Jump to content

Talk:Dennis Kucinich/Archives 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electoral History

I suggest that the table cell for Frederick D. Lyon of Socialist Workers, which is presently highlighted red, be changed to a more neutral color. It is easy for one doing a cursory reading of the entry to come away with the mistaken idea that Kucinich is somehow associated with the socialist party, although this is not the case. In my own reading of the table, I initially had this mis-impression, even though I am familiar with Kucinich's political history. While all of the other cells are mute colors, this cell alone is prominently highlighted red. Does anyone know how to modify the cell color?

Orreviewer (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)orreviewer Weds June 11, 2008 7:16 am

2004 presidential campaign

I removed the phrase "great expansion of federal authority and power," since it is clearly non-NPOV, and also ridiculous. Ending the drug war and pulling out of NAFTA, WTO et. al. is not an expansion of federal power (though increasing social services is). Ending the drug war, in itself, would be a vast reduction in federal "authority and power." --Kelt65 11:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course the drug *war* involves an expansion of federal power. The federal government was bestowed unlimited search and seizure rights in the name of the drug war. Which was the point. And the point was valid. "Ending" the war could, for example involve restoring states rights in this area. Many states would opt to pursue less "warlike" programs, and follow more successful models which only target dangerous drugs (ie: not marijuana), and include as much as 50% expenditure on "demand-side" curtailment (ie: addiction support). 71.111.210.25 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
On a wholly separate subject: Is there any substantiation to the assertion that Kucinich had been "rising in the polls"? There seems to be a theme to the article's coverage of the campaign that Kucinich had a building support which was undermined by the mainstream media ignoring him, as if the article were written by a disgruntled Kucinich fan suffering from "sour grapes." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.244.79.222 (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Well, it is actually true, the media does ignore him, as well as any candidate that is not focus group approved. What matters here is the tone of ones writing. --Kelt65 15:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal life

I added a few things to the "Personal Life" section, since there wasn't a lot of content before. Langston

  • Why the UFO reference? It may be true, but it seems very out of place. Hikui87 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hikui87 (talk • contribs)
I agree, but I'm tired of fighting the people who seem to think that it is important. Where in the article could it fit better? Or should it just be removed?--Ccady 22:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

put it in the trivia section. btw it is important because it describes who he is as a person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are discouraged. See wp:trivia. What he typically east for dinner also describes who he is as a person, and I don't think that desrves a spot in the article.--Ccady 21:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


Well, numerous news reports have mentioned his belief in aliens, thus it is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


I noticed a discrepancy in the sources listing his educational background. Source #4 lists 1973 for when he recieved his B.A. and M.A. at Case Western Reserve University. Source #5 lists 1974.--67.162.55.61 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Phrasing

Briefly--

I just changed the page to refer to the campaign in (wince) the past tense. The wording is not ideally neutral, but present tense is just too strong a statement at this point. He "was" a major candidate for the nomination. Is he now? Well, no. There's only one "major" Democratic candidate now.

I'm sure someone can improve on it.

Jorend 03:22, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Title

"Dennis J. Kucinich" 7420 hits on google, compared to 45,600 for "Dennis Kucinich" --Jiang

Background

The article doesn't mention anything about Kucinich's background before becoming mayor

Rossami's comments

I'm not fond of blind reverts. They throw the baby out with the bathwater. Rather than provoke an edit war, I've tried to separate the edits by content so we can pick and choose to make this the best possible article. I will freely admit that I am not a Kucinich fan. I live in Cleveland and suffer under him. But I've tried to keep my edits as neutral as possible. Builds are encouraged. Corrections are expected. But this site can't be written only by Kucinich supporters either. Let's move on carefully, please. Rossami 23:20, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Notable supporters

About the Notable Supporters discussion - That is not a block that you routinely see in any other encyclopedia's entry of famous people. It is not a topic for famous historical figures here in Wikipedia. I don't see why it belongs in this article. It smacks too much of campaign speech. I'd like a discussion of advantages and disadvantages before we add it back. Rossami 23:20, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is relevant because a great deal of Kucinich's advertising involves references to his supporters; Kucinich's campaign is largely based on such a list -- thus, it should not only be mentioned, but we should mention some of the more prominent names from that list. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Thank you for laying out your thoughts. With that explanation in the article and more detail about the running of the campaign, I can see the relevance of leaving it in. Rossami 15:51, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Anti-Kucinich site

I wonder if the Anti-Kucinich site (in the external links) belongs without some kind of warning. It's incredibly unprofessional. (<<And, just how many hot chicks am I going to find in Cleveland anyway? We all know that's the main reason I'm running for president - to meet hot chicks and get laid. I guess that means you could call me the "Piece Candidate"!>>) Or maybe my pro-Kucinich bias is kicking in. I'm not about to remove the link or edit the page to say ("warning: this site is a poor attempt at satire which is totally unprofessional and poorly thought out") but I do want to challenge it. Mike Church 09:57, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What I have been doing, and someone keeps removing it, is stating that the site contains animated feces -- since it does, and thats something worth "warning" about. Lirath Q. Pynnor

List of ratings

The ratings by various interest groups took up a lot of space, but I thought it was a good way to give a picture of Kucinich's political stance. The list is admirably comprehensive and therefore NPOV. I believe it should be restored, but I'd like to hear any rationale for deletion first. (If the deletion stands, the headline and introductory sentence should also be deleted. I've left that material in as a placeholder for the full list.) JamesMLane 00:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes it was long, too long. You can a dang new heading for every single thing. Plus it was too jumbled together and you couldn't make much out of it. If you want it to remain on Wikipedia, create a new page and put it on there. But right now as it is, it is too long and jumbled.

ChrisDJackson 00:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It would be much less jumbled if put in a table format. -- ElBenevolente 01:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quote

Snippet from Deterring Democracy: "A year later [1979], in another recognition of reality, Cleveland's populist mayor Dennis Kucinich told a UAW meeting that there is only one political party in the United States, the pro-business `Demipublicans.'" might be nice to find the entire quote. 142.177.24.141 15:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Net worth

From the article:

With a net worth of between $2,000 and $32,000, Kucinich is one of Congress's least wealthy members.

Apparently these are the official figures from the Federal Elections Commission, but I must say this number seems extremely low given his Congressional salary of $158,100 per year. Is he deeply in debt or something?--Pharos 10:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

That seems odd... i feel like it should be stricken until further investigation yields positive. --Evesummernight 21:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I looked and couldn't find the number. In 2003, though, he had a negative net worth [1]. Several other Ohio reps also have low or negative net worths.Beirne

OK, so he was in debt (actually I think your numbers are from 2002) and I guess the low numbers in 2003 reflect his recovery from that debt. Here are some google sources (just search [Kucinich "$2,000 and $32,000"]): [2] [3] [4] [5]. I suppose one could find all the numbers going over the FEC website, too.--Pharos 03:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I should have clarified. When I said he was in debt I was just trying to show that a net worth between $2,000 and $32,000 was reasonable with the information I could find. Since we now have some sources for the real numbers, though, it would be good to use one or more of them as references in the main article. --Beirne 11:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dispute over labels

An editor who has not yet created a login has been adding the following phrase to this article: Dennis Kucinich "is considered by many to be a green liberal"

I have reverted it twice, because I have never heard this assertion made about Kucinich, and it has been made in the article without any documentation for the "many" who are not identified. Consistent with the policy Wikipedia:Cite sources, I am pasting the information here in the talk page, so that if anyone is able to locate a source to confirm this assertion, the statement can be added back into the article with its supporting source.

Until then, I hope the statement will remain here on the talk page. Mamawrites 20:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this also covered under the 2004 Campaign section? - Tεxτurε 21:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I did not "add" the phrase. I was putting it back after others removed it for the inadequate reason that they didn't particularly like it. I find it to be an accurate description of Kucinich's politics: he is liberal in many ways and green in many others and I see no reason to dump an accurate and descriptive phrase that has been in the article since 2003 just because someone didn't like it.

I'm inclined to retain the fact and source provided earlier today which states

"Kucinich received an 80% composite liberal score from the National Journal [6]"

since there has been some commentary in the edit summaries suggesting that the praise by Nader does not belong in the blurb up front either, I wonder if it would be appropriate to create a new section, toward the end of the article, which includes both statements together. Can we strive for consensus here on the talk page about what such a new section should be called? Can anyone find any example sections from other articles about Congressional representatives?

My starting idea would be a section on "Positions on political issues and in the political landscape". Discussion, and alternative suggestions, would be welcome! Mamawrites 23:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I heartily disagree with using that figure. The National Journal is a conservative rag that labeled Kerry the most liberal man in the Senate in 2003, even though he had missed upwards of 65% of the votes they were supposed to use to arrive at that score. - 12.217.121.245
Would inserting the label "conservative" in front of National Journal appease you at all? Mamawrites 11:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, though, I'm reconsidering my proposal, because even the entry for Walter Mondale doesn't mention his liberal campaign until several paragraphs down, and only in passing. Does anyone dispute the label of liberal for Dennis Kucinich? Or is it only the green label that seems out of place? Mamawrites 11:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I added that 80% figure yesterday. I think the Green label is out of place, it can be considered offensive, I would hope that liberal is all right. 80% also doesn't make him seem too "green". Anways, when one looks at the list, some other respected members of Congress are near or above him. Harry Reid is at 78 and he is considered somewhat moderate (or was). How about instead we put that he co-chairs the Progressive Caucus in the opening blurb? Phl 15:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The closeness of the two only goes to show you how wildly inaccurate the National Journal's ratings are. Reid is pro-business, pro-gun, pro-war, and pro-life. Compared to Kucinich, he's Dick Armey. And how exactly do you find calling Kucinich a "Green" offensive? Do you deny that his platform and that of the Green Party were almost identical in substance?
let's follow policy Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms)
I like Phl's proposal that we add a statement to the intro stating that Kucinich co-chairs the Progressive Caucus, and I would delete the reference to Nader at the same time. Do you want to do it, Phl? Mamawrites 20:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that a reference to the Congressional Progressive Caucus should be in the lead, but I dispute removing the Nader quote. What exactly do you find objectionable about it?

I just added the reference to the progressive caucus, but there is apparently still a bit of controversy on the Nader quote. I didn't see too much wrong with it before, but now it seems a little redundant being that someone who chairs the Progressive Caucus is probably a "genuine progressive", and doesn't need Ralph Nader proclaiming this to prove it. Phl 00:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Nader is probably the most well-known progressive on the planet. Him calling you progressive is like Alan Keyes calling you conservative. It adds legitimacy to your claim.

First vegan congressman?

Am I correct in assuming that he is the first vegan Congressman? --Revolución (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the first and only. I do have a question about this, however. It is very widely reported that Kucinich is vegan, however I have never seen nor heard him quoted as saying this himself. I have no doubt he is vegetarian, but one interview with him (I will try to find a cite), in which the reporter specifically mentioned his veganism in the article, also reported him as eating spanakopita, and specifically mentioned feta cheese as an ingredient, which led me both to question the reporter's understanding of veganism and also whether Kucinich himself is a strict vegan. NTK 19:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually here is the link [7]. Kucinich does in fact call himself a vegan, and it is amazing that the article does not mention this.
Dennis Kucinich, the vegan who would be U.S. president
Midwest Catholic talks of faith, feta, Bach and rock
Kucinich highly recommends the hummus, the house salad with feta, kalamata olives, onion, green pepper and tomato, and the spanakopita (spinach pie). Kucinich is a vegan, and the “excellent” vegetarian selections on the menu fit perfectly into his strictly meatless and dairy-free diet.
“I became a vegan out of love,” he says, referring to Yelena Boxer, a long-term girlfriend who introduced him to the vegan diet, adding: “I feel healthy. I have a lot more energy, more stamina.”
So we each order a pie, served with a side of green beans, stewed tomatoes, and a boiled potato. Substitute a good steak for the pie and Kucinich’s favorite meal is a regular Midwest supper. The restaurant is homey, with small tables dressed in basic white tablecloths and dinnerware.
Feta is dairy and spanakopita is hardly vegan. This makes no sense. NTK 19:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Does this article say which restaurant he was eating at? I know of a vegan Chinese restaurant, but the dishes have nonvegan names (Orange Chicken, Mongolian Beef, etc). So it may be possible that the restaurant is vegan, but adheres to conventional names. Fruitblender 18:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Quoting the NY Times article on his announcement "He says he plans to show up for every debate he is invited to — and even if not, he may show up anyway.

“This is where it comes in handy to be a vegan,” Mr. Kucinich said. “I don’t take up that much space.”" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/us/politics/12dennis.html

Is this notable enough to be in an encyclopedia article?Tvoz |talk 09:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's notable. I don't even think there are any other vegan senators. I'll put it in somewhere appropriate (with a citation). Also, at first glance, I agree that it doesn't make sense that he'd recommend feta and spanakopita. But at second glance, technically, just recommending it isn't eating it yourself. Perhaps it was one of the few vegetarian items on the menu that he thought the reporter would like. Kucinich could still be a strict vegan himself, even if that article is completely true. -kotra 11:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's more likely that Kucinich recommended the food in general and the reporter embellished by filling in specific menu items to give more "flavor" to the article. It's not a direct quote. Craig Butz 06:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not a direct quote, but it is specific, is mentioned in the title, and says "we each order a pie" (of spanikopita). So either he was eating cheese, this restaurant had non-dairy feta, or the reporter was just flat-out wrong in his reporting. NTK (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Kucinich one of two politicians to state Saddam had no wmd, prior to invasion

I think it is notable that Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul were the only two elected politicians that prior to the invasion, clearly stated no evidence had been provided that Iraq had WMD.

Kucinich and Paul, who led the effort in the House of Representatives in challenging the Bush Administration's march toward war, attempted repeatedly to warn America that there was no basis to go to war:

On Sep. 3, 2002, on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Dennis Kucinich said, "I don't think there's any justification to go to war with Iraq. There's no evidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. There's no... there's nothing that says that they have the ability to deliver such weapons, if they did have them. There's been no stated intention on their part to harm the United States."

On Sep. 4, 2002, on Buchanan and Press, Buchanan asked "Congressman Kucinich, does not the President have a clear, factual point here? Saddam Hussein is developing these weapons of mass destruction, he agreed to get rid of them, he has not gotten rid of them. Kucinich replied: "Well, frankly we haven't seen evidence or proof of that, and furthermore we haven't seen evidence or proof that he has the ability to deliver such weapons if he has them, and finally, whether or not he has the intent. I think that what we need to be doing is to review this passion for war, that drumbeat for war, that's coming out of the White House, and to slow down and to let calmer heads prevail and to pursue diplomacy.."

On Sep. 7, 2002, Dennis Kucinich gave a speech in Baraboo, Wisconsin, called "Architects of New Worlds," in which he said "There's no evidence Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or the ability to deliver such weapons if it had them or the intention to do so. There is no reason for war against Iraq. Stop the drumbeat. Stop the war talk. Pull back from the abyss of unilateral action and preemptive strikes." See: http://web.archive.org/web/20040606014045/http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/sp-020907-newworlds.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20040606014045/www.kucinich.us/pressreleases/pr_012504.php

On Sep. 10, 2002, Ron Paul asked "Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?"

On Oct. 8, 2002, Ron Paul said "However, according to UNSCOM’s chief weapons inspector 90-95 percent of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons and capabilities were destroyed by 1998; those that remained have likely degraded in the intervening four years and are likely useless."

Also against big businesses/corporations funding political campaigns

I had the pleasure of attending one of his primary campaign speaches that he gave in Klamath Falls, Oregon, and someone asked him about this and he said he was very much against this. This may be fairly notable to add, but I do not have a source other than a first hand account. If anyone could find a source for this and add it, it would be a good addition to the article. VegaDark 08:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Presidential Campaign 2008

I thought his platform was superior in 2004 and I'd vote for him all over again in 2008, if he ran. He was the only Candidate that represented my own sentiments on this bogus, illegal "war" to the Tee. He shouldn't just run in the next Presidential Election, he should---as he should have in 2004, and would have, were the voting public sane---win.

dude wants to know about pr contracts.
is HR 685 mentioned in here? if it is, which contracts is it focusing on? the war ones or others? Okthen 15:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Dennis Kucinich/Archives 1 has failed, for the following reason(s):

Stubby personal details with one sentence paragraphs; either lengthen each paragraph or combine them. Most likely it should be converted into an "early life" section, followed by earlier career, and write his marriages into following sections or add the "personal life" section to the end and completely removed from the career there rather than at the beginning.

“Kucinich's political career began early.” and “Interestingly enough, Democrat Mottl still managed to win the race, even with such a large chunk of the Democratic vote going to Kucinich.” “‘I personally do not want to go through a period of confrontation the next two years,’ stated Council President, George L. Forbes as mayor-elect Kucinich nodded in agreement. Clunky prose, sometimes unencyclopedic.”

Sometimes goes into unnecessary detail: “Democratic support went to Edward F. Feighan, who was then a member of the Ohio House of Representatives and would later serve as a Congressman, following in the footsteps of his uncle, Michael A. Feighan.” Only the first clause is needed, the former four are completely extraneous.

POV statements like “It started off on a bad note.”

And other slightly weasely statements like “Both critics and former supporters alike felt that Kucinich's actions were too bombastic, with some believing that he was no longer capable of governing the struggling city. This led to the circulation of petitions for his recall.” Some who?

Citations are needed (I tagged about half of the article TonyJoe 02:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverts and Restorations

I reverted edits by Littlemo and then restored edits made afterwards because after 20 minutes of trying to interpret what he/she did here, I just gave up. Littlemo appeared to be prolific while at Wikipedia (442 edits in under 48 hours, which is pretty high for a new user); however, after seeing the complaints on Littlemo's talk page, it's probably worth taking a look at his/her other contributions to see if there's anything else that needs repairing. Ufwuct 19:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Jackie Kucinich

There seems to be a "Jackie Kucinich" @ wonkette, msnbc, &/or nbc:

< http://google.com/search?q=%22jackie+kucinich%22+%22%22+%22%22+%22dennis+kucinich%22++wonkette++msnbc++ >;

< http://google.com/search?q=%22jackie+kucinich%22+%22%22+%22%22+%22dennis+kucinich%22++wonkette++nbc++ >;

< http://wonkette.com/politics/matt%20cooper/index.xml >;

< http://cache.wonkette.com/images/2006/05/Court%20TV%20Party%203.JPG >;

< http://wonkette.com/politics/top/wonkette-party-crash-the-kennedy-center-presents-court-tv-171762.php >;

< http://wonkette.com/politics/jackie%20kucinich >.

Please help. Who is she? We are all related; but, any known relation? Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 20:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Our article says he has a daughter named Jackie, so I would assume this is his daughter.Tvoz |talk 09:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Recall election

This section begins with a reference leading to: "Main article: 1978 Cleveland Recall Election" The text of the section, however, is largely the same as the text of the main article referred to. Rather than repeat all this here, why not give a brief paragraph summary, letting the reference lead folks who want more detail to the main article? RickDC 23:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

HR 2977

From Section 7, 2A, ii, II

through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations;

Other people have commented on how "out there" this proposal was,

Motherjones:

In 2001, Kucinich introduced a bill to outlaw space-based weapons that featured "radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies...for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such populations." Also to be included were "chemtrails," the vapors left by jets, which some believe change weather and cause other mischief. When called on the chemtrail inclusion, he dropped it from the bill.

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So why don't you just cite commentary from reliable sources instead of extracting the meaning of the entire bill from a couple of lines?--Beaker342 01:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is a legitimate bill/ concern. The Bush Administration has been pushing to militarize space. It was one of the many reccomendations that Bush has taken from neoconservative think tank "The Project for the new American Century", which was founded by Dick Cheney and other high level Bush Admin members. Also, They refused to sign a UN treaty denouncing the development of space based weapons. --Jml4000 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)--

I myself have contacted folks in Congressman Kucinich's Washington DC office to inquire about the terms 'chemtrails', 'psychotronic', etc. and why they were removed from later introductions of this bill (Space Preservation Act of xxxx). They would not tell my why these words were later removed and what congressional research has or has not shown as far as these things being true or false. I hope more people will call and maybe we can all get an answer if this is just 'conspiracy' or if the military complex really is experimenting on 'We The People'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.65.68 (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

eminem video

"At the end of Eminem's video for Mosh, Kucinich is applauding the people invading the Capitol building."

Can anyone confirm this statement, I watched the video and I did see nothing of Kucinich. Sirana 13:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

General changes to the article

I feel that the article has some general structural flaws that make it less than optimal, but since removing those flaws would take some major restructoring, I'd rather post them here than change the article unilaterally.

1. The article focuses very heavily on Kucinich's time in Cleveland. While it surely is an important part of his career, the extent to which it is discribed seems a bit too much. The two years he spend as mayor in Cleveland take up more than ten times the space that describes his 10 years in office as a congressman.
2. The style of the article, especially the parts about his time in Cleveland is more of a narrative or journalistic style than a style for an encyclopedia. The parts from Recall election to Muny Light and CEI in the post-Kucinich era are also entirely devoid of quotes which makes this aditionally problematic.
3. The district statistics seem to be unnecessary in an article about Kucinich.
4. The notable quotes seem to be unusual as well, isn't that what wikiquote is for?
5. The current way of presenting his political views (Three 10+item-list) seems to be unusual and not very encyclopedic to me.

My proposals for adressing these problems would be the following:

ad 1. I would remove the most part of the description of his time in Cleveland from the main article and put it in one or more seperate articles (like the "1978 Cleveland Recall Election"-article)
ad 2. This would take some major rewriting, so I think we should tackle this later. If we would put the most part of this in seperate articles the problem wouldn't be that pressing, though...
ad 3. I'd remove the district statistics altogether
ad 4. I'd also remove the notable quotes.
ad 5. This also would take some major rewriting, so we should let this rest till we solve 1.-4.

So, weigh in with your oppinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sirana (talk • contribs) 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC). oops, forget to sign Sirana 21:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

no comments so far, so I did items 3 and 4
Sirana 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
There's certainly an imbalance in the coverage of his term as mayor vs. his much longer career since then. In part this is because the section on the recall election largely duplicates material in the separate article on that topic. A quick summary and reference to the separate article is enough. RickDC 03:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
ok. I created the new article Mayoral administration of Dennis Kucinich and the part of his time in Cleveland there. Then I cut nearly all of this from the main article and left only a short summary. I think it is much better now. If you disagree, please state your reasons on the talkpage and we can sort it out. Sirana 12:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the "supports reparations for slavery" bullet in the 2008 election section. Not only is the phrase very misleading (the reparations aren't what you would normally think of), but the source cited for it is from a 2004 article and I couldn't find any mention of it for 2008. If you have a source stating that he supports reparations for slavery in relation to the current campaign, feel free to add it again. - anon He said he supports slave reparations in the youtube debate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.65.245.47 (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Supporters in 2004

Does anybody think it is important that we have a list of his 2004 supporters? If nobody objects I'll delete it. --Sirana 14:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The same goes with the 10 item list of his platform in 04, I don't think it should be in an encyclopedic article.
--Sirana 15:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Alt 9/11 theories template

I'm concerned about the propriety of having the 9/11 alternate theories template on this page. Kucinich has pledged to investigate a narrow portion of the events, yes, but does that justify the leap to being considered a "supporter" or "proponent" of alt 9/11 theories as this template categorizes him? I've already reverted once so I'll leave it up to consensus.

However, if consensus is that the template stays, at least some sort of mention about Kucinich's involvement in the investigations needs to be in the article - else, it seems like a complete non sequitur. --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

older than wife's father gossipy

Is there some reason to include that he is older than his wife's father? Or that he's 31 yrs older than his wife? If we have her year of birth then give that, and let people do their own math. Thiis seems gossipy and non-encyclopedic. Tvoz |talk 09:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing gossipy about it. It's an unusual fact and, therefore, worth mentioning. It's no less gossipy than discussing his eating habits. Don Williams 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with you there - I also questioned (above) the inclusion of his being a vegan. I think neither is encyclopedic and I'd remove both. This fact can be dealt with by adding his wife's year of birth which is somewhat encyclopedic, and trusting readers to subtract. Her father's age however, is not notable for an encyclopedia. People magazine, maybe. WHat relevance does it have to Kucinich? I say keep it all out. Tvoz |talk 00:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Omit wife's father's age. Wife's age: hmm, not sure. I'd keep the mention of his being vegan: you are what you eat, and staying vegan takes a lot of effort. 75.62.7.22 02:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's give him an A for effort, but I don't see the vegan thing as notable - I'm leaving it pending the outcome of this converssation, but how has it had an impact on anything?. As for wife's age - I have no problem with including her year of birth if anyone can find a reliable source for it - (her Myspace page lists her as being 28, but no actual birthdate) and people can figure out how old she is and he is and make what they will of it. And someone below is asking whether we should include his height. Just more trivia, to my mind. Tvoz |talk 07:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that anything unusual gives insight into the character of the person, and that includes what they eat and who they are married to. Is it not notable that Sen. Clinton is married to Pres. Clinton? One person's trivia is another's essential fact. But, we seem to have achieved a reasonable balance. Don Williams 06:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So what is the concensus here? Do we include a birth date of his wife? Do we include the "31 yrs older" factoid? I would like to determine that here on the discussion page and then keep the article in sync with whatever gets decided here. --Ccady 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My vote is to leave it out, as I think mentioning it is gossipy and implies that there is something wrong with it. As long as we are comparing him to his wife, why not include her height, as compared to his?--Ccady 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Leave it in. Their age difference is a verifiable fact, Wikipedia does not hide information due to cultural stigma against age difference in some parts of the United States. Italiavivi 19:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolution text

I don't see a good reason to include the entire text of the subject's impeachment resolution. It'a ll available on his website. Wikipedia is not a repository of original source material. -Will Beback · † · 00:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

True - probably not in this article - but could be a separate article. Articles of impeachment are not just another speech on the floor of the HOuse. Tvoz |talk
Though less common than floor speeches they are nonetheless common.
  • While actually impeaching a federal public official is a rare event, demands for impeachment, especially of presidents, are extremely common,[1] going back to the administration of George Washington in the mid-1790s. In fact, most of the 63 resolutions mentioned above were in response to presidential actions. Impeachment in the United States#Demands for impeachment
In my opinion, the resolution probably won't be notable unless it's brought to a vote. Regardless, source material should be kept placed in Wikisource. -Will Beback · † · 01:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
That sounds right, WIkisource. Tvoz |talk 04:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I support uploaded (oops, meant "uploading") the text to WikiSource. Should there also be a separate article for HR333? Surely, it's notable! Does anybody object to linking to a stub about HR333 from here?--OtisTDog 18:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • the idea sounds good, here is his website [8] with the Resolution HR 333 file if anyone wants to put it onto wikisource ... i wanted to put it on wikisource but to be honest im not sure which document is the one i need to put on there (:OP (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 18:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have a WikiSource login at the moment. I've added links to outside references from the new HR333 stub article, and linked to the stub from here--OtisTDog 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Height?

This is not really that important but I think Kucinich's height should be mentioned under personal. He is really short.24.209.247.169 01:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

MySpace?

Kucinich seems to have found a lot of support on MySpace -- do you think this deserves mention on this page? I was thinking maybe in the "2008 Presidential Campaign" section... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.206.69.41 (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I first heard of Kucinich via MySpace, but how exactly are you defining "support"? Is it because Kucinich has more MySpace "friends" than the other candidates? If so, there are several ways we might interpret this. Perhaps it merely reflects the fact that the Kucinich campaign hasn't received much supports from the major corporate funders that support Clinton, Obama, and (decreasingly) Edwards. Since he's not getting any love from the big guns, Kucinich has too rely more heavily than his competitors on inexpensive marketing strategies. That's just my theory. Perhaps someone has a source that offers a better explanation. M. Frederick 01:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD for House Resolution 333

Editors, Your attention is requested in the matter of an AfD nomination for House Resolution 333. I invite your participation on the associated debate page.--OtisTDog 01:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Elizabeth Harper Kucinich?

I suggest the pages should not be merged. She is an interesting person in her own right. --Ccady 00:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Support for The Fairness Doctrine

  • I didn't see any mention of his support for reinstating The Fairness Doctrine, which I think would be worthy of inclusion here. Clearly, the right to bear arms is not the only Constitutional right Herr Kucinich wants to destroy. Gerkinstock 21:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • While I do not particularly like Kucinich, and find his support for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine appalling, please try to keep any posts on here free of bias (see the Herr Kucinich commment above). Shrekums 05:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dennis' ancestry

He says in one article on his website, celebrating his parents' wedding anniversary, that his father's father was Croatian and that his father's mother was born in Slovakia. I once heard his mother was Slovenian and father Croatian. But in that article he says his mother's mother was Canadian-born and mother's father Irish.

Did he mean his father's mother was born in Slovenia? Slovania and Croatia were born part of Yugoslavia, while Slovakia was in Czechoslovakia. In this website, it says both his parents were born in Slovenia. http://www.wargs.com/political/kucinich.html

That wargs page has nothing useful on it to confirm this. It's not reliable for this particular point. 74.220.68.44 01:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Future election candidate

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick

Socialist?

Is Dennis Kucinich a socialist? He has twice been added into the "Socialists" category, and I have twice reverted the edits. I think that unless 1) he claims to be a socialist on a referenced site, or 2) he was running as a Socialist party candidate, then he must not be categorized in Wikipedia as such.--Ccady 07:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. His politial stances dating back to his Administration in Cleveland consistently follow Socialist ideology. We don't need to wait for him to apply his own labels. He is what he is.--Sand Squid 14:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Applying a contentious political label to someone who does not identify as such is WP:OR.--Pharos 16:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Again I respectfully disagree. A label is only considered contentious depending on your opinon of the label. I am not passing judgement on him or his policies. They are what they are and he is what he is. I don't need to wait for a duck to tell me he is a duck. If I see a duck, and I call it a duck, it is not WP:OR.--Sand Squid 16:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
What reliable source is there which says he is a Socialist? WP:V?--Ccady 16:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Ok, I won't pursue the issue, although I stand by the fact that he is a socialist and the facts demonstrated within this article support that. I guess I'll just have to wait for him to come out of the political closet and admit that he is a socialist. In the mean time, I'm sitting here in the park waiting for a duck to come by and and say, "Hello, I'm a duck." --Sand Squid 15:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Ducks go "quack", which means: "i'm a duck", in our planetary language. If you claim that that animal of yours is a duck, and others question that, then you are to provide reliable third party references, else that is WP:OR
And have you consulted WP:BLP lately? --Jerome Potts 02:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you read all of the above discussion? If so, then why are you trying to reignite a disagreement that was resolved and ended three months ago? Also, I recommend a spelling and grammar check before you post. Perhaps, you were distracted by how violently your knee was jerking.--Sand Squid 12:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes i read it. Thoroughly, which means i read your comments too. Hence my answer. 'thought i'd point out a thing or two to you and to whomever might adhere to your way of thinking, but apparently it didn't get through to you. And, what spelling is wrong above? And what grammar? Please back up your claims, you've already been asked so, above. Aw, lemme guess, i didn't capitalize my "i"s, what a shame. And, let's see, i notice on your user page right at the beginning that you have "it's" for "its". Ah. And, uh, above you mistyped "political", "opinion", and misspelled "judgment" (Firefox is so cool!). Dude. Just drop it, will ya? --Jerome Potts (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It was dropped THREE months ago! Put the matches down!--Sand Squid (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the linkfarm tag has been added to this article's external links. Are there any links anyone here is absolutely opposed to deleting? We recently slimmed down the ELs at Fred Thompson, and I know that some seemingly routine link removals can be controversial. Italiavivi 21:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I came to this page as a result of an editor who continued to add Kucinich's web page as a separate wikipedia entry, which the community decided was inappropriate. (See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Www.kucinich.us). I don't care that much about the Kucinich campaign and haven't edited this page at all.
Nevertheless, while just skimming through it, I counted 91 external links. I feel this number of links is extreme and a violation of Wikipedia policies. Please see WP:External Links and Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links.
I added the link cleanup tag and I hope an engaged editor on this page will take some action to reduce the number of external links on this page. As Italia mentioned above, the process of removing External Links could be controversial and I would prefer to leave its cleanup to an editor who is more involved on this page.
But if someone doesn't step forward, I will be bold, remove many of them myself, and we can see where consensus lies.
JasonCNJ 21:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Most of the YouTube links are to promotional or campaign videos. I say BE BOLD my friend! But watch out! He has a cult following like you wouldnt believe.--Sand Squid 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the YouTube videos can all go. Italiavivi 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Coverage of Kucinich's recent vote

I'm wondering the best way to provide NPOV coverage of Kucinich's vote on H. Res. 643, the 9/11 Commemoration Resolution. I saw an obviously reverted vandal statement "..what an embarrasing representative." My question is how best to provide NPOV of what I think is a significant vote. I am eager to hear everyone's thoughts. JasonCNJ 02:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems like a very non-significant vote to me; certainly it was to all the other members who voted on it, and to Kucinich it was one day's slight publicity in a protest of the Iraq War.--Pharos 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to give it more coverage than it deserves but these resolutions are always passed and considered as a matter of course. The fact that he was the only person to vote against this resolution certainly seems notable. Even setting aside the content of the resolution, most votes in Congress are not 330+ in favor to one against. I don't want to ignore the vote but I don't want to give it undue weight. What's the happy medium? JasonCNJ 03:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I would tend to ignore it as a fairly minor incident that doesn't seem to have been covered terribly much in the news, and that anyway isn't uncharacteristic of his contrarian trend. If you feel it must be mentioned, then I'm sure it could fit in a sentence fragment along with other cases where he voted against the overwhelming majority, or alternately in a sentence about his perception of the abuse of the legacy of 9/11.--Pharos 03:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Foreign policy views

I say Kucinich has enough foreign policy views to qualify for their own page, just like his domestic policy views. Anyone willing to be bold and make this page? Whoever does it should have a strong sense of NPOV though, since otherwise we would get lots of little hysterical comments (good or bad) and no coherent picture. Mhym 00:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


Pronunciation

How do you pronounce Kucinich? --Taejo|대조 11:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In the American media, it's commonly pronounced IPA: [kusɪnɪtʃ]. Of course, it's quite possible his ancestors in Europe pronounced it a different way.--Pharos 09:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I usually hear "Coo-Kin-Itch". Timrollpickering 09:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
in america, its prononced "Koo-sin-itch". in europe, they might say it differently. 148.78.249.33 (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified flying object

He is the only candidate who admits to personally having seen a U.F.O. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.200.170 (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean that Shirley Maclaine claims that he has seen one. [9]--Ccady 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

He admitted it at the latest democratic presidential debate

Kborer 18:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he did. Sources confirm it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penny loaf (talk • contribs) 18:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC) And if anyone actually READS the sources before deleting them, he will find they are in the context of spacecraft. Outer space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penny loaf (talk • contribs) 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Read it? I'll do better than that -- I'll quote you the entire thing. I dare you to find the word "outer" or "space" in anything Kucinich said in that debate. He says "I saw something." Read the transcript here. Watch the video here.

MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Kucinich, I want to move to a different area, because this is a serious question.
The godmother of your daughter, Shirley MacLaine, writes in her new book that you've cited a UFO over her home in Washington state -- (laughter) -- that you found the encounter extremely moving, that it was a triangular craft silent and hovering, that you felt a connection to your heart and heard direction in your mind.
Now, did you see a UFO? (Laughter.)
REP. KUCINICH: I did. And the rest of the account -- (interrupted by laughter) -- I didn't -- I -- it was unidentified flying object, okay. It's like -- it's unidentified. I saw something.
Now, to answer your question, I'm moving my -- and I'm also going to move my campaign office to Roswell, New Mexico and another one, an extra, to New Hampshire, okay. (Laughter.) And also, you have to keep in mind that more -- that Jimmy Carter saw a UFO, and also that more people in this country have seen UFOs than, I think, approve of George Bush's presidency. (Laughter.)

This has nothing to do with "outer space" or the Space Preservation Act of 2001. If you feel you need to put this tidbit into the page, go for it -- just don't claim it belongs in a section entitled "Outer Space". Perhaps you should put it right next to the place where it mentions that he is 5'7", and is 30 years older than his wife.--Ccady 15:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This article seems very biased in his favor. Even the UFO thing is totally softened up; it was a big thing for him. An older version of the article told why it became so big, and now it is totally trying to make it seem like it's perfectly fine or normal for him to have claimed seeing a UFO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.29.34 (talk) 19:21 UTC, 29 November 2007

Please log in and sign if you're going to write in here. Regarding your "softened up": thankfully it has been, we are not here to attack him, if that's what you want (in which case you may go away). We are here to state the facts as neutrally as possible, and we keep check on one another on that, and in the end the reader will draw his own judgment. Kucinich said he once saw something apparently flying in the sky which he could not identify, and that's that. He did not say he saw a flying saucer piloted by martians, if that's how you understood it. Incidentally the whole UFO bit had been removed from the article altogether, and i put it back, but at a more appropriate location in the article. --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source for the 14% thing beyond the interviewer's say so? I can't imagine that the actual number is that high. If 14% of people will see a UFO at some point in their lifetime and there are 300 million people in America, 14% is 42 million. If we live an average of 75 years, that's 560,000 unique people who will see a UFO each year, or, 1534 people every day seeing a UFO, with no repeat customers. I guess those UFOs really get around! So if there isn't a source for the 14% other than the interviewer's say so, the article shouldn't report it matter-of-factly. --B (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, this percentage was not stated by Kucinich himself, and the sentence in the article was misleading. Out. --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Update for Impeachment

I added a cited statement on yesterday's introduction of articles and the subsequent actions that sent it to committee. I also added a sentence from his press conference in April regarding impeachment articles. All additions are cited in RS.

I removed the following paragraphs:

In the resolution an article of impeachment was called for pressuring CIA analysts to change their positions. Although the Silberman-Robb report made it clear that there was no pressure, Dennis Kucinich along signed a letter drafted by Henry Waxman to reinvestigate the claims in May of 2007.[1]
Silberman-Robb Report:
Finally, we closely examined the possibility that intelligence analysts were pressured by policymakers to change their judgments about Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs. The analysts who worked Iraqi weapons issues universally agreed that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. That said, it is hard to deny the conclusion that intelligence analysts worked in an environment that did not encourage skepticism about the conventional wisdom.[2]

I did this because (A) the first citation does not match with the text of the article: the citation shows that Waxman robustly disputed the text claim that "the Silberman-Robb report made it clear that there was no pressure" - in fact the cited letter clearly makes the exact opposite point that the Silberman-Robb report "had a limited scope and did not examine what went on within the White House"; (B) the citation does not show anyone else signing the letter - it is only signed by Waxman; (C) there is no indication from a RS that this issue was ever raised in connection with Kucinich. If someone wants to add this back, then they need to (1) find a RS that states that Kucinich signed the letter; (2) properly report what the letter says - namely that there may very well have been pressure since it had not been looked at; (3) find a RS citation that discusses Waxman AND Kucinich's involvement in this letter, and present an argument for why this one issue is more relevant than the other issues in the articles of impeachment. Thank you, Jgui 00:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

International_Alliance_of_Theatrical_Stage_Employes

Tonight, he has asserted membership in International_Alliance_of_Theatrical_Stage_Employes.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 02:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Foreign policy record

I changed "Kucinich and Ron Paul are the only presidential candidates who voted against the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

to

"Kucinich is the only Democratic presidential candidate who voted against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. [emphasis added]"

Ron Paul's vote is irrelevant to Kucinich's voting record. --76.205.118.88 02:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks. Maybe we should add that his capacity to vote on that issue then was as a member of Congress? --Jerome Potts 04:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 1955

I have heard on Democracy Now! that he is one of six to vote "no" on Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 1955.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 16:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Supporting Obama

Someone added a quote from the AP taken out of context to make it sound as though Kucinich had said he would endorse Obama if he lost in Iowa. This is clearly not the case from the AP story read as a whole, and Kucinich's own website also makes the same point (I have added a link). What Kucinich actually said was that:

  • if you are supporting Kucinich in Iowa, and
  • your caucus does not come to a conclusion on the first ballot, and
  • Kucinich is not on the second ballot, and
  • Obama is on the second ballot, then

he says you should pick Obama as a fallback. He has not endorsed Obama in the general sense. He is still campaigning against him in NH next week, for goodness' sake. Marnanel (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A user has twice removed all supporting links in the article which reference Youtube claiming that the copyright status of the linked videos is unknown to us, and therefore the links to Youtube should all be removed. I defended the links saying that

  1. the links are relevant to the article
  2. the links are newsworthy primary sources
  3. the copyright status is not obvious: it could very well fall into the fair use category

I suggest that the links remain. They make for a better article. The proposal for the removal of YouTube videos from Wikipedia has been rejected by the community. Shall we leave the videos in? --Ccady (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not include them, but that is me. --Tom 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I would include it. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 23:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Kusinich one of the few vegans in congress

I think Kusinich is the only vegan in Congress and might be the only vegetarian as well. The article says he is one of the few vegans in Congress, and this needs to be checked. Thanks! Bardofcornish (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Signature

I removed his signature since it has no source. I can grab the pen in MSPaint, write Dennis Kucinich, and upload it to Wikipedia too. Jo9100 (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wexler's co-signing

This is monumental since this might convince to force a vote:Calling it "a sworn duty" of Congress to act, Robert Wexler co-sponsored and signed on July 10, 2008, Kucinich's Articles of impeachment for George Bush, and stated: "President Bush deliberately created a massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American people and the charges detailed in this impeachment resolution indicate an unprecedented abuse of executive power."sun-sentinel.com, U.S. Rep. Wexler calling for impeachment of President Bush Democratic leaders Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi opposed it and she announced that “she would not support a resolution calling for Bush's impeachment, saying such a move was unlikely to succeed and would be divisive.” The testimony will be offered on June 20 by former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan.cnn.com, Kucinich introduces Bush impeachment resolution--Florentino floro (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Telemarketting note: Removed?

Carte Rouge removed a verbatim quote of a telemarketting call sent out to people in California (among other places outside Kucinich's constituancy of Ohio) by "The committee to re-elect Dennis Kucinich to congress" - Even Though the original posting referenced the WEBSITE in the quote of the telemarketting call...TWICE, and the fact that at least two people in California have recieved this call (The OP and me), He said it was "unsourced." - The website counts as a source...does my answering machine ALSO count? I can upload the Telemarketting call from my answering machine, given a couple days to get the right software...anyone else received this call and can verify it being sent to people outside Ohio also? 75.36.197.139 (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no website mentioned in the edit I removed. Carte Rouge (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

surname pronunciation

It would be nice to know whether the proper pronunciation is "kootsinich" or "koochinich". In Croatian it would be "Kucinić" or "Kučinić", respectively. We should add the proper pronunciation to the article. THanks. 70.171.46.92 (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 Presidential campaign

Kucinich should have been elected president but the American people were to ignorant. Please consider removing this statement. Who is this judge that is intellectually privileged and who holds the higher ground above ignorant people?

Can Someone take action against the constant vandalism on this page??

It appears people keep changing Dennis Kucinich's name to elf and keebler. Possibly semi-protecting the page would be a solution.

Weasle tag on Positions section

The positions section is very interestingly worded. It seems like it was written by someone in his campaign staff or from his office. This section needs to be seriously reworded. It is also almost entirely without citations which some of the position claims could seriously use. 199.74.88.41 (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

newsbite...

...was mentioned last week on coast-to-coast am as against/working on getting flouride (amongst other things) out of tap water

  1. ^ [10]'Letter to Fred Fielding' Committee On Oversight And Government Reform, http://oversight.house.gov, May 23, 2007
  2. ^ [11]'Iraq: An Overview' Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, Senate Intelligence Committee 5/23/2005
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dennis_Kucinich/Archives_1&oldid=1136658278"