Brian Flemming's Weblog endorses Dennis Kucinich for president

On March 7, 2000, I voted for a Republican, a novel experience for me. The 2000 presidential primary election was the first in which Californians could vote for a candidate not of their party. I don't necessarily agree that an open primary is a good idea (it seems to me that Democrats should choose the Democratic candidate), but the option was there nonetheless, and I had to figure that into my strategic decision. I felt that the question the ballot posed to me was, In which contest can you make the biggest difference?

I voted for John McCain. Since it was clear that Gore was going to win the California Democratic primary, he didn't really need my help. But Sen. John McCain at that time was still a thorn in Gov. George W. Bush's side. Wanting to make things as difficult as possible for George W. Bush, I figured adding to the apparent support for McCain in California was the best action I could take with my vote. Also, I more strongly preferred McCain over Bush (should a Republican win the general election) than I did Gore over Bradley. (I've never taken the position that one's vote should be guided solely by the impulse of one's conscience. In power games, strategy matters. As soon as they take the politics out of elections, I'll stop voting strategically.)

It's clear that John Kerry is going to win the California Democratic primary March 2, possibly by a whopping 3-1 margin over John Edwards. Frankly, those two seem so similar that I don't have a strong preference for one over the other. If Howard Dean were seriously in the running, I would be voting for Howard Dean. But he's not in the running. The only reason to vote for Dean is to, as they say, "send a message."

But if I were to use my vote to send a message, why wouldn't I vote for my original favored candidate, Dennis Kucinich, whom I abandoned only because he was so clearly unelectable?

Mark Sandalow, San Francisco Chronicle:

The California primary...provides Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, a chance to show his strength. Kucinich's' performance in Hawaii last week, where he won 30 percent of the vote and six delegates, was his best showing of the year. Although no one expects him to approach that level of support on Tuesday, Kucinich's unreconstructed liberal views on matters ranging from gay marriage to withdrawing from Iraq hold appeal among a bloc of California's progressive voters. A strong showing by Kucinich would help to seal his place as a national spokesman for the left.

And what sort of things does this spokesman tend to say? Rep. Kucinich said this on the House floor, April 1, 2003:

Stop this war now. Seventy-five billion dollars more for war. Three-quarters of a trillion dollars for tax cuts, but no money for veterans ' benefits. Money for war. No money for health care in America, but money for war. No money for social security, but money for war. We have money to blow up bridges over the Tigris and the Euphrates, but no money to build bridges in our own cities. We have money to ruin the health of the Iraqi children, but no money to repair the health of our own children and our educational programs.

Stop this war now. It is wrong. It is illegal. It is unjust and it will come to no good for this country.

Stop this war now. Show our wisdom and our humanity, to be able to stop it, to bring back the United Nations into the process. Rescue this moment. Rescue this nation from a war that is wrong, that is unjust, that is immoral.

Stop this war now.

No matter how I vote on Tuesday, the eventual Democratic candidate for president will most likely be a senator who voted for the war on Iraq. I'm realistic enough to accept that as a fact, and also to perceive that either of those formerly pro-war senators would be a thousand times better for the United States than the disaster that is President Bush.

But my vote for Kerry or Edwards in the California primary isn't going to help to defeat George W. Bush. My vote for Kucinich, however, could help to make the congressman's much-needed voice louder in the national conversation.

When it mattered, Kucinich used his voice to say these words about the war: "It is wrong. It is illegal. It is unjust and it will come to no good for this country." Every one of those statements was true, and Dennis Kucinich had the courage to say them back when many others feared to speak the truth. We could do a lot worse in a "national spokesman for the left."

On November 2, I'm going to hold my nose and vote for a bought-and-paid-for Democrat who was too timid to oppose an immoral war when it mattered. I'll do it because, all things considered, that's what's going to be best for the country.

But on March 2, nose unheld, I'm voting for Dennis Kucinich. He's not going to win, but the more visibly supported he is the louder his voice will be in the media, and that can't help but be good for the country.