a liberal, Dennis Kucinich was nearly the ideal
candidate. He was strong on individual freedoms,
national health, controlling the predations of
corporations, and preventing complete corporate
takeover of the media.
still, he had a proven track record of being willing
and able to fight for his beliefs, and the 85%
approval ratings in his home congressional district
showed that he could do his job competently and
was he an outsider with little national exposure.
Clear back in the 1970s he made his mark -- and
became an American hero -- as the "boy mayor"
of Cleveland. He stood up to conglomerates then,
just as he does now. He is an effective and able
Congressman, which gave him substantially more
political experience toward being President than
about half the other candidates running, including
the corporate media wrote him off immediately.
Not that they are solely to blame; Kucinich didn't
do well in the debates, coming across as shrill
and a bit twitchy. But even then, he usually made
the strongest points, sometimes drawing big ovations
from the crowds.
is being made of the fact that both presidential
candidates are millionaires who attended the same
schools and joined the same secret societies (and
the tin foil hat crowd is going nuts over the
Skull and Bones thing, that is, when they aren't
busily crisping all their twenty dollar bills
in the microwaves to see if Andrew Jackson's right
eye explodes and catches fire -- a client came
in with some oddly brown twenties to report that
it does not).
doesn't mean that there aren't huge differences
between the two candidates, or that they are both
necessarily captives of the same interests. Anyone
who thinks all wealthy people are necessarily
malign, fascistic and antipathetic to workers
and the American people in general need only consider
two well-known traitors to their class: Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, and George Soros. And sometimes,
Warren Buffet. Rich don't mean evil, it doesn't
even mean greedy, shortsighted and stupid. Even
if it is the way to bet.
the media simply figured that Kerry, like Putsch,
was of the Deserving Class, one of our natural
born rulers, and so promoted him, while ignoring
Kucinich and pouncing on Dean.
surprise there. Kerry, being rich, must have seemed
"safe" to the corporate lickspittles of the media.
both Dean and Kucinich each were not wholly undeserving.
Dean did overplay the "angry" angle and it blew
up in his face, and Kucinich seemed to think in
this age of "hot media" that earnestness would
overcome a lack of showmanship. I wish he was
right, but he wasn't.
both would have had fair chances if the election
system wasn't so rigged. And given fair chances,
one or the other might be presidential nominees.
want a greater diversity of voices in the campaigns?
You want congressional races that aren't so lopsidedly
in favor of the incumbents? You want the VOTERS
to decide someone has been in office long enough,
and not have to rely on arbitrary and capricious
"term limit" laws? You want to see Greens, or
Libertarians, or Reform, or Natural Law, or one
of the hundreds of other minor parties get some
coverage, and have a chance to present their views
to reporters and the public?
want elections where the media isn't pushing hard
for the candidate who will strive the hardest
to make the parent companies of the media even
more rich and powerful?
not going to happen until we change the rules
of the game. And yes, WE have to change those
rules. The elected reps are beneficiaries of the
present system, and while some are honest and
earnest enough to vote for change, they are up
against an entrenched coterie that will do everything
in their power to weaken or gut any such reform.
believe that? Take a look at what McCain-Feingold
has accomplished in this election cycle.
can't keep money out of politics, and it's foolish
to try. Money always finds a way, and this year,
the loophole is in the "527s", the independent
non-partisan advocacy groups that aren't affiliated
with any party, but in most cases have a recognizable
political stance. In some ways, that's actually
an improvement over the old system, but it's still
limiting the number of voices that can be heard,
and, in many cases, organizations exist to PREVENT
discourse and discussion through propaganda and
best way I know of to improve this system, to
make it so the Kuciniches, and yes, the Pat Buchanans
and the Ralph Naders and the libertarians and
the peace & freedom people can be heard and can
be elected, is to push for Clean Campaign reform.
the voluntary public funding system, in place
in four states, that gives any office-seeker a
choice. The candidate can EITHER accept donations
from private sources, OR accept public financing
up to the greatest amount spent by the most lavish
candidate in the last election cycle.
a cycle where Putsch has raised $150 million,
and guys like Soros are pledging millions (or
even billions, if that's what it takes) to unseat
Putsch, Kucinich only raised $2 million. It's
no wonder most voters don't even know what he
LOOKS like, let alone what his stances are.
if Kucinich were able to get 5,000 signatures,
and $100,000 in donations nationwide, and qualify
for up to $110 million -- the amount spent by
Putsch in the last election cycle.
you might know a bit more about Kucinich right
about now? I bet a lot of you, reading this, are
signatures and donations numbers -- which I admit
are just off-the-cuff amounts that I conjured
up for a hypothetical clean campaign-style presidential
run -- are what separate minor, but credible candidates
from 400 pound nuns with beards, Opus the Penguin,
and every flake who ran for governor of California
election cycle is make or break for America --
free people against the fascists, and the media,
owned by the beneficiaries of a fascist system,
are going to be pressing hard for a Putsch reelection.
If he gets it, it probably won't matter what the
American people do; their voice will be meaningless.
if we can survive this election and remain a free
people, we can steer away from the dangers of
plutocratically selected and elected politicians,
and return the voices of the campaign back to
those who should have been funding this public
service right from the start: the people.
Posted: March 13, 2004