BS: Kucinich v. Texas

Subject: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: freightdawg
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 12:50 AM

Since Kucinich seems to be the burr under the Dems saddle these days I thought the following news was interesting.

It seems the Democratic party of the state of Texas demands a loyalty oath of all of its primary candidates that they will "fully support" the eventual nominee. Kucinich crossed the line out when he filled out his paperwork, and the Dems refused to put him on the ballot. He sued, claiming the loyalty oath violated his right to free speech. A judge has just ruled in the state's favor, allowing them to print the ballots without Kucinich's name on it. The judge stated that the party could make and enforce whatever rules it wanted to. Kucinich apparently plans to appeal the decision.

Hey, I'm startin to like this fella. Anybody that can spit in a Texan's eye ain't all bad.

(as FD runs terrified away from the Mrs. FD, a loyal Texas native)

This came from MSN's homepage with a link to MSNBC. I'm sorry I don't do blickies very well or I would do the proper links. Maybe a Mudelf can save me.

Freightdawg.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 01:35 AM

Interesting. You have to watch out for people who demand a loyalty oath, I think. I know that such a loyalty oath was formally required of all Germans, for instance, between 1933 and 1945. In that case it was a loyalty oath swearing one's personal loyalty to "the leader", and that's apparently what the Texas Democratic Party appears to want also.

I'm not surprised Kucinich crossed that line out, because he's not about to be anybody's puppet. He believes in freedom of conscience.

Loyalty is something that has to arise naturally and spontaneously in people (like respect). If it doesn't, it's not real.

No one can guarantee such respect and loyalty with an oath, but an oath can be used by a power structure to later bring legal pressure down on anyone who was pressured into giving that oath at the time...thus making such an oath is simply giving away your own future right to use your own free will responsibly.

That's unwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: GUEST,Texas Guest
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 04:05 AM

Hey, folks, it's Texas - what do you expect? I mean, hey, we gave you Bush AND Tom Delay - what a deal, huh? I still say that the
democrat ticket should be Edwards & Kucinich - wouldn't that drive
the republicans and big business crazy for a few years?! I just wish ole' Molly was still around to write about it though. Cheers.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:48 AM

Brownshirts...

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 10:20 AM

They also gave us Molly and Ann Richards and Jordan (well, she was a transplant)...so we know they can do BETTER!

Good for Kucinich!!

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 10:29 AM

So that tells the American voter that they can only vote for candidates that the monied interests want them to vote for. Our system is beginning to look a lot like Russia's.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 01:51 PM

I would suggest that the refusal to accept nominations except upon those terms might well be what in EU law would be called "an abuse of dominant position" or a "restraint of trade".

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 03:06 PM

The title of this thread is VERY misleading. It gives the impression that Kucinich has filed suit against the state of Texas. Please reread the article. The loyalty oath has NOTHING to do with the government of the state of Texas. It is a requirement of the state's Democratic Party, not the state itself. A political party is NOT part of the government and, as such, is free to make whatever rules it wants as long as it doesn't violate any state or US laws. If they want to require that all candidates wear cowboy hats while campaigning in the state, they can do so.

Also, please note that the loyalty oath says nothing about the US Constitution or any US laws. It refers specifically to support of the PARTY's eventual nominee. It's all about PARTY loyalty, not loyalty to any ideal.

Having said all that, I agree that the requirement is bullshit and reeks of old-style party politics. (Wait! You mean there's a new-style party politics?) I just don't want anyone confused over the bullshit's source. I would be embarrassed to be a Texas Democrat, but I'm a Florida Democrat and I'm pretty embarrassed to be one of those as well. At least Texans' primary votes will count for something. I may as well stay home.*

*(FYI, the Florida Legislature, with support of the Florida Democratic Party, voted to hold its primary much earlier than in previous years, very much against the wishes of the national Democratic Party. As a result, candidates are banned from campaigning in Florida and the Florida delegation to the National Convention will have NO votes. At least that's where I think it stands now. It's probably going to all turn out to be a big game of political Chicken. Wonderful system, ain't it?)

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 03:12 PM

Understood, Bee-Dubya-Ell...

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 03:15 PM

What is most interesting about this, IMO, is how scared the Dems are of Kucinich. Why has no other candidate spoken out on his behalf?

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 03:15 PM

did anyone save the receipt? Can we return Texas to Mexico??

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: freightdawg
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 03:35 PM

Good point, Bee-dubya-ell - my apologies for the poor choice of title. I should never type that late at night

I have really mixed emotions about this, as Bee also mentioned. I firmly believe that any organization, duly formed, has the right to make its own rules, and anyone that wants to join has to abide by those rules.

But...

Here we have a state party telling an individual that they must support the eventual nominee. They are not just telling everyone in the state party of Texas they must support the eventual nominee (although that might be true) but they are telling an outsider to the state party that the individual must abide by state party rules.

My question is why do this? It is just plain bullying.

As much a defender as I am of the rights of organizations to make and enforce the rules by which they operate (however unseemly they may be to an outsider), provided they violate no state, local or federal laws, I have to support Kucinich on this one.

Whatever happened to, "Sir, I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to my death your right to say it." (or words to that effect)

(And about the title to this thread - any Mudelf help to clarify it??)

with a red muzzle,

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 06:24 PM

The Democratic party is a joke. It's completely outlived it's usefulness, if it ever had any (same for the Republican party). Time to abolish political parties and go back to the way they did it in the time of George Washington.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 06:29 PM

Hear, hear!!! Both those damn parties should be dismantled and thrown on the trash heap forever. And no other damned parties to replace them either. Vote for individuals instead, and base your vote on the character, ability, and stated policies of the specific individual(s) you decide to vote for.

Until the USA is freed from the domination of the Democratic and Republican parties...and of other parties as well...there is never going to be an honest democracy in the USA.

Politicians should not be beholden to any party power structure. They should be free to act as individuals, free of control by entrenched party interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 06:35 PM

Fuckin' anarchists!!

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 06:52 PM

Egalitarians


;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 06:53 PM

Egalitarian anarchists.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 07:13 PM

There's moral anarchy. And then there's social and political anarchy.

A society free of political parties is in a much better position to avoid moral anarchy than is a society in thrall to them...

Political and social anarchy is avoided simply by having a coherent sytem of just and fair laws in place, laws which have been worked out in a legislature, and by having the means to enforce them. That can all be achieved entirely without political parties, and it has been achieved in a great many past societies. Political parties are an arbitrary and relatively recent phenomenon in human political affairs...and their primary concern soon becomes to perpetuate and enlarge their own hold on power, not to work for democracy or justice or the common good.

The present ruling party structures would like us all to think that society cannot do without them. They lie bigtime. People (including those IN the party machines) believe that lie only because they are so accustomed to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:07 PM

"No damned cat. Mo damned cradle."

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:09 PM

Dammit! Steal one of the best lines in American writing and fuck it up with a typo!

"No damned cat. No damned cradle."

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:33 PM

I remember loyalty oaths from the time of McCarthy. Loyalty oaths are a "clear
and present danger".

Hang in there, Dennis. It's a good fight for all of us.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: GUEST,pattyClink
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 09:10 PM

For the record, Barbara Jordan was a native Texan.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 03:59 AM

Is a native Texan necessarily a native AMerican or what?

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 11:28 AM

ANymore it is, yes, strictly speaking. But the term NAtive American (capital N) has been preempted to describe members of what used to be called the American Indian tribes.
And before Texas' assumption into the union, a native Texan was either a citizen of the Republic of Texas or of Mexico, mostly.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 12:58 PM

That was my question. Now I don't understand the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 01:03 PM

Richard:

in normal English under current conditions because Texas is part of the U.S., a native Texan by definition is natively an American (a citizen of the US).

However, the term "Native American" got borrowed by the politically correct to apply to those who lived in the land which is now the U.S. before the United States existed. These "Native Americans" ar ewhat used to be called Indians. Their descendants of the various tribes are referred to as Native American by birth.

Texas was originally part of Mexico, and for a brief period became its own Republic before joining the US.

All clear?

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 02:35 PM

To a Texan, a native Texan is one who was born there.

Most of the 'Native Americans' I know still call themselves Indians (or use their 'nation' name). Tribal leaders seem to tend toward 'Native American' for political reasons.
There are many American Indian associations, but also some Native American Indian Assns.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: DougR
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 03:33 PM

Personally, I think all Democrats should vote for Kucinich.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 03:44 PM

You are evil, Mister R. :)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 04:07 PM

And I think all Republicans should vote for Huckabee. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 04:11 PM

Oh, a fine kettle of fish you two would wish on us!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 04:12 PM

All Democrats, Independents, Republicans, and everyone else should vote for Kucinich. ;-P

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 04:12 PM

Now you're talking.

But I am not sure in which of many worlds!! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 04:56 PM

Who is Kuccinch?

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 06:02 PM

Surely you jest!

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 07:00 PM

He's probably joking, but I would never pass up an opportunity to post this link...

Kucinich

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 09:37 PM

Yeah,I did it to get a rise.
Kucinich adds spice, but will never make it to the big top.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 09:41 PM

Eugene V. Debbs never made it to the big top either, but everybody was quick to adopt his ideas after the big top collapses in 1929.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 09:47 PM

I see a distinct possibility that after four years of whoever gets elected this time around, most folks will be begging Dennis to be president next time.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 08:10 AM

I don't know. I'm still walking around in a daze after George W. Bush got elected to a second term in 2004. Of course, there's always Ohio, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 11:28 AM

I think there was voting fraud in 2 key states in the 2004 election...Ohio and Florida. I don't think Bush won that election.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 01:19 PM

Never underestimate the stupidity of teh electorate. Look how often the British re-elected Thatcher, which was grossly like turkeys voting for Xmas.

I simply could not believe that there was no insurrection.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 02:00 PM

Never underestimate the power of an incumbent government to dispense propaganda and control the agenda either...

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 03:42 PM

I assume, LH, you are referring only to the Canadian government!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 05:42 PM

I am referring to ALL elected governments, Doug. ;-) Without exception.

Being an incumbent affords great monetary and bureaucratic and procedural advantages in winning an election...and it makes it easier to manipulate the outcome. However, ANY incumbent regime can wear out its welcome eventually...as we've all seen...when they finally reach the point where a clear majority of the public is truly fed up with them. And they all do reach that point eventually.

Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves. ;-D

In the USA that translates to: When people are completely fed up with the Republicans, they vote in the Democrats. When they are completely fed up with the Democrats, they vote in the Republicans. When they are completely fed up with BOTH sets of rascals, they hold their noses, vote grimly for what they hope is the lesser of two evils, and pray that things won't get worse.

It works almost exactly the same way in Canada, Doug, only we alternate back and forth between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party (both of whom are quite "liberal" by your standards!)...and we have the fun of also having a third party (NDP - Socialist) which gets about 15 to 20% of the vote every time, thus acting as a handy secondary influence and caution on the other two.

I like our way a tad better. I would just about be in despair if I had no other vaible alternative but the Democrats and the Republicans to choose between.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 07:16 PM

Litte Hawk, the Parti Quebecois is the secondary influence; the NDP is still around but tertiary in influence.

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 07:30 PM

You have a point. But I wanted to keep it fairly simple so as not to totally confuse DougR.

(and I am not suggesting when I say that that DougR is a dummy, by the way....but he's probably not too familiar with Canadian politics)

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 08:05 PM

Just like most Canadians....



A

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 10:32 PM

Say what???

Where did that come from, Amos? And why?

Subject: RE: BS: Kucinich v. Texas
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 10:45 AM

Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against Kuscinich