NBC to appeal to keep Kucinich out of debate (UPDATED)

[New Earth]

I don't see this officially posted yet, if it is a dupe I am sorry.

BUT I AM PISSED! :mad:

updated 2 hours, 53 minutes ago

LAS VEGAS - NBC News said Monday it will appeal a judge's ruling rather than include Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich in a candidates' debate in Nevada.

"We disagree with the judge's decision and are filing an appeal," said a statement provided by Jeremy Gaines, a vice president for MSNBC, sponsor of Tuesday night's debate. Gaines said the parent network would seek an immediate hearing before the Nevada Supreme Court.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22656153/


THE STATE SUPREME COURT? JUST LET HIM ON THE FUCKING SHOW, WTF?

---

EDIT: This is from Dennis Kucinich myspace:


Breaking News: Judge says MSNBC debate
must include Kucinich
-from the Los Angeles Times:

A judge in Nevada has just ordered MSNBC to include Rep. Dennis Kucinich in Tuesday's Democratic Party presidential debate in Las Vegas or he will cancel the forum.
Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson vowed to issue an injunction halting the nationally televised debate if MSNBC failed to comply. Kucinich had filed a lawsuit seeking to be included just this morning.
The judge ruled it was a matter of fairness and Nevada voters would benefit from hearing from more than just Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. Kucinich had been invited to participate in the 6 p.m. Pacific debate Tuesday, but that invitation was rescinded last week ... So set up a fourth podium.
Andrew Malcolm, correspondent - The Los Angeles Times

Dear Kucinich Supporters,
FINALLY, the principle that we are a nation of laws and not of corporate media control has prevailed. And without your support, your phone calls and emails and letters, this issue might never have attracted the national attention it has.
BUT, while Dennis is preparing to go to Nevada - court order in hand - to represent your interests, expect that MSNBC, NBC, its parent company GE, and dozens of other alphabet-soup corporations in the nation will start filing appeals on top of appeals to keep Dennis out of the debate and try to deplete our limited financial resources. Multi-billion corporations don't want Dennis on that stage Tuesday night. And they will do everything; spend anything they need to make sure that his voice - your voice - is not heard. The law is on our side, but the dollars are on theirs.
NOW, more than ever, we need your continued financial support to stop megalomania-media from robbing you of your Constitutional rights, taking control of the American electoral process, and hand-picking the candidates they want you to choose from.
Defend your rights today. Make a contribution today to the only candidate who is willing to challenge the powerful interests that want to control you.
They will try to outspend us, but, with your help, they won't be able to out-fight us. Please, contribute whatever you can to defend your rights, and ask everyone you know to do the same.
We won today, but tomorrow is another battle.
Strength through Peace
Kucinich Campaign

CONTRIBUTE!
Copy and paste:
https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.aspx?X=aDlDFFT9TMELcUa1mk7zMqbXSlQlo8TFIHgPSjHUCy8%3d


877-41-DENNIS (877-413-3664)
Paid for by Kucinich for President 2008

[marmar]

1. Wow. They'll fight to make the election process undemocratic.....

Shameful. GE must be terrified he'll start discussing the military-industrial complex. :scared:

[Dhalgren]

2. Has GE tried to explain why this is such a major issue for them?

Why would GE be so adamant about something like this? I would like to hear GE forced to explain itself...

[Dinger]

35. Me Too (nt)

[NoodleyAppendage]

39. Simple math. Stopped war in Iraq = reduced profits for GE.

GE cares not for humanity. Only their ability to profit from the suffering of others and manipulate society to suit their corporatist needs.

J

[Dhalgren]

42. Wow! You put that right into a nutshell! Well done!

:hi:

[robinlynne]

44. exactly.

[KansDem]

46. "Has GE tried to explain why this is such a major issue for them?"

Maybe they just don't want to have a beer with him. Or maybe they won't like the nicknames Dennis will give them...:shrug:

[MrCoffee]

73. Usually the networks establish certain benchmarks for debate participation

i.e., a candidate has to place higher than 4th in Iowa, or has to get at least 5% of the vote in NH, or place 2nd in two primaries

i don't know what NBC's original benchmarks for the Nevada debate were, but my understanding is that they were communicated to all campaigns prior to NH. If NBC altered the terms of participation (as DK alleges they did, by changing from the top 4 to top 3 candidates after Iowa/NH), it would have been fairly easy for him to get the preliminary injunction.

[MonkeyFunk]

93. I think it's a big deal to them

because it's unusual for the courts to tell a cable network who they have to include in something like this. It's a really bad precedent.

[2beToby]

3. Anybody know the most effective way to contact NBC

with my utter disgust?

[peace13]

4. Hope this helps.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2684948

[2beToby]

54. It does, thanks

=)

[northzax]

5. and why is Kucinich filing lawsuits to gain access

to a privately funded, invitation only event?

[peace13]

6. Excuse me, he was invited originally.

Why do you approve of limiting a debate to less than all of the candidates?

[northzax]

16. so if I got the 500 signatures

to get on the Nevada ballot, you would support me being included in the debate?

[JackRiddler]

19. Of course. Please run.

Absolutely, it's not up to media corporations or the pundits of viability or the pollsters to decide who gets to be heard based on how much money is raised, or their Q rating. So far, no one in Nevada has voted, and they should get to hear from all of their possible choices. If the law lets K. on the ballot, he should get to debate. Ditto for you.

[Beelzebud]

31. Imagine the nerve of some people thinking anyone can run for president!

Didn't they know that running for president is an invitation only affair?

[Tarc]

21. Because its time to separate the wheat from the chaff

Should they invite Gravel? Maybe see if Lyndon LaRouche is still running.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, eventually. Now is the time to focus on the candidates with a legitimate shot at winning.

[Beelzebud]

33. Thats what the primaries are for...

But I suppose it's too much to ask to just follow the procedure, and let candidates leave when their campaigns are over.

[Tarc]

50. Reality check?

You know as well as I do that it doesn't wok that way.

[riverdeep]

82. NBC drew that line, then changed their mind.

“Congratulations on another hard-fought contest. Now that New Hampshire is over, we are on to Nevada and our Presidential Debate on Tuesday January 15. This letter serves as an official invitation for your candidate to participate in the Nevada Presidential Debate at Cashman Theatre in downtown Las Vegas. You have met the criteria set by NBC and the Debate.”

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/homepage-items/nbc-un%11plugs-kucinich-from-presidential-debate/

From NBC's standpoint, it would have been smarter to never have invited him in the first place. But since they did, and within 44 hours they changed their mind, it looks suspicious. During that 44 hours he called for a recount in NH. Methinks it's not his numbers they're afraid of, giving someone like him a national stage is frightening to a corporation, someone who might just go up there and pull back the curtain.

[JackRiddler]

100. So now democracy - even when reduced to mere procedures - has become chaff?

[Bill McBlueState]

52. but there could be a lot of candidates

In New Hampshire, there were 21 Dems on the ballot. Should all of them have been in a debate? How would a debate even work with 21 participants?

There are better reasons to include Kucinich that just because he's on the Nevada ballot. He has consistently been elected to federal office as a Democrat, and he has national support as an alternative to the major candidates.

[lonestarnot]

7. And why would someone like you care?

[northzax]

15. someone like me?

I don't know, seems like I have the exact same number of votes as you do. or am I not 'pure' enough for you to count? Kucinich is a stunt candidate, we are past the theater of New Hampshire and Iowa where stunts are tradition and everyone can run for President. Kucinich, frankly, didn't take it seriously this time (what, he couldn't hire a single staffperson in Iowa? not one?)

think, for yourself, about the perspective of the Party here. will the presence of Kucinich, who has nothing good to say about any of the candidates, improve the Party's chances of electing on of their own in November? if not, sorry, thanks for playing congressman, see you in 2012.

[peace13]

20. Check your facts.

He had staff in IA but they claimed he had to have a store front. On the Rthug side they let candidates in that had no store front. Why do you hold Dems to a different standard? As far as Dennis stroking the other candidates tonight goes, I think the time for that is passed. I doubt that HIll and Obama will waste any words this evening. I think it is a joke that any Democrat here would not like to see all of our candidates in the debate.

[northzax]

25. the parties set their own rules

if the rule is you have to have a physical address in the state, then them's the rules.

and, by the way, has the great debater responded to Rosemary Palmer's request for a debate for his congressional seat? or is inclusion only for him?

[hootinholler]

68. That rule was set by the DeMoinse Register, While I don't agree with it, I didn't complain too loud

In this case, NBC invited DK when he met their announced eligibility rules, then revoked the invitation after they changed the rules.

That's why he sued.

-Hoot

[Hekate]

97. The parties set their own rules? So now NBC/GE is the Party? Did I misunderstand? nt

[Laughing Mirror]

98. If GE/NBC thinks it's the Party, it is

That's the structure of politics in America. That's how things operate here. Get on board.

[Hekate]

103. I think you forgot your sarcasm smilie. nt

[Laughing Mirror]

104. No I didn't

I'm serious. That's the way it is.

[JackRiddler]

22. This isn't about what you think of as "tradition"

This is still a democracy and K. is legally on the ballot.

[northzax]

29. whoever said political parties were democracies?

you either play by the rules of the party you want to run for, or work to change those rules from within the system. if the Party is so awful, why does Congressman Kucinich want to represent it so badly?

[JackRiddler]

32. Because it's in the way!

He is working from within the system, by the way.

[natrat]

95. given that the top 2 candidates are whores to the corporations

who are actively pursuing some form of fascism it makes sense to have an opposing view slick

[LanternWaste]

43. Breach of contract, maybe?

Breach of contract, maybe? Maybe fair use of public airways? :shrug:

[rocktivity]

61. Because the event has to do with a governmental election,

it's being broadcast over PUBLIC airwaves, and because they disinvited Kuncinich after rewriting their ground rules. It's a combination of basic fairness and the public interest. And don't think they wouldn't dump Edwards if they had half a chance.

:headbang:
rocknation

[riverdeep]

84. For all practical purposes, they have dumped Edwards.

They want him out, even though according to one poll, he's dead even with the front-runners in NEV.

[Zodiak]

65. Because that event is a part of our Democracy in an election year

Do you have any more corporate excuses for us on DU?

Where the hell do you people come from?

[Binka]

81. Don't Even Think About Talking Sense To That Poster

He Sucks Corporate Dick All Day & Night. It is disgusting.

[Selatius]

74. Because they invited him and then disinvited him, hence the lawsuit.

If the other dozens of people running for the Dem nomination received the same treatment, they'd have grounds to sue as well, but since Kucinich was the only one who received that kind of treatment, he gets legal standing, while no one else can.

[Subdivisions]

8. If I were him, I would take the court order and the appeal and

hold them in my fist the ENTIRE debate and with EVERY OPPORTUNITY mention what they are and what they were meant to do and what they represent.

[peace13]

9. Good one.

You ar too nice...I would have added , 'and wipe his *ss with them at the end of the evening!" Peace, Kim

[Bonobo]

10. Anyone want to post the phone numbers of MSNBC so we can give them hell?

[peace13]

24. See post # 4. n/t

[peacetalksforall]

11. I hope this happening shows the Democrats who think GE/MSNBC

is loosening up on Democrats. Keith Olberman is an aberration and money maker to draw us in. (I'm not knocking Keith - he is genuine.)

I'm not telling anyone not to watch them.

Those new to the strategies and tactics of this Republican consortium (GE NBC CNBC MSNBC) should watch to learn how they do it. After awhile, it all becomes predictable and there is not need. You can catch enough of Olberman on youtube to know what other are talking about.

Citizens can survive without GE NBC CNBC MSNBC. Why subject yourself fo the pain of abuse to Democrats - a once great television network - NBC - declared that I was their enemy or their fool in the 1990's.

[loudsue]

37. I've started having second thoughts about Keith Olbermann. He's been

parroting the two-person race on the Dem ticket, and has ignored what his bosses are doing to Edwards & Kucinich.

[New Earth]

12. please recommend

I can't do it myself :(

[KharmaTrain]

13. And In 24 Hours No One Will Care...

More fun and games of the silly season. Lots of verbage and angst about a TV show that few people will actually watch. If Kucinch is included, this helps him how? He may bump up to a whopping 3%? He needs to be heard? Like he hasn't been heard in the dozens of other debates? And this one debate is worth fighting in court over cause it will turn the election? Or shall we call it what is is...more grandstanding. Looks like, as in '04, DK isn't gonna go quietly.

[peace13]

14. Please feel free to exclude Dennis.

Do me a favor... when your candidate is ignored or excluded by the press please, please, please, do not write about it here. Peace, Kim

[KharmaTrain]

23. I Have No Candidate

I'm a long time dues paying member here and will post where I see fit. Your option is to either discuss or ignore. That's how a discussion board works. This isn't campaign central.

I've seen Dennis many, many times now over the past year. In fact, I saw a debate in person. Being there in the flesh one can see things one doesn't on TV...like how the candidates interact with one another...never once in that debate did I see Dennis make eye contact with another candidate...he played the crowd. He wasn't interested in using the debate to discuss ideas and issues, he used his time to grandstand.

As an undecided voter I am focusing more and more on the top candidates and the more I see and hear them interact, the closer I come to a choice. Dennis has made some strong and valid points...but now at least 95% of Democrats in two primaries (and I'm being generous) have rejected him...not me.

Peace...

[peace13]

27. Thank you for the lesson on how this board works. n/t

[elaineb]

30. I've slightly edited your rant against Kucinich so everyone can see the contradiction

...Lots of verbage and angst about a TV show that few people will actually watch. ...He needs to be heard? Like he hasn't been heard in the dozens of other debates? ...

So the debate tonight is "a TV show that few people will actually watch" (something on which I agree with you!), but then you suggest that his message has been heard in the OTHER debates. Do you believe, as I do, that those earlier debates were little-watched as well, or are you applying that forecast only to the upcoming debate?

All of you who seem rabid over the thought of a progressive candidate being allowed to participate in the debates keep fundamentally contradicting yourselves.

Usually, your kind points out that Kucinich should be excluded from the debates because he's polling in the single digits (with the implication that the voting public knows his positions well and are rejecting him based on their knowledge of him). Yet you apparently believe the debates are significant in airing the positions of the OTHER candidates, presumably because it will either raise their public profile or influence the minds of the uncommitted voter. So...everybody knows everything there is to know about Kucinich, but we somehow need more information from the other candidates?

Yeah, I can see the point. Kucinich's positions stands out from the others by a mile. For the others, we need "Jesuitical" questioning at great length so we have a prayer of telling their positions apart.

[KharmaTrain]

38. Nice Projection Work

...our local AMC could use someone of your skills.

First of all "my kind" is strictly ME...I speak for no one, no candidate, no other member of this board. If there's any groupthink that pervades here it is with the Kucinch supporters...but I expect that. In fact, it's become a Silly Season tradition...the same complaints this year as I heard/saw in '04...and the same results. Instead of looking at a poorly run campaign, it's easier to claim it's everyone elses fault...especially now that your candidate has become an asterisk in this election. I'm not the one saying it, it's now being stated by Democratic voters in primaries around the country. It's not my choice to exclude him from this debate...I could care less. In fact, if you read all of my post, I stated, I thought he's added some valid points to past debates, but this choice was made by GE/Universal/NBC who pays the dime here. My point is that this suit is a distraction...I see little how it helps what's left of the Kucinch campaign.

If the "voting public" hasn't learned his positions in two campaigns, how will one TV debate that few people will watch matter? Kucinich knew he was going to run again in '08 and did little to build on what he did in '04. Unlike Edwards, who kept his campaign organization intact, Kucinich couldn't even set up an Iowa campaign office. Instead of drawing on the netroots support he had to build a stronger organization that would get his message out...like Ron Paul has...he's throwing money away on what will turn out to be a non-descript recount...money that could sure be used right now to get out the vote in other states.

Television and media are only one part of a viable candidacy...and getting out one's message. Organization is key...it's what wins primaries and elections. If DK is to be a successful candidate, methink you need to look at the workings of your organization and working on getting that message door-to-door rather than howling at the corporate media...people who will only chew you up rather than help you.

Cheers...

[elaineb]

53. Where's the projection?

"Your kind" was a catch-all term for all of the "concerned" DU'ers who've been making snarky smears at Kucinich for the last couple of weeks. Sorry, but you've become one of them by proclaiming that Kucinich is "grandstanding."

Is THIS what you meant by projection?: You're trying to smear Kucinich's reasons for being in the race by "projecting" a term onto him that perhaps would be better applied to you and the other recent DU posters who are blanketing all the Kucinich threads with their lofty and brilliant assessment of his election chances and his psychological intentions. Yeah, we know where's he at in the polls, and there are millions of progressives who agree with his positions and want him as a voice in this campaign. I apologize if that bothers you enough to paint one of OUR Democratic candidates as "grandstanding." He probably won't be in it too much longer, considering he has only gotten 1% of the contribution "pie", so just try to hang in there a little longer. Soon maybe the mainstream media will finally be able to stop devoting so much of their broadcast day to Kucinich. I think the American public is really SICK of hearing his name. Why, it's hard to hear about the other candidates at all! It's all Kucinich THIS, Kucinich THAT, Kucinich BLAH-BLAH-BLAH. But hang on, soon the debates will be Kucinich-free and the moderators can get back to teasing out of 2the remaining candidates all that we don't already know about their positions, the subtle differences between them, and of course, endless questioning over their foot-in-mouth campaign comments, who should be apologizing for those comments, and which campaign workers have or have not not been fired in the process.

Organization is key...it's what wins primaries and elections.

"Organization" takes money...BIG MONEY. Kucinich doesn't take huge corporate donations. Do you feel campaign finance reform is important? If so, why? Can you think of any examples in recent history that one could use in pushing for such reform? (I'm sure, to you, Kucinich wouldn't somehow work as an example.)

I might as well ask you a few other questions I often ask other Kucinich bashers. I live and hope that I'll actually get an answer to these at some point:

1. Do you believe that Kucinich's positions and views on the issues are held by only 1-4% of the American public (or at whatever level he currently stands in the polls)?
2. Do you believe that a majority of Americans know enough about Kucinich's positions and views to make an informed vote?

I won't attempt to rebut or debate your answers to those questions, because they would be your honest (I hope!) opinions. I just want to see if someone that disdains Kucinich or his right to be in the race will be "on the record" by answering those two questions in the affirmative.


Cheers...

[KharmaTrain]

55. Some Cheese With Your Whine?

Again...it doesn't matter what I care or think...seems you're awfully defensive here and avoiding my questions. Instead, it's easier to deflect and climb on a high horse. See how well its working for you? All I'm doing is making an observattion...and IMHO a one with positive, not negative questions.

Yes, organizations take big money...but why is it that when we get to this part of the primary season that this is given as a big excuse for another poor performance? The other campaigns had to do the same thing...a majority of Obama's money came from small donors and Edwards also refused much of the big corporate money. It's also a nice crutch to use as if a big pocket were to roll for Dennis we'd hear a different story...or if Dennis were to raise Ron Paul type money...then money shows "strength". Face it, your candidate organized poorly and this has a lot to do with his poor showings. Winning DU polls doesn't show popularity...just groupthink.

Now to your questions...who cares what I think...it's what the voters do. It's not as though Kucinich stands alone in his positions...others also embrace many of the same concepts and have far greater experience in making them happen. ANY Democrat will be a far different change than the regime we are now enduring. I see lots of words from Kucinich but few actions. How about all those resolutions he's proposed...how many has he passed? How much REAL support would he have in forming the political coalitions necessary to be an effective President? These are qusetions I ask. Actions talk, bullshit walks...and while Dennis talks a good game (and I don't dispute many of the things he stands for...if anything, I've long commended him for them)...he has little to show for his 30 years in public life...even his constituents are tiring of his grandstanding (and yes that is...)...but, then I expect you to tell me those challengers are all out to get Dennis by evil Democrats with money. More cheese?

Yes...these are honest opinions...blunt honest ones from a person who has been very disappointed with how Kucinich has run this campaign. Take a step back and look...I'm not the one dismissing him...the voters have. You ask if they have voters will have an "informed" vote...obviously by benchmarks of your chosing. It appears to me they have...especially in the first two primaries where voters had over a year to absorb all the issues and meet all the candidates. Your choice now is to accept who these people...millions of many different types, shapes and interests decide. It doesn't matter who I vote for...and I haven't made a choice...the question is will you accept what the majority of party members decide?

Cheers...

[Dhalgren]

You suggested, above, that you be placed on ignore. Good idea...

[elaineb]

62. I was going to say the same to you. Have some cheese!

I've pointed out before how ironic it is that some of you posters jump on the Kucinich threads, complaining that he's "whining" (not saying you did, but others have). And yet what can it be described as but WHINING that Kucinich just won't be a good Democrat, do what he's told by a bunch of posters on a message board, and leave the race! WHAAAAAAAHHH!

Yeah, you're right I'm being defensive, which means you were being OFFENSIVE. I'm not whining, bro. I'm just defending Kucinich. Go ahead and check my posting history. I've never gone negative on someone else's candidate, and in fact, I rarely post at all (I've been here over 3 years). So don't dare tell me I'm being defensive and whining when YOU came onto a Kucinich thread and are whining that he won't leave the race. Or were you just offering your comments as a positive, friendly, helpful suggestion because you care about him wasting the remainder of his campaign funds? He's not leaving the race yet, sorry. So any more posts from you about his continuing to remain in the race could be construed as whining. But don't worry, he'll be out soon, I'm sure! Then you can crow to your "d"emocratic and "D"emocratic heart's content.

I'll answer any of your questions to the best of my ability, but could you post them in a numbered list, like I did? I see a lot of personal opinions (some badly informed, at that), which don't seem worth a response, but, honestly, I'll answer any questions you pose.

[KharmaTrain]

66. Yes, I Am Offering A Positive Critique

I haven't "bashed" Kucinich where I don't think it's warranted. I'm sure not doing it on issues here...nor on his "right" to speak or get is message out. If anything, I've been supportive of him being seen and heard in the past when he did participate in the debates and others here questioned why he should be.

My point here is about how Kucinich has run a poor campaign and how this is should be as big a dissapointment to his supporters than being excluded from one of umpteen debates...or looking for reasons he's shown poorly in the early primaries. I'm pointing to things that supporters should be concerned about if they want his voice to be heard...his issues to become popular that would enable him to do better in future elections. I'm looking ahead here...2012...and things he and his supporters should be learning from this election and to plan for a better showing next time. Again, I'm not the one whose decided Kucinich's fate here, the primary voters have...he can stay into the race until the last minute like he did in '04...doesn't matter to me.

I'm just dicussing here...as I've said over and over, I've got no horse in the primary race and have been critical of other campaigns and their supporters for problems in their own campaign. The reason I remain uncommitted is that I find flaws with all the candidates...none have sold me yet. Right now I'm very satisfied to let the process play out...let the voters in the primaries decide...they're the ones giving DK his 2%, not me. I've been very disapponted with his showing this time around...again, pointing out other campaigns and how they've overcome greater difficulties. Trust me, this is far from an "attack"...it's an observation on a discussion board that is open to all to participate.


Now I'll just ask one question...simple at that. In November, you will have a choice of who the next President is...will you support the Democratic nominee?

Just curious...don't take things so personally. Life's too short! Again, I wished DK had performed better this year...I've held any criticism about it until the recent primary results...and some of the things that have hurt his cause. Now you can call that an attack or see it in the spirit its intended...most others have long dismissed Kucinich and wouldn't even bother to dicuss.

Cheers...

[elaineb]

71. Then I sincerely apologize if I took your criticism amiss

I admit I've been on "high alert" for the last few weeks, because I've seen many posters jumping on the Kucinich threads and calling him a "whiner" and questioning his right to be in the debates. When I saw your use of the word "grandstanding" to describe what you feel are Kucinich's reasons for remaining in the race, I have to confess, I just kind of saw red and jumped on your post. (In fact, if you had left that word out, I probably would have passed your post right by!) I still think that's a personal opinion, and a negative one that doesn't need to be expressed against an honest, hardworking Democratic candidate who, in my opinion, is one of the most consistent and progressive candidates. I know "progressive" is a dirty word to quite a few DU members, and perhaps I should stop trying to argue with those who are quite obviously attacking Kucinich because they find him too "left" for their liking (not that they ever admit it). I'm not saying YOU are one of those; I think I understand your position better now that you've explained it, and I truly apologize for lumping you in with the other bashers that have been so plentiful around here lately. I still disagree 100% with the "grandstanding" remark, and I still disagree with you on the idea that Kucinich's campaign problems don't have more to do with the way campaigns are financed and with his near exclusion by the mainstream media, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that issue.

Cheers...

[KharmaTrain]

79. Nothing Wrong WIth Agreeing To Disagree

I've enjoyed the give and take here. And, yes, it's opinion...mine and yours...and viva the chance to have a place where we can do that. Too many are quick to jump on one side or another for some agenda and enjoy fanning the flames. That's never the intention here...strictly to observe the world that passes with others and see what explanations we can find in what's going on. I've long relegated DU as the equivelent of the Progressive/Left watercooler...many opionions here you won't see elsewhere and I appreciate and respect it. But I do so at a distance as my own experience has taught me to put the emotions on hold when I come onto this place.

I very much stand by my grandstanding comment...this is based on seeing him in the debate at YearlyKos last summer. I was among many people who were dying to meet him...support him...next to Edwards he was had the most supporters. At the debate, he played the house...never making any eye contact with the other candidates and using every chance to go for an applause line rather than stick to the topic being discussed. While the other candidates (except Gravel...who had his car towed...LOL) had small group sessions, DK bypassed his...pissing off a lot of people who could now be working him. My comment was mild compared to some of the words I heard tossed around that day.

I know the RED ALERTS are going wild around here lately...LOL. I stay away from the Clinton/Obama mudfights. Campaign finance won't make up for a lackluster fundraising effort...again other campaigns drew more money and did so starting with less than DK entered this race with. Had he had stronger netroots support he would have had more money and foot soldiers that would have spread the word and made him a stronger candidate. My hopes are his supporters learn from mistakes being made here...unfortunately lately I see a lot of groupthink and and "us vs. them" mentality...that any criticsm is a bash...even a well intentioned one. Thin skins don't wear well in the world of bloodsport.

Thanks for your replies...and the best of luck to all

Cheers...

[elaineb]

88. Thanks for the discussion

I just think sometimes that Kucinich is being held to higher standards than others. There are some bashers on here that are always accusing Kucinich supporters of thinking of him as a "saint." Well, honestly, I don't think he's a saint, and I don't think most of his supporters do either. I believe most of his supporters support him for his positions and his tenacity, not for his personality. (I don't mind his "woo-woo" personality, myself, and I'm as un-"woo-woo" as you can get! But I can entirely understand that others find it offputting--e.g. the "playing the house" thing you mentioned). I wish that people would stop being negative on ALL the candidates. I only tend to jump in to defend Kucinich, but if I had more time to post, I'd try to defend the other candidates getting bashed for non-issue reasons too. But then I'd be at this 24/7! And I've already been on long enough today, so thanks for the interesting discussion and for not holding my temper on this subject against me. :)

[elaineb]

83. Sorry, when I wrote my reply, I forgot to answer the question you posed

Like just about every other issue, I agree with Kucinich on the evils of "loyalty oaths".

So, will I support the Democratic nominee come November? Since I don't know who it will be, what will be said or done by any of the candidates before November, nor whether any other candidates will enter the race, I can honestly say "I don't know."

I know that drives some centrists crazy, because they know they'll never be tested in the same way by having to vote for a far-left candidate, but "I don't know." If it makes you go to bed happy, I will say that right now, knowing what I know of the current candidates, then I will be voting for the Democratic nominee. Unless one of them REALLY pisses me off in some way, and then I might stay home. Let me tell you, it would have to be something really significant, because I haven't missed a vote, since I was 18 (I'm 44 now). Staying home on election day is something I've never done before, and I don't expect it will happen this time either.

If you're asking will I vote for someone just because they've got a (D) by their name, then "no", because that's a loyalty oath, and YOU shouldn't be taking one either.

[northzax]

41. ok, I will support Kucinich's right to debate

as soon as he supports other long-shot candidates' right to debate. he does support that, right? so he'll be debating his primary opponents in the Ohio 10th before the primary there?

this is why it's hard to take him seriously, he complains about double standards, while enforcing the same standards at home.

[elaineb]

56. I support other long-shot candidates' right to debate

and as far as I know, (maybe you've heard differently?), Kucinich supports that right as well.

NOT participating in a debate is not the same as excluding others from a debate, is it? Are you saying Kucinich has tried to get other candidates excluded from a debate in his district?? (Or just deviously implying it?) It's not too hard to understand, and it ought to be EASY to understand for those who carp on his supposed lack of campaign acumen: He obviously feels comfortable enough with his chances in his own district to not spend his limited time debating there. I personally wish he WOULD just so that it would be one less thing for his haters on DU to carp about, but he does have a limited amount of time to fulfill his responsibilities in Congress, his responsibilities to his constituents, and to run a Presidential campaign. And before you say he shouldn't be running for President with so many responsibilities, just make sure you direct the same admonition to all the current candidates who are in the race while holding office.

There's a difference between wanting to participate in a debate because you want your voice heard, and declining to participate in a debate because you feel your constituents pretty well know your record already. Kucinich keeps getting re-elected in his district because they are happy with the responsiveness of his office to their concerns and because they already know his record. I would think his district opponents would be happy with his absence so that there would be much more time for THEM in the debate. Isn't that the implied reason that some of ya'll want Kucinich excluded from the Presidential debates--more face-time for the other candidates? I think YOU are the one with the double standard (or at least a contradictory argument).

[northzax]

60. when you are the incumbent

and the prohibative favourite, and you refuse to participate, it kind of kills the debate, right? you need two people to debate. since winning his congressional seat, Kucinich has never (that's right, never) debated a primary challenger. when asked for a debate in the primary (like Rosemary Palmer has done several times this year) the Kucinich campaign does not respond.

and yes, refusing to debate in a two person race is the same as blocking the other person from the debate. either way, the debate doesn't happen.

[elaineb]

67. Okay, I'll debate ya!

Debates are just a single opportunity of getting one's message out in a political campaign. Remove that opportunity altogether for ALL candidates, and the playing field is still level. If Kucinich's local opponents (and there is more than one opponent in this current district race, so a debate CAN still take place) don't get face time from a debate, then neither does Kucinich. Where it is unlevel and unfair is when only some of the candidates are allowed to participate, thereby giving the candidates allowed to debate an unfair advantage over those who are not.

I've admitted that I would rather see Kucinich participate in a debate in his district, while explaining why I think he doesn't and why being allowed to participate and not participating are not equivalent. Since you're using his non-participation in a local district debate in your argument, will you now speak out in favor of Kucinich being allowed to participate in the upcoming Presidential debate, so that you're consistent?

[northzax]

70. given the incredible advantages of incumbency

especially in a primary, having the incumbent refuse to debate is tantamount to denying others the opportunity to debate.

[elaineb]

76. Well, there are races all OVER the country where the incumbent declines to debate

I don't feel like doing the research, but I'd be very surprised if the three front-runners haven't skipped one or more local debates during their political career. I imagine it's very prevalent for Washington politicians to skip their local district debates if they feel relatively secure in their seat. Are you holding them to the same standard as you are Kucinich re: local debates? If it was revealed that they'd ever skipped a local debate, would you come back to DU and criticize them for it?

Again, I don't agree that choosing to participate in a debate and being excluded from a debate are equivalent. Nevertheless, I've admitted that I think it would be better if Kucinich DID participate in his local district debate. Will you admit, since otherwise your argument is hypocritical, that Kucinich should be allowed to participate in the upcoming Presidential debate?

[northzax]

80. and when those incumbents

start complaining that other people won't debate them, I will criticize them for hypocrisy. until them, Kucinich is all I got.

I want Kucinich to say that he will debate Rosemary Palmer the longshot facing him, and then I will support his right to be a longshot facing others. until then, bad luck.

[elaineb]

94. ?.

"and when those incumbents start complaining that other people won't debate them, I will criticize them for hypocrisy."

You keep stating it wrong, I assume, in an attempt to obfuscate things. Kucinich is not complaining that other people WON'T debate him. (Unless you're suggesting that if he's invited to the upcoming debate, that the other candidates will turn their back on him). He's complaining that he CAN'T debate them, because he's being excluded from the debate in the first place.

Look, Kucinich is a very issues-oriented candidate. While the rest of the candidates are having to spend much of the debate time trying to explain the intent behind the foot-in-mouth comments made by themselves or their campaign workers, with Kucinich in the debate, we could have a lot more important discussions about the vital issues facing this country. Do you think Kucinich wouldn't LOVE to have a debate every damned night of the week if he thought he could get it just by asking? He certainly would go shooting up in the polls if he was in a debate every night of the week, because maybe by then, more than a miniscule minority of Americans would even know who the heck he was. But he's not ASKING for a debate every night of the week. He's not asking anybody to ADD debates that aren't already scheduled. He's simply asking (no, demanding) to be included, as a declared Presidential candidate, in the Presidential debates that are already scheduled to be held. THAT would make a level playing field. He's still in the race, he's a declared candidate, and anyone supporting him being excluded must not know what "democratic" means.

Again, all I can say is, being excluded from a democratic debate is not equivalent to choosing not to participate in a debate. No debate at all equals a level playing field. Imagine if Rosemary Palmer and the other people running against Kucinich (aren't there 4 or 5?) have the debate floor to themselves. That's a lot of face time that Kucinich will be foregoing. Apparently, a lot of people think Kucinich's support in his district is ephemeral, so I would think his opponents would love to debate each other without Kucinich being there. Certainly, if they have specific problems with his record or time in office, they could bring those up at the debate UNOPPOSED by a Kucinich rebuttal. In that sense, I think your argument doesn't hold water; in fact, I think it's upended. I know there are at least three other candidates running for Kucinich's seat. Is Rosemary Palmer asking any of the others for a debate, or just Kucinich? If a local television or radio station is offering up the debate time, then you'd better start criticizing Rosemary Palmer as well, if she doesn't request to debate the others in the race, only Kucinich.

It's been fun, but I've got to get off DU for now. If you post again and need a reply, I'll do so later.

[riverdeep]

86. I don't understand, this place is full of people who complain about Dems caving

at every opportunity, and we have here a Dem that actually stands up for the things that are supposed to be stood up for, and we're giving him grief? What ratio of cowardice/bravery is acceptable, we can send a mass email to Dem headquarters. "Dear Dems, please cave this many times, but for godsakes, not this many."

[KoKo]

87. I'm surprised you would say this. Kucinich was invited by MSNBC and then Disinvited and

a Nevada Judge ruled that the "people of Nevada" had a right to hear from all candidates on the ballot. GE flew into a rage and is is asking the Nevada Supreme Court for an "Emergency Ruling" to block him. Why are they so afraid? If Kucinich is as insignificant as you say?

I've felt you to be one of the most reasonable posters on DU. Just surprised at what you are saying.

[KharmaTrain]

90. I'm Saying He Should Participate

My intentions were to point out that this was GE/Universal/NBC's game here and that they feel justified in excluding him. We'll soon find out if this court challenge holds up...and I hope Dennis wins just to stick it up the corporate butts. I think that's the me ya know. LOL.

I was to ask how the money and effott going into this and other DK challenges is helping his campaign? From the Texas protest to the recount in New Hampshire and now this move, how does this help his campaign? There's a lot of wasted time and resources at work here that I would have hoped would be directed in organization and getting out the vote.

Think of the opportunity DK has in Michigan today. With a strong GOTV effort he could draw some attention in Michigan...imagine if he beat Hillary...no matter how the media spins it, a win is a win...and a show of support that could show others there's something to the campaign other than words. Again...just an observation from someone who is disappointed in how poorly Dennis has performed this year and trying to be honest with what I've seen.

Cheers...

[KoKo]

92. okay....I understand....n/t

[JackRiddler]

17. How does this fit in with the idea of media doing all for ratings?

Usually we're told corporate media content is just a function of ratings and market. Now including K. includes a niche market (be they 3 or 4 percent of the whole) but more importantly makes for a waaaaaay more exciting show.

This provides further evidence that the media and the corporations owning them do make decisions based on ideology, and not just (as they claim) market.

[onenote]

18. or maybe it just proves that the media fiercly protects their free exercise of editorial discretion

They don't want to be dictated to as to how they cover the campaign any more than the NY Times would want a court telling them how many column inches they have to devote to a particular candidate.


Personally, I think MSNBC made a mistake in disinviting DK after extending an invitation for him to participate. But whether or not that invitation created a binding contract is a close call.

[JackRiddler]

26. They opened up this can of worms themselves -

by making a set of rules, under which K. qualified, and then inviting him, and then uninviting him. And whether or not it legally proves to be a binding contract, they should honor their damn word.

This is not simply an NBC event - it is supposedly the Democratic Party's debate. The fault lies ultimately with those in the party who decided to deal with the corporate media as the pimp, on the corporate media's terms. Many of the same people making these deals are actually lawmakers with the influence to push for a change in media access - see how it's done in other countries, where airtime is a public good and gets doled out to candidates and parties.

These debates as a result of letting the corporate media run them are a joke - the broadcaster determines the agenda, as we saw with the ridiculous start to the last Democratic debate (22 minutes of homeland hysteria).

[onenote]

28. don't disagree with anything you wrote

I think it would be better if the debates were sponsored by a third party rather than by the news organization itself (and that the news organization would simply decide whether and how it wanted to cover the debate as a news event).

[sallyseven]

34. They should keep Timmy boy and

Brianey Whiney off as moderators. They suck. I hate to listened to that timmy drag out a sentence and play gotcha. I could just smack the tv. Brian is just to dumb. Just like romney too cute to be real.

[info being]

36. Edwards needs to take this message to the debate...

...talk about fighting corporations, here's a prime example.

[Uncle Joe]

40. More corporate media manipulation, they're afraid

to just let the American People decide. When they had eight candidates, it was easier for the media to hide the ones that had messages, they didn't approve of by not asking them questions or giving them fair air time, now that it's down to four, that becomes more difficult.

Thanks for the thread, Faye.

[New Earth]

45. you know what I don't understand?

It seems all the Republican candidates get to be in their debates. But they only focus on the top 3 Democrats. I really don't understand this. :wtf:

[onenote]

48. your impression about who is included is sort of right, sort of wrong

Duncan Hunter has been excluded from the last several repub debates and Ron Paul was excluded from one of them, even though Paul has polled as high as 5 percent in the national polls and got 10 percent of the vote in Iowa.

While its true that DK has been excluded a few times, he's never polled as high as 5 percent, making him more like Duncan Hunter than Paul when it comes to inclusion.

And both parties exclude lots of other candidates that have no appreciable support. Ever hear of Hugh Cort, John Cox, Cap Fendig or Daniel Gilbert? Probably not. But all of them are on the repub south carolina primary ballot and none of them have ever participated in a repub debate.

As for why there are only three Democrats being invited but as many as six repubs, its because there are still six repubs getting enough support to justify their inclusion, but only three Democrats polling (or getting votes in other primaries) at that level.

[KoKo]

89. Only TWO STATES have voted....in the whole country...so why should anyone

on the ballot be left out of a debate? :shrug:

[onenote]

91. because a "debate" with 20 participants would be a joke

[Laughing Mirror]

101. No, a "debate" with only 3 participants would be a joke

in a real democracy.

[WillTheGoober]

47. I may be evil ...

But am I the only one wanting to see a 1-on-1 showdown between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?

I know this is a process -- but air time is precious and realistically speaking either Hillary or Barack is going to win this.

I think the desire for Hillary and Obama to go head to head is the big elephant in the room.

Still -- fight on, patriots!
I understand your fight and respect it.

I'm just keepin' it real.

W.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. I'm sure you will get your wish, as the corporate media are consistently

marginalizing Edwards and Kucinich in the hope that the voters forget about them.

It won't be a very exciting debate when Obama and HRC go up against each other, because they largely agree on most issues.

If they decide to get nasty to each other, it may make for exciting television, but it will be a disaster for the level of political discourse in this country.

My state's caucuses haven't even happened yet, and I'm already disgusted with the way things are going. The media are calling the shots, and most DUers are blindly following along and buying into the horse race mentality. I see precious little attention to the REAL ISSUES that this country faces, and sadly, I think that both HRC and Obama are too conventional, too tied to corporate interests, to put forth the bold initiatives that these dangerous times require.

Yeah, yeah,yeah, someone's going to come on and list all the bills that Hillary or Barack has sponsored, but those are like putting band-aids on third degree burns. I'm completely underwhelmed by both of them, less underwhelmed by Edwards, and dismayed at how Kucinich's campaign is failing to take advantage of the tactics that worked for it in several states in 2004.

We need an FDR, and we're not going to get one.

[Uncle Joe]

58. Air time is precious, that's why it's patently unfair

when the corporate media ignore or marginalize candidates such as they did to Kucinich in the early debates. Someone spoke earlier of poll ratings being a determination, that leads me to the question of what came first the chicken or the egg? The lower poll ratings or the marginalization by the corporate media of the candidates, they disapprove of by only giving them a third or so of that precious air time.

Ulitmately, I believe it's all about the message and if it's not corporate loving enough, the corporate media, will do their best to block or obfuscate that message from the American People.

But speaking of precious air time, it seems to me, when you get down to four candidates from eight, there should be less pressure to eliminate a candidate out of hand as there is more air time to go around.

[Desertrose]

96. What the hell will they do... just sling more dirt at each other?

At least Dennis brings up some pertinent points and we need someone to hold their feet to the fire. The moderators never do.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

49. mika said he will be there

around 11:10am she said he will be there.

[Contrary1]

51. It would be a pleasant surprise to me...

if the "major candidates" told NBC that they would not participate in the debate if all candidates wishing to be included, were not. Whether Kucinich has a realistic chance to win the nomination or not should have nothing to do with it, in my opinion.

Doing the right thing...what a novel idea.

Let's see how low Republican candidates can go before they are excluded. Oh, that's right. We're talking GE here, it won't happen.

[robbedvoter]

59. This video is relevant again:

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

[debbierlus]

63. I don't NBC will win, & this will get Dennis a lot of publicity

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. This Is Becoming Utterly Ridiculous. What The Fuck Is Their Malfunction?

This is so not important enough of an issue to take to a Supreme Court for chrissakes.

[balantz]

69. Let them all be heard.

The point is, this is a last minute sham put on by the corporate elite M$M. They will fight it, not let Kucinich in, and the Judge will say "I told you to let him in, now I will shut down the debate!" What a sham! And a shame! Neither Kucinich or Edwards will be heard by the public. As an Edwards supporter this sucks because Edwards needs M$M coverage, he does well in debates, and he is neck to neck with C. and O. in a recent Nevada poll. Once again C. and O. will benefit, their debate is always in the limelight!

[flvegan]

72. Every 4 years, the media fucks us over moreso than usual. I, for one, am tired of it.

Excuse me, but I have a donation to make to Dennis Kucinich.

[B Calm]

75. I bet NBC would like to keep Edwards out of the debate too...

[LSK]

78. and have the entire debate be a dogfight about race and sexism

[JackRiddler]

99. Yup.

serious electable viable cash-liquid definable mainstream only!

All words meriting air-quotes.

[LSK]

77. WHAT THE FUCK???

[orleans]

85. that "update" on msnbc's website only came after 9 hours after

keith announced it. (or was it up earlier--what got updated at 5:30 in the morning that wasn't on there hours before--news about the appeal?)

[sakabatou]

102. Grr

I want my man to talk about his views. He has a large following, so why the fuck aren't they letting him? Too radical, hmm?