DNC/DLC to bar Kucinich and Sharpton from next Demo debate???

[Cascadian]

I was listening to a little bit of the Dave Ross Show on KIRO 710 AM this morning and they had Ralph Nader on as a guest. According to Nader, there is a chance that some pro-corporate, centrist leaders in the DLC and DNC want to bar Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton from the next Democratic candidate debate. Is this true?

If this is true then this will be an outrage. It will confirm to me that Howard Dean was right about a need for new leadership within the DNC and DLC. It would be a mockery of democracy to deny anybody and I do mean anybody from taking part in debates.

John

[liberalnurse]

1. If it turns out to be true....then....

we can flood them 24/7 with an expression of our outrage.

[annagull]

2. I wouldn't take Nader's word for it

I don't believe it. It would seriously lose a huge Dem base if the did that--African Americans would be furious, and alot of real Democrats who support DK would walk away--a very active part of the base. I think it's great that we have all of these voices out there, especially Reverend Al--he really can fire up a crowd!

[bluestateguy]

3. The problem

is that there are 9, maybe 10 if Clark gets in, candidates in the race. The debate will have to be 3 hours long to get a real feel for what the candidates stand for. Clearly there are major candidates in this race and nuisance candidates in this race. I'm not naming any names, but I think we all know who those candidates are.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. I'm a nuisance to the DLC

There are a lot of us. You can't win without us, look what happened last time.

[buddhamama]

8. i haven't the slightest who those candidates are

why don't you clue me in.

nuisance candidates? i often sit and ponder, when will people realize we're living in a democracy.

[Cascadian]

10. Who are they?

Please be specific. It's not Dean is it? Kucinich???

John

[Dancing_Dave]

28. Kucinich: Major or Nuisance?

Kucinich is a major canidate in this race, but he's a major nuicance to the DLC!

[leesa]

31. Well certainly Lieberman is one

Kerry? Graham? I give up.

[Code_Name_D]

32. I don't buy the expedeincy argument.

We have until Febuary for the real primary to get started. Don't tell me that this is no time for all the canadates to participate in the debate.

The DLC delibritly runs out the clock then cryes "oh no, we just don't have enugh time to treat every one fairly, so we will just focuse on our choises."

I don't know if Nader is right about this or not. But if I ask, "would the DLC stoop to something like this?" Its not so easy to dismiss.

The question needs to be asked of McCaffey if this is true or not.

[mdmc]

55. Just let Joe and Kerry Debate

Thats the dlc ticket!

[jiacinto]

4. The DNC and DLC are two separate entities first off

Secondly, I don't think any of the candidates is going to be barred from the debate. Ralph Nader hardly has any credibility in this matter.

[Cascadian]

9. I think this is worth looking into though.

IMHO. Of course that the DLC and DNC are separate entities but they both carry some weight within the Democratic Party. To remove these two gentlemen from the debates is totally ridiculous. I even personally think even Larouche should be able to take part even though some people think he is nuts.


John

[jiacinto]

14. I don't they are going to be excluded from the debates

And I really don't take Nader seriously at all.

[Terwilliger]

27. hahahahahah

this is the man who says that Nader wants to destroy the Democratic party!

Of course, his tone has changed a LOT since the Bush SOTU story.

[bearfartinthewoods]

43. a waste of time

people, as the candidate of the greens or on his own, nader is NOT working for the good of the democratic party. of course that goes for the greens as well. we have to remember that they ran a candidate against Gore so that makes them the opposition, imho. so anything they or their candidate have to say about our strategy is to be viewed with suspicion.

[mdmc]

56. But it wouldn't suprise us

if the dnc / dlc barred Kucinich and Sharpton, and Braun.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. Only rich white candidates allowed?

The Yalies refuse to play with the black guy and the poor white trash? If the DNC leaves us out, you won't get our votes. Go ahead, try winning without us. You're doing *such* a good job.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. Carol Mosely Braun is niether rich nor white

There was no mention of excluding her.

[Tinoire]

6. If that's the case, why isn't Dean barred? Makes little sense. n/t

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. because Dean is pro-corporate?

And says NAFTA is a good thing? Why would they bar Dean, he's the official protest candidates that agrees with all the other candidates?

[ryharrin]

35. You're misrepresenting Dean here.

He believes in fair trade, and thinks that countries that we trade with should have comparable labor and human rights laws. The reason his is definitely going to be included in the debates is because he is at least third in all the polls now (third in the last national, second in Iowa and second in NH statistically tied in all of them.)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

54. same old song and dance from Dean - we've heard it

Kerry voted for the exact same "fair trade" plan that Dean proposed. Actually, Dean hasn't even proposed it. After spending his entire career as a corporate "free-trader" Dean's supporters have posted ONE interview where Dean repeats the exact same line given to us by Democrats for 10 years - we'll put some environmental and labor protections in the trade agreements.

That's just what Clinton said, and he didn't. That's what Kerry and the rest of the Democrats said a few years ago, but they lost. Now it's what Dean supporters are saying - but I don't hear Dean saying much.

Just the one interview, and you people keep spinning it.

It's obvious whose side Dean is on here.

[Mairead]

41. BING-O! Nailed it in one go

Dr Dean is the Acceptable Alternative -- the wealthy elite with the populist voice and the corporatist record.

[Le Taz Hot]

45. Oh, of course, let's just

miss the entire message (some Dems may be barred from the debates) and take this opportunity to misrepresent and bash Dean. But of course.

Same shit, different day. May I suggest a hobby? :eyes:

To address the ORIGINAL THREAD: I wouldn't put it past the Democratic powers-that-be to pull this one off. They, along with the RNC barred Nader from the 2000 debates. If true, this would be an outrage and, as a Dean supporter, I would be the first one firing off nastygrams to the DNC.

[mdmc]

57. Dean is the dlc

and they will let him debate. They are just pissed that he increased his name recognition on the back of the anti war movement, instead of being obscure and supporting the war, just not the result of war.

[Le Taz Hot]

61. A charge which has been addressed

25,826 times already. Could we get back to the ISSUE, please?

[burr]

33. Only Kucinich, Sharpton, and Braun are not in the DLC.

And it would be very bad for PR to ban the only woman running in the primaries. PR is the top priority of the DNC and the DLC, maybe they should hire Ari as the neo-Demo spokesperson.

[dsc]

11. Given Nader's lying about Gore

why on earth would we believe him now? Especially when his story is patently abusrd. Newsflash the DLC doesn't run the debates. I guarentee that every single Democratic candidate will be at every single debate unless some candidate decides to sit a debate out.

[dsc]

12. Given Nader's lying about Gore

why on earth would we believe him now? Especially when his story is patently abusrd. Newsflash the DLC doesn't run the debates. I guarentee that every single Democratic candidate will be at every single debate unless some candidate decides to sit a debate out.

[JackSwift]

13. Nader is a lying sack of shit

And so are all greens. They are trying to split and demoralize us so that Bush can win.

[Cascadian]

16. Divisiveness will get us nowhere!

I wished some of you Dems would stop criticizing the Greens. The same goes for Greens criticizing the Dems. In this critical period in America, we have to forget 2000 and move on. We must unite to get Bush and his band of crooks out of Washington, D.C. Please, please, please cut it out!

John

[hang a left]

19. yep it's us

against them. united for a common cause! power to the people

[jiacinto]

26. It's kind of hard when the Green's 2000 candidate

all but attacks Democrats all day.

[bearfartinthewoods]

44. and demand that we abandon actual democrats to cater to them.

talk about the mouse that roared. how many greens are there?

and we are supposed to shift to accomadate them?

[chimpymustgo]

42. Nader drops bomb, divides Dems. Why would anyone believe him?

He is a divisive sack of shit. He's the one picking the fight. Now everybody's all riled up about something he is "suggesting". What the hell does he know?

God, I hate his sorry ass.

[Brian Sweat]

50. It's ok for Nadir to constantly attack Democrats with lies

but we're supposed to grin and bear it. Not on my watch. Nadir is not one of us and I do not want to make common cause with him or anyone who supports him.

As far as Democratic candidates being barred from Democratic debates, I will believe it when I see it. Until then, it is just Nadir talking out his ass.

[mdmc]

60. The GOP is our enemy

The Greens oppose them on everything, but can't beat them.
The Dems support them, but can beat them.

[Terwilliger]

25. but we don't need to demoralize you

you demoralize us...then tell yourselves "ohhhhh everythings gonna beeee allllllriiiiiiiiight" when Greens are gone and you realize the only ones left are Republicans who've just sold your "support" to the corporation

:nuke:

[Cascadian]

34. You know that could well happen?

I can see the Republican Party becoming the only one party allowed in the political process one day. It's almost happening now. This is why the Democrats and the left (i.e. Greens, Socialists) must unite to curtail the right-wing onslaught. You have to agree with that.

John

[TheDonkey]

15. what a dumbass

Nader is lying off his gord. FOr one the DLC does not have that much power and it would be outrageous for the DNC to even consider that.

What an idiot. I lose more and more respect for the creep everyday. I'm glad he wants to see Bush back in the WH.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. I doubt this is true

On what basis whould Shapton and Kucinich be disqualified? None of the candidates are doing so well in the polls as "Who are these guys, anyway?" Didn't a CBS poll give him 66%? He's running away with it.

So, if one is dropped for bad poll numbers, perhaps the whole lot of them ought to be dropped.

Of course, dissent from the DLC isn't it, or they would only include the "Blair Democrats": Lieberman, Gephardt, Kerry and Edwards. Perhaps that wouldn't be so bad. The four of them may need the floor to themselves and all the time alloted without interference to explain why their support for the Bush's invasion and acceptance of his pack of lies shouldn't earn them the epitath gullible.

[dpbrown]

20. No, this is a rehash of a story printed in June

The original concerned statements made (by MN DFL Chair Mike Erlandson and others) prior to the meeting of State Democratic Chairs in St. Paul. We all know, of course, that Rep. Kucinich was not excluded from that meeting and did quite well in his presentation to the state party chairs.

Following is the original article written by Steven Thomma. The mention by Nader is just a rehash of this same idea, debunked nearly a month ago.

Please note that the original article makes it clear that the Democratic Party, planning six national monthly debates through this year, has stated it will *not* limit debates by eliminating candidates in 2003.

__________________________________________

The Tallahassee Democrat
Wednesday, June 18, 2003

Democrats talk of narrowing the field Kucinich, Braun, Sharpton at
issue
By Steven Thomma
KNIGHT RIDDER TRIBUNE

Democrats are starting to wrestle with a thorny problem: how to brush
aside three fringe candidates for president who have no realistic
chance of winning their party's nomination next year. Several state
Democratic Party chairmen think the national party should find a way
to limit debates to the top six candidates and exclude the three
widely considered to make up the bottom tier: Rep. Dennis Kucinich of
Ohio, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois and the Rev. Al
Sharpton of New York.

In interviews before this week's annual meeting of the Association of
State Democratic Chairs, several suggested setting a threshold for
candidates' admission to debates based on support as measured in
public-opinion polls, fund raising or campaign organization in early
primary states. They favored doing this even before the first votes
are cast in January.

Other state chairmen disagreed, saying they preferred to keep the
debates and the race wide open until Democratic voters start
winnowing the field themselves with caucus and primary votes early
next year. Any effort to bar candidates would be undemocratic, they
said, and would risk alienating rank-and-file party members. Notably,
two of the bottom three candidates are African Americans, one of the
party's most loyal constituencies. All three are liberals.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[theriverburns]

22. The three underdogs should work together

Draw straws. Flip coins. Pick a number between one and ten and tag team. Eeney Meeney Miney Moe. Winner runs for Pres. Second for VP and third guaranteed their choice of Cabinet post.

Compromise on platform and pool their resources and campaign for each other. Any of the three are better than the front runners in terms of being progressive, non-corporate, non-sellout old-fashioned Democrats.

If they need to break off from the (un)Democratic party and partner with the Greens and take the Demcrats down with them I will go with them. Fuck it. Give me liberty or give me death. There is no difference between Democrats who are pro WoD, pro corporate welfare, pro massive military spending, pro H1B visas and anti union and GW Bush. They force the only real outspoken and honest liberals from this race and I have had it. Goodbye Democratic party.

I am a liberal. An old fashioned blue collar democrat who wants someone who will protect American jobs. A man who grew up poor and needed Pell grants to go to school. A small businessman who has devoted his career to promoting the inner city and fighting to save small farms. I refuse to be coerced into voting for someone who is willing to sell half his votes to Exxon, Eli Lilly and DuPont just so he can be accepted as "electable" by the corporate media. I want someone who doesn't force me to hold my nose when I vote. Dean, Kerry, Gephart, Graham and Edwards are all "business as usual" Democrats. I may as well vote Bush.

Fuck the media telling US who is electable. We need to tell THEM. If we don't we are lost.

They serve us up another big heaping platter of Enronite candidates and it will prove that Nader was right. The Democrat party offers us no choice at all.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

62. Look you did a BAD thing - you mentioned them by NAME:

"Exxon, Eli Lilly and DuPont"

May I add NBC/General Electric, CBS/Westinghouse, ABC/Capcities-Disney, FOX/Newscorp?

I'm willing to compromise with the other anti-corporate Dems. sounds good to me.

[gottaB]

39. Exaclty

Since then the DNC scheduled debates with all 9 candidates. Nobody's excluded.

There was also a pact between Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman who agreed not to appear on stage together in candidate forums. That deal has fallen apart, most spectacularly surrounding the NAACP forum in Miami. But it wasn't tenable anyway. With Dean making huge strides, Lieberman slipping, Edwards having trouble breaking out, and Gephardt going nowhere, the race was being defined as one between Kerry and Dean, and Kerry couldn't afford not to campaign against Dean. Meanwhile Edwards wasn't getting anywhere by pretending to be a front runner. He had to get his message out any way he could. Upshot, expect more debates with DLC candidates mixing with the "outsiders," who, despite all their disadvantages, are polling well.

I do keep an eye out though. Al From and friends have made it abundantly clear that they have no respect for the other candidates, for the party, for the voters, or for democracy.

[newyawker99]

49. dpbrown

Per DU copyright rules
please post only 4
paragraphs from the
news source.


Thank you.

NYer99
DU Moderator

[Eloriel]

21. It would be consistent with the DLC's PAC's requirements

It disallows liberals and uses a questionnaire to scrupulously eliminate them from consideration. And, naturally, I can't find that link.

Eloriel

[Terwilliger]

23. No, it SHOULD confirm that Nader was right

[pasadenademocrat]

37. nadar was right about what?

there being no difference between a bush and gore administration?

Tens of thousands dead Iraqis and 250 dead Americans disagree.

[bobthedrummer]

24. Kucinich link

http://www.kucinich.us/

[indigo32]

29. I find this very hard to believe

but if it's true... the other candidates should boycott as well. That is just pathetic.

[sham]

30. absolutely

if this is true (which I doubt) I would fully expect Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Graham, and Mosely-Braun to boycott the debates.

Lieberman and Gephardt may go if they please, they're finished anyway.

[ChillEB]

36. Well, this could be a very good thing...

Whichever candidates DEMAND that these two be included, otherwise THEY will not appear in the debate?

THOSE will be the candidates I will consider voting for in November, 2004. If the nominee turns up being somebody who will NOT take a stand for Al and Dennis?

I WILL be voting Green in 2004.

You READ THAT, DLC?

I swear, if this is really true, I am going to absolutely fly off the handle.

[pasadenademocrat]

38. Will Kucinich promise not to break into song?

When I saw him speak, he started singing in the middle of his speach. It totally creeped me out.

I'm just teasing with that. He is a good guy with his heart in the right place. He does need a little help with how to present himself to the electorate, however.

They all deserve to be heard until the first primary, and then it would be fair to start eliminating people from the debates based on how the finish. Eventually the field has to get narrowed some way. there just isn't enough time or interaction with 9 person debates

[bluestateguy]

40. Well

"I WILL be voting Green in 2004."

As long as you don't live in a swing state, I'm not going to waste my time with you.

[poskonig]

47. I know -- let us have TWENTY candidates debate each other!!

We can squeeze them into a sixty minute format while we're at it. That'll do the party a lot of good.

Why don't the Nader, Sharpton, and Kucinich people stop the incessant whining and the bullshit DLC-conspiracy theories, get off their asses, and do a little footwork to get their candidates up in the polls? That's what the Dean people have been doing!

[Brian Sweat]

52. No Democratic candidates are being excluded

it is just Nadir lying has ass off again. The Democratic Party always has about 8 to 10 candidates and they always participate in the debates.

[tjdee]

48. Dean has not said anything about new leadership, has he?

I don't think he has.

[sangha]

51. According to Nader?

'nuff said

[tomp]

53. any candidate who particpates will be culpable.

all candidates should oppose this (if it's true, that is)

[HFishbine]

58. Any Candidate with balls

would refuse to participate in a debate that excluded any of the other dem candidates.

[sangha]

59. Any Democrat with a brain

will discount this rumor based on the source