Given Kucinich’s voting record, I am skeptical of any claim that he did something solely for political expediency. His refusal to vote for the recent SCHIP authorization, on the grounds that it would have excluded sick children of undocumented immigrants, is a perfect example.

Since when is public posturing not political expediency? Unlike Clinton, who primarily defines “political expediency” as “money”, Kucinich seems to define “political expediency” as “repeated public posturing that will eventually lead to money.” If you know you can’t raise the corporate funds, you’re going to have to set yourself up for a Dean-esque grassroots fundraising campaign: and the only way to do that is through years of increasing media exposure targeted to a certain political demographic. Viewed through this lens, all of his actions over the past 5 or so years are politically expedient.

What concerns me are the rumors I hear from my friends on the Hill. Instead of quietly trying to push for real changes in committee, he refuses to add those changes at the committee level solely to facilitate media-intensive grandstanding events later. Although they’re just Hill rumors and I can’t determine their veracity, the more I watch him the more evidence I find pointing in that direction. AETA confirmed it for me. (Besides, the Hill rumors about closeted conservatives were right. Cognitive fallacy, I know, I know. It still makes the Hill scuttlebutt seem a lot more accurate than it used to be.)

hf:

Since this only seems to matter if Kucinich wins the White House, I don’t really know what you’re getting at.

He’s not allowed to change his position between the Democratic National Convention and the general election? I didn’t know that.

Since this only seems to matter if Kucinich wins the White House, I don’t really know what you’re getting at.

Q: You started pro-life. Can you elaborate on what that was that made you change your mind?

A: I’ve always worked to make abortions less necessary, through sex education and birth control. But the direction that Congress has taken, increasingly, is to make it impossible for women to be able to have an abortion if they need to protect their health. So when I saw the direction taken, it finally came to the point where I understood that women will not be truly free unless they have the right to choose

Democratic 2004 Primary Presidential Debate in Durham NH Dec 9, 2003

I’ve had a journey on the issue [of reproductive rights]. A year ago, before I became a candidate for President, I broke from a voting record that had not been pro-choice. After hearing from many women in my own life, and from women and men in my community and across the country, I began a more intensive dialogue on the issue. A lot of women opened their hearts to me. That dialogue led me to wholeheartedly support a woman’s right to choose.

Campaign website, www.Kucinich.org, “On The Issues” Apr 1, 2003

Didn’t he say, “I was pro-life, but then the women in my life told me I was a fool, and I finally stopped thinking about my assumptions and listened to their experiences and realized they were right?”

I’m not sure. But what I do know is that I’ve never met a male pro-lifer — let alone a male vegan pro-lifer — who became pro-choice and described it in that way.
In my experience working with animal rights groups, I’ve noticed that the few vegan pro-lifers there are aren’t persuaded by women’s narratives — they’re persuaded by 1) consciousness as the basis of rights arguments and 2) detailed analyses of the rape exception and how it demonstrates that abortion is ultimately about motherhood, not life.

There’s a first time for everything, but given the timing of that “first time for everything,” I doubt it.

Isn’t switching to pro-choice exactly the sort of behavior we want to encourage? “Don’t bother switching, because we’ll never support you” isn’t a good message to send pro-life Democrats, in my view.

There’s genuinely switching and then there’s switching for political expediency. I’m a fan of the former, but am skeptical of the latter. After all, once you get my vote, what’s going to encourage you to stick with the view you espoused solely for political expediency?

I would be more convinced if he had said, “I was pro-life, but then my daughter/niece/friend’s 15-year-old daughter faced an unplanned pregnancy. And after researching birthmothers’ experiences, I couldn’t bring myself to be pro-life any more.”

Regarding his switch on abortion, as I’ve said before: Isn’t switching to pro-choice exactly the sort of behavior we want to encourage? “Don’t bother switching, because we’ll never support you” isn’t a good message to send pro-life Democrats, in my view.

Point well taken about the AETA bill. But I still think his overall track record is very good.

Pat Robertson:Giuliani::Kate Michelman:Kucinich.

Like most Millenial reproductive rights supporters working on the Hill, I’ve never had a very high opinion of NARAL. They just don’t do anything useful and their lobbying strategies are so poorly designed that they usually backfire. Statements like these just cement my beliefs about their political incompetence.

I’m not sure it’s as simplistic as all that — but regardless, can you honestly say that ANY of the other democratic candidates would have even had the nerve or ethics to vote against it? They all voted for the Patiot Act, for shit’s sake.

It had never gotten out of subcommittee before. If you ask for a roll call, it goes back to the appropriate committee, where the Dems would be more willing to block it.

Congressman Kucinich has been at work thinking about a lot of these issues, and his votes reflect a thoughtful journey. I do accept, and I do welcome, that he believes the right to choose is fundamental.

–NARAL President Kate Michelman

WRT your second point, I’m not sure it’s as simplistic as all that — but regardless, can you honestly say that ANY of the other democratic candidates would have even had the nerve or ethics to vote against it? They all voted for the Patiot Act, for shit’s sake.

Honestly, that’s the most insidious type of D.C. B.S. there is.