills he votes against. Ever hear of the Clear Skies Act of '03, which actually allows increased pollution?
        • alphasixtyone, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2hmm, so he is against federal regulation of the internet, which pretty much means he is for corporate regulation of the internet.
    • mooseontheloose, on 12/28/2007, -29/+37What about his foreign policy? Is that a crackpot idea too? Because Kucinich has similar views.

      "Paul is against a woman's right to choose "

      Personally. So what?

      "Paul is all for Big Oil doing whatever it wants."

      Uh, no. He's for the free market regulating it. Right now, Big Oil gets subisidies from the government which lets them do whatever they want. This stifles alternative energy research.

      "I've never seen where Paul explains why the gold standard is better "

      http://www.house.gov/paul/ congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

      Never seen or never looked?

      "there is no way I can support a national sales tax. "

      Good, because Paul doesn't want one either. I wonder how Kucinich will fund his national health care though... hmmm....

      Really, I like Kucinich too, and I can understand preferring him to Paul. But don't do it for stupid reasons. But hey, using the word crackpot to describe any idea you don't like makes you look so educated and progressive!
      • cbergeron, on 12/28/2007, -6/+16Free markets don't self regulate. They exploit the consumers to the last dollar.
        • mooseontheloose, on 12/28/2007, -9/+2Only if the consumers let them.

          Secondly, you're thinking more along the lines of a TRUE free market economy. That doesn't exist and never will. Deriding Paul's policies based on a 100% free market would be just as unrealistic as someone criticizing Kucinich based on him wanting a 100% planned economy.
        • Akronos, on 12/28/2007, -6/+2Consumers are one half of the market. And ever heard of the invisible hand? Or Adam Smith for that matter?
          • hfactor, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2We've made quite a lot of experiences since that man died...
          • alphasixtyone, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1no, ive never heard of the invisible hand. because it doesnt exist.
      • whorunbartertwn, on 12/28/2007, -6/+10"Personally. So what?"

        I see this so often from Paul supporters... dismiss with a wave of the hand a position held by someone they want to be the leader of this country, as if it says nothing about the man or how his belief system will impact his policies. Ahh he doesn't accept evolution or a woman's right to choose, what's that got to do with anything? WHat's Larry Craig's fondness for anonymous gay sex in public bathroom's got to do with government?
        • Akronos, on 12/28/2007, -3/+5Wow, seriously, you might be better than some neo-cons at mud slinging. Great job. Most horrible comparison I've seen in a while.
          Larry Craig did a misdemeanor. Paul's position is personal opinion. He's leaving it up to the states so it's not important regardless. And if you were an OB/GYN like Dr. Paul is, you would probably feel the same way as him. When he was in residency, he was a partial birth abortion fetus thrown into a bucket. That's what formed his opinion. Are you saying that if a person happened to be gay or an atheist, you would not vote for them simply because of that? Cause that's what it sounds like.
          • whorunbartertwn, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1Ahhh the standard catch-call disclaimer for every stupid belief and policy Ron Paul has... who cares he'll leave it up to the states! Yeah I want a country where there are different rules based on lines in the sand and where I happen to be when I act on major issues like abortion.

            Further I'd like to see some evidence that most OB/GYN think like Ron Paul. I submit a doctor who doesn't accept the theory of evolution is the exception, because it's backwards thinking that belongs in the last century, not from someone people support for President.
      • alphasixtyone, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4hey, you know what else stifles research in alternative energy? a lack of federal funding in scientific research.
    • fractalman, on 12/28/2007, -22/+46Ron Paul is not against women. He is against the federal government passing laws that restrict a woman's right to choose. He wants that power returned to the states where women have a better chance of influencing the lawmakers in her own state.
      Paul wants to eliminate the "LAWS" that give tax breaks to big oil. He wants to stop all legislation that protects the corporations from free competition in an open market.
      Ron Paul has explained several times, the advantage of the "GOLD STANDARD". It will work towards stopping the inflation tax generated by the federal reserve each time they make more money without anything backing it.
      Stop watching FOX. they are neither "FAIR or BALANCED".
      • pintomp3, on 12/28/2007, -10/+23why should states be able to tell a women what she can do with her own body? the federal government doesn't restrict a woman's right to choose. he wants states though.
        • treed, on 12/28/2007, -19/+4What about the body of something growing inside of her? Does that still count?
          • niczar, on 12/28/2007, -1/+6I agree, we should stop the sale of vermifuge and antibiotics RIGHT NOW!
            / srsly, read what you wrote
        • nblsavage, on 12/28/2007, -6/+16@treed. only human beings have rights.
        • SouthsideIrish, on 12/28/2007, -5/+12The same reason states should be able to pass medical marijuana laws. You know that pesky Constitution you don't believe in.
        • noahhoward, on 12/28/2007, -11/+12Oh my freaking god please READ! He believes it is NOT A FEDERAL MATTER! The tenth amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
          It is not a federal matter and Ron Paul intends to keep it that way. If you can't read or listen you have no business making claims of any candidate.
          • pintomp3, on 12/28/2007, -5/+13the right to privacy is a federal matter. what she does with her own body is private.
          • thebellmaster1x, on 12/28/2007, -4/+13And the Fourteenth Amendment says that the right to due process--which the Supreme Court says includes the right to privacy concerning medical issues e.g. abortion--cannot be restricted by the states. Meaning that abortion laws are very much an exception to the Tenth Amendment.

            You have to use all of the amendments, buddy. Not just the Tenth.
          • killermatt, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2Oh snap!!
        • swiftheart, on 12/28/2007, -3/+1Although that happens to be the status quo at the moment. It is not impossible to imagine a sequence of events where pro-choice people would be arguing for states rights--if a federal ban on abortion ever got any steam behind it.
      • nblsavage, on 12/28/2007, -9/+16Stop watching FOX. they are neither "FAIR or BALANCED". - neither are Paul supporters.
      • Goldbricker, on 12/28/2007, -7/+15So he's in favor of turning it over to a tyranny of the majority and removing a woman's right to choose as long as it's on the state level. The more I hear about Ron Paul the more I dislike him and his myriad of apologists and equivocators on this site.
        • swiftheart, on 12/28/2007, -5/+4To be fair, in 2006 South Dakota had a referendum to ban abortion, and it was rejected...54% of SD voters voted to keep abortion legal. It was a huge blow to the pro-life people.
          If very conservative, rural South Dakota voted to keep abortion legal, then we have a lot less to worry about than otherwise thought by a potential state by state abortion on demand regime.
      • Encephalon1, on 12/28/2007, -5/+4>>"Ron Paul is not against women. He is against the federal government passing laws that restrict a woman's right to choose. He wants that power returned to the states where women have a better chance of influencing the lawmakers in her own state."
        • Encephalon1, on 12/28/2007, -3/+4Something in Digg ate up half my reply. Fractal writes: ""Ron Paul is not against women. He is against the federal government passing laws that restrict a woman's right to choose. He wants that power returned to the states where women have a better chance of influencing the lawmakers in her own state."
          I don't understand this about the pro-Paul stance. Where do they get the idea that the federal government is *restricting* women's rights? The federal law as it stands *protects* women. Paul wishes to remove that protection and allow states the opportunity to remove women's rights. How could this possibly be good for us, our women - wives, mothers and daughters?
      • Encephalon1, on 12/28/2007, -3/+7Something in Digg ate up half my reply. Fractal writes: ""Ron Paul is not against women. He is against the federal government passing laws that restrict a woman's right to choose. He wants that power returned to the states where women have a better chance of influencing the lawmakers in her own state."
        I don't understand this about the pro-Paul stance. Where do they get the idea that the federal government is *restricting* women's rights? The federal law as it stands *protects* women. Paul wishes to remove that protection and allow states the opportunity to remove women's rights. How could this possibly be good for us?
      • whorunbartertwn, on 12/28/2007, -3/+4Why stop at leaving it at the states level? Why not counties? I'll go get an abortion in Tuscon since it's illegal in Phoenix.

    • weeeezzll, on 12/28/2007, -13/+2I accidentally clicked on the wrong button and dugg it down. Should have been a +1 not a -1.
    • noahhoward, on 12/28/2007, -9/+13You are misinformed. While he may have his own personal feeling on abortion, he is strongly opposed to federal laws on the subject, he is absolutely right that it should be either a state matter or a personal issue. Read the tenth amendment please.
      • thebellmaster1x, on 12/28/2007, -6/+2Since you said it twice, so will I:
        Read the Fourteenth Amendment, please.
        • noahhoward, on 12/28/2007, -4/+5The 14th grants us equal rights in the eyes of the law. I don't get your point, did you mean another amendment. The law says it is up to the states or the people to decide, if you don't exercise your given right then the states will decide, it's all pretty clear.
          • thebellmaster1x, on 12/28/2007, -6/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
            At least get a basic background before you talk about something.
            "According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
    • phunlee, on 12/28/2007, -2/+13Kucinich on Abortion: # Litmus test on Roe, but as part of a culture of life. (Apr 2007)
      # Women's right-to-choose is essential to gender equality. (Nov 2006)
      # Abortions should always be legal. (Jan 2004)
      # Shifted to pro-choice when women's health became at risk. (Dec 2003)
      # All men & women have right to make difficult moral decisions. (Aug 2003)
      # Supreme Court nominees must agree to uphold Roe v. Wade. (Apr 2003)
      # Women can't be free unless they have the right to choose. (Apr 2003)
      # Prevention, education, & health care, to minimize abortions. (Apr 2003)
      # Life begins at conception. (Jul 1996)

      Ron Paul on abortion:# Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
      # Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
      # Save "snowflake babies": no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
      # No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
      # Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
      # Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)

      There's more at http://www.issues2000.org/ I like this website a lot.
      • jon30041, on 12/28/2007, -1/+5Minimizing abortions by prevention, education, and health care does not an anti-abortionist make. It says that it's not always necessary to have one (sometimes it is, most times not). It still gives women the right to choose, but be more educated about it.
  • JusticeAK, on 12/28/2007, -9/+23Vote for liberty, need I say more...
    • Scheissen, on 12/28/2007, -23/+7Exactly why I buried this. Ron Paul is the only major candidate for liberty.
      • pintomp3, on 12/28/2007, -8/+14except when it comes to thing like abortion and gay marriage, he thinks the states rights is more important than the individuals.
        • noahhoward, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4The states have a constitutional right to take on that issue, you have a personal right to give your state a piece of your mind. It is how it is written in the constitution. It should be and would be played by the laws established in the founding of this country. The constitution provides for your participation and power over the system and here you are snubbing your nose at the idea of doing it. How are the states to know they should stay out of it when the majority of people who voice an opinion make it out to be something to be regulated.
      • ronintetsuro, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4Way to knee-jerk, man.
    • linuxgeek, on 12/28/2007, -6/+7I can't help but notice that Kucinich voted against the Though Crimes Bill of 2007 and Paul abstained.
      http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll993.xml
      • ChileanGoD, on 12/28/2007, -3/+5you can't help but copy pasting your comment.
      • vuke69, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2Paul didn't abstain, he was in Iowa campaigning at the time, and therefore not present.

        I do believe that he made a statement concerning the vote, and regretted not being there to vote no.
  • themanmachine, on 12/28/2007, -55/+25How does Kucinich embody the ideals of this nation? Maybe he does if you think the US should be a socialist country.
    • LBobRife, on 12/28/2007, -22/+6It's a clever exploit of the publication's title "The Nation". It's a magazine or something, and he got their endorsement. They spun the words to make it sound like he is most in line with the ideals of the average american citizen. This may or may not be true, but it is not what the article is saying.
    • reddevil3, on 12/28/2007, -14/+34Just because you have universal healthcare doesn't make you a socialist country.
      • Lionhart, on 12/28/2007, -4/+10Last I checked a Socialist country is a country which practices Socialism. Like it or not, we are all ready a Socialist country. Our socialism just isn't as extreme as some other countries.
        • oilcan, on 12/28/2007, -6/+17a short noncomplete list of socialist things in this country:

          the postal service
          the fire department
          the police department
          your mom's ass.

          i miss anything? anyway, yeah. just because you have socialist programs doesn't make you 'one step away from communism', and shame on you nincompoop neocons for scaring all the dumb (most) people of our country into thinking so
        • theutopian, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1While I agree in oilcan's argument in principle, the Post Office is not supported by taxpayers. It is completely self sufficient. Not a dime of tax money goes to it. You pay for it every time you send a letter.
    • StandupShowcase, on 12/28/2007, -9/+21ok real quick. polling results of americans say the majority want universal health care, to get out of iraq, to raise the minimum wage, to broker better trade agreements, and to protect the environment.
      • noahhoward, on 12/28/2007, -9/+4Universal health care would ruin us, this country can't even get social security to people who need it, in fact they do everything they can to trip up applicants, what makes you think they can afford it? If they can afford it where do you think they'll get the money? You haven't really thought this through have you?
        • ChileanGoD, on 12/28/2007, -2/+5Please noahhoward, don't be so optimist. I mean, how can other countries pull it? Or are you admitting that you guys are incapable? Incompetent? Or just plain selfish.
          • noahhoward, on 12/28/2007, -7/+2How can they afford it? Perhaps is has something to do with being a fraction of the size. Affording it isn't everything managing it is going to be a bitch (see Social Security Administration).

            I can support it for children under 18 but the rest of America needs to fend for themselves instead of looking for a handout.
          • hassanchop13, on 12/28/2007, -0/+6you do realize that if you just took the money that everyone is paying for insurance, redirected it to the government, took out the step where the insurance companies make huge profits and use those "profits" to help pay for those who cant afford it, and bam, you have universal healthcare at no extra cost to anyone
        • StandupShowcase, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4noah:
          you haven't thought out that every other civilized nation in the world has it. you haven't thought out that medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US. you haven't thought out that we have endless money to waste in iraq.
      • ChileanGoD, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1but they don't want to be called socialists... NOOOOO wai... neva!
    • marc123, on 12/28/2007, -9/+23Kucinich is unfortunate enough to live in a country where most people are too stupid to see the difference between market intervention and communism! The policies of Kucinich that you call socialism (and think of as communism) are what the rest of the developed world sees as the natural role for the state in a caring sociey that promotes equality.
      • Noiremorte, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4No truer words have ever been spoken. :)
  • tweedius, on 12/28/2007, -27/+11First primary and caucus nearing, the Ron Paul and Kucinich spam is heating up. Nice.
    • d03boy, on 12/28/2007, -3/+13Making up for the news coverage they're not getting
    • oilcan, on 12/28/2007, -4/+3oh for *****'s sake if you have the time to post something on this thread at least try to say something remotely original/creative/rational.
  • dualaudi, on 12/28/2007, -20/+12What you don't understand is, is that whether a candidate is for or against "abortion" it's not up to them, it's a personal choice, GOVERNMENT needs to GTFO of my life. If Kucinich is about less gov, i'm all for it.
    • AlexWills, on 12/28/2007, -13/+3The governments purpose is to protect us. "Us" is a loose term that can apply to unborn babies depending on who you talk to.
    • SuckMyDigg, on 12/28/2007, -9/+2Agreed.
    • noahhoward, on 12/28/2007, -6/+1Both Kucinich and Ron Paul are for less government, Ron Paul is merely using the system that was put in place for you to voice your opinion and tell the states what you want them to do.
      • noahhoward, on 12/28/2007, -3/+1Anyone care to dispute the facts while you bury me?
      • Akronos, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Kucinich is for more government. Not a bad thing since I can trust Kucinich. But in the hands of someone else, it IS a bad thing.
  • heypetray, on 12/28/2007, -19/+36That's a nice little misleading headline. Don't get me wrong, I like Kuc (Second to the Doc), but you should really check your article submission before posting it to make sure it's not misleading.

    Kucinich 'Comes Closest to Embodying the Ideals' of "The Nation" (Publication)

    That's, of course, assuming "The Nation" doesn't speak for the entire nation.
  • birdly, on 12/28/2007, -10/+97Kucinich is a true rarity: a politician who stands up for what he actually believes.
    • d03boy, on 12/28/2007, -4/+4I'm sure the others stand up for what they believe but their beliefs are are skewed by dollar bills and tax cuts
    • marc123, on 12/28/2007, -4/+10the same must be said of Paul but his beliefs are very different! Kucinich vs Paul that would be a great contest between two thinking men each with noble goals just different philosophies on how to achieve them. All the other main candidates are self-promotionists
      • kev92486, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Although their policies may differ, I still feel as if they're both trying to make a positive change for the country as a whole rather than the lobbyists. I'd hope that most of the people who favor Kucinich over Paul would much rather have Paul in over any of the other republican candidates. I'm generally for Paul, but I still support the nomination of Kucinich waaaay before any of the other democratic candidates because I feel either would make a positive change for the country which is much needed.
    • oldman, on 12/28/2007, -2/+3Yeah! I'm really afraid that other candidates actually believe the b.s that comes out their mouths.
    • SouthsideIrish, on 12/28/2007, -9/+4Agreed. And Dennis wants us to be a Socialist nation, and this is something I won't vote for.
  • AMCer, on 12/28/2007, -44/+10"Kucinich 'Comes Closest to Embodying the Ideals' of Nation"

    HA HA HA HAHHA HHAHHAHhahahahahHAHhahahahahahah!!!!

    Someone is smoking crack!
    • StandupShowcase, on 12/28/2007, -6/+20ok real quick. polling results of americans say the majority want universal health care, to get out of iraq, to raise the minimum wage, to broker better trade agreements, and to protect the environment.
      • noahhoward, on 12/28/2007, -13/+2Polls aren't worth *****, if you can't poll every individual don't bother.
        • pintomp3, on 12/28/2007, -3/+8yeah, statistics and math are just magic anyway.
          • noahhoward, on 12/28/2007, -10/+2First lesson of statistics, statistics can be made to say anything. If a company does a telephone poll of 100,000 people out of 301 million and 50% of the people want healthcare do you really think that means half of the other 301 million people do too? If you knew anything about polls and statistics you'd know they are *****.
          • vegetables, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1You are a true idiot. Neat.
          • JuCee, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4Actually, if you polled 100,000 people (assuming a random sample) out of 301 million and 50% of the people wanted universal health care, there's only a .41% margin of error with a 99% confidence level. Conclusion: you're a retard.
    • SuckMyDigg, on 12/28/2007, -4/+12Ha ha ha, someone didn't take 3 seconds to read the actual article and made a jackass out of himself.
    • EarlOfLade, on 12/28/2007, -2/+5Yes, and it seems like that person smoking crack, is you, AMCar...
    • AMCer, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1I see the Kucinich Zombies have risen from the wacko grave....
  • minox, on 12/28/2007, -20/+17"SOURCE Kucinich for President 2008"
    • StandupShowcase, on 12/28/2007, -1/+14QUOTING The Nation magazine.
      • minox, on 12/28/2007, -10/+3Uh-huh, but the article we are reading here is a release from Kucinich's people. I mean, I get it. It's not propaganda if it's about a candidate you like.
        • StandupShowcase, on 12/28/2007, -1/+8I surely wouldn't dispute that it is a release from their campaign. Every campaign has hundreds of press releases--some contain actual news, some don't.
  • bobbydiamondz, on 12/28/2007, -18/+9Buried for purposefully misleading headline.
    • bobbydiamondz, on 12/28/2007, -2/+9Getting buried by people who obviously didn't RTFA to see that The Nation is a political publication. The headline doesn't even put "The" in front of Nation. Obvious attempt to make people think Americans would support Kucinich. They don't. Get over it. Morons.
      • bobcatred, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1And in case anyone wants to see the actual article, not the press release: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080107/editors

        "In his stands on the issues, Dennis Kucinich comes closest to embodying the ideals of this magazine. He has been a forceful critic of the Bush Administration, opposing the Patriot Act and spearheading the motion to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. He is the only candidate to have voted against the Iraq War in 2003 and has voted against funding it ever since. Of all the serious candidates, only he and Governor Bill Richardson propose a full and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. And only Kucinich's plan sets aside funds for reparations. Moreover, Kucinich has used his presidential campaigns to champion issues like cutting the military budget and abolishing nuclear weapons; universal, single-payer healthcare; campaign finance reform; same-sex marriage and an end to the death penalty and the war on drugs. A vote for him would be a principled one.

        But for reasons that have to do with the corrupting influence of money and media on national elections as well as with his campaign's shortcomings--such as its failure to organize a grassroots base of donors and web activists--a democratic mass movement has not coalesced around Kucinich's run for President. The progressive vision is there, but the strategy necessary to win and then govern is lacking. In most cases, the rules of the Iowa caucus require that a candidate reach 15 percent of the vote to achieve "viability"; supporters of candidates who fail to do so can choose another candidate. Simply put, many Iowans will soon face a question that the rest of us may have to answer later: if not Dennis, then who? "
    • Sneezyx, on 12/28/2007, -4/+3Comment buried for using "purposefully" instead of "purposely."
      • bobbydiamondz, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Buried for being an ass before consulting a dictionary.
  • fractalman, on 12/28/2007, -19/+10Kucinich has some great ideas, but until he changes his opinion on the 2nd amendment, I can't support him. I will say this, he has a hot wife, can you say FLILF????
    • JuCee, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Because your gun is so much more important than health care reform, education reform, foreign policy, corporate responsibility...
  • sirjimbob, on 12/28/2007, -24/+34Kucinich > Gravel > Paul
    • MrMooski, on 12/28/2007, -8/+6Kucinich /Richardson
      But will vote Dem regardless.
      • vuke69, on 12/28/2007, -2/+3Even if it's Hillary?
        • MrMooski, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1yes even if it is Hillary.
          but she is last on my list.
      • steelclash84, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1This is why political parties are dangerous. Ignorant people vote on someone regardless if they agree with them or not.
        • MrMooski, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1well if you vote for any Republican,after this run they have had, you are ignorant my friend

          fooled 3 times? come on you really cant be this stoopid
    • StandupShowcase, on 12/28/2007, -6/+1any dem would be better than paul. just because he is against wars of aggression, doesn't mean he isn't a far right winger--which is exactly what libertarianism is.
      • steelclash84, on 12/28/2007, -0/+5Libertarianism is not "far right winger". I think you should research what a libertarian is before saying such a thing.
  • quick2k2ecotec, on 12/28/2007, -12/+20Go Kucinich, Go!
  • LMControl, on 12/28/2007, -17/+11..............................................NOT!!
  • spyd3rweb, on 12/28/2007, -29/+19Universal Health care is not an ideal mention anywhere in the Constitution, federalist papers, or my any of the founding fathers.
    • birdly, on 12/28/2007, -15/+9It is if you realize that without universal health care, many people will lose their right to life.
      • spyd3rweb, on 12/28/2007, -4/+9Unless the Federal Government is specifically granted a power, it is inherently denied.
        • birdly, on 12/28/2007, -6/+7What happens to the individual's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if health care is ridiculously overpriced by insurance companies?
          • twomeyw23334, on 12/28/2007, -3/+3You have a right to life, not a guarantee of health insurance. An individuals rights cannot mandate (force) behavior of another individual (otherwise your violating their rights). Health care is "ridiculously overpriced" NOT because of corporations but because of the govt. This is well documented (look at graphs of US health care costs along with govt involvement in the industry over the last few decades starting with the HMO act. Health care used to be affordable in this country. Corporations haven't changed (they've always been greedy) BUT govt involvement in the industry has. Just think about this, the 3 most complained about industries in the US are Health Care, Energy, and Telecommunications (just look at Digg stories about these industries) and the 3 most govt regulated industries are Health Care, En... you get the point. Why would you assume the solution would be more of the problem?
          • spyd3rweb, on 12/28/2007, -2/+3Then you need to start a new insurance company and compete with the existing ones.
    • Berkana, on 12/28/2007, -7/+20Unlike the long list of unconstitutional things the right wing puts up with, universal health care is not such a bad idea, and has been shown to work quite well at improving the quality of life in places such as Norway. It is sheer hypocrisy to pick on the unconstitutionality of universal health care if you tolerate all sorts of other unconstitutional ideas without protest.
    • pintomp3, on 12/28/2007, -5/+26neither are roads, police, fire protection, or a professional army. let's get rid of all of that too.
      • SouthsideIrish, on 12/28/2007, -12/+3Other than the army that is all functions of the state, and are paid by property taxes. When have I ever paid for roads and police, or the fire department in federal taxes. Oh, and the Constitution says that the Army is supposed to be around for two, count them, two years.
        • pintomp3, on 12/28/2007, -2/+12perhaps you have never left your state, but ever heard of the interstate highway system?
        • spyd3rweb, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2The interstate is a military infrastructure.
    • DavidGX, on 12/28/2007, -1/+14The constitution is a FRAMEWORK you retard, you take that and build on it.
    • theutopian, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2It may not saying anything allowing it in the constitution but it doesn't say anything about not allowing it either. Oh and I don't know if you heard, but the constitution can be changed. With enough support they can just amend the constitution to allow it. What will you all say if that happens? It's not unconstitutional if it's in the constitution!
  • Parisjune, on 12/28/2007, -24/+16Socialism comes closest to matching the "ideals of the Nation"?
    • Berkana, on 12/28/2007, -10/+19Why must neocons resort to name calling with false labels at every opportunity? Anything criticizing a neocon is automatically labeled "leftist", and Democrats are branded as "socialists". Cut it out. All it shows is that you find it easier to resort to slurs and insults than to reason.

      It is far more accurate to call Bush a facist than it is to call Kucinich a socialist.
      • nirav72, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1I don't know why people keep bringing up "Neocon" in this argument. Please read history. Neocon's are and usually have been socially Liberal. They just happen to be part of the republican crowd ever since the Clinton administration refused to give them a voice.
      • jhaks, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1"It is far more accurate to call Bush a facist than it is to call Kucinich a socialist."

        BURN
    • birdly, on 12/28/2007, -8/+5Closer than the fascism we're seeing rear its ugly head today.
    • dan222555, on 12/28/2007, -7/+2Only the ideals of the far-left loons that read The Nation...
  • ithejosh, on 12/28/2007, -19/+13That is severely incorrect, he defiantly doesn't embody what the United State's ideals used to be based on. Kucinich is very honest and follows what he believes in, but I disagree with a few of his stances.
    #1 Only wants to get out of Iraq, never mind the troops we have stationed elsewhere in the world, over 130 countries I believe.
    #2 Universal Healthcare - I know many of you may disagree with me on this, but I believe its better to have less regulation over more, and I do not think that health care is a god given right.
    #3 Believes the U.N should solve world issues instead of the United States solving them. Don't get me wrong, both are bad, but I think we need to withdraw more from the U.N then put more faith into it. Soon I can see the U.N infringing on our sovereignty.
    Although against all Democrats I would vote for him.
    • mdgypsygirl, on 12/28/2007, -5/+3Yo dude...."The Nation" is a magazine, it's not the United States. He embodies "The Nation" Magazine's ideals...Did ya read it?
    • theutopian, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2Healthcare is not a god given right? So, life is not a god given right? I was under the impression that it was.
  • pintomp3, on 12/28/2007, -3/+16don't just take their word for it, pick your candidate based on the issues that are important to you:
    http://www.dehp.net/candidate/
    the results may surprise you.
    • quick2k2ecotec, on 12/28/2007, -2/+8Kucinich scored at the top of my list with a 79. He is my choice!
      • linuxgeek, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4Ditto, and Paul is way down at 9th for me.
    • rficwizard, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4Cool site. My top three results were Paul (49), Kucinich (46), Gravel (45). That is precisely as I would have expected, so it seems pretty accurate.
      • pintomp3, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2i like that it covers a lot of issues and lets you assign a weight. most people end up with paul, kucinich and gravel somewhere in their top 3. i really wish elections just were about issues instead of people, it would make it harder for the corporate media to preselect our candidates for us.
        • afruff23, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1I wish there were no elections. Nobody should be able to to initiate force against me.
    • cbergeron, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4http://whichcandidateareyou.com is another good site for that stuff.
      (or you can cheat and go straight to Kucinich.html FTW)
      • diskit, on 12/28/2007, -2/+0I'm kinda disappointed that neither one of these quizzes take Fair Tax into account. It's a big issue for some people.
    • Narcowski, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Kucinich and the Green guy that has stoped campaigning top my list at 80-ish.
    • blackjack75, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Kucinich on top and Romney at negative rock bottom. Just like in my inverted reality dreams.
    • 1nhuman, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2I've got
      64 Kucinich
      Disagreements: (0)
      Unknowns/Other: (0)

      I'm Dutch though (the Netherlands) :) Oh btw, I only have 8 for R.Paul
  • WWWoody, on 12/28/2007, -10/+17Kucinich '08. Nobody I talk to knows who he is, though.

    I'll be caucusing for him, at least.
    • jon30041, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1I need to find out where to register for the Illinois Primary... I know it's February 5th, but beyond that... clueless.
  • CaptainCool53, on 12/28/2007, -8/+1OK, so now Gravel isn't a "serious candidate?" BS. Dugg anyway.
    • bingobongony, on 12/28/2007, -7/+3Gravel never was. Neither is Kucinich. Neither is Ron Paul.
      • bingobongony, on 12/28/2007, -6/+2I LOVE getting buried for pointing out the obvious. It will make it so much sweeter when all are gone in 4-5 weeks. Knowing that many of the ones burying me now will go off the deep end, and kill themselves. And I will laugh at your parents at your funeral.
  • kreatre2007, on 12/28/2007, -19/+4GODDAMMIT!!!! Kucinich is IRRELEVANT ... Just like Ron Paul. Fringe candidates never get elected.
    • mdgypsygirl, on 12/28/2007, -0/+6So because they have nearly zero chance of being elected, that makes them "irrelevant"? Please don't tell me you're one of those that says, "well I'm voting for X candidate, because I want to vote for a WINNER!"
    • theutopian, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1You're right but they add to the 'great debate.'
  • bingobongony, on 12/28/2007, -20/+4Anyone who lets ANY publication decide who they are going to vote for is a fool.
    Or a Democrat.
  • gridbread, on 12/28/2007, -6/+38I don't care if he "doesn't have a chance", I'm sick of hearing this about the candidates that make the most sense.
    He's way up there in terms of who I plan to vote for.
  • Johnhead99, on 12/28/2007, -23/+3How about this idea...... John McCain 2008!
  • ghosteater, on 12/28/2007, -3/+24i may not be voting for kucinich but i think he is among too few people as genuine as himself and i would celebrate if he wins in the primaries.
  • Jo9100, on 12/28/2007, -4/+2well, it matches mine, but to say the one of all the other people, i am not such a jerk to say that everyone thinks like me...
  • soot, on 12/28/2007, -8/+20Why is a department of peace such a crazy idea?

    I'm tired of the media and the talking heads saying that the dreamers and the visionaries will have to wait their turn, or that they don't have a chance today because their ideas are "too radical".. Radical can be a good word, and we deserve radical reform now, not later.
    • ronintetsuro, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1Yep. The dreamers in the Project For A New American Century thinktank got their chance, why shouldn't others?
    • iansides, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2yeah radical reform in the form of LESS government, not another worthless ***** waste of our tax dollars to satisfy some liberal wet dream to have a department of peace. have any government departments in the past been effective? any? and you want another one? ***** that. its not a radical idea, its a ***** stupid idea.
      • jhaks, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1How about the FDA or the USDA? You are a serious idiot. People are selfish especially those who want power and wealth. The government is required to stand up for the people. I think people have forgotten that the government should be an extension of the people. Corporations too often take advantage of people. If you know your history you will understand that many departments are created to stand up for the people.
        • iansides, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1The FDA and USDA? Do you know anything about the effectiveness of these programs? Do you have any idea what farm subsidies do to our economy? And if you want to talk about "evil corporation theories," try General Mills and Cargill being in bed with both of those gov. programs that you seem to be so ignorantly fond of. You're the ***** idiot, do some research.
  • vwvan, on 12/28/2007, -9/+16I want my country back, and I want it put back the way I found it.

    PresiDennis is the only one with the muster to do it.
  • DavidGX, on 12/28/2007, -8/+13Kucinich '08!
  • user, on 12/28/2007, -11/+3Marrying a good looking woman and getting paid to do nothing?
  • colincornaby, on 12/28/2007, -11/+13I'm an Obama supporter but I don't have any problem with Kucinich. Paul's domestic policies are pretty wacky (most of them have been tried before in the U.S. and have failed for one reason or another), and in some cases Paul just outright refuses to do what needs to be done (net neutrality, federal infrastructure management, environmental regulation, etc). I worry that Clinton will end up being Obama's VP if he wins, but if not, Kucinich would be a great VP. I think he's just a little too odd for me to rally behind him for the nomination. Obama seems to be more professional and ready for the part.
    • LetsGoHawks, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2I don't think there is any chance of Clinton getting the VP spot on an Obama ticket.
      Probably not Kucinich either, unfortunately. But it would be cool.
    • dan222555, on 12/28/2007, -8/+6"Obama seems to be more professional and ready for the part."
      Those 3 years in the US Senate sponsering slam-dunk, softball legislation and all those appearances on Oprah and every other pop culture entertainment outlet have really got him ready!
      • colincornaby, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4You have to admit, Kucinich is a bit more... eccentric than the other candidates.
        • dan222555, on 12/28/2007, -7/+1If eccentric is the new word for being a ***** nutjob, than I guess so.
        • emily2531, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1if by "eccentric" you mean "honest", then yes
  • SzaszMan, on 12/28/2007, -18/+10If Ron Paul didn't exist, I would vote Kucinich. Digg me down for saying so, I don't care.
    • rory096, on 12/28/2007, -8/+8Besides their shared stances on a handful of issues, like the war in Iraq, they are polar opposites. One stands for freedom, while the other's a socialist.
      • SzaszMan, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Yes, Kucinich is a socialist. But I wouldn't say they're "polar opposites." You forget they agree on gay marriage, ending the War on Drugs, and returning America to a policy of military nonintervention. Just on those issues alone Kucinich is a fine second choice for me. Did you know that Kucinich and Paul have co-sponsored a number of bills together?


        But again, I would only vote Kucinich if Ron Paul wasn't a candidate.... (actually, no, I would just vote Libertarian, as opposed to registering Republican for the first time in my life like I did a few weeks ago).
  • rory096, on 12/28/2007, -1/+7This says a lot about The Nation.
  • fartbuttes, on 12/28/2007, -16/+2Kucinich is pretty cool but I just couldn't vote a gnome into office, I'm sorry.
    • pintomp3, on 12/28/2007, -1/+11yeah, keep voting based on looks. thats how a democracy should work.
    • ghosteater, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4now thats kind of confusing since i support "smaller government"
      • Telvin, on 01/02/2008, -0/+0ah come on ghoss eaters, smal goverments is for them child rapin baby killers!
  • lwgoodman, on 12/28/2007, -1/+6Link to Editorial:
    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080107/editors
  • dzxi, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4ya, well.. your name is fartbuttes. so..
  • xaxxon, on 12/28/2007, -6/+3Of all the serious candidates, only he and Governor Bill Richardson propose a full and immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

    Ronny isn't a serious candidate, I guess.
  • savagesteve13, on 12/28/2007, -16/+7Kucinich rocks, but Ron Paul is the only anti-establishment candidate that stands a chance. The Democrats have already swiftboated Kucinich into oblivion so he's not a viable threat.
    • Cyberen, on 12/28/2007, -0/+5"viable" "chance"
      Wait til after the primaries and eat your words.
      • Urusai, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4Yeah, take a lesson from our president, Howard Dean.
  • Yetisquatch, on 12/28/2007, -3/+19id like to see a ron paul foreign policy and kucinich domestic policy. get the hell out of other countries, mind our own damn business, and take care of our own people and internal problems. then, maybe this empire we live in will not collapse.
    • iansides, on 12/28/2007, -2/+3how about stay the ***** out of EVERYONE'S lives? why do you want the government to interfere in your life?
      • jhaks, on 12/28/2007, -2/+2You don't want the government to have a hand in your life? Maybe you'd like to go back to the day when food companies sold toxic food to the public just to cut corners and save a buck. Government does not always mean less freedom for citizens. A lot of the time the government is there to protect citizens and to promote the well being of the citizens. If the government has policies and departments that support the people and are an extension of the people then it is a very good thing; however the government can also be very bad if it is a reflection of a few minds who do not have the good will of the people in mind. Things are never just black and white.
        • SzaszMan, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2Sounds like you'd rather have a cat, provided it barked like a dog. Medidate on that one for a while - it's the essence of the folly of socialism, and why Kucinich is ultimately a flawed candidate (but still head and shoulders above the rest of the Democratic pack).
        • iansides, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1The founding fathers didn't want the government to "have a hand" in the Peoples' personal lives either. If you haven't ever studied the Constitution, which I'm assuming from you're comments you indeed have not, the most important concept you should know is that the Constitution is a limit on government, in no way designed to allow the government to have ANY say in the personal lives of its citizens. More government DOES always equal less freedom, because the more government, the more money needed to run the government, thus more taxes, and the more taxes there are the more money is taken from the citizens (the more taxes the less freedom to do as you wish with your property, in this case money) to run ineffectual, feel-good government programs. So no, I do not want the government to run my life, and if you do, kindly get the ***** out and don't ruin it for those of us who share the vision of the founding fathers.
  • dan222555, on 12/28/2007, -15/+5I would expect no less from the far-left rag that is The Nation.
  • Roger_Ramjet, on 12/28/2007, -11/+2A wacko embodies the ideals of a wacko magazine? I'm stunned.
  • Cyberen, on 12/28/2007, -5/+12Kucinich is the voice of the people, that will ALWAYS be "1st tier" in my mind!
  • deMonkey, on 12/28/2007, -7/+4The title says "Nation", but this is about "The Nation", a magazine. Nice job modifying the headline for attention though.
  • sirgebee, on 12/28/2007, -0/+6Kucinich 08!!!
    too bad the news stations think hillary and obama are the only democratic candidates running
    ...i could say some choice things about it... but i wont
  • MaximusPryme, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4I really like Kucinich! I think he's a great candidate and if Kucinich becomes president, I know he will do an excellent job! Yet, my heart lies in Libertarianism, so I support Ron Paul. I am proud, and I do proclaim it!

    As a final note to Kucinich and Paul supporters; we shouldn't be inciting hatred amongst ourselves. Our goals our very similar: to kick the establishment out! While we have different views on how to do that; we should not let that divide us. So onward I say, to end our wars on everything, and give true liberty, and justice for all!
  • folkitup069, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3kucinich rules
    if only the media didn't decide elections
    =/
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.