digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Mike Gravel Banned From MSNBC Debate!

politinks.com — "...Corporate censorship has taken over the Presidential race. I have been excluded unfairly from the MSNBC Debate at Drexel University this Tuesday. Why? GE owns MSNBC and NBC. Last minute, they claimed I did not raise enough money..."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ReinMasamuri, on 10/31/2007, -12/+3I'm tired of Shout spam.
    I'm burying EVERY shout spam I get.
  • jdoe562, on 10/31/2007, -1/+9I call shenanigans. You know your country isn't a true democracy when you have to be rich to become president. Also when politicians don't base their issues on what they believe, but rather whichever corporation pays them the most money to believe. I hate this place. Sweden, here I come!
    • JAVandiver, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2You do know that the United States was not founded to be a true democracy, right?
  • Corrosionx, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4Kucinich was there and he was begging for government funds for his campaign not one month ago... what gives?
  • thechr0nic, on 10/31/2007, -0/+12I do not plan to vote for Gravel, however, I think it is wrong to not include all presidential candidates.
    It is important for the American public to hear from all candidates to get a sense of their priorities and policy positions. I get angry when I hear that media companies are attempting to circumvent the process and only give us a chance to hear from a smaller subset of candidates. I also get angry when the allot some candidates more time and some candidates never even get mentioned.
    • whataboutdave, on 10/31/2007, -0/+5Keep in mind that there are more candidates than 8 or nine Dems and 8 or 9 Repubs. Fox example - that guy John Cox who is running as a Republican. The vast majoritydon't get any coverage from the media whatsoever. In the end, the media makes a shortlist and trims it down as the campaigns wear on. I'm not saying it's right, but it is what happens. Gravel has been removed from that shortlist. Most candidates don't get even close to that shortlist. Thankfully, my boy Ron Paul still has enough money and support presence to warrant a spot in that club, but I accept the rules of the game for what they are. To keep media attention, candidates must have at least an outside shot at contention.
  • k3ano, on 10/31/2007, -2/+9It's understandable why he's been banned. I really like the guy because he knows what's wrong with America and he is one of few who actually have a plan to get it back on track. He's dangerous to politics though, most of the debates and interviews I've seen him do he's called out the others on receiving huge contributions from large corporations which will obviously lead to policies being shaped to benefit the elite at the cost of the ordinary citizen.

    They will get away with it because of his low level of support. The only thing he can do is keep fighting it and spread the word on how corrupt politicians are.

    I'm afraid you guys are going to make a terribly bad decision and elect another trigger happy loon who is either a complete liar or incredibly ignorant on foreign policy, which in my opinion is the most important issue and has been since the fall of the Nazis. America is left in the dark about what has been going on around the world for a very long time thanks to the very effective propaganda machine.

    If you care about the direction your country is going in and want something done about it, it's up to you to let your friends and family know what's going on and persuade them to get out and vote.

    Here is a brief history of US interventions around the world since 1945:
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interven ...
  • borninda818, on 10/31/2007, -0/+9Digg users are way too liberal in their use of the word banned.
    • BrandonMills, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3People like to get stirred up over 'the man getting them down'. I don't see the big deal with this. They set a funds and polling threshold value, and Gravel didn't make it. Do a few serarch on online polls and funds on hand. They're pretty much correct to say that his campaign is flatlining.
      • JAVandiver, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1You are absolutely correct, Mike gravel has raised less than 250k since declaring his candidacy and has less than 40k on hand. He really cannot afford to continue his campaign throughout the primary cycle and therefore is no longer a viable candidate.
    • k3ano, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1This isn't the first time they have done this. I think it was MSNBC last time that didn't let him participate because he 'didn't get his papers in in time'. And when he is included in the debates he gets only a fraction of the time the "front-runners" get.
  • jizzatch, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3The Democrats desperately need to find their anyone but clinton candidate. I am doing what I can to support Ron Paul and made a donation of $50 yesterday and will give another $100 on 11/5. Failure is not really an option at this point. But, whether or not Dr. Paul wins the Republican nom, Hilary must not win the Democrat nomination. I would suggest you get behind Richardson or Edwards, not Obama or Hilary. Obama will end up as Hilary's VP and neither will get us out of Iraq or the economic mess we are in. Edwards and Richardson seem a little less on the fascist fearmongering. I think people understand that Election Day is almost always a vote for the lesser of two evils. What I don't think people understand is that the chance to do anything about it is during the primaries, not the general election. Dr. Paul and his followers know that now is the time. There is a strong anti-Hilary sentiment, but support for this sentiment is being deluded between the other candidates. Also, has anyone seen a bumper sticker for any candidate other than Ron Paul or Barack Obama? I have seen at least a couple dozen Ron Paul stickers on cars and two billboard ads on the highways in our city, and I have seen 3 Obama stickers. I have not seen any grassroots support for any other candidate of either party.
    • BrandonMills, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1Hate to burst your bubble, but Edwards is so far behind that either Clinton or Obama would have to screw up royal in some type of fiasco for him to be VP, much less President. All candidates under him are pretty much eliminated due to poll numbers and campaign funds. Now, I think the Democrats are utterly retarded for not picking Edwards, but that being said, the only 'decision' that is going to be made soon is whether or not it's Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton.

      As for the Republican side, I highly doubt Ron Paul will be your pick. In fact, I'd say he's already been eliminated in terms of funding, poll numbers, and the plain fact that the Neocons would rather lose than have him be their pick. If I were the people who cared about actually altering events in this country, the best you could do now is back Obama. Yes, he's far from perfect, but over Clinton or Rudy, I could live with Obama.

      Sometimes you're not given a choice between good and bad. Sometimes it's your choice between poisons, and your job is to select the one that you can live with. Yes, I'm sure some idealist will come in and spout of some worthless argument that's just about as relevant as a Nadar presidency. Let them be all high and mighty. In the end, they didn't matter.
    • insomniac8400, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2Thanks for bragging about donating money to a politician. It makes you so much cooler.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Hillary is superior to Ron Paul in everything except for the war. Ron Paul is a states' right activist. Remember states' rights - the cause of the Civil War? In addition, Ron Paul is a liar. The income tax is par tof the Constitution, but Ron Paul is against the federal income tax. So, he is NOT a strict Constitutionalist. Hell, Paul thinks that the founding fathers were all Christians, and the separation between church and state shouldn't exist.

      Electing Ron Paul would be the worst thing to happen to the US in recent memory.
  • insomniac8400, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2Shouldn't the headline read, meaningless candidate drops out of race due to lack of fund raising? He failed to meet the goals for the debate. So it is his own doing/fault he isn't going to be in it.
  • revenge7, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1No, then people might confuse him for Ron Paul
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Which would mean that he won't win. So, it wouldn't hurt anything since Ron Paul has no chance to win.
  • satanatnmtedu, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2It isn't as if these were real debates. It is a PR opportunity for a controlled question and answer session.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.