Contributors

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Presidential Profiles #6: Dennis Kucinich

In October of 1962, President Kennedy faced the biggest crisis of his presidency. The Soviet Union had moved medium range nuclear missiles into Cuba, less than 90 miles away from Florida.

In order to get as broad a perspective on the situation, President Kennedy called in a wide variety of experts on the Soviet Union. Bobby Kennedy, Attorney General, pushed hard for the ultra conservative, Dean Acheson to be in the room at all of the briefings.

The president wanted Adlai Stevenson. Stevenson was known at the time as the doviest of doves, an appeaser that would've made Chamberlain look tough. As they were debating how to confront the Soviets, air strike or blockade, Stevenson suggested they make a deal with the Russians: they remove their missiles in Cuba, the United States would remove it's missiles in Turkey. The idea was extremely weak, ill conceived, and terribly wrong given the provocation on the part of the Soviets.

Ultimately, President Kennedy went for the blockade and it worked. He remarked later in the year that he was actually quite grateful that Stevenson brought up the idea because "all of us need to be reminded that, at the end of the day, we are all human." In the year 2007, Dennis Kucinich has reminded us all that we are human.

Look at this guy. He just looks like a drip. Actually, he looks a goofy cartoon character. There's no way in heck that he is EVER going to get the nomination. And yet...I can't help but think, as my hero did, that we need to hear that voice.

The voice that wants to replace our forces in Iraq with an international peacekeeping force. The voice that wants to really reach out to moderate voices in the Middle East. The voice who wants us to formally apologize to the Iraqi people for all of the death and destruction of which we are partly responsible . The voice that wants to create a cabinet-level Department of Peace.

His unwavering idealism is equalled only by the fact that he makes decisions based on his own principles, not politics. You won't catch Dennis Kucinich putting on an orange camo jacket and going out into the woods to kill something just so he can get votes. His hope for a better place is something that we should all strive for, not something that should draw laughter and accusations of weakness. In all honesty, Dennis Kucinich is probably the candidate who most adheres to the true principles of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason, Dennis Kucinich gets a B.

I wish I could be more like him. All of us should be. I wish I didn't see the world in the jaded way that I do. Having first hand experience with Islamic extremism taught me a long time ago that they are simply too dangerous to treat with so much idealism. But like President Kennedy said, we need to hear that voice. It keeps us measured. It keeps us honest. In the final analysis, it is what makes us American.

Thursday: Mike Huckabee

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dennis ‘The Menace’ Kucinich as President of the United States. Chilling.

This little wiener is not a serious contender. Why does he keep running? By any measure, Kucinich is not a leader. He’s not a physical presence type of leader. He doesn’t have power of personality. He’s not a great thinker. Heck, he’s not even a clear thinker. There’s nothing authoritative about him. Could you see him sitting across the table from Gorbachev in Iceland? He’d wet himself.

So why run? To get out a message that has been consistently rejected? To say things so far to the left in a public forum in hopes of pulling more centrist candidates his direction?

I know you don’t like America being in Iraq, and let’s not dive into “why” we’re there. But since we ‘are’ there, shouldn’t we win? Kucinich’s strategy simply does not make sense. I’m paraphrasing, but basically he’s saying that we must leave Iraq but that we can’t leave until there’s an international force to take our place, but at the same time that no international force will take our place until we leave. …so I guess we leave, and hope some altruistic international force appears to take our place. (Never mind that nearly every “international” force is inevitably led by the United States in the first place.) So, how does this work? We pack up and leave, change into blue helmets and then go right back in after the jihadists have had time to clean house a bit?

Who will be responsible for the carnage that takes place after we leave? Will the Democrats simply wash their hands of responsibility for the deaths and chaos that ensue like they did when they forced America out of Vietnam? …turning a blind eye to the hordes of boat people and death/labor camps? How will the Middle East trust us at all when they see us forsake a new nation that (for better or worse) we helped create?

I just can’t get onboard with this whole “reach out” notion. I hear it bandied about constantly along with; “we need to re-think our Middle Eastern policy.” What policy would that be? The one supporting our allies, such as Israel? (A good side note: why do liberals always say we need to be neutral?...particularly in the Israeli/Palestinian issue… I’m here to tell you, you won’t have many friends in the world if when that friend gets into a fight, you say that you can’t help them because you’re trying to stay neutral.) So, who are you going to reach out to? There just aren’t a lot of friendly countries in the neighborhood other than Israel. Our staunchest allies in the War on Terror are also the ones who supplied the most terrorists in the bang that kicked it all off. These high school student council style politicians seem to think it’s just a political game; they just don’t realize there are people in the world that you simply cannot negotiate with. And groups willing to cut off your head simply because you don’t follow their religious beliefs or culture are one of them.

The only positive I can say about Dennis Kucinich is what you just said, he’s a man that sticks by his guns and doesn’t waiver on the whims of opinion polls. He was elected as he is and that’s how he should serve. I respect that.

I’m sure he actually believes he’s acting for the best interest of the country, but this man would put America in a very dangerous position in the world. Again, we agree, the enemy is simply too dangerous to treat w/ such idealism. And he’s simply too weak to be leader of a great nation.

Grade: F

Mark Ward said...

Leaving the Iraq debate aside for a moment, neutrality in some places is alright. Neutrality with Israel and Palistine is not good. Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle East with a group of mafioso thugs (Hamas, Fatah) using the lie of politics to rape the people--all people including Palestinians--of everything they own.

Jewish people everywhere are persecuted everyday because they are Jewish. People want them extinguished, much more so than Americans, and the restraint that Israel has shown in the face of all this is staggering. So, I am in complete disagreement with any liberal that says we should stay out of Israel