Talk:Dennis Kucinich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dennis Kucinich is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, which collaborates on the United States Congress and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, visit the project page for more information.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Dennis Kucinich is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

1 2004 presidential campaign
2 Personal life
3 Phrasing
4 Title
5 Background
6 Rossami's comments
7 Notable supporters
8 Anti-Kucinich site
9 List of ratings
10 Quote
11 Net worth
12 Dispute over labels
13 First vegan congressman?
14 Kucinich only politician to state Saddam had no wmd, prior to invasion
15 Also against big businesses/corporations funding political campaigns
16 Presidential Campaign 2008
17 Good Article nomination has failed
18 Reverts and Restorations
19 Jackie Kucinich

[edit] 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)

[edit] Personal life

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Title

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

[edit] Background

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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? - Tεx τ urε 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Kucinich only politician to state Saddam had no wmd, prior to invasion

I think it is notable that Dennis Kucinich was the only elected politician that prior to the invasion, clearly stated no evidence had been provided that Iraq had WMD.

Kucinich, 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Dennis Kucinich 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)

[edit] 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)