Kucinich or Sharpton?

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Not surprisingly, there has been a lot of talk on the forum about the candidates the Democratic Party is fielding against Bush in 2004. Not surprisingly, the seven centrists of the nine candidates get no affection from this board.

There are two promising candidates: Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and the Rev. Al Sharpton, and they are the preferred candidates of this forum.

My question is this: Sharpton seems to get more attention and affection. Why is this? Is there something wrong with Kucinich? If Kucinich is good, why is Sharpton so much better in the eyes of certain comrades here.

Please defend your Dem of choice...

[Al Creed]

Sharpton gets more attention because, pretty much, he has spent his entire life in the public eye (He was ordained as a minister at the age of 10). He is a well-known equal rights advocate.

If I had my choice, I would have Al Sharpton as Presidential Candidate, and Kucinich as Runningmate. Both have very good ideas, and I think would form an excellent administration.

Come to think of it, a bookcase would form a much better administration than Jee-Dubya.

[SonofRage]

I think Sharpton gets more attention because he really is a very good speaker so that makes him stay in people's minds. I like them both but I think Sharpton has some baggage.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

It is true that Sharpton gets much better media attention. He seems to get on to any politics program in the mainstream as a talking head--granted, he is among the very best of the talking heads.

Kucinich gets next to no attention from the media. Like most members of the House of Representatives, he almost never gets on the networks.

Of course, it seems that most of the comrades here are into politics far enough that they know about Kucinich. Why is he not more popular?

[Al Creed]

I think you're right, but compared to GW, Al's baggage looks like a change purse

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Sharpton does have a well-deserved reputation for being a great speaker. You are right about that, SonofRage...

Kucinich is also a powerful speaker--granted, his voice is somewhat less appealing.

There are many whispers about Sharpton's "baggage." What have been his major errors?

[SonofRage]

Sharpton's major baggage comes from a case many years ago where a black woman cut herself and covered herself with excrement then claimed she was raped by white police officers in a hate crime. Sharpton was very vocal in his defense of her (I believe her name was Tawana Brawley) and he ended up getting sued for slander or defamation. He lost the slander case and has never apologized or admitted wrong doing to this day. His fines ended up being paid by some wealthy African-American supporters.

Sharpton also has a reputation as being something of an opportunist who turns any crime against an African-American into a racial issue.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Hmm... I see...

I thank you for the quick answer. I still find his actions credible and appropriate far more often than not. He was arrested for protesting U.S. weapons testing at Vieques, Puerto Rico... civil disobedience is commendable. No other candidate for president can say that.

[SonofRage]

That the thing with Sharpton though, his good actions are overshadowed by his opportunist reputation (whether it's real or just perceived). I always say that no matter which Dem gets the nomination, I'd love to see Sharpton as Press Secretary. :D

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I agree that Sharpton would make a good addition to any progressive administration. I have also noticed many progressives who shy away from him--probably for his reputation. I do worry that he may be so personally scandalous that he would be politically unelectable.

[Umoja]

I think by being a so-called "radical black leader", he's far more in the position for being a progressive canidate, his actions have essentially forced him to adopt a leftist view. Which is why he won't be the Democratic canidate.

[Al Creed]

All things in life are possible, as long as you work for them.

And Al Sharpton, from what Ive seen, has worked the hardest

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It's funny seeing you support a democrat when your avatar says they're the same as republicans.
In that case, why aren't you supporting W?

[Rastafari]

I don't think either will win the Democratic nomination, because neither have that money.

[Indysocialist]

Kucinich isn't taking contributions from big corporations, that's why he's not getting the money. But he's the one I'm pulling for anyway. For God sake we need to get rid of this fucking Patriot Act, that thing scares the shit out of me, and who know's what's going to be on Patriot Act II?

[SonofRage]

I don't think Dean is taking corporate money either but he's raising a shitload of cash. A lot of it through small donations.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 02:03 AM
I don't think Dean is taking corporate money either but he's raising a shitload of cash. A lot of it through small donations.
Which is an excellent sign, because if it pays off and he wins through small cash contributions being around 40 to 60 dollars a person and not 2000 a person, it will show that there is a possibility of a true grassroots movement in the U.S. This has potential to make things possible and to show the American people that it is also possible and maybe motivate that 30 to 50% that is unwilling to participate or feels disillusioned by politics.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I would really like to have something good to say about Kucinich and Dean - but I saw them debate and they sucked balls. Really - they embarrassed themselves totally and looked about as convincing as the Iraqi Information Minister. I'm not saying they are liars - they just really suck at public speaking when it comes down to inspiring people.

Sharpton on the other hand was alive with emotion - I got the feeling he believed every single word he uttered and would die to defend them. I like that :)

I would most like to see him run - if only because it would FINALLY break the barrier of blacks running for president on behalf of the major parties. It's about time, too...

--- G.

p.s. my second choice would be Clarke because he could steal so many votes from Bush - military people and such - and he can speak honestly about what war is REALLY like because he has been there

[Al Creed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 03:17 AM
It's funny seeing you support a democrat when your avatar says they're the same as republicans.
In that case, why aren't you supporting W?
I support Al Sharpon because, unlike the rest, Save Kucinich, he doesn't think like a Republican.

And Ive been meaning to change that avatar for a while, thanks for reminding me

[redstar2000]

Isn't it funny how seductive bourgeois politics is?

We all "know" that it does not matter who lives in the White House--it could just as well be a troupe of baboons.

But people "love" to speculate about it...like the "romantic" ups and downs of soap opera stars.

It's clearly "the greatest show on earth".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by Exploited Class+Nov 10 2003, 04:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Exploited Class @ Nov 10 2003, 04:53 AM)
[email protected] 10 2003, 02:03 AM
I don&#39;t think Dean is taking corporate money either but he&#39;s raising a shitload of cash. A lot of it through small donations.
Which is an excellent sign, because if it pays off and he wins through small cash contributions being around 40 to 60 dollars a person and not 2000 a person, it will show that there is a possibility of a true grassroots movement in the U.S. This has potential to make things possible and to show the American people that it is also possible and maybe motivate that 30 to 50% that is unwilling to participate or feels disillusioned by politics. [/b]
That is potentially a good sign. But are you sure that he is not getting a lot of money from big corporations or special interests? Does anyone know where his money is really coming from?

Personally, Dean&#39;s money does not impress me terribly. First of all, his politics are Republican-lite. He has even said he is to the right of Bush on some issues&#33; Second of all, Bush is going to raise &#036;200-250 million dollars. There is NO Democrat who can raise that much money.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 11:59 PM
We all "know" that it does not matter who lives in the White House--it could just as well be a troupe of baboons.

Oooh, the baboons get my vote&#33;&#33; Imagine the press conferences&#33; =D

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Oh, and btw Bush has about 85 million bucks so far and expects to top out around 120-170 million &#036;. I think the Democrats are all under ten million - with Dean expected to manage to raise a couple of dozen at most.

--- G.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 09:59 AM
Isn&#39;t it funny how seductive bourgeois politics is?

We all "know" that it does not matter who lives in the White House--it could just as well be a troupe of baboons.
Clearly, I do not consider bourgeois politics to be the most important tactics for radical or even terribly progressive change. I am not, however, bothered by spending a few hours a week digging through transcripts of Dems&#39; speeches.

I see a difference between having George Bush in the White House and having an Al Gore or a Dennis Kucinich there. Because we have Bush, we have to deal with Ashcroft... with the spectre of making people disappear under the Patriot Act or the proposed "Patriot II"...

With the chilling atmosphere of a police state, how will we get the workers to take a risk the magnitude of embracing radical politics? Such an action will put them under surveillance--many are sure to shy away under these conditions. We should champion politicians who are willing to keep this country relatively free--to better our chances of organization. This country is not enough of a blatant police state to stir people to illegal organizations...

[(*]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 10:59 AM


We all "know" that it does not matter who lives in the White House--it could just as well be a troupe of baboons.


Yes and No.

There will be major differences in terms of domestic policy, but foreign policy will stay the same.

Iraq will still be attacked (whether by daily bombings or full-scale war), Israel will be greatly supported, and the 3rd world will continue to be raped. All while the US contributes to more than 1/3 of the worlds pollution.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by (*@Nov 10 2003, 11:25 AM
There will be major differences in terms of domestic policy, but foreign policy will stay the same.

Iraq will still be attacked (whether by daily bombings or full-scale war), Israel will be greatly supported, and the 3rd world will continue to be raped. All while the US contributes to more than 1/3 of the worlds pollution.
I would agree with that completely. A Democrat in the White House will likely lead to better environmental protection, better funding for education and health care, and other measures that will help Americans (and the half-assed Green sentiment is good for the rest of the world).

Democrats are nationalists and imperialists. This is taken for granted, and is the reason why real leftists do not join the Democratic Party. But their greater devotion to personal liberty allows us to speak out against these flaws in their program...

[Iepilei]

The beauty of bourgeoise politics lies in it&#39;s uninfluential movement. Sure, every so often a president comes along who makes some sort of change - but it&#39;s usually as a result of a growing tension between the unheard voice of the people and Washington itself. President elects rarely do anything to shape growth outside of a notable few. They&#39;re too afraid that they won&#39;t be elected by the middle-roaders who know next-to-nothing about the politics of the world, that they do not act in the better interests of the nation itself nor it&#39;s constituents.

It&#39;s proof that society CAN indeed exist without a government. :lol:

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Marxist in Nebraska+Nov 10 2003, 11:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Marxist in Nebraska @ Nov 10 2003, 11:03 AM)
Originally posted by Exploited [email protected] 10 2003, 04:53 AM

[email protected] 10 2003, 02:03 AM
I don&#39;t think Dean is taking corporate money either but he&#39;s raising a shitload of cash. A lot of it through small donations.
Which is an excellent sign, because if it pays off and he wins through small cash contributions being around 40 to 60 dollars a person and not 2000 a person, it will show that there is a possibility of a true grassroots movement in the U.S. This has potential to make things possible and to show the American people that it is also possible and maybe motivate that 30 to 50% that is unwilling to participate or feels disillusioned by politics.
That is potentially a good sign. But are you sure that he is not getting a lot of money from big corporations or special interests? Does anyone know where his money is really coming from?
[/b]
I haven&#39;t heard of Dean receiving corporate money in all the criticisms of him I&#39;ve heard. Also, if I&#39;m not mistaken, they are required to diclose the identities of all their donors.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 01:49 PM
I haven&#39;t heard of Dean receiving corporate money in all the criticisms of him I&#39;ve heard. Also, if I&#39;m not mistaken, they are required to diclose the identities of all their donors.
Who have you heard criticize Dean?

Secondly, yes, I believe donors have to be disclosed. Where can this information be found for Dr. Dean?

[SonofRage]

I was referring to criticisms of Dean in the left-wing newspapers. They have criticized him of being Republican-Lite but I have yet to see any claims of him being beholden to corporate interests.

[Exploited Class]

Off of my website, Your guide to the money in U.S. elections. www.opensecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/)

I haven&#39;t looked on there yet to see where all his money is coming from, I am sure he is getting money from corporations but it isn&#39;t his bulk. I have a friend that is a big Dean fanatic and visits Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/) a website for Dean. The "Bulk" of his money is coming from small donations under 200 dollars by single individuals. This is a huge difference in contrast to Bush&#39;s 2000 dollar plate donations.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Thanks to SoR and EC...

According to OpenSecrets:

Bush has already raised &#036;84.5 million, to Dean&#39;s &#036;25.4 million and Kerry&#39;s &#036;20 million...

Lyndon LaRouche has raised more money than Clark, Kucinich, or Sharpton&#33; Amazing&#33;

only &#036;15,000 of Dean&#39;s campaign money was donated by special interests--100% comes from private donors... of course, 98% of Bush&#39;s money is also coming from private individuals... is there anywhere on this site where one could find which private individuals were giving this money?

[Lefty]

Wesley Clark is my favorite candidate. Inspiring speaker, good history, solid principles, has a chance against Bush (I think only Dean and Clark do, sadly) and isn&#39;t completely fucking insane (sorry, Al.)

[SonofRage]

solid principles? bwhahahaha

[Lefty]

And Dhul: you have the best sig. on Che-Lives, hands down.

[Rastafari]

Originally posted by Dhul Fiqar+Nov 10 2003, 01:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dhul Fiqar @ Nov 10 2003, 01:17 PM)
[email protected] 10 2003, 11:59 PM
We all "know" that it does not matter who lives in the White House--it could just as well be a troupe of baboons.

Oooh, the baboons get my vote&#33;&#33; Imagine the press conferences&#33; =D

--- G. [/b]
they&#39;d throw their own feces at the press. just like Rummy does now

[Weidt]

It is amazing to read pro-Democrat posts on a forum supposedly devoted to the ideas and legacy of Ernesto &#39;Che&#39; Guevara. Now, I&#39;m not an expert on Che, but as a revolutionary communist, surely he would not be contemplating which ruling class candidate to support.

Instead, we should be focusing on our own class consciousness and advocating an anti-capitalist, anti-nationalist worldview while struggling for radical and democratic reforms and ultimately for a socialist transformation of society by way of social revolution.

But that is just my working class opinion...

[(*]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 12:19 AM
a socialist transformation of society by way of social revolution.


Social revolution through democratic means of course, right?

The candidates most of us favor here are very progressive and we would ulitmately be inching towards socialism. Emphasis on the word inching.

In the united states it would be advantageous to work within the system.

[redstar2000]

I see a difference between having George Bush in the White House and having an Al Gore or a Dennis Kucinich there. Because we have Bush, we have to deal with Ashcroft... with the spectre of making people disappear under the Patriot Act or the proposed "Patriot II"...

What you don&#39;t understand is that it is not people like Bush and Ashcroft who ultimately make these decisions. Not to use the old cliché--and it is a little bit dated--but it really is Wall Street that decides.

If they decide that Bush & Co. are getting a little out of hand, word will be quietly spread and portions of the Patriot Act, for example, will go unenforced and ultimately be repealed.

If they decide that a genuine police state is required to meet a current "emergency", then Mr. Progressive Liberal Democrat will call for it, all the progressive liberal representatives and senators will vote for it, and the president will sign it.

That has always been the case in American history and, I suspect, the history of other bourgeois "democracies" as well.

Thinking that "it makes a difference" is precisely what they want you to "think".


We should champion politicians who are willing to keep this country relatively free--to better our chances of organization.

The only "freedom" that people in this or any other country really have is the freedom they are willing to take. Politicians are irrelevant to the matter.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Dhul [email protected] 10 2003, 12:22 PM
I would really like to have something good to say about Kucinich and Dean - but I saw them debate and they sucked balls. Really - they embarrassed themselves totally and looked about as convincing as the Iraqi Information Minister. I&#39;m not saying they are liars - they just really suck at public speaking when it comes down to inspiring people.

Sharpton on the other hand was alive with emotion - I got the feeling he believed every single word he uttered and would die to defend them. I like that :)

I would most like to see him run - if only because it would FINALLY break the barrier of blacks running for president on behalf of the major parties. It&#39;s about time, too...

--- G.

p.s. my second choice would be Clarke because he could steal so many votes from Bush - military people and such - and he can speak honestly about what war is REALLY like because he has been there
Yes, Kucinich says a lot of great things but they are very calculated and uninspirational. Sharpton in confrontational and adimate. Watching Sharpton speak is entertaining and makes you want to act where Kucinich looks better on paper and should maybe write a book. I do like his platform but he seems rather unelectable, simply because he is not willling to step up to the task. He is very indefinate, as he makes some very strong statements sometimes but other times he comes of as a weak liberal. I think the American people could see through his method of chosing conveinient positions because as a liberal, he doesn&#39;t have reactionary or distractionary ways to pull it off. He should really take a strong position if he wants any support. I was very disapointed when he said that we shouldn&#39;t impeach Bush.
I think Sharpton would have a better chance but to my knowledge, he is less popular overall.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

3iVi,

On what issues do you find Kucinich weak on?

I agree that Sharpton has a much better public speaking ability--all those sermons have really paid off for him.