When Democrats stop voting for Republicans in the name of “faith,” “national security,” “economic growth,” or any other amoral aspect of nationalistic narcissism, THEN they can start whining about the Naders and other challengers from the left. Until then, they’re just trying to distract from the very real and demonstrable fact that they are more in agreement with the party of George W. Bush than they are with the left.

Beginning your piece, I thought, “Well, 2007 is not 2000.” Then I thought, “2007 is not 2004.” Then, why compare Wallace, Anderson, and Perot with a possible Kucinich, now? Now is two thousand and seven, or eight to be exact. And why say, “Simply announcing a third party run without…a base” will be a loser? — would we be “simply announcing,” and is it like it’s always been in past years, when third parties got stomped?

Maybe my not having followed the “sectarian battles within the (Green Party) organization described elsewhere on this website,” like you have, gives me a little less historical-intellectual perspective, and that’s a good thing. I don’t see any reason to give Kucinich or any of his potential supporters a lot of intellectual hooey based on past history (I love THAT EXPRESSION), when for crying out loud, the man has enough sense to realize he might get shot. Or do you think the neocons have turned everything else in the country back, but haven’t restored the good ole days of American Presidential politics, when national elections without assassinations were like Halloween without ghouls?

He’s running on Peace. Not anti-war. He’s pretty clear. In fact he’s the clearest thinker in the race bar none.

He provides an alternative to war, and alternatives to preditory capitalism not by being anti- to satisfy a handful of people who don’t even vote. He understands that economic solutions come from a new model of sustainability.

Free trade is a problem; fundamentalism of the market per corporate globalization is the problem. We have models that can replace this pathology. Kucinich has read and embraces Henry George – Progress and Poverty. He understands what creates poverty and what can change that. He knows how cooperative business models are proven for centuries as alternatives to the monolithic corporate models. Cooperatives are human-scaled and can readily service social services, quality food, alternative energy, and health care as well as manufacturing sectors. That are the answer to the TINAists.

As far as his run for the Pres. of USA, it’s futile. He should not be running on the war party. Both parties are anachronistic. They will not change, but they hold incredible power.

Kucinich has provided explicit and implict signs that he understands this but can’t seem to get off the notion that he can change the conversation and perhaps sneak by as a darkhorse. Ah, even if possible, then what?

I see many a Republican presented with the inescapable truth of their party go to Paul as a final bastion …so I am at least partly glad that people who never used to think for themselves are at least forced to consider unimaginable reality when singing praises for Paul. Maybe it’s an introduction into things they thought only reserved for “left wing Commie whacko’s” which will lead them to where you stand.

I agree with the various analyses that express bewilderment as to why he stays in the Democratic Party.

Speaking of bewilderment, an earlier comment here caught my eye….what is with these people who pop up all over the internet and seem to be progressive to one degree or another, ot at least pretty liberal, and then promote Ron Paul as some kind of savior for the left?

WTF? Folks, I am a recovering libertarian. I drank the capitalist Kool-Aid for years in the 1970’s. I voted for Ron Paul when he was the 1988 LP candidate for president. Hello…….this guy wants to abolish all federal cabinet departments except for defense……he wants to abolish the FDA, OSHA, the minimum wage, NHTSA, the FAA……shall I go on? He wants to bring back the gold standard. He is, as is every libertarian, an almost mystically fanatical proponent of the “free market.” He, like every libertarian, looks at Milton Friedman the way Mormons look at Joseph Smith.

Being against the war and against NAFTA isn’t enough. Why on earth would the person I described above appeal to anybody even remotely progressive/liberal?

DG

An excerpt:

———————————-

As things stand now, Kucinich’s main function on the national stage is to provide a fig leaf for the Democrats on their left flank, and to sap the energies of progressives by giving them a safe establishment figure on whom to focus their time and effort. By continuing to be a token progressive in a party full of utterly compromised corporate centrists, he’s only undermining his own causes and enervating his natural allies.

In my opinion, “socialism” has no more been tried in modern conditions than Communism or Christianity, to throw out a couple of C-words. And I can’t imagine anyone arguing seriously that the forms of (nation-sized) mixed-socialist-capitalist things we’ve seen have more than extremely tenously embodied anti-capitalist principles.

To keep a Kucinich-option open is simply good sense. Because with only a slight turn of the kaleidoscope — like a launch against Iran — the issue could, could become survival, and not good sense.