Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

And you call yourself a Democrat. All Democrats should stand up for Dennis Kucinich.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:14 AM
Original message
And you call yourself a Democrat. All Democrats should stand up for Dennis Kucinich.
Whether you like him or not he is being marginalized by the corporatist republicans and a number of Democrats. NBC is blatantly censoring him and no one is coming to his defense. Does the Democratic Party fear NBC, do they have to yield to the NBC corporatist censorship?

If you don’t like his stand on issues then say so, but please defend his right to debate.

And I would be curious which issues you don’t agree with.

We need Dennis in the debates; he is keeping attention on issues the others are afraid to address.

And please stop with the short jokes, it is unbecoming a true Democrat.

For information, I am an Edwards supporter and short.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. How about standing up for a recount too. I just heard it has been cancelled. Link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
40. recount is NOT OFF
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. Thanks. I panicked when I read it and jumped the gun. Sorry. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malta blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
2. You are 100% correct on this matter....
He should be allowed to speak and everyone should be screaming it to the hills.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
22. Yes, especially Edwards who is supposed to be our anti-corporatist champion.
He should realize he is next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #22
37. EDWARDS GOT THE Kucinich treatment in Iowa..i know i worked a caucus
and all Dennis's people went to Obama before the doors opened to caucus...

Ahmmmm... look Edwards has been treated to this blackout policy already for a very long time..he doesn't need Dennis to confirm it..

and many of us supporting the Edwards campaign remember full well the stunts Kucinich played in 2004..we do have long memories.

fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #37
48. why dont you describe Edwards treachery in 2004?
Edwards refused to live up to his end of their 04 bargain is what I have heard from sources of great credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #22
61. "supposed"
being the operative word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
3. Dennis is a one trick pony
He refuses to modify his stance against the war, he lacks the principles to accept the ruling class' edicts.
His wife spends more time comforting a homeless woman three weeks before she dies than gladhanding people with money in their pockets. Total losers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. Doesn't matter he deserves to be heard. Do you want NBC deciding? nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. Do you think they gave me a choice?
Do you think you have one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Are you asking if I think the whole business is rigged? If so, my answer is yes. But........
I am going down fighting tyranny and the corporatist, fascists. How about you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. welcome to the club
Im afraid I find sarcasm tags insulting and distracting.
think about my statements, and consider my screen name.
peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Whatever. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #26
32. nice
solidarity means nothing, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #32
56. solidarity forever
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
21. This really wasnt GE acting unilaterally
anymore than it was ABC in New Hampshire. It was Clinton and Edwards acting on their earlier discussions. To pretend otherwise is to willingly descend into the rabbit hole with nary a bread crumb to find your way back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. I assume you are speaking from experience? Are you saying it is Clinton and Edwards doing? nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #28
33. Hell yes
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 10:56 AM by wintersoulja

Just because Edwards and Clinton hide behind GE's curtain of cash and lawyers doesnt mean
they arent four square behind what they already were exposed for discussing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. So why not let Dennis Kucinich speak? nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #34
41. He's against the war
and for non-profit, no insurance scamming health care. You know, the two main issues of the last several elections.
Not acceptable positions to publicly proclaim in the company of the party's choice
during a so called debate.
Why else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #11
45. Please allow me to assist wintersoulja
by adding this:
:sarcasm:

Please read her/his post again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
85. you have the temerity to use principles and ruling class edicts in the same sentence?
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 03:03 PM by Joe Fields
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
4. Nah....people want corporate Democrats to win. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoPasaran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
5. Kucinich wouldn't pledge to support the eventual nominee
Here in Texas, so he got dumped off the ballot. He sued. He lost that one too.

Fuck him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. Not a very Democratic attitude. You don't care what happens as long as it isn't your
candidate. Are you defending the corporatists and NBC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. No, he won't sign an "oath of allegience"
which is something the McCarthy-ites used to public employees do in the 1950s.

Do you like McCarthyism?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #5
46. I won't be signing a "Loyalty Oath" either.
The nominee will have to earn my vote.
I do understand how "Loyalty Oaths" comfort those with an Authoritarian nature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
60. he wouldn't give up his civil rights and sign a loyalty oath - despicable
*sigh*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rAVES Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #5
130. Typical of a hillbot - not a shread of principle. As long as your horse wins, fuck everybody else
Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 03:46 AM by rAVES
Its called PRINCIPLE! why should he support a nominee that supports and funds the war/NAFTA ect?
that would make him a hypocrite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
6. I wrote to MSNBC and let them know I will no longer watch their shows inc KO.
Who needs the networks. They are all about propaganda. Even Keith has been pissing me off about this. Voices need to be heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
7. With the recount being canceled,
I'd say there is so much rot that it is stinking--bad.

If the top tier candidates ignore this, and ignore what happened to Dennis, I'm going to wonder if they care anything about our democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
62. you're going to wonder? you didn't already wonder? nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebuzzard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
8. the marginalization of Kucinich is a big disappointment
He has my whole hearted support; however, the two party system of this country is nothing other than a big tug of war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. The two party system has been bought and paid for
by special interests. Look who the MSM pays attention to, for heaven's sake! No one who is really for the people. Kucinich isn't a corporate man, so he has to be shut out. And the will of the people for fair elections, honest debate, has been shut out. I think the only reason they allow us to "vote" is because they can manipulate the outcome.

Just wait until November. Unless drastic things have happened before then, we'll have another "surprise victory" of the GOP. I really think this is why Clinton is being touted as the winner of the nomination by the MSM so much--they know in the GE she will not win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebuzzard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #12
133. high probability on that "surprise victory" concept
so far, this election charade has been a debacle and a defeat for true democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FREEWILL56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
9. I'm sure DK appreciates how you feel about this injustice done unto him.
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 10:24 AM by FREEWILL56
I think it would be better coming from the other candidates to express their dismay over the injustice rather than letting them get away with slighting any Democratic candidate whether he is popular or not. Maybe the MSM would 'get it' if the others stood up and demanded fairness and refuse to debate without fairness in it. The title of your thread should extend to the other candidates and not just we here on DU.
edit to add:
I did not watch any debate that has excluded DK from debating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. Thank you for your post. I agree completely. It speaks loudly when the other candidates
don't speak out against injustice against their own. Especially Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
10. Why are the Dems eliminating while the repukes let them all stay?
Is it really the media who has push out other Dem candidates? If so why are the not doing the same to the repuke candidates?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. The Democratic Party is kissing NBC's butt. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jlake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
17. I do not like Kucinich - but he should have been included in the debate.
(MS)NBC Set the rules and invited him. He qualified, and he should have been allowed to debate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
18. I'll Stand Up For Dennis When He Stops Trying to Be a Spoiler
Who will hand his delegates over to whomever he can cut the best deal with. How's that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. Until then you choose to stand with GE/NBC? nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Says You
Bye ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. It was a question not a statement. Do you support DK's right to speak
or do you support GE/NBC's right to censor? Which is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #27
59. here ya go: I support the right of a free press to make bad decisions
If a newspaper submits questions to Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and Kucinich and then decides to publish only the answers given by three of them (any three), that's bad journalism. But its also within the protected first amendment editorial discretion of the newspaper. And I would be appalled (and shocked) if a candidate went to court to get the newspaper to print that which it decided it didn't want to print. And this isn't just a new thing. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates 150 years ago, newspapers that favored Lincoln "cleaned up" their transcripts of his side of the debate, but left Douglas' transcript unedited for grammatical and other errors. Similarly, papers that favored Douglas did the same thing vis a vis their versions of the transcripts. Bad journalism? Certainly. Something that the government should regulate? Not a chance.

And I should add that I don't think a newspaper's first amendment rights should be reduced based on whehter the newspaper is owned by a corproration, a very rich individual, a partnership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #59
72. are you a lawyer?
if so, I find your contributions to be very valuable. Pro bono or billed hourly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. billed hourly at an obscene rate
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 01:47 PM by onenote
but i try to do good things on a pro bono basis as well (and have worked with the ACLU, gun control groups, etc over the years).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #73
77. General Electric can afford it
Im sure. Good on ya!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. not my client. and I think they engaged in bad journalism
but I expected that they'd win their case and really am not torn up about the fact that they did.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. well its been great reading your posts
and the disclaimer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stimbox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #59
80. Why did NBC simulcast the debate on a local Las Vegas BROADCAST station???
They violated FCC rules by doing that, no?

Time to undo media consolidation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #80
83. presumably because they felt there was a large enough local audience
And, no, they didn't violate FCC rules, which exempt debate coverage from the equal opportunities rules. Indeed, DK tried to go the FCC with a claim under the FCC's rules after he was excluded from the NH debate and, as I understand it (I haven't seen a copy of any decision), he lost.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stimbox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #83
93. They cancelled the local simulcast to avoid violating the FCC rules.
They knew what they were doing was illegal and wrong.

Fuck MSGENBC and people calling themselves Democrats who support them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #59
120. And I agree. My post wasn't aimed at the war profiteer GE/NBC, but at Democrats that would support
a debate sponsored by them. Why would Democrats play into the will of the clearly corporatist interests of GE.

It's swell that you defend free speech for the war profiteer over that of a Democratic candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #59
122. I support the right of a free press too. But a press owned by a war profiteer ain't free press. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #18
30. For the record: HE DID NOT HAND ANY DELEGATES OVER
He told his caucusgoers in Iowa that, if they did not have a viable subcaucus, they should join the Obama subcaucus. Caucusgoers are NOT COMMITTED to ANY candidate until they join a viable subcaucus, and delegates for the county-unit convention are selected. If a subcaucus is not viable, delegates may choose another subcaucus at their own will-- THEY ARE NOT FORCED OR COMPELLED TO CHOOSE A SPECIFIC SUBCAUCUS.

Caucusgoers ARE NOT DELEGATES. Delegates to CONVENTIONS are ELECTED by the caucusgoers. As no delegates had been selected yet at the time of the caucus, no delegates were "handed over".

I am so damned sick of hearing this same, tired, false meme over and over again. Please do yourself a favor and get educated about how a caucus works before you spread inaccuracies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. whats more
I know why he really didnt support Edwards again. And I think I know why he wont say it.
Im gonna keep it in my pocket a little while longer. Hopefully I can ask his permission to make it public. But the temptation is really huge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #36
126. I'll bet my last dime that he's pissed at Edwards for colluding with Clinton --
--to eliminate him from further debates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #18
53. A spoiler? In what way is DK a "spoiler"? This is the primary season,
And frankly the only way that DK could be considered a spoiler is if he happens to be spoiling the chances of your candidate. Well guess what pal, that's what happens in primaries, the various candidates set out to spoil each other's chances of getting nominated.

Your logic on this one is twisted to say the least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
64. what don't you get?!?!
What is he trying to spoil? Illegal wars? Corporate control of democracy? Why would he give someone else his delegates? ..... can that even be done? I don't think so, except for at the convention, and then the delegates still can have their own say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #18
110. He has to have some level of support to be a spoiler.
Its hard to play a kingmaker with a handful of delegates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beyurslf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
29. I'm sorry but I am a Democrat and I have no problem with him not being in the debate.
Has he gotten above even 5% anywhere? I believe now is the time to winnow the field to those who are drawing the largest number of votes. We cannot keep this a multiple candidate field forever. And believing this does not in any way make me less of a Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. We've had less than 10% of the primaries
90% of Democrats have yet to select their choice for president. And yet you want to shrink the field down?

That's undemocratic (and unDemocratic).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #31
43. There are regional differences between US voters, but...
...rhetoric like "90% of Democrats have yet to select their choice for president" ignores statistical reality. It's not like a candidate who hasn't gotten over 5% of the vote from the first 10% of the voters is very likely at all to have huge numbers waiting in hiding for him in the remaining 90%.

There has to be some sort of viability criteria. There are probably thousands of people who'd like to run for President, and you can't squeeze them all onto a stage, run a 10-month long marathon debate, and have the entire country vote on who goes to the next round.

Even the debates with 10 people on stage are pretty awful. You can argue all you want about what's fair and what isn't -- and you might even have some valid points when you do -- but it simply isn't practical to keep all candidates in the debates for the entire primary season, waiting for everyone everywhere to vote in a primary before winnowing down the field. Plus, when you're using cut-off points like 5% of the vote in your cut-off criteria, and there other candidates well into double-digit leads, it's not really that unfair to use small subsets of the country's voters as a roughly representative sample of the country as a whole, with criteria that make sense even with a large margin of error.

Can you describe to me a practical, workable system where Kucinich still counts as viable, and should still be taking time and focus away from other candidates who are proving more viable, that's more than just an emotional appeal for a particular candidate you like?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. putting it mildly
you feel the rest of the country wouldnt benefit from hearing Kucinich speak against the war and health care crisis before they cast their bound to be misinformed votes for the chosen few?
If you choose to value polls taken of uninformed citizens over a fully informed electorates ballot box decisions, thats your choice, but it seems rather demockratic to substitute those corporate manipulations for reasoned, full discourse in what could be such an important decision. Were we to be allowed that opportunity and freedom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. I didn't say a thing about who would benefit from what.
It would be great for more people to hear Kucinich speak. However, I asked you how you'd create a practical, workable system where someone like Kucinich could keep appearing in debate after debate the entire through the primary season, regardless of whether he shows any signs of building significant support or not.

It's easy to bitch and moan about "uninformed citizens" and "corporate manipulations", but it's much harder to explain what you'd do to fix it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #51
70. a day late id say
as long as they are permitted to rig their own game... Id say the one true democratic contribution is the persuasion of middle class mainstream media believers into going along with their own betrayal like fiddling with habeas corpus, allowing for Total Information Awareness, and TORTURE, without the threat of justice ever being sanctioned by the loyal opposition, hey the silent majority has spake!
These are the issues people disregard when they silence Kucinich, unless youve heard believeable dissent and discussion from the "top tier"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #70
88. Duck and dodge, duck and dodge.
You're still just ranting about what you think is wrong and refusing to put any effort thinking about how you'd make it right. Do you just want to bitch about how The Man has rigged the game, and leave it at that? And bitch about all the corporatist dupes who aren't making as much solution-free noise as you are?

Maybe you think if you just foam at the mouth enough, and berate enough other people into foaming away with you, the Powers That Be will quiver with fear faced with such mass unrest and magically grant you an improved system, without you having to fuss over the details yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. heres what Im willing to do
Im willing to talk sense to you and anyone else here about what is really going on.
If you dont appreciate my analysis, darn it, I really tried to help.
If you would prefer I had a more conventional outlook, I wish I did too, but something is clearly wrong with me. I really dont see where Ive ranted about anything, just yet. That wouldnt be polite, and foaming at the mouth definitely wouldnt be.
What I do is I step outside, into the real world, and see who I can help, and try.
Anything posted on this message board, even if it came from Jesus, Martin, Abraham or John wouldnt achieve squat. You just think you can put me on the spot with some silly provocation.
And clearly, my points are provoking your fury.
I stick to personal observations derived from personal experience, because I know better than to believe anything I hear on the radio, TV or internets has genuine analytical merit. I know how bad things are, sorry to disturb your peace of mind correcting the mistaken conceptions I dont mind challenging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #90
98. It's not your points, it's your lack thereof.
What I do is I step outside, into the real world, and see who I can help, and try.

Who was helped by the following comment, which is what I responded to?

90% of Democrats have yet to select their choice for president. And yet you want to shrink the field down?

That's undemocratic (and unDemocratic).

That's an analysis of the situation that lacks much depth and understanding. That helps no one. Until you've bothered to understand representative samples and practical matters of the democratic process -- if all you've got is platitudes like "Every voice needs to be heard!" without considering the mechanisms that solve pesky little problems like the fact that every person doesn't have the time and inclination to listen at length to every other person in any sort of workable democracy -- then you're just blowing off steam, nothing more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #98
100. not my comment, but its quite reasonable
I love it when people want to debate the significance of sampling but find an open process a waste of time. How about you just leave me alone, because I dont want to entertain you, and we aint gonna end up on the same page? bye!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. Because you throw out BS like...
...trying to claim that I "find an open process a waste of time", but don't have the guts to lay your idea of that "open process" on the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. jesus christ, one more time for the world
shame on you for thinking an open process including candidates like Kucinich in national debates before a fraction of the votes nationally and THEIR PROPORTIONAL DELEGATE PRIZES are awarded isnt appropriate. Shame on you for calling me a frothing ranter. Shame on you for attacking me without reason. Show me where I disrespected you? No, dont bother, because Im about to find that ignore feature (I hope) because you are not a necessary part of my diet, and I dont need to work so hard to be polite to rude little tinpots. I could debate you right under the table, but that wont cure what ails you. I doubt even stem cell research holds promise there. Bye now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #103
104. hey, that felt good
sort of like a clean up the universe program, where they come down from outer space neutering hillbillies and straightening their teeth.
RIP Bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #104
107. whoa, Ive seen the light!
Now I understand the pleasure of censorship.
I may have to rethink everything now...
Think I'll go record shopping at Wal-Mart!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #103
106. You couldn't debate your way out of a paper bag.
Anyone who tries to make you back up your rhetoric with substance is apparently "attacking you" and a "rude little tinpot". And I'm just fine with you putting me on ignore -- that's probably how you deal with everything that doesn't fit neatly into your myopic world view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #43
69. here's some "viability criteria" for you:
is the candidates name on the ballot? If so, they're as viable as any of the others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #69
101. When I voted in the NH primary...
...there were something like 20 or more names listed for the Democrats.

Public debates with that many participants would be a joke, a totally unworkable fiasco. The 10-or-so candidate debates that we've already had so far, before Iowa, were just barely workable, and little more than brief introductions to each candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #101
108. so the answer is letting the media pick our candidates for us?
Some of those names on that NH ballot were people who had already dropped out of the race. Still, if there was a New Hampshire specific debate, all 20-some should be invited. For a national debate, as a suggested compromise, maybe someone would have to have their name on the ballot in enough states to theoretically get enough delegates for the nomination. I don't think that should be a criteria though - each state is represented at the convention, and if a candidate gets delegates from only one state, they should be at that convention. It seems to me that you have little, if any, respect for democracy, and it chills me. How are you comfortable letting pollsters and media corporations control who our candidates are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #108
140. And it seems to me that you have little respect...
...for the complexity of creating reasonable, functional processes, and a penchant for believing the literal form of overblown rhetoric.

A TV network using pollsters to decide who appears in a debate aired by that network is not "letting pollsters and media corporations control who are candidates are". Influence, perhaps. Control, no. Kucinich is still a candidate. People who want to know what Kucinich is all about can go to his web site and read pages and pages of what he has to say.

It does, of course, diminish Kucinich's chances of being heard if he doesn't appear on TV as much as others. I'm certainly well aware of that. But how do you decide who appears on TV? It's easy to shout "Everyone!", but you aren't doing the mental follow-through if you think that would work well in practice. Respecting democracy to me means respecting the need for workable processes, not closing my eyes to all practical concerns and chanting idealistic platitudes, and getting angry that "somebody" doesn't "just fix it".

Everyone has a right to speak their mind, but no one has a right to make other people help them spread their word, and no one has the right to make sure you listen when they speak. If I write a novel, I have every right to write it exactly as I please, but no publisher has an obligation to publish my novel, and no reader has an obligation to read my novel.

The situation with a candidate and a TV broadcaster is a little different. TV broadcasters, in exchange for the use of public airwaves -- a limited public resource -- can reasonably have obligations imposed by law to serve the public interest. And I'd be all for laws that took the decision-making process of who gets to appear in a televised debate, and who can be excluded, out of corporate hands.

But in a case like Kucinich's, I think by now he'd fall below reasonable viability criteria written by anyone, be it a corporation's policy or a public policy. A public policy which insisted that anyone and everyone who can manage to get their name on the ballot -- very easy to do in many states -- must be allowed to appear in every single debate from the start of primary campaigning to the bitter end, would be a very poor policy. If that's how you'd think it should be done, in the ostensible name of "respecting democracy", what you'd actually be doing is stripping what little good is left in televised debates and turning all of the debates into sound-bite circuses.

Kucinich has already appeared on TV in a number of debates. I've seen him, I've heard him, and I even like a lot of what he has to say. It's oh so easy (and incredibly fashionable here at DU) to believe that the only possible reason Kucinich fever hasn't spread to epidemic proportions MUST BE an evil MSM conspiracy to suppress this man, whom they FEAR so much!

But that view, even if it there is some nugget of truth in there, misses a lot of other factors. First of all, voters tend to mix a lot of pretty shallow criteria in with the important issues they care about. Kucinich simply doesn't have the name recognition of a Clinton, the charisma of an Obama, the good looks of an Edwards. Many who can get past those things -- believe it or not -- still apparently don't love Kucinich's message. Others (and I'd include myself in this group) like a lot of what he has to say, but might feel he's not grounded enough in practical realities to pull off a lot of what he says he wants to do.

Kucinich has simply failed to catch on in the minds of the voters, and you can't (well, you can and probably will -- but not reasonably so) conveniently lay all of the blame for that on the doorstep of the evil MSM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #140
142. if you're after "reasonable functional processes"...
... do you want a dictator? That would make things a lot easier. It's not that I think democracy is, or even should be, easy, but however hard the work of democracy, it's worth doing.

Sure, maybe some people really do think the Big 3 are our best possible candidates for president, but I don't. Lots of people don't, and they should be offered real choice. To offer an analogy, would you say there was real choice on a restaurant menu if there were 3 items with detailed descriptions and names you were familiar with and one that you'd never heard of with no description? And if you ordered it, you had to eat it.

Don't you see the vicious cycle? The media makes politicians celebrities, and people only know about the celebrities when they're polled, or the pollsters don't even poll the non-celebrities. The for -profit media should have no place in the debates, when they are primarily entertainment companies.

I didn't vote for Kucinich last time, so I know that others think there are better candidates - I'm no idiot, but maybe I am "idealistic" enough to think democracy should be a practice and not just a name for a theatrical production or sporting event.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #142
145. You're substituting hard vs. easy for practical vs. impractical
...and then arguing against what I said based on that false substitution. I not looking for ease above every other consideration, but I don't want difficulties that go beyond the point of diminishing returns, or difficulties that actually make things worse. That's the difference between an emphasis on practicality vs. an emphasis on ease -- I'm still talking about practicality taken within the context of producing a reasonably well-functioning democracy.

If what you want is True Democracy, with no regard for either ease or practicality, then forget about having any candidates whatsoever. Let all issues be decided by public referenda -- direct voting on everything, no need for intermediaries.

If you accept representative democracy and constitutional democracy, you're already accepting compromises of pure democracy made for both practical and philosophical reasons.

The biggest problem with representative democracy is that no one candidate can possibly embody a perfect reflection of the will of electorate, no matter how you run your elections. To the extent that it's possible to get closer to that ideal, fundamental changes in our voting system -- like adopting range voting or instant run-off voting -- would go much, much further than tinkering with rules for candidate participation in individual televised debates.

Once you understand that, understand phenomena like vote splitting and the spoiler effect, it's hard to get worked up about about the details of how one broadcaster decides who appears or doesn't appear in one of their televised debates, as if some monumental assault were being made on a clear, bright, fundamental principle of democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #145
147. but using terms like "spoiler effect" means missing my point
I don't think representative democracy has to be about finding the person who is the best compromise for all voters. While I'm uncomfortable with minority positions being left out when there can be no compromise, I'd rather have that happen at times knowing there will be other elections in the future. I don't think there are spoilers - I reject the notion, especially in a primary - what's the point of having a primary election if people aren't voting for the candidate they want? .... and I don't want to hear about how you can vote "against" someone - you can't vote against candidates in our system, only for a candidate. I know that instant runoff voting would be great, but we're less likely to get it if we stifle the voices arguing for it for the sake of compromise or practicality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #147
151. Spoilers are a completely real phenomena
If winning an election is decided by plurality (the largest of sub-50% minorities) rather than by majority (somebody has to get over 50%, or the election is considered undecided), it's very possible for the winner to represent views far out of line with the majority, in cases where the majority have split their votes among multiple candidates who were all closer to the majority view than a winner-by-plurality, who had the advantage of being unchallenged for the votes of their natural voter base.

Let's suppose (and this is not a huge leap when it comes to DU Democrats) that there's a strong ABC (Anybody But Clinton) majority. The ABC's are split among their first choice, but are reasonably happy with all other Dems except Clinton.

Suppose Clinton can garner 30% of Dems in this situation. If she has three opponents, and they all split the remaining vote more-or-less evenly, each gets about 23%, and Clinton wins. Winnow the opposition down to two candidates, and the average vote for the opposition is 35% each -- one or the other of the two non-Clintons will definitely win.

Winnowing the field of candidates early on might not be a perfect solution, and perhaps angers voters in states who come late in the primary process, but it has the advantage of avoiding protracted periods of time which are heavily influenced by spoilers and vote splitting, and it allows for the debates seen by voters in later states to be more in-depth and detailed than what voters in early states deal with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kas125 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #69
123. Exactly!!
If his name is on the ballot, he should be included in the debates. That there are people here defending GE/NBC for censoring who America gets to hear, in effect, deciding who our candidates should be, is appalling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #43
82. why not?
Why not have as many candidates as possible, and why not have campaigning go on until the convention? For whose convenience do we winnow the field? To what end? Whose interests are served?

Since big bucks is the single most important factor for determining the nominee, if settling on the most viable candidate as quickly as possible is the goal, why not just have the wealthy corporate donors choose our candidate for us and skip all of this election and campaigning nonsense?

In the old days, the party went into the convention not knowing who the candidate would be. What is wrong with that? Who does that hurt? Not the people, not the party.

Let everyone run. Let every voice be heard. Let everyone vote. Period. That is democracy.

If that is inconvenient or "impractical" for the corporate media, or for the powerful insiders, or for the corporate donors, then it is time to overthrow the powers that are controlling our democracy, not change democracy to fit the needs of the wealthy and powerful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #82
96. If you think voters are apathetic and uninformed now...
...just imagine what would happen if a thousand candidates were conducting marathon debates for several months until the end of the primaries, without the slightest narrowing or winnowing of the field that whole time.

Yeah, that would work. :eyes:

Even 10-20 at a time is totally unmanageable.

Moderator: Candidate 14. Please tell us what you'd do to solve the situation in Iraq. You have 15 seconds.

Candidate 14: The first thing I'd do is start pulling troops out Day 1. By the end of my first year...

BZZZZZT!!

Moderator: Time! Candidate 15. Please tell us what you'd do to solve the situation in Iraq. You have 15 seconds.

Let everyone run. Let every voice be heard. Let everyone vote. Period. That is democracy.

Please elaborate on your WORKABLE system for this, where enough informed voters are tuning in to hear enough from all of these different voices, across every state in the nation for a period of several months, in order to make a gloriously informed decision.

Platitudes and bitching about the system are easy. Workable alternative proposals are hard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #96
109. I don't think that
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 06:05 PM by Two Americas
I don't think voters are apathetic and uninformed, I think they are being lied to and their voices and access to information are being suppressed.

The party could easily work out guidelines to make democracy "manageable," from the grass roots up. I didn't know that the prime goal was to "manage" democracy. If order and control are more important than the people having a voice, then we are not really talking about democracy at all, are we?

As it is now, powerful corporate interests are making the calls.

If you presume that we are stuck with the current mass-media format for debates, then of course 1000 candidates would not be manageable by Wolf Blitzer et al. I don't think there is any danger of there being 1000 candidates, in any case, and the rank and file Democrats should decide who they do and do not want to listen to. These dog and pony show debates are pretty useless no matter how many candidates there are. If the candidates had a more effective and fair to reach voters, many of the problems you are trying to frighten us with would never come up. People would be more interested, and better informed, if the corporate interests were not controlling the process.

You are asking us to quit before we start, and under the guise of being "practical" and by using pejorative and insulting statements to discredit those who don't agree with you, you are asking us to not think and speak on this subject.

I resent your insinuation that because I do not agree with you, that I am therefore speaking platitudes, or bitching, or not being practical. You can't know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kas125 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #82
124. I hate to break it to ya, but
letting the wealthy corporate donors choose our candidates is exactly what we did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #124
149. I know
We have a tremendous fight in front of us and a long way to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #43
121. If you are willing to make that judgment based on 10% why don't you decide
on the winner based on the polls? Skip all the pain of the actual primaries.

Is it just me that wants to hear what Kucinich has to say?

Please tell me the criteria that allows GE/NBC to exclude Kucinich?

To those that give the BS that they don't want Kucinich to be included because they want to listen only to the "viable" candidates so they can decide who to choose, who do you think you're kiddin? YOu have already chosen and you don't want Kucinich to speak because his truths are embarrassing to your candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #121
125. Because the winner...
...has to be decided by the people willing to get off their asses and get to the polls, because the polls you don't trust -- which are run by private organizations -- would be even less trustworthy if they generated official election results rather than bits of data for news stories, because is close races every vote needs to be counted (candidates who can't break 5% aren't in that "close" category), because the polls alone don't provide a process for winnowing down a wide field (although I have no problem with them being input to that process, especially when a news organization uses its own polls to decide who they'll include in the debates they broadcast), etc.

In other words, equating the use of polls by individual news organizations, using not incredibly stringent viability criteria like 5%, to exclude candidates from their own broadcasts, candidates who still have the freedom to get their message out in other ways to voters who are perfectly free to seek out what the excluded candidates have to say, if they're interested and driven enough... equating that to the wholesale substitution of elections with polls is a ridiculous straw man.

To those that give the BS that they don't want Kucinich to be included because they want to listen only to the "viable" candidates so they can decide who to choose, who do you think you're kiddin? YOu have already chosen and you don't want Kucinich to speak because his truths are embarrassing to your candidate.

Oh, dear! My deep dark secret has been exposed! I'll do and say anything to protect my fragile candidate from the onslaught of Kucinich! :eyes:

You know, I never did say I didn't want Kucinich to speak. In fact, it wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest if he'd been in this last debate. But no, it didn't bother me much that he wasn't there either -- and that's what this whole thread is about, isn't it? It's not about anyone demanding that Kucinich NOT be heard, it's about people outraged that everyone else isn't outraged at his exclusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #125
135. I am sorry if I am getting a little cranky. I am upset at the corporatist media controlling the
elections. I want progressive voices heard but the conservative media won't let them on. We hear plenty from Ron Paul, Big Gullie, and Huckelberry, but no to DK.

I am also sad the other Democrats don't stand up for the progressives like Dennis. The Democratic party ignores the progressives and then blames them when they lose.

When you asked if I had a suggestion for determining "viability" I don't. Do you? I certainly don't think having four candidates at a debate is to many. If they get less than 10% after two primaries, we dump them? What would be a good criteria.

Kucinich has a hard time getting support because he is ignored by the corporate media and then they turn around and say he doesn't get coverage because he hasn't enough support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #29
44. Please see my comment 38 below. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #29
50. Not yet, but we've only had a handful of primaries
90% of the states have not voted yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #29
66. where the hell is the logic here? what do you think the debates are for?
Are they beauty contests where we just look at the candidates? There have only been two Democratic caucuses or primaries so far. Shouldn't the debates help people choose who they want to vote for? No? Who cares what percentage a candidate got in one primary - there are others to go. Shit, maybe people would watch a debate and decide who to vote for based on that.... unthinkable, I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #29
127. Bullshit. Why did NBC want Richardson, who was behind Kucinich in some polls?
The disinvitation came only after Richardson dropped out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rAVES Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:47 AM
Response to Reply #29
131. No.. you're a Hillbot.
Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 04:30 AM by rAVES
You dam well know that Kucinich on the stage would embarrass your favorite candidate, so OF COURSE you're happy he isn't there..


You people make me sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elaineb Donating Member (273 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #29
134. Your candidate über alles!
Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 07:15 AM by elaineb
I believe now is the time to winnow the field to those who are drawing the largest number of votes. We cannot keep this a multiple candidate field forever. And believing this does not in any way make me less of a Democrat.


No, it makes you MORE of a Democrat, but much, much less of a democrat. (Note the distinction in the first letters).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NWHarkness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
35. Marginalized?
He's always been a marginal candidate.

Whether you agree with him or not, for crying out loud, take a reality check.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #35
39. That's beside the point. I don't want GE deciding who can debate. I want to hear what
from candidates other than those that feed us the standard bull. DK is willing to bring up issues that are embarrassing to GE and the corporatists. I just think all Democrats should stand up for him vs. GE.

And if I took a reality check I'd probably jump off a bridge. I need to delude myself into believing we have a fighting chance against the fascist corporations and their lackey republicans and Democrats. Don't want the koolaide yet thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
38. The war profiteer GE isn't rejecting DK to make the debate more "organized" they are silencing
him because they don't like what he is saying. Regardless if you like or dislike what he is saying, GE shouldn't be allowed to make the decision. It may be John Edwards next.

I am curious, are there any Clinton supporters that agree?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #38
67. it will be John Edwards next
and he'll richly deserve it after plotting with Hillary to eliminate Kucinich. Apparently it didn't occur to him that
he could be the next victim of his own plot.

Edwards has stolen much of DK's platform - it's no wonder he doesn't want the real thing sitting next to him on stage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
49. Marginal candidates belong in the margins, not in debates with real candidates
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Congress Donating Member (154 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #49
54. The media deemed him not viable from the beginning
The don't talk about him, barely let him speak in the debates, left him out of their corporate polls...turns out it is their right to lie to us and control our elections.


In court filings, NBC painted itself as the victim. Attorneys for the network wrote, “Mr. Kucinich’s claim is nothing more than an illegitimate private cause of action designed to impose an equal access requirement that entirely undermines the wide journalistic freedoms enjoyed by news organizations under the First Amendment.” Attorneys for General Electric’s NBC also argued, “A television station does not have to grant unlimited access to a candidate debate. If anyone’s First Amendment rights are being infringed, they are MSNBC’s.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/16/breaking_the_sound_barrier_democracy_now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #49
71. so we should get rid of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards in the debates?
Just have Kucinich and Gravel up there? huh.... as far as I'm concerned they are the only two "real candidates". Still, I think they should all be allowed to debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #49
74. Mano a mano?
Yeah, those sentiments even made Reagan sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #49
92. How do you define a marginal candidate - and at what moment in time do you define them?
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 03:53 PM by aint_no_life_nowhere
Who's a marginal candidate? Everyone but Hillary? Everyone but Barack? Who gets to make that call? And at what point in a campaign do you make that call? How far into a campaign do you determine who is marginal and who isn't? Is it possible to ever have an objective standard there? And do you let a network, that has the ulterior motive of ratings and creating entertaining drama make that call?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #49
128. Candidates who refuse to advocate single payer are not real candidates n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
52. I have no sympathy for him after what he did in Iowa and his swiftboat attacks on Edwards
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Congress Donating Member (154 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. But Edwards was real cool
when he stole Kucinich's platform and then conspired with Hillary to have him kicked out of the debates?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. No one would steal Kucinich's platform which doesn't reasonate with voters
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 01:27 PM by jackson_dem
Edwards has basically the same platform he had in 2004. Remember "Two Americas"?

Kucinich's importance is very overstated by Kucinicites. Outside of the netroots he is irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Congress Donating Member (154 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #58
65. Edwards was pro war, not talking about Universal Health care
His votes don't mesh with his current rhetoric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #65
68. Here is a dose of truth about his votes and record
Him changing on the war and health care has nothing to do with Kucinich. Yeah, Kucinich is a rock of consistency. :rofl:

Tip of my hat to PurityOfEssence for his great job researching Edwards' record.

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan-06-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Repost of Edwards' Senate Record notes

Much has been said about Edwards’ supposedly conservative term in the Senate. Like much “common wisdom”, this is largely unfounded.

When remembering that he came as a neophyte from a rather red state, it’s quite surprising to see just how populist he was on many key social issues. (Well, it’s not surprising to many of us, but to those of you who’ve been poisoned with the endless snideness about the “new” Edwards and the “old” Edwards, it should be an eye-opener.)

He only sponsored two bills, but he co-sponsored a whopping 203 in his six-year term. This is a partial list of them (yes, I omitted the Patriot Act and IWR; much has already been said about them) and bears a quick skimming. They’re in chronological order, so details can be found fairly easily. The two bills he sponsored were for research into the “fragile x” chromosome associated with mental retardation, and the “Spyware Control and Privacy Act”, an important early bulwark against attempts to compromise our computer privacy. This last one is a true civil-rights issue, taking on corporations and attempting to secure the rights of individuals, and it’s visionary stuff.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN03180:@@ ...

Russ Feingold said he was a “terrific asset” in getting campaign finance reform through. He was the person who deposed Lewinsky and Jordan in the impeachment trial; quite an important task to entrust to a newcomer in literally his first year in office. His opposition to Ashcroft in the confirmation hearings was vigorous and mesmerizing, even if it didn’t work. This is also the guy who tirelessly fought to keep the sunset provisions from being stripped out of the Patriot Act. His votes on labor and trade are solidly leftist, although he did vote for the China Trade Bill. Then again, since this was something Bill Clinton was solidly for, he was voting with his party. (Funny how Hillary supporters take him to task for this vote…) He also (along with Dodd and Biden) voted against the free trade bills with Singapore and Chile, unlike Senator Clinton, who voted for them.

Here’s a guy who constantly brought up the issue of “predatory lending” even though he hailed from a state with a huge banking and financial services industry. If you listen to or read his stump speeches from late ’02 and early ’03, you’ll wonder what the hell his detractors are talking about when they say that his populism is a new tack; his platform was economic and worker-oriented from the beginning, telling of how the Bush Administration was systematically shifting the burden of taxation from wealth to wages.

So here’s that partial list of the bills he co-sponsored. This is not a list of his votes, just those bills he actively got behind and worked to get passed. This is hardly the stuff of a closet conservative or an opportunist, as he’s been tarred, nor is it the record of someone who was just phoning it in. I would request, in interest of fairness, that the deriders among you at least skim through this VERY long list; it’s all pure fact.

When taking all this in context, it’s interesting to reflect on Kerry’s sneering that he probably couldn’t win re-election had he decided to run. Kerry may have been right on this point, but if so, it’s because of Edwards’ populism and social decency.

Details can be found here; each phrase separated by a comma is a particular bill, and in most cases attempt to use the bill’s title to lessen confusion and give the sense of the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d107&querybd ... (FLD004+@4((@1(Sen+Edwards++John))+01573)):

Sense of the Senate for funding lifestyle research for preventative medicine, Sense of the Senate honoring National Science Foundation, Sense of the Senate to preserve six day mail delivery, designating “biotechnology week”, Children’s Internet Safety Month, Joint Resolution against excessive campaign donations, to protect the civil rights of all Americans, Bi-partisan Campaign Reform, Restrict access to personal health and financial information, Establish a Center for National Social Work Research, provide more effective remedies for victims of sex discrimination in work, provide incentive for fair access to the internet for everyone, require fair availability of birth control, increase the minimum wage (’01), protect consumers in managed care programs, emergency relief for energy costs to small businesses, prohibit use of genetic information to discriminate on health coverage and employment, provide families with disabled children to buy into Medicaid, eliminate the loophole for interstate transporting of birds for fighting, provide funding to clean up contaminated land, informing veterans of available programs, Designating part of ANWR as wilderness, establish a digital network technology program, reduce the risk that innocent people be executed, restore funding for Social Security Block Grants, provide for equal coverage for mental health in insurance policies, amend Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from power plants, establish uniform election technology (sponsored by Dodd), extend modifications to funding for Medicare and Medicaid, Federal Funding to local governments to prosecute hate crimes, reinstate certain Social Security earnings exemptions for the blind, overhaul RR retirement plan to increase benefits, Establish a Nurse recruitment and retention program, amend FDA to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals, Establish African American Museum within the Smithsonian, Federal funding for research of environmental factors in Breast Cancer, Increase hospital benefits under Medicare, Establish Tariff Quotas on milk protein imports, Federal funding for mental health community education, protect patients in managed care plans (again), establish Office on Women’s Health in HHS, increase the minimum wage, allow media coverage of trials, prohibit racial profiling, improve health care in rural areas, protect consumers in managed care plans, prohibiting trade of bear viscera, provide greater fairness in arbitration of motor vehicle franchises, provide adequate insurance coverage for immunosuppressive drugs, provide financial assistance for trade-affected communities, acquisition and improvement of child-care facilities, prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, establish programs to deal with nurse shortage, establish a National Cyber Defense Team to protect the internet’s infrastructure, provide services to prevent family violence, require criminal prosecution for securities fraud, reissuance of a rule on ergonomics, ensure safe pregnancy for all U.S. women, improve investigation and prosecution of rape cases with DNA evidence, improve national drought preparedness, increase the minimum wage (yet again), assistance in containing HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, emergency assistance for small-businesses affected by drought, child care and developmental block grants, provide economic security for America’s workers, enhance security for transporting nuclear waste, FEMA hazard mitigation grants, increase mental health benefits in health insurance, criminal prosecution for people who destroy evidence in securities fraud cases.

Is this the record of a corporate appeaser? Is this the record of someone just loafing about and collecting a paycheck?

Funny what you find when you read a little, isn’t it?

(end of post)

The Bush Cartel is Shivering In Its Boots About John Edwards: This is An Actual North Carolina GOP Alert Sent to a BuzzFlash Reader

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Below is a copy of an actual GOP alert sent out by the North Carolina Republican Party.

It illustrates how frightened the GOP is of Edwards spoiling the Neo-Confederacy "Southern Strategy" that the Grand Hypocrisy Party (GHP) depends upon to win presidential elections.

Sincerely,

Buzz

* * *

Dear XXXX,

Senator John Edwards' (D-NC) latest effort to package himself as a "mainstream North Carolinian" is entirely contradicted by a four-year voting record that consistently puts ultra-liberal special interests ahead of the people he represents.

CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you, lastly, about the political spectrum and where you are on it. You are often described as having a liberal voting record. The liberal groups tend to give you high ratings. The conservative groups give you low ratings. Are you a liberal Democrat?

John Edwards: "I'm a mainstream North Carolinian. I think my views and my values represent the values of most people in this country." (CNN's Inside Politics, January 2, 2003)

Bill Cobey, Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party had the following response: "Senator Edwards, your voting record does not lie. 'Mainstream North Carolinians' don't vote like Georgetown Liberals."

Edwards made similar assertions in 1998 when he promised the people of North Carolina that he would be a moderate voice in the U.S. Senate. Edwards' record, however, reveals the liberal truth:

Edwards' Voting Record Matches Those Of Senators Ted Kennedy And Hillary Clinton

From 1999-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Ted Kennedy 90% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 106th and 107th Congresses)

From 2001-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Hillary Clinton 89% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 107th Congress)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Business/Job Growth

Edwards Received A 0% Rating From The Small Business Survival Committee For His Voting Record In 2001. (Small Business Survival Committee Website, www.sbsc.org, accessed Dec.1, 2002)

Edwards Received A 17% Rating From The National Federation Of Independent Business For His Voting Record In 2001. (National Federation Of Independent Business, www.nfib.com, accessed Dec. 1, 2002)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Education

Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of A Demonstration Public School Choice Voucher Program For Disadvantaged Children. (Amendment to S. 1, Roll Call #179: Rejected 41-58: R 38-11; D 3-46; I 0-1, June 12, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of Tax-Free Education Savings Accounts For Children To Be Used In The Payment Of Public Or Private School Tuition. (S. 1134, Roll Call #33: Passed 61-37: R 52-2; D 9-35, March 2, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Abortion

In June Of 2000, Edwards Voted Against Tabling An Amendment That Would Have Repealed The Ban On Privately Funded Abortions At Overseas Military Facilities. (Amendment to S. 2549, Roll Call #134: Passed 50-49: R 48-6; D 2-43, June 20, 2000)

In October Of 1999, Edwards Voted Against Passage Of A Bill To Ban Partial-Birth Abortions. (S. 1692, Roll Call #340: Passed 63-34: R 48-3; D 14-31; I 1-0, October 21, 1999)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Health Care And Social Issues

Edwards Called For A Federal Prescription-Drug Benefit And Lamented Over The Lack Of Universal Health Insurance For Children. "Moving to health care, Edwards - his words being recorded by a National Public Radio reporter sitting near his feet - again called for a federal prescription-drug benefit and decried the lack of universal insurance coverage for children. 'In America,' he intoned, 'that's wrong, and we need to do something about it.'" (Eric Dyer, "Testing The Waters?" News & Record, June 23, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted To Table An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited The Use Of Public Funds For Needle Exchange Programs In The District Of Columbia. (Amendment to H.R. 2994, Roll Call #328: Motion To Table Passed 53-47: R 5-44; D 47-3; I 1-0, November 7, 2001)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Taxes/Fiscal Responsibility

Edwards Voted Against President Bush's Bipartisan Tax Relief Package. (H.R. 1836, Roll Call #170: Passed 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31, May 26, 2001)

Edwards Voted Against Permanent Repeal Of The Estate Tax. (H.R. 8, Roll Call #151: Failed 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-42, June 12, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted Against A Capital Gains Tax Rate Reduction. (Amendment To H.R. 1836, Roll Call #115: Failed 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43, May 21, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Bill That Would Have Reduced Taxes On Married Couples. (H.R. 4810, Roll Call #215: Adopted 61-38: R 53-1; D 8-37, July 18, 2000)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Temporary Suspension Of The Gasoline Tax. (S. 2285, Roll Call #80: Failed 43-56: R 43-12; D 0-44, April 11, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On The Environment

Edwards Argued That President Bush's New Source Review Plan "Defies Common Sense." 'It defies common sense to me,' said Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C." (Karen Masterson, "Port Arthur Activist Testifies Against Easing Clean Air Laws," The Houston Chronicle, July 17, 2002)

AT ODDS WITH FELLOW DEMOCRATS

On Trade Promotion Authority

Edwards Disagrees With Kerry, Daschle And Lieberman On Trade Promotion Authority. Edwards voted against trade promotion authority, but Kerry, Daschle and Lieberman voted for it. (H.R. 3009, Roll Call #207: Passed 64-34: R 43-5; D 20-29; I 1-0, August 1, 2002)

On Common Sense Tort Reform

Edwards Disagrees With Lieberman On Tort Reform. Unlike his Senate colleague Lieberman, Edwards adamantly opposes liability limits and civil justice reform. (Jill Zuckman, "Medical Bill," Chicago Tribune, June 24, 2001; Senator Lieberman, Press Conference, July 15, 1999)

When Asked By Bob Novak, Edwards Could Not Recall A Single Conservative Position That He Has Taken On An Issue As Senator. "'I could give you an answer to that question if you give me a little time to think about it.' - Democratic presidential aspirant Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, asked by columnist Robert D. Novak in...the American Spectator to recall any conservative position he's taken in the U.S. Senate ." (John McCaslin, "Dependably Liberal," The Washington Times, October 15, 2002)

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/01/14_Edwards.html

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec-30-07 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. I agree; the repeated "fact" that he wasn't a populist to start with is simply wrong

If one looks at his record, one sees populism as a very clear through-line.

People wave the bloody shirt of Stephanopoulos' grilling of him as some kind of proof of his calumny, when those same people seem to forget that little Georgie's a Clinton operative of the first rank. His leap to prominence came from being a key member of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, and he's a friend as well as a rooter. He has no more journalistic objectivity than James Carville does, and it's a form of deception to not have it tattooed on his forehead as he masquerades as a reporter.

Edwards is a classic Southern populist: pro-affirmative action, constantly trying to raise the minimum wage, for civil rights, for healthcare for the poor, pro-union and on and on. His Senate record is actually quite good, and I've posted to that effect. Anyone who has issues with this should look up the 203 bills he co-sponsored as a Senator.

It's all very convenient to say that he was a hawkish Democrat who changed his ways, but you'll note that the media NEVER tries to foist off the lie that he was a corporatist or anything of the sort. Except for this series of bills--which are hardly clear-cut, as I point out above--his record has been solidly for the little guy from the beginning. He voted for the China Bill, but that was Bill Clinton's pet and he was voting with his party. He voted AGAINST free trade with Singapore and Chile, and he's consistently voted for worker's rights, union rights, ergonomic rules, environmental protections and the usual "little guy" concerns. It's simply a chickenshit lie that he's only now become some kind of populist; his record shows that he has been all along.

Lest we forget, voting against tax cuts isn't that much of a personal risk for a John Kerry from Massachusetts, but it sure as hell is for a first-termer from North Carolina.

People constantly try to make complex situations simple, but they fall into one of the most despicable and self-congratulatory traps of human hypocrisy: flatly dismissing others as mere caricatures while demanding that they and their champions be given break after break and accorded the elaborate complexity of the gods. It's human nature, and it's the sucky part of human nature.

As for your primary point about admitting one's mistakes, I fully agree: the macho, blockheaded, uber-male approach of most politicians (regardless of gender) is tiresome, and to them, admitting a mistake is tantamount to admitting sheer worthlessness or admitting that they might occasionally pull over and ask for directions. Many people decry the inability of people to admit a mistake, but when someone actually does it, he/she gets pounced upon and torn limb from limb. It's vulgar and immature.

Why I shied away from addressing this first is that letting the conversation veer that way tacitly reinforces the big ugly stupid black-and-white lie that he's truly changed. He hasn't. He was good then and he's good now. Yes, he got suckered with the IWR, but Tenet looked him right in the eyes and lied to him. Others did too. Can you trust a man who changes his mind? Hey, at least you know he HAS one. He's done something truly courageous, and deserves a point or two for it. He also deserves points for addressing the issue of poverty; it's a sure vote-loser, but it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO and it's been his cause from the beginning.

Things aren't black or white, and those who insist they are are either fools or skunks. The very way bills are characterized is a good illustration of this, and it's important to try to see things in their totality and in their historical context.

Oh, and welcome to the board. I'm in LA; where are you?

(end of post)

Edwards's Record as A Freshman Senator
Lawmaker Labored on Issues Such as Health Care, Intelligence and Trade

-snip-

Edwards has little in the way of concrete legislative achievements, but he gained attention on issues ranging from health care to intelligence to environmental protection.

While aspiring to build a national profile, Edwards also labored on issues important to his home state, such as proposing amendments to help textile workers who were losing their jobs to lower-wage workers in other nations. In recent weeks, he increasingly has raised trade issues in trying to differentiate himself from Kerry.

-snip-

He voted to support abortion rights, authorize the war in Iraq, require criminal background checks on buyers at gun shows, block the confirmation of some of President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, and prohibit oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

-snip-

But it was the patients' bill of rights, which Edwards had championed in his 1998 Senate campaign, that proved to be his biggest accomplishment -- and disappointment.

-snip-

Edwards voted against trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa, which Kerry supported. But he voted in 2000 to grant most-favored-nation trading status to China, as did Kerry and most other senators. "I think it's clear that Senator Kerry and I have very different records on trade," Edwards recently told reporters. On the same day, Kerry declared: "We have the same policy on trade -- exactly the same policy."

In discussing trade, Edwards focuses on the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, which was enacted with Kerry's support five years before Edwards entered the Senate. While his campaign statements assert that "Edwards has consistently opposed NAFTA," the North Carolina senator recently told New York Times editors that NAFTA "is an important part of our global economy," although he wants tougher protections for the environment and worker conditions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15414-20 ...

Clinton Defense Leader in Impeachment Trial

Kennedy-Edwards-McCain Patients' Bill of Rights

Kennedy-Edwards Minimum Wage Raise Laws

Vote Against Bush's First Taxgiveaway

Vote Against Bush's Second Taxgiveaway

Vote Against $87 Billion "I support Bush's War Bill"

Wrote Bill that allowed individuals to buy prescription drugs from Canada

Wrote and Sponsored Bill that would make sexual orientation a legally protected category in job discrimination

Wrote Sunset Provision into Patriot Act

Floor leader for Feingold-McCain Campaign Finance Reform.

Voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president.

Actually defeated a Republican incumbent in a Red State who had the Helms Machine with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlertLurker Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #68
81. He has voted (or NOT) badly too many times for some to trust.
Anti-War? Anti-Corporate?

I do not quite see it that way:

Cherypicked from Edwards' voting record:
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107

02/02/2000 Bankruptcy Reform bill - Voted Y
11/19/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 - Voted Y
05/21/2004 Condemning Iraq Abuse of Prisoners resolution - DID NOT VOTE
10/11/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq - Voted Y
10/06/2004 National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 - DID NOT VOTE
10/25/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 - Voted Y
09/14/2001 Military Force Authorization resolution - Voted Y
09/16/2003 FCC Media Ownership bill - DID NOT VOTE
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 - Voted Y
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. Cherypicked. You admit it
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 02:54 PM by jackson_dem
:boring: That can, as Edwards has noted and Kerry learned, be done with anyone. This is why we haven't elected someone from Congress president since 1960. I posted a holistic look at his record which is good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlertLurker Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #84
89. Cherrypicked. Sure, I admit it. Facts are often simple things.
Here is the cherrypicked edition of Edwards' Senate Voting Record again:

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107

02/02/2000 Bankruptcy Reform bill - Voted Y
11/19/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 - Voted Y
05/21/2004 Condemning Iraq Abuse of Prisoners resolution - DID NOT VOTE
10/11/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq - Voted Y
10/06/2004 National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 - DID NOT VOTE
10/25/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 - Voted Y
09/14/2001 Military Force Authorization resolution - Voted Y
09/16/2003 FCC Media Ownership bill - DID NOT VOTE
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 - Voted Y

It is, in my estimation, nothing to be proud of.

I found your post a little long and a little subjective. I suppose that is probably because I do not have a clue what a "holistic look" at Edwards' voting record is supposed to look like.

I often find information more useful when "boiled down" to SALIENT facts, rather than inflated by a lot of useless, subjective and uninformative tidbits about who else supports him. If Edwards is anti-Corporate, why the Bankruptcy and the China Trade vote? Why the non-vote on FCC Ownership? If anti-War, why the pro-war votes? If anti-Police State, why the Pro-Police State votes (or non-votes, as the case may be)?

Simple, nu?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #89
94. So all 535 members of Congress suck under the Cherry Pick doctrine
Including St. Dennis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlertLurker Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #94
97. Are 535 Senators/Congressperople running for President?
Are they ALL running on a platform of being anti-War, anti-Corporate, anti-Police State? Without the voting records to back them up?

In a word, NO.

John Edwards is, however.

Dennis Kucinich is running on a similar (gee, I guess he stole these ideas from Edwards!), populist, anti-War, anti-Corporate, anti-Police State platform, but his Congressional Record and outspoken opposition of the Iraq War, the Corporatization of Congress and the Unitary Executive, as well as his unfailing support of voter's rights, in the restoration of the US Constitution, the initiation of impeachment proceedings, reading of the entire CORRECT transcript of Ahmedinajad's famous "anti-Semitic" speech in the House, skepticism of the 9/11 Committee (he openly called for an independent investigation IN HOUSE!) BACKS UP WHAT HE SAYS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=318

Check out how Kucinich voted on the same issues as Edwards - do some cherrypicking of your own!

I can see the difference, can YOU see the difference?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #58
87. Edwards blinks faster than Neil Peart rolls his toms
You believe his post IWR salemanship conversions? I believe
Kucinich chose not to clarify his problem with Edwards because he didnt want to turn off Edwards supporters. According to the best source I could ask for, Edwards reneged on the arrangement they made in 04. Edwards is of, shall we say, questionable character, and I think the MANY endorsements going to Obam(Iran)a reflect that.
Me, Im against my tax dollars being used to kill people, I dont care what middle eastern oil producing country they inhabit, or who pushes the button.
THOU SHALT NOT KILL may be a mythical rule for the born agains, and maybe church and state should be kept seperate, but as a rule of thumb, Im OK with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #87
95. What arrangement did they have in 2004?
It is 2008 now anyway. The deal was just for Iowa and Kucinich admitted it was just political. St. Dennis admitted he made a vote swapping deal based on politics, not principle. He did it again this year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #58
129. No, he does not. He's far more specific about health care and most other issues this time
In 2004, he was NEVER labeled the "anti-corporate" candidate by the MSM. He was exactly like Obama 2008, going on about two Americas without the slightest indication of what forces are responsible for that and what he intended to do about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hayu_lol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. Dennis is running another of his non-campaign campaigns...
For the 2nd election in a row, Dennis has managed to convince most Americans that he is not in any way qualified to even run for the presidency. No matter what he says. He is not viable, even if the rest of the candidates were suddenly to quit.

To be in the debates, one really has to have realistic polls. Dennis has never had those. He makes one idiotic mistake after another. He makes sense on some subjects and then goes bat-shit crazy with others

That is why he does not get included in the debates...debates that are mostly hogwash anyway.

He demands a recount--but then can't afford to pay for it. Another bit of his wanting his perpetual free ride. He sues for this and that and then loses 'this and that.'

Dennis is not a candidate. Someday, you guys may figure out why. In the meantime, you better watch cartoons and let your minds relax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #57
63. You will get hell for saying that
But it is the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #57
75. I hate it when people aren't rich enough for democracy - fuckin' freeloaders...
wanting to have their votes counted without paying.... god, next thing you know they'll want to get rid of poll taxes.... fuckin' A! If you vote for Kucinich, soon they're gonna be lettin' darkies and skirts vote too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #57
76. that isnt what people who hear him speak think
Ive never seen people leave a personal appearance thinking Dennis was less honorable or deserving of the Presidency than those who have to declaim their own fundamental support for illegal invasions, the murder of thousands and the death of how many US soldiers? How about the maimed and internally wounded who return to unleash their damage on stateside innocents? Dennis has kept his hands clean, while so many others rely on the short memory and forgiveness of a desperate electorate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kucinich4America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #57
99. Well, who the fuck should I vote for then? Lee Mercer?
John Edwards is borrowing from Dennis' platform, but if he's conspiring with Hillary to censor the debates, then fuck him.

Hillary is not, and never will be an option.

Obama is endorsed by DINO's, "approved" by the DLC, and now apparently worships Reagan.

Is there a fucking DEMOCRAT anywhere that I can vote for?? :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Essene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
86. Agreed. He should have been in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
91. I think he should be in the debates, and I line up with him on a lot of issues.
His positions on the gun issue are absolutely unacceptable to me, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jakefrep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
105. The voters have marginalized Kucinich - not GE
He's participated in several debates, yet he can't get more than 5% of the Democrats to vote for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #105
111. what percentage have voted in total so far?
Go ahead and include the huge state of michigan, even if "they" dont count.
How many voters have had their say? I know the fine folks of Iowa have excellent taste and should be put in charge of the entire process, but then you have those crooked New Hampshire people with their Diebold scanners, should they get the last word?
How do you come up with a 5% number?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jakefrep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. I think that tinfoil hat of yours has cut off circulation to your brain.
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 07:56 PM by jakefrep
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #112
113. I think thats childish and non responsive
?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jakefrep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #113
114. You can't read election results?
You asked me to cite where Kucinich got less than 5% of the Democratic vote. I provided links to the results of 3 primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. you want to lead with insults, go ahead
your 5% is wrong regardless, you dont take into account the sum total of the electorate, and no matter how many people cast their vote for the unelectable candidate, we still know who has been 100% right all along on the issues people care about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jakefrep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #116
118. He hasn't got 5% of the vote in any primary so far
What part of that don't you understand? The voters aren't buying what Kucinich is selling.

You want to support a delusional vanity candidacy, be my guest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #118
119. How much do I owe?
Valuable advice like that. Maybe I should vote your interest instead of my own?
Or that of the thousands more who will die thanks to the brave leadership of John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #105
115. If by "participation" you meant
equal talk time, equal opportunity to answer questions of substance, and a broad audience for the debates, then obviously he hasn't "participated."

If by "participation," you mean he gets to show up and be mostly ignored, tossed a couple of questions for form's sake, and asked questions about UFOs instead of about policy, then your idea of "participation" is not likely to reach as many voters, is it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rAVES Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #105
132. His paricipation is still important to shift the Debates to real issues...
Hillbama cannot tolerate that... they are running on bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #132
136. BINGO. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #105
137. Kucinich was at several debates but was hardly ever called upon.
Maybe he would have more support if the corporatist media would give him some coverage.

Do you believe that the war profiteer GE has no agenda when running debates when they may have a direct effect on their bottom line?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NikolaC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #105
138. How?
They gave him 5 mins in one debate, where he wound up stealing time to speak, and limited time in the few other debates he was in. Yup, THAT was plenty of time to get his message to the masses in comparison to the other candidates :sarcasm: . Give him the funding and exposure that the top three have and see how far down in the polls he would be. Honestly, it comes down to money and exposure, both of which are in short supply in Kucinich's campaign and both of which he has had to fight for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jakefrep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #138
139. The voters (not GE) voted for other candidates
What part of that don't you get?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #139
141. some voters
know what an assertion is?
I assume you do.
I know Im an ass.
how about you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arthritisR_US Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
117. I concur absolutely! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
143. no
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
144. I've been supporting Kucinich for president since 2002

and will not quit. It's appalling that three "Democrats" allowed a network to keep a real Democrat out of the debate. Now we know who they are, by their actions, or rather their lack of actions.

They'll be kicking Edwards off the island next, watch for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Allison Kilkenny Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
146. Agreed!
In fact, I wrote about this topic on Huffington Post the other day, and I wanted to post it here because I knew there would be other concerned citizens fuming over Kucinich's exclusion.

Those Crazy Liberals!

Last night, two Dennis Kucinich supporters screamed during Jay Leno's Tonight Show. They rudely interrupted Jay's Bill Maher interview. The audience seemed confused, Bill and Jay seemed pissed.

In Bill's defense, the Loose Change crazies have been hounding him for years now, and periodically infiltrate his Real Time sound studio to shout their poorly synchronized slogans. So Bill's not that keen on people shouting crap at him, and he might have thought it was 9/11 conspiratorial nonsense. I'm assuming this because Bill Maher should know more than anyone the importance of free speech, and surely he doesn't believe the only people allowed to express their opinions are individuals with HBO talk shows.

The Kucinich supporters yelled two slogans: "Let Dennis debate! Stop censorship! Help save democracy!" and "GE, NBC, Put Impeachment on TV!"

Jay asked the audience if anyone could understand what they said, the crowd murmured, a few smatterings of "no," and the show moved on.

The entire interaction was about a minute long. It was awkward. I cringed through the whole thing.

Why do crazy liberals do things like that? I say liberals because you rarely see a suit-wearing Conservative hold up a sad, limp piece of cardboard during the Republican debates with a psychotically lettered message of: "MORE PRIVATIZATION!!!" scrawled across its face.

"TWO, FOUR, SIX, EIGHT!....KEEP DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING! THINGS ARE GREAT FOR US RICH PEOPLE!"

This is uncommon because random acts of desperate protest are reserved for a repressed, voiceless minority. Except, in America, the silenced minority is actually the majority. Most of us are poor, can't afford health insurance, think the Iraq war is pointless, and would like to mend our country's world image.

With all that being said, why are people continually shocked by these random outbreaks? I'm shocked there's not MORE of them.

Maybe it's because the protests of the sixties, and all the hippy girls placing flowers in the barrels of soldiers' guns, are considered cliché because liberals are way too cool to protest now. To protest you have to be -- like, you know -- angry and shit. It's very uncool to scream passionately about something. It's disruptive and rude. It doesn't accomplish anything. We've heard all these reasons to shut up and sit down before.

And yet, people keep protesting. Their numbers are fewer now, but you still see them. They're the annoying hippies that get in the way of your daily routines. They're the 80 activists in Washington, who wore orange jumpsuits and black hoods outside the Supreme Court, protesting Guantanamo. Sometimes, they lay down in streets to block traffic, or they walk into St. Patrick's Cathedral and lay down in the aisles to symbolize the causalities of the AIDS epidemic as the ACT-UP members did in 1989. Sometimes they ride bikes, or paint their faces, or wear crazy outfits.

The point is: they keep resisting. They keep resisting even when most citizens give them the stink-eye when they cause traffic jams and make a lot of noise.

Why would any sane person publicly humiliate themselves like that? What force drives people to stand up and start screaming like they're on fire?

Sane people only scream when they feel they have no other outlet for their voices. Bill Maher and Jay Leno have a public stage from which they can voice their political views. Jay uses his stage for comedy (I'm using the loose definition of comedy,) and Bill uses his stage for comedy (real definition), political discussion, and to show off his balls of steel when he dismisses the existence of God.

Whoever these Dennis Kucinich supporters are, they clearly felt enough desperation to risk embarrassment and jail time in order to reach a mainstream audience about what they perceived as social injustice. That's not crazy. That's brave. That's braver than most of us will ever be during our measly little lives.

I propose this: those protesters didn't interrupt a late night talk show. That late night talk show interrupted what should be our collective outrage. We should all be so furious and outspoken. Instead, we all slowly blinked and stared glassy-eyed at the television and computer screens, our mouths opening and closing like grazing cows'.

Protesting is a healthy part of any democracy, and yet it is increasingly marginalized as a form of communication. Instead of carefully regulating media activity, the FCC and its soulless Harry Potter king, Kevin Martin, have opened the door to all kinds of insane mergers of already monstrously large corporations. Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp recently absorbed The Wall Street Journal and the latest word from Wall Street is that the Sirius and XM merger is back on the table. All the while, more fringe voices are forced out or silenced by new uber-management at the helm of these giant corporations.

So as the public airwaves are bought and sold to huge conglomerates, the networks' voices become narrower and simultaneously louder as more mergers occur. They pump into the public one truth -- their truth -- and silence any form of protest.

This brings us back to little Dennis Kucinich. NBC is a major network owned by a multinational conglomerate, GE. When the higher-ups (several of who include contributors to other presidential candidates) decided Kucinich's voice was not essential to the debate, they nixed him several days AFTER telling Kucinich's people he met the requirements to debate.

Using insane doublespeak that would make Orwell vomit blood, NBC claimed Dennis Kucinich was violating THEIR first amendment rights by fighting, biting, and clawing his way onto their precious, pure network, and sullying everything with his liberal propaganda. To be fair, though, I hear Dennis is terrifying in real life. Brian Williams says his eyes glow red in the dark.

And so we arrive back at forms of protest. Forced off NBC's airwaves, Dennis appeared on DemocracyNow!, a daily independent news program hosted by Amy Goodman. Goodman showed footage of the NBC debate, and then periodically cut back to Kucinich so he had time to give his answers.

How sad is that? That's what Democracy is becoming in America...a fake debate. Goodman and Kucinich should be applauded for their form of stubborn protest, but everyone else: GE, NBC, and all participants of the fake Nevada debate, should feel ashamed and embarrassed for our supposed democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wintersoulja Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #146
148. yow!
another crazy! Welcome to the asylum!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
150. Kucinich should be heard
I support Edwards, but I have no disagreements with Kucinich and want his voice to be heard.

What Democrat would not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC