New York Times calls for exclusion of Kucinich and Sharpton from debates

[IndianaGreen]

New York Times calls for exclusion of Kucinich and Sharpton from debates
By Kate Randall
31 January 2004

In a January 28 editorial, (“Defrosting the Primaries”), the New York Times called for candidates Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton to be excluded from future debates in the contest for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

The Times writes: “Representative Dennis Kucinich has every right to keep campaigning despite his minuscule vote tallies, but he should not be allowed to take up time in future candidate debates. Neither should the Rev. Al Sharpton, who is running to continue running, not to win.” The editorial adds, “Sponsors should also consider whether Senator Joseph Lieberman will continue to be a credible candidate”—i.e., they should pull the plug on this unviable candidate.

These recommendations—thoroughly undemocratic on their face—would be remarkable, were it not for the fact that the Times has a history of dubbing “not credible” any candidate whom it sees as posing even the mildest challenge to the general consensus politics of the two-party system in America.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/nyti-j31.shtml

[corporatewhore]

1. Pravda on the hudson can kiss my brown ass

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

67. the Neo-Liberal Corporate Media Has Spoken

If Democrats exclude Sharpton and Kucinich from the debates, I'll be sure to exclude my vote from the general election.

[Tim_in_HK]

2. Geez . . .

If this were to happen, the debates would become even MORE boring . . . some of the most interesting comments during the debates have come from these two.

And if Sharpton had never participated, we wouldn't have the gem that the first thing he'd do after waking up in the White House is change the locks so Bush couldn't get back in! That was friggin' hilarious.

[bearfartinthewoods]

116. that's fine for those who are looking for entertainment

some people watch them as a tool to determine for whom to vote.

go figure

[burrowowl]

3. The NYT

is an a$$!
Haven't they heard about other voices being heard and building a platform from many planks.
E pluribus unum is the motto, not under god (the ultimate monarch) we trust.

[IndianaGreen]

8. The NY Times was one of the cheerleaders for the Iraq War

and its editorial policy was always set against the antiwar movement as this January 2003 WSWS article posted below discusses.

As one of those that stood in freezing weather in solidarity with millions of people in America and the world against the war, I haven't forgotten how newspapers like the NY Times ignored our calls for peace, and how the current front runner for the Democratic nomination remained silent as late as January 2003 as Bush rushed to war.

New York Times discovers the opposition to war in Iraq
By Bill Vann
21 January 2003

In a January 20 editorial entitled “A Stirring in the Nation,” the New York Times issued a belated and hypocritical welcome to the mass movement that has emerged against the Bush administration’s drive to war against Iraq.

In this mealy-mouthed piece, the Times adopts the posture of a knowing and tolerant authority, dispensing its blessings on the January 18 demonstrations that mobilized hundreds of thousands in Washington, San Francisco and cities throughout the country. The newspaper declares the protests a legitimate part of a “nascent debate” that supposedly involves the Bush administration and the American people. It asserts that the legions of people who marched in sub-freezing temperatures in the US capital did so to raise “nuanced questions in the name of patriotism about the premises, cost and aftermath of the war the president is contemplating.”

This description grotesquely distorts the present state of political relations in the US, as well as the spirit animating those who are demonstrating against war. It also serves to cover up the role of the newspaper itself.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/nyt-j21.shtml

[Supply Side Jesus]

4. F*ck the times

who in hell are THEY to decide who shall be heard and who shouldn't? They could only participate only if they poll well enough? Dick Heads.

[corporatewhore]

5. yeah who do they think they are Ted Koppel

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. Haha! Yeah quick..let's get the two REAL muckrakers off TV fast!

[lcordero]

7. If they weren't there half the issues being discussed wouldn't

even be looked at.

[aquart]

9. Nice of them to decide our votes for us.

Really helpful.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Time to take the 4,001th ABB loyalty oath!

[girl gone mad]

11. Of course..

they want to shut these two up. They make far too much sense and that makes the NY Times nervous.

[Sugarbleus]

13. Yep! n/t

[IndianaGreen]

15. The NY Times is part of a coordinated propaganda campaign

to effectively disenfranchise the antiwar voters with the fait accompli of a Democratic frontrunner that supported Bush's PNAC goals in Iraq and elsewhere, and has even given the Miami Cubans a veto on US policy towards that island nation.

The New York Times’ Friedman libels the Iraqi resistance
By Barry Grey
4 November 2003

The New York Times’chief foreign policy commentator, Thomas Friedman, who has assumed the role of leading “liberal” defender of the American occupation of Iraq, published a particularly venomous column on October 30 under the headline “It’s No Vietnam.”

Friedman’s piece appeared on the same day as columns by two other liberal commentators arguing that the recent upsurge of anti-US violence in Iraq and the exposure of Bush administration lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi-Al Qaeda connections in no way discredited the war or provided legitimate grounds to oppose the US occupation of the country. Richard Cohen of the Washington Post penned a piece entitled “Vietnam It Isn’t,” and Benjamin Schwarz, the former executive editor of the liberal World Policy Journal, published a column in the Los Angeles Times headlined “Bush Fibbed, and That Might Be OK.”

<snip>

That these articles are coming from the liberal wing of the political establishment has far-reaching significance. It demonstrates the existence of a broad consensus within the US ruling elite—and its journalistic apologists—behind the Bush administration’s policy of global conquest and colonial-style subjugation of peoples and regions considered to be of strategic importance to the American corporate oligarchy. Whatever tactical quibbles the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times might have with the authors of the US seizure of Iraq, they are in essential agreement with the war aims and imperialist goals of the Bush administration. The same can be said for the Democratic Party and the liberal camp as a whole—which accounts for the pathetic and unprincipled character of the so-called “anti-war” elements within this political milieu.

The New York Times’ Friedman expresses most crudely and cynically the continuum between the Republican right and American liberalism on Iraq. His column, in the outlandishness of its lies and vitriol against those who oppose the US occupation, suggests something approaching panic at the prospect of a debacle for the US in Iraq and the emergence of a mass anti-war movement within the US.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/nyt-n04.shtml

[CWebster]

23. The media assassination of Howard Dean

"It demonstrates the existence of a broad consensus within the US ruling elite—and its journalistic apologists"



"There are but a few weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Time has grown short. In an effort to galvanize the message Kerry wants to deliver in the time remaining, he convened a powerful roster of journalists and columnists in the New York City apartment of Al Franken last Thursday. The gathering could not properly be called a meeting or a luncheon. It was a trial. The journalists served as prosecuting attorneys, jury and judge. The crowd I joined in Franken’s living room was comprised of:
Al Franken and his wife Franni;
Rick Hertzberg, senior editor for the New Yorker;
David Remnick, editor for the New Yorker;
Jim Kelly, managing editor for Time Magazine;
Howard Fineman, chief political correspondent for Newsweek;
Jeff Greenfield, senior correspondent and analyst for CNN;
Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times;
Eric Alterman, author and columnist for MSNBC and the Nation;
Art Spiegelman, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist/author of ‘Maus’;
Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post;
Fred Kaplan, columnist for Slate;
Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate and author;
Jonathan Alter, senior editor and columnist for Newsweek;
Philip Gourevitch, columnist for the New Yorker;
Calvin Trillin, freelance writer and author;
Edward Jay Epstein, investigative reporter and author;
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who needs no introduction



http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml


All makes sense now, doesn't it?

[robbedvoter]

51. Wow! Does it mean Kuchinich will get press soon? (just joking)

Thanks for this one. Very relevant piece. Explains a lot.

[Tinoire]

139. Whoa. Thanks. Al Franken huh? n/t

[nolabels]

12. The exclusion I have is for the N.Y. Times

I peruse a few articles in L.A. Times in between the time I am thumbing trough it to get the comics, but mostly it's just bird cage liner

[ibegurpard]

14. Anyone who is quick to pooh-pooh claims of media bias just

because they come from a campaign supporter you might not like just needs to read this and take note of the media admission of "the scream" manipulation.

[Legate]

16. ...

Two parties are better than one.

[IndianaGreen]

18. In the words of Pat Buchanan...

"Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same bird of prey."

[Sugarbleus]

19. BINGO Indiana!! n/t

[juajen]

17. I think they both bring a lot to the campaign

I love 'em both, lots. The NYT can, well, you know.

[jsw_81]

20. I agree

You should have to win at least five percent in a primary or caucus to participate in a debate.

[Laughing Mirror]

28. Sharpton got 34% in the DC presidential primary

So by your reckoning he should be able to continue participating in the debate?

Or does that not count since the DC primary was non-binding, meaning it doesn't count, just a little something to throw their way to keep the natives happy?

[jsw_81]

29. That primary didn't count

[Laughing Mirror]

30. and the South Carolina primary next week?

where he already ties for third place, with some 11 percent?

Does SC not count either?

[Tinoire]

54. It counts. That's why they want to get Sharpton out & Kucinich out ASAP

before we get to the more progressive states. And before they really upset the apple cart what with all the "unpleasant" TRUTHS they bring to the debates.

Shut them up ASAP before the public realizes that the Dem party is whorish to its core.

[Laughing Mirror]

86. Well they're not going to shut us up.

And your signature line, Tinoire, bears repeating. We took you to the dance and you're not going home with someone else.

[Iverson]

36. mm hm.

Tell me the story of the Great Big Tent again.

[jsw_81]

38. Why should fringe candidate with no support be included in debates?

Would you allow LaRouche in the debates?

[Iverson]

44. fringe, eh?

You've called them fringe, not me. Controlling the terms of the debate pretty effectively controls the possible conclusions. Gee, where have we seen that before?

No, I would not invite LaRouche into the debates. I also do not believe they are equivalent. I do not believe that LaRouche is a legitimate Democrat because of the (admittedly limited) research I've done about him. If the initials NCLC mean anything to you, then you know what I mean. If, on the other hand, your argument is merely a sly way of dismissing them through correlation, then I find it unpersuasive.

Kucinich and Sharpton bring ideas, upsetting liberal ideas, to the debate. A rush to exclude them after two whole primaries is ... revealing.

What a shame.

[Colin Ex]

122. Fringe? God that's scary.

Hey guys? Health care for everyone is "Fringe" now.
Peace is "Fringe" now.
Not being a superglobalist is "Fringe" now.
Civil rights are "fringe" now.

-C

[blondeatlast]

151. I'm confused! Am I a "fringe" or am I "bush-lite?"

I could almost vote for DK on Tuesday, but I have to be pragnmatic about delegate counts (there is one viable candidate I'm pretty much AGAINST).

So I'm going to probably vote Kerry, which makes me "bush-lite" in many eyes.

Should I give up and head to ...no, I can't even say it.

[IndianaGreen]

125. Yeah, let's hear that bullshit about the "Big Tent" again!

I think they forgot to tells us that Terry McCauliff and Al From are already inside the tent wearing T-shirts with the logo "My Way, or the Highway!"

[evil_orange_cat]

89. and I agree with you...

however I think it's important for a fringe candidate to remain... we need someone to voice the third-rail issues like the drug war, for instance.

[blondeatlast]

148. Kerry will probably get my vote on Tuesday, but I respectfully

disagree.

We need their voices desperately, especially at the convention.

[Timahoe]

21. So why hasn't La Rouche been invited to the debates?

Aside from being a nut, he has no chance of winning anything and would just be a distraction.

The only hope of stopping Kerry now is to get him in a format where Governor Dean can engage him Lincoln-Douglas style. That's not going to happen with candidates who are looking to market their upcoming book sales, not win votes, hogging up the camera time.

[incapsulated]

26. I have to agree and I will get slammed for it but..

The herd has got to be culled at some point, and that includes everybody, even my guy.

What is the point of these debates, particularly at this point in the game?

The idea of "framing the debate" had merit early on, when the debate was being framed. But we are in the midst of the actual voting now. The point of these debates is for the voters to use them to help decide which candidate would best represent them in the general election. To do that, they have to have a reasonable chance of actually being nominated. Inspiring speeches are wonderful, but now is not the time. We are in the business of finally deciding on the nominee, here.

There comes a point where it is painfully obvious that certain candidates are simply never going to win a single state or any significant amount of delegates, let alone the nomination. That time is not yet, but after this round, it has to be looked at seriously.

Timahoe makes a very good point, and one that should be considered by Dean, Clark and Edwards supporters. Kerry will get a free ride in these debates precisely because they are so watered down. Neither Dean, Clark or Edwards will be able to establish themselves, and he won't have to deal with serious, prolonged questioning from the moderators or the other candidates. The time will be spread too thin over the numerous candidates, all which demand equal time, even though their standing in the primaries is nill.

You can always vote for whoever you want in the primaries, regardless of their chances. But for those of us who are mainly concerned with actually winning the primary, and not just taking part in it, these debates will need to be culled.

[IndianaGreen]

27. After one caucus and one primary, why the rush to end public discourse?

Is the Kerry campaign fearful that as the average voter gets to know more about Kerry's real record of obfuscation, vacillation, and appeasement, that Kerry's numbers will start going South as the ABK vote coalesces around a single stop-Kerry candidate?

Strange attitude from a candidate that challenged Bush to "bring it on!"

[incapsulated]

31. I didn't say the time was now..

and I'm not a Kerry supporter. In fact, part of my argument for eventually culling the debates is that the large number of candidates participating in them helps Kerry and hurts any other contenters trying to break free of the "other than Kerry" pack.

After Michigan, if a candidate still has barely any delegates to speak of, this should be considered.

[Timahoe]

32. I normally agree with you IndianaGreen

but I think you're off this time. Too many candidates at the debates effectively allows Kerry to run at the clock while he's still ahead.

Right now, Governor Dean, or General Clark may be scoring points on Kerry, and then the moderator cuts them off and Kucinich starts flashing his graphs, and Kerry is completely off the hook.

[IndianaGreen]

143. Democrats cover up for Bush lies on Iraq WMD

I think the following article pretty much illustrates the failure of the Democratic Party to oppose Bush on substantive issues, preferring instead to quibble about tactics.

Democrats cover up for Bush lies on Iraq WMD
By Patrick Martin
31 January 2004

Thursday night’s debate in South Carolina among the seven candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination took place amid the mounting crisis of the Bush administration over the exposure of false claims that Iraq possessed huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. But not one of the Democratic candidates would state the obvious: that the Bush administration is guilty of deliberate lying to the American people and to the world to make its case for war.

The debate was held only days after David Kay, who for the past eight months headed the US search in Iraq for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, resigned his post, saying the search for weapons was effectively over and the personnel of the Iraq Survey Group were being redeployed to combating Iraqi insurgents. Kay publicly admitted that no banned weapons had been found, adding that in his judgment none had existed at the time of the US invasion of Iraq last March.

<snip>

Senator John Edwards of North Carolina echoed Dean’s call for an independent commission to investigate “why there is this discrepancy about what we were told and what’s actually been found there,” a phrasing almost identical to that voiced by Bush’s national security adviser Condoleezza Rice in a television interview earlier in the day.

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, now the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, changed the subject, referring only to “an enormous question about the exaggeration by this administration,” and then criticizing Bush’s failure to win international diplomatic support for the attack on Iraq.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/dems-j31.shtml

[incapsulated]

33. And..

You say that then Kerry would just be replaced with the anti-Kerry. Well then you are saying our choice is Kerry or..Kerry. There can only be one, you know. It's Kerry or someone else.

[Iverson]

47. for a quick answer

See my note #45. I bet you knew it already, though, IG.

[Tinoire]

55. Yeah that's right. Get the progressive ones out so that the

"mainstream" candidates aren't forced to keep drifting left to appeal to the voters.

Let's just crown Caesar now shall we?

[Carolina]

188. wrong

the Bush-whoring-media-run debates would be no better with only 3-4 candidates. We're involved and follow everything about the campaigns, the appearances, the ads, the debates and the media coverage (or in the case of our guy, non-coverage). But the average Joe is not paying attention to much more than the what he gets on the nightly news. Here in SC this past weekend while campaigning, I encountered so many people who still don't know whose running, yet have jumped on the Kerry bandwagon simply because they've heard he's the frontrunner. They're not watching the debates.

Half the people in this country don't even vote much less follow what happens on the campaigns. They do as instructed by the media mouthpieces and currently, sadly by the gelding Democratic pols who've decided let's jump behind one guy NOW. Culling the herd is not going to matter, and besides I like to hear what Al and Dennis have to say. We know they cannot win but that gives them a freedom to really tell it like it is. And as far as I'm concerned the more voices continuing to speak out against Bush, the better.

Screw the fucking Times

[robbedvoter]

49. Mental Health Code, paragraph 2356: No unhinged persons shall

be let loose in a crowded theater

[Dark Star]

112. Now, there you go again!

cut that out


:yourock:

[IndianaGreen]

126. ABC and Diane Sawyer admit culpability re: Dean Iowa Speech

I want to thank PassingFair for starting this thread in GD2004:

ABC and Diane Sawyer admit culpability re: Dean Iowa Speech

Tell the networks we want to here and see this admission 700 times!

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_2004vote_012904dean.html

Please tell Chris Matthews to air this on prime time!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=240114

[CWebster]

22. NYTimes always had an agenda to pitch Kerry

The establishment candidate. Now, it is your duty to get with the program and no whining. ABB, remember? Everybody get in line.

[IndianaGreen]

24. ABK all the way!

Iraq is another Vietnam! The Iraq War Resolution is another Tonkin Gulf Resolution.

The fact that the Democratic frontrunner went to Vietnam because of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution (which was based on lies), and nearly 40 years later ends up voting for the similar Iraq War Resolution (which was also based on lies), speaks volumes as to how quickly we forget the lessons of history.

Iraq will become a Democratic war in the unlikely event Kerry is elected!

Today's Iraq headlines, and it is still morning:

Breaking news, 3 soldiers killed, Northern Iraq, attack on convoy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=340184

Blast targets Iraq police station - (breaking on BBC)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=340165

Yesterday's Iraq news:

01/30/04 Spacewar: Three Iraqi soldiers killed by unknown gunmen in Mosul

Three Iraqi soldiers were killed and a fourth seriously wounded Friday when unknown gunmen opened fire on them at a military checkpoint in this northern city, a coroner and police said, information of AFP.

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040130190021.ejchkedk.html

01/30/04 DOD: Missing Soldier Confirmed Dead

The Department of Defense announced today it has changed the status of Chief Warrant Officer Patrick Dorff, 32, of Minnesota from duty status whereabouts unknown to killed in action.

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20040130-0284.html

[Darranar]

66. Who signed it?

Who ordered it?

Who planned it?

Who carried it out?

Who argued for it?

Who lied about it?

Who made up evidence to support it?

[IndianaGreen]

121. Kerry isn't against invading Iraq, he is against the way Bush invaded Iraq

A political party is not supposed to function like a social club. A political party is either an opposition party or a coalition party. A political party either opposes the government and its policies, or finds itself by deed or by inaction in coalition with that government.

How come the Democrats as a party don't get it? Well, why would they get it? The Democratic party establishment is in agreement with Bush on his policies goals. The dispute that establishment candidates such as John Kerry have with Bush is one of tactics. Kerry is not against Bush for what Bush does, Kerry is against Bush because he disagrees with the way Bush does things!

This disagreement on tactics explains why Democratic candidates such as Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman do not want an outright repeal of PATRIOT Act, preferring instead to make enough cosmetic changes to PATRIOT to provide them with a fig leaf they can use in defending themselves against civil libertarians.

A real opposition party would be demanding the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, and the prosecution of Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice for their roles in a campaign of WMD disinformation. General Tommy Franks should be prosecuted as a war criminal for launching a war of aggression against a sovereign nation. That's what a real opposition party would do!

[Darranar]

135. Yes, Kerry supports the Iraq war...

yes, he voted for the resolution.

But the Bush Administration ran it.

The Bush Administration ran and are running the war with tremendous incompetence, in a way that incidentally seems to help them and their corporate allies.

Even Lieberman would do it better.

How, then, can you refuse to support Kerry in the GE, when his opponent will be far worse then him?

On the simple basis of the Iraq war, how can you support anything but ABB?

And how are Dean and Clark any better, except for the fact that they aren't honest about their former support?

[IndianaGreen]

137. When it comes to Iraq, Kerry is as much a criminal as Bush

Do yourself a favor and rent the movie "Judgment at Nuremberg." The judge played by Burt Lancaster was not a Nazi, yet he enabled the Nazis by not opposing them.

I think there are parallels to our current story, the more so since the only reason Kerry was in Vietnam was because another Congress enabled President Johnson to send ground combat troops to Vietnam on the basis of lies.

Kerry should have been our Wayne Morse on Iraq, instead he chose to be another Hubert Humphrey.

[joshcryer]

25. But wait, this is a democracy!

Obviously Kerry has already won, so why have anyone at the debates? Obviously Kerry alone should be at the debates. I mean, this is so clear... why can't anyone get this?

[GreenPartyVoter]

53. *roflmao*

"This is a democracy."

Thanks! I needed a good laugh this morning.

~Jen, who can't wait til it IS really a democracy

[Eurobabe]

34. screw the times

I hope Dennis and Al hang in there and keep being thorns in the sides of Bu$h until the convention. This is what "they" really fear.

[sweetheart]

35. Shouldn't they wait a bit

until this next round of primaries?

I might agree given 10 days. The bully push is too early.

In my view, they should conduct the debates in long form, let the candidates talk as long as they want to, and then cut them down on an equal time basis to fit the time slot... but leave the full unedited audio version to radio and the transcript to internet.

This would allow the complex truth to come out of the otherwise facile beauty contest of the debate forums. Presidents arn't elected to debate, rather the coherency of their plaform and stances is much more of issue.

[Iverson]

37. support a Venezuelan coup, limit debates

Who is surprised at the Times? Be surprised at the support they get on a progressive website instead.

[Tinoire]

58. Be surprised at the support they get on a progressive website instead

Well said :thumbsup:

[Darranar]

64. They generally adopt a neoliberal position...

which is generally better on social issues then a right-wing position.

But they manage to sneak past a few things, like this, which aren't neoliberal at all. The Venezuelan coup is another matter - Chavez is a vile socialist, remember?

[Iverson]

68. right you are, and ...

... therefore, neoliberal economic policies are more important to them than less important stuff like making democracy messy with the wrong kind of choice. It's a second-tier issue.

[Darranar]

118. Apparentally so.

[Cocoa]

88. "Hugo Chavez Departs"

that's the first thing I thought of, too, the NYT isn't the best authority on the basic concepts of Democracy.

Here's their amazing editorial, prematurely declaring the coup a victory for democracy:

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:nzzXKXEEc0YJ:www.geocities.co.jp/WallStreet-Stock/8145/041302.html+%22hugo+chavez+departs%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Tinoire]

138. Thanks. n/t

[blondeatlast]

152. I AM surprised. "All the news that's fit to

ascertain that the Bush Empire continues to reign."

[Jersey Devil]

39. Poo on the NYT - Keep em all going, they are great

I think they compliment each other and the issues in a way that cannot be duplicated by a smaller field. I hope they all keep debating right up to the Convention. People are excited and honed in on the issues so let's keep it that way.

[Bombtrack]

40. Sharpton and Kucinich are the reason we can't have any real debate

there are too many candidates to have a real debate. This only benefits the republicans because we cannot see who is the best debator is when we have a limited soundbit format.

They are joke candidates and of course a fringe socialist website is going to take the position against the mainstream and practical and for the fringe

[Iverson]

42. ready for a purge?

"Off with their heads!" shouted the Red Queen.

[IndianaGreen]

123. Strange to find Socialists defending democracy and free speech

while the "defenders" of freedom are calling for a coronation and loyalty oaths for Election 2004.

Perhaps the anti-Socialist propaganda and fear mongering that we have been bombarded with since we were in grade school should be challenged just as vigorously as the claims about WMDs in Iraq were challenged.

[blondeatlast]

153. "Fringe" website? Add that to my progressive identity crisis.

[Desertrose]

170. and this was a joke post...right? right??

"They are joke candidates..."
:grr:

Uhh, no actually they are the BEST candidates in a field of too many that are basically slight variations of each other....

peace
DR

[Carolina]

189. right on

Desertrose :toast:

Dennis and Al should keep on keeping on, giving Bush and the media hell.

We may be watching the debates but most people are not and as long as the debates are run by mediawhores, they are not really debates anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Let's keep our big tent.

[jpgpenn]

41. This is so so wrong

What's next, our voting rights all together?

[trumad]

43. The more bashing Bush the better it is...

Sharpton and Dennis can lay the napalm without the media scrutiny that the front runners will get...

IG up above is correct... It's only been 1 caucus and 1 primary...what's the rush....

[Iverson]

45. Here's the rush.

Kucinich and Sharpton transgress the boundaries of acceptable liberalism.

To continue driving the discourse to the right, we NEED Howard Dean to be a far-left loony, and this is not possible if we allow Kucinich and Sharpton to be seen.

[lostnfound]

50. Iverson is right.

With Kucinich & Sharpton out, there would be no more talk about free trade, no more radical ideas about peace, and Dean will be painted as loony-left when he is actually rather centrist and normal.

The debate would become much more comfortable of a sideshow for corporate America.

Corporations have too much power. Which remaining candidate would make such a statement? And yet probably every one of us knows it is true.

[Iverson]

52. Hey, thanks!

You can be my new best friend until I write something that pisses you off. Average time is about 8 hours.
;-)

[Tinoire]

59. You hit the nail on the head with that one! n/t

[Darranar]

63. Excellent point.

[cryofan]

69. I agree. DK and Al should stay in the debates. You've changed my mind

I had favored DK getting out because he is tainting progressive issues. But now I see that by voicing the ideas of many voters (who have the same ideas, but find DK unelectable), he is keeping the leaders from moving to the center.

[Iverson]

72. Good god, y'all! I'll show my wife and kids your reply.

Maybe it will help me to be more persuasive, especially with the teenaged boys.
:pals:

[cryofan]

95. man, give up the public school teaching gig--you're too smart for that!

Haven't you noticed that all longtime secondary school teachers, the ones who have managed to stay in the profession, are not really people given to a lot of deep thinking and reading? My experience has shown me that Teacher IQ is indirectly proportional to length of time in the profession. Just a theory.....

[Iverson]

99. thanks but ...

Two things two consider:
1. Anyone in any profession can be thoughtful or thoughtless.
2. I teach in college. I do not have the teacher certification that Michigan requires for public schools, and that isn't really what I want to do.

Cheers.
:toast:

[blondeatlast]

154. GOOOOOOOOD one, Iverson; very well said.

:toast:

[Rainbows]

156. Already in the Mix ...

with electronic voting and tabulating and no audit trail, your vote now has the right to be changed by the best hacker, hacks can buy.

[Bad Thoughts]

46. Blame Faux News and Judy Woodruff

The New York Times has it wrong. Dennis and Al, in different ways, have helped the debates by focusing on particular issues, by it the problems of race or the problems of violence. Don't stifle them.

Dennis has been very influential maintaining the New Left spirit of the party so that it does not flee to somewhere else. He has a lot of highly dedicated support.

Al has been one of the Democratic Party's greatest assets. He has had a high visibility during periods in which most Americans were not tuned into the primaries. He has given out the best soundbites to use against Chimpo.

You want to blame someone for bad debates? How but we look back at the bad moderators and hosts: Brit Hume, Faux News, Judy Woodruff. Who ran that awful affair where the Gore endorsement was discussed for twenty minutes?

[gulliver]

48. Tragedy of the common

There are no rules I know of to prevent candidates from staying in debates even if even they know they are not viable. That undermines what might be the primary purpose of the debates: to give voters a chance to choose from among the candidates.

It's too late to add rules this year, so we are going to have to rely on the candidates regulating themselves. However, in this day and age, when every loophole that can be exploited will be exploited, it would pay for the DNC or some other body to institute some sort of regulation.

It's Hardin's "tragedy of the common" in a sense.

[MMT]

62. The "tragedy of the commons" is an outright ratification of greed

And it's a lie, too. Only the criminally selfish behave badly, and they should be controlled rather than rewarded.

[gulliver]

130. It's no lie. It's very brilliant and elegant.

Also, it is no ratification of greed. Not sure you are talking about the same tragedy of the commons (I forget the s sometimes) I am talking about.

I'm talking about the one where there is a communal sharing of some resource such as a watering hole or, in this case, debate air time. Each individual user of the resource benefits individually if they use as much of the common resource as they possibly can. Unfortunately, that individual behavior can have the collective effect of destroying the common resource.

For example, instead of 9 candidates, suppose we had 99, each assuming they have the right to appear in every debate right up until the primary. It would destroy the debate system. I would argue the debate system suffers dramatically when there are only 9.

I don't know what regulatory rules could/should be added to the debate process to save it. Perhaps some don't think it needs to be saved at all. I do.

As long as the regulations are "fair" to all concerned and announced beforehand, I think the debate process would benefit enormously.

[MMT]

167. Yes, it is a lie.

And we are talking about the same thing. It's a lie because it presumes an unreal world in which there is no history and culture is not a factor. It presumes that people never learn from experience. It presumes that no one in the community has any idea that overgrazing will destroy the pasturage that careful sharing would preserve forever, and that everyone in the community is a psychopath intent on seeking his personal short-term good at the expense of all other goals. It's nonsense.

[gulliver]

173. No it isn't. It is a force of nature.

It doesn't really make any presumptions about history or the ability for a culture to respond. The social response of regulated sharing is a good response to the tragedy of the commons. No one, least of all Hardin, would deny that.

[MMT]

175. I think you should study it a little more carefully

[dusty64]

56. They have NO

right to dictate who is in the Democratic debates. If the candidate is still in the race they deserve to be there period.

[MidwestMomma]

57. As Bender on Futurama would say....

NYT can kiss my shiny metal ass!

[Tinoire]

60. Metal?

Now that is a new expression but I like it!

Lacuna Coil anyone?

[Darranar]

61. Why?

I thought this was a democracy.

I thought democracies were supposed to permit free exchange of ideas.

I thought the New York Times supported such concepts.

Was I wrong?

[Dark Star]

70. Yes, you were wrong.

I already post at forums against bias at the NYT AND the LAT!

...never could understand the respect either got, esp the NYT...

:hi:

[MMT]

65. The favored candidates had better loudly oppose this fresh hell!

If Clark, Dean, Edwards, and Kerry don't all speak out strongly against this fresh assault on democracy, they will lose their place on my dance card forever. This is outrageous.

If the debates are too crowded, then expand the time provided.

I don't think it's at all an accident that the two they want to toss out of the sleigh are the two non-millionaires. Non-millionaires who are speaking for people like themselves.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

71. Clark, Dean, Edwards, and Kerry better denounce this QUICK

Anyone who appears in a debate that excludes Sharpton or Kucinich is not going to get support in the general. Sharpton and Kucinich *always* get the most applause and cheers at all the debates I've seen, at least 5 of them, and Sharpton was a strong second in DC!

[Paulie]

76. Damn right!

Al and Dennis keep it REAL. It's not their fault that the other candidates are weak on the issues they bring up.

After two votes, we've had one candidate implode. There is plenty of time for others to blow it for one reason or another. That's why we need primaries, to vet these people TO THE MAX so we know exactly what we have, and what we will put up against *.

No more pink tutu's, no more enabling, no more appeasement. It's TIME for a real DEMOCRAT by god!

[Indiana Democrat]

73. It's obvious neither can win.

So why should they get as much time as the rest?

How about this...

Speaking time in debates is alotted based on caucus and primary results to date. Those who the people support get more face time.

Radical idea, huh?


Flame away...

[Iverson]

75. Sometimes the predictable is also disappointing.

"Speaking time in debates is alotted based on caucus and primary results to date."

I'd say that that is unscientific to the point where even the most backward yahoo would call it transparent.

"Radical idea, huh?"

Closer to reactionary than radical, since it tends to concentrate power rather than offer something more egalitarian.

Using the logic that only the likelihood of "winning" permits a viewpoint to be heard, all that the Republicans need to do is to come clean about electoral fraud. Since their victory would be assured, no other viewpoint would be allowed.

How do you like that line of reasoning now?

[Indiana Democrat]

77. Why exclude Lyndon LaRouche then?

Why is he held out of the debates?

[charlie]

80. Because Larouche is to the Democrats

what David Duke was to the Republicans. If you think keeping the issue of The Jewish Cabal That Runs The World out of the debates is some sort of lack of fidelity to principle, you're out of your tree.

[Indiana Democrat]

82. Oh, I get it now...

...If **you** don't like someone, it's OK if THEY'RE held out of the debates.

OK...As long as the rules are clear.

[charlie]

85. So you're saying we should include

the anti-Semite crank if we include Kucinich? And yes, I'm perfectly fine about not wanting the party to embrace obsessive unapologetic racists.

[Freddie Stubbs]

98. Niether should be included

They are not attracting a significant amount of support from Democrats.

[Indiana Democrat]

111. No. Just making a point, obviously.

They're all unelectable...That's also obvious. Now we're just debating on how hypocritical we want to be or not be.

[charlie]

113. Still gonna cling to the notion

that excluding Larouche is hypocritical, then? Let it go, it's foolish.

[Indiana Democrat]

114. The only point is...

He shouldn't be included and neither should Kucinich or Sharpton. None of them have a chance.

[Paulie]

117. Isn't Larouche a convicted FELON?

NO more Felon's in the WhiteHouse!!!!!!!

If you're putting Dennis and Al into that group, let me know, so I can click the IGNORE button. :) :)

[Iverson]

142. That "point" was answered in note #75.

To recap:

Using the logic that only the likelihood of "winning" permits a viewpoint to be heard, all that the Republicans need to do is to come clean about electoral fraud. Since their victory would be assured, no other viewpoint would be allowed.

How do you like that line of reasoning now?

(end of excerpt)

Here's an excellent chance to address the response instead of to dodge it.

[Iverson]

178. 24 hrs. ...

... I guess the silence is the answer.

Again.

[IndianaGreen]

179. He didn't answer the point about Indiana showing all the candidates

from all the parties in the debates. It would be unthinkable in "backward" Indiana to have a TV debate that does not include every candidate from every party on the ballot.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=238715#241063

[Dark Star]

84. LOL

Try posting that in I/P!

:yourock: :pals:

[Iverson]

91. You answer me first if you want an answer.

That's the deal. You grapple with my questions before posing new ones of dubious sincerity.

[Indiana Democrat]

110. No.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

78. you decide before the primaries? Why not cancel the elections?

If we're going to choose a candidate based on polling data from corporate media why bother holding an election at all.

Kerry hates being upstaged by Dennis and Al doesn't he?

[Indiana Democrat]

81. Yeah, they're really kicking his ass.

I'm so dissappointed by Kerry's showing so far versus Sharpton and Kucinich.

I don't know how they do it! They've combined for about 1.5% of all delegates!!

[Iverson]

97. You think elections and debates are the same thing!?!?

I assure you that they are different.

In a formal debate, opposing parties present arguments and rebuttals.
In an election, people cast ballots for who they wish to represent them.

If we use election results to discover who is a better debater, we would have to conclude that Ronald Reagan was one of the better debaters that our country has produced.

What do you think of that line of reasoning now?

[IndianaGreen]

129. We always get to see all of the candidates in our Indiana elections

If you are Hoosier, you know that when we have TV debates for the Senate, Governorship, or Mayor (in Indianapolis), we always get to see and hear all the candidates, including those from all the minor parties that are on the Indiana ballot.

If an inclusive debate is good enough for Hoosiers, who are considered backwards by the Beltway types, why isn't our national Presidential debates be inclusive as well? What do they fear?

[diamondsoul]

176. AMEN, IG!!!

Haysoos, we're one of the most conservative States in the damned Union, but we have respect for the democratic process!

I really love this State, though. I think it's more of a cross-section of America tha most people realize. Our Progressives/Liberals are serious about their beliefs, same with any advocacy group here in Indiana. Our conservatives and Republicans are just as committed. It's a matter of communication, imho. Do you know I've pulled a good 20 local Republicans to Kucinich just by telling them his qualifications, and those are thngs most of the country will never hear, unless Pitt goes bonkers on that score for the next month! LOL

[Carl Spackler]

74. If it wasn't for AS and DK the debates would be soooo boring!

And not just because both are good speakers, but mainly because both are unabashed defenders of progressive thought, in contrast to the "electable" candidates.

[gate of the sun]

79. I'm so glad the NYT feels they have a right

to state what should be the action in the democratic debates.....they should mind there own business.

[Zinnola]

83. Screw NYT

The media thinks they can tell us who should stay in the debates? Are they mad?? Whoops answered my own question, plus they are delusional power mongers.

[GreenPartyVoter]

87. Won't be much of a debate without them

Stupid %^$&%#* newspaper.

[Freddie Stubbs]

182. It will be a debate without them

rather than a circus. It's time to winnow the field down to only the serious candidates and get rid of the candidates who are only in it for entertainment value.

[Lefta Dissenter]

90. sorry,

as much as I'd like Clark to have all the time at all the debates, where does the NYT get off declaring who is a viable candidate and who is not? If we let them set the agenda, let's see... Kerry would be out. No WAIT! Dean would be out... OH NO! Clark would be out! You need an entire box of crayons to keep track of which candidates the media is declaring dead, and which are the current stars.

Jeez Louise (does anyone say that anymore?), I'm SO sick of the media's involvement in this whole election process. Get the hell OUT of it, and just report the effing news!!!

[Bush loves Jiang]

92. FUCK NO!!!

Love Kucinich, don't care much for Sharpton, but this is bullshit.

All the NYT is doing is encouraging people to vote for someone like Nader, should he run for office.

[texasmom]

93. How Insulting!

Fortunately, the NY Times is not the Democratic Party. I love hearing from Dennis and Al in every debate. We've had one caucus and one primary! This is ridiculous.

[Freddie Stubbs]

172. As insulting as the diss the voters of NH and Iowa gave them?

The NYT's piece is only a reflection of the actions of the voters in Iowa and NH.

[Dhalgren]

193. O.k., what about the voters in the rest of the states?

Do IA and NH get to decide who is allowed to debate in the rest of the primaries? Jeese.. didn't realize we had turned over that much control to the folks in those two states - gotta remember to be extra nice to folks from there.

[chocolateeater]

94. I thought this was a Democracy

On this point the New York Times is:puke:

[Freddie Stubbs]

106. We are not a democratcy, we are a constitution-based federal republic

[MMT]

124. "Democratcy"? What's that, Freddie?

[Freddie Stubbs]

163. My poor attempt at spelling

;)

[liberalmike27]

107. Stay, for sure

I'm the biggest Dean supporter, unflinching even after constant media lambasting, and incorrect characterizations. I think getting rid of Dennis, and Al would be great for my candidate, and you are right, it would then make him the most left member of the debate. Even so, I think they should stay in as long as they want. They offer opinions that need to be expressed, that never will be through the corporate media, without this opportunity. I hate that Sharpton--who I hear is working with some Bush administration guy (forget the name) to spear Dean--is attacking my candidate, usually with unfounded stuff like the Vermont percentage of black related comment, or the quip about not worrying about being angry, and the 18 million he spent in Iowa, I want him to stay in the race.

It is clear the media is trying to winnow down the race, to Kerry, they've been talking of Clark, Lieberman, and even Dean, who currently has the most delegates, dropping out. I wish the pundits would shut up, and let the race play out, and let each candidate decide when to withdraw. But we'll never get that. The will meddle, and cajole, and trash Dean more, perhaps Clark too, and when the general comes, they'll be trashing whoever wins the Democratic Primary.

I mentioned on another board that Carville and Begala were centrists, and was greeted by laughs and a lot of abuse. The tack these two have taken on Dean, and their complicity on all these shenanigans on Crossfire, the going along with the bashing, just affirms my belief. There are no left-wingers left in the media, only the right, and the centrists.

[Freddie Stubbs]

96. They have just as much right to be there as Lyndon Larouche

;)

[blondeatlast]

155. LaRouche is demonstrably DINO; no one would say that about

AS and DK.

[IndianaGreen]

157. LaRouche is also openly anti-Semitic and racist

but if the DLC wants LaRouche in the debates, they will be hard-pressed to deny a seat to David Duke as well.

[Freddie Stubbs]

162. Kucinich is a DINO also

He is really a closet Green.

[loudsue]

100. I hope Kucinich and Sharpton last until the VERY LAST primary...

In fact, though I don't think they will acquire many delegates over-all, I have sent $$ to BOTH campaigns just to keep them in the race until the last.

They are both saying things that HAVE TO BE HEARD in our country right now. The Dem debates are our ONLY voice in the right wing press these days, and the more press our voices get, the better for our Democracy. This, to me, is the ONLY way to counter all the right wing hype 24/7 across the air waves.

The things Kucinich and Sharpton say are crucial truths that must have media time. Any less than the entire spectrum of voices, is a net loss to our point of view being heard.

I say send both of them (Kucinich and Sharpton) more money....the front runners are getting more than their fair share in their fight against one another. Let's split those dollars up a little, and support the ones that really help to balance the right wing propaganda machine. I'm so *&^%$ tired of right wing censorship of populist ideas I could scream!!!

:argh:

:kick::kick::kick:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

101. How many of the dozens of people on this thread

have shot off an e-mail to the Times? I just did.

Here's mine:
++++++++
Your suggestion that Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton be barred from further Democratic debates is arrogant and undemocratic. No matter how many votes they get, these two candidates bring up important issues that the "socially acceptable" candidates and their rich and powerful contributors would rather keep off the table. I don't think it's a coincidence that your news articles have by turns ignored and made snide remarks about Kucinich and Sharpton throughout the primary season, even before a single vote was cast in Iowa.
++++++++

Getting 90+ e-mails like this MAY get it through their elitist little heads that some people actually want to see controversial candidates. It takes no time at all, and it's highly satisfying. :-)

[RichM]

115. Here's my email (borrowing from yours, thanks) to [email protected]

Re: "Defrosting the Primaries" (Jan 28 editorial)

To the Editor:

Your recent suggestion that Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton be barred from
further Democratic debates is shockingly arrogant and undemocratic. These
two candidates bring up important issues that the more
Establishment-friendly candidates and their wealthy patrons would rather
keep silenced. Your newspaper has pretended to be mystified by the
nonexistence of WMD's in Iraq, calling weakly for more investigations.
You've generally accepted the administration excuse that there must have
been "problems" with the intelligence, tactfully leaving unmentioned the
more likely explanation that the president simply lied about "WMD" to take
the nation to war to control Iraq's oil resources.

You were happy to insist for years that the penny-ante Whitewater matter
required relentless investigation, yet you seem to see no scandal at all in
Mr. Bush launching a war based on laughable fiction. Such observations make
you understandably uncomfortable -- which is the real reason you want to
suppress voices like Dennis Kucinich & Al Sharpton.

Sincerely,

[mikehiggins]

102. So the only African American candidate should be shut out?

So the massa in the big house has decided the boy has gotten too big for his britches?

Them uppity field hands are getting above themselves?

My God! Has everyone at the NYT lost their collective minds?

I cannot wait to see how Sharpton responds to this one.

Can a boycott of the NYT and its advertisers be in the offing?

I sure as hell hope so.

[Cheswick2.0]

103. Something most of us can agree on

The NYTimes is out of line. Let's send them an e-mail and tell them so. If you are a supporter of another candidate besides DK or Sharpton them let the NYT know that.

[email protected]

Use this information to reference the article you are writing in regards to. January 28 editorial,“Defrosting the Primaries”

[Lydia Leftcoast]

108. Thanks, Cheswick

I didn't say who I supported in my letter, but I think that letters from supporters of other candidates will be especially impressive.

[mikehiggins]

104. De facto racism

Simple as that.

One black candidate.

Shut him out of the public debate.

Racism, pure and simple.

How hard is that to figure out?

The NYT is toast if any candidate has any balls at all.

[Freddie Stubbs]

109. Kucinich isn't black

Unless there is something really wrong with my TV.

[mikehiggins]

119. No Dennis is most certainly not black. I didn't say the NYT was stupid

They aren't going to single out Sharpton all by himself. They also offered up Dennis and, to a lesser degree, Jo-mentum Lieberman.

I'm just applying the federal rule here, which is that if an action that can be taken on the face of it to be race-neutral can be shown to have a disproportionate negative effect on a protected minority that action is in fact racist.

Eliminating Dennis is not going to have a bad effect on the chances of the white population to have their petitions heard and their problems addressed. Eliminating Al does have that effect on millions of black voters who will have the only candidate represnting them mariginalised by fiat of the NYT board.

This, to me, is prima facie racism.

[Freddie Stubbs]

180. By that measure, holding the primaries in the first place in racist

Since it has a disproportionate negative effect on a protected minority.

[Terwilliger]

128. he's standing up for the poor

he might as well not be white

OnEdit: with proper acknowledgment of white folks who don't think like that

[PROGRESSIVE1]

105. I wonder if DK's and AL's bringing up Bush's "questionable" past...

has anything to do with the "librul" NY Times not wanting them in the debates. You know, deny them a stage to expose Bush.

:mad:

[loudsue]

120. Here's my e-mail to the Times....

To the Editor:

While I've actually been campaigning for a Democratic candidate other than Kucinich or Sharpton, I have sent money to BOTH of their campaigns for the simple reason that their voices in this primary are so vitally important at this time in our nation's history.

The corporate-controlled media, with all their republican propaganda (giving George Bush a free-pass on lying to the country about Iraq; interfering with the investigation about 9/11 that could ultimately prove what most of us know -- that the Bush administration knew full well in advance that it was coming, and let it happen to justify wars that would benefit their pocketbooks; the outing of Valerie Plame, the destruction of our constitutional rights; and the EXTREME evidence of conflict of interests in environmental policy, energy policy and the courts) can only slightly be balanced by the truths being told by all of the Democratic candidates.

The more Democratic candidates there are, the more the problems caused by the republicans (and the Democrats who have sold out) can be revealed to the general public, who are being kept ignorant of our government's deceptions and self-interests. This is the grassroots Democrat's ONLY chance at air time, since anything sympathetic to the Democratic party is constantly twisted and by the purely republican media. If there were 20 candidates, it would be just as well with me, as it would be that many more voices being heard that actually represent the feelings of a vast majority of knowledgeable Americans.

The Democratic voices usually aired by the media are, more often than not, those Democrats who are less informed, less passionate, and usually less intelligent than any one of the Democratic candidates. In newspapers, on radio and television, there are typically TWO right wing republicans shouting down ONE ill-informed, questionable Democrat: and the intent of the message that is being sent is transparent to those of us who ARE aware of this type of propaganda tactic.

I assure you, for every ONE of the hundreds of thousands of brave Americans who actually took to the streets in the past few years to protest the loss of our Democracy and national integrity, there were no fewer than TWENTY people who felt the same passion against what is happening to our country, who couldn't or wouldn't take to the streets. There are millions more who are less passionate, but equally as disgruntled.

To suggest silencing Kucinich and Sharpton in the debates, the NY Times is only creating more outrage among those members of the public who are perfectly cognizant of the media's attempts at Soviet style propaganda, public mind-control, and censorship.

There are many Americans who have had just about enough. I'm one of them.

Sincerely,

(the loudest sue of all)

:kick::kick::kick:

[Terwilliger]

127. Well, it was good while it lasted, right?

Just one more example of who gets to decide what issues are relevant, and whether or not people like myself have any real representation.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

131. You will be represented the way we want to represent you!

Big corp loves all its little worker bees. We will manufacture more consent, just try not to get out of line.


TWL


p.s. Did I get that right? I need to practice for when it's my turn to prove my patriotism to the corporatists.

TWL

[Adjoran]

132. I reluctantly agree

We've had what? Ten or twelve debates so far? Or more? Those candidates who have failed to attract any real support after all that free exposure are not viable contenders.

At some point, the field in debates needs to be thinned to the serious candidates with some chance of winning the nomination. This is serious business, picking a nominee. The debates are not simply soapboxes for every point of view, they are tools to help voters make up their minds. The lesser candidates have now become no more than a distraction from that end.

No offense intended to any campaign.

[Hippo_Tron]

134. So how about Joe Lieberman?

Not only has he not managed to attract any support (no there was not a three way tie for fifth place in NH) but nobody is listening to him. At least the other candidates pick up on the ideas of DK and Al Sharpton.

[IndianaGreen]

140. Lieberman is always on TV, being interviewed by Faux, CNN, MSNBC

How come the networks don't provide the same coverage to Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton? Perhaps it is because Lieberman supports the establishment while Dennis and Al challenge it!

[Hippo_Tron]

145. Damn straight...

The only thing I disagree with you on is that I think Lieberman is more conservative than the administration.

[Rhiannon12866]

160. I agree! There have been times when Lieberman

has been the only one to represent the Democrats on the Sunday morning talk shows. That should tell us something.:eyes:

[KathCO]

166. It doesn't matter how much support someone has received

if they are running as a democratic candidate then they should be in the debates. Their opinion and platform is just as valid as the others and I feel angry when people say MY candidate should be ignored as if I should be ignored. Should I be ignored too?

[Hippo_Tron]

133. Moving this n/t

[corporatewhore]

136. youknow its funny DK wa proved right that theirwere no WMDs and he should

be excluded

[corporatewhore]

141. whoo lets not have any blacks or union members particpate

[NV1962]

144. It's a shameless and disgusting anti-democratic outrage - n/t

[blondeatlast]

146. Fuck the NYT--I want them ALL at the debates AND the convention!

There's a platform to be built and deals to be made. There is a Veep to be chosen. Even if the current front runner remains as such, there is tons of work to be done.

I love DK's positions, and while I can't support Al Sharpton because of the Tawana Brawley mess, he has so much to offer the party in terms of calling the people to action.

[genius]

147. Boycott the Times: If it is opposed to the only real anti-war candiates

and the only candidate who will bring jobs back to America, then the Times is anti-American. It's time to boycott that paper.

[corporatewhore]

159. Dont forget al sharpton he'll bring the troops home too

[goodhue]

149. would make exclusion from coverage easier for NYT

Its hard to avoid covering DK and Sharpton if the keep doing so well at debates. But the NYT will valliantly continue to exclude.

[genius]

150. Any candidate who wants my vote in the GE will demand the inclusion

of these two voices of conscience.

[Desertrose]

161. I second that genius n/t

[dawn]

158. Screw the NY Times.

People who are voting for Sharpton and Kucinich should be able to hear them debate. And I think they just add something to the mix. I think the debates would be so boring without them!

[Rhiannon12866]

171. I agree, absolutely!

Both continue to speak out and the audiences love them, me included!:-)

[David Zephyr]

164. Well, the NY Times Helped Sell the War That Kucinich & Sharpton Opposed.

No motivation there, huh?

Thanks, IG for posting this! :hi:

[fujiyama]

165. Funny...

they don't call for Lieberman to be excluded.

[IndianaGreen]

168. Lieberman supports the PNAC agenda

and he acted as an agent for the Israel lobby when they helped spread disinformation about WMDs.

[AlFrankenFan]

169. Jeez I now HATE the NYT

n/t too mad.

[curse10]

174. This is shit!

Complete and utter shit! The times can suck my ass!

[IndianaGreen]

177. Wolf Blitzer just sprung the NY Times editorial on Sharpton today

Sharpton was irate saying that if that were so, why bother with the other primaries. Sharpton accused the NY Times of being undemocratic.

Sharpton pointed out that Iowa and NH are too rural and 99% white and therefore are not representative of America as a whole.

[Donkeyboy75]

181. This same shit comes up every election year

Unless there are rules for who is included and who isn't, this will always be an issue. Why isn't our good friend Vincent Hamm in the debates? He's a Democrat. Rules pose a problem because they lack elasticity, but if we take it on a case-by-case basis then there will always be charges of bias and unfairness. Any suggestions?

[Freddie Stubbs]

183. So after he loses in states that are more representative of America

as a whole, will Sharpton finally go away?

[Iverson]

184. Be fair.

Apply that same question to all the other candidates who you aren't in a rush to exclude.

[Freddie Stubbs]

190. OK, after he recieves low single digits in states that are representative

of the rest of the country, he should drop out.

[David Zephyr]

185. NY Times Dismisses Sharpton Right Before S. Carolina

where Sharpton will poll well.

That's disgraceful and intentionally malicious of the NYT.

[iowapeacechief]

186. Kucinich campaign's response to NYT...

...is at http://www.kucinich.us/pressreleases/pr_012904c.php


Excerpt: "Following Dennis Kucinich and Rev. Al Sharpton's stand-out performances at tonight's debate, it seems clear why the New York Times wanted them kept out: they're just too good at debating."


(Seemed like a shame for this thread to go to the archive without this link.)

[ChiefJoseph]

187. Holy cow

I'd not seen that.

[Stuckinthebush]

191. It's too early to make this proclamation

If after March, these candidates are still not doing well in the primaries, then perhaps a case can be made that the voting public is better served by having the viable candidates on stage during a debate.

There have been numerous debates, and the public has been given an opportunity to hear these fine candidates state their cases. If they are not showing well, and have very little support, then is it wise to use the short time alloted in a debate to showcase a larger group of candidates? Or is it wise to hone in on the viable candidates (those that have a real possibility of winning the nomination), and give voters a more in-depth view of these candidates?

I don't think it is a question of how democratic the exclusion of candidates is, but of pragmatism. Sharpton and Kucinich have been invaluable in this primary season. I think they both have helped to move the conversation back to the left. However, when it comes down to the end of the game, if they have absolutely no possibility of winning the nomination, then perhaps it is time to ask them to step off of the stage.

There are a number of people running in various states that are not even mentioned in the debates. These people have valuable insights to give to the voting public as well. However, we don't insist that they join the fray on the stage.

I will reiterate that I think it is too early to say that any candidate should be taken out of the debates because of showing, but after a fair number of states have spoken, then the time may come to ask those not doing well to step aside.

[quaker bill]

192. Eliminate them all, I say (sarcasm on)

With 5 percent of the vote in Kerry is King! We should just have him debate himself. His record suggests that he would kick his own a** in a debate.

[grisvador]

194. LMAO

No one should be excluded - except for those that do not represent Democratic Values (as stated in previous 2000 Democratic Convention Referendum) If someone is a racist - they do not represent the democratic party! BTW - I am not a Democrat - I am not a Republican - I refuse to label myself either way. But, using logic - The Democratic Party has anti-racist ideals. John Doe is a racist. John Doe cannot represent the Democratic Party ideals.

Personally, I am for the inclusion of all candidates voices in the debates - I wouldn't mind seeing the Democratic Convention pushed to a second ballot. Lets keep the pressure on to cover all the issues. DK - you do not have my vote - but you have my respect. AS - what you say can make us stronger as a nation - you have specific issues that should be addressed by the nation - but what else do you offer us?