Gravel Will Not Be Included in Next Presidential Debate, Oct. 30 in Philadelphia

[babylonsister]

Gravel out of next Democratic debate

Gravel Will Not Be Included in Next Presidential Debate, Oct. 30 in Philadelphia

BETH FOUHY
AP News

Oct 19, 2007 18:11 EDT

Mike Gravel will not be part of the next Democratic presidential debate, Oct. 30 in Philadelphia.

The former Alaska senator did not meet fundraising and polling requirements for the forum, said NBC News political director Chuck Todd.

The two-hour debate, sponsored by NBC News and the Democratic National Committee, will be telecast on MSNBC. Brian Williams will moderate.

All the other Democratic candidates are expecting to participate, including Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd; former Sen. John Edwards; New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

Gravel has been a lively presence in past debates despite having no campaign staff to speak of and virtually no money. He has raised about $287,000 overall and had $17,000 on hand at the end of the quarter that ended Sept. 30.

more...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/10/gravel_out_of_next_democratic.php

[Myrina]

1. "fundraising and polling requirements" ?

... so that's how candidates are being chosen - not by message but by bank account balance.

Fucking lovely. :mad:

[IndianaGreen]

12. This is a political version of how Wal-Mart drove so many shop owners out of business

How do you think the corner grocery story ceased to exist?

[Cha]

25. Well, they sure as hell don't

like Gravel's Stark Message, either!

[robinlynne]

37. welcome to Amerika.

[Orangepeel]

46. Who would decide by message?

Having "somebody" decide who to invited based on whether or not they had the "right" message sounds a little scary. It's a big tent party, after all.

And, no matter how harsh it seems, there has to be a way to limit participation to candidates who participate in debates. Why? Because these are all the announced candidates for the Democratic nomination:

Announced Laura Davis Aaron Democrat
Announced Roland Aranjo Democrat
Announced Warren Roderick Ashe Democrat
Announced George H. Ballard Democrat
Announced Joseph R. Biden Democrat
Announced Christina Gerasimos Billings-Elias Democrat
Announced Robert Edwin Boyer Democrat
Announced Ryan Joseph Brady Democrat
Announced Emperor Caesar Democrat
Announced Raymond Joseph Caplette Democrat
Announced Tommy C. Cardenas Democrat
Announced Willie Felix Carter Democrat
Announced Hillary Rodham Clinton Democrat
Announced Randolph Wilson Crow Democrat
Announced Jack L Dietz Democrat
Announced Christopher J. Dodd Democrat
Announced John Reid Edwards Democrat
Announced Philip Epstein Democrat
Announced Lou-Gary Espinosa Democrat
Announced Michael Keith Forrester Democrat
Announced Danny M. Francis Democrat
Announced Dory Frank Democrat
Announced Wrendo Johnson P. Godwin Democrat
Announced Maurice Robert Gravel Democrat
Announced Albert Hamburg Democrat
Announced Gerald Lamar Hankins Democrat
Announced William Charles Hughes Democrat
Announced Keith Russell Judd Democrat
Announced John Joseph Kennedy Democrat
Announced Karl Everett Krueger Democrat
Announced Dennis J. Kucinich Democrat
Announced Dal Anthony LaMagna Democrat
Announced Monroe Lee Democrat
Announced John Christopher Mason Democrat
Announced Orleans Victor Mcfoy Democrat
Announced Sherry Ann Meadows Democrat
Announced Lee L. Mercer Democrat
Announced Sal Mohamed Democrat
Announced Grover Cleveland Mullins Democrat
Announced Barack Hussein Obama Democrat
Announced Michel Anissa Powell Democrat
Announced Larry Keith Reed Democrat
Announced Bill Richardson Democrat
Announced Barbara Ann Scaff Democrat
Announced Scott J. Sheldon Democrat
Announced Jeffrey Chapman Thomas Democrat
Announced James Wellington Wright Democrat

Should all of them be invited? What if I declare tomorrow? Should I be invited? There has to be some way to limit the number and at least "fundraising and polling requirements" are objective, if consistently applied.


http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_search.php?type=alpha&sort=partyname

[Myrina]

60. I recall in '96 ... C-Span showed the 'alternate debates' ...

... for the 'other' candidates: Workers Party, Communist Party, Natural Law, etc etc ... people the MSM never, ever breathed an iota of ... and the subject matter and platforms discussed were so much more meaningful & practical for Joe and Jane Sixpack than the fluffy spokesmodel bullshit we get from the "anointed" candidates it was amazing.

[Orangepeel]

65. I wish they'd do more of that.

but I don't want 40 people in the Democratic debate.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

91. Well if you went be experience alone

Obama would be far behind Gravel (and everyone else). How would you choose?

[Myrina]

92. That works for me ...

... since I'm not a Hillarite or an Obama Girl, I think going by experience/public service and perhaps by how they've truly represented the 'Democratic Core Platform' would be a good start.

More often than not, it's not the richest candidate that you interview who's the best fit for the job you have open ... so why should the Presidency be decided that way?

[sellitman]

2. That sucks

Until he drops out... he has as every right to be included .

As much as Mrs. Inevitable.






*updated for boneheaded proofing

[bluestateguy]

3. I'm uncomfortable with this policy before anyone has voted

It's one thing to start cutting candidates from the debates once the voting has begun, but to do so before anyone has actually voted is just putting too much power in the hands of the party regulars and the media elites.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Before you know it, your candidate will be next to be dropped!

Gravel is the canary in the mine.

[Jack Bone]

4. That settles it then, I won't watch!

If it isn't fair, why support it?

[Blue_In_AK]

5. That's too bad.

Mike always enlivens the conversation.

[RebelSansCause]

6. this is not democracy

i have no idea what it is but it certainly is not democracy. DK kept debating Kerry even when it was abundantly clear he was not getting any nomination. so what is this? NBC should just declare that the debate will be between Zel Miller and Joe Lieberman, then we will be done with it all. oh wait, they do not meet the necessary "requirements"? who the hell cares?

[ruggerson]

7. Too bad

a third of the time he's the only one who makes sense.

[jenmito]

8. He made Hillary look bad last time. Maybe her people made it happen?

Just sayin'...

[Evergreen Emerald]

9. He made Obama look bad last time...may his people made it happen?

just sayin.

[jenmito]

31. Not really. He turned to Hillary and said he's ashamed of her for her Lieberman vote

and her response got a lot of play. Her inappropriate "natural laugh" as her supporters called it, which has suddenly disappeared, got a lot of coverage.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Gravel took Hillary to task for voting for war on Iran

and he commended Dodd and Biden for voting against the Lieberman war bill.

The corporate owners of the MSM, including Rupert Murdoch, want Hillary to be the Democratic nominee.

[jenmito]

32. He sure did.

Yup, they clearly want her to be our nominee.

[TwilightZone]

28. He pretty much takes everyone to task, so I doubt that it was the work of any one candidate.

He's an equal-opportunity objector.

[jillan]

39. I thought I was the only one that thought these things.

[jenmito]

89. I guess you were wrong...

:hi: :)

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Personally I would rather Gravel still be included

He does spark up the debate, but it is nonsense to say as some here have that he has as much right to be included as any of the front runners. Any registered Democrat can run for President as a Democrat, in many states the filing fees are not prohibitive - what is prohibitive is running even a marginally competitive campaign.

I am in favor of using a liberal standard regarding viability in regards to debate inclusion that does not stop important voices from being heard because of lack of money - to a point. $300,000 nowadays barely pays for an average house in large parts of America. If no threshold standards are considered there would not be a stage big enough in America to hold all of the registered Democrats running for President in a live debate. And yes I know that having been elected to Congress at one time or another can be used as a threshold screening critria. But we have had some nuts buy Congressional seats for at least one term in this nation - not that I consider Senator Gravel to be one of those by any stretch.

I'm just saying that having been elected to Congress by itself should not guarentee anyone permanent inclusion status in every Presidential debate. Initially perhaps, but not if their campaign seems to be going absolutely nowhere after a year and no real resourses are being put into it. Every person who is given a microphone on those debate stages is taking up minutes to deliver their message that could be given to other candidates to explain their own platforms. Debates with 7 to 10 participants are cumbersome and frustrating to watch. Gravel's campaign realisticaly now for the most part consists in showing up for these debates. I can understand someone saying that that is simply not enough.

[IndianaGreen]

15. As Senator Mike Gravel helped bring the Vietnam War to an end

while many of those running for President today helped bring about the Iraq War.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. That's one of the reasons why I would still like him included

I have a lot of respect for that man. But I can't pretend to not understand that having raised less than $300,000 total over the course of a year or more for a Presidential campaign does not qualify someone as a serious candidate, even if they are a serious person.

[Jim Lane]

38. I agree with you about imposition of some standards

It's too bad that most of those decrying this decision have failed to state an alternative: a different qualification rule that would produce a field of suitable size, or a debate with dozens of participants. "I like Gravel's record or his opinions so he should be included" doesn't cut it.

[gateley]

14. So this is America. Shameful. I kind of view Gravel as the Pete Stark of the candidates. nt

[IndianaGreen]

16. I wonder which campaign, or campaigns, asked NBC to rebuke Gravel

and silence his voice? I'll bet we will be surprised to hear that it was more than one candidate.

[Yael]

18. Are we going to have an election or an auction?

Just sayin'

[arendt]

19. Welcome to the corporate simulation of a political campaign...

They are in control. They will decide winners and losers long before a single vote has been cast.

But, hey, its only Mike Gravel.

First they came for Mike Gravel, but I wasn't a superannuated loose cannon, so I did nothing.

Then they came for Dennis Kucinich, but I wasn't as brave as him, so I did nothing.

And, when they came for the last non-establishment candidate, it was too late.

arendt

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. I'll meet you on the barricades for Dennis Kucinich

You won't have to go any further than that down your list to get me outraged. Dennis registers at least one percent in most polls (usually higher of course). Dennis acutally has a staff and some campaign offices. Dennis acutally raises money. We are in the era of the internet, raising some money isn't rocket science. Barack Obama was able to bring in millions of dollars in a few days FROM OUTREACH TO SMALL DONORS. It doesn't take corporate support to raise one million dollars over the course of an entire year while running for President. It just takes having some acutal supporters. Eric Massa, a previously unknown non office holder running for a rural Congressional seat for the first time, raised a million bucks online in 2006 - and that was without accepting any corporate money.

Dennis Kucinich has real support. I will definately help sound the alarm if the powers that be go after his participation in 2008 Presidential debates.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. As I keep pointing out

there are dozens of other, declared candidates who have never been included in a debate.

It's perfectly reasonable to set minimum requirements for participation. A debate with 40+ participants would be useless.

[Nutmegger]

22. This is disgusting.

He should be included. He speaks the truth.

[Telly Savalas]

59. So do I. Is it unfair that I can't be there?

[AzDar]

23. Seems un-American to me. But then again, so much does these days...

[DemBones DemBones]

24. Marginalization of candidates before any votes have been cast is undemocratic

and it started long before this.

Kids are taught in school about how corrupt politics was in the past but not how corrupt it is today.

[Botany]

26. big biz bullshit

not one vote has been cast and a true democracy does better when
all voices are heard.


Ja Ja Ja das ist ein Hillary's turn ..... und you vill like it!

[L0oniX]

27. Well there goes my vote down the drain. Gravel was the only one worth voting for imo.

"Follow the money" -Mike Gravel

[Gregorian]

29. I've been waiting for this. No surprise here.

I'm just very upset about how the corporate sandbagging has been used to minimize our candidates.

Gravel is a sophisticated man, unlike how he appears. He speaks his mind. I find that so refreshing and valuable. I'm thinking of Stark, and how his statement may actually create some momentum.

[AZ Criminal JD]

30. Good to hear

There are only three candidates in this race and the rest of them just clutter up the stage and will not allow a full scale debate. Clinton, Edwards and Obama. That is enough.

[BootinUp]

33. I disagree

It is still early in the real campaign considering we are months away from teh first caucus, I think the top three still need other competition in there to keep them honest.

[AZ Criminal JD]

42. Have you looked at the calendar?

We are not "months away." First caucus Jan 3rd. A little over 70 days.

[Clintonista2]

44. 70 days is "months away"

One month= "a Month away"
Two Months= "Months away"

[Debi]

52. That's the republican caucus

the Democratic caucus is still set for January 14, 2008.

[Yukari Yakumo]

34. Question is... Will he last much longer?

Brownback had enough sense to drop out, and he had $94,000 on hand at the end of September, which is a lot more than Gravel had.

I have to wonder why Gravel continues on anyway...

[slick8790]

57. I can't see him dropping out.

What's he got to lose by staying in?

[Yukari Yakumo]

83. Going into debt. {nt}

uguu

[bigwillq]

35. That's too bad.

He makes the debates interesting to say the least.

[Yael]

36. Maybe someone will ask him to moderate one of these debates

:evilgrin:

[jillan]

40. Gravel is needed in the debates. He keeps all the candidates honest.

Wonder if there is anything we can do.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. If more people gave him money that would help

Put it this way. As of now, Gravel has raised the equivelent of barely over one thousand people in the entire nation maxing out their legal donations to him for one year. All of the Presidential candidates with actual netroots support can raise that type of money online in a single week with a special appeal, but often far more than that as Obama just showed.

I like Gravel in the debates but it seems very few people have liked him enough to actually donate money to help him stage a campaign. You have to do more than just show up at the debates to claim that you are actually running a national campaign for President.

[jillan]

43. Start a thread for him and keep it kicked.

[Yukari Yakumo]

47. A single day?

Try a single hour, two tops.

Unless he can secure some more funds, I think he should drop out. I really hate to seem him go into debt for an effort that is obviously futile at this point.

(... you know... I wonder how fast we can raise $20,000 for Obama, Ed, or Kuch...)

[Vidar]

45. That will teach him for actually bring up real issues.

[in_cog_ni_to]

48. He has to buy his way into a feakin' debate??? That's just ridiculous.

:(

[MonkeyFunk]

49. Where did you get that?

Nowhere in the article does it say candidates must buy their way into the debate.

[in_cog_ni_to]

50. Weeeeell, if the man doesn't have ENOUGH MONEY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE FORUM,

that is the same EXACT THING as having to BUY HIS PLACE IN THE DEBATE. NO MONEY = NO DEBATE. LOTSA $$$$$$$$$ = AN INVITATION TO DEBATE.

Seems pretty simple to me. He had to buy himself a place in the debate!

[MonkeyFunk]

51. Sorry

I just think that's a very strange way to intrepret that. If he had to buy his way in, it would mean NBC charged people for the right to participate. That's not the case.

he didn't meet fundraising or polling milestones, and thus, wasn't invited. Dozens of other candidates are not being included, either, for the same reasons.

The milestones for polling and fundraising must be pretty damned attainable if Kucinich is participating. Gravel didn't meet these very minimum standards, and thus wasn't invited. I see nothing wrong with that.

[LWolf]

53. Transparent corruption.

What, exactly, is "democratic" about exclusion based on money?

[MonkeyFunk]

56. It's not about money

it's about polling and fundraising, which measure his support.

He has next-to-none.

[LWolf]

58. That's transparently obtuse, lol.

Pretending not to know, or simply not noticing, that poll numbers and funds are directly connected to name recognition, which is supplied by the media...all controlled by an established, exclusive power structure.

"Exclusive" being the key word, since that power structure works to exclude those who oppose them.

[Telly Savalas]

62. He's been in several debates already.

If his low poll numbers and nonexistent fundraising stem from a lack of name recognition, then almost nobody is watching the debates, because they'd recognize his name if they had watched.

If nobody is watching the debates, then why does it matter that he's being excluded?

[LWolf]

66. To investigate the problem with that logic,

check out Chris Dodd's "talk clock" for any of the above mentioned debates.

Giving some debaters double and triple the talk time as others helps to cement the preconceptions that people go into debates with.

For that argument to fly, a debate would have to offer equal talk time, and a chance for each candidate to respond to each question.

You know. An actual democratic debate.

[MonkeyFunk]

64. I've seen him in almost all the debates so far

and on most of the major talk shows and news channels.

He's not getting his message out. It's not the media's job to campaign for him. If he can't raise any money or get any traction, it's his problem.

There are dozens of candidates you've never heard of who aren't invited to the debates. That's reasonable.

I don't watch them to see 3 dozen cranks spouting their ideas. I want to see the people who actually have a shot at winning.

Gravel appears to have no shot.

And if Kucinich is invited, the requirements to participate can't be onerously high.

[LWolf]

67. See post # 66. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

70. I did

and again, not all candidates are equal.

Gravel doesn't deserve time and attention equal to people who are actually polling above 1%.

[LWolf]

75. Until the system is clean,

poll numbers aren't a valid reflection of voters' true evaluation of a candidate.

Frankly, I find the use of poll numbers to "push" some candidates and exclude others to be corrupt, as well.

[MonkeyFunk]

77. and yet

relative unknowns like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton managed to become president.

Gravel's problem is not that too few people have heard his message.

[LWolf]

84. I disagree. Profoundly. But then, you knew that.

So what is it you want to play here? The last word game?

[Desertrose]

54. Well that just sucks.

"The former Alaska senator did not meet fundraising and polling requirements for the forum, said NBC News political director Chuck Todd."



Holy shit. These *debates* are becoming more & more of a joke all the time.

Why they even call them "debates" is beyond me.

[hedgehog]

55. It's not the first time a candidate with suporters has been denied

access to a debate over a fundraising requirement.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0824-33.htm

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. Many kind of like him, but who are his supporters?

Seriously, would he get more votes than Lyndon Larouche in a Democratic Primary? Gravel is struggling to get 1% of the vote out of over 50,000 cast so far in the Democracy For America poll to see who that organization should support - and that is a left leaning group of activists. Has Gravel ever gotten one percent of the vote here in any DU poll? Our numbers are relatively small and can easily be skewed - granted, but how about at Kos? In July he got 1% of the votes over there, but in the last two polls (involving over 20,000 votes each) his support got rounded down to 0% there. And Kos voters skew left compared to average Democrats also.

If Gravel had more than a relative handful of real supporters he probably could have raised more money than the less than $300,000 total for the year nationaly that he now reports.

I like Gravel, but I don't call myself one of his supporters. It seems that very few people actually do relative to the scale of a National Presidential race. That's his current problem.

[Radical Activist]

61. Thank goodness.

He comes off as crazy and an embarrassment to the party.

[Rhythm and Blue]

68. Good. He's not a serious candidate. nt

[slick8790]

69. What constitutes a serious candidate? n/t

[Rhythm and Blue]

71. Having more than, say, 0.5% support among your party.

The debates cannot be (and are not supposed to be) a forum for every crank with an axe to grind to speak at length. If he can't raise money or garner supporters, that isn't the media's fault. It's not their job to campaign for him.

[slick8790]

73. Fair enough.

But exlcuding those candidates from debates doesn't exactly give them a lot of ways for them to move themselves out of 0.5%, don't you think?

[Rhythm and Blue]

74. That isn't the media's job.

The media's job is to give candidates a forum to explain their differences. The media's job is not to give candidates free airtime in hopes they might pick up a few supporters this late in the game. If he can't manage to gather any supporters, that isn't MSNBC's fault, and I wouldn't expect them to invite him any more than I should expect them to invite you or me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. It did make sense to include Gravel in the initial debates

Largely for the reason you give here, to give him a broader audiance to appeal to. The man has been a United States Senator, that was reason enough to allow him to make the initial cut over dozens of other registered Democrats who are running for President in total obscurity - even if he didn't have much money initially.

But obscure Democrats sometimes raise as much money as Gravel has, just to compete in Democratic primaries for Congressional seats. How much money was Christine Cegalis able to raise running against Duckworth in the 2006 Primary? She wasn't a former U.S. Senator and she did not have establishment support - but she did win supporters and she did raise money.

Gravel has gotten a lot of free national exposure by now. How many debates have there been? I saw him participate at Yearly Kos in early August on equal footing with everyone else there, in front of thousands of kos members. Gravel still is registering (literally) 0% support in Kos presidential preference polls.

I am not naive enough to think that if the national media is mostly (but not totally) ignoring you that merely taking part in the National Debates can propell you into the top ranks, but that isn't what was asked of Gravel. He hasn't gone from winning .35% support from Democrats to getting 1.5% support - his support hasn't grown at all. It is flat and it is miniscule. If it were growing steadily, even if the overall numbers were low, if his fund raising was picking up, even if others were raising far far more than he, I would feel differently about this.

[MonkeyFunk]

72. somebody with supporters

somebody who has a following. Somebody who can raise even a token amount of money. Somebody who has a chance of winning.

That is not Gravel.

[maximusveritas]

78. For those who are upset by this, what criteria would you use to determine who appears at the debates

And if you say you wouldn't have any criteria, do you have any idea how many candidates have announced their candidacy for President?
Would you really like to have all them in the debates?

Obviously Gravel has some status as a former Senator, but shouldn't there be some objective criteria to determine who appears in the debates?

[Colobo]

79. Good news.

[Carrieyazel]

80. Gravel must have gotten under Hillary's skin after he called her out

in that last debate on that detestable Iran vote. I want Gravel in. He has nothing to lose. But of course we can't be slamming Hillary in a debate. That really irritates her, you know. We cannot have that.

[Rhythm and Blue]

81. So Hillary ordered him gone?

:rofl: You'd think if she could do that, she would have killed Obama's candidacy before it even started.

[PBass]

82. Get a grip on yourselves, Gravel isn't even campaigning...

Kos showed Gravel's campaign schedule maybe a week ago, and it was practically empty. It was a joke. Meanwhile the other candidates make multiple appearances in a single day. Gravel doesn't have any money and his polling is abysmal, because he's not even trying.

If you folks think that running for president means just showing up for a few big TV appearances, with no campaign activity in between, then by all mean continue your complaining. But Gravel has nobody to blame but himself.

[Rhythm and Blue]

85. I kind of get the impression that Gravel is just a crotchety old man

who likes to yell at people, and that's about all. His debate performances have been overwhelmingly rambling, disjointed attacks on everyone else. He has no real positions of his own ("I oppose my opponents" is not one), and he doesn't seem to actually have a campaign. He's not in it to win...he's pretty much just in it to do what he's done so far.

[Tom Rinaldo]

86. Lord knows there's room for a crotchety old man in this race

What's not to be crotchety about? Some of Gravels's one liners have been a breath of fresh air and true classics in American politics. The real problem is that he isn't really in the race, he just shows up for some free air time. Hell, I would love some free air time too (actually I would probably like to send a personally selected surragate to use it for me - maybe someone like Bernie Sanders).

[Rhythm and Blue]

87. Well, that's what I'm saying.

I mean, he's been fun. But he obviously isn't running a campaign, he's just showing up to do what he does.

[BigDDem]

88. Who?

[oasis]

90. Great news.

:bounce: