What America Lost When Dennis Kucinich Lost

By John Nichols, Common Dreams

07 March 12

hio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a two-time presidential candidate who for the past decade has been the most consistent critic of war and militarism in the U.S. House of Representatives, was defeated Tuesday in a Democratic primary that pitted him against fellow progressive Marcy Kaptur.

Kucinich was the first electoral victim of the current round of redistricting, which saw congressional districts redrawn in states across the country after the 2010 Census.  A Republican governor and legislature carved up northern Ohio districts with an eye toward eliminating at least one Democratic seat, and they achieved their goal by forcing Kucinich and Kaptur into the same district.

That district favored Kaptur and, after a hard-fought race she prevailed by a 56-39 margin, with the remainder going to a third candidate.

Though the race in Ohio's 9th District received scant attention compared with the Republican presidential contest in the state, the result will have national consequences.

A Congress without Dennis Kucinich will be a lesser branch. It's not just that the loss of the former leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus will rob the House of its most consistent critic of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and one its steadiest critics of corporate power.

Kucinich has since he arrived on the Hill in 1997 been one of a handful of absolutely engaged members. When issues have arisen, be it domestic or international, low profile or high, Kucinich has been at the ready - often with the first statement, the strongest demand and the boldest plan.

A master of parliamentary procedure, and a Constitutional purist, Kucinich has given Democratic and Republican congressional leaders their share of headaches. And he has been more than willing to break with Democratic and Republican presidents on matters of principle. But even as he frustrated the most powerful players in Washington, Kucinich won an enthusiastic base of supporters who backed him for the Democratic presidential nominations in 2004 and 2008.

Though he never got near the nomination in either year, Kucinich earned high marks for forcing the other contenders to address fundamental issues of war and peace, civil liberties and trade policy. At the same time, he remained sufficiently in touch with his blue-collar Cleveland area district - turf that had previously elected a Republican - to keep his seat in the face of primary and general election challenges from candidate backed by the political and media elites that had been after Kucinich since his days as the uncompromising "boy mayor" of Cleveland.

Had his district remained intact, Kucinich would have won Tuesday's primary. But the 2010 election put Republican Governor John Kasich and his conservative allies in charge of the Ohio redistricting process. With encouragement from House Speaker John Boehner, they targeted Kucinich from the start. Everyone knew Kucinich was threatened, and the congressman even entertained the prospect of moving to Washington state, where he has long been a favorite of progressive activists and where population shifts had created an open seat that might be friendly to his ambitions.

Ultimately, however, Kucinich opted for a race in a redrawn Ohio district that included portions of his Cleveland base. The district also included Toledo, the home of Congresswomen Kaptur, a Democrat with whom Kucinich had frequently allied over the years.

Kucinich and Kaptur have both served in Congress as outsiders, members of the Progressive Caucus, with records of opposing wars, free-trade deals and economic policies that favor the one percent over the 99 percent. Both have 95 percent AFL-CIO records. Both have 100 percent ACLU records.

There were, to be sure, distinctions. Kucinich, who for many years voted with opponents of reproductive rights, switched his position before the 2004 presidential election and ran this year as the more socially liberal contender. Kaptur,  the longest-serving woman in the House and a champion of many feminist causes, was ranked as "mixed choice" by NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Kucinich was always the purest anti-war champion, and he made a point of highlighting that in the race with Kaptur, a ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee who the Cleveland congressman argued should have done much more to cut the Pentagon budget.

But Kaptur, who came to national prominence as an outspoken foe of the 2008 bank bailout, emerged as a national hero of union and community activists who shared her determination to "bust the banksters." She was a star of the film "Capitalism, a Love Story," in which she told filmmaker Michael Moore that the 2008 bailout was a "a financial coup d'etat."

Kaptur's boldness in opposing the big banks and Wall Street, as well as her passionate advocacy on behalf organized labor, would have been missed, as well, in a Congress that needs all the economic populists it can get.

But losing Kucinich will be hard. In some of the toughest days for the American experiment as a Republican administration plotted to wage a war of whim in Iraq, Democratic "leaders" stood down. It was Dennis Kucinich who spoke up for peace and who kept speaking up with a determination that gave hope to activists across the United States and around the world.

The Republican mapmakers in Oho may have drawn Dennis Kucinich out of his district, and out of Congress. But they will not draw him out of the history of these times. Indeed, when the story of America in the first years of the 21st century is told, Dennis Kucinich will be remembered as the rare member of Congress who opposed wars that could not be justified, who defended rights that could not be surrendered, who demanded accountability from the presidents and vice presidents who could not be allowed to have their way with the republic.

Sweet Home Chicago: G8 Summit Moved but Protests Will Continue

By Danny Schechter, Reader Supported News

07 March 12

Reader Supported News | Perspective

ho called whom first?

Did the Obama Alumni Association in Chicago - David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley - get nervous and call the White House? Or was it Barack himself, having disposed of/co-opted one threat by the name of Netanyahu, who recognized he had a more serious problem on the horizon?

The president has been playing Ronald Reagan these days, talking tough while feinting towards the center. What he most decidedly does not want to do is play Hubert Humphrey and relive the summer of 1968 in Chicago.

That's why the G8 meeting was shifted from contested ground there to safe space in the ultra-secure, well-guarded environment of Maryland's Camp David.

The last thing the president needs in the middle of his campaign is another police riot in the Second City.

Someone must have pointed out that the Occupy movement was already in the process of planning another battle ala Seattle in the very heartland of the Obama Empire. Even the editor of Adbusters, who issued the call to occupy Zuccotti Park last September, now has his megaphone fixed on the Second City.

The worldwide movement that has mobilized to confront so many G8s has had this one in its crosshairs for months.

Sweet Home Chicago was in line to become a sweet home for a world of angry protesters, not just Americans.

That had to be stopped, or diverted, and it was.

But first, there was the passage of a draconian new anti-protest law with bi-partisan support and little press attention.

The National Lawyers Guild explained:

"Just when you thought the government couldn't ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn't already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country."

Next, the law, coming on the heels of the NDAA, had to be broad enough cover most contingencies:

"The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president's palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting - even temporarily - is covered, as is any building or grounds 'restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.'"

It's not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

While some are demanding that the president veto it, it may be that he was part of the network that signed off on it and the change of venue.

While the G8 is moving, plans for a large NATO meeting in Chicago are continuing, and protest activists told the Chicago Tribune they are not going to be deterred:

Early word from protest organizers was that if the move was intended to slow them down, that wouldn't happen.

"The main thing is, the protests will go forward," said anti-war protest leader Andy Thayer. "We believe that NATO is, frankly, the de facto military arm of G-8 and anybody who's upset with G-8 should be upset with NATO."

Because G-8 is being moved to a remote, highly secure location, Thayer said Chicago would still be a magnet for large demonstrations.

"I believe that people will very much focus on Chicago. So much organization has already gone into this," he said, adding that groups will tinker with their demonstration plans rather than abandon them. "We're going to have a quick consultation to see whether we need to move our demonstration from the 19th to the 20th."