This is part of a series of interviews with presidential candidates produced jointly by Grist and Outside.
Update: Dennis Kucinich dropped out of the presidential race on Jan. 25, 2008.
He may be eating the front-runners' dust in the polls, but among deep-green voters, Dennis Kucinich is considered a trailblazer. A Democratic U.S. rep from Cleveland, Ohio, Kucinich is calling for a radical overhaul of the U.S. government and economy -- one that infuses every agency in the executive branch with a sustainability agenda, phases out coal and nuclear power entirely, and calls on every American to ratchet down their resource consumption and participate in a national conservation program.
A vegan who counts Ralph Nader among his heroes, Kucinich doesn't exactly embody the sensibility of the average American. He says his commitment to sustainability "extends to everything I am and do" -- from the food he eats and clothes he wears to the policies he espouses. It's the same progressive platform that made him a darling of the far left when he ran for president in 2004. Will it take him any further this time around?
I reached Kucinich by phone at his home in Ohio.
For more info on his platform and record, check out Grist's Kucinich fact sheet.
Listen to a clip of this interview:
Why should voters consider you the strongest green candidate?
Because mostly our candidates aren't going to be able to do anything about the underlying issues that threaten our environment. Many of the candidates -- Edwards, Obama, and Clinton -- are heavily funded by hedge funds on Wall Street, which are driven by a psychology of short-term profits and investments. And with candidates taking that kind of money from those interests, it defies belief that they're going to be in a position to take this country in the direction it needs to be taken.
What sets your green platform apart from the rest?
As president of the United States, I'm going to shift the entire direction of America. We need to see the connection between global warring and global warming, and it's oil. Sustainability is the path to peace. And I'm the only true peace candidate in this election. So peace means being in harmony with nature. If you're in harmony with nature, you don't exploit nature. You don't ruin the land, you don't extract the oil, you don't take the coal out of the earth.
My underlying philosophy is a green philosophy. It means that I'm looking at a total reorganization of the federal government to create a cooperative and synergistic relationship between all departments and administrations for the purpose of greening America.
You propose, for instance, the Works Green Administration.
The Works Green Administration harkens back to the days of Franklin Roosevelt and the Works Progress Administration, where he put millions of people back to work rebuilding America's infrastructure. I too have an infrastructure-rebuilding program which will put millions of people back to work. Picture this: You take every area of involvement in the federal government -- whether it's the Small Business Administration, or the Housing and Urban Development Department, or the Department of Agriculture, or the Department of Labor. Each would incorporate green goals. We'd have billions of dollars loaned to the states at zero interest for green development programs, we'd have programs furthering green housing, agricultural policies would relate to green.
Do you think Americans are ready to answer the call to conserve?
Of course they are, they're just waiting for leadership, and it has to come from somebody who's not tied to any of these interest groups, or is worried about whether he's going to offend a contributor. And so, yes, I think people know that their future's at stake.
What I intend to do as president is to call forth that instinct which is within every person for not just survival but to be able to thrive. We need to make the connection between prosperity and sustainability. It also means we have to turn toward peace, we have to stop warring, because war is ecocide, war destroys the environment. And so I'm going to call forth the people of this country for a whole new direction. I think America's not just ready for it, it's overdue and people know that.
I will also ask the American people to participate in a grand and great conservation effort. Imagine if tens of millions of homes suddenly had an awareness that when you don't need the electricity, don't flip the switch. That you use only the water that you need and you don't use any more, you don't let the faucet run.
Do you believe that we need a carbon tax in addition to a cap-and-trade program, or neither, or both?
We need to do whatever we can do to create disincentives for the use of carbon-based energy. But that's not enough. Carbon-based taxes alone won't cut it, because some people may be willing to pay an extra tax to use something that's bad for the environment. Inevitably we need a requirement to move away from all carbon-based technologies, and to fund fully all alternative-energy research that is in harmony with the environment.
So you would propose a strict cap on carbon emissions, a carbon tax, and a massive government-supported plan to promote renewable technologies?
Yes, but I'd want to put the emphasis first on the government supporting renewable technologies. A tax could reflect the full cost to society of certain types of energy. But the answer is not simply punishing those people who are using carbons. You have to do everything you can to move people toward renewable energy.
You've been calling for years for a renewable portfolio standard that would have the U.S. get 20 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2010. Now that 2010 is around the corner, what sort of RPS plan would you implement as president?
Well, obviously we've lost the advantage of that particular time frame. For the next time frame, I think we could set something by 2020 and look to 30 or 40 percent. But that means we're talking about a very sharp turnaround here.
How would you shift the utility industry toward renewables, toward this whole new paradigm?
One of my proposals is to have millions of homes with wind and solar technologies, and people can sell energy back to the grid. The role of utilities will change dramatically because it's not going to be a centralized approach toward energy production. They'll have to figure out different ways that they might be able to provide support for green alternatives. I want to see, eventually, all the homes in this country have the option of that technology. In turn, you can create millions of jobs building alternative technologies.
Would nuclear power play any role in your energy policy as president?
Nuclear has to be phased out. The hidden costs of nuclear are enormous -- of building these plants and storing the waste forever. It's not financially or environmentally sustainable.
Nuclear makes up 20 percent of America's electricity supply. What would you replace this with?
You don't want to leave a gap in our energy needs, but at the same time, with a program of conservation and movement toward alternative energy, we can begin phasing out nuclear.
What about coal, the source of more than half of our electricity supply? Would you phase that out, or do you believe in the promise of advanced coal technologies?
No, coal has to be phased out. In the same way that the Department of Agriculture for years was paying some farmers not to grow, I think we can get to the point of paying coal miners not to mine. Why should the miners have to suffer from the lack of foresight of our energy policies? That's something that I intend to address in my Works Green Administration.
The electric utility industry would argue that such a massive shift would pass along huge rate hikes to consumers. How would you protect Americans from these expenses?
We do not need to be held hostage by the utility industry. I'm not someone who's going to roll over when these utility industries issue their threats. We're going to break up the monopolies in utilities, that's No. 1. No. 2, these utilities are going to be closely regulated for their activities. No. 3, they're going to be required to go green as license conditions. No. 4, they're going to be closely monitored and shut down if they violate the Clean Air Act. We're going to have a very aggressive EPA, and utilities are not going to be dictating energy costs. I don't mind working with them, I don't mind moving toward areas where they can be cooperative in protecting the environment, but they're not going to run energy policy.
But such a transition would create huge costs. How would you pay for them?
It pays for itself. See, the whole idea about sustainability is that you conserve, you save, and then you use the savings for other things. However, where we need financial incentives, this is where the government can play a major role in putting money into circulation for the production of these [green] products, and to put people to work. Roosevelt understood in the '30s that there were things he had to do to move the economy. And I understand what we need to do to move the economy in a green direction.
Do you support subsidies for ethanol or other gasoline alternatives, like biodiesel?
I don't know about subsidies. I think those technologies are transitional to fuel-cell technology. I wouldn't want to create incentives to lock us into usages that are not where we ultimately want to go. And there is a serious issue with ethanol and its impact on food supplies.
Many argue that the U.S. shouldn't commit to a global greenhouse-gas reduction target that doesn't involve China and India. Do you agree, and how would you bring them to the table?
First of all, as president, I'm going to let the rest of the world know that the days of America trying to be a nation above nations is over. We have to quit trying to dominate other countries, and we have to step out of our isolation and into the brotherhood and sisterhood of all people. I think the world is ready for an American president who puts the sword down, so that nations won't have to spend a tremendous amount of their resources trying to prepare for war.
We have to be ready to take the lead, but we need to have harmony with other nations. As president, I intend to work with the leaders of China and India and other nations to promote an environmental consciousness and sustainable economies. I will use trade as a vehicle to try to raise the level of living for all people, and environmental sustainability must be the watchword. All of our trade agreements must have within them requirements for protecting the air and the water and the land of all the countries we do business with.
After climate and energy, what do you think is the most important environmental issue facing the nation?
Agriculture -- the way we grow our food -- and we really need to make sure that we protect our water supply. These issues are closely tied to each other.
Who is your environmental hero?
Oh, I have many. Thomas Berry, whose book The Great Work talked about how our great work in life is to achieve a real harmony with the environment. I think Lester Brown has done some incredible work on raising the consciousness of people. Amory Lovins has done some excellent work, and I think Ralph Nader has pointed to a lot of the environmental implications of corporate conduct and trade laws. And John Robbins has been so incredible in his awareness of the impact of the food we eat on our environment.
What was your most memorable wilderness or outdoor adventure?
As a child, we lived in the city, we moved around a lot. But there was one place we lived, above railroad tracks, and on the other side of the tracks was this vast acreage called "the gulley" that was created with the blasting of the railroad. It had these huge rock piles and vegetation everywhere and it almost looked prehistoric. It was a place that I would go to often and find solitude and be able to just think. So much of my own life has been connected with a desire to be close to nature, to be close to the water, to be close to green.
If you could spend a week in one natural area of the U.S., where would it be?
I would say somewhere in northern Maine. The whole state is beautiful, but northern Maine is just extraordinary, and I've seen all 50 states. I also love Maui.
What do you do to lighten your environmental footprint?
My philosophy of life extends to everything I am and do. If I say I'm for peace, I'm for peace in the kind of products that I use, in the kind of shoes that I wear, and in terms of the clothes that I wear, in terms of my eating habits. I'm always thinking in terms of sustainability. That's the way I live. I live in a small house and we're very conscious of our energy usage. I drive an American car, a Ford Focus, but it's one of the highest fuel-economy cars.
I've been living an essentially vegan lifestyle since 1995, and that has led me to a condition of extraordinary health and clarity. Now, I'm not, as president, going to tell everyone what they have to eat, but I will share my own story about how the choices that I've made have meant, for myself, a better life, and a happier life. I'm 60 years old, but I'll bet that I'm in better physical shape than a lot of people a lot younger.
If George Bush were a plant or an animal, what kind of plant or an animal would he be?
I don't want to go there.
Fair enough. Would you spin it around on yourself? If you were a plant or animal, what kind would you be?
An eagle.
How so? Truly American?
No. Keenness of vision.
A video interview with Bill Moyers
The Yes Men reveal their next big stunt
A video interview with the Yes Men
Comments
View as Flat
davedenali Posted 3:21 am
01 Aug 2007
Permalink
peahen Posted 6:01 am
01 Aug 2007
Kucinich is my choice for President. Being a person who thinks, should define us, not jeopardize our well-being. Responsibility and sustainablity are co-dependent: what I do affects others and this must extend to the actions of our government. IF we do not support those who will bring this type of leadership to our country, more of the same that goes on today will continue - and it will get worse the longer this mindset prevails!
Permalink
samara Posted 6:42 am
01 Aug 2007
He has no chance of winning, but I admire his ideas and his life philosophy in general.
Permalink
jubyfouts Posted 7:14 am
01 Aug 2007
The only threat to our freedom besides GWB is too many in our Congress and Senate afraid to stand up like Dennis Kucinich. If enough of us had his fortitude Bush, Cheney and Rice would have been impeached long ago.
Permalink
askantik Posted 7:42 am
01 Aug 2007
We have to stop saying "he can't win." I will vote for the candidate who deserves it. If you don't, you should be ashamed. Don't vote for someone you don't think is the best just because you feel that Kucinich isn't as "electable." Let me just say now that that's BS. Vote for the one who should win-- if everyone does that then he DOES have a chance of winning.
For more information about Kucinich's environmental stance and plans, read the latest blog on my environmental awareness project: http://www.myspace.com/ecoaware
Permalink
gregcat Posted 7:48 am
01 Aug 2007
chad
Permalink
horrorz Posted 7:48 am
01 Aug 2007
- Albert Einstein
I know every Grist reader knows what the current situation in the world is today. We demand radical solutions to solve the tremondous problems were facing. It's obvious the two main democrat candidates we are being fed don't come even close to Kucinich's solutions.
We need to give this candidate the attention he needs, in the debates, and currently as a congressman. One way to do this is to support his current bill H. Res. 333( Dick Cheney's Impeachment). The goal is to impeach Cheney first then Bush.
I know you may say oh that's not going to happen as you would say Dennis Kucinich won't become President. And your right it won't happen...unless the people demand it. Do you still want to be fed only two choices?
Choices you aren't entire 100% satisfied with.We need to create a political situation where we drastically change the way things have been done in the past. Check out worldcantwait[dot]org
We need drastic solutions, like the ones Dennis is pushing, for the problems of the 21st Century.
This is what we want. Are you going to let it pass us by?
THE FUTURE IS UNWRITTEN THE ONE WE GET IS UP TO US.
Permalink
marylounoble Posted 7:54 am
01 Aug 2007
Marylou Noble
Permalink
swan Posted 7:58 am
01 Aug 2007
http://goodwordswan.wildflowerstew.com
Permalink
askantik Posted 8:03 am
01 Aug 2007
Permalink
raevynn Posted 8:29 am
01 Aug 2007
Permalink
davedenali Posted 9:52 am
01 Aug 2007
Permalink
rjones2818 Posted 11:42 am
01 Aug 2007
Permalink
DATSRIGHT Posted 4:49 pm
01 Aug 2007
Frankly, I wonder what you are doing here. Go on over to RED STATE with all the other old farts that don't understand quantum physics. I really don't have time to orient you, but I can pretty much give you the kindergarten version that surely even you can grasp. "Ill believe it when I see it"- old fart failure paradigm. OR "You'll see it when you believe it" - Quantum physics. Stop shooting the solution bearers in the foot, with your whining and histrionics. The changes that Dennis Kucinich speaks of, are not only possible but fueled by everyone in this country and the world, who can see that what has been being done is a death sentence. There is power in that awakening. Because you are still diddling around in the old fart loser mentality, does not make you right, or in the majority. So, either get with the New Math known as quantum physics, and stop condemning vision by your blindness. OR GET OUT OF THE WAY. BECAUSE VISION IS WHAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WANT. BECAUSE THE OTHER OPTION IS EXTINCTION.
GO DENNIS! THE WORLD APPLAUDS YOUR ETHICS AND YOUR VISION !
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 10:54 pm
01 Aug 2007
Permalink
askantik Posted 12:33 am
02 Aug 2007
Permalink
amc89 Posted 1:47 am
02 Aug 2007
Permalink
randino Posted 7:28 am
02 Aug 2007
I liked two things in his interview. The Works Green Administration, and his forthright opposition to the war in Iraq and American militarism.
Now, how about voting for him? Well, I will quote the late great Molly Ivins, who said she votes her heart in primaries, and her head in the general election. In Ohio, I will vote my heart and vote for Dennis. Then I will see what my head says.
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
smiley Posted 8:52 am
02 Aug 2007
Beyond that, however, it sounds like Kucinich would do to the whole country what he did to Cleveland as mayor. He is the only mayor of Cleveland whose portrait is not hanging in City Hall. He is regarded as one the worst big-city mayors of all time
Let met think about this, a US energy structure with no coal and no nuclear?
I can't imagine how anyone can take this geek seriously.
Permalink
randino Posted 11:29 am
02 Aug 2007
The reason that Kucinich had a disaster at city hall was in part due to an overly pugnacious style of politics that alienated potential allies and encouraged his opponents. Those opponents by and large were the great corporate powers of the city. The banks, the utility companies, the real estate industry basically launched a campaign to destabilize and in truth overthrow his administration. Not that some of his own actions, didn't play into their hands. Dennis's sin? He did not drop his drawers, bend over, spread his cheeks and let the corporadoes have their pleasure like most of the other mayors of Cleveland have. In short he was not a corporate whore - for which the city fathers have never forgiven him.
But he did save the city municipal power system, an accomplishment for which even his former enemies have had to credit him with. And no one, but no one, has ever made Dennis kiss their ring, or bow down to them.
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
2wheelsgood Posted 1:45 pm
02 Aug 2007
I like that Dennis is leading positively by example, e.g. his vegan lifestyle.
At this point, I look forward to voting for Dennis in the primaries, and in the general election to follow. It can't be soon enough!
It's Third Down and 25, on our own 5 yard line. Obama and Hillary are on the field too, but they're wanting to run a scramble play. We need a passing game to get us up where we need to go by 2020, and Kucinich is lining up some receivers with the wind, the solar, and the conservation, not to mention the peace. It's time to give him the ball.
Permalink
SenorPescado Posted 1:47 pm
02 Aug 2007
Peace
Senor Pescado
Permalink
askantik Posted 2:26 am
03 Aug 2007
Permalink
egms Posted 10:09 am
07 Aug 2007
He is visionary and idealistic and I believe that perhaps we are ready for a real change. Certainly all the pragmatists and political politicians are not doing very well right now. Dennis is the only one with a real vision of what we can do.
He is right that the candidates with connection to wall street and big money and big industry would find it very hard to make any real changes in our energy policies. that is probaalby the real reason that solar roofs and green local energy and electric cars are not being promulgated by any of the others. I only hope we can make it happen.
Vote for Dennis Kucinich!
Ellie
Permalink
Ngoc Posted 3:15 am
09 Aug 2007
I initially wanted Hillary because she is a woman (yes, it IS because she is a woman goshdarnit, how else do you think the feminist movement will move forward, not to mention how long it will take for another qualified woman to run for the White House?), but quite honestly I would be doing myself a disservice if I didn't stick with someone who really understands the link between prosperity and the environment.
Kucinich knows his stuff. Smart guy. Articulate. Confidant. And check out that wife of his. I'm hoping America is ready for him this time. Please, please, please be ready for it!
Permalink
Asteroid Miner Posted 9:52 pm
09 Aug 2007
11:10 25 July 2007
NewScientist.com news service
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12346-renew ...
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/07/rene ...
Phil McKenna
"Ramping up the use of renewable energy would lead to the "rape of nature", meaning nuclear power should be developed instead.
http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=recor ...
So argues noted conservation biologist and climate change researcher Jesse Ausubel in an opinion piece based on his and others' research.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18925361.50 ...
Ausubel (who New Scientist interviewed in 2006) says the key renewable energy sources, including sun, wind, and biomass, would all require vast amounts of land if developed up to large scale production - unlike nuclear power. That land would be far better left alone, he says.
Renewables are "boutique fuels" says Ausubel, of Rockefeller University in New York, US. "They look attractive when they are quite small. But if we start producing renewable energy on a large scale, the fallout is going to be horrible."
Instead, Ausubel argues for renewed development of nuclear. "
Permalink
Asteroid Miner Posted 10:04 pm
09 Aug 2007
cars and trucks." The land around wind turbines can NOT
be used for anything else because there have already been
cases of the 60 ton machine at the top of the tower coming
off and landing as far as 1/3 mile from the tower. Safety
requires that people and structures be kept at least 1/2 mile
from any wind turbine.
Coal: Download from:
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-
34/text/coalmain.html
Oak Ridge National Laboratory REVIEW
Volume 26 Numbers Three and Four, 1993
Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger?
Alex Gabbard
Emissions from burning coal include uranium and other
nuclear materials--potential hazards and resources.
If breeding is allowed, enough uranium and
thorium goes up the smokestack of an average coal fired
power plant to FULLY fuel 500 nuclear power plants of the
same capacity. A 1 billion watt coal fired power plant
burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of
uranium. Most of that is U238. About .7% is U235. 4
tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% = 56 pounds
of U235. An average 1 billion watt coal fired power plant
puts out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. That is
enough U235 to keep one nuclear power plant of the same
capacity running for a year, not counting the U238 to breed and the thorium to breed. There are only 2 places the
uranium can go: Up the stack or into the cinders. We Can
extract uranium and thorium from the smoke and cinders of
coal fired power plants.
Besides carbon, coal also contains:
Aluminum Chromium Molybdenum
Antimony Cobalt Nickel
Arsenic Copper Selenium
Barium Fluorine Silver
Beryllium Iron Sulfur
Boron Lead Titanium
Cadmium Magnesium Uranium
Calcium Manganese Vanadium
Chlorine Mercury Zinc
Thorium
Chinese industrial grade coal contains so
much arsenic that when people steal it for
cooking, the whole family dies of arsenic
poisoning.
We have only 200 years before we go extinct if
we keep on burning coal. See:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
from the October 2006 issue of Scientific American
article: "Impact from the Deep"
Carbon sequestration has 2 fatal flaws: "the capacity to
safely trap and store the CO2" and "permanently." There
is no safe way to confine trillions of tons of CO2 at high
pressure for eternity. Eternity is a lot longer than the
100000 years that people want nuclear "waste" to be
stored. The CO2 WILL leak out and suffocate millions of
people. AND the leaked CO2 will be right back where we
didn't want it, causing human extinction by global warming.
CO2 is denser than air and displaces air at ground level.
CO2 has caused suffocation in Africa. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1155057.stm
"Cameroon's 'killer lake' degassed"
"More than 1,700 people died after deadly gases spewed
from Lake Nyos 15 years ago. "
"In August 1986, the lake released a cloud of carbon
dioxide which hugged the ground and flowed down
surrounding valleys to suffocate thousands of local villagers
and animals.
The rare phenomenon also occurred at Lake Monoun in the
same volcanic zone two years earlier killing 34 people. "
Other gasses that were present in the CO2 were irrelevant
to this story because the CO2 alone was sufficient to do the
killing.
The CO2 storage facilities proposed by politicians who are
owned by coal companies, besides being prone to leak, will
be a target for terrorists. A terrorist has only to cause a
leak to kill more people than a nuclear bomb would. Leaks
are very easy to cause in high pressure containers. CO2
storage is a silent disaster that can't avoid happening.
[Why does CO2 not suffocate people near coal fired power
plants now? It is HOT CO2 that goes up smokestacks.
Being hot it is less dense so it goes up and disperses.
Stored CO2 is cool. A gas gets colder as it leaks out from
high pressure to low pressure. That is the secret of air
conditioning. CO2 at the same temperature as air is denser
than air because CO2 is a heavier molecule than N2 or O2.
The cold CO2 will stick to the ground and suffocate people
and other animals. No other gas is required to explain the
deaths in Cameroon. Here in the US, more CO2 will leak
out into areas with more people, so the death toll could be
in the millions.]
I have NO connection with or financial interest in the
nuclear power industry. I am NOT a spokesman for
anybody other than myself.
Permalink
askantik Posted 8:24 am
21 Aug 2007
Vote for SEABISCUIT in 2008!<
Permalink
yamisamre Posted 5:48 pm
18 Sep 2007
More on topic, Kucinich definitely has the right view in mind, and people need to vote for what they actually think is right. If people are content to lie down and be stepped all over even if they have the power and will to rise off the ground, our country will never see a large change in the area of environmental issues.
Permalink
moregreeneachday Posted 7:54 am
31 Oct 2007
Permalink
moregreeneachday Posted 8:10 am
31 Oct 2007
Forgive me, Dennis!!
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 10:17 am
01 Nov 2007
Most people to the left of mainstream Americans (for simplicity I include environmentalists, liberals, progressives, and radicals) vote pragmatically, which is often voting for the evil of two lessers. The ONLY result this strategy is capable of producing is maintaining the status quo. Sure, things under, say Clinton, would probably not be as bad as things under, say McCain, but the status quo will be maintained in all significant respects (Iran would still stand a good chance of being attacked by the U.S., the U.S. will continue to consume gluttonous amounts of everything, etc.). Also, it should be noted that a right wing Democrat like Clinton is virtually indistinguishable in her politics from a liberal Republican like Guiliani, meaning there would be virtually no difference between them.
If, on the other hand, you stick to voting for candidates who embody your political views, you will be seen as "wasting" your vote because your candidate has "no chance" of winning (I would argue that those who vote for the evil of the lessers are actually the ones wasting their votes). While the "no chance" claim is a self-fulfilling prophecy, we should be clear that the U.S. is a very right wing country, and a great candidate like Dennis Kucinich has very little realistic chance of ever even winning the Democratic primary, let alone the presidency (if he were elected president, those whose power and money he'd reduce or eliminate, like those who own and run the coal, oil, and auto industries, would probably have him killed). So you can certainly support and vote for good candidates, but you can't realistically expect them to win anything except election to local offices with relatively small constituencies.
HOWEVER, voting for quality candidates is the ONLY way, through electoral politics, to build toward real change. You might not see it in your lifetime or even in your grandchildrens', but it at least has a chance to accomplish meaningful, significant change. Those like Dave who advocate against voting for people like Dennis Kucinich because the latter won't sell out or cave in to the moneyed interests either don't want significant change or are too afraid of doing what it takes to accomplish it, which might be sacrificing battles in order to win the war. The reason that pragmatic politics "is about coalition-building and appealing to large blocs of voters," as Dave put it, is that it's also about maintaining the status quo (one way of maintaining the status quo is to appeal to the lowest common denominator, i.e., large blocs of voters). If you don't like the status quo, vote and work for someone like Kucinich who will actually do something to change it, not for candidates who are supported by moneyed interests and won't do anything to cause meaningful change.
Permalink
elehner Posted 6:37 am
19 Nov 2007
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 4:34 am
14 Dec 2007
where is ours for the true visionary of this election, who is not only against the war in iraq (which is where Paul gets most of his lefty votes), but who has the only even slightly fiscally and environmentally responsible platform?
decentralizing power generation, and decentralizing power (political and corporate) are the cornerstones of democracy. we have been barreling towards totalitarianism, with bush being the ultimate scary tyrant so far, and we need to reclaim our country.
one man, one vote. if everyone votes for him, he will win - who will you convince today?
Permalink