Judge grants Kucinich entry to Tuesday's debate

[Emit]

LAS VEGAS (AP) — A Nevada judge says Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich must be included in Tuesday’s candidates’ debate in Nevada.

Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson says if Kucinich is excluded, he’ll issue an injunction stopping the televised debate.

The judge sided with a lawyer for the Ohio congressman, who says debate host MSNBC at first invited Kucinich to take part and then told him last week he couldn’t.

A lawyer for the network says MSNBC decided to go with the top three candidates after the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.
The judge calls it a matter of fairness and says Nevada voters will benefit if they hear from more than just Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

~SNIP~

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080114/NEWS19/80114039/1232/NEWS19

[peace13]

1. This is great news!

Wa hoo way to go Dennis.

[Kikosexy2]

88. Wonderful, yes...

but watch him get practically ignored by the mediator..who will only focus on the top 3...

[mikelgb]

2. K & Fn R!

[Richard Steele]

3. Great news! K&R!

[BuyingThyme]

4. Uh oh. He's the guy who wants the votes counted.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

32. ...

:spray: :rofl:

[jwirr]

5. Good, Kucinich, like John Edwards should stay in the campaign

to the bitter end just because what they are saying needs to be said.

[TahitiNut]

48. It benefits Edwards, too.

:shrug:

[kenfrequed]

165. It is sort of a mixed bag

There is the chance that Kucinich and Edwards might be drawing from the same pool of support, splitting the progressive vote.

However, having them both speak to the left of center spectrum keeps Obama and Clinton from shifting the debate too far to the right. With fewer candidates and a distinct difference between them, hopefully policy and voting records will become more important than the glittering generalities, mindless questions, and celebrity nonsense that has filled these debates so far.

Also their continued inclusion adds to the legitimacy of the "third tier" and suggests to the folks at home that there are still real choices.

[L0oniX]

6. SLAP!

[ursi]

7. THIS IS BIG!! Thank you, Dennis Kucinich!

I still say Harry Reid was behind keeping him out of the debate. He was trashing Dennis on a Reno liberal radio station last week.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. A judge dictating to a news organization

And you're okay with that?

Right outcome, wrong decision-maker.

--p!

[peace13]

15. A news organization that is trying to 'select' the next Pres.

Yes.. I see your concern. No not really, the fact is that these debates should include all candidates in order to insure that each has a voice. You have to admit that the bar was changed each time Kucinich was excluded.

[Dogmudgeon]

38. You're right. I though it stunk. I said so.

But I'm not sure we want to invite the state/court into news organization decisions. Taming corporate influence in the media will have to take place on a corporate level. This is state intrusion into the news, not the corporation.

Still ... open that can of worms. People will talk about it. Power hates attention. Even though it's a half-a-loaf decision, if we can keep it in the media, it may yet have some benefit.

--p!

[Breeze54]

92. States have a say about what is on their airwaves, I think.

FCC and all are not corporate owned. The air waves are "We, The People" owned!

[onenote]

120. Nope. None at all.

Federal law preempts state law regulating communications except where federal law expressly carves out a role for nonfederal government, such as the role played by municipalities in granting cable franchises (which cannot be used to regulate content).

[leftwing9]

171. These are not news organization decisions

These are democracy decisions.

We must not give a news organization veto power over such a politically fundamental decision.

[cyclezealot]

20. Right decision maker.

The media is hardly a neutral player. SOmeone has to demand fairness. Who else , since there is no one else.

[onenote]

35. no legal grounds that I can see.

What is the legal basis for ordering a new organization to include any particular candidate?

I agree that it was a mistake for NBC to change the criteria late in the game to exclude DK, but I'm not comfortable with the government dictating to news organizations. What if a newspaper decided to have a special section on the election with a page for each candidate, but only gave DK a half page or nothing at all? What grounds would there be for a court to intervene and direct the newspaper to print something about DK? And could the court dictate exactly what the paper printed?

There really is a slippery slope out there.

[EFerrari]

109. Right decision maker to protect the public interest. n/t

[crud76]

166. "Media" Is The Plural Form Of "Medium"

The correct way to say this is, "The media are hardly neutral players."

[Ignis]

25. Isn't it nice of corporations to share the airwaves with us?

Maybe if we ask really, really nicely, they'll allow us to buy stock in their weapon-producing parent corporations--you know, to help support the war!

:puke:

[Breeze54]

58. WE OWN the airwaves... Not the M$M! They rent them from US!!

Read more, spout less!

[onenote]

62. The courts have held that cable channels are not subject to the same public interest

obligations as broadcasters.

Read more, understand more.

[rjones2818]

76. Ummm...

NBC is an over the air broadcast network, not cable.

[onenote]

78. ummm. the debate is on MSNBC, not NBC

And MSNBC is a cable channel, not an over the air broadcast station.

[dave123williams]

163. Yeah, and they're both owned in whole or in part by GE.

Shocka!

[harmonicon]

82. the judge didn't just call up the network and tell them who to have on

They had already invited the guy (made a contract, essentially) then de-invited him. That's what's at issue here - sure, every candidate should be in all of the debates, but they aren't. This is still one small victory for truth, honesty, law, etc.

[roody]

136. I would put "news organization" in quotation marks.

Disinfotainment organization sounds more like it.

[Pacifist Patriot]

143. It's called a legal ruling in the context of a civil suit. So yeah, I'm okay with that.

[ClayZ]

9. Yay! K and R

[Breeze54]

10. WooHoo!! America gets to be heard!!!!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

To the greatest page!!

:kick: & Recommended!!

[xiamiam]

11. halle..fucking..lu.jah..this is great news..nt

[Joe Fields]

12. Wow!! I'm totally amazed!! Great News.

[Bad Thoughts]

13. A great day for democracy eom.

[JeffR]

14. Great news!

:woohoo:

[Annces]

16. Fantastic n/t

[cyclezealot]

17. Great.

Now, I will be determined to watch my First Democratic debate since before Iowa. From the snipets of the debates I have been missing, I have not missed much. Now, I expect a debate with a little substance. That is if MSNBC does not do their usual bit of only calling Kucinich when forced to. The clock has not been watched ever since Keith Obermann was the last moderator.

[AndyA]

18. Thank goodness there are still a few *SANE* Judges out there!

Dennis is in the debate! That's good - let people hear what he has to say, we don't need more censorship in America, we need more transparency.

You go, Dennis. :thumbsup:

[DesertRat]

19. Great news!

:bounce:

[Klukie]

21. k&r

[lovuian]

22. Thank You JUDGE CHARLIE

there are some Brave men out there
and he says ABC was obviously WRONG legally

[Kucinich4America]

23. Thank you Judge Thompson!

And FUCK YOU Chuck Todd & MSDLC!

[AnOhioan]

24. Fantastic...let him be heard...the voters deserve a real debate

[ShaneGR]

26. I'm still confused why Kucinich backed Obama and not Edwards?

Why?

[Ghost in the Machine]

54. Because Obama voted "NO" on the IWR and Edwards championed it and helped write it?

:shrug:

At least that's what I read somewhere.. don't remember exactly where, but I think it was either here on DK's website...

[ShaneGR]

68. Championed and helped write it? Huh? he was a Freshamn Senator?

Care to back that up with some proof? A link? Anything?

[Breeze54]

72. John Edwards CO-SPONSORED Lieberman's 2002 Iraq War Resolution!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2601475

It's right http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P:">HERE in pixilated black and white--Edwards's co-sponsorship under Lieberman's resolution, along with 15 other Senators, including Joe's fellow turncoat Zell Miller and noted GOP ghouls Pete Domenici, Jesse Helms, and Strom Thurmond. This resolution, authorizing the US to attack Iraq, was never voted for; it was amended and ultimately replaced with a very similar resolution that we know today as the legislation that officially brought us into the quagmire we're in today--which, I hardly need to remind you, Edwards voted for AS WELL.

[rjones2818]

77. Ummm...

JE was a co-sponsor.

[slipslidingaway]

94. Read the speech Edwards gave on the Senate floor one week

after learning that there was no up to date intelligence reports, or the op-ed he wrote for the Washington Post two weeks later. Other Senators who were on the Intelligence Committee were trying to obtain a new intelligence report during this time.

He argued for something, very persuasively I might, without the current facts. This was a vote to send young men and women to war, as Edwards' said during his 10/07/02 speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Then he never read the hastily classified NIE when it was finally produced.

Each person has to decide whether or not that is good judgment. This invasion has had an enormous cost to our country and to future generations in lives, money and security.


I think this is the whole speech he gave on 9/12/2002, one week after the meeting of the Intelligence Committee meeting where they learned that the last intelligence reports were at least two years old.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY6BZgkI0kI

[frog92969]

97. And I for one will NEVER forget that.

[slipslidingaway]

104. And we have to remember that this is one week after learning

there was no up to date intelligence?

This mistake is too costly, we cannot afford another one.

Yet he made that speech in January 2007 about how the American people can be persuaded in regards to 'going for Iran' if they people have a president they can trust???

I know he back peddled in an a later interview...still too risky for me.


Thanks for the reply, I'll post the video in the video forum, hard to believe it only has 1500 views.

[frog92969]

107. I respect your forgiving nature

but I don't share it on this level.
He should have waited or demanded up to date intel before hawking it so strongly.

If I worry about my cat I don't burn down my neighbor's house because he owns a dog, or I think he might own a dog.

[slipslidingaway]

108. I agree with you! Probably could have worded it better or put

a sarcasm tag under the first sentence.

Five others senators on the commitee wrote letters requesting an NIE. When you compare this to what Edwards was saying KNOWING there was no up to date intelligence one has to wonder why.

:shrug:

[frog92969]

110. Thank you and sorry

if I misunderstood, I think I missed some ??? in your post.

Honestly this whole business is eating holes in my stomach and has me seriously on edge.
I usually try to time out before posting something non-humorous.
I'm watching this country go down the shitter, committing genocide, buildind internment camps, and putting together martial law to sit quietly in the books until needed, while the masses play American Idol with the White House. Seeing how effective propaganda works as the only "viable" candidates say the opposite of what they've done or talk and talk and say nothing at all.

Peace friend.

[slipslidingaway]

115. No problem :)) "While the masses play American Idol..."

Yes, that about sums it up. Not sure it will get better anytime soon, one thing we can do is prepare our families the best we can while speaking out. I'll be putting more time into that after the election.

[Emit]

75. Obama wasn't a US Senator yet -- he didn't vote for or against it. n/t

[nonconformist]

79. HUH? Obama wasn't in the Senate yet when the IWR passed.

He wasn't there to vote.

[frog92969]

99. No, no record there to be seen.

Unfortunately.

[harmonicon]

84. lots of reasons probably

When asked about that in an interview, he seemed to be saying that he just like Obama more, or thought he was more honest. He pointed out that he knew all of these candidates personally.... that was about it. Maybe it also has something to do with the fact that he made a similar deal with Edwards in 2004, but got little or nothing for it. He also stressed that this was only for Iowa, not more broad-sweeping advice for other caucuses.

[southerncrone]

119. I received an email from DK he sent to his supporters explaining his decision.

He said the chose Obama over Edwards because of Edwards' involvement in the hedge fund. Here's the email dated Jan. 6. Note Item 3 & after:

Dear Supporter,

For the record:

1. New Hampshire is the first state where we are aggressively campaigning. Due to the Party lockout in Iowa, we chose to focus on New Hampshire.
2. I am the only person running for President who voted against the war, against funding the war 100% of the time, against the Patriot Act, and who stands for a universal single-payer not-for-profit healthcare system. Nevertheless I was excluded from Saturday night's ABC Presidential debate, or four tone monologue as it was.
3. In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.

He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty.

While I indicated Senator Obama as a preferred second choice in Iowa, Progressives have fundamental disagreements with him and all of the other Presidential candidates on most of their major positions on the issues.

We must have the courage of our convictions to fully support and vote for what it is we really want. For once, we must realize our power, stop playing tactical games, and vote as a bloc - which, as you know, is what the religious right does and why they often win.

We Progressives are in the majority in this election. We will win only when we refuse to compromise and vote with integrity.

Dennis Kucinich

[eridani]

125. Because he got really pissed off after hearing Edwards collude with Clinton --

--about excluding "minor" candidates from further debates? It was lousy strategically IMO, which just goes to show that candidates should not make strategic decisions while pissed off. Also that Kucinich is a human being rather than a saint.

[candymarl]

27. All right!

Go Dennis!

[SeattleGirl]

28. Excellent! There's no reason he should have been excluded in

the first place (especially after initially being included).

[catnhatnh]

29. WHOA-You Mean DK exists TOO?.....N/T

[troubleinwinter]

30. This Edwards supporter says RIGHT fuckin' ON!!!

[annabanana]

71. ditto!. . It should help to keep the debate from veering off to the right..n/t

[onenote]

31. I'm curious what the legal basis for the Judge's ruling is.

And I'm willing to bet that if NBC decides to appeal it, they'll win. I don't see what legal grounds the government has for telling a journalistic enterprise who they have to give a platform to (any more than they could tell a newspaper to cover a particular candidate in a particular way).

That being said, I think NBC screwed up by changing their criteria late in the game and my guess is that they may decide not to appeal simply for the reason that the debate may now get higher ratings with Kucinich included (curiosity factor) than it would otherwise.

[Pastiche423]

37. Talking about issues that affect all Americans

is a curiosity factor?

[onenote]

41. You don't think more people will watch now that there has been controversy?

That's all I'm saying.

[Pastiche423]

Nope

[stickernation]

161. no cable = no msnbc

i find presidential debates on cable repulsive because I just have an antenna - all I get are the big four + PBS and some local stuff. i think it is bad when presidential debates are on cable. i don't want to have to pay for cable in order to get educated on the contrasts between the candidates. it really pisses me off that i won't be seeing this live. i also must think that other people on a budget don't spring for cable TV and that this cable thing winds up being a class-specific barrier to watching which REALLY pisses me off. other than olbermann i wipe my ass with msnbc anyway, i remember their breathless propaganda leading up to the invasion (back when i did have cable jacked from the other apartment in my unit). grrrr.

the powers that be think of voting as over the heads of people without cable. they're like, if you don't have cable or at least internet, you're INVISIBLE and STUPID. as if watching cable TV made you smarter! but it's more like, cable TV is one of those "default" utilities (like HEALTH INSURANCE) that ANYONE with a REAL JOB always just signs up and gets. Therefore it's like, if you aren't economically significant enough to have CABLE, you don't have to watch these debates, you're insignificant. This is so similar to the way they treat the uninsured - what ?! you pathetic freak, you don't have HEALTH INSURANCE !? GET A JOB !!!

-s

[paulk]

40. I would like to hear that also

It would make some sense if a candidate who actually had a chance was excluded - I don't see how the judge can find this a matter of fairness - it's not fair to the candidates who have a chance - it's not fair to the voters who are trying to make a decision between those that have a chance.

[scarletwoman]

51. So, the judge should have a crystal ball to discern the outcome of all remaining primary elections,

and base his decision on THAT?

What if the judge decided that only Obama and Edwards "had a chance"? Would you be okay if Clinton were excluded?

How in the world is it "not fair" for the voters to hear from ALL the Democratic candidates for the nomination? Especially after only TWO states out of 50 have had a say!

sw

[onenote]

59. The question is what law gives the judge the right to decide what's "fair"

I don't think it was fair, or smart, for NBC to change its criteria late in the game to exclude DK.
But....
I'll return to my question: should a judge get to decide how a newspaper covers a campaign? If a newspaper runs a pullout section on election day and doesn't cover a particular candidate or doesn't provide the same amount of space to all candidates, should a judge, in the interest of "fairness" get to order the newspaper to reprint its paper? SHould the judge get to review the content and decide if all the candidates are being treated equally "fairly"?

[Laelth]

96. A statute or "law" isn't required.

Judges make laws (always have, and don't let a repuke tell you differently).

If this case was heard in a Court of "equity" (meaning fairness) the judge has broad discretion to do what he or she feels is right or fair. An injunction is a form of equitable relief, meaning that this case must have been heard in a Court of equity. Evidently, the judge thought it wasn't fair for MSNBC to change the rules in the middle of the game just for the purpose of excluding DK. Not fair? Then a Court of equity can prevent you from doing it (if that Court has subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction over the parties, and the Plaintiff has standing to bring the suit in question).

While I hear your 1st Amendment argument, and I take no stand on that at this time, my point here is that the Judge was within his rightful, equitable power to insist on fairness, regardless of whether some statute or "law" supported his opinion of what is fair.

-Laelth

[U4ikLefty]

114. onenote....got a rebuttal???

[onenote]

121. nice theory. but federal law and the first amendment trump any local court of equity

Now, if the court concluded that there was a contract (or quasi contract) and NBC breached it, that's another story. But there is no general law of "fairness"

[Laelth]

178. Self-delete.

unnecessary.

-Laelth

[paulk]

60. DK got less than 3% of the vote last time he ran

and in Iowa and NH he's gotten less than 1%.

Yes, I believe a judge could make a decision as to the viability of a candidate based on that.

[Breeze54]

67. He got 2% in NH

:9

[paulk]

116. hot damn!

he's on his way!

[frog92969]

100. Two states don't win an election.

[kenfrequed]

140. no kidding

Neither Iowa nor New Hampshire have very good records for trending the nominee. Though the mainstream media outlets do like to report on how they narrow the field,and they frequently work hard to contort and torture events into agreeing with this silly narrative.

[stickernation]

162. two percent doesn't win an election either

sorry, i like dennis but just had to snark that out :)

[Breeze54]

169. Being actively ignored by the M$M doesn't help either.

snark noted but not appreciated

[originalpckelly]

43. It might you know have something to do with those pesky election laws.

Maybe campaign finance reform laws.

[onenote]

47. kinda doubt it

This is a state court, not a federal court.

[Laelth]

101. State Courts have broader subject matter jurisdiction ...

... than Federal Courts do. Generally speaking, state courts can hear any case, and they can rule on Federal law (because the states came before the Federal Government) except in a few, rare cases that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. Election laws are not exclusively within the Federal Courts' jurisdiction, and that's why the Florida Supreme Court was well within its power to demand recounts in Bush v. Gore. That's also why so many of us were outraged when the Supreme Court of the U.S. reversed the Florida Supreme Court on a matter of Florida election law (a topic NOT within the Federal Courts' exclusive jurisdiction and a topic over which the Florida Supreme Court should have been the ultimate authority, i.e. Florida election law).

-Laelth

[onenote]

122. state courts can't hear what they don't have jurisdiction to hear

If its a contract case, they have jurisdiction. If its based on the Communications Act they don't (federal law confers primary jurisdiction over communications act claims on the FCC). If the decision conflicts with the Communications Act or the first amendment, the state court ruling falls.

[Laelth]

177. Self-delete.

Useless.

-Laelth

[mainegreen]

56. Aren't the debates part of the 'public service' contract they must uphold

in order to be allowed to use the airwaves. You know, news, politics, and children's programming?

[onenote]

61. Cable channels are not deemed to use the public airwaves

and are not subject to public interest obligations. ANd the debate is on a cable channel, MSNBC, not a broadcast channel.

[mainegreen]

74. Hmmm.

I got nothing then.

[kenfrequed]

142. That is a tortured argument

One could have also argued that the equipment belong to airwave television was likewise owned by the old big three (ABC,CBS,NBC) but that would not have been a good argument. The fact of the matter is that there must be some standard of permitting public access to media outlets and some expectation of provision for public use. This is NOT about legislating content, but this is about ensuring that access is fair and serves the public good and not merely the desire to make money on celebrity candidates and the vain, myopic interests of corporate power.

[harmonicon]

85. I would imagine that the legal basis has to do with making a contract with certain terms

and then changing those terms or trying to void a valid contract.

[kenfrequed]

117. almost every debate

That excluded Kucinich used subjective rules that they changed at the drop of a hat.

[tyedyeto]

33. The article does not state this but...

would the judge have taken the 'invitation' as an implied contract? Would that be a valid argument?

And....

:woohoo:

[onenote]

36. that would be the only thing I could think of and it seems like it would be quite a stretch

[onenote]

69. Apparently his complaint raised a contract claim, so that might be the basis

The other count in the complaint was based on the Communications Act and I have a hard time seeing a state court judge making a ruling based on the federal Communications Act, particularly with respect to a question over which the FCC probably has primary, if not exclusive, jurisdiction.

[Laelth]

102. FCC is not a judicial body. It has no "jurisdiction."

It can promulgate regulations, but Courts (both Federal and State) must interpret and enforce those regulations.

-Laelth

[onenote]

123. Having practiced before the FCC for 30 years, I wonder what I've been doing then

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

NOt only does the FCC have primary jurisdiction over most ajudicatory matters arising under the Communciations Act, it occasionally has exclusive jurisdiction.

Or to put it another way, if the FCC has no jurisdiciton to interpret the Act (which would come as a huge shock to the Supreme Court in light of the decision in the Chevron case), why did DK file his complaint about being excluded from the NH debate with the FCC?

[Laelth]

179. My assumption was that he had to exhaust his ...

... administrative remedies first, before filing suit, in the same way a charge of discrimination has to go before the EEOC before a Court will hear a discrimination suit.

That doesn't mean the EEOC has jurisdiction. It means the EEOC is an administrative remedy that must be exhausted before a Court has jurisdiction. But now we're onto semantics, and that seems pointless. My point is that the Judge almost certainly had jurisdiction to do what he did. We'll see if the appeals court agrees.

-Laelth

[Laelth]

180. My apologies.

The Nevada Supreme Court agrees with you, and it seems the FCC does have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve this dispute because there is no private right of action to enforce section 315(a) of the Federal Communications Act. The Court also found that no enforceable contract existed (for lack of consideration) and that, therefore, equitable relief based upon a breach of contract was not available.

I stand corrected.

Opinion here: http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/documents/cases/50889.ordergrantingpetition.pdf

-Laelth


Edit-Laelth--corrected sloppy typo.

[blogslut]

34. Good

Now, let's hope the moderator gives him airtime and some decent questions. I know, I hope for too much. Who is the moderator this time? Is it Timmeh? Anybody know?

[onenote]

39. yeah, if DK doesn't like the question or the amount of airtime, he can go to court

and get the judge to write the questions.

:sarcasm:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It was a major screw up by NBC to change the criteria late in the game to exclude DK. But I don't see where there is a basis for the government to dictate to a news organization how it covers the campaign. Keep in mind that the debate is being put on MSBNC, a non-broadcast cable network, not a broadcast channel.

[Kucinich4America]

42. Timmeh and Brian Williams

In other words, "Media Whore #1" and the guy Karl Rove described as "The White House Go-To Guy".

I'd advise Dennis (and Edwards) to TAKE their fair share of time, not wait for it. Nobody seems to mind when Mittens does it at the 'Puke debates.

[Rex]

44. GO DK!

Dam SKIPPY!

[rocktivity]

45. Da KOOCH is in the da house! Cue the Vonage theme!

Of course it was unfair, rewriting the rules to dis-invite him. What made MSNBC even attempt such a thing anyway--pressure from "above," perhaps?

:woohoo:
rocknation

[lonestarnot]

46. Shit! I will be watching now. Sorry to whomever you were I told I wouldn't. Heh.

:toast: DK! :applause:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

49. K & R. Wow -- that's a pleasant surprise. nt.

[Individualist]

50. Great news!

It will be interesting to see if the asshole NBC moderators give DK more than a few seconds airtime.

[scarletwoman]

52. This is wonderful news. Fuck the media picking our candidates for us! (nt)

[keepCAblue]

53. HUGE. Big SNAPS to that judge...and to Kucinich for his doggedness

We luv you, DK. Keep fighting the good fight!

[flvegan]

55. Great news, and a big F You to MSNBC.

It's election, not selection.

[Breeze54]

64. Great new slogan!! - "It's election, not selection."

It's election, not selection!

:applause: :applause:

[malaise]

57. This is great news

Fugg MSM.

[KoKo]

63. GREAT NEWS! A FAIR JUDGE...not a BUSH BOT?

:shrug: There are so FEW out there...it's incredible!

[me b zola]

65. k&r

[stevedeshazer]

66. Excellent

k & r

Now I'll have a better reason to watch.

[Breeze54]

70. DEMOCRACY LIVES!!!

[Desertrose]

73. Well hoooray!!! Democracy ain't completely dead after all...

:woohoo:

[caraher]

80. More info on the judge's ruling

From lvcoutsblog:

Senior Judge J. Charles Thompson granted an injunction sought by Dennis Kucinich seeking to allow him to participate in the Democratic Party debate scheduled for January 15, 2008 in Las Vegas. Judge Thompson asked Kuchnich’s attorney to prepare an order for his signature.

Kucinich’s attorney argued that NBC had violated the FCC’s rules on providing equal time on nationally regulated airwaves for candidates running for public office. NBC argued the equal time requirements do not apply to debates being broadcast on cable television. In addition, Kucinich’s attorney argued NBC had breached a contract made when the Democratic Party and NBC invited Kucinich to the debate last week, then resinded the offer. NBC denied it had invited Kucinich to participate.

Judge Thompson keyed in on who made the original invitation to Kucinich and then asked both parties about the subsequent change in the lineup for the debate. In making his ruling Judge Thompson said, “If the rules changed in the middle of the game, then I am offended by that.”

[Glimmer of Hope]

81. Wow. Good for Dennis. I hope he gets some decent airtime.

[Stevepol]

83. Just heard on KO's that NBC plans to appeal. They'll have to do it quick

if they do and the verdict will have to come down equally quick.

[slipslidingaway]

105. Thanks, ABC was quick to get the last suit dismissed. He really

does scare some people.

[va4wilderness]

86. Great! Gimme Some Truth

As far as I'm concerned, we finally get to hear someone who can "gimme some truth." I hope MSNBC going to broadcast this in the eastern US. May only get to hear snippets on YouTube.

"Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth"

JL

[Breeze54]

89. Right on, va4wilderness !!

:D

Welcome to DU!! :hi:

:woohoo:

[balantz]

87. Judge said he'd stop the debate if they don't let Kucinich in?

That's my concern. I don't trust the M$M. I want this debate to happen, it's crucial for my candidate to be heard tomorrow.

[grantcart]

90. Kucinich has earned a seat at the debate table

[Breeze54]

91. Welcome to DU, grantcart..and thanks for being so inclusive, despite your position!

:hi:

That's what democracy means... we all get a say!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d2C0GzIoug

[Breeze54]

93. 61 recommends but still many say they aren't on board.

Interesting and foolish, imho. :eyes:

I guess some of you like free speech but really are afraid to have it?

[in_cog_ni_to]

95. K & R! Give 'em hell, Dennis! n/t

[bear425]

98. Fantastic! n/t

[upi402]

103. Yay! And vote for him in Michigan to keep him in play

It'll piss off the Media dolts and corporatists alike!
Yay!
What a ripper!

[Breeze54]

106. Better yet? It'll alert the progressives in America to wake up!!

THAT is the goal!!

Pissing corporations off isn't the goal.

Getting the votes is the goal and getting the message out will help get those votes! ;)

[upi402]

118. Good idea!

I'll write ABC, NBC and MSNBC...
and maybe you can write CNN, CBS, and Fox

DOH:crazy:

aaargh, I try and make a wee bit o'fun and end up depressing myself...
But really, most of us who care (you and I) are so burned out after decades of beating on the iron door - that we have reached saturation. Like sipping from the firehose I guess.
It's so discouraging talking to Democrats and hearing them just repeat TV news claptrap. And they will argue like a conservative too. I blame the media.

[navarth]

149. that's exactly what I did

[mconvente]

111. Great!

Even thought I support Edwards, Kucinich is a TOP progressive leader and it's good for democracy to get all voices heard. Seems like a no-brainer to me to have him included!

[slipslidingaway]

112. UPDATE NBC IS APPEALING THE RULING per Keith

Olberman, posted above by stevepol

NBC/MSNBC: 212-664-4444 NBC trying to appeal decision to
keep Dennis out of the debate, please call if this concerns you. Thanks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2684948

[Faux pas]

113. Sending Judge Charles Thompson a huge air kiss right on the

lips! DK-the choice for all reasons.

[Fire Walk With Me]

124. Kick and Recommend!

[robbedvoter]

126. Now, if only they'd let Gravel, and we could have all our candidates up there...

[countryjake]

130. Agreed. In the protest letters I wrote to NBC, I included Senator Gravel...

in my complaints, just to be fair. But I signed it as a former Cleveland/Ohio resident, Kucinich supporting, working class American who wants those who represent the people to be heard.

[eridani]

132. This is important, I'll admit to fighting harder for Kucinich than Gravel, but --

--big mistake. First they eliminate Gravel, then Kucinich. Edwards next? Don't be surprised.

[Pooka Fey]

127. K&R

[Highway61]

128. Great news, except....

Will the moderator CALL on him to answer any questions.

[NikolaC]

129. Three Cheers!

I was very happy to read this news :applause: . Many keep acting like the primaries are a done deal and WE HAVE ONLY HAD TWO so far. Spare me the comments that Kucinich has had his time to speak and be heard, that canard has been argued to death. He has every right to be heard and I am ashamed that he had to go to court and demand to be heard. I know why the media and the leading contenders don't want him in the debates, but cannot understand why anyone else would want to deny him his say. He may have to fight, as usual, to get his say in this debate, but he WILL get a couple of words in as he has in the past. Way to go Dennis :toast: .

[pjt7]

131. I hope he gets to debate, but it's more

important that he is in NH for the re-count.

[rodeodance]

133. Justice speaks. Wonderful

[Echo In Light]

134. Nice to see the good guys win one for a change!

[2beToby]

135. I'm uneducated in the matter of jurisdiction

I understand the idea that a cable company shouldn't necessarily be forced to be fair--but in that case, how do we force them to not show porn, curse or other such things? If we can censor for some things, why not others? And if we shouldn't censor for fairness, why should we be allowed to censor for decency?

Maybe we shouldn't be able to demand fairness of a cable company, but should be able to cry false advertising and sue the hell out of them if they so much as utter "fair", "balanced", "unbiased" or "complete/comprehensive" in a literal way?

I've never been for censorship. But fairness is essential in the election process. Surely there should be some tv-based platform for all candidates to participate in during primary season?

At the rate the media is going, we will never bring TV back into this house. Absolute garbage IMO.

[NikolaC]

137. Amen

Also, I believe that Gravel needs to be up there as well. They ALL need to be heard.

[2beToby]

155. Thanks =) and yeah Gravel and

anybody else who's running for president. Anybody should have the chance to be president, and we aren't going to achieve that by saying "that's not the way it is, so get over it". That's the way it is, because we aren't making any effort to change it. I'm tired of the defeatist attitude I seem to hear constantly.

[onenote]

144. cable channels aren't subject to regulation for decency

Another way that they're different from over the air broadcasting.

[2beToby]

153. So does the FCC have any control over them?

If not, do you know if it's legal to sue them if they do claim to be airing a balanced and complete debate?

I'll go out of my way to watch and see if they falsely claim to air a complete debate if this is the case. Serious question, I'd love to see these guys fry.

[onenote]

157. the fcc has extremely limited regulatory authority with respect to cable networks

Certain rules, such as those relating to children's television advertising, closed captioning etc. apply to cable operators, but not directly to the networks that the operators carry. Typically, the contract between the cable operator and the network requires the network to provide a service that allows the operator to be in compliance with its obligations. In the case of the political "broadcasting" rules (equal opportunities), those rules apply to "origination" cablecasting, which covers programming that the cable operator originates itself (such as local ads inserted in a national network). Whether it applies to the national networks has never been full resolved, although at the moment, the answer seems to be no. In any event, there is no fairness doctrine for either broadcasting, cable operators or cable networks and the equal opportunities rules don't apply generally to debates or news coverage.

[2beToby]

158. Thanks for the info about the FCC and all

I think I'm going to try to find out about how false advertising applies to cable companies, if it does at all. From how I see it (and I very well could be wrong) you wouldn't need to have a fairness doctrine (nor would the cable companies by subject to it if there were one) to claim that they advertised a "complete" debate and didn't provide one. It would probably lose spectacularly, but at least the cable company might receive the message.

Thanks again

[onenote]

160. false advertising laws, anti trust laws, libel, slander etc. all apply

But you're right that a challenge to how a debate is "advertised" would probably fail.

[AikidoSoul]

138. Hooray for Dennis!

kicked and recommended

[DaLittle Kitty]

139. Looks To Me As Though Dennis Will NOt Be On Debate for "Leading" Candidates Tonight

Watching MSNBC No Mention of Kucinich and Showing Pic of HillBill, Obama and Edwards

[Greeby]

141. Here's hoping the Nevada Supreme Court takes a day off today nt

[snappyturtle]

145. Wonderful news! K&R n/t

[Dinger]

146. Great News! Go Dennis!

:kick: :) :patriot: :patriot:

[Blarch]

147. Great.

the courts are picking our politicians again.

[caseycoon]

148. GREAT! :o) n/t

[fjc]

150. I beg to differ

I know he has die hard supporters here, but Kucinich has had every chance afforded other candidates, some
of whom have already dropped, to make his case to Democrats and his support by comparison remains minuscule.
Including him this time around is not gonna change that. In fact, this the guy's second run for the office and
his support levels have never changed all that much. My guy was Biden, and though I'm really disappointed and
frankly stunned that Democrats did not flock to the guy, he did the right thing and dropped out. Kucinich
should do likewise.

[Roxy66]

159. I agree...n/t

[Supersedeas]

151. I guess this means Tweety and crew need to appeal

[barb162]

152. This is good news.

Let him have his say.

[debbierlus]

154. Pathetic that we have to get a court order for a legitimate candidate to be heard

But, on the plus side, this will get him more coverage. Fuck the MSM.

[NoSheep]

170. god bless america.

:wtf:

[onenote]

174. what is your definition of a legitimate candidate?

Don't get me wrong. I think it was wrong for NBC to dis-invite DK after intitially setting criteria under which he qualified.

But I'm not sure how one defines a "legitimate" candidate. THere are quite a few fringe candidates that are legitimate in the sense that they've qualified legally for a place on the ballot. So is the distinction between DK objective or subjective? What exactly should the standard be?

[LSK]

156. K&R - Now will they ask him anything or not???

[dkofos]

164. This may be your last chance Dennis. Make good use of it.

[ooglymoogly]

167. Hip, hip....kr

[Turn CO Blue]

168. They should have never uninvited Kucinich. Really low-class

move to dis-invite him.

[Politicub]

172. Good for him

There was something about UFO sightings on CNN today, so it will be quite topical for him to attend. Plus, he can grandstand and pretend he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Personally, I liked the idea of hearing from the three candidates who actually have a chance of winning the nom, but who am I to want to deny Kucinich a platform?

After all, it's just a game, right? It's not like there are civil liberties and people's lives riding on this election. So, it's great that Kucinich will get to speak. I'm sure he'll have something new and wonderful to add to the discussion. Maybe he'll even take a cue from the MSM and make a pithy comment about racist and sexist campaigns. Wouldn't that be a hoot?

[NikolaC]

173. Here We Go Again With The UFO Cheap Shots . . .

Now that you have read Kucinich's mind, decided for everyone that he is irrelevant, a threat to civil liberties and a waste of time after two primaries, care to tell us who DOES have the right to run for office? I believe that if they are running, for as long as they are running, the candidates have every right to be heard. I find it ironic that some who claim to care about the loss of civil liberties want someone who is vocal about our rights, and wants bring the issue to light, to be silent and go away. At least his "grandstanding" ass is not just talking about reform and impeachment, he is trying to do something about it and doing his job as a Congressman, which is more than I can say for most in office at this point in time.

[Politicub]

176. Actually, most of my views match Kucinich's

more closely than anyone else running, if the online "who should you vote for" quizzes are to be believed. I have nothing against the guy, I just don't think he's electable. I would be thrilled to be proven wrong, but I don't think that's going to happen in this lifetime.

Hopefully he'll bring some positive views to the race. It's hard to argue with his case for being there. There was a binding contract in place and all.

[LulaMay]

175. BUT, Kucinich is starting to look like he just wants to STOP Hillary

The media needs this slap uphead, BUT, at this point, Kucinich appears insincere to me. I think this combined with his demanding a New Hampshire recount is starting to look like his intent is to support Obama and Edwards against Senator Clinton, rather than it being about his candidacy the fairness of the process. He effectively conceded when he told his supporters to vote Obama if they couldn't vote for him. I think MSNBC had a case for dis-inviting him based on that alone. K's not so distant past of being anti choice, which is nothing less than anti women's rights, makes his motivation all the more dubious to me.

I'm getting really tired of watching high profile men in our party freak out over Hillary and look like some 'band of brothers' joining together to prevent HER from becoming president. From Jesse Jackson accusing her of fake crying to Kucinich calling for a recount to Kerry and Obama acting like gleeful schoolboys and practically congratulating each other before it's over...it's becoming downright offensive.