Kucinich Campaign KIA
In what’s sure to be a disappointment to many of my progressive friends, Dennis Kucinich says he’ll be dropping out of the presidential race tomorrow. From a local television station:
Rep. Dennis Kucinich is dropping out of the presidential race, his Lakewood congressional office confirmed Thursday.The Democrat represents Ohio’s 10th Congressional District. He is expected to officially announce his withdrawal from the race on Friday.
Kucinich, 61, has received little support in his second long-shot run for the presidency. He registers in low single digits in polls and had raised little money. He got 1 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary and was shut out in the Iowa caucuses.
He has recently been battling to be included in network Democratic debates and to have his name put on the ballot in some states.
Here’s an interesting sentence in the article:
He also said he won’t endorse another Democrat in the primary.
So is Kucinich not going to endorse anyone, or is he considering someone like Cynthia McKinney or Ron Paul?
Video courtesy of cleveland.com.
For more coverage of Dennis Kucinich, go to the Openers blog.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Kucinich and McKinney have been pretty tight in the anti- Iraq war movement, among other things. I wouldn’t be suprised by a DK endorsement of McKinney.
He’s definitely not going to endorse Ron Paul, tho.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Kucinich could always just wait until the primary process is more or less over, then endorse the Democratic candidate for the sake of “party unity.”
January 24th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I vaguely remember reports of Kerry delegates abusing Kucinich’s people at the dem convention in 04, something like “We’re here for Kerry, not Kucinich.” After so much marginalization and facing plausible unemployment, he might not be swayed by the party unity argument this time around.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
That’s my hope, but I’ll believe it when I hear it.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Draft Nader is up and at him…what a great indy ticket, Nader and Kucinich!
Should spoil Ron Paul good…I’m voting for Ron Paul 08!
January 24th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Steve, you crack me up. of course there has to be a positive Ron Paul aspect to the story even if you have to speculate or invent it.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Breaking RP news!:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/167/don-luskin-named-economic-advisor-to-the-ron-paul-2008-presidential-campaign
January 24th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Kucinich has already (sort of) endorsed Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18
During part of the Leno appearance, Ron Paul said Dennis Kucinich is his favorite candidate among the Democrats and that they often are the only two members of the House to vote the right way on peace and civil liberties issues.
FWIW If Ron Paul wins the nomination, or runs independent, Kucinich would make a good VP choice.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Whether Kucinich endorses Ron Paul or not, I’m sure that many of the people who supported Kucinich will.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Whether Kucinich endorses Ron Paul or not, I’m sure that many of the people who supported Kucinich will.
Unlikely.
Most Kucinich supporters either supported Kucinich because of his social libertarianism (which Ron Paul doesn’t share), or his economic socialism (which Ron Paul also doesn’t share).
A small fragment of the anti-war Kucinich supporters might support Paul, but most Kucinich supporters will move on to other progressive candidates—especially in the Green Party. I’d expect Libertarian Party candidates to win more of a share of Kucinich’s support than Paul.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Ron Paul is socially liberal on many (although not all) issues, and the Kucinich supporters I have talked to consider the war to be the number one issue.
I’d expect Libertarian Party candidates to win more of a share of Kucinich’s support than Paul.
That would be nice too. I don’t think it’s likely at this stage, but maybe in a few months we may be able to make a case.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Brian Miller:
Ron Paul is not a social libertariin? That’s an absurd claim. Ron Paul wants to end the war on drugs and allow states to legalize gay marriage. Please name a candidate who is more socially libertarian on those issues than Paul.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Dodsworth,
You’re half right. On the drug war he is very good, best in the majors.
On gay marriage…not so much. Ron Paul said this in Congress
January 24th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Kucinich actually got votes at the 2004 Green Party Nominating Convention. Many have said that Kucinich is an example of what would happen if a Green ran as a Democrat (ahem, Ron Paul as a Republican comparison), i.e. Kucinich is written off by the media and his party.
He has also said repeatedly that he will not promise to endorse the Democratic Nominee unless that person promises to end the war and bring the troops home from Iraq immediately (or within so many weeks, I don’t remember). His steadfast refusal to make that promise is to me a clear indication that Kucinich is going to support the candidate that most reflects his positions on the war, peace, and social issues.
My bet is on McKinney or Nader.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
More than half right. Paul is just against forced gay marriage reciprocity between the states. I would be too…..that is unless we can get gun law reciprocity too!
Again, what I said stands. He would allow the states to legalize gay marriage (sans forced reciprocity), in fact, he has recently argued for the superior “socially liberal” position that he would prefer that they abolish marriage law.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
McKinney endorsement is what I wud expect,undoubtedly.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Paul is just against forced gay marriage reciprocity between the states.
A) How about forced interracial marriage reciprocity between the states?
B) Not according to the quote above.
I would be too…..that is unless we can get gun law reciprocity too!
A) Why would one depend on the other?
B) Who’s against gun law reciprocity?
January 24th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Just about everyone is against gun law reciprocity. If I take my concealed gun, which is legal in Arkansas, and take it to New York City, Michael Bloomberg’s minions will arrest me.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Sorry, by everyone, I meant among libertarians.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
I’m not sure. Given his strong states rights views, I think there is a good chance that RP would be against gun law reciprocity too. He has been fairly consistent on taking a states right line on the second amendment as well as abortion.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
So, what if anything are states forbidden to do?
January 24th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I was stating Paul’s position, not necessarily mine. My own ideal would be to devolve power down to the county level or smaller. That way people could easily flee tyranny and freedom-oriented localites woudl be rewarded. The states are too big for my tastes. One of the reasons why Jim Crow and slavery lasted so long is the states covered too much territory and could quash dissident local governments (as in the case of the Little Rock school board which wanted to integrate.
Since we have a state oriented system, I would say that the states should pretty much be able to do what they want…..though hopefully the state courts will prevent them from violating their own state bills of rights. The main limits I place on them would be interfering with voting rights. Frankly, as a libertarian, I would prefer to fight in a smaller level state arena than a federal one.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
“Brian Miller Says:
January 24th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Whether Kucinich endorses Ron Paul or not, I’m sure that many of the people who supported Kucinich will.
Unlikely.
Most Kucinich supporters either supported Kucinich because of his social libertarianism (which Ron Paul doesn’t share), or his economic socialism (which Ron Paul also doesn’t share).”
I met a big Dennis Kucinich supporter who is now also a Ron Paul supporter a couple of weeks ago. He said that if Kucinich drops out he was going to support Ron Paul.
“On gay marriage…not so much. Ron Paul said this in Congress”
Ron also OPPOSED the anti-gay marriage amendments and has said that the government shouldn’t be licensing marriage in the first place.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Kucinich campaign has a Kia? Is it a Sephia?
January 24th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
“dodsworth Says:
January 24th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
More than half right. Paul is just against forced gay marriage reciprocity between the states.”
There’s a logical reason for this. Gays could get married in say Massachusetts and then move to say Utah and file law suits against private business owners who won’t provide benifits for their spouses.
The REAL libertarian position is that state marriage licenses should be abolished.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
There’s a logical reason for this. Gays could get married in say Massachusetts and then move to say Utah and file law suits against private business owners who won’t provide benifits for their spouses.
So could interracial couples.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
As far as Kucinich endorsing – he will never endorse outside the DP. he endorsed Kerry last round. And not halfheartedly either. He’s a Democrat, and I will say it again, I have wondered if he is not some sort of Democratic Party black bag op to try and divide the Left. Notice he came on the scene in 04, I think to help keep as much of whatever there is of the US Left in the party. But, maybe he will surprise me.
January 25th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Deran, I’d tend to agree. It seems like the majority of the anti-war movement was demobilised in 2004 in favour of trying to influence the Democratic Party from inside, and Kucinich almost definitely played a role in that. As a result, the anti-war movement is only a fraction as large as it rightfully should be, though there has been some slow rebuilding.
However, I will wait for Kucinich’s endorsement with interest, to see if he plays according to my bets, or if he’ll surprise us. If only he’d endorse Brian Moore
January 25th, 2008 at 12:26 am
“paulie Says:
January 24th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
There’s a logical reason for this. Gays could get married in say Massachusetts and then move to say Utah and file law suits against private business owners who won’t provide benifits for their spouses.”
“So could interracial couples.”
Yeah, so what? The freedom to associate includes the freedom to not associate.
I think that left to the free market, most people would not discriminate in this sense because it is generally bad for business and is not considered to be the polite thing to do by most people, however, those who want to discriminate on this basis should be free to do so.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:30 am
Ron Paul is socially liberal on many (although not all) issues
Sorry, but that’s just plain wrong.
Ron Paul is a social conservative. By the standards of your average Kucinich supporter, Ron Paul is an extreme social conservative.
Ron Paul opposes gay marriage and gay adoption.
Ron Paul is one of Congress’s most fervent anti-choice advocates (and keynoted the event this year protesting the anniversary of Roe v. Wade).
Ron Paul’s been channeling Tom Tancredo on immigration, especially in his advertising.
And Ron Paul is also opposed to the entitlements and regulations that many Kucinich supporters see as part of a candidate’s social positions (and which I disagree with myself).
His appeal to the average Kucinich supporter is going to be somewhere between nada and zilch.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:35 am
Paulie covered the marriage thing.
Incidentally, Ron Paul is a strong supporter of Bob Barr and Bill Clinton’s DOMA law, which bans federal recognition of same-sex marriages. The reason why married same-gender couples in Massachusetts cannot file a joint return, sponsor a foreign spouse for immigration, etc. is because the federal government has banned recognition of their state’s marriage—in a law that Ron Paul supports.
This is common knowledge and I wish Ron Paul’s people would stop lying about it.
Ron Paul wants to end the war on drugs
No, he wants to end the federal war on drugs and shift it to the state governments instead.
This is one of the fatal flaws of Ron Paul “libertarianism”—by asserting that state governments have rights that are superior to those of the people, and emphasizing what level of government should have absolute power (rather than seeking to deprive government at ALL levels of absolute power), his approach just pushes tyranny down the ladder a notch or two to state and local authorities.
And consider this—when was the last time you saw a drug offender on TV having his door kicked in, or getting arrested, by federal cops? Not likely very often. Nine times out of ten, it’s done by state and local authorities, and that’s just hunky-dory with Ron Paul under his “states’ rights” doctrine.
A genuine Libertarian would want to end the drug war at all levels, not just at a federal level.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Ron also OPPOSED the anti-gay marriage amendments and has said that the government shouldn’t be licensing marriage in the first place.
His opposition to the FMA was no more a “brave” move than McCain’s decision to do the same thing.
As for whether or not government should be licensing marriage, when Ron Paul tried to argue this canard, I sorta killed his talking point here.
I asked his campaign why, if Ron Paul is opposed to government marriage licenses, that he and his wife Carol have one—and all the attendant benefits that come with it. His campaign staffer responded that they “need it for legal purposes.”
My response was “if Ron Paul ‘needs a marriage license for legal purposes’ then why seek to deprive same-gender couples with the same legal needs of that license?” To which, of course, there was no reply.
Ron Paul’s answer on this issue, as usual, is slimy. It’s like a welfare recipient calling for the privatization of welfare to charity after receiving $1 million in government benefit payments—and continuing to receive them. If Ron Paul was truly opposed to government marriage licenses, he wouldn’t have one himself.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Dennis didn’t put in even half the effort of his ‘04 campaign and that’s why this campaign really petered out even before Super Tuesday. He’s going back to run for his Congressional seat in March because he really is facing some serious opposition back home.
I doubt if any Green will vote for Kucinich at the convention. Kucinich could have been an example of the kind of fusion between non-major party activitsts and a major party campaign on the left as Ron Paul is on the right. But in talking with a Green activists for my book (Wisconsin’s Ben Manski) they’ve made it clear they will have nothing to do with any Democrat whatsoever, even Kucinich.
The only Dem candidate that could make a play for the Green nomination is Mike Gravel but he doesn’t seem to be doing much of anything these days.
January 25th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Brian Miller,
“No, he wants to end the federal war on drugs and shift it to the state governments instead.”
He’s running for President. Do you, like democrats and republicans, think that the President should control ALL levels of government?
January 25th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
The freedom to associate includes the freedom to not associate.
I think that left to the free market, most people would not discriminate in this sense because it is generally bad for business and is not considered to be the polite thing to do by most people, however, those who want to discriminate on this basis should be free to do so.
Issues include immigration visas, hospital vistation, burial arrangements, and more. We live in the real world, not the ideal world. When we can get rid of government entirely, we can get rid of government marriage entirely. Until then, the government should not be allowed to discriminate.
January 25th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Me) Ron Paul is socially liberal on many (although not all) issues
BM) Sorry, but that’s just plain wrong.
Ron Paul is a social conservative. By the standards of your average Kucinich supporter, Ron Paul is an extreme social conservative.
Ron Paul opposes gay marriage and gay adoption.
me2) It is true he has a 62.5 on your quiz, which is stil a failing grade, but better than any other Republican running for president (at least of those in the debates).
BM) Ron Paul is one of Congress’s most fervent anti-choice advocates (and keynoted the event this year protesting the anniversary of Roe v. Wade).
me2) Again, his stance is more nuanced than that. The most fervent conservatives want a constitutional amendment to outlaw all abortions anywhere in the US. As far as I know Ron Paul is against this.
BM) Ron Paul’s been channeling Tom Tancredo on immigration, especially in his advertising.
me2) True, but he has said some things at various times to indicate a more nuanced position.
BM) And Ron Paul is also opposed to the entitlements and regulations that many Kucinich supporters see as part of a candidate’s social positions (and which I disagree with myself).
His appeal to the average Kucinich supporter is going to be somewhere between nada and zilch.
me2) Not in my experience. I have found many Kucinich supporters find the issues Ron Paul and Kucinich agree on (and disagree with the other R and D candidates) to outweigh all that. I’m not saying all, and I haven’t done a poll so I can’t say most, but a substantial number, including several people I talk to.
BM) No, he wants to end the federal war on drugs and shift it to the state governments instead.
me2) That would be a significant step. The reason many state legislators and courts give for refusing to consider legalization is the federal law. A president can also pardon drug offenders, and indeed Ron Paul has said he would.
BM) A genuine Libertarian would want to end the drug war at all levels, not just at a federal level.
me2) Certainly. But how would you propose a president do that?
BM) My response was “if Ron Paul ‘needs a marriage license for legal purposes’ then why seek to deprive same-gender couples with the same legal needs of that license?” To which, of course, there was no reply.
Ron Paul’s answer on this issue, as usual, is slimy. It’s like a welfare recipient calling for the privatization of welfare to charity after receiving $1 million in government benefit payments—and continuing to receive them. If Ron Paul was truly opposed to government marriage licenses, he wouldn’t have one himself.
me2) You have a good point there.
He is wrong on this issue.
But he is good on the patriot act, better than any other D or R candidate allowed in the debates on the drug war, opposed to torture and surveillance, and so on. So again I would have to say by the standards of major party presidential candidates and elected members of congress that he is good on civil liberties.
January 26th, 2008 at 9:02 am
January 26th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Sorry, forgot to close a tag.
January 27th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Brian Miller, RP opposed the Same Sex Marriage Resolution so what are you talking about???
January 27th, 2008 at 2:54 am
Regarding marriage licenses, try getting married w/o one. If you succeed let us know.