Kucinich and Sharpton should be excluded from the Feb. 26th debate

[bluestateguy]

These two gentlemen are simply not major candidates any more. Good men both, and I liked a lot of what they had to say, but they are no longer serious contenders for the Democratic nomination. Sharpton and Kucinich had their chance to prove their electoral viability. We need to begin focusing the dialogue on those candidates with a realistic chance to be nominated.

[Paulie]

1. We're not even half way there

Why do you want to exclude IDEAS?

Plus, without Kucinich or Sharpton, the audience will have NOTHING to applaud. Simply the fact.

[Cuban_Liberal]

2. Absolutely NOT!

If they're still actively campaigning as Democrats for the nomination of our party, simple respect and common decency DEMAND that they be included!

[Dookus]

7. People

pulling 1% of the vote do not deserve 25% of the debate time offered.

They were given a fair shake in all the previous debates and didn't catch on. If they don't have the grace to withdraw from the race, that's their fault. Candidates with zero chance of winning aren't owed a permanent platform to espouse their views.

Nobody says they have to shut up. They can say whatever they want whenever they want. But the debates should focus on the candidates who have a shot at winning.

[Paulie]

9. Lets give them a fair shake in ILLINOIS

I'd like to vote please!!!!

And watching the debate, Kerry got an amount of questions that was more like 50%, so your 25% to Dennis goes right out the freaking window.

[Dookus]

15. vote for whomever you want

I don't care.

My point is simply that vanity candidates should be given a fair shot at the beginning. They were given one.

Now, well into the primaries, they're not getting any meaningful number of votes, nor are they likely to.

[youngred]

57. Let's see

because they have no money their only way to get national coverage is at the debates, so yeah you are denying them a right to talk.

Further Kerry got 18 chances to speak at the last debate to Kucinich's 8. In the Washington Post and NYT the next morning Sharpton and Kucinich got 2 lines COMBINED in coverage. That's not 25%

[Rooktoven]

81. But if they don't meet the requirement....

I say "Thank's for your input guys...See ya." I'd feel this way if Clark and Dean were still involved too. The most substantive debates generally have the fewest people.

Oh sure, we won't hear a Sharpton wisecrack one-liner, but that really doesn't affect how anyone is going to vote.

[loudnclear]

86. Only if you want to piss off an important segment of the base!

Kucinich and Sharpton are only two true-blooded Dems in the race. They have never waivered from their original positions on the issues including the Iraqi invasion. To disrespect these ment at this point would incite the anti-war and minority part of the base who have been energized by these men. Of course, that may be just what CNN wants to do but we should not let them without expressing our outrage.

[aldian159]

89. Lyndon is activly campaigning, you want him in?

I don't. Viability is important.

[loudnclear]

110. Yes, I want LaRouche in, he has some issues that need to be heard.

How can we criticize other countries and their election processes when we continue to bastardize our own. If a hundred candidate want to run they should. No one complained when the Rethugs had nine candidates.

[eileen_d]

3. Hasn't there already been a thread about this?

I'm sorry, but if you are concerned about this, you might want to contact the folks in charge of the debate. Otherwise you are just alienating other candidate supporters.

Edit: I guess the other thread is a poll... I stick by my point though.

[dawgman]

33. There have been about a hundred of these effin things

since the first debate. The DLC didn't want AS DK or CMB at the first debate.

[Dookus]

4. agreed

they've been given every fair shot to win the nomination. They're doing abominably in the actual voting.

Nobody is owed a free platform for their vanity candidacy forever. They were given their chance, they didn't do well, and now we need to focus on the candidates who can actually win.

[Cuban_Liberal]

6. Who makes that decision?

If they are still candidates actively seeking the nomination, then they should be allowed to debate. Simple decency and respect for their supporters demands no less.

[Dookus]

10. The people running the debates should decide that...

but I think that at this stage of the campaign, any candidate consistly pulling less than 5% of the vote should be excluded.

I like Sharpton AND Kucinich. It's not about them. But what if there were 15 vanity candidates still in the race? Do they all deserve equal time?

The debates are for us to help choose a candidate. I don't believe somebody polling at 1% deserves the same amount of time as someone pulling 45%.

[Cuban_Liberal]

14. I disagree.

It's a matter of RESPECT, for them and their supporters.

[Dookus]

17. Then

why isn't LaRouche in the debates? What about all the other "no-name" people who are technically running for President?

I'm not saying we should disrespect Kucinich and Sharpton. I'm saying that their candidacies have NO chance of succeeding, and having given them a fair shot, it's time for the debates to focus on the candidates who have a chance to win.

[Cuban_Liberal]

18. Straw man.

LaRouche isn't EVEN in tyhe same class as Kucinich or Sharpton, and I resent the mention of his name in the same breath as theirs.

[Dookus]

30. resent away

My point is that there *IS* a line drawn as to who can appear in the debates. We are discussing simply where that line should be.

[Cuban_Liberal]

34. And I've already stated where I believe that is.

If they're actively seeking the nomination, they should be included.

[Dookus]

35. there are other

people actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic party who are excluded.

[Cuban_Liberal]

40. If I see the names Hamm or LaRouche, I'll barf!

:eyes:

[Dookus]

42. Again...

barf away.

Seriously Tony, indignance is not an argument.

Why do YOU get to decide that Kucinich is worthy, but LaRouche is not? I'm talking about the principle here - fringe candidates are routinely excluded from the debates. I see no reason to consider Sharpton, for example, any less of a fringe candidate than some others.

[Cuban_Liberal]

43. I see these differences.

They are not fascist nutcases, but loyal Democrats who have and continue to run active campaigns for the nomination.

[arwalden]

47. Courtesy For Courtesy's Sake Is Dilluting The Quality Of The Debates...

at this late (and rather obvious stage).

Emily Post would be proud of you, but the stakes are high and this is hardball politics now. We're beyond the need for vanity campaigns that "work" in the early weeks. At this point they are a distraction.

-- Allen

P.S. I doubt you have anything to worry about.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

65. We Disagree, Dawgman.

[Dookus]

66. well reasoned and well argued

Now instead of anger, why not give a coherent explanation of WHY exactly all candidates deserve equal time with the actual contenders in the debates at this point.

Nobody says Kucinich should've been excluded all along. The fact is, though, that he's going absolutely nowhere and has zero chance of securing the nomination. Why is he owed a permanent platform in the debates?

[dawgman]

78. You know what? I have given "well-reasoned" arguments before,

feels like a million times before. Why do any of them deserve to have a spot in the debates? The answer is that the country needs the choice. Why should California or New York NOT have a chance to have these extraordinary men speak to them about their concerns? Because Iowa, Wisconsin and New Hampshire were told by the party and the media that they needed vote for someone that posessed the ever ethereal quality known as "electibility?" Who the Hell is CNN and FOX News to tell ME who is electible or not?

AS and DK are the only candidates that have any shot at motivating the disillusioned 50% of non-voting Americans to get out and vote. The R's and D's fight over 10% of "swing voters" while completely ignoring those that could permanently tip the balance.

Give people a choice for fuck's sake, make them excited to take part in the political process. Get them excited to vote for someone who will care about them, not big business. Give them something other than Homestyle OJ and Pulp Free OJ and maybe they will drink.

[anarchy1999]

105. Thank you so much,

Just exactly what I wanted to say.

Oh, and by the way, I don't think I've seen a real debate yet. Anyone else here take speech and debate in high school? What happened when you had a debate? Shouldn't each candidate have had the opportunity to answer each question posed by the moderator of each "debate"?

And just exactly what has been fair about the coverage given to Kucinich or Carole M or Sharpton in any one of the "debates"? Or in the media coverage? Is the definition of fair that they were allowed to stand upon the same stage as the others and be asked an occasional question?

Being asked once again to vote for the lesser of two evils, I find to be repugnant. Sorry. That is just how I feel and I'm not sure I can handle having to vote for Kerry.

[youngred]

79. you still have yet to present a logical argument for censorship

and you're the one advocating it. And don't mention LaRouche, that's absurd

[Dookus]

49. and that's your spin on it

why is your spin more valuable than somebody else's?

There are in fact sincere LaRouche supporters who would adamantly disagree with your characterization. I happen to agree with yours, but you can certainly see the problem with using YOUR criteria to decide this.

[Rooktoven]

82. The filter that removes likable fringe candidates

also removes the fringe nut-cases. Winnowing HAS to occur sometime--or you potentially end up with a nominee who has 20% support.

[OhioStateProgressive]

50. well

A sitting Congressman, recognized by the DNC is certainly a few classes higher than LaRouche

that's the main one

[Dookus]

52. OK...

now that's something. So if the criteria that being a sitting congressman is good enough, what about Sharpton?

[OhioStateProgressive]

55. well

the second part, he is recognized by the party as an official candidate

[youngred]

60. you had a point?

I thought you were just being rude and dismissive of a very valuable section of the party

[arwalden]

45. A Point Has Been Made

And a double-standard has been spotted.

[arwalden]

44. LaRouche.

[Cptn Kirk]

87. So the GOP should decide who runs for the Dem nomination

Or maybe you haven't noticed who owns the media, and you just stated should be allowed to decide?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ABK2004]

8. I thought this was the "Democratic" party

excluding certain voices or ideas is just wrong.

[Dookus]

certain voices

are excluded all the time. Lyndon LaRouche isn't in the debates. There are probably hundreds of other declared candidates who are also not in the debates.

The fact is a line is ALWAYS drawn regarding who gets to participate. The question is where that line should be.

[youngred]

64. LaRouche is such a BULLSHIT strawman

The man is a convicted criminal who thinks the Queen of England is the head of an International Drug Cartel. That you make a comparison between that nutjob and DK makes me sick to my stomach. LaRouche is a Democrat in NAME ONLY and does not represent anything in the party. DK does and this censorship is apalling.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

90. If you'd ever actually talked to LaRouche supporters, you'd know

that they're from Cloud Cuckoo Land. They talk nonsense and look as if they live in their mother's basement.

The DK supporters I know are longtime peace and justice advocates who FINALLY have a candidate they can support wholeheartedly.

[youngred]

92. Absolutely

I've spoken with more LaRouche supporters than I care to have, since they are always canvassing the college looking for gullible minds.

[jpgray]

11. Totally disagree (nt)

[kurtyboy]

12. No way they should be excluded--NEVER

These two are able to say what the base of the party needs to hear, without risking too much in the process. Sharpton and Kucinich can call the pResident a liar on national TV, and the party takes no real hits.

While they're doing that, Kerry and Edwards can look all Presidential and still have the important message move to the swing votes.

We can't lose on this. At the same time, nobody should doubt that the the voices these candidates add to the process are valuable on their own merit. Kucinich and Sharpton should have a seat at the table right into the Convention.

[DuctapeFatwa]

13. Both propose things that deviate from the status quo

And this is plainly evident every time either of them opens his mouth.

The election is not about issues, and it is understood that any candidate who proposes an actual change in policies, especially if those changes would not be supportive of business interests, is unelectable.

Kucinich and Sharpton merely emphasize the reassurance of policy continuity offered by the others, and empower the voters to choose which of them re-phrases the status quo in the most attractive terms.

All 3 comfort candidates are much more telegenic and well-spoken than bush, and that is what counts.

[RichM]

22. DF - there's a typo here. You meant "Kerry & Edwards," not "Sharpton."

Other than that you're exactly right.

[DuctapeFatwa]

23. Fixed. Thanks! :) (nt)

[Baclava]

16. Are you kidding?

Listening to Al Sharpton is worth the price of admission

[sabbat hunter]

38. no sharpton...

for me would be fine. despite him being entertaining, there is no way i am voting for him, even if he were to win the democratic nomination.

I dont think any ordained ministers should hold elective office, especially the president


peace
david
:hippie:

[revcarol]

19. Another $5.00 for Dennis.

Any time there is a thread that suggests he quit or is slighted in any way, I send him another $5.00.

Bluestateguy, Dennis thanks you.

[Paulie]

20. I'm sending $50

Because I'm PISSED! :)

[dawgman]

29. I can only send 5 but if this keeps up I'll be at $50 soon

[Dookus]

63. good for you

Kucinich should drop out. Kucinich should drop out. Kucinich should drop out. Kucinich should drop out. Kucinich should drop out. Kucinich should drop out. Kucinich should drop out. Kucinich should drop out. Kucinich should drop out. Kucinich should drop out.

Send him 50 bucks on me.

I'm not going to quit espousing my views because of this. I like Kucinich - send him all the money you have. I don't care.

The fact is, he has zero chance at winning the nomination. I have not said he should've been excluded all along. I'm saying that now that we have to pick a candidate, the people with a real chance to win should have a chance to have a REAL debate. People polling under 3% at this stage of the game do NOT deserve a permanent free platform to espouse their views.

[youngred]

69. so what about in Washington

where he outpolled Edwards and Clark or Maine where he outpolled Clark and Edwards Combined???

3% is one primary. You do NOT deserve a platform to espouse your view because as near as I can tell your brand of censorship is polling far below 1% of DUers...but we let you post anyway ;-)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

93. If that's how you "like" Dennis

I'd hate to see how you treat candidates you dislike.

By the way, you've just earned DK another $5.00

The idea is not to shut you up, but just to show you that snarky remarks only energize DK's supporters.

[rhite5]

102. I am sending another $50 right now!

How sad that some Democrats are so shallow they do not hear the messages in what Dennis has to say, or Al's messages either for that matter. Who else is going to carry those messages? The media sure isn't. The leading candidates have to carefully avoid those messages.

The term "vanity candidate" is a Republican slam that has been used by many in the media. Democrats who repeat it just show that they have absorbed that GOP-media message.

Someday most will realize they missed the opportunity to turn our country around, by then it will be too late.

The movement that Dennis has started will long outlive this election.

[ibegurpard]

21. Good Christ!

Knock it off, will you? Whether or not your opinion is correct is beside the point...antagonizing people and potentially disenfranchising passionate supporters of other candidates is NOT smart.

[hippywife]

24. Categorizing them as vanity candidates

is discrediting the voice of all Americans. Kucinich is NOT a vanity candidate. He is in this to re-direct the dialogue and actions back to what the Democratic party is supposed to stand for but hasn't in a long time because no one has had the guts until now.

Maybe Kerry should be the one to drop out. He's had 30 years to keep this party on the right heading. What happened?

This isn't an exercise in king-making.

[Monument]

25. I totally agree

Please Al and Dennis stay at home and watch like the rest of us so that we can focus on the issues rather than the horse race.

We've had so many people in this race, the only thing people have focused on is the "horse race" rather than the issues. By eliminating several we can become more focused and help people make the RIGHT decision.

[youngred]

73. I find that very ironic

Let me get this straight? People polling under 5% are the only reason there is a focus on the horse race? What effect do they have on that if they're so far out of it?

You want to stop legitimate views on the issues from being heard so we can talk about the issues?

You have some zany ass logic there

[LWolf]

26. Okay.

You're absolutely right. They should be excluded. So you guys don't need me come March 2nd. Or in November. If it's ok to exclude candidates from the pack, it's ok to exclude voters. You can take it as a given that if you exclude my candidate from participating, you are excluding me from participating in voting for a democrat.

You don't need me anyway, you've got it all locked up. Right?

[KathCO]

27. Kerry and dean should be excluded from all debates from now on.

eom

[gate of the sun]

28. I disagree

Kucinich and Sharpton are the only ones worth listening to.....the primaries are not over....people still may wake up and leave Kerry in the dust.

[MurikanDemocrat]

31. No way!

The debates don't have to be about distinguishing between the candidates, but can be used as a platform to focus on Bush. And it's free publicity. Sharpton and Kucinich add a lot to the debate. I don't care if they don't have a realistic chance to be nominated.

Did you watch the last debate? Sharpton and Kucinich both called Bush a liar! I want to see Bush get more of a beating before you put them to pasture.

[Mick Knox]

32. I agree....

They are running in the few %'s everywhere... with no chance.. send them on their way - they take time away from Viable candidates who we need to hear.

[LWolf]

36. Okay.

I'm going. :hi:

Where is that bus seat for the disenfranchised? Where is that bus heading, anyway? Some party that will consider me or my vote or my choice viable?

[youngred]

74. Time?

Kucinich spoke 8 times
Kerry spoke 18

Kucinichn and Sharpton hammered Bush hard eloquently and passionately
Kerry waffled and tried to explain his past votes away in a manner that had everyon in the audience tuning out efter 3 words

3 pages of coverage devoted to the debates mostly went to Kerry, Edwards and Dean in the NYT and Washington Post. Kucinich and Sharpton got 2 lines COMBINED.

I think you can afford that little time when the election isn't for another 9 months

[Robbien]

37. If you want my support for your candidate in Nov. then respect mine now

I will vote ABB, but my heart and vote goes to Kucinich. I have a vote for him when the primaries get to my state in March and until then I want to hear what he has to say.

[minkyboodle]

39. No way!!!

And some on this board wonder why people talk of voting for a third party. Really wonderful.
Scott

[MuseRider]

41. Totally

un fucking believable. I may be a tad on the cranky side because I am sick so take this with that in mind please. What ever happened to democracy, fairness, civility and kindness? This is bullshit and you know it (so much for my own civility). Vanity candidate my ass. I guess I should not react to posts that obviously do not understand what this is all about and this one obviously has no clue.

[joyautumn]

46. Afraid of Kucinich and Sharpton

Kerry, Edwards and Dean supporters do have a tactical interest in excluding Sharpton and Kucinich from the debates, because they keep getting trounced by them on the issues, and in Kucinich's case, because he actually has more cash on hand right now than Kerry, Edwards or Dean.

The fact is, Sharpton and Kucinich are the only serious candidates because they're the only ones focusing on issues and principles important to real democracy, real economic stability and real national security, and the only ones with real track records sticking their necks out supporting real democracy, real economic stability and real national security.

Unfortunately, that is precisely why they are so far behind, because the corporate media, the voting public, the major campaign donors and the party establishment all agree that a candidate who simply blurts out the truth about the corruptness of our political system is just too naive to take seriously -- because most voters and political insiders know that the rich and powerful control the country, and don't feel there is any practical hope for radical change through the electoral process.

Isn't that why DU'ers diss Kucinich? Because they think he's promoting electoral naivete by speaking the truth? "Shhh -- we're trying to sneak one of us past the noses of the rich and powerful."

But the real naivete is what I suspect lurks behind most of the support for the "major" candidates: the delusion that they are secretly just as good on the issues as Kucinich or Sharpton, but smart enough not to admit it during an election year, and smart enough to promote what Kucinich and Sharpton espouse in some stealth fashion once in office.

A lot of people still think this about Bill Clinton, and blame all of his anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-Bill-Of-Rights actions on people who were not, like him, the President of the United States. But anyone who looks seriously at who Bill Clinton is and always was politically, knows that he did exactly what he was intended to do -- wage war against both progressive and conservative elements across the country who might stand in the way of corporate globalization. And that is exactly what a Kerry, Dean or Edwards administration will continue to do, and nothing else.

[minkyboodle]

97. fantastic post JoyAutumn

A Belated welcome to DU!!!!! We need more posts like this.
Scott

[rhite5]

103. Excellent post, JoyAutumn! You said what needed to be said.

and another welcome to DU!

[Padraig18]

48. What an outrageous suggestion!

I can't believe this is even being posited on a progressive message board! :wtf:

[Dookus]

51. then please provide

a reason OTHER THAN YOUR OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS that all the other candidates running in the Democratic primary should be excluded.

Forget about whether you like LaRouche. What is the LOGICAL reason to exclude him? What about the other candidates?

What if there were 15 such vanity candidates all polling under 5%. Would they ALL deserve equal time with Kerry, Dean and Edwards?

[Padraig18]

54. Counter-question.

When all active Democratic candidates have been allowed to participate until such time as they dropped out, why institute NEW criteria NOW? (Don't mention LaRouche---I will ignore the reference).

[Dookus]

59. because everybody was given a fair chance

up until now. Now the primaries are under way and there's more than enough evidence to indicate that Sharpton, for example, has absolutely no chance of winning the nomination.

And why ignore LaRouche? I'm using him as an example of somebody with sincere supporters who is running as a Democrat. I don't like him any more than you do, but he's just an example. There are other people running for the nomination, too. They've been excluded from the debates all along.

this isn't about individuals. I really like Kucinich, and I find Sharpton a lot of fun in the debates. But I don't believe they DESERVE equal time with the candidates who actually have a chance to win.

[Padraig18]

62. Who says they can't win?

Last time I checked, 75% of the delegates had NOT been selected.

[Dookus]

68. Nobody is seriously

suggesting that Sharpton is going to pull out a surprise win. You know that.

He tends to pull under 3% in the polls and the actual races. There's no indication that's going to change. Why does he deserve equal time with a candidate pulling 45%?

[Padraig18]

70. I know nothing of the sort.

You don't change the rules at the end of the 1st quarter in any FAIR game that I'm aware of...

[Dookus]

77. *shrug*

ok

If you feel Sharpton has an equal chance of winning the nomination as Kerry or Edwards, there's obviously nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

But I don't believe you believe that. I think you're pretending to in order to back up your desire to have them in the debate.

Personally, I want to see a debate between Kerry and Edwards. I like them both and could vote for either one. I, and many others, would like to see them debate each other.

[Padraig18]

80. Then let them buy their own air time.

:)

[Cptn Kirk]

91. So I assume you have not watched FAUX/CNN/etc the past few months?

FAIR CHANCE? GET REAL! Look at how DK/Al have been treated in the media. You call that fair? Whatever.

[Robbien]

56. Because you need our votes to win in November

Stop telling us to STFU now.

Is that good enough reason?

[jonnyblitz]

99. lol, paddy....

you people that think this board is progressive crack me up.

[youngred]

53. Pardon thisbut.....

WHO THE FUCK CARES IF THEY'RE MAJOR?????

We need dialogue, not Edwards and Kerry bouncing platitudes off each other while Dean tries to refrain himself. It's not like they take up much time, they're the best speakers on stage, and as far as morning after and after event coverage they get 2 lines, if that.

Stop trying to censor the best choice for America

[Desertrose]

58. No! No No NO !

This is such bullshit.....

Dennis & Al are the only ones who have anything to say that is worth listening to....I can't imagine why we would want them out...they are still in the campaign after all.

I can't believe the dem partty is ignoring the one candidate who can beat bush...cause Kerry simply won't be able to and anyone who thinks he'll be able to pull it off is gonna be disappointed...sorry...thats my gut feeling-and has been my gut feeling for a long time.

Peace
DR

[Renew Deal]

71. Devils Advocate

If people are listening, why aren't they responding? Why not let the serious contenders share the time. The others don't matter at this point and will not win. Why don't we stop wasting precious TV time on them and let the other 2 have it out. We do not need to capitulate to their self serving agenda.

[MidwestMomma]

67. Yeah, I'd want to get rid of the 2 guys getting the most applause too

Kind of distracts from the 'major' candidates doesn't it? :evilgrin:

If they are still running in the primaries, they must be included in the debates. They have a much a right to get their message out as the any other candidate. Thanks for listening...

Go Dennis!

[eileen_d]

72. They're talking about this on CNN right now

No final decision made, but it could very well happen. Personally I'd like them all in there.

[0rganism]

75. How about we wait until AFTER March 2nd? eh?

It's not that much longer, there will be lots of debates between March and June. Clearly, if they're not serious contenders, they have the unique opportunity to say ANYTHING about GWB's policies on mass media without hurting the contenders' chances. In fact, by doing so, they make Dems like Kerry and Edwards seem eminently moderate, which will help quite a bit in deflecting criticism up to the convention.

[bobthedrummer]

76. No they shouldn't be "disappeared"

They are the only candidates that have called Bush a liar for instance.
And Dennis has already made it clear that he will be in this through the convention.
Plus only 25% of the States have been heard from in the form of votes.
Sheesh...

[hedgetrimmer]

83. useless Flame-bait

[Cptn Kirk]

84. Nice to see

you want to minority and liberal vote. Smart suggestion.

[no name no slogan]

85. Great. So now we're down to Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dumber

Boy, that's ONE way to energize the base: get the two most boring, idealess candidates on the same stage for one giant SNOREFEST.

God dammit, Democrats, we should be fighting against the media AND the GOP. Who the hell are we to let CNN dictate the terms of the debates.

If Kerry and Edwards have any class, they will respectfully DECLINE CNN's "debate" as the dog-and-pony show it really is.

I can't BELIEVE other Democrats can even support something this assinine. After all, we are the party of "democracy" right?

[anarchy1999]

106. Absolutely Agree, 2nd the Opinion!!

n/t

[JasonBerry]

88. Agreed BlueStateGuy. Should go without saying really...N/T

[youngred]

94. and yet there are three threads on it right now

:eyes:

[Dhalgren]

95. If Dennis is denied a platform by this party

then I will simply write him in in November. The party can abandon its real progressive base if it so chooses, but in the GE, just remember who walked away from who.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

101. Agreed, if the party ignores Kucinich and Sharpton..

I ignore the party, because they offer abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING.

TWL

[LoneStarLiberal]

96. Mixed Feelings

I'd say include them, but devote a proportional amount of time to the candidates to answer questions based on

Someone wrote earlier about how it would be bad to shut down the two candidates getting the most applause. Fair enough if that's the metric you want to use. But at some point this has to cease being a pep rally and start becoming a race for President.

I know that's what the primaries are all about and believe me, I'm not happy about not even being able to put a yard sign out for my guy since he's already dropped out. But the Republicans certainly aren't going to wait around and play by marquis rules. They're out there right now, snooping, spinning, and plotting all manner of vile shit to hit us with.

I'd be all for including Kucinich but not Sharpton based on the proportional rule and one simple observation: While I really enjoy the Reverend's rhetorical flourish, I can't remember a single debate he's been involved in where he had anything beyond that rhetorical flourish to add to the debate. Sans any productive policy in prior debates, I say vote him off the debate island.

[joyautumn]

100. huh?

kucinich, but not sharpton, when sharpton has 16 delegates to Kucinich's 2?

what proportional rule are you using? it doesn't involve the fraction 3/5ths, does it? why, even 3/5ths of 16 is still more than 2.

[corporatewhore]

98. We dont need leftists voices any way

:eyes:

[MadHound]

104. Funny now BSG

How I always see you calling for somebody to drop out, or somebody to concede, or for somebody to be excluded.

What have you got against letting the normal processes of our democratic system run their course? Why do you continue to push for a coranation? What are you afraid of?

Let everybody in the debates. It airs more points of view, and gives more candidates the chance to slam Shrub. Don't worry, it looks like your boy will get the nod, so keep your pants on and let the process work.

[bicentennial_baby]

107. And you were once a Clark supporter?

Unfuckingbelieveable....So if Clark was still in, would you be calling for him to be excluded? How very progressive of you.

[anarchy1999]

108. It seems as though "the people" have let the media

and the corporations that feed the masses determine the outcome very early on in this election cycle.

It is really sad to see the same thing repeat itself year after election year. I have watched the same things happen in every year that I've been voting (Ford vs. Carter, and I voted for Ford). We have let it happen. The media, the corporations, the lobbying, the lies and distortions, the rigged elections, and we let it go on every year into November 2004.

I can't get out of my mind how chilling it was when Russert asked Bush what he would do if he lost on that recent Sunday morning. Bush looked at him and said "I'm not going to lose". Flashback to November 2000, evening of the election when Gore was declared at first to be the winner in Florida, in spite of all the problems, then it was Bush, then it was too close to call. We all know what came next.

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy! Oh well. Drink the Koolaid, it tastes great.

[CWebster]

109. No they shouldn't

they keep the debate interesting and entertaining and inform the issues for the other more mainstream candidates who have to take their cues from somewhere.

[diamondsoul]

111. Self-delete. Nevermind. n/t