One thing about the 10 Democratic presidential challengers: They don’t put their feet in their mouths quite like the incumbent. Unfortunately, that’s about all you can say when it comes to poverty. All slammed the House Republicans for excising the poor from their child tax credit bill last spring and most would raise the minimum wage (to, well, something more… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (20)Page 1 of 1 pagesìWhen you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country. So I think that the tax cuts were unfair.î -Wesley Clark
HAHAHAHAHA!That sounds like something W would say.
Posted by brad on Oct 1, 2003 at 12:42 PM Yep Brad, I agree.
Wesley Clark joins the race so late in the game and he’s the front runner???? WTF?
Has no one learned from history when former generals have been terrible presidents?
Posted by neil on Oct 1, 2003 at 7:01 PM The fact is is even the Democracy
is broken because of Corporate
interests. Our Government has been stolen by Corporate theives.
The only way to save it is to go back
to GRASSROOTS Politics. By the people, for the people. Jim Hightower’s latest book, Theives in High Places. what candidates that are running refuse corporate donations? Have a reputation of resisting corporate power grabs? are not manipulated by $$$?
That would be who I would want
to speak for me. Have you heard about Dennis Kucinich?!!!!!!!
Posted by Kfairbanks on Oct 1, 2003 at 7:49 PM I agree with the general unfitness of Wesley Clark for any position higher than that of pump attendant, but seriously, name the last president who wasn¥t of dubious character.
Posted by Owen on Oct 2, 2003 at 5:36 AM there is no problem with the fact that he said it, it just sounds like something W would say when he is nervous. The three top candidate at the end of this thing will be Gephart, Dean and maybe Kerry or Clark. But, of course, the top candidate is Hillary Clinton.
Posted by brad on Oct 2, 2003 at 8:24 AM It’s the typical state of affairs. For those of us who are not content with the status quo, there is only one candidate within the 2 major parties. Unfortunately, that candidate was pretty much excluded from the upper eschelon of contenders from the outset.
The good news is that there are signs of the tide finally starting to turn. The current president is becoming very beatable thanks to the policies of his underlings.
Kucinich offers clear vision and concrete plans for accomplishing his goals in regards to poverty and equality, which seems to be right at the top of a list of qualifications for president “in these times.” I think Gephardt is on the right track with his WTO plan, but I doubt his fortitude. Wesley Clark, hopefully, is in this thing to shore up his position as an ideal running mate and nothing more.
Posted by mike on Oct 2, 2003 at 8:47 AM It is clear that Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate with a clear position on poverty in this country, and a definate agenda to deal with it. I think it is a shame that Mr. deMause chose not to make that identifying statement in his opening paragraph. He chose instead to use the nebulous “bulk of the ... field”. It is clear from his comments on each candidate that he is aware of this. I wish he’d chosen to state it outright.
Posted by Carole Keene on Oct 2, 2003 at 9:41 AM Neil,
Why do you say that none of the 10 democratic candidates have a serious commitment to the poor in your opening paragraph? You later state that Dennis Kucinich “is the only candidate to address the problems of welfare reform in his campaign statement.” Why not give him credit up front? Kucinich is the true populist candidate with concrete solutions to poverty. Check out his ten platform issues at
http://kucinich.us/issues/issue_10key.htm
Posted by Laura Wilder on Oct 2, 2003 at 9:53 AM none of them has a clue what it is to be working and poor. prices have gone nuts. i am not poor so much as i do not work and i do not have money,it is that the money i earn is not worth much. or is it prices are high??? does it matter ? i work 45 hours a week @ 8.50. some one offer me a better job!!!! i live in colorado but will move for moey
Posted by mark mcdowell on Oct 2, 2003 at 1:30 PM The only value of articles like this is to encourage Democrats to let their candidates know that they care about the poor and they want them to be more specific on how they will help the poor. Unfortunately, too much time is spent by progressives in persnickety perfectionist karping against all the Democratic candidates. If none of them is “good enough” even for us, and we keep running them all down, we’ll have four more “W” years--that’s “W” for wretched, wicked, wrongheaded, war-mongering, and Whatever Neocons Want! Expanding Health Care, supporting the right of workers to organize and join unions, and getting rid of Bush’s entire tax cut giveaway(none of which went to help the poor) are anti-poverty programs. They are advocated by the candidate I support, Howard Dean. Don’t like his fiscal conservative stance? Without some REAL compassionate Fiscal Conservatism, we’ll never be able to afford anti-poverty programs.
Posted by Jackie Giles on Oct 2, 2003 at 1:56 PM I just wanted to remind you of the biggest anti-poverty program in our nation’s history, Lyndon Johnson’s Greater Society program, billions and billions were spent on stomping out poverty in the country. The poverty percent never moved. I still feel the best way to help get people out of poverty is by improving education, better teachers and better schools. I happen to think vouchers are the best way, but any way we can get education improved it will help those get out of poverty.
My question is whether the capitalistic society we live in requires that there be some poverty? We’re not communist or socialist nor should we ever be, so is poverty something that we should accept will happen and just try to create programs that help people will work out of it.
Posted by brad on Oct 2, 2003 at 2:36 PM Dennis Kucinich not only favors programs of benefit to the poor---he has “been there” in terms of poverty. Also he’s practically alone among the candidates in his refusal to accept corporate funding for his campaign. As President he will be able to work to realize his visions of universal health care and education without having to worry about offending the corporate forces that supported him. Few of these candidates can say that! Jerry Rose, Gainesville FL
Posted by Jerry Rose on Oct 2, 2003 at 3:15 PM I think you missed the REAL story here. Going through your description of the canidates, it seems clear that ONE of them DOES not only really care about poverty, (because he’s actually been poor) but has a record of DOING something about it. The article should be about Kucinich’s strides to eliminate poverty in Cleveland. His recent focus has been on helping Cleveland’s mentally ill and supporting area homeless shelters. Education IS the answer to this problem. He’s got it RIGHT. That’s news.
Posted by Sara Cutlip on Oct 3, 2003 at 8:38 AM I WAS FIRST INTERESTED IN WHAT DEAN HAD TO SAY BUT THE MORE I HEAR AND SEE THE MORE I WOULD GO FOR DENNIS KUCINICH. I BELIEVE HE HAS THE FIGHTING SPIRIT AND THE WILL TO GET THINGS DONE. FOR SURE HE WASN’T FED FROM A SILVER SPOON. EDUCATION AND LIVING WAGES ARE THE ANSWER AND KUCINICH WOULD BE THE ONE TO BRING THE AROUND. GEPHARDT COULDN’T MAKE UP HIS MIND IF HE WAS A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN WHEN IT COUNTED AND EVERYONE KNOWS LIEBERMAN IS A BUSH LITE.
Posted by ROBERT D. DAILY on Oct 5, 2003 at 3:09 PM Thanks for this short, but insightful look. It’s given me a basis to start researching these candidates. So far, I like what I see of Dennis Kucinich. I just hope he can get enough PR to have a chance.
Posted by neil on Oct 5, 2003 at 9:24 PM Yes, Robert Daily, I agree about Gephardt. One minute he appears to have people’s best interests in mind, the next he’s supporting the Bush agenda. I used to think he’d make a good president, but over the past eight years he’s shown he just does what’s best for his political career.
Lieberman scares me almost as much as Bush.
Posted by neil on Oct 5, 2003 at 9:27 PM I know who Dennis Kucinich is. I have been following him with great interest since his “Prayer for America” speech in February, 2002. That time was dark and silent, a few months after 9/11 when we were in shock and awe! Dennis spoke and reminded us of who we are as Americans and citizens of the world. His was the lone voice of dissent. Gore was missing, Clinton was mute, but, Dennis, in the House of Representatives has been a passionate voice fighting for not only the Buckeyes but all of us. He says he hasn’t forgotten where he came from, a family of seven children living in cars. He knows the pain of poverty. Yet, he shines like a beacon for us today, hopeful and ready to lead our way out of the darkness and secrecy. Dennis will not support $87 billion to bail out Bush. He will cancel NAFTA, WTO, Patriots Act, and bring the Troops home with the UN’s participation. Dennis isn’t taking PAC money. I am proud to support Dennis Kucinich for President because I believe what he believes. We can do this. He has the heart and mind to give us a new day.
Posted by Patty Diliberto on Oct 13, 2003 at 10:34 PM Why did author say in his lead-in what can be concluded from reading the profile on each candidate: that Kucinich is the ONLY candidate who has specific ideas about how to improve the lot of the poor? Why mention the “bulk” of the 10 candidates without mentioning the single excaption?
Posted by Jerry Rose on Oct 17, 2003 at 7:58 AM Why did author say in his lead-in what can be concluded from reading the profile on each candidate: that Kucinich is the ONLY candidate who has specific ideas about how to improve the lot of the poor? Why mention the “bulk” of the 10 candidates without mentioning the single excaption?
Posted by Jerry Rose on Oct 17, 2003 at 7:58 AM Why did author say in his lead-in what can be concluded from reading the profile on each candidate: that Kucinich is the ONLY candidate who has specific ideas about how to improve the lot of the poor? Why mention the “bulk” of the 10 candidates without mentioning the single excaption?
Posted by Jerry Rose on Oct 17, 2003 at 7:58 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Neil deMause
- Elders of the New Left
- School’s Out
New welfare rules could put education out of reach - The Candidates on the Poor
- Ending the Cycle of Terror
- Bad to Worse
Welfare reform is up for reauthorization, but it's only going to get meaner
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
