Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Kucinich

0 helpful
3 replies

by john_wills

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.
Kucinich got 1% in the Iowa caucuses. Serves him right. In Congress he had a pro-life track record. When he decided to run for President he thought that the Democrat party as a whole was in thrall to the abortion industry and lobby and so switched, claiming to have come to a difficult decison after long hard thought. And it has got him nowhere. Suppose he had continued to be honest (by being dishonest he was, in his own opinion, joining the ranks of baby-murderers), would he have got less than 1%? I very much doubt it. The time spent sucking up to the abortion lobby might usefully have been spent either on some other subject or on touting himself as a pro-life Democrat, neither of which would have hurt him in Iowa. By going against his conscience he did his cause no good; by following his conscience he might not have achieved victory but he would have made things easier for any pro-life Democrat in 2008. He wanted quick results for himself rather than long-term success for the things he really believes in; the quick result he got was failure. He has by betraying his own principles achieved neither what he wanted nor what he thought was right.

3 replies

by maxwell edison

.
I think these knds of examples show how success is better attained if a person follows a core set of principles and/or values and just lets the chips fall where they may, instead of posturing your position based on a desired outcome.

That's not to say that a person shouldn't do what's necessary to reach a desired end or a personal goal, but if it means violating one's core beliefs in the process, more times than not, no one will win.

by oz_media

You said "I think these knds of examples show how success is better attained if a person follows a core set of principles and/or values and just lets the chips fall where they may, instead of posturing your position based on a desired outcome"

This is so true and yet I feel completely disregarded by many politicians (not just in the USA). Unfortunately, they then obtain thier cabinet positions and go against what got them there to begin with, thus betraying thier original (or stated) intent and end up creating distrust in political campaigning.

Perhaps someone having an idea and sticking to thier guns is a better thing for everyone, if they DON"T get elected, it is because thier intent was not what the people wanted, if they do get elected and follow through with thier true intentions, then they are being honest to the people and living up to expectations, which is what we would ALL expect from ANY politician we elect.

Granted this would all be true in an ideal world, with ideal and trustworthy politicians, unfortunately we don't see that too often here. May be when we colonize Mars, we can all try to do it right next time. If not, it's the next stop? Will we fix our errors before reaching Pluto?

by road-dog

When a candidate changes position radically on a single issue during a campaign, this undercuts their position on all issues. If a position is changed for political expediency, there is a logical leap that people make that any position that candidate takes is subject to the winds of change.

I agree with Max. One votes (or should) on core beliefs. Otherwise, why not simply go to a direct democracy using polls? What use is a representative?

Candidates should state their values and take their lumps.

We republicans should have read "compassionate" conservative to mean "increase social spending to stratospheric levels" conservative during the last campaign.

Perhaps Bush isn't as right wing as the media would have us believe.

I'm really tired of politicians buying votes with my money....

This discussion is closed to new replies.