Dennis Kucinich Doesn't Take Media's Stuff

Raw Story has a video clip up of Dennis Kucinich being interviewed by CBS's Henry Smith on his resolution to impeach Dick Cheney. What this clip shows is how Kucinich doesn't take the crap handed out by the national news media. (Video clip is at the bottom of the Raw Story article.)

Smith told Kucinich that the Republicans had "basically called is bluff" by voting to debate the Cheney resolution on the floor of the House of Representatives last Thursday, November 8, 2007. Kucinich shot back with ""They didn't call my bluff. I was fully prepared for debate -- with a three-inch thick binder annotating the violations of law and the violations of the Constitution committed by the vice president which would justify an impeachment."

One thing that is often overlooked about Kucinich is his background in communications. He has taught communications at Case-Western Reserve University. He has worked as a political commentator for Cleveland television stations. He understands that a politician doesn't get an opportunity to be on network news every day, and if you get the opportunity, you need to talk about what you want to talk about, not what they want to talk about.

Of course, not taking their stuff and standing up to them doesn't endear Kucinich to the media and reporters like Harry Smith. They are used to having politicians kiss their well-clothed behinds. You can bet your last dollar that Smith wasn't prepared for Kucinich's answer to his opening shot. Kucinich dominated the interview, which probably will result in his not being invited back on Smith's "Early Show" for the foreseeable future. Speaking truth to power doesn't always win you friends.

Fascinating Framshop Entry on Clinton Shaping Democratic Position on Iraq War

A person named Jeffery Feldman runs a blog called Frameship. In an entry dated September 26, 2007, entitled Frameshop: Field Swings To Clinton Frame On Iraq he argues that all top three Democratic candidates are adopting Senator Hillary Clinton's framing of American options for the war in Iraq. According to Feldman, those options include keeping American troops in Iraq for the entire next presidential term. As he points out, this leaves anti-war Democratic activists in the position of having no candidate in the top three who advocates getting all American troops out of Iraq in the relatively near future.

What's interesting about both Edwards and Obama basically accepting Clinton's position on Iraq is that, according to a CBS poll of the American public, it's not what most Americans want. This is a question asked in the poll and the response:
"From what you know about the U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq: less than a year, one to two years, two to five years or longer than five years?" .

Less Than A Year 49%
One to Two Years 23%
Two to Five Years 12%
Longer Than Five Years 5%
Other/Unsure 11%

Take a look at those numbers. Seventy-two percent of the American public want withdrawal within two years and only 17% of the American pubic wants American troops longer than two years.

Assuming that both Guiliani and Clinton get their parties respective nomination, neither major party's presidential nominee will be articulating a position on Iraq that is in accordance with what most Americans want in Iraq. That is both remarkable and dangerous for both major political parties.

Are Republicans Drinking Bush's Iraq Kool-Aid?

If you click on the link in this entry's title you can see the results of the recent CBS-New York Times poll on Bush's handling of the Iraq War. Overall 24% of those responding approved of his handling of Iraq, 71% disapproved, and 5% had no opinion. Inside the party breakdown, however, the results are much different. Among Democrats the approve/disapprove breakdown is 5%-93%; among independents it is 19%-74% but among Republicans it is 58%-34%. Clearly the rank and file of the Republican Party has drunk the Iraqi Kool-Aid that Bush has put out for them.

These figures are also why it is so hard for Congressional Republicans to break ranks and support the Democrats' plan on the war. If they do, they risk being opposed in contested primaries. If they don't, however, they risk being defeated in the 2008 general election. (Click here to see what happens to those who start warning others about drinking Bush's dangerous brew.)

Of course this is creating a very bad environment for Republicans. The L.A. Times referred to the present political environment as "toxic" for Republicans in this article. Well, it is a poison of their own making and we don't feel the least bit sorry for them. Our sympathy is for the families of the dead and wounded who served in this war.

Why Katie Couric Went After John & Elizabeth Edwards

If you click on the link in this entry's title you can read one of entries on blogs today attacking Katic Couric for her questions of John and Elizabeth Edwards on 60 Minutes. Many such commentators are wondering why she chose the questions she did, why she was so negative in her approach, and why she chose to hide between such questions as "some people say" or "other people say." Many of these same commentators are arguing that Katie Couric is a person who just reflects Republican talking points or that she is an example of the cluelessness of modern day journalists, especially those on television.

Our take is a little different. We think that Ms. Couric knew exactly what she was doing and that was trying to torpedo the candidacy of a populist Democrat. Why would she want to do that? Katie Couric makes a lot of money. She has benefitted from George W.'s reckless tax cuts. She doesn't want her taxes to increase. A Democrat like Edwards, who is pushing an agenda that would benefit the middle and working classes is more likely to increase Katie's taxes. If you want to know why millionaire journalists and pundits parrot Republican talking points, just follow the money, honey.