digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at rawstory.com

NBC News fights judge's order to include Kucinich in debate

rawstory.com — NBC News said Monday it will appeal a judge's ruling rather than include Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich in a candidates' debate in Nevada...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Glofern, on 01/15/2008, -1/+143All of these debates need to be sponsored by bi-partisan groups and not by the corporate networks. It is as if the networks are trying to decide who we hear, who we see and who they decide should win. What happened to our votes? Well, when we look at how many of them are cast, how they are counted and when they are counted by easily manipulated computers, will we ever know who wins these elections? Probably not for sure.
    • zgoos, on 01/15/2008, -0/+16Like, say, the League of Women Voters who used to sponsor them. Wiki has a brief description of why they no longer sponsor the debates. It's a good read:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Women_Voter ...
    • theOster, on 01/15/2008, -0/+10agreed. i think there needs to be a major revamp of how this system works. my biggest problem is that the pols are conducted by corporations and whatever they report *hugely* influences voter decision. if you see that your fave guy has 0.1% of voters and the other guy has +30% it will probably inform you that you are throwing your vote away if you vote for your fave.
      one saving grace is that we have judges like Charles Thomson that say things like it is "a matter of fairness" and said "Nevada voters will benefit by hearing from more than just top contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards."

      Good work Charles.
    • Firehed, on 01/15/2008, -0/+12What do you mean, "as if"? It's quite blatantly obvious that's the case.
    • FunkyDung, on 01/15/2008, -0/+24"All of these debates need to be sponsored by bi-partisan groups"

      No...They need to be sponsored by non-partisan groups. A duopoly is only marginally better than a monopoly.
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2Not even marginally better. Concentrated power is never a good thing, except for those that have concentrated that power.
    • Bilabrin, on 01/15/2008, -0/+10I believe it used to be run by the League of Women Voters but then, when they were going to let the Libertarian candidates into the presidential debates the D and R candidates shunned them and formed their own, partisen debates.
    • nosecohn, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3Not bipartisan... multi-partisan. There are many political parties in the US, but you'd never know it. The same techniques used to exclude candidates like Kucinich are used to exclude all the parties except the two with the most money and influence.
    • apc3161, on 01/15/2008, -1/+2Here is the quote from the League of Women's voters when they stopped sponsoring the debates. I think it sums up the situation quite nicely:

      "The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
    • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2Isn't it strange that even after being told by a judge to include Kucinich, MSNBC, owned by the largest defense contractor in the country, GE, is still fighting hard to keep him out of the debates? Sure, you can dismiss it by saying it is a matter of principle and a fight to maintain the indepence of the press, but we're not talking about a court injunction against printing a story, this is a debate of national importance, between the candidates.

      Keep in mind, MSNBC is spending enormous amounts of money in legal fees in order to keep this guy out of the debates. Is it something he might say?
  • swrostmore, on 01/15/2008, -0/+98"If the criteria was one set of rules, and you change the rules in the middle of the game so as to exclude somebody after having invited them, I am offended by that. I am going to grant whatever preliminary injunction we can to see that he is permitted to debate tomorrow." -Judge Thomas"
    Source: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/CBS_Kucinich_Deb ...
    • itspuddingtime, on 01/15/2008, -4/+3what? you can't cite digg as a source. That's worse than using wikipedia...
  • cactus476, on 01/15/2008, -4/+56People need to understand that news organizations are under no obligation to tell the truth and are accountable only to those that pay the bills. On the other hand, people need to understand that news organizations are under no obligation to tell the truth and are accountable only to those that pay the bills.
    • johnhummel, on 01/15/2008, -0/+29Actually, NBC and the other networks do have one additional obligation:

      The FCC

      Remember, they are "leased' the public airwaves, with the responsibility that they will serve their local communities. Failure to do so could have their FCC license removed. Granted, fat chance of that - but if the American people really wanted to put the squeeze on NBC, they could elect people who would ensure that networks tell the truth, offer equal time to candidates, and so on.

      We just have to decide to do that, instead of throwing up our hands and saying "Oh, well - the corporations hold all the power".
      • sodade, on 01/15/2008, -1/+14If we REALLY wanted to put the squeeze on NBC, we would revoke their corporate charter and imprison the people responsible for ***** with our election process.
      • Touchet, on 01/15/2008, -5/+0And just how are YOU gonna do that. LOL You have no power here, its the FCC which you don't elect. Even if you did, you still couldn't change that. Sure the FCC gives out licenses but they can't extend their power to censorship just because someone can't understand the difference between emotion charges and illogical fallacy and actuall facts. Its called freedom of speech. I agree with you totally about what you say though and its a shame really. What i would ask for is for congress to require everyone in the US to pass in school a Logics class and a Debate class, so that they can understand how to disect an arguement based on logical premises rather than flagrant attacks and assumptions.
        • maxtangent, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1So, the only answer is MORE gov't intervention? sigh
    • bxblox, on 01/15/2008, -0/+4If they are changing criteria to give free airtime ONLY to candidates they like they could get in trouble. It's like making a campaign contribution to all but one candidate.
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I'm sure a good lawyer could manipulate McCain-Feingold to argue just that.

        Oh wait, M-F campaign finance reform is only targetted at private political speech made by citizens and grassroots organizations. It seems not to apply to corporate speech. They like to go after some housewife in Kansas who prints her own signs for a candidate, and they don't care about "Common Sense" run by Procter and Gamble executives.
    • 172pilot, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2Agreed, and just to be clear, the news organizations need to understand that it is the PEOPLE who pay the bills, by watching their productions, and patronizing their advertisers.... And the PEOPLE have to understand that it is through those advertisers that they will control the media.
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1The people are writing the checks for the advertising time?? No. The people are what gives them the power to charge large corporations for advertising time. The advertisers pay the bills.

        Believe me, I've worked for news organizations, magazine publishers and wire services. Readers and viewers are "customers" in a sense that the content is targetted to them and they want to deliver whatever content will gather the most eyeballs. However, the money comes from the people buying airtime or ad pages. They are the ones who dictate, ultimately, what the media companies can and cannot do.
  • floridiot2, on 01/15/2008, -1/+59”This country was bought and paid for years ago”
    • div2n, on 01/15/2008, -1/+7It seems to me the better way to view it is that it was _sold out_ years ago. Same result, slightly different emphasis.
    • bcamp1973, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3bought? Yup. Paid for? ...i think we're still waiting for the check...
      • stevensj2, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2You were bought with it; citizens won't be seeing the check.
    • WayneCA, on 01/15/2008, -0/+4That's why the national debt is so high. They put the country on our tab.
  • Fox318, on 01/15/2008, -2/+40I just don't understand why it's such a big deal. I would not consider myself a Kucinich supporter but I don't see why he is not being allowed.
    • davewashere, on 01/15/2008, -1/+40Because Kucinich has been right about more issues from the start. While Clinton makes excuses for why she was fooled about the war and Obama has to express regret for some of his votes, Kucinich is the only Democratic candidate who can't stand 100% behind his voting record and does not accept donations from big business. If you allow Kucinich in the debate, he'll be able to take easy shots at the other candidates all night and make them look bad.
      • Darksidevoid, on 01/15/2008, -6/+1.
      • xsquirrel378x, on 01/15/2008, -3/+2obama and edwards have been taking more cheapshots at hillary than kucinich has throughout the debates. despite voicing a fierce opinion most the time, kucinich has actually been quite a gentleman during the debates so far
    • sampson123, on 01/15/2008, -11/+2Because Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are much more well known and NBC wants higher ratings.
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1So they had to choose whether to include Kucinich, or the three better known candidates? I suppose if that were true, I wouldn't blame them.

        Bad logic.

        Kucinich being in the debates would not affect ratings.
    • Sparhawk2k, on 01/15/2008, -2/+1Also, and I'm not saying this is the only reason, they generally like smaller debates because they are easier to manage and everybody gets more of a chance to speak and explain themselves.
      • Photokon, on 01/15/2008, -0/+7Half of the people have dropped out already! Biden is gone, Gravel is gone, Dodd is gone, Richardson is gone. So NBC can't debate between 4 people? I'm sorry, this has NOTHING to do with small debates. They want a Clinton and Obamma debate if they could have their way.
        • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Yeah. Edwards would be excluded if only he was getting 10 - 15% votes in the primaries instead of showing 30% or more.
  • ampersand2001, on 01/15/2008, -2/+42I really enjoy how the media is trying to select who we vote for.

    Why isn't anyone doing anything about this?!??
    • petoria, on 01/15/2008, -0/+25We were waiting on you.
      • ampersand2001, on 01/15/2008, -1/+17ok, fine...but if anything happens to me, it IS NOT AN ACCIDENT.
    • zengonzo, on 01/15/2008, -0/+13Like, say, a district court judge?
    • DeFex, on 01/15/2008, -2/+7because apple has new stuff out today and Brittney spears is having a custody battle!
    • Mikhail101, on 01/15/2008, -6/+3yea its 10x worse than Ron Paul trolling.
    • WayneCA, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3If I owned a TV network, I would.
  • ButterBuddha, on 01/15/2008, -0/+37Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson, is my hero
  • outlaw1, on 01/15/2008, -58/+5He's like a petulant child who didnt get picked in baseball...

    little dennis: "mommy, mommy, the kids didnt let me play, waaaaaaaaa."
    dennis's mom: "its ok honey, I'll just sue their parents.
    • jhbarr, on 01/15/2008, -3/+39No, it is basic contract law. He was invited and accepted. They then had a contract and that contract was broken by NBC. see Glenn Greenwald's analysis
      http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/15/ ...
    • logicalnoise, on 01/15/2008, -1/+20RTFA. NBC invited him then decided they just wanted three candidates. If they had never invited him Dennis wouldn't have a whole lot of ground stand on. The fact NBC did invite him is the key reason the judge ruled in his favor.
    • cyrix, on 01/15/2008, -7/+16Except that's a game. This is a process in which we elect our next President. Pretty big difference here. What? Are you just mad because your boy Ron Paul isn't doing as well as you thought?
      • outlaw1, on 01/15/2008, -19/+1"This is a process in which we elect our next President."
        I agree completly... so what does that have to do with Dennis Kucinich?
        • TheLoneHoot, on 01/15/2008, -1/+8That's the best you could come up with? Seriously?
        • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -1/+1What does that have to do with Dennis Kucinich?

          I don't konw. Ummm... he's a candidate???
          • outlaw1, on 01/16/2008, -1/+1I think you may have been mislead. He's not a candidate, he's the guy taking time away from the legit candidates. You know, the ones that have a chance of being elected.
      • rficwizard, on 01/15/2008, -1/+18Ron Paul supporters are more likely than others to want to see Kucinich in this debate. For one thing, opening up the playing field in every way possible is good for those who support change. Secondly, for many Ron Paul supporters, Kucinich is their second choice. For example, I took a survey that was supposed to rank which candidate is the best choice, given my stand on the issues. Ron Paul was the #1 result, #2 was Kucinich, and #3 was Gravel. I knew before I took the survey that those were my favorite candidates. In fact, Ron Paul has mentioned several times that he and Kucinich agree on some important issues.

        Paul/Kucinich '08! (I know, it could never happen, but wouldn't it be awesome?)
        • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -1/+1Well, I will agree that Ron Paul supporters would want to see him included. But I don't know if it is because they support Kucinich as a second choice. I think for many people, they want to see him included because of principle.

          Anyone who has qualified to be a candidate should be given exactly the same respect, included in any primary related debate, discussion or panel. No candidate should be excluded from anything unless the candidate has officially indicated withdrawal from the race.

          Anything else is bias, manipulation and dishonesty. Without including all candidates, there is not integrity, and the people are being robbed of a chance to make their own decisions.

          Why should we let MSNBC choose our candidates? How is that American? They did that in Soviet Russia, and we used to say they were evil and all that *****. Now it's okay, because it's happening in America, and we can't question that, because we all have mortgages, so don't rock the boat??????
      • jackhowitzer, on 01/15/2008, -2/+4Ron Paul is my 'boy', and I'd love to see Kucinich included in the debate, he is the only dem I could support.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 01/15/2008, -1/+2...and Ron Paul is the only rep I could support.
    • lilwagon, on 01/15/2008, -3/+17ummmm no. you are wrong. It's like this... "okay ... I know I said we were gonna play four-on-four hoops today, but since your fourth guy is too good, I'm going to change the rules right before the game, and now it's three on three. Because I don't want a fair game, and I can just make up the rules as we go along... because I DENY that this is a publicly owned BB court... and I'm AFRAID of a FAIR GAME"

      get it now...outlaw? you ***** DICK!
      • outlaw1, on 01/15/2008, -7/+1Ok lets see if I can use a basketball analogy you can understand. Its like when the station break ends and they announce that the next game of the double header you're watching is the Clippers and the Golden State Warriors. Yes it will be a fair game but why would you waste your time watching it?
        • lilwagon, on 01/15/2008, -3/+3i don't get it. But I will say this... Baron Davis = MVP .. the clips are 10-23 ... GSW 22-16 ... I'D LOVE to watch my Warriors SMOKE the clips. I respect the clips for fighting hard and fair. They know they ain't gonna win... but at least they are allowed to play. How awesome was that Indiana game? Monta SMOKED Tinsley all night... Dunleavy = girl ... double double in the loss ... WTG mIke! Next year after the sting of being traded wears off, he'll be back to is usual stats... SQUADOOSH!

          LET"S GO WARRIORS!!!! LET"S GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        • artanis, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2lol, these analogies are awesome.
    • whitefael, on 01/15/2008, -1/+14All candidates should have the opportunity to express their views and the American people should have the opportunity to hear them. I don't want a news organization filtering something like this because it's too important; it concerns the direction of the next four years. Otherwise, how can I make an informed decision without hearing from all candidates?
      • madmage, on 01/15/2008, -2/+2Even Joe McCrazington?

        Hell, in 20 years, I'll be able to say I'm a nominee for president, why can NBC keep me out of the debates? Because no one will support me. The question is where do you draw the line. I like Kucinich, I really do, but he has shown no signs of mainstream support that could allow him to win the nomination, therefore if I was in NBC's shoes, I'd probably make the same decision. Although, not if I had already invited him.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 01/15/2008, -1/+2He might have more mainstream support if he was preselected by the press to be a media darling, like the other three. Unfortunately nobody gets to hear his message, and all they get is the late night talk show jokes about him seeing UFOs and such (so he saw something in the air he couldn't identify - who hasn't?).
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -1/+1Where do you draw the line? I'd say that anyone who has met the requirement to be on the ballot should be allowed to participate in anything related to the race.

        Saying you are a nominee doesn't qualify you. You have to have the signatures, the approval of each state's party leadership, and actually be on the ballot. Then you should be included in any debate or panel.

        It doesn't matter if you can imagine some "mainstream support" argument. Either you are an official candidate, or not. We don't need a network telling us who they think should or should not be officially a candidate.
    • bowens44, on 01/15/2008, -0/+8Your contempt for our electoral process is noted.
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Whitefael showed contempt for our electoral process? Really? How?
  • jackhowitzer, on 01/15/2008, -2/+21It's because the MSM doesn't want to hear things from a candidate whose ideas differ from other candidates. I am more for Dr. Paul, but I would definitely support Kucinich, I like his ideas, and I like to see some contrasting ideas on the stage to get a better look at the whole picture. And I know he will do well in the debate unless they find another way to exclude him, or just smear him/ignore him once they get him on stage.
  • omnithought, on 01/15/2008, -1/+39Funny, I thought the news wasn't supposed to have a political bias. Oh wait...what country have I been living in?

    So, the real question is, what are they afraid of? If Kucinich is supposedly unelectable and unpopular, then surely there's no danger of including him, right?
    • GreenGrassyNoel, on 01/15/2008, -5/+2Ratings?
      • omnithought, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3More candidates = more voters tuning in = more ratings.
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2That argument holds no water. Do you think Kucinich being in the debate is going to cause people to not watch?

        In fact, they risk much more by fighitng so hard and so publicly to keep him out of the debate. People might start asking questions, like "What are they trying to hide?" or "Why are they screening out candidates, when it should be voters who decide who they want to vote for?"
    • CazMo, on 01/15/2008, -0/+7hard to think people aren't going to tune in JUST because a candidate is up there they don't agree with? That's complete stupidity. If ANYTHING the Drama surrounding this will bring MORE ratings to the table for them
      • jackhowitzer, on 01/15/2008, -0/+6It won't hurt their ratings, if anything it would just bring more people in who actually do support Dennis, because I really doubt that the Obama/Clinton supporters are going to not watch their candidate because there is some dissenting ideas on the stage, they will just steer questions away from him.
        • bacon_skoda, on 01/15/2008, -6/+1there is a point when a candidate should admit defeat.
          that was a week ago for DK.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 01/15/2008, -0/+5@ bacon
          So after Iowa and after the teeny tiny number of voters in NH spoke, anyone not in the "top three" should throw in the towel? You're not too smart are you?
        • artanis, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1@bacon

          I dont really understand what the point of your comment is. Are you so afraid of Dennis that you cant stand to see him? His appearance in any debate or race should not affect you in the least if you think he's so unpopular. Maybe you are actually worried that people will like what he has to say?
    • bacon_skoda, on 01/15/2008, -11/+1waste of electricity to power his mic.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 01/15/2008, -0/+7waste of pixels to host your comment
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Microphones are not powered.

        Sound waves move a magnet inside a coil in the microphone, creating an electrical impulse.
  • BlueScreenOD, on 01/15/2008, -16/+3Am I the only one freighted by the prospect of the government impacting the press? The press needs to be an independent entity. If you don't want to watch the debate, than all the power to you. Boycott it, protest it, write nasty letters, or whatever else you want. NBC should have the freedom to run their debate however they want.
    • jhbarr, on 01/15/2008, -0/+17There is more to it than NBCs freedom, it is breach of contract. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/15/ ...
      Kuciinich alleges that he had a binding contract with MSNBC once they offered and he accepted the terms of his participation in the debate, and that MSNBC's refusal to allow him to participate constitutes a breach of that contract. He also alleges that his exclusion violates the mandates of Section 315 of the Communications Act, which requires broadcasters -- who operate the public airways, i.e., airways which are public, not private, property -- "to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance."

      • BlueScreenOD, on 01/15/2008, -4/+1To claim that it's a breach of contract is a stretch. I work with tort claims, and I've never seen a claim like that be successful. That's like saying if you're invited to appear on Leno, it's illegal for them to cancel on you.

        The second claim is also a stretch. By that logic, just about anyone could claim they have a legal right to enter the debate.
        • yodaj007, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1Right, and I'm a space captain from planet X.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1"By that logic, just about anyone could claim they have a legal right to enter the debate." ...sure... if they meet the qualifications - which DK did. RTFA!
    • swrostmore, on 01/15/2008, -1/+10Why are you more worried about government control of broadcast media (this isn't about "the press") than you are about corporate control of broadcast media?
      • stealthc, on 01/15/2008, -2/+1Because corporate control is not based on force. "Corporate" is not inherently evil. The inordinate power of big media is a direct result of the insulation provided by government, which is force. It is force that is wrong. Being wealthy or in control of some media is not wrong.

        NBC can run their debate however they please. In the same way, FOX can exclude Ron Paul and has. In a free country, it is not the government that comes down on somebody for their stupid politicized decisions, but the public. FOX only lost credibility for shafting Paul and they paid for it dearly when they tried to ostracize him at the SC debate.

        Asking for government control instead of private control is a resort to force. You must believe then that might makes right, that a badge-wearing, pencil-pushing few have some kind of natural superiority over the rest of us. I don't think you actually believe that, so try http://www.mises.org and browse around for a while. You may like what you find.
        • SteveSgt, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2You seem to be missing the point that the multi-national corporations are, in effect, in competition with governments for power, and in some ways, they wield a greater power. Economic power usually proves be more effective in influencing societal changes than force or violence. For example, there's that great quote from Berthold Brecht's Threepenny Opera, "Why rob a bank, when you can found one?"

          When large corporations can get their way through less disruptive means, the crude simplicity of police or military force are crude and comparatively ineffective tools.

          I agree that corporations are not inherently evil, but most of the large corporations are no longer accountable to anybody. They can move their people and assets around to avoid the wrath of any individual government, and have the resources to influence the policy of any government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    • logicalnoise, on 01/15/2008, -0/+9it's not their debate they are sponsoring it with the DNC. and it's our airwaves we decide what goes on them.
    • pintomp3, on 01/15/2008, -0/+7"Am I the only one freighted by the prospect of the government impacting the press?"
      i'm more concerned about the current reality of corporate media influencing our elections and government.
    • itsontheway, on 01/15/2008, -0/+4Are you living on another planet? The press needs to be an independent entity? Since when, in the last 20 years, has any of the networks, be it FOX or ABC or NBC been totally independent. All of them are owned and have all their own interests at heart. If anything, yes, the press needs to be more independent. The thing is, it is not doing this by excluding Kucinich; rather, it is just excluding him because he threatens the networks -- or the networks candidate of choice. How independent is that, BlueScreen?
    • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1This is not the same as a court injunction against printing an article, or a court order to disclose sources. Those things are bad. But when the press, who puts all kinds of effort in convincing us that they are not biased, selects which candidates it wants to allow in a forum, that is bad.
  • didiman, on 01/15/2008, -37/+4Kucinich is an irrelevant lunatic.
    • RepublicansSuck, on 01/15/2008, -1/+4Says an irrelevant lunatic.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 01/15/2008, -1/+4as are you
    • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1But he is an irrelevant lunatic who is officially a democratic candidate.

      I don't like Hillary. If I owned a network, should I be allowed to exclude her??
    • MasteRR, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1An irrelevant lunatic who has been right since the begging on subjects such as the war, instead of changing his views after it is no longer popular to support the war like all the other democratic candidates. A irrelevant lunatic who has a long history of voting in Congress that shows he has the balls to ignore what he is "supposed" to vote for and instead votes for what is right like voting against illegal laws such as the patriot act the first time around instead of changing his view after the fact?
  • TrendyClockwork, on 01/15/2008, -16/+8Look, as unfair as it may seem NBC has private ownership over its broadcasts and reserves the right to do with them whatever it wants. The alternative is a state-run media and if you think getting the truth out is hard on privately owned networks just imagine how hard it would be if the government controlled the content of the airwaves.
    • an0nymous, on 01/15/2008, -1/+14Um actually this is an issue of contract law and nothing else.
      1. NBC offered Kucinich a spot and he accepted.
      2. Kucinich did poorly in the caucauses. NBC retracted the offer
      3. Kucinich sued claiiming breach of contract and the court agreed.
      That's it. No freedom of speech issues. Just a contractual dispute. If 1. hadn't happened this wouldn't be an issue.
      • nosecohn, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1Actually, if you read the original complaint at , you'll see that Kucinich argues both breach of contract AND violation of the Federal Communications Act, which "requires broadcasters such as NBC 'to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.'"
    • itsontheway, on 01/15/2008, -9/+1Here we go again. The Ron Paul Koolaid drinkers with their "let the free market decide" crap. I'm tired of them getting all preachy about letting things decide themselves. They think Net Neutrality is a bad thing, and while I agree with the posters sentiment, the problem is -- we've tried your way. It's not working. Not only that -- they are public air waves. They belong to us, technically. Yes, in an ideal world, I would have no problem with letting the market and the networks and whoever else decide it for themselves. Give you socialism and state run media arguments a rest for a moment. We don't need socialism or state-run media, but at this point, we do NEED intervention of some sort, not TOTAL CONTROL, PAULITES. Have you even been alive in the last 7 years? Talk about countless failures on part of the major media!
      • bxblox, on 01/15/2008, -0/+6shut up... and net neutrality is the opposite of what its called.
        • itsontheway, on 01/15/2008, -4/+1no, it is not. You are an idiot. --> savetheinternet.org
        • TheLoneHoot, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2"shut up..."
          Is that you, Bill Orally?
      • sindex, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2wtf does this have to do with Ron Paul?
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Damn, dude. You have got to stop watching Bill O'Reilly. He is rotting your brain.

        Ron Paul supporters are not saying anything like what your distorted rant claims.
    • bxblox, on 01/15/2008, -2/+3there are limits to what you can contribute to a campaign and tv time has value, theres no need to control it if they all recieve the same amount of coverage relatively. However to actively seek a way to exclude one particular candidate is practically donating airtime to the other 3.
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1and to continue fighting against a court ruling should be a wake up call to us all.

        Why are they so dead set on keeping him out of the debate?
  • BowieX, on 01/15/2008, -0/+10SADLOL @ "Democratic debate" irony.
  • redrighthunter, on 01/15/2008, -0/+18Let Kucinich speak! All candidates who haven't dropped out should be included in any debate. "I'm sorry, I thought this was Amurica!"-Randy from South Park
    • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1People have been so brainwashed by the media that they grasp at straws for any reason to excuse this behavior.

      The guy is an official candidate. He followed all the procedures, the signatures, the acceptance by state party organizations who put him on the ballots, and these people then want to accept that a TV Network is going to choose which candidates are worthy and which are not worthy.

      It's sad, that people accept this. They seem more concerned with petty celebrity issues and what someone says about this race or that race, than what is happening to their democracy.
  • Jazzillion, on 01/15/2008, -0/+27Kucinich's message is radical in terms of change, yet reasonable and well founded. He has the ability to insight passion in people, and is truly running on a platform of change, much more so than Obama. It is very obvious why he would not be welcome. The polls have been fluctuating more than Giuliani's choice for favorite pantyhose, so the big media networks are threated by a candidate who's platform represents the majority of voter's opinions; therefore, stifling his exposure.
    • vade79, on 01/15/2008, -0/+12Irrelevant. He could say he likes to kill babies and they should still allow him. They said they would allow the top 4. He is #4 and they don't want him there cause they don't like him? unacceptable.
  • tuurd, on 01/15/2008, -4/+22As an Ohioan I am less than thrilled with Kucinich's record over the past 30ish years, but in light of where this country is headed I find it reprehensible that our election system is being so blatantly manipulated by MSM with little regard for We The People, or Truth. I will be voting for Ron Paul, but refuse to accept that Kucinich should be excluded solely based on the decisions of NBC and not the people that ultimately matter- US!

    FOX is already on my ***** list, and now I can see that CNN and MSNBC will be there shortly. Looks like I'll be getting my news solely online from now on.
    • zengonzo, on 01/15/2008, -0/+4I'm curious as to what you object with regard to Kucinich's record. It would be good to have a personal perspective.

      Network news sucks. They have become the old guard.

      Can you imagine a day when online news is considered as such? The freshest news will come from radical nanobot viral memory clusters.
      • yodaj007, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3"..radical nanobot viral memory clusters."

        All your base are belong to us.
    • TheLoneHoot, on 01/15/2008, -0/+7Dennis Kucinich did more good for Cleveland than you would have others believe. Yes, he decided against a major works program... but he was proved right in the end. So much so that the city later voted to honor him for his decision. He is one of the few honest and decent people in Congress that you could absolutely trust not just your country to, but your very life as well.
    • PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Just look at who owns the media. 6 corporations.

      GE owns NBC and MSNBC. GE is the largest defense contractor in the US. They build the propulsion systems for nuclear subs. They own all sorts of other weapons manufacturers. They build the turbines for helicopters, fighter jets and bombers and military transport aircraft.

      They have a vested interest in only allowing candidates who support war to have a voice.
  • phnx0221, on 01/15/2008, -1/+35Well if this isn't clearly indicative of what our information providers are motivated by, I don't know what is. The three "front runners" are all supportive of keeping soldiers in Iraq, and have all said that military action with Iran is not off the table. They are the safe candidates in the eyes of those that are in power.

    Even if Kucinich doesn't win the nomination, it is imperative that he is included in the debates. Not even just included, but able to answer and ask questions. He is the only person in the democratic party that stands for what the people believe in. He stands for human rights, he stands for justice for the people, he stands for justice for the people of Iraq, and he stands for accountability in an administration that has put forth so many wrongs.

    By his being there, and by his ability to actively participate, he will put the candidates on the spot, and uncover the truth of what they stand for (military industry, constitutional infringements in the name of the war on terror, continuing military operations in the middle east under fraudulent reasoning, etc), and expose their lies of "change" to the people who so desperately want it.

    ***** NBC, and all of the other information media outlets, for attempting to dissuade us from the truth, and for trying to dissuade us from the clear honesty that we need in this country.

    Let this be a clear reminder. The fact that major media outlets are clearly trying to choose our candidates for us, is not, by any means, a "conspiracy". The people who are in power, are afraid of the people, and they always have been. They will do anything to keep their control, and it doesn't matter how many lies they tell, or how many people they shut out of our "democratic" process in order to do so.
    • godaton, on 01/15/2008, -8/+2Black helicopters are watching you.
      • phnx0221, on 01/15/2008, -4/+5I wouldn't be surprised. I wouldn't care either. :)
    • HappyScrappy, on 01/15/2008, -4/+1Imperative enough to let the government tell NBC what they can and cannot air?

      Letting a judge exercise restraint of free speech in the name of "fairness" is as bad as torturing people in order to "preserve" our society.
      • phnx0221, on 01/15/2008, -0/+5"Exercise restraint of free speech"? No, he is advocating for free speech, he is pressing these companies, who like it or not, are projecting who the candidates are and what they stand for to millions of people. This judge is, in effect, deciding that everyone gets a fair chance at free speech.
    • UnstableMind, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1@phnx0221

      What you said is very true and clearly can be called a conspiracy. Just b/c people misuse or mislabel the term conspiracy doesn't mean you need to be afraid to use the word.

      Main Entry:
      con·spir·a·cy
      Pronunciation:
      kən-ˈspir-ə-sē
      Function:
      noun
      Inflected Form(s):
      plural con·spir·a·cies
      Etymology:
      Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
      Date:
      14th century
      1: the act of conspiring together2 a: an agreement among conspirators b: a group of conspirators
      synonyms see plot

      --------------------

      Main Entry:
      conspiracy theory
      Function:
      noun
      Date:
      1909
      : a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
      — conspiracy theorist noun
  • Spoomeister, on 01/15/2008, -8/+2Are these debates publicly funded, or privately funded? If the former, then MSNBC doesn't have a leg to stand on. If the latter, then it's their airtime and they can have on whoever they want.
    • lilwagon, on 01/15/2008, -0/+6the airwaves are owned by the public. The fact that they put the debate on a cable outlet is a shame.... but it might not change the facts regarding public ownership of our airwaves.
    • lucutus, on 01/15/2008, -0/+9Unless they broadcast it on regular TV bandwidth. Which BTW is getting sold off by the current administration basically eliminating the FCC from power. Of course nobody notices this as we are all distracted by our wonderful new HD tv screens.
      • tgarza17, on 01/15/2008, -0/+6Hell yeah. This is how democracy dies - in beautiful 1080p!!
      • SteveSgt, on 01/15/2008, -1/+1(R-) Amen! As far as I'm concerned, February 17, 2009 is THE END OF TV. The over-the-airwaves transmissions available after that date are no-longer free airwaves. Do you realize that the DTV standard allows the broadcaster to individually address each set, and decide whether to allow it to display the current content, or not? Over-the-air pay-TV is coming in the DTV age.

        February 17, 2009 is: THE END OF TV.
        • alphasixtyone, on 01/15/2008, -1/+3im ok with just having the internet.
  • pintomp3, on 01/15/2008, -1/+14NBC: these are our elections and we will preselect the candidate for you.
  • itsontheway, on 01/15/2008, -11/+2Here we go again. The Ron Paul Koolaid drinkers with their "let the free market decide" crap. I'm tired of them getting all preachy about letting things decide themselves. They think Net Neutrality is a bad thing, and while I agree with the posters sentiment, the problem is -- we've tried your way. It's not working. Not only that -- they are public air waves. They belong to us, technically. Yes, in an ideal world, I would have no problem with letting the market and the networks and whoever else decide it for themselves. Give you socialism and state run media arguments a rest for a moment. We don't need socialism or state-run media, but at this point, we do NEED intervention of some sort, not TOTAL CONTROL, PAULITES. Have you even been alive in the last 7 years? Talk about countless failures on part of the major media! Yes, I don't like the idea of a state-run media, but I do not like what has been going on. Somebody needs to step in.
    • CazMo, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2Explain why you think Ron Paul supporters are "Koolaid Drinkers"? Are you implying that because someone believes in another person's message and morales, that they are immature (im guessing thats what the term koolaid means??)

      Second off, "we've tried your way. It's not working." is complete horse manure. They have not even come CLOSE to trying some of the open policies such candidates as Kucinich and RP have put forth in their campaign, and if they did, I think you'd start to see some of that "intervention" you mentioned.

  • bamaref, on 01/15/2008, -8/+1It's more about NBC controlling their content. NBC is a private organization after all. Besides who wants that crazy bastid in their debate anyway? Is NBC going to ask the candidates about UFO sightings?
    • CazMo, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3And just what the hell is wrong with someone saying they've seen a UFO? He didn't say that he saw an ALIEN, he didn't say he saw a MOTHERSHIP, he just said he saw an unidentifiable triangular aircraft. It was an unidentified flying object, which is what UFO is a damn acronym for!

      OH...Did I mention 14% of the USA has reported seing a UFO? 14%!!!!!! Thats around 42 MILLION PEOPLE! It's sad we live in times where so many close-minded people are still in circulation like conterfeit bills. DON'T DENY TRUTHS BECAUSE FOX TELLS YOU TO LAUGH WHEN YOU HEAR THE WORD "UFO".
  • tman84, on 01/15/2008, -0/+18as far as I am concerned Kucinich is the only Dem who actually answers questions, and has an actual platform that you are informed about. He's also not afraid to stand up to corporations, or the rest of Washington, and doesn't pander to voters or cave into lobbyists or special interest groups like Hillary, Obama, and Edwards
    This is probably also the reason the Corporate MSM is trying to exclude him from the debates
    • RepublicansSuck, on 01/15/2008, -0/+5Exactly, if the other candidates are asked a question they will not give a definitive "yes" or "no" answer. Instead they go off on a whim about how "I will bring change" and all that *****. It's amazing, it's not THAT hard to answer a yes or no question, but they're all so crooked it's impossible for them to be honest and straight up. The inability to honestly answer questions will be a disaster if one those persons becomes the next President.

      Kucinich for President!
  • godaton, on 01/15/2008, -7/+0Most of these people's idiocy is embarrassing to read. This is the quality of our education system? Why are liberals so passionate to fight for simplistic lock-step emotive ideals. It is scary living in a country where the masses of students are brainwashed into the basic principles of fascist thinking. Should the government force companies to include all candidates the government feels is worthy of candidacy. A company can't make it's own decisions about it's own forum? You liberal fascists are truly frightening.
    • an0nymous, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2Per Greenwald: The complaint (.pdf) filed by Kucinich is simple and straightforward. He alleges that he had a binding contract with MSNBC once they offered and he accepted the terms of his participation in the debate, and that MSNBC's refusal to allow him to participate constitutes a breach of that contract. He also alleges that his exclusion violates the mandates of Section 315 of the Communications Act, which requires broadcasters -- who operate the public airways, i.e., airways which are public, not private, property -- "to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance."

      He is correct in stating that there was a contractual abrogation. I think his second point is more designed to make a point, but was irrelevant to the judges decision
    • tman84, on 01/15/2008, -0/+4So it's liberal fascist thinking to want to have a well informed electorate? This has nothing to do with left vs right BS. It's about sharing ideas with millions of people. Suppose Kucinich, or Paul, or Hunter were given their fair share of TV time along with everyone else, and people made their own decisions on who they wanted to vote for based on each candidate's views.
      The way you describe things if the media decides these 2 are the top candidates you are ok with it, That sounds a little more fascist to me.
      • godaton, on 01/15/2008, -1/+0A free cooperation making it's own decisions is "fascist." Like I said you're brainwashed. It is you who wants to expand the powers of government to intervene in private affairs. That by definition is fascist.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1You need to look up the definition of 'definition'
    • Vzylexy, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2Sounds like you've been reading a bit too much of Jonah Goldberg's garbage.
  • CourtesyFlush, on 01/15/2008, -1/+5Yet another reason to turn off the tellyvision.
  • lucutus, on 01/15/2008, -1/+5I have a sick feeling that this election is going to spur a lot of violent protest. You can't suppress the public like it has been for the past 8 years and not have repercussions. This action on the part of GE / NBC is so transparent and when combined with similar treatment of the Ron Paul campaign I think soon the majority will be made to see the light.
    • BDOUG, on 01/15/2008, -0/+4I can certainly see how you'd feel that way but I'm still betting on old fashioned Bread & Circuses keeping the population complacent. You may be right though, there may be an outbreak here and there. And I'm not totally sure that's a bad thing...
    • mega-volt, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1I would like to direct your attention to a place in Africa called KENYA!!!!!
    • tgarza17, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1Relax, no one's going to violently protest. BK got more emotional reactions when they took the whopper off the menu. In the end thay might let Mr. Kucinich have a place on stage and then ignore him the entire time, like Ron Paul. They control the vertical...they control the horizontal. Try the kool-aid. It's BERRY flavor!!
  • GreenGrassyNoel, on 01/15/2008, -7/+2I hope that Kucinich is able to participate in the debate, but I'm concerned about a judge "controlling" the media. What if it was reversed in some way (like if NBC expanded the number of candidates to 5 instead of going to 3 and Kucinich wanted to limit it to 4) would the judge be able to ban the 5th candidate from being in the debate?
    • shakbhaji, on 01/15/2008, -1/+2RTFA and use your ***** head. The problem here is that the top 4 candidates were invited when Bill Richardson was still in the race. When he dropped out, Kucinich became 4th and was invited. MSNBC has since rescinded Kucinich's invitation, probably because he's not their corporate shill like the other candidates, in an attempt to shield the public from his views and the judge noted the unfairness of censoring a particular message and called NBC on their *****.
  • an0nymous, on 01/15/2008, -0/+16NBC reneged on their offer to have him appear. Dennis claimed (reasonably, in my view) that this constituted a breach of contract. The courts agreed.
    All issues of free speech, participatory democracy aside, and corporate influences aside: NBC welshed on a deal, and an expert on contract law said they were wrong.
  • RepublicansSuck, on 01/15/2008, -1/+4They must REALLLLLY hate Kucinich for some reason, even though he's done nothing to them.
    What a bunch of immature dickwads.
    • Berkana, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3Kucinich and Ron Paul are the only two candidates who intend to reform our monetary system. It wouldn't surprise me if the banking lobby were the hidden hand behind all these attempts to ignore Kucinich and Paul.
  • ashwinmudigonda, on 01/15/2008, -1/+6News media sucks in this country. They don't do a shred of reporting the way independent bloggers and smaller entities are doing. The first thing to do to purge this country of this autorcracy is to stop giving ALL news channels their money. Their need to display "news" 24/7 has forced them into this whoring. Who really ***** needs debates every week. What does it prove? How many times can you ask the same question and then run hours and hours of "analysis"? There is no sane news channel left in this country. Get your news from Kevin Sites or Bob Woodward or people for whom Journalism is an ethical profession. 2 Words. Ethical. Profession.
  • Groovemaster, on 01/15/2008, -1/+10The corporations pick the presidents who will start the most wars and bring them the most profits. It's an American tradition.

    You can't just expect a nation founded on greed, selfishness and gluttony to change just because it doesn't suit your "morals" and "values".
  • F1R3DUP, on 01/15/2008, -1/+11people need to start boycotting networks that do this *****. it is completely unacceptable.
    • Groovemaster, on 01/15/2008, -0/+7Boycott the entire mainstream media. It's all controlled by the same corporations that profit from constant war.

      If you don't feel like you can live without the mainstream media feeding you continual lies, you need to have a long think.
  • Stallionism, on 01/15/2008, -7/+0What a scary story? It shows you that media freedom is destroyed and the government is stepping in and telling media what they have to show. Disgusting!! Everyone is digging it because they want NBC to submit to fascism. Disgusting!
    • Rufus2005, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2You sillly horse...Do you think there shouldn't be any restrictions on how much an entity can donate to a candidate then? I mean - airtime is comparible to cash as far as elections go. Candidates use most of their donations to buy TV time. Why don't we roll back to the dark ages then? Whoever has the most wealth is Lord!
      • Stallionism, on 01/15/2008, -3/+0The most important place for FREEDOM is in an ELECTION!!!!!! What the hell is wrong with you? We don't need the government more involved in elections, we need the government LESS INVOLVED!!!

        Should the government be making restrictions on candidates? absolutely not!! There's absolutely no reason for the GOVERNMENT to step in and limit how much they can get because someone is too popular and people are willing to give a lot.

        OMG candidates use their donations to buy tv time so they can speak to the masses. OMG that is EVIL!!! We need to restrict speech!!! You're a moron and a fascist.
        • Rufus2005, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1Do you have a brain of your own or does Ron Paul do all your thinking for you? Ok...I would normally use Microsoft in this example but I suppose I'll use Apple today. Let's say Steve Jobs decides that Hillary Clinton should be our next president, so he donates 3 billion dollars to her campaign. She has so much money that you can't turn on the TV without seeing either her face or a negative ad about one of her rivals. Obviously, she wins the election since he has the means to make herself look good and make her competitors look bad more so than any other candidate. Just because alot of people like iPods Steve Jobs should have the power to choose the next president? I'm not a fascist moron. You voted for Bush too, didn't you?
          • Stallionism, on 01/15/2008, -1/+0So the government is supposed to take care of us? We aren't big boys and big girls, we're just stupid, retarded, babies of the government. We can't make our own choices because we're just too retarded. We need the government to step in and make sure all candidates from NeoNazis, to liberty lovers to moderates all have level playing field.

            I didn't vote for Bush. I didn't vote for anyone, since there's no one worth voting for. But how did I do that???? Bush spent the most money, so I should voted for him. How in the hell did I make a "big boy" choice of free will? OMG!!! It's like, I'm a living, thinking person. OMG!!!!

            You're right. You're an intellectual. You know what's best for everyone. And you know the government is the best choice. Obviously, you have been risen above the money and the campaign ads, but everyone else is a retarded unevolved chimp that can't get past the glamor. You're a man on a mission. A mission of protecting people from themselves.

            Were you born a narcissist or did you learn it somewhere else?
          • tendonut, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1@Stallionism since the comment system is broken again..
            You are entirely right about the people being retarded. But if we dont do something, it will just get worse and worse and worse. Using your logic, the intelligent people should just get up and leave the country because we have absolute no control over who runs our country. The dumb people do...and the dumb people vote for whoever the media tells them to. Can't you see this as being a problem? Do you think Ron Paul has a chance in hell of winning of only 2% of the country votes for him? No one even knows who Ron Paul of Dennis Kucinich are!. You might as well just stay home and not vote at all this upcoming election since you will be wasting your time. If the media doesn't allow anyone to see these candidates, they will not be voted for. In a perfect world, everyone would know who every candidate was and all their policies. The dumb people of this country are being denied the RIGHT to chose who they want for president. Whoever has the most money will win, end of story.
    • Rufus2005, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1BTW - it's not the people dontating money that I'm worried about. It's the corporations donating money to promote THEIR interests.
      • Stallionism, on 01/15/2008, -1/+0Are they not allowed to have an interest? They pay taxes. When you vote, do you have an interest?

        When did interest become such a bad word?

        Wouldn't the proper thing to do is stop taxing corporations and regulating them, than denying them the right to donate. That seems about the FAIREST thing to do.
        • tendonut, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1It became a bad word when the interest of a very select few became more important than the interest of the other 99% of the country. Are you telling me that taxing the poor 10x as much as taxing the extremely rich is in YOUR best interest?
    • tendonut, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1"the government is stepping in and telling media what they have to show."
      But isn't what NBC doing considered censoring? Is that worse than government intervention? For once, the government is not attempting to HIDE anything from the public, they are instead attempting to allowing Kucinich from being left out on something he is entitled to. NBC is attempting to silence Kucinich by not allowing him to participate. They are pushing their own personal agenda. If the courts do not interfere, we could end up with another Bush in office. Is that what we want for another 4-8 years?
      • Stallionism, on 01/15/2008, -1/+0Nothing is more important than freedom. Are you trying to suggest that we should say, give up our right to privacy, because stopping terrorists is more important.

        I don't agree with what NBC is doing, but I find it disgusting that the government is stepping in. It's censorship. There are Neo Nazis running for president. Isn't NBC "censoring" them by not putting them on the air? Should the government step in and FORCE NBC to put them on the air?

        Of course not. There's this really great thing about freedom. You can make a conscious choice rather than asking the government to step in. Think about it. Let's say you don't like Sushi and the Sushi restaurant has sushi. Should the government come in and force the restaurant to make burgers for you? NO! You know what you do, you goto another restaurant that serves what you want.

        CHOICE!!! You're a big boy.

        If you don't like what NBC is doing, voice your concerns and don't use NBC anymore. But don't support the government coming in and stepping all over the 1st amendment, just because you like the results.
        • tendonut, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1Your idea may be correct if everyone would research the candidates in their entirety without using the main American news corporations. But remember, the majority of the country doesn't know about any candidate that they don't see on TV. When the networks control what the masses see, they are essentially controlling who the people want to vote for. Since we all known boycotts don't work for *****, and one, ten, a hundred, a thousand people doesn't make a difference. The majority of the American people are stupid and have no other way of hearing what Kucinich has to say. The only thing he can do to be heard at this time is to get the government involved. Until the media stops censoring people, we are going to have to choose between the lesser of two evils. And in this case, government intervention is the only way. You seem to be taking Ron Paul's message a bit too far dude. He will NEVER get elected unless the government steps in and puts an end to the media controlling what people know.
    • nosecohn, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3Fascism, by Mussolini's definition, is the merging of government and corporate interests. NBC's position in this conflict is far more in line with Fascism than the judge who is trying to keep the process fair.
      • Stallionism, on 01/15/2008, -2/+0I agree. Isn't this the case. The government is stepping into NBC(which is a corporation) and dictating what it's supposed to put on the air. Fascism, just as Mussolini said.

        I'm glad we agree.
        • tendonut, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1No, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I would say that both actions from both the government and NBC are in line with facism. So who do we back up? The one that helps the people or the one that helps NBC? Hmm, what a hard decision
  • Touchet, on 01/15/2008, -1/+2Wow, i just had this crazy idea, is he the dark horse comming up?
  • thegreathal, on 01/15/2008, -1/+11Hey, NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd, how does it feel to suck Kucinich's balls?
  • amigabill, on 01/15/2008, -1/+5I'm curious to know what reasoning exists that makes a court appeal a more approtiate response than simply including presidential candidates in the presidential candidate debate. What are they afraid of regarding his participation?
    • Touchet, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3That is something to think aobut isn't it. Well i went on his website to listen to his "message" and i think what it is is that he said once he gets in office he will start to prosecute and impeach people that are involved in scandals in the white house and newspapers. So basically that is the problem i think.
  • JergoR, on 01/15/2008, -1/+3"Holy smokes! I just found out. I have to get off the phone now. I have to make plans to go to Nevada," Kucinich said.
    lol
  • scm21st, on 01/15/2008, -0/+11The right of NBC to use the public airwaves needs to be revoked.
  • one2gamble, on 01/15/2008, -0/+6This is freaking stupid, what does NBC have to lose by allowing Kucinich to be in the debate.

    Nice PR NBC....nice
  • slapded, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3i dont care i just want to see how tom brokaw's age spots look in HD again. its the meeerors!
  • dkern, on 01/15/2008, -0/+9The fact is if the people truly want change, they will demand that Kucinich and Paul be allowed into the debates. If the people are willing to accept who the mass media has decided to be a presidential hopeful then the game is truly over. The people have once last shot at making a difference by calling the networks, emailing, calling the judge in Las Vegas and simply stating that NBC is not electing our next president thank you very much- that's our job.
  • offspring06, on 01/15/2008, -0/+9***** NBC. Dennis Kucinich is running for the nomination of the Democratic party so he should be allowed to participate in the debate.
    • jmpeagle, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2you know the democrats can just kick him out ofthe party?
  • Soyea, on 01/15/2008, -0/+10They did it to Ron Paul, Now Dennis. the media does not pick we do you run your on the ballot you get on the debate end of question.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2Apparently, the media DOES pick and choose who our candidates are.
      They ran Howard Dean out of the running after he suggested that the FCC needed to be overhauled because of media consolidation.
      The next week, an army of pundits talked up the "yeehaw" and how crazy Dean was about 2000 times. The same media that doesn't blink when Romney suggests "we need two GitMo's."
  • wayzup, on 01/15/2008, -0/+6Once you figure out how very few companies own the vast majority of networks and, thus, the 24 hour "news" channels where many people get their "news" & then take into account the interests those companies have.....it's 1+1 type math to see why some candidates are getting so much more airtime and coverage than others whos views/platforms don't benefit the parent company. Is that a run-on sentence or what?
  • moxley, on 01/15/2008, -0/+6This should tell everyone that the media is completely corrupt (f they were too dense to realize it already) because NBC has nothing to lose by letting Kucinich in. So you have to ask yourself, why would they block him?

    I'll tell you why: the reason is that if you have one or two people up there answering questions honestly; making statements that make total sense; refusing to play-act with lame, overused softball questions - then it becomes completely apparent to EVERYONE watching that the other candidates are shills.....the corporate, controlled candidates will look like the pre-coached, carefully controlled asshats that they are...
  • nosecohn, on 01/15/2008, -0/+9I'm actually really surprised that NBC is pushing this. It makes them look really bad.

    They're argument is essentially, "it's our broadcast and we'll run it as we see fit, democracy be damned." In a way, they're right. It's their company (public airwaves argument aside). If that isn't an argument for publicly funded elections, I don't know what is.
  • TrojanGuy, on 01/15/2008, -0/+12God forbid there's somebody in the debate who will actually challenge the safe talking points.
  • HappyScrappy, on 01/15/2008, -2/+1I would fight it just on general principles.

    This judge is exercising a prior restraint on free speech. How could a media outlet just let that stand?

    At worst, I'd go on anyway and let them try to arrest me merely for holding a political debate. I wish the local district attorney luck on trying to prosecute that one.
    • shakbhaji, on 01/15/2008, -0/+4It's not a free speech issue, it's a breach of contract. NBC said they would hold a debate between the top 4 candidates, and now that the 4th person is Kucinich instead of Richardson, they're trying to back out of the deal. (contract between Democratic party and NBC?)
      • HappyScrappy, on 01/15/2008, -1/+1You're wrong.

        'The Kucinich campaign, which filed an emergency complaint with the Federal Communications Commission last week because of ABC’s decision to exclude the candidate from a nationally televised debate, is considering legal action to address “the blatant disregard of the public interest in silencing public debate that dissents with the views of NBC, its parent company, GE, and all of the military contractors and their candidate-funding corporate interests. Corporate control of the media is one issue. Corporate media control of the information that is allowed to reach American citizens is much more dangerous, much more sinister, and much more un-American.”'

        I see why you want to make it that way, but that isn't the case. The FCC doesn't mediate breach of contract cases.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1We haven't even certified the elections in NH -- how can we actually know who the top 4 candidates are?
      Much less the fact that we are deciding by pre-selection who the top 4 candidates are based upon the oldest and whitest two states in the country. Is that representational government or have we given up the pretense of actually letting people select their President?
  • EvilLordBanana, on 01/15/2008, -0/+5Why NBC? Let's hear one good ***** reason as to exclude ANY candidate from a debate. I am not a kucinich supporter, but I believe he should have his views heard as much as any other candidate. So lets hear one reason as to why we, the public, shouldn't be able to hear what he has to say.
    • tendonut, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3An honest answer? He doesn't believe in what is best for NBC. The less likely he is to get in office, the more likely NBC will be able to continue their ways.
  • amenic, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3Why go through ANY length or measure of trouble to keep the number at three rather than four even though it was originally at four. Unbelievable. Nothing smells worse than politics in America. This makes no sense...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
  •  

    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.