Reguarding The Denis Kucinich Censorship

[Popol Vuh]

Probably won't do any good to try and complain to the corporate media. So I say we all contact Democracy Now! and e-mail Amy about it.

Its a good place to start a grassroots get the word out.


http://www.democracynow.org/contactus.pl

[lligrd]

1. I Say We Let The DLC Know That We Will Not Tolerate

them picking our candidates.

[rjones2818]

2. Mail sent!

I can't really say I'm amazed by this.

[MethuenProgressive]

3. What "censorship"?

Perhaps you might want to inform people about the issue you want them to complain about?

[Fly by night]

4. Self-delete

[Debi]

5. How was he censored?

Who banned Dennis Kucinich?

I'm getting tired of the propaganda. It's a disappointing manipulation of the emotions of the campaign's supporters and others who are paying attention.

Kucinich has not been censored, maybe he's been ignored, but censored or banned? No.

[cascadiance]

7. Censorship is a lot more creative these days...

I don't know of the specifics this poster is speaking of, but consider a couple of issues:

1) One thread documented how a pollster polling for Dems didn't know who DK was, and was told "he wasn't on our list". Whether it is blatant or not, that IS a form of censorship from the stand point of using corporate power to marginalize him. Why wasn't he "on their list"?

2) Dennis wasn't invited to the Iowa Harkin Steak Fry debate. Even though he was ahead of at least two of the participants in polling, they were considered worthy of an invite and he wasn't? Why? They rationalize that he didn't have an "Iowa organization", and the other candidates did. Why? Because they are living on the corporate dollar and getting money to *fund* such an organization, and he isn't. That is saying to the people of Iowa. We don't care how many of you support a candidate before you can hear him speak to you. We only care how much money they have to speak to you.

I'm sure there are other means that corporate America are trying to censor Dennis.

We're dealing with similar censorship here in the San Diego area as Clear Channel prepares to shut down KLSD and switch to an all sports talk show format.

Their rationalization is that KLSD doesn't make enough money and get enough audience to continue it.

The problem is that they have a VERY piss poor signal (only 5k watt) and just about ANY format is going to get tuned out at that frequency. I'd venture to say that only some format with a devoted audience like KLSD has would be willing to tune out the very noticeable interference from other stations in a good part of this area to listen to it. Sports talk fans aren't going to put up with that sort of interference when they have other options around here. But, oh wait. Coincidentally after they get the format switch, they're going to increase the broacasting frequency to something like 50k instead. How CONVENIENT! They just fired Scooter this weekend. Stay tuned. Air America might have to find another announcer to fill Jon Elliott's spot in a week or two when they flip the station, which I'm told is pretty final now.

That's rationalization and censorship too! Until you folks recognize these "creative" ways that those in control of the switches of our media and other corporate entities (advertising, campaign donors, etc.), you WILL be censored to and not realize the consequences of such until it's too late.

I'm still hoping for Al Gore, and may support John Edwards over DK, but DK would be someone I want HEARD A LOT! He has a message for us, and were he heard enough, he might be viable enough for me to get behind him too!

[Debi]

8. You do know that Kucinich has received more PAC contributions than

Edwards or Gravel? You do know that Kucinich rasied over a million dollars by June 30th and spent only $47,000 on staff? (where did the rest of the money go?) You do know that the press release from the campaign about his being omitted from the two events in Iowa (neither sponsored by the Iowa Democratic Party) wasn't completely honest? Mismanagement of a campaign is not censorship and mileading information provided to the campaign's supporters is propaganda.

[cascadiance]

9. Links to YOUR propaganda?

That's what I consider it until you back up YOUR claims...

Look sorry, I hope not to be offensive here. And as noted, I probably support Edwards now too, until Gore decides to get in that is. But I do think there's more to it than just "mismanagement of funds" at work here, which I still haven't seen concrete information here to point to that. I see many people in the progressive space being marginalized by heavy spending to do so by Corporate America.

[Debi]

10. The Washington Post propaganda machine - which compiled it's information from the FEC filings

of the candidates:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/finance/candidates/dennis-kucinich/

Dennis Kucinich

Money Raised
$1,116,715

Money Spent
$902,355

Cash on Hand
$213,269

Tally

Individuals $1,115,699
PACs $1,400

Money Spent $902,355
Salaries $47,224
Refunds $385
Cash on Hand $213,269

Post I made about PAC contributions that went ignored on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3538895

[cascadiance]

11. I think you need more than this for any meaningful data...

How Dennis receiving $1,400 from PAC's means ANYTHING when these other candidates are getting millions and millions of dollars from other sources is a pretty meaningless statistic. Why don't you quantify what each of this "PAC money" is? Until we know where it comes from, one really can't conclude anything from these figures.

As for salaries, Look at the other candidates according to your data:

1) Barack Obama raised close to $59 million. Only $6.5 million was spent on salaries. Where did the other $53 million go?
2) Hillary Clinton raised $63 million. Only $3.7 million was spent on salaries. Where did the other $59 million go?
3) John Edwards raised $23 million. Only $5 million on salaries. Where did the other $18 million go?
4) Bill Richardson raised $13 million. Only $1 million on salaries. Where did the other $12 million go?
5) Chris Dodd raised $12 million. Only $1.2 million on salaries. Where did the other $10-11 million go?
6) Joe Biden raised $6.5 million. Only $1 million on salaries. Where did the other $5 million go?
7) Mike Gravel raised $207,000. He didn't spend any money on salaries. Where did it go?

Answer, there are OTHER expenses besides salaries. And your statistic on what Dennis spent on salaries is a TOTAL meaningless statistic in context. For him to get the support he is and only have a million to spend whereas others are spending far more than he even has I think is a testament to how many feel that he has a good message out there that are hearing him.

Methinks you are trying to rationalize this with a lot of red herring distracting issues.

So now how again was Dennis?'s press release "not completely honest"?

Please let's not get into the distractions that Republicans typically use to keep us away from the important issues. Unless you can have some "meat" to your data here, it is just distracting.

Dennis deserved to be heard at the Harkin Steak fry, and he deserves as much as any candidate to be part of polls that are misleading us into thinking he's not part of any of them and misleading us into thinking votes in those polls that might go for him are being put for others instead who they really don't support.

[Debi]

12. You asked where I got my information, I provided it to you

You don't like what I provided, I can't help that.

All the other candidates (save Gravel) have spent enough on staff to be invited to the Iowa events that Kucinich claims he was barred from. He had sufficient funds to have an office and staff member in Iowa, he chose to spend over $900,000 on something else. Where the other candidates spent the rest of their money is irrelevant to the question, they provided enough to have an Iowa office and Iowa staff and to meet the requirements to attend the events. Why didn't Kucinich or Gravel?

As for my having to quantify PAC contributions to candidates...why? A blanket statement is made about candidates being funded by corporate donors. Kucinich has received more PAC money than John Edwards (for both the amount is insignificant, but the comment is correct) and Obama only received $5,000 in PAC funds in the last cycle out of millions in contributions. How does that make the candidates other than Kucinich funded by corporate donors? It makes the statement misleading.

I agree that Kucinich should have been heard at the Harkin Steak Fry and AARP Forum. I also believe that he should have met the criteria to be invited. Post after post have stated that he didn't have the money to attend, which is false. He had the funds he chose to spend them elsewhere.

I think that the distraction is being created by both sides of this argument. Kucinich can afford to run for president. He can afford to run a poll with his name included in it. He can afford to have an office and staff in each of the early states.

I don't know what republicans have to do with any of this thread.

[madmunchie]

16. So how many "rules" do low tier candidates have to abide by even

though their bank accounts are a fraction of what others are? That is the good old American way, qualify by how much money you spend in a state..... This is precisely why candidates should all have the same amount of money to run on.

[Debi]

17. That has been discussed in several different threads, this thread is about whether or not

Kucinich is being censored.

The campaign has sufficient funds to run for president.

Dennis Kucinich might be being ignored, but is not being censored.

Any implied censorship is self imposed by not doing any polling and not opening headquarters or staff in the first state to hold a primary contest.

[superkia]

23. This is one way to control what people see and think.

censoring. In epidemiology, a loss of information from a study, whether by subjects dropping out of the study or because of infrequent measurement.

1) One thread documented how a pollster polling for Dems didn't know who DK was, and was told "he wasn't on our list". Whether it is blatant or not, that IS a form of censorship from the stand point of using corporate power to marginalize him. Why wasn't he "on their list"?

[cascadiance]

19. Look, as an intelligent campaigner, he doesn't ONLY have that $900k to spend on staff...

He's only got a fraction of what these other candidates have. It's one thing to say that he doesn't have enough people on the ground in Iowa and therefore isn't getting the same attention that other candidates are getting. The way the system is set these days, that's the cold reality of the way our well-monied campaigns work.

However, to *require* that he have a campaign staff in Iowa to get invited to that event IS an artificial limit to keep him out. WHY should it matter? He's a registered candidate for president, and there are likely more people that would have liked to see him debate there than two others there that were polling lower than he was. You are robbing THEM of a chance to meet and hear Mr. Kucinich.

[onenote]

31. are these candidates also being "censored" and, if so, why?

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=BZZ82001

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=692

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=22270

[cascadiance]

33. If we had public campaign financing in place which corporate America totally MUZZLES!

Then these really "fringe" candidates would be cut out because they wouldn't be able to get enough signatures on petitions along with $5 (or whatever amount we think that everyone should be able to afford to make some sort of commitment) contributions to run.

Candidates with a lot of following should be able to qualify based on the number of PEOPLE that want to help them, not the amount of MONEY being spent on them. The former is a democratic process. The latter is not.

That is what is fundamentally troubling about this. Call it censorship, call it something else. But when you cut out candidates with more popular support than others over those with less support just because the latter has more money being spent on them, then there is something wrong with the process.

[onenote]

34. We can agree with our desire for public financing, but under the current system

if its censorship to exclude Kucinich (and Gravel) from the Iowa Steak Fry (censorship by whom, exactly?) isn't it also censorship to exclude these other candidates? At least Gravel and Kucinich get mentioned in a lot of polls (and Dennis is getting exposure on Jay Leno which I daresay is going to be seen by a heck of a lot more people than saw the Iowa steak fry).

[cascadiance]

36. Why have this arbitrary limit?

Why not let Kucinich come if he wants? Perhaps even open it up to those others too. My bet is that they wouldn't have had the money to attend, and were likely not serious about it either.

Perhaps someone could explain the logistics of WHY they needed to cut out candidates that "didn't have an organization in Iowa". What was the real problem with not having an organization there? If they could go to the Steak Fry and picked up some extra campaign donations in the process, perhaps subsequently candidates like Kucinich and Gravel COULD get an organization in Iowa. These other candidates likely wouldn't even if they were there. Without explanation, this requirement feels like a way to cut out candidates without money contributions from these special interests.

[Joe Chi Minh]

20. Me thinks you are trying to rationalise away an answer you didn't want to hear.

[cascadiance]

35. Perhaps you could explain what you mean?

It's not really obvious.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I used the stats from this link to point out that the arguments the other poster was giving were pretty meaningless and diverted us from the point that there are efforts in place to marginalize people like DK using money power, and not people power.

[onenote]

32. dennis has been included in a lot of polls and he hardly ever gets above 2%

which is why he's not included in other polls and why the press doesn't mention him that much. They don't mention Gravel much either, who also gets very low numbers and not much press (and who didn't get to participate in the Iowa steak fry either). But to assume that Kucinich's or Gravel's low results where they are included in polls are due to their not being included in subsequent polls is sort of illogical.

[cascadiance]

43. Biden or Dodd barely get the same in these polls either...

But THEY were invited? Oh, but they had money and a campaign organization. THAT's different and what Americans want to determine who they get to hear. :sarcasm:

[OnyxCollie]

41. Damn. Sad to hear about KLSD.

They were among the three (internet) stations I was able to listen to. Are there any other progressive broadcasters streaming audio beside KPHX and Nova M?

[Popol Vuh]

22. Sorry

That I figured that more DU'ers would be more informed over this and other issues. Not that its anything new and being as such, I figured it would be more common knowledge.

But here's a couple of links to a couple of examples of what I am referring to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1877359

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1877359#1881642

[rinsd]

28. That's the same example and how woldl a DUer's personal experience be common knowledge?

:shrug:

[Fly by night]

6. What's "reguarding"?

You might want to use the spell check button also, particularly before you start complaining to any media.

I'm sure Den(n)is would appreciate that.

[Popol Vuh]

21. You might want to concern youself

with something more important than being a little spell nazi jerk. Frankly, being a longshoreman, I really don't give a rats' ass if I make a small spelling mistake. But I do concern myself with how many sheep are running around today who don't recognize status quo when they see it because of their blind party loyalties.

Have fun voting for your military industrial complex corporatist. If I remember correctly, during recent debates every last one of them except Kucinich basically proclaimed themselves as candidates who support the Bush Doctrine of preemptive attack when responding to questions about Iran.

But not only that, it takes a blind fool not to see that all the choices available are representatives of corporate interests above your's and my interests.

Have a nice day Mr. Spell Checker Commando.

[Fly by night]

24. And you might want to concern youself (sic) ...

... with making the minimal effort necessary to present a cogent and well-constructed argument here. (The minimal effort is to hit the "spell check button". Go ahead, try it. No one is looking so we can't call you names.)

I'm not a spelling Nazi (probably more the spelling 'church lady'). But someone who calls on us to communicate with the media in a post where the name of the candidate is misspelled that the OP ostensibly supports himself makes my teeth hurt.

BTW, I know a number of intelligent longshoremen. I am a farmer and I likewise know a number of intelligent farmers. In either case, I appreciate DU having a "spell check" button to make what we post here in the public arena as cogent-sounding and intelligent-looking as possible. This isn't rocket surgery.

My candidate is Al Gore. Don't know where he falls on your corporatist slide-rule, and I also don't care. If Denis (sic) is your man (?), that's great. There's lots to like in Rep. Kucinich -- I hope he is assigned the directorship of the DEA when Al Gore and Bill Richardson take back "our" White House. Kucinich would do the right thing and shit-can the DEA, pulling the rest of us out of its misery.

Hope you'll take to heart my feedback and the other feedback you got here about your post. But hey, I don't think your a moran, my comments weren't hugh, so don't take them so seriesly!!11!1!1

[Popol Vuh]

25. Hmmmm

"you might want to concern youself with making the minimal effort necessary to present a cogent and well-constructed argument here."

Sounds like Jim Crow logic to me. Seriously listen to what you're saying. You're suggesting that before a group of folks who proclaim themselves as being for the hard working and less fortunate require that these individuals meet a certain acceptable level of intellectual writing skills before they speak up.

"Hope you'll take to heart my feedback and the other feedback you got here about your post."

Disagreeing with any of my posts is fine. Thinly vailed snideness or intellectual pompousness is another thing.

You won't see me correcting your misspelled "youself" or your incorrect grammar "I don't think your a moran". Because like I said: I really don't think it to be important enough to concern myself with. We have much bigger problems to concern ourselves with. On the other hand if I was a person who was out looking to make a snide remark about someone, I might concern myself with such trivial matters.

[Fly by night]

26. Can't recognize sarcasm either, huh?

Since you had misspelled "youself" in the heading of your earlier response to me (which preceded my last comment), I thought you might recognize sarcasm. (That's why I put (sic) beside it -- that indicates an intentional or recognized error put in for effect. But maybe you don't know that.)

My entire last sentence or two was filled with errors. Errors that those of us who have been here for three years or so use as "in" jokes -- your (when you mean "you're"), moran, hugh, seriesly, !11!!11!. Those are all misspellings that we have come to associate with freepers, who tend to be notoriously poor spellers. If you had been around a while, you would know that.

I am sorry you took such offense at my comments. I am puzzled why anyone would be so obstinate about not making the very small effort to correct his mistakes, when it is so easy to do here on this web-site. On that score, even though I have three degrees, I always "spell check" my comments before I post them, 'cause it is easy to make a mistake when I am typing fast and, more often than I would like, I am sometimes wrong on the spelling of unfamiliar words. I don't feel at all upset or ashamed to do that -- again, I am thankful that DU (and every other word-processing program I am familiar with) makes it possible.

As far as the content of your OP goes, there wasn't much "there" there to begin with. That's why others here had to ask you to clarify what you were talking about.

I think Dennis Kucinich is a good man and a capable leader. I appreciate him for many reasons, not the least of which because he was one of 32 Congresspeople who stood up against accepting the Ohio electors in the stolen 2004 Presidential election. I have so much respect for him that I make the very small effort it takes to spell his name right (which you did not do, immortalizing your mistake when your OP made the "Greatest" page for some reason or other). Doesn't seem too much for me to ask other Kucinich "supporters" to do the same. Maybe it does to you.

In any event, I've spent enough time on this issue with you.

Ignorance is bliss. Until it isn't. Have a nice life.

[redqueen]

29. It's a frickin POST not a dissertation.

Fuckin spellin nazis... forest for the goddamn trees.



And this is coming from someone who's as close to a real-life Avril Incandenza as anyone.

[Fly by night]

37. Sorry. Didn't see a forest, didn't see any trees (in the OP). Wasn't asking for a dissertation ...

... just a little (obviously a little too much) effort to distinguish our discourse here on DU from the freepers we make fun of.

Glad to hear Denis has so much support here. Maybe her votes will be counted for Dennis when we get around to it.

I too appreciate passion. Just not the slobbering kind.

Now I must get back to straightening all the books in my bookshelf.

Actually no. I have a talk to give to the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations on Thursday in an effort to return us to verifiable voting systems here in the Orange State. They will hear from four voting machine vendors and one citizen (me). Need to spend the time necessary to prepare a cogent, well-reasoned and reasonably readable presentation. Glad I have both "spell-check" and a dozen proof-readers to help me with that (and no ego to get in the way of accepting simple suggestions without getting my knickers in a knot).

Who knows, it might be a dissertation someday. Probably not. I do hope it convinces a majority of decision-makers on this commission to do the "right thing". At a time when they are faced with so many distractions, I hope my presentation doesn't give them any easy opportunities to disregard the weight of what we have been saying for the past three years.

Peace out. Bu-bye.

[redqueen]

38. A presentation is also not analogous to a post on a message board.

Nice try though!

(not really)

[Fly by night]

39. Yawn. Nighty night.

[redqueen]

40. Good night to you as well... and make sure not to

mispronounce any words, so that no one disregards everything else you say!

:hi:

[Maat]

27. I just saw this - well-said, Popul Vuh!

I certainly appreciate what you have to say (and I MEAN IT)! I love your passion.

:hi:

Maat, M.A., J.D.

Oh, and I campaign for Dennis K. out here, and I would say that he is being frozen out; it won't work, though. We will just find innovative ways to spread the word (I'm an optimist).

[Gregorian]

13. Keith Olbermann as well.

[email protected]

[cooolandrew]

14. Good thinking. Kucinich musn't be shut down at this point.

[RangerRK]

15. Tim Russert will host the next Democratic Debate

Write MSNBC and Demand equal speaking time for all of the candidates!

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

You can also mail a letter to:

MSNBC TV
One MSNBC Plaza
Secaucus, N.J. 07094



NBC NEWS, NECN, DARTMOUTH COLLEGE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC RADIO TO SPONSOR DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ON SEPTEMBER 26


NBC NEWS' TIM RUSSERT TO MODERATE


SECAUCUS, NJ - Sept. 19, 2007 - NBC News, NECN, Dartmouth College and NH Public Radio will co-sponsor a debate among the Democratic candidates for president on Sept. 26, 2007 at Dartmouth College.

The debate will be held from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. and will be moderated by NBC News' Tim Russert, moderator of "Meet the Press' and NBC News Washington Bureau Chief. NECN's political reporter Alison King will join Russert in questioning the candidates for part of the debate.

The debate, which will be produced by NBC News, will be simulcast live on MSNBC, NECN and on New Hampshire Public Radio and will also re-air in Spanish on Telemundo.

MSNBC.com will also stream the debate live.

[Gregorian]

18. Hey, get this to Dennis Kucinich. He has a forum, also.

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. They will be censoring him tonight on Jay Leno

http://www.nbc.com/The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno/calendar/

[LittleClarkie]

42. Weeny whiners don't become president

"WAH, I'm not being included!" It's a position of weakness.

[redqueen]

44. Lovely!

Who's your favored candidate again?

[LittleClarkie]

45. Ain't got one so far. I'm an equal opportunity person at the mo.

But when half of what I hear coming out of the Kucinich campaign is complaints, then I'm less likely to see him as an effective leader.

[redqueen]

46. Are you basing that "half" estimate on what you've sought out

or what you see posted?

Kind of a funny way to decide whether or not a candidate was worthy of support ... you know, as compared with... say... actual ideas.

[LittleClarkie]

47. So instead of complaining about being disrespected, shouldn't he be coming up with some ideas to get

more notice?

Actions speak at loud as words at this point.

And yes, it's mostly what I see posted. Haven't seen much that made me feel like looking further. That's another thing Dennis needs to do, make people feel like looking further. Weeny whining doesn't do that really.

[redqueen]

48. "Weeny whining"

Nice.

I guess in my fucked up world, ideas are what should matter... not posturing.

So I guess until Dennis realizes how important PR and marketing is, he should forget about winning any support from very serious-minded political activists.