portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article united states

imperialism & war | media criticism | sustainability

From the Kucinich for President Campaign

This is a message that I received from the Dennis Kucinich Presidential Campaign. I am inspired by this man. I hope you will be too. He presents a great opportunity for the "developed world" to move in a different direction. At the very least, he presents an opportuntiy to challenge the self destructive policies of the corporate fudamentalist members of the "Democratic" party.
Dennis Kucinich
Dennis Kucinich
"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"

Many Kucinich for President activists have complained about how mass media
marginalize our candidate, belittle our chances, attack our policies. The
complaints are valid, but such coverage is exactly what we expected. Given
their bias and boosterism on the war, one could hardly expect these same
outlets to fully and fairly cover the presidential candidate who led antiwar
opposition in Congress.

The Kucinich campaign is no ordinary campaign; it is a movement campaign.
The mainstream media are not going to be any friendlier to us than to the
movements that animate our campaign: peace, labor, environmental, family
farm, consumer rights and every civil rights movement for equality and

Kucinich supporters have to be brave enough to keep building, recruiting and
organizing our grassroots campaign without validation from mainstream media.
"Don't count on the mainstream media to lead a social revolution," a former
New York Times reporter once said. "They won't even know about it for six
months."(In Seattle in 1999, when Kucinich joined thousands of labor and
environmental activists in protesting the WTO, no group was caught more
off-guard by events than mainstream media.)

We will of course continue fighting for access to mass media forums, reaching
out to conscientious journalists who work in the mainstream, and responding to
media attacks (often with your help/ see bottom) -- but our strategy must rely
in the coming months mostly on grassroots organizing, plus independent,
alternative outlets and the Internet.

Let's face it: as a result of deregulation that Dennis Kucinich has long opposed,
today's media are dominated by huge conglomerates. The three cable TV news channels
are now right, righter and rightist, and conservatives dominate opinion shaping
from radio and TV talkshows to syndicated columnists. Outlets formerly seen as
"liberal," including public broadcasting, are corporatized, timid or both, and
the spectrum of mass media opinion typically extends from GE to GM. U.S. coverage
of the war was denounced worldwide, even by the head of the BBC, as sanitized and

Given the narrowing center-right media spectrum, when Dennis Kucinich proposes
common-sense programs that are popular with most Democrats, and often most
Americans -- national health insurance, ending unfair trade treaties, returning
Social Security's retirement age to 65, cutting the bloated military budget,
reversing a reckless foreign policy to conform with international law and
treaties -- he is deemed beyond the pale by elite punditry.

To mainstream pundits, Lieberman has "serious" foreign policy views... because
they're so indistinguishable from Bush's. Gephardt has a "bold" health plan...
because it keeps the private insurance bureaucracy in the center of healthcare.
Dean is the "peace candidate"... because of a shallow critique, free of any talk
about cutting a military budget that almost equals the military spending of
all other countries combined.

Due to the grassroots nature of the Kucinich campaign and late start, our
fundraising and organizational apparatus are just getting going. Both will
be upgraded in the next months. While mainstream media may take note of that,
we should not count on mass media to legitimize a progressive campaign that
-- unlike those of Dean and Gephardt and Kerry -- seeks to transform the
policies of the Democratic Party and the nation.

The insurgent campaigns of Jesse Jackson in '88 and Jerry Brown in '92 got
little help from mainstream media and a lot of ridicule -- but they persevered
in spite of media attacks, and rocked the political process.

In recent weeks, Kucinich has been attacked by leading conservative commentators
and operatives -- including George Will and Mary Matalin. This is good news.
Let's keep building, recruiting, fundraising, organizing in Iowa and elsewhere,
and we'll earn more such attacks!

But don't count on the mainstream media to help us build a movement to transform
the party and country. They won't even know about it for six months... until we
rise up in the Iowa caucuses come January.

Spread the word about the Kucinich campaign [ http://www.kucinich.us]

Contribute to the Kucinich campaign [ https://www.kucinich.us/contribute.php]

Check out our new web feature 'Responses to Media'
[ http://www.kucinich.us/responses_media.htm], and join our effort to challenge
biased coverage.
Jumbo 21.May.2003 17:12

Dean supporter rainin' on the parade

"The insurgent campaigns of Jesse Jackson in '88 and Jerry Brown in '92 got
little help from mainstream media and a lot of ridicule -- but they persevered
in spite of media attacks, and rocked the political process. "

Uh...huh? As in they wasted a lot of people's time and money and had no effect on the national political discourse. This guy's not running for president, he's running for dictator of the proletariat. It's noble and (sorta) inspiring I suppose but I don't see how it will lead to anything but the Naderizing of the eventual Democratic nominee and therefore furthering the fascist rise of Herr Bush. I know Howard Dean's no knight-in-shining armor but he does have a much better chance of winning the nomination and could I suppose, maybe beat George Bush. This man, WILL NOT, be able to do either. He just plain won't. I mean I know I can sound like a jerk for saying that but it's still true. No? Hey, I like Peace, the Environment and Health Care just as much as the next guy. I voted for Nader in 2000. But are we playing to win or playing to prove some point? Do we not want Bush gone? I hope to the tree-goddess that getting rid of Bush is an uncontroversial, consensus opinion on this board. Is Kucinich going to do it? If (by some Deus ex Marxina) it's Kucinich and his movement vs. George W. Bush and Karl Rove in '04, who will win? Who will occupy the "King of the World" seat for four years? Who will be appointing judges and determing environmental policy? Kucinich or Bush? Someone explain to me how this guy wins and then maybe I'll quit whining about Howard Dean. Till then Dean '04. Meetup in a couple weeks. Go to dean2004.meetup.com

Why not 22.May.2003 00:53

just a though

People here seem to agree that we want Bush and Co out, and Someone Else (TM) in. It sounds like people here are split between Dean and Kucinich, and if things continue that way through the primaries, it may be that neither wins.

So the question ... Would it be possible for Dean and Kucinich to run together, for Pres. and V. Pres?

I'm thinking Dean could stand up to Bush better as candidate for President, and perhaps with Kucinich as his vice pres., we might actually move towards shrinking the military (and/or creating that Dept. of Peace Kucinich wants). Kucinich might realize he can't win this without more support from the media (unless he does a supper job with activist help, but that is a long shot), and although he'd have no real power as vice president, he'd be much more influential in his effort to create a dept. of peace as that rather than a congressman.

OK, I'll explain it to you if you promise to stop the whining 22.May.2003 01:53

What Thu

Jumbo Asks: "Someone explain to me how this guy [Dennis Kucinich] wins and then maybe I'll quit whining about Howard Dean."

Kucinich wins in several ways. He wins by maintaining his unflinching condemnation of illegal, unjustified war and of the continual bankrupting of the US economy with crippling military spending, spending used primarily to chase the ghosts of past policy disasters, and enrich treacherous organizations such as Halliburton, GE, Lockhead-Martain, Carlyle, and other corporate criminals, unlike Dean. Kucinich wins by promoting the abolition of anti-democratic anti-human institutions like the Patriot Act, NAFTA, and the WTO, unlike Dean. He wins by denouncing corporate mass murderers like Monsanto for attempting to destroy the world's food supply, and replace it with something they own and control, unlike Dean. Kucinich wins by protecting valuable public assets from the plunder of privatization by anti-public corporations such as Bechtel, unlike Dean. Kucinich wins the Presidential election by demonstrating to the American public that our present course is not in their interests unless they are interested in Armageddon. He wins by demonstrating that the current economic policies are not in the interest of the American people, except those few that already have a couple billion set aside.

More specifically, Kucinich wins by gaining more votes than his opponent, obviously. This may still be possible since electronic voting machines are not yet used as the primary method of voting, to my knowledge. Kucinich has been elected, is elected, and currently holds office as a US Congressman. To say that he is unelectable is without basis. Jimmy Carter was an unknown, and wasn't even a politician, yet he was elected as President of the United States. Kucinich wins simply by challenging the backward views of supposed "left wingers" like Kerry, Gephart, LEEEEEEEEEEEEberman, as well as seemingly poser candidates with 'pretty good' sounding platforms, like Dean.

If Bush actually wins a US Presidential election, so be it. We will have a nation that firmly embraces fascism and empire, and those of us who are opposed to that model of government will have some tough choices to make. The fourth amendment will probably still be in place, and might come in handy at that point. I doubt it will come to that though. Empires have a way of falling all on their own, and as overextended as this one is becoming, it probably won't take very long.

Prove your accusations of Howard Dean 16.Jun.2003 09:28

Michael hawkboy@mind.net

I am another of those on the fence about Kucinich vs Dean. The previous commentator called Dean a poser on issues like WTO, Nafta, etc. I have heard Dean speak out against those very issues so I am wondering where the writer got his information because, if true, this would swing my vote toward Kucinich. I have found a few chinks in Kucinch's armour which concern me. He just changed his mind (flip-flopped) on womens right to choose, after a career of voting against women. He voted FOR Bush's right to go to war saying he supported the troops, not Bush. You can check this in the Congressional voting record.

I am not against Kucinich, nor am I for Dean, but if there is a truth here, I want the record to be accurate. I need to know the truth. I like both of them, but need evidence to support their claims. When we voted for Nader, many of us did not know that he owned mutual funds and other investments in Monsanto, ADM and even Enron. He argued after the election that he didn't make a conscious decision to do so and his broker had made inadvertant, ill advised investments for him. Well, this would have changed my mind and I think before I make a decision as important as this next President, I want to be sure I don't support someone who will, once again place a murdering, idealistic,demagogue in power. You may think that electing Gore wasn't any better than Bush at the time, but anyone who thinks that now is not living in the real world. There are many issues, like national infrastructure, which Kucinich has left unaddressed. Progress comes slowly. If you think by voting for someone who is passionate on only your issues you are supporting some noble cause, and your actions set us back 100 years, you have just become a "Conservative Enabler". Republicans will welcome you with open arms. Kucininch or Dean, I don't know yet. But let's support our statements with facts. It's too important to let passion overrule reality.

Kucinich did not vote for war resolution! 18.Jun.2003 11:49

Jean, I volunteer for Dennis Jean_Robertson@msn.com

Dennis is the only presidential candidate that did not vote for the Iraq war resolution, in fact he led the Congressional opposition against it, garnering around 120 democrats' votes against. Considering that the administration was counting on a nearly unanimous vote, like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution had gotten, Dennis' leadership proved considerable.
Dennis continues to lead on Capitol Hill in challenging the deceit that
led us to war in Iraq,  http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_kucinich/0618031min.html

Dennis is also the only candidate to vote against the Patriot Act, and is the only candidate advocating the repeal of Nafta and WTO agreements, and for establishing universal health care. Dennis will work to create a peace dividend by cutting unnecessary weaponry and spending and waste in the Pentagon and instead investing in infrastructure and other pressing dopmestic needs. Please do go to www.kucinich.us and see what Dennis is about.

Another good place to find out about Dennis is the Nation magazine article "Kucinich is the One" by Studs Terkel:
Thank you for listening. I have nothing against Howard Dean, or the other candidates for that matter. But I'm volenteering for Dennis Kucinich. Dennis is as honest as they come, as earnest, and hardworking. He introduced legislation to create a cabinet level Department of Peace, and to prevent the militarization of space. Here at home, he's busted his ass to help our steel families and to save a neighborhood hospital, for example.
any questions or comments about my big long intrusion here :-) please feel free to email me at  Jean_Robertson@msn.com
thanks again, Jean in Cleveland, Ohio
New news, from the campaign: Ralph Nader has invited Dennis to speak at a mass rally in Baltimore, Thurs. June 26.  http://democracyrising.org/baltimore/

He did vote for "Use of Force" Bill which gave Bush absolute power. 18.Jun.2003 12:59

hawkboy hawkboy@mind.net

According to the Congressional Voting Record of 2001, Dennis did indeed vote for the "Use of Force" Bill which gave Bush absolute power to use at his discretion against anyone he believed was connected to 9/11 without requiring proof of any sort. The only vote against this Bill was Rep Lee of California.

Dennis only began fighting for women's rights when he decided to tun for President . Prior to that he voted against women at every opportunity. This makes me nervous about his "real" position.

I am not saying he is not the best candidate here, nor am I endorsing him, but let's tell the truth. All of it. No strategic ommissions. No politics, no bullshit.

Kucinich please explain this! 15.Jul.2003 07:51

hawkboy hawkboy@mind.net

I am still deciding between Dean and Kucinich with Kerry as an absolutely last resort, but this clip from today's Washington Post really disturbs me;

MIAMI BEACH, July 14 -- Three Democratic presidential contenders alienated the leadership of the nation's largest civil rights organization today by skipping the candidates forum at the annual NAACP convention, an event attended by 6,000 members from chapters nationwide.

NAACP President Kweisi Mfume described the absent candidates -- Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and Reps. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) and Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio) -- as "persona non grata" whose "political capital is now the equivalent of Confederate dollars."

His excuse is that he pledged to not miss any votes, but there was adequate time for this meeting and voting. It doesn't fly and it really disappoints me.


and you know this because... ? 16.Jul.2003 14:36


How do you know there was time for both?

From my understanding, his voting record was not a "pledge" for the campaign... it's just that he's ALWAYS insisted on being there to do the job he was elected for.