Thursday, October 11, 2007

Dennis Kucinich will be appearing on Comedy Central's 'The Colbert Report'

Dear [hipparchia],

Dennis will be appearing on Comedy Central's 'The Colbert Report' this Tuesday, October 16th at 8:30pm ET. Throughout this presidential campaign, Dennis has talked about serious issues affecting this country, such as the war in Iraq, the eradication of our civil liberties, the healthcare crisis and other important problems. This Tuesday, we will have the opportunity to see the comical side of Dennis, as he accepts Stephen Colbert's challenge to Empty his Pockets!

Please join supporters nationwide in hosting a campaign house party this Tuesday during the Colbert Report's showing. Please invite 10 guests to your house party and ask them to donate $10, $15, $20, or $25 to the campaign. Together, we will enjoy a good laugh this Tuesday as Dennis empties his pockets!

Also feel free to visit and utilize our action center to locate guests who may like to attend your house party. If you would like to host a house party and need help using the Action Center, please e-mail me at

If you are able to host a house party during Dennis' appearance on The Colbert Report, please e-mail me at to let us know!

Strength through Peace,

Vin Gopal
National Field Director
Kucinich for President


Keifus said...

He could no doubt use the Colbert bump.

I don't know about Kucinich (yes, I know you frequently post on him), but I look forward to a conscience vote in any case this year.

K dkmiqd: milquemaid

hipparchia said...

the colbert bump, indeed.


- cloyingly condescending on abortion, but at least he's no longer against it
- the only candidate pushing single-payer tax-funded health insurance
- vows to have the troops out of iraq within 3 months if he's elected [and out, not just redeployed]
- proposes a cabinet-level department of peace

he's got some other good progressive views too.

Steve Bates said...

Is the Colbert bump anything like the Jersey bounce?

Is it just me, or is Edwards becoming slightly more emphatic in his rhetoric against the insurance and drug companies?

hipparchia said...

he seems very much more emphatic to me too. i'm not sure how much of this impression is becaue i want him to be.

Keifus said...

proposes a cabinet-level department of peace

Now see, this sort of thing is exactly why people don't take the dude more seriously. If you're into proposing a department of peace, then you're either (1) proposing a horrible Orwellian boondoggle of both great expense and great intrusion (c.f. 'homeland security') or (2) you're out to propose some hOb for the sole purposes of making some rhetorcal point. I mean I get it, but I hope he's not serious...and he should be.

(Of course, I hoped wasn't serious too...)


mmwtiuey: we'll mutiny!

Keifus said...

hoped Bush wasn't serious too, that is.

hipparchia said...


why shouldn't we spend huge sums of money to promote peace? why shouldn't we have huge numbers of gainfully employed civil servants, with decent salaries amd decent job security. promoting peace?

the idea's got a venerable history and it's not like we couldn't find the money. right now we're supporting more than 2,5 million in the military [active duty and reserves combined]. imagine if a significant portion of those were actively working towards peace instead of war.

i'm all for increasing bureaucracy, as part of my staunchly redistributionist views, but i'll agree with you wholeheartedly on not wanting more intrusiveness into the lives of ordinary citizens. i have to admit i haven't looked closely enough at this proposal to what it might be like on that score.

Keifus said...

Our war department is already euphemestically named. Does changing the euphemism matter? At best, he's unserious about that. At worst, it's another homeland security.

But on the other hand, I probably shouldn't be too down on the guy for proposing impractical bullshit.


hipparchia said...

heh. i know ioz' pretty words have sucked you in; i'll see what i can do to counter them with my pedestrian ones.

peace keeping
peace enforcment
peace making

it's something of a continuum, but they all do imply using a degree of force, and probably there's no way in this world to not ever use force, unless you're a monk in burma [something i couldn't do, could you?]

but i don't see a department of peace [overview] [full text of bill, 110th congress] as a euphemism for the dept of war, nor as an extension of homeland [non]security.

ioz is my favorite essayist and rhetoricist, but he's not wielding nuance in his blog posts, and neither are you in your comment here [not that i'm complaining about that, just pointing it out :-) ].

anyway, the euphemistically-named department of defense is huge. dismantling it will take effort [or just wating for armageddon], but why not redirect the work at darpa [just to take on example] on those non-lethal [microwaves?] rays of some kind from crowd-control to say, blasting cancer tumors? scientists on the bleeding edge like to be on the bleeding edge, no matter what the intended use of the new technology [generally true; there are some power-hungry bastards out there]. we dismantle/disable the top leaders who are directing the willing scientists, not the entire project or agency.

Keifus said...

I see you picking on me up there. I've got it coming. And what's worse, I also realize that my low opinion of DK is partly based on being manipulated--that's enough reason alone to read his proposal (but not today).

(But I do find that rhetorical device to be a bloody annoying one.)

Also, the DoD pays this (crappy) scientist's salary, or most of it, and I've never worked on anything intended to kill people.

IOZ is right about some things, but at the end of the day, a U.S. republic is still less of a pipe dream than anything remotely good happening from dissolution of the state.

iehmiozd: (no really, that's what came up)