Kucinich is like the Bubble Boy in that old "Seinfeld" episode: no matter how infantile his behavior, he gets a pass because he's "special".

Dennis Kucinich's ideology grandstanding on HCR hundreds if not thousands of Americans health in danger

Time for me to do the slow clap from a teen coming of age film. Bravo, Markos. Bravo. Kucinich is a self-aggrandizing weasel who has long since moved from liberal champion to egomaniacal fool. If only we could primary his ass right now.

Who is Dennis kidding here? Seriously. Does he believe virtue is so important that it's worth denying Americans the right to sufficient and affordable health care.

I'm not sure I agree that he is sincere. He is certainly more sincere than, say, Boehner or S Collins. But is that our standard?

I am sure he in believes what he says. But for someone of his power, that is not enough for my sympathy, or even to call him sincere.

Glad to see Markos's comments - it is good to hear.

Is it too late for a primary THIS CYCLE????

Thanks, Steve. There are times when it is appropriate & admirable to register a protest vote. This isn't one of them.

The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com

Does he believe virtue is so important that it's worth denying Americans the right to sufficient and affordable health care.

Is it virtue? If you know the certain result of a stance is likely to cost millions of lives and prolong untold hardship and misery, and you're determined to do it anyway, is it even virtue anymore? Or stubborn ego?

Sure. I would gladly support a challenger to Kucinich if this farce continues -- even though the irony is that politically, my values line up nearly 100% with his.

But shit has to be accomplished, or it's all words. This is Naderesque, it is unrealistic and wrong. Pass the damn bill.

What Rathskeller said -- every word.

I read that it is too late to primary Kucinich in this cycle. The filing deadline has passed, so unless someone wants to do a write-in campaign.

In the left I feel we've been split into the pure and the pragmatic. I'll have to place myself in the pragmatic camp. I'm tired of hearing what Democrats want to do. I want to hear what they have accomplished. Being pure and above-it-all gets nothing done.

Is Dennis Kucinich is reprehensible as the Blue Dogs? Kucinich isn't opposing health insurance reform to pay back campaign contributions (bribes) from the insurance corporations. He isn't a sniveling invertebrate, hiding under his desk and soiling himself at the mere thought of having a Republican talking point aimed in his direction.

And yet, if health insurance reform fails it sounds like Kucinich will get all the blame.

I think he is wrong. While the Senate bill is completely inadequate, it is worth passing because it is a platform on which to build and it will become -- in 20 years or so -- a law that is worthy of all the effort expended over the past year.

But for now, the enforcement mechanisms are too weak to eliminate the insurance corporations' rescinding of coverage or discrimination against preexisting conditions. And the next time we have a Republican president appointing regulators, the enforcement mechanisms will become completely meaningless.

Yeah, Kucinich is doing something shortsighted. But let's focus our ire on the pseudo-Republicans in the Democratic party who have weakened health care reform so much that there is any debate at all over its worth.

This is precisely how you create party discipline. Nobody gets a pass. Good far Markos.

Has Jane Hamsher weighed in yet? lol

I live in Cleveland, although he's not my Rep. He is a grandstander. He'll do anything to get more attention. Many of his constituents just don't seem to care.
This last election, he had a strong opponent in the Democratic primary. However, he had several weak opponents in the same primary, too, which split up the anti-Kucinich voting bloc.
He's going have to screw something up big time in order for anyone to mount a successful campaign against him.

And yet, if health insurance reform fails it sounds like Kucinich will get all the blame.

Does it? You must have inexplicably missed the massive bandwidth we've devoted to excoriating the Blue Dogs, then.

It's pretty simple. They don't get a pass. Neither does Kucinich. You can separate their motives by looking at campaign finances, but there is no daylight between them when it comes to self-absorption and shortsightedness.

The thing about Kucinich's stand is that it's principled, not pragmatic. If we had more people voting for their principles, maybe we wouldn't have Congress held in thrall to the big-money interests, willing to call it "reform" when it's largely a giveaway to the same insurance companies who have been compromising our health care system for generations, passing campaign finance legislation with more loopholes than restraints, and establishing ethical standards for its Members that are so loose they can take money and gifts without fear of censure.

I'd much rather have 544 more Senators and Representatives like Kucinich than get rid of the one we're lucky enough to have.

A couple of weeks ago, in one of his "Word" segments, Colbert laid waste to Kucinich, our 'most effective legislator'. Compare him to Ted Kennedy, who compromised, got a piece of the pie, and then started fighting for more. Kucinich reminds me of a line from the French movie Vagabond, about a would be rebel: By insisting on his own uselessness, he strengthens the system he pretends he's rebelling against.

shortstop:
I agree with you about Dennis. The only problem is we are still many votes(Stupak bloc) short even if Dennis were to magically change his mind. While Dennis shouldn't get a free pass, we need to be concentrating more on Stupak's crew since that is still the key(sadly).

I love the kabuki lynching of Kucinich's kabuki threat to "vote with teh Republicans" -- really cool to see how it all whips up the spin.

I do wonder if Kucinich would really decide to be TEH vote that quashes the bill in the House.

I also wonder if he, like my man DeFazio, voted agst the 'stimulus' this time last year because the Obama and them Dims had actually joined with teh Repugnants to suck the life out of it. (Oh, but i ferget, on this site teh stimulus is teh suck-sess!)

My take is that Kucinich is leveraging, as is everybody. After y'all lynch Dennis, there's a shitpot full of Move-Oners who need the rope too.

Dennis has just earned 20,000 dick points, a few more and he gets to go to Disneyland!

Kucinich knows a steaming pile of shit when he smells one. So go and have a tantrum cause you can't make him eat it. Industry-directed fake reform deserves to tank.

The Kucinches and the Naders of the world need their irony meters recalibrated.

The very people most likely to complain derisively that "there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans" to justify their actions end up being the ones who in fact vote with rabid Republicans when the stakes are highest, or who help rabid Republicans -- who allegedly Dems should not want to be like -- succeed.

This seems akin, to use a timely health care analogy, to curing the cold by killing the patient.

Or maybe Kucinich has just gotten Massa-esque in his petulance over running several times for President. He'll show that damned party that won't nominate him! He'll have the last laugh!

Without a robust public option available to everyone mandated to purchase insurance, the mandate is unconstitutional and will - mark my words - be ruled so by the Supremes. Bet on it.

Do you folks realize that we are being enslaved by this bill to the very corporations who created this mess?

It's as if everybody was forced to patronize the railroads in the robber baron days.

Please don't bring up auto insurance. There are alternatives to owning a car, that is a state licensing requirement for only those who drive - not a universal federal mandate.

Have any of you thought of the precedent that forcing every citizen to patronize the most rapacious corporations in existence would set? This is the biggest freakin Trojan Horse I have ever seen.

The thing about Kucinich's stand is that it's principled, not pragmatic. If we had more people voting for their principles, maybe we wouldn't have Congress held in thrall to the big-money interests, willing to call it "reform" when it's largely a giveaway to the same insurance companies ...

If we had more people who wouldn't vote for anything they didn't consider just exactly right, nothing would get passed. That's a great outcome if you're someone who doesn't think the government should do anything but build toll roads and run the army. If you're someone who thinks the government should have a larger role in running a social safety net, not so much. Sometimes you need to look around, note who you're voting with, and figure out what your precious principles are worth and whose interests they're really advancing.

Hundreds of thousands will die prematurely due to lack of access to health care before Congress revisits the issue with a proposal even this good again. Is moral superiority really worth their lives?

Nader and all the ideological purists who voted for him are as responsible for the last 10 years as Rove/Cheney/Bush.

I have not yet heard a convincing argument that Gore was so similar to Bush that it made no difference.

I firmly believe that if we'd had Gore in office, there would have been no wars, Katrina, Enron, financial crisis, perhaps not even a 9/11.

I think it doubtful Gore would have told an aid reporting about planes being flown into buildings that he'd covered his ass, then gone on vacation.

Kucinich if he does vote against HCR will deserve the same level of infamy as the Conservadems and Republicans.

While Dennis shouldn't get a free pass, we need to be concentrating more on Stupak's crew since that is still the key(sadly).

Of course I don't disagree with that -- but there's nothing wrong with calling Kucinich out in the meantime. He won't change his vote, but let's not give him undue credit for mythical virtue.

The mistake Kucinich and his more rabid supporters make is that politics is not ideological, it is practical. A politician can have an ideology, but democratic governing only happens when you're willing to compromise and work with people.

Like Rathskeller @10:00am, I actually agree with Kucinich on pretty much everything. But dammit, I want (and *need*) the consumer protections in this bill. All the democrats, including Kucinich, need to stop with their purist ideological grandstanding and **VOTE FOR THE BILL**.

While Dennis shouldn't get a free pass, we need to be concentrating more on Stupak's crew since that is still the key(sadly).

Stupak has a primary challenger. Dan Lipiniski had two in the last cycle (though I gather it's too late for '10 in IL). Unions are vowing to target any Dem who votes against HCR, which could make things very uncomfortable in OH and MI

Kucinich is the Dem equivalent of Ron Paul: a good devil's advocate in some cases but useless when it comes down to actually governing.

"...the millions of Americans who'd benefit from the Democratic proposals ..."

You can stop there. You;re blatantly lying and it's getting really fucking odious. The senate bill isn''t going to help anyone except insurance company share holders. It will cost lives because you'll be forced to buy insurance you can't use. Either you won;t be able to afford the premiums or they'll refuse to pay when you have a medical need. They can do this because the bill has no enforcement aimed at the insurance companies but plenty aimed at you the individual.

so please, give it a rest with the save millions of lives bullshit.

I'd like to congratulate Dennis on not being a turd like most of the rest of the dems who are are eager to give tens of billions of dollars a year to the insurance companies in return for a pinky swear that they might behave better (wink).

Winkandanod, whose side are you on? That comment is in no way constructive.

Tialoc --

[Citation needed]

Oh come on! Dennis Kucinich gets way, way more criticism from Democrats than the Blue Dogs do. The whole administration lines up to kiss the Blue Dogs' butts at every available opportunity, and throws the left & the base under the bus at every available opportunity.

Kucinich seems to be the ONLY liberal Dem of any prominence with any sense of how to negotiate. By making this declaration, he just kept himself important in this debate. He creates space for the President to make a compromise to the left, rather than to the right as he usually is so eager to do. Kucinich's vote, if it's the deciding one, will be cast in favor of reform after a measure is taken to get his approval. Win-win. If only more Dems understood this obvious fact. And more pundits. But then, I get the feeling people do understand, but can't help punching hippies any chance they get because that's what gets laughs from the crowd.

Dan Lipiniski had two in the last cycle (though I gather it's too late for '10 in IL).

Sadly, the wildly unqualified Lipinski, who has his seat because his daddy dropped out after winning the primary and installed Sonny in his place, is pretty entrenched. Mark Pera came the closest to beating him, but Pop Lipinski (whose "consulting" business with the same industries Junior is supposed to be regulating/overseeing on the transportation committee actually shared space with his kid's campaign operation -- that's how blatant they get in Chicago) got the machine guys walking the precincts and put at least one ringer on the ballot to split the vote.

It's really too bad, because the once conservadem 3rd district is now far more liberal than Little Lip, but he has no intention of changing his votes to reflect his constituency.

Kucinich seems to be the ONLY liberal Dem of any prominence with any sense of how to negotiate.

Are you freaking kidding us? The guy's mayoral tenure was a festival of failure because the guy simply can't play well with any other kid whose opinion slightly differs from Denny's. His role in the House, at least for the last few years, has consisted of arrogant posturing with any discernible effect whatsoever on the eventual legislation. I like the guy's policies a lot, but as a politician he's an utter loser.

How we cheered when progressive congressmen insisted upon the public option in the house bill, promising to vote against anything with a mandate without a "robust" public option - and how quickly we forget.

National Health was never part of the discussion.

Clinton Jr. ...uh... President Obama, took single payer off the table without discussion.

We grumbled, but we were willing to settle for a "robust" public option.

Now most everybody on the left is willing to settle for, not "half a loaf", but no bread at all, in exchange for the biggest corporate giveaway since the days of the railroad robber barons.

Then we get to trust the next Republican administration to enforce weak consumer protections in the bill.

That's gonna work out well.

Winkandanod said:
Nader and all the ideological purists who voted for him are as responsible for the last 10 years as Rove/Cheney/Bush.

I voted for Nader in 2000. But I wasn't so much voting for him as against Gore and against the party of welfare "reform" and Greenspan-onomics.

By 2000 I had given up on the Democratic Party and wanted to help the Green Party get enough votes to gain major party status, and an automatic place on my state's ballot. I was hoping that eventually the Green Party would have enough voters to force the Democrats to embrace a more liberal agenda.

But mostly I couldn't decide which Al Gore I was supposed to vote for -- "Alpha male Al"? "Morally Upright Al"? "Earthtone-wearing Al"? I actually could have voted for the Al Gore who wrote Earth in the Balance, but that guy got locked in a closet before the primary season even began.

I blame Al Gore for "the last 10 years as Rove/Cheney/Bush". He ran a lousy campaign, just like John Kerry did four years later. But even so Gore could have pulled out a win in the last few weeks if he had reached out to Nader and his supporters. Instead, Gore looked down on them with disdain, as if they were refusing to give him his "due".

I admit that my decision was made easier because I was living in Maryland, and I knew that if Gore needed to my vote to win in my state then the election was going to be lost in a landslide.

"Earthtone-wearing Al"?

You couldn't distinguish between Gore's own statements and the totally irrelevant nonsense the media cooked up? Really? That says quite a lot about how informed your vote was.

Bill T, I disagree with what Steve T did and his rationale for doing so, and have repeatedly slammed Nader voters around these parts, but on the "which Al Gore?" issue, I gotta back Steve up.

I was never a huge fan of Gore, not because of the media caricature, but because I worked hard for a different candidate in 1988 -- when Al Gore presented himself as the choice to the right of the rest of the field. He was the southern centrist in contrast to the NE and Western liberals. I've never fully trusted his progressive bona fides since.

"Then we get to trust the next Republican administration to enforce weak consumer protections in the bill."

And when they don't enforce it or worse, the moderates will blubber,'But they aren't supposed to do that!'
Future Improvements? Bah! Even Rachel calls this the end of a road we've been on for a century.
This bill is like being a homeowner who doesn't own the land upon which his house sits.

"Kucinich seems to be the ONLY liberal Dem of any prominence with any sense of how to negotiate."

In addition to the response by Martin @11:28am, I'd also like to point out that negotiating does not mean utterly refusing to budge on anything. That's the GOP's idea of "negotiating".

Should reform be more liberal? I certainly think so. But there's a whole lot here, particularly the consumer protections, that any liberal should absolutely go for, and that Kucinich apparently wants to deny us. And while he's just one Dem vote and we should remember the conserva-dems like Stupack, that doesn't let Kucinich off the hook for this.

The better answer is to start working on the Senate and making them pass their Reconciliation "side-car" amendments, rather than killing the whole thing just because what we have now isn't our dream come true. Personally, I've been calling up and bothering my Senators' office staff for a few weeks now.

Rep. Kucinich reminds me of the behavior of the German Communist Party in the 1933 elections, when they focused their campaign on attacking the Social Democrats, because they weren't left enough. The right-wing coalition won the election and named a guy called Adolf to the post of Chancellor. The rest, as they say, is history.

I was never a huge fan of Gore, not because of the media caricature, but because I worked hard for a different candidate in 1988 -- when Al Gore presented himself as the choice to the right of the rest of the field.

That's a legitimate reason for not backing Gore. "Earthtone-wearing Al" is not...and the curious inclusion of this in Steve's list encourages the reader to suspect that he had more than a little difficulty distinguishing between legitimate and completely ridiculous reasons for being wary of Gore.

"Watching Kucinich vow to vote with right-wing opponents of reform"

I doubt he did this.

He might have vowed to vote against the bill though

Less spin please

Peter

I've been a long-time defender of Dennis Kucinich, and have applauded him for taking the right positions on any number of subjects, regardless of the popularity of that position. I've even sent him money.

If he does this, then so far as I am concerned, I shall treat him as a Dead Man. He will become the kind of scum that Ralph Nader became, an enabler of The Enemy.

If Kucinich does this, then the money I sent him before will be doubled as a donation to his primary opponent, whoever he or she may be.

What a goddamned s.o.b. - I am embarrassed to think of him as a fellow lefty.

He might have vowed to vote against the bill though

Less spin please

Shrug. The effect is the same and will have exactly identical effects on the people hurt when the bill doesn't pass.

Bill T said:
That's a legitimate reason for not backing Gore. "Earthtone-wearing Al" is not...and the curious inclusion of this in Steve's list encourages the reader to suspect that he had more than a little difficulty distinguishing between legitimate and completely ridiculous reasons for being wary of Gore.

How about "Al, the husband of Tipper 'we've-got-to-censor-the-media-to-save-our-children-from-the-horrors-of-Rock-music' Gore"?

The media-manufactured nonsense was so prominent because Al Gore's campaign was about three things:

1- Al was the "heir apparent"

2- Al was Bill Clinton, but without the problem of having his "little head" do too much of his thinking.

3- Lockbox. Lockbox. Lockbox. Lockbox. Lockbox. Lockbox. Lockbox. Lockbox. Lockbox. Lockbox. Lockbox.

Gore ran on the idea of continuing Greenspan-onomics, where it was necessary to raise interest rates every time someone, somewhere in the U.S. who earned less that $100K got a raise.

I remember turning on C-span radio in 2005 or so, and hearing a fiery speech that blasted Dubya and his war in Iraq and that passionately defended liberal values. After several minutes of wondering who was speaking the voiceover identified the speaker as Al Gore.

My wife and I turned to each other and simultaneously said, "Where the hell was this guy in 2000?"

"You couldn't distinguish between Gore's own statements and the totally irrelevant nonsense the media cooked up?"

Remind me- who was Gore's running mate?

Yeah we payed attention to the man's actions.

"I'd also like to point out that negotiating does not mean utterly refusing to budge on anything. That's the GOP's idea of "negotiating"."

And the dem response has been to give the gop more and more and more and more And more and more.

So that being the case why shouldn't progressives refuse to budge on anything? That's what obama has chosen to reward.

"He will become the kind of scum that Ralph Nader became, a politician with principles."

Fixed that for you.

"The effect is the same and will have exactly identical effects on the people hurt when the bill doesn't pass."

My heart bleeds for the poor insurance company stock holders.

I call B.S. on the smear that Kucinich is voting "with the Republicans." While I understand his decision is frustrating -- and while I accept the logic that passing the health reform that is on the table is the pragmatic choice for progressives -- he is not voting against it for the same reasons that the Republicans have opposed it. Moulitsas's accusation that Kucinich is finding "common cause" with Republicans is an ugly smear and intellectually nonsense.

Underneath the Moulitsas attack and similar comments is the assumption that Kucinich cannot be voting "no" out of genuine and defensible principles; it must be a conspiracy to deny the political center its entitled authority.

In other words, the center has no use for an articulate left that votes against what centrist Democrats want. That's why Moulitsas invoked Nader and the 2000 election in his criticism of Kucinich -- to demonize him and anyone who criticizes the Democrats from the left.

My estimation of Moulitsas sank last night, and I am disappointed to see Steve echoing the "voting with Republicans" meme.

Saw him on Countdown with LO the other night. Seemed his only real objection was no public option and very far from his desired single payer. I wanted to reach out and choke him. 15 million more on medicaid (single payer and paid for by the Feds) another 10-15 in Bernie sanders community health gig ( a functional single payer and again financed by the Feds), so he is bitching about subsidized private insurance being offered to 10 to 15 million more people? People who currently have nothing. What a freakin jerk off.

"In other words, the center has no use for an articulate left that votes against what centrist Democrats want."

that's fair- progressives are finding they hve less and less use for a center that always votes against what progressives want.

Enjoy November, "pragmatists."

Underneath the Moulitsas attack and similar comments is the assumption that Kucinich cannot be voting "no" out of genuine and defensible principles; it must be a conspiracy to deny the political center its entitled authority.

All I see is a total non-conspiracy (please, Kucinich and Nader supporters couldn't organize their way out of an exit aisle) intended to deny 300 million people a solid start on healthcare reform.

I don't give a damn about your paranoid and grandiose fantasies about "entitled authority." Believe me, the entire rest of the world combined doesn't think as much about you guys as you spend thinking about yourselves. You just don't have any presence to speak of in the overall picture. I want some fucking action on this and I don't care about anybody's authority.

"Gets a pass" implies that the guy hasn't always been a self-important ass.

But he has.

Underneath the Moulitsas attack and similar comments is the assumption that Kucinich cannot be voting "no" out of genuine and defensible principles

Enjoy November, "pragmatists."

We will, if health care reform passes. Otherwise, no.

Markos Moulitsas: "I don't think [Dennis Kucinich] gets a pass; I don't care what his excuse is."

Well, Markos, you got a big pass last year when you accused the Clintons of racism, helping to cleave the Democratic Party in two during the 2008 primary season. What was your excuse then?

You know, Dennis Kucinich is not the problem here. His stance on including a robust public option in any health care reform measure has been rigorously consistent from beginning to end. And as poll after poll has shown us, the majority of Americans consistently and resolutely support the public option - so it's not like he's advocating something that's radical and completely at odds with public opinion.

I wish Kucinich wouldn't be so rigidly doctinaire at this point as this important vote comes up, but it is what it is. If you can't get his vote, and you're not willing to include the public option in any final piece of legislation as a means to compromise, then you accept that fact that you've lost him and work around it by trying to line up support elsewhere.

But really, Markos, what does your whining and complaining about Congressman Kucinich accomplish - that is, other than getting you an occasional four minutes of airtime on MSNBC?

To Martin: I don't know who you're lumping me in with ("you guys") but you seem to have missed something important in the comment I wrote, in your haste to launch a personal attack on me: I said I agreed with Moulitsas on passing the health reform package even if I don't like it. On that point, I disagree with Kucinich.

(I'm not even a Nader or Kucinich supporter, in case that was your assumption: voted for Democrats against them both even though I didn't like it. But I respect their right to participate and to have opinions that differ from yours. That's the sense of 'entitlement' I was talking about, right there in your own comment.)

My crime -- for which you call me "grandiose" and "paranoid," inscrutably -- is respecting Kucinich's opinion. Well, run against him in a primary then, or support a primary challenge if you can't do it yourself. That's your right. It's nice when someone acknowledges your rights, isn't it?

"very Ralph Nader-esque approach" to politics."

Yes, God forbid we should have real, thinking people in Congress. More party apparatchiks please!

Perhaps the Democrats should nominate trained chimps or seals for Congress. After all, they'll vote the party line!

Dennis Kucinich is one of the few honest men in politics.