NEWS: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul: Antiwar Cred Ignored?

POLITICS: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul: Antiwar Cred Ignored?

Of the current field of candidates in both major political parties for US President, only two men had the fuckin' brains to vote against Bush’s War in Iraq back in ‘02. So why is it that Congressmen Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Ron Paul (R-TX) are considered nutso, fringe candidates? They’re obviously smarter than Hillary, McCain, Biden and the rest of those windbags who now claim they were fooled or misled in 2002 . Obama wasn’t in the Senate yet and didn’t have to vote. Sure, now everybody is against the war (well, Manchurian Candidate McCain still thinks it was a good idea) but back then only Kucinich and Paul actually called it like they saw it and voted against authorizing the President to go to war.

From a quantum physics perspective, one can take comfort in the thought that in an alternate universe the US never went to war with Iraq and instead spent the Clinton budget surplus on infrastructure, education and booze. But in this reality, nearly everyone in the country thinks the War was a bad idea or at least has been fucked up beyond repair. Kucinich and Paul have undeniable "I told you so” rights and should be all over the media explaining why they knew all along it’d be a fiasco while the rest of the pack was dead wrong.

But let's face it, Kucinich and Paul have been mostly frozen out of free broadcast media coverage and neither man has enough money to buy advertising. Sure, Bill Maher likes them both, but you gotta have HBO to watch his show. Meanwhile the mainstream media has already named the race’s 1st and 2nd tier candidates and predictably Kucinich and Paul failed to make the cut. Paul did get a news boost at the South Carolina Republican debate after Gulliani demanded an apology for his suggestion that the US was attacked on 9/11 because of flawed US Foreign Policy in the Middle East. While the media and most Republicans jumped on his comments (silly Congressman, they hate us because we’re free!), the contrary Texan’s viewpoint struck a chord with the TV audience as Paul finished second on Fox News’ opinion poll on who won the debate.

Kucinich could get his own news bump if his official campaign to impeach Dick Cheney ever gains steam (Kucinich has formally begun the impeachment process against the VP in Congress). Nancy Pelosi has said “impeachment is off the table” in regards to Bush but Kucinich is betting there’s still a chance to make the VP face the music before the term ends. Bringing Cheney down is the only way Dennis Kucinich will ever be able to tear the attention away from Hillary/Obama/Edwards.

If the main issue of the 2008 election is the Iraq war, doesn’t it make sense to be listening to the guys who made the right decision in the first place?

I am adding a comment, so that this piece of news isn't ignored.

No. Kucinich is a fucking lunatic and horrible leader, as I have written a previous article explaining and Paul is a straight up racist.

Fuck them both. Your war view does not excuse you from being class a asshole.

Beware blaming people for making poor choices based on incorrect information.

On the other hand, going to war without a plan isn't exactly a good idea, regardless of the reasons for going. So in that respect, they might be on to something. But I'm still inclined to forgive the rest of the candidates for their poor choice in voting for war.

Why isn't ANYONE reporting on the fact that any "troop withdrawal" that the democrats WERE foaming at the mouth for, is a moot point when the Bush administration wants to have a "permanent presence" in Iraq- a la the Korean peninsula?

You can "officially" withdraw all the troops you want, but if this asshole can make signing statements to ANY bill he wants without a check on that "authority" he's still the King; and the "New Congressional majority" Dems are STILL a hot wind-blowing rubber stamp that talks tough but ends up bowing to the whim of the PNAC-ers in charge.

I'm looking at YOU Cheney, ya bastard!


*EDIT*- okay, it was on the boards yesterday or so here, but it's been rarely reported anywhere beyond democracy now! and Pacifica, but still...

SG, you keep me informed. Money well spent!

**Actually the "right" people knew aLOT about what was going on, but they had
plans already.

Flawless, impenetrable logic right here.

Wow. That may be the smartest thing I've ever read. (I am *not* being sarcastic.) (And unfortunately, I don't know how to say "I'm not being sarcastic." without sounding sarcastic. How sad is that?)

You could say that again. But then the media'd have to acknowledge their own complicity. (Silence is an act.)

What Clinton budget surplus?


oh yeah! that one CNN made up!

Okay, I get it.

Forgive me for being thed token non-anti Iraq/Afgan war guy in the bunch. Now don't get me wrong we need a plan to stabilize and begin withdrawls but I still do not buy into the thought that our actions as a whole were wrong. Yes Yes I know its popular and mainstream to say we were and everyone has to be on that band wagon but do we really need anymore fringe lunitics in charge? Bush is not the man I would want to stay running our country but he was still far better than the alternative and now you want to place people who are as stated Racists and lunatics pushing there own agendas only because they didn't support the war from the onset? Grow the fuck up and look at more than the one issue that is trendy to be looked at. Trust me who ever gets elected will effect a lot more than just the war in the Middle East.

I'm willing to give them props for seeing the war for what it was from the beginning. Nonetheless, the presidency is far too important a position to elect anyone to on a single issue. And on pretty much everything else, they are nutso fruitbats that I want far, far from the Oval Office.

While I agree with Paul and Kucinich on their anti-war stance and opposition from the beginning (thank goodness there were a few rational people who made the correct choice), that does not immediately give them the keys to the oval office. Sure they get "I told you so" bragging rights, but beyond that, they're really going to have to bring something else to the table in order to prove themselves worthy of being the next president. It's kind of like Gulliani running on the old "Fear and Terror" ticket, its the only thing he's got going for him, which is why he may lose the Repubelickin ticket. As far as Guliani goes, I suspect capitalizing on 9/11 will probably backfire pretty quick in the general election if he does win the confidence of his party. Many are going through fear fatigue thanks to the sitting pResident and probably won't have the stomach for an even more zealous terror hound. That's my opinion anyway.

[EDIT]malkav11 you beat me by a few short minutes with that comment...

I call BULLSHIT.

I happen to know people who associate with Ron Paul and I have also spoken with the man numerous times. He's no racist.

He has acknowledged that those printed statements were NOT written by him, but since it was a newsletter using his name (The Ron Paul Report), he took moral responsibility.

He has also written articles that oppose racism.

Maybe next time, you shouldn't be such an asshat and actually do some real research on your subject.

Well, that settles it then.

Ron Paul is not a stated racist. That allegation has already been disproven weeks ago.

But Ron Paul did not enter the race as a one issue candidate. The media is making him out to be a one issue candidate due to his televised 'back and forth" with Benito Giuliani. He has much, much more to say beyond the reasonable noninterventionist stance he takes.

Gosh, really? You mean you can't base an entire presidency on standing on the rubble of the WTC and waving a mission accomplished banner?

Who woulda thunk it?

Like, er, what?

Yeah, that's just the level of management skills I want from a potential President.

Pick the snarky answer you find most amusing:

1) Because they are nutso fringe candidates, Blanche, they are!

2) Because even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

Patrick Buchanan was against the Iraq War from the beginning, does that make him any less of a nutso fringe wacko?

Apparently, that makes him smarter than everyone else.

This statement is a blatant lie. Stop spewing disinformation FR.

MUST SEE RON PAUL VIDEO
Ron Paul: Stop Dreaming

Ron Paul 2008

MP3 Archive of Ron Paul Speeches & Interviews

Ron Paul Forums

You prefer "Ron Paul was so inept at publishing a tiny newsletter that he allowed incredibly offensive racist material to be published as his opinion and then took over a decade to even get around to denying it was his writing. This level of managerial ineptitude should disqualify him from being elected dogcatcher."?

The point is this incident has nothing to do with the issues. It's a smear tactic.

No, it shows that either Ron Paul used to be a blatant fucking racist and is now hiding from his past now that the national spotlight is on him, or he's so fucking inept at managing his affairs that his judgment needs to be called into question. Neither is a "smear tactic".