In my opinion, Dennis Kucinich stands so far above the rest of the potential presidential hopefuls (perhaps with the exceptions of Mike Gravel and Ron Paul) that I will absolutely not vote for anyone else...currently in the field.  Of course...I might just vote for Al Gore, if upon close examination, he proves not to be one of these Hillary Clinton/Rahm Emanuel type phonies.  >:( 

Kucinich is one of my faves running right now, but his sincerity basically guarantees he won't get elected.

Ironic isn't it?  Kucinich more than any other candidate talks like Jesus, but he doesn't talk about being Christian.  The candidates who talk most about being Christian seem more like Nero than Jesus!  Even McCain is talking like he's been drinking wine out of a lead-lined cask!
:o

I thought Kucinich was really short.

i like dennis kucinich but i think a lot of times his rhetoric can get a little unrealistically idealistic. i don't think we'll be able to eliminate war just by unilaterally committing to peace, etc. but a lot of his comments about corruption in the government contracting process etc. are right on; i loved the questions he asked the CEO of blackwater today, he always comes off quite tough and asks really good questions during oversight hearings.

I thought Kucinich was really short.


I blame the wife!

Kucinich ruined a city and if he wins, he may ruin the country. I'm apolitical now (If you saw my little thing about Bush, that's how I feel with both Political Parties.) but I'm only going Democratic in 2008 because my attitude with them is, 'You think you can do better? Let's see how you'll mess this up!'

I thought Kucinich was really short.

I'm really short, you gotta beef?

:D

Kucinich ruined a city and if he wins, he may ruin the country. I'm apolitical now (If you saw my little thing about Bush, that's how I feel with both Political Parties.) but I'm only going Democratic in 2008 because my attitude with them is, 'You think you can do better? Let's see how you'll mess this up!'


No offense, but "ruining" Cleveland is kind of like leaving candy wrappers in a compost pile.  Sure, you notice them there, but the whole place still looks and smells like shi*.

No offense, but "ruining" Cleveland is kind of like leaving candy wrappers in a compost pile.  Sure, you notice them there, but the whole place still looks and smells like shi*.
wind up... swing... and...

*KRAK*

it's outta the park.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

Ron Paul is basically Dennis Kucinich without all the disgusting big-government baggage.  Plus Paul is polling higher (4% nationally in the republican primary for Paul, less than 1% nationally in the democratic primary for Kucinich), is doing better in early primary states and has a lot more cash on hand.

I'm voting for Ron Paul.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/

ron paul is an interesting bird and that’s quite a voting record. i don’t know if you can with good conscience vote regularly not to raise taxes and also regularly vote against unbalanced budgets -- prohibiting tax increases precludes the possibility of a balanced budget. you have to fund tax cuts with deficit spending. this is so blindingly obvious that only a dogmatic resistance to tax increases could possibly serve to cloud this plain fact.

ron paul is an antiwar icon but is also vociferous about border security -- which i think if we elected him we’d find are going to be difficult economies to separate, since the same private contractors who are performing the wars abroad are also bidding on these border security contracts. i doubt they’ll allow paul to dismantle the war economy; they’ll be able to hold the border security contracts over his head to force him to continue to engage in military action overseas.

I'm really short, you gotta beef?

:D



I'm short, too (probably shorter than you)......  ;)

ron paul is an interesting bird and that’s quite a voting record. i don’t know if you can with good conscience vote regularly not to raise taxes and also regularly vote against unbalanced budgets -- prohibiting tax increases precludes the possibility of a balanced budget. you have to fund tax cuts with deficit spending. this is so blindingly obvious that only a dogmatic resistance to tax increases could possibly serve to cloud this plain fact.

ron paul is an antiwar icon but is also vociferous about border security -- which i think if we elected him we’d find are going to be difficult economies to separate, since the same private contractors who are performing the wars abroad are also bidding on these border security contracts. i doubt they’ll allow paul to dismantle the war economy; they’ll be able to hold the border security contracts over his head to force him to continue to engage in military action overseas.



Good points...  You don't necessarily have to raise taxes to balance budgets though.  You can also cut spending by large amounts, which is exactly what we need to do at this point -- especially on the military.

Good points...  You don't necessarily have to raise taxes to balance budgets though.  You can also cut spending by large amounts, which is exactly what we need to do at this point -- especially on the military.

i agree with you on the military point, and yes, there's no reason why we can't make balanced budgets a priority, but simple budget contraction isn't going to be the answer... there are lots of people out there making their living on military contracts and just to cut those guys loose would be roughly the domestic equivalent of de-baathification in iraq. (although in reality nothing like that would ever happen here because those folks are way too influential to sit still for it.) i'd think less budget cuts, more budget redirection.

i see a wealth of public and public-private-partnership projects we'll have to engage in in the near and intermediate future -- shoring up infrastructure (c.f. bridges and levees), creating a viable domestic rail service (with fuel being what it is, the US's sole's dependence on air travel is obviously unsustainable in the long term), dealing with global warming and growing resource scarcity is obviously going to be a problem... all these issues are going to need money, hard work, and ingenuity to solve and to do so we're going to have to forge genuine partnerships between government and industry and move past all the "socialist" baby talk. (i'm not saying YOU'RE doing this, but extremist anti-government sentiment is the major obstacle to progress in america right now, imo.)

i agree with you on the military point, and yes, there's no reason why we can't make balanced budgets a priority, but simple budget contraction isn't going to be the answer... there are lots of people out there making their living on military contracts and just to cut those guys loose would be roughly the domestic equivalent of de-baathification in iraq. (although in reality nothing like that would ever happen here because those folks are way too influential to sit still for it.) i'd think less budget cuts, more budget redirection.

i see a wealth of public and public-private-partnership projects we'll have to engage in in the near and intermediate future -- shoring up infrastructure (c.f. bridges and levees), creating a viable domestic rail service (with fuel being what it is, the US's sole's dependence on air travel is obviously unsustainable in the long term), dealing with global warming and growing resource scarcity is obviously going to be a problem... all these issues are going to need money, hard work, and ingenuity to solve and to do so we're going to have to forge genuine partnerships between government and industry and move past all the "socialist" baby talk. (i'm not saying YOU'RE doing this, but extremist anti-government sentiment is the major obstacle to progress in america right now, imo.)


I hear ya...  I guess I'm a weird combination.  I want to socialize medicine but privatize almost everything else while still staying out of war 99% of the time and focusing heavily on border defense.

To my knowledge, there is no candidate that fits that description....

I hear ya...  I guess I'm a weird combination.  I want to socialize medicine but privatize almost everything else while still staying out of war 99% of the time and focusing heavily on border defense.

To my knowledge, there is no candidate that fits that description....
i detect libertarian sentiments there, yes? and out of the current lot, ron paul would probably be your guy. but i'm guessing.

i'm skeptical of dividing border security from the war economy (and also law enforcement) for reasons i got into: they sound like separate matters but are, by and large, handled by the same firms because they involve many of the same skillsets. thus it's going to be hard to reduce one without affecting the others; because the same people in the same companies have a stake in all three sectors, they're likely to want to move in tandem.

although to play devils advocate: blackwater, which is now looking increasingly like it's going to be on the outs in iraq (amazingly, i've worked for a company that's closely affiliated with blackwater, they provide them with farsi and arabic translators...), is probably going to be focusing more on its domestic contracts in the future to fill the gaps. they're working a lot in border security and in substituting for the national guard in disaster areas like new orleans. which means the same "cowboys" who are right now fending off accusations of human-rights violations in baghdad might be standing on your street corner tomorrow.

so... i'm contradicting what i said before. the war economy can be reduced and the companies originally participating in the iraq war are likely to find alternative work here in the US. however, in all reality, the usefulness of ex-combat vets in such roles may be questionable. because though the technical and equipment needs of armed combat and law enforcement are similar, obviously the rules of engagement are quite different, and you don't want lots of ex-military policing US borders or US streets because the military are trained to exercise overwhelming lethal force and domestic law enforcement is supposed to use force much more judiciously. believe it or not, considering the law of unintended consequences, an antiwar-slash-vigilant-border-policing strategy in the US, which is understandably popular among those who vociferously treasure the concept of american freedom, might easily lead to something a lot like fascism in the US, as retired combat vets are placed in positions where they're policing american borders and streets. they've been trained to operate in hostile foreign theaters and will bring that training to their domestic work whether they mean to or not.

god i'm just going on and on.

you know what? i should shut the eff up and run for dogcatcher. i'm so obsessed with politics and current events these days, just because i have a long metro ride every day and let's face it, the world's going to sheesh and i have two hours each day to sit on a subway car and read about it. >:(

i detect libertarian sentiments there, yes? and out of the current lot, ron paul would probably be your guy. but i'm guessing.

i'm skeptical of dividing border security from the war economy (and also law enforcement) for reasons i got into: they sound like separate matters but are, by and large, handled by the same firms because they involve many of the same skillsets. thus it's going to be hard to reduce one without affecting the others; because the same people in the same companies have a stake in all three sectors, they're likely to want to move in tandem.

It's a good point and one I haven't thought much about...  Still, I'd rather Blackwater defend our border than have them in Iraq.

although to play devils advocate: blackwater, which is now looking increasingly like it's going to be on the outs in iraq (amazingly, i've worked for a company that's closely affiliated with blackwater, they provide them with farsi and arabic translators...), is probably going to be focusing more on its domestic contracts in the future to fill the gaps. they're working a lot in border security and in substituting for the national guard in disaster areas like new orleans. which means the same "cowboys" who are right now fending off accusations of human-rights violations in baghdad might be standing on your street corner tomorrow.

To be honest, we need cowboys in the hellhole known as New Orleans.

so... i'm contradicting what i said before. the war economy can be reduced and the companies originally participating in the iraq war are likely to find alternative work here in the US. however, in all reality, the usefulness of ex-combat vets in such roles may be questionable. because though the technical and equipment needs of armed combat and law enforcement are similar, obviously the rules of engagement are quite different, and you don't want lots of ex-military policing US borders or US streets because the military are trained to exercise overwhelming lethal force and domestic law enforcement is supposed to use force much more judiciously. believe it or not, considering the law of unintended consequences, an antiwar-slash-vigilant-border-policing strategy in the US, which is understandably popular among those who vociferously treasure the concept of american freedom, might easily lead to something a lot like fascism in the US, as retired combat vets are placed in positions where they're policing american borders and streets. they've been trained to operate in hostile foreign theaters and will bring that training to their domestic work whether they mean to or not.

Again, this is a line of thought that, until now, I hadn't really considered.  I would agree that we need to be careful how we use these contractors domestically.  One thing is for sure though...  They will be held accountable for their actions here, whereas in Iraq, they can't be tried by the local courts.

Kucinich ruined a city and if he wins, he may ruin the country. I'm apolitical now (If you saw my little thing about Bush, that's how I feel with both Political Parties.) but I'm only going Democratic in 2008 because my attitude with them is, 'You think you can do better? Let's see how you'll mess this up!'


His two-year term as Mayor was controversial almost from the start. He appointed a 19-year-old to a key city position, a 24-year-old with less than a year's experience as a stockbroker was named the city's finance director, and almost half his key appointments were black. He rejected a $41-million federal grant to begin construction of a downtown "people mover". He publicly feuded with the city's popular Police Chief, and fired him live on TV for insubordination. The Police Department later went on strike, protesting proposed budget cuts. He fought against allowing Republic Steel to construct a new ore dock on a city-owned pier, and the company ended up relocating to nearby Lorain, Ohio. The city had been in financial ruins when Kucinich took office, as the previous administration had misspent tens of millions of dollars of bond funds. Ohio's largest bank, then called Cleveland Trust and now known as Ameritrust, threatened to yank the city's line of credit unless Kucinich sold the city-owned electric system, Cleveland Public Power (CCP), then called Municipal Light, to CCP's competitor, Cleveland Electric Illuminating (CEI). He refused to sell the utility, forcing the city into default. Kucinich narrowly survived a recall election, then lost when he ran for a second term as Mayor.

I know Kucinich must have upset the banks and the privatizers...but he certainly held the interests of the people of Cleveland as more important than the big corporate interests.  It is always tough for an honest and compassionate leader to fight BIG MONEY!!!

His two-year term as Mayor was controversial almost from the start. He appointed a 19-year-old to a key city position, a 24-year-old with less than a year's experience as a stockbroker was named the city's finance director, and almost half his key appointments were black. He rejected a $41-million federal grant to begin construction of a downtown "people mover". He publicly feuded with the city's popular Police Chief, and fired him live on TV for insubordination. The Police Department later went on strike, protesting proposed budget cuts. He fought against allowing Republic Steel to construct a new ore dock on a city-owned pier, and the company ended up relocating to nearby Lorain, Ohio. The city had been in financial ruins when Kucinich took office, as the previous administration had misspent tens of millions of dollars of bond funds. Ohio's largest bank, then called Cleveland Trust and now known as Ameritrust, threatened to yank the city's line of credit unless Kucinich sold the city-owned electric system, Cleveland Public Power (CCP), then called Municipal Light, to CCP's competitor, Cleveland Electric Illuminating (CEI). He refused to sell the utility, forcing the city into default. Kucinich narrowly survived a recall election, then lost when he ran for a second term as Mayor.

I know Kucinich must have upset the banks and the privatizers...but he certainly held the interests of the people of Cleveland as more important than the big corporate interests.   It is always tough for an honest and compassionate leader to fight BIG MONEY!!!


And the chance of Kucinich winning is the same chance as Cleveland winning a Championship.

And the chance of Kucinich winning is the same chance as Cleveland winning a Championship.


Which, unfortunately, speaks to the lack of intelligence and political savvy of the vast majority of the American electorate.
How did we end up with the likes of a Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton (?), and a Bush 2?  Reagan and GW are particularly choice examples of how the American electorate can put into office such ignoramuses!  I believe that outside the walls of this country...Canada, lands to the south, Europe, the people have a far clearer and more defined knowledge of what are really the important issues confronting society.
peace...Lee

Which, unfortunately, speaks to the lack of intelligence and political savvy of the vast majority of the American electorate.
How did we end up with the likes of a Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton (?), and a Bush 2?   Reagan and GW are particularly choice examples of how the American electorate can put into office such ignoramuses!  I believe that outside the walls of this country...Canada, lands to the south, Europe, the people have a far clearer and more defined knowledge of what are really the important issues confronting society.
peace...Lee


Once again, I apologize for not "logging out" from my wife's by-line.
At least you can see I signed the message with my own name...peace Lee

although to play devils advocate: blackwater, which is now looking increasingly like it's going to be on the outs in iraq (amazingly, i've worked for a company that's closely affiliated with blackwater, they provide them with farsi and arabic translators...), is probably going to be focusing more on its domestic contracts in the future to fill the gaps. they're working a lot in border security and in substituting for the national guard in disaster areas like new orleans. which means the same "cowboys" who are right now fending off accusations of human-rights violations in baghdad might be standing on your street corner tomorrow.


Blackwater, a fine thing it is! A legion of Christian Fundamentalist mercenary baboons armed to the teeth, taking potshots at the schoolboys and the old women, and accountable to no one but their psychopathic private employers!  Old Tommy Jeff is spinning in his grave!  Spinning, I tell you, spinning!
8-P

I believe that outside the walls of this country...Canada, lands to the south, Europe, the people have a far clearer and more defined knowledge of what are really the important issues confronting society.
peace...Lee
Well, if you're comparing us to Mexico and South America, I'd say we're still WAY ahead of those areas in both social policy and economics.  Still, I'll agree that Canada and the Scandinavian countries are ahead of us.

Well, if you're comparing us to Mexico and South America, I'd say we're still WAY ahead of those areas in both social policy and economics.  Still, I'll agree that Canada and the Scandinavian countries are ahead of us.


Mexico just had an election stolen by the entrenched mainstream...who are decidedly not inclined toward social welfare issues...HOWEVER, if you continue southward, in this hemisphere, from Ortega's Nicaragua through Cuba and Venezuela and Bolivia and Ecuador and Brazil...etc...the social consciousness of the governments is far ahead of the American plutocracy...of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy!

peace...Lee

Mexico just had an election stolen by the entrenched mainstream...who are decidedly not inclined toward social welfare issues...HOWEVER, if you continue southward, in this hemisphere, from Ortega's Nicaragua through Cuba and Venezuela and Bolivia and Ecuador and Brazil...etc...the social consciousness of the governments is far ahead of the American plutocracy...of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy!

peace...Lee


(Forgot to log her out, again)

Last night I had the privilege of watching a video which could be an important step toward the emergence of a new, strong economic entity south of our border.  Here is the report of this Cuban-Venezuelan alliance. 


Published on venezuelanalysis.com (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com)
Cuba and Venezuela Deepen Alliance with More Accords

Author:
Chris Carlson – Venezuelanalysis.com
Mérida, October 16, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com )- Cuba and Venezuela announced an increased economic and political alliance yesterday after signing several bilateral economic agreements. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuban leader Raul Castro met in Havana on Monday to discuss a number of joint projects as a part of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), and President Chavez proposed a future joining of the two countries into a confederation.

Just as Cuba and Venezuela were the first two countries in the formation of ALBA, the new regional alliance that Nicaragua and Bolivia later joined, the Venezuelan president suggested that Cuba and Venezuela be the first in forming a confederation of nations.

"Now we should be looking ahead, Cuba and Venezuela could perfectly form a confederation of nations in the near future, two countries in one," he proposed.

The proposal comes as the two nations continue to forge a tighter relationship, both economically and politically. President Chavez spent the weekend in Cuba where he paid tribute to the 40th anniversary of the death of Che Guevara, and broadcast his Sunday TV and Radio show Aló Presidente from the island. Chavez said on the show that the two countries are governed by "just one government."

"We are going towards a confederation of Bolivarian nations," he said in reference to the South American independence leader Simon Bolivar who proposed the unification of the region in the 19th century.

"We are going to transform this group of ALBA countries, and more countries, into a confederation, the unification of our people. We are going to transform it into a regional power," he said.

Cuba and Venezuela signed a total of 14 economic agreements yesterday, including a joint oil refinery, the exploration for oil in Cuba and in the Gulf of Mexico, an underwater fiber optic cable connecting the two countries, and several joint companies to undertake other ventures. They also made agreements to study many other prospects for "a growing process of union and integration."

By the end of the year the two governments plan to inaugurate a refinery on the southern coast of Cuba that will initially process 65 thousands barrels of oil per day, and later up to 108 thousand barrels. An old Soviet plant that stopped functioning after the fall of the Soviet Union, the refinery will require an initial investment of 236 million dollars to modernize and expand.

The two countries' state oil companies signed joint contracts to explore oil in western Cuba, as well as in Cuban territory in the Gulf of Mexico. A joint company was created to exploit nickel and other mineral deposits in Cuba, and agreements were signed to study the construction of a petrochemical plant, the production of cement, and the creation of an industry to construct ships for fishing, among other proposals.

President Chavez also proposed the establishment of "aggressive" plans to increase agricultural production in both countries with the goal of making them self-sustaining in their food supply. He emphasized the need to break the countries' dependence on food imports and said that agriculture is the most important sector to develop.

"We should make this our highest priority and concentrate our best researchers, our best scientists on searching for the best land, and accelerate the production of materials, tools, machinery, and fertilizers," he said.

The Cuban leader Raul Castro expressed his satisfaction with the growing alliance between the two countries and applauded the new agreements.

"With the signing of these agreements we make a significant contribution to the growing process of unification and integration between Cuba and Venezuela that began with the Cooperative Agreement signed by both countries on October 30th of 2001," he said.

Raul Castro emphasized that commerce between the two countries has seen a continued increase with a tendency to increased diversification and cooperation. According to the Cuban leader, the two countries are now carrying out 352 joint projects in 28 different areas of economic and social development. He emphasized that these types of projects are now growing to other parts of the region as well with the entrance of Bolivia and Nicaragua to the ALBA block.
Image Description:
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuban leader Raul Castro sign 14 new economic agreements. (Prensa Presidencial)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2733
Links:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/