Kucinich whines about not being included in the debates again.

[Yukari Yakumo]

NEW YORK - Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich filed a complaint with the FCC on Friday after ABC News excluded him, fellow Democrat Mike Gravel and Republican Duncan Hunter from its prime-time debates on Saturday.

Kucinich argued that ABC is violating equal-time provisions by keeping him out of the debate and noted that ABC's parent Walt Disney Co. had contributed to campaigns involving the four Democrats who were invited.

"ABC should not be the first primary," the Ohio congressman said in papers filed at the Federal Communications Commission.

ABC said the candidates left out of the debates failed to meet benchmarks for their support that were outlined to each campaign prior to the Iowa caucus. Kucinich did not complain about these rules ahead of time, said spokeswoman Cathie Levine, who had no further comment since she hasn't seen the FCC filing.

So Kuch fails to make the standards expected from him, which he approved of ahead of time, and then proceeds to whine about it.

Edit- Forgot Sauce

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080105/ap_po/abc_debate

[2rth2pwr]

1. We would have had 4 years of this if he had any chance of winning. nt

[itsrobert]

2. Looks like Obama is abandoning him

The user is going on without him.

[sjdnb]

3. What's he whining about ... Obama's included

didn't he throw his delegates to him already (in Iowa) - so, why not the rest of the country?

[Yukari Yakumo]

4. And here's the criteria.

Again, Kuch approved of this.

Candidates had to meet at least one of three criteria: place first through fourth in Iowa, poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major New Hampshire surveys, or poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major national surveys.

[loveangelc]

5. is gravel in the debates?lol

[lvx35]

6. Maybe Obama's campaign needs a whiner in their staff.

He bought into the superiority of the big 3 when he threw his support to Obama, so who can question it and fight for him now???

[MalloyLiberal]

10. Correct.

[Adelante]

40. Obama defended Kucinich's right to be in the NH debate

And so did Clinton. It was Edwards who couldn't be bothered to defend another Democrat. But it was Edwards who said, "Howard Dean doesn't speak for me," when Dean was under attack. So, no surprise.

[Anouka]

7. Could be worse, he could be Alan Keyes.

No one else is reporting this, by the way. So far. I don't know what's going on.

I went to gop.gov and was confused. I went to http://www.iowagop.net/ -- and Alan Keyes isn't listed, but Tancredo STILL has contact information up. Their 'recent news' is about how they would have real time results up for Thursday's Iowa caucus -- that was Wednesday.

Maybe, just maybe, there may be fire to Keyes' smoke. And if it is, that's wrong, and a much graver injustice than not being allowed to speak.

Kucinich should count some of his blessings. I say that believing he should have been allowed to the previous debates, and it was wrong to exclude him -- utterly wrong. But Iowa has specific rules, and the Democratic party has specific rules about what happens after Iowa; he knew that going in. He only has a case if Richardson is allowed to speak, but he isn't.


===================================================================
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1948599/posts#comment?q=1

Iowa GOP refuses to report Keyes votes
Posted on 01/04/2008 8:29:29 PM PST by TBP

The Iowa Republican Party has neither counted nor reported the number of votes for Alan Keyes in the GOP caucuses held Jan. 3....

Meanwhile, the Iowa GOP widely reported the vote tallies of all other candidates, including Tom Tancredo, who got 5 votes despite having quit the race. "I personally traveled with Alan Keyes across Iowa, and we met scores of Keyes voters. It's totally unfair these citizens' votes are now being withheld from the public," said Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt. "This is tantamount to election fraud....

"This resembles a 'communist-style' approach to electoral politics," said Stephen Stone, chairman of Alan Keyes for President. "In the former Soviet Union, political officials limited voters' choices in a way that created merely the illusion of democracy, without the reality. Any undue interference with free and open elections, of the sort we think we just witnessed, is un-American."

Added Stone, "Alan Keyes has been an announced candidate for president since Sept. 14. Yet the state GOP chose to exclude him from the caucus process, claiming he 'announced too late' to be included, so that his name was not even mentioned on official lists of candidates or in reporting instructions. This disenfranchises Iowa voters."

[Naturyl]

35. Alan Keyes is one of the biggest clowns in America

But if this is true, it's wrong.

[Anouka]

59. It's true. Tancredo results up, Keyes are missing

at the Iowa site. But then, so are Sam Brownback and John Cox missing. I don't know when or if they dropped out. But Keyes definitely hasn't.

I apologize about the misinformation about Richardson. My understanding was that he wasn't going to be allowed at the debate Saturday because of the 2%. If Richardson was in, Kucinich should have been allowed in since Kucinich had not conceded.

And I'm disgusted that there are numbers breakdowns for every county in Iowa... but they are incomplete if they don't breakdown for ALL candidates who received support. From what I've read Keyes had supporters out there working for him. The Republican caucus was supposed to be different from the Democrat because it was more like a 'vote'.

Why is the Republican party doing this to their own members? members who were willing to support the party?

Even if Keyes received no votes whatsoever, why not show that he had no votes whatsoever instead of pretending he wasn't running at all? But they're not bothering to tabulate at all. They haven't put up his contact information.


This sickens my own heart.

[bluestateguy]

8. There is no constitutional right to be in a debate

The voting has begun now, and debates should be for the heavyweight, big league candidates only from here on out.

[maximusveritas]

9. I'd like to see Kucinich included

but I also understand that they have to set the cutoff somewhere. Otherwise just about anyone could make it into the debates.

[stimbox]

11. The corporatists are afraid of Kucinich's message.

And those who support the Corporate approved candidates just go along with it.

[Pastiche423]

14. It is even more obvious

this campaign season that the coporatists are controling the message via the media w/both Kucinich and Paul being essentially blackmailed from the debates.

I will never forget how Ted Koppel during a debate, tried to embarrass Kuncich, Carol Moseley-Braun and I think Al Sharpton, asking them why they were continuing when none of them had much campaign money - on live tv!

We need Dennis Kucinch's voice in the debates.

[JDPriestly]

12. Kucinich was not given a fair chance.

In past debates, he was asked very few questions and some of them, such as the UFO question, were way beyond the pale.

[Hekate]

13. Telling the truth is not whining. Kucinich has the deck stacked against him by the MSM...

...and if the other Democratic candidates knew what was good for the democracy they'd get together and refuse to put up with that shit.

At the Democratic candidates' debates Dennis Kucinich has been publicly ignored by moderator Wolf Blitzer, has had his microphone cut off by some dope at Fox, and now has been disinvited altogether by ABC. I am completely disgusted. Why should this man have to suck it up and pretend it's not happening, when anyone with eyes can see that it is?

It's high time our Democratic party candidates set the terms of the debates, rather than allowing the corporate media to do so. Wolf Blitzer, among others, is far more interested in instigating a game of "let's you and him fight" than he is in exploring the policies of the individuals and their potential effects on the future of the nation. Time to ask the League of Women Voters to be the sponsors/moderators once more.

Kucinich is not "my" candidate, but allowing this treatment of him set the stage for the way John Edwards is being roundly ignored despite having come in ahead of Hillary Clinton in Iowa.

Hekate

[Horse with no Name]

31. I totally agree. n/t

[ClintonTyree]

15. It's part of the B-I-G conspiracy....

to keep Kucinich's voice from being heard. :wow: If he was included in all the debates and asked as many questions as the others he'd be the front runner now, for sure! It's all part of the giant conspiracy to keep Kucinich's voice from being heard. :sarcasm:

When you're being out-polled by "undecided" it may be time to give up the ghost. Americans have decided that they don't WANT to hear what Kucinich has to say. Period. They've already heard enough to decide that he's not the person they want in the White House. Whatever.

Kucinich supporters have to face reality. He's not even a minor player in the Presidential race anymore. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it's the truth, and sometimes the truth is brutal.

[FREEWILL56]

16. That's interesting that you think everybody has heard enough when

he got very little time to let people know who he is and what he stands for. The major networks aren't carrying him in debates and it does NOT go by who the front runners in polls are. He may not win, but it will be because of little exposure being allowed to a viable running candidate. Heard enough? Hell, I've met people who don't know who he is because of what's being done to him and that says it isn't right. Am I surprised to hear a hillary supporter supporting unfairness to another candidate? No not in the least. We have heard too much of hillary for sure who offers what to the people? What an ego trip she's on.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. At this point Kucinich's only message...

...is that people aren't being allowed to hear his message.

[FREEWILL56]

20. They aren't even hearing him bitch about it or they would've heard of him.

I guess you think it's ok, but wouldn't it be nice to let him fall on his own rather than no chance to as the others are getting that chance and you know it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. Give it a rest.

I was a Richardson support up until about two months ago when it became clear to me that his campaign was simply doomed. But he had a campaign. He had staff in the early primary states. He was serious about raising money. And lo and behold, he wasn't excluded from the debates, or anything else. Yet somehow, even though I for one find his message to be much more compelling than any of the frontrunners, he ain't gonna win. I'm not gonna blame the MSM for his failure. If Kucinich were actually running a serious campaign and had a percentage of support that was actually expressible as an integer, I might have some sympathy. Demanding that the MSM treat his preposterous candidacy as a real campaign is disingenuous on his part.

[FREEWILL56]

23. He had a campaign? I heard nothing about it or for him.

In any case I could go back and forth with you on this, but I will let it rest as we both have our opinions.

[MalloyLiberal]

17. All he would do the whole time is attack Edwards anyway

Which is Richardson's job at the debate in NH

"Be a good boy, be my VP" (Hillary and OBama probably saying the same thing)

[Naturyl]

36. But how can voters make that decision when

They have heard practically nothing from Kucinich to begin with? That's the whole problem. I told my therapist about Kucinich and he didn't even know who he was. He probably still doesn't know.

Kucinich won't win. Most of us know that. But doesn't he deserve to be heard?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. OK, I've got an idea.

Why don't all the Kucinich people ranting about the MSM trying to silence their candidate go sit in a corner. With all of the Hillary supporters who are claiming that the pro-Obama MSM is trying to smear their candidate. And all of the Edwards supporters who say the Hillary-or-Obama MSM is ignoring their candidate. And all of the Obama people who were claiming (up until thursday) that the pro-Hillary MSM had it in for their candidate.

[elaineb]

22. The only one whining here is you and the rest of the Kucinich-haters

As far as I'm concerned, Kucinich isn't filing a complaint on behalf of himself in being excluded from the ABC debate; he's filing a complaint on behalf of all of us who have the same progressive ideals he does and who want a voice in this country's future. Therefore, his complaint is not only not "whining", it's entirely consistent with the way he's always taken strong stands on what he believes in, despite the taunting and disparagement he receives from whiners such as yourself.

Who's really whining here? A progressive candidate who's been ignored and belittled by the mainstream media for the entire race thus far but who continues to demand his fair share of media time, or those who jump on every single thread like this and childishly attempt to belittle him for not taking such sh*t?

Kucinich really shames the hell out of your type, doesn't he?

[Desertrose]

33. When Kucinich is silenced so are the people silenced who agree with him.

Where is our voice? Why are we not allowed to be heard? To be represented?

Welcome to DU, elaineb. Its clear you can see through the BS here. Nice to have another who is sick of the unfair treatment DK gets and all the ones who jump with glee on that fact.

I think you hit the nail on the head.....

"Kucinich really shames the hell out of your type, doesn't he?"

[Naturyl]

37. What you say is true, but we have to be realistic

Our voices aren't heard because America isn't ready for them yet. Kucinich supporters are very progressive. This country doesn't want to hear it... yet.

What I admire most about Kucinich is that he's out there saying it anyway, and paving the way for a day in the future when perhaps this country WILL be ready. It won't be this November and probably not the next November. But if we have patience and support good candidates like Edwards in the meantime, we may eventually get it done.

[Desertrose]

54. No. Our voices aren't being heard because they AREN'T HEARD!!

How can you know what America is or isn't READY FOR if they DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT??

This is what silencing does...it takes away our choices...as though they never existed.


I wish Edwards was as progressive as he wants us to believe...believe me I REALLY do...but even though he would be my second choice....its a distant second. I don't know where or when "being patient" will change anything.

[elaineb]

38. They really are trying to silence us

It's bad enough that the mainstream media is trying to shut out the voice of the progressive left, but there are quite a few snivelling little posters here who can't abide that there is still a candidate in the race who shames them AND their candidate by taking simple Democratic positions that their candidates are afraid to take. Thank God that Kucinich in his long political career has never taken notice of such cowardly sniping and continues standing up for millions of us and demanding our "place at the table". That really gets to some of these Kucinich-haters here on DU--it compels them to jump in on every Kucinich thread, flinging their poo all around like chimps.

Thanks a lot for the supportive post, but I'm not really new here. I've been a member since 2004, but I rarely post, preferring to read the posts and opinions of others. But these whiny attacks on a good man and a great Democratic politician have got me so angry that I felt compelled to challenge some of these posters. Did you notice that my questions to them never get answered? Just *more* whining on their part about a candidate who is supposedly completely unimportant, barely supported, and politically non-viable. Strange that they want to waste a minute of their day on such an unimportant figure.

Oh, and I am not directing my challenge/questions at anybody who has an honest disagreement with Kucinich's positions on the issues--just those obnoxious few who unerringly and immediately find their way to every Kucinich thread to say the same thing ad nauseum, which is almost never a comment on his actual positions (other than the poster who always comments on the absurdity of the idea of a Dept. of Peace--as if we don't already have a Dept. of War!). To any centrists who have so much free time to waste saying something negative about Kucinich, take pride and responsibility in being a centrist, and state clearly what positions he has which you don't agree with. Or just continue to fling your poo around because Kucinich embarrasses you as you feel the lack of courage in your convictions. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[rucky]

46. 'Zactly! n/t

[elaineb]

24. For an "unelectable" candidate who's polling at less than 5%

...Kucinich sure does attract a lot of time and attention and whiny jabbering from the same DU'ers on every thread on which he's the main subject. Honestly, WHY do you all feel compelled to waste so many words (which are repeated ad nauseum) on every Kucinich thread if you think he's a non-viable candidate? I suspect it's something pathological, but perhaps you can convince me otherwise? Yeah, we GET that he's polling in the low-single digits, we GET that he's supposedly more "woo-woo" than the other Bible-thumping candidates, we GET that he doesn't compromise enough on political issues for your liking, but what really gets under your skin about him? If you're convinced he's really so unimportant and unpopular, what strange compulsion requires you to repeat your same tired comments on every goddamned thread about him?

I wonder if any anti-Kucinich poster on this thread will answer this question. I honestly want to know what's behind your compulsion to post on every thread concerning an "unelectable" candidate. Would one of you step up to the plate, please?

[robcon]

25. I think I know the answer as to why the whininess from Kucinich supporters.

I've seen several DUers post that DK is the "true" Democrat in the race. The definition of "true" of course, is that these supporters support him - not that Democrats/voters support him. Less than 1% of Democrats support Kucinich.

When you've defined away other Democrats from being "true" Democrats, then Kucinich can break his agreements (he knew what he needed to have to participate in the debate in NH) or try to get away with no Iowa office (as he knew he had to have for the Iowa debate.)

When you are a "true" Democrat, you don't have to do what other Democrats have to do. :sarcasm:

[elaineb]

26. Uh-huh. So what disagreement do you have with Kucinich's positions?

I could name quite a few differences I have with some of the positions of the "electable" candidates. I'm pretty sure you're the poster who's always going on about Kucinich's Department of Peace proposal (oh, the horror!!). But could you name some other specific positions of his that you disagree with? Because if you imply that his low polling suggests a lack of agreement with his positions among mainstream Democrats, (rather than, as many of us maintain, an almost complete lack of media attention outside the little-watched debates), then you must have some idea of which of his positions are not in sync with the majority of Democrats. Please enlighten us!

By the way, I'm not one of those who thinks Kucinich is the only "true" Democrat, and I don't think there are really that many Kucinich-supporters here who do (yeah, you're always going to find some blustering loudmouths among any candidate's supporters). I realize full well that the Democratic Party encompasses a wide-range of "liberal" positions on the greatly-shrunken left-side of the political spectrum. I do, however, believe, that Kucinich is the only candidate on the traditional "left" of the party. The others could really only be described as left-center at best. And I'm not saying "left" good, "left-center" bad. I'm simply saying that Kucinich represents the only candidate in this race that represents the real left in the party, and the fact that a small but obnoxious number of you anti-Kucinich DU'ers continue to lambaste him on every effin' Kucinich thread has still not been explained, considering his so-called unimportance and non-viability. Could you please try again to explain it instead of avoiding the question by accusing others of "whininess"?

[FREEWILL56]

27. Welcome to the DU elaineb.

You have a good way of words and have hit the nail on the head. Here it is more than 14 hours later and they have nothing to say in answer to you. In all fairness if their whining about DK is right and legit, they should answer you.
As to a "true Democrat" one would have to give their definition of what a Democrat is first and it seems that differs from one person to another or is totally undefineable as I had tried to get others to say what they believe a Democrat is in a thread I started some months back. He is a Democrat for sure and that is true so one can't say he lied and until others are willing to define a Democrat they can't say what a true Democrat is or is not. If DK angers them for saying this then more needs to be said before they can justify being angry about it imho.

[elaineb]

39. Yep, still no answers

...yet the same few Kucinich-hatin' posters are still spamming all the other Kucinich threads. Funny how they missed this.

I think I posed two different questions, so let me try again and see if any of them will answer: I want to know specifically what disagreements they have with Kucinich's position on any of the major issues in this campaign, and I would like to know why some of them show up on every Kucinich thread to disparage him, when they apparently believe he's an unimportant, low-polling, non-viable candidate? There are at least 4 or 5 of them that specifically seek out Kucinich threads to spam with the same comments over and over, so they can't pretend at this point not to have seen these questions.

I'm not a psychologist by any means, but (besides the possibility that they are that not-to-be-named thing which one isn't allowed to accuse another DU'er of being) it seems to me that there is only one reason why they devote so much of their time to posting negative comments about him (see post #22). I have nothing against centrists that have the courage of their convictions and are supportive of candidates who represent them on the issues. But I have nothing but complete disdain for those who are ashamed of their own beliefs and positions to the point that they have to disparage other candidates (and that goes for ALL partisans who do this on DU, those who support Kucinich included). There's no reason to smear or go negative on another Democratic candidate if your own candidate is a good one. One should only have to point out the positive traits and policy positions of your candidate to win the non-committed over to your candidate. In fact, if Kucinich drops out of the race (although I hope he stays in and speaks for us as long as possible), then I'm going to be observing the supporters of Edwards and Obama very closely to see which of them can speak boldly and courageously for the positions of their own candidate without going negative on the other candidate. I'm sure there are a lot of other DU'ers (who, like me, don't post very often but read every day) who will be doing the same thing. To think that DU offers all this space to "advertise" your favored candidate, and yet all the majority of posters seem to do is use this valuable space to attack the other candidates! It's really bizarre to me, and it makes me think that a lot of people here either aren't supporting their chosen candidate for the right reasons (that they completely agree with them on most issues), or they are in a very miserable mood 24/7 and don't know how to turn it off when it comes to communicating with their comrades in the political arena.

Sorry for using a reply to your supportive post for a bit of a rant, but these last few days on DU have been getting to me. Thanks for the welcome, but I'm not really new here--just don't post very often. Cheers to a fellow Kucinich supporter!

Now can any of the rest of you posters answer the above questions, PLEASE?

[FREEWILL56]

48. I have no problem with your rant.

My mistake on thinking you to be new, but it is I who is new in comparrison. The hello was still warranted as I thought your postings here to be very good and I urge you to do so more often. Funny though, as I know an elaineb, but I'm sure the last name would be different.:hi: :thumbsup:

[Cleita]

28. He's a candidate. That's the only criteria IMHO that's

viable. Although I have heard him answer all those questions eloquently in various interviews on radio and TV, I would have liked to hear what he had to say with the other candidates present. I'm sure he would have taken the wind out of some sails there. I think it's really unfair not to include him. It makes me think more and more that these elections and campaigns are already rigged in favor of a preferred candidate to run in the general election ahead of time in some back room somewhere. I wonder where that could be? Perhaps the DLC headquarters in the case of Democrats? We already know the Republican nominations are rigged. Why are Democrats behaving like them?

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. There are 22 Democrats on the ballot in NH

[FREEWILL56]

45. So?

[onenote]

51. So, in the real world, a "debate" with 22 participants would be absurd

[FREEWILL56]

61. So that means that many of those running are being prepicked to

be ousted from debate without the voter sayso. The purpose of a debate is for the people to hear and make a choice which is being unduly and unfairly limited by a select few that may not even be Democrats that changes the possible outcome without a real Democratic process taking place. Sounds fair to me.:sarcasm:

[Forkboy]

29. Aya Reiko whines about Kucinich again.

[penguin7]

30. First it is a storefront, but in NH Kucinich has a storefront

so the goalposts move.

[robbedvoter]

32. After posting this, whine that YOUR candidate is ignored by the MSM

After all, why should you be more consistent than your candidate?

[Algorem]

41. Aya Heiko,why'd you have to start a whole new thread whining a-

bout Kucinich?there's plenty of other threads where whiners about Kucinich have congregated.Why don't you go there instead of wasting more space,A.H.?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

42. and rightly so..the gop faught fox news to have paul included....

the dem party should hang it'ss head in shame over this one

[onenote]

43. Under the standards applied by ABC for inclusion in the debates

Paul would've qualified, but Kucinich wouldn't. Nothing to fight about. Should the Democratic Party have fought for the inclusion of the other dozen plus "candidates" that are on the NH Democratic Party primary ballot but also didn't meet ABC's pre-announced criteria for inclusion in the debate?

[FREEWILL56]

47. Yes or it's not a real democratic debate that we see our choices is it?

The Democratic party should no longer allow the msm, companies, or anything else that would express a bias against any candidate for the purpose of predetermining our candidates' validity and choose who our candidates are that'll be heard in Democratic debates. Also, the Democratic party should make and streamline requirements of candidates to dissallow such practices that are being met but later further explained in order to exclude. I look forward to start seeing other exclusions to start taking place even with the so called front runners.

[onenote]

49. so you would have the NH debates include all 20 plus candidates?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

55. if their are 20 democratic candidates ABSOLUTELY

[onenote]

56. and do you honestly, truly think that a debate with 20 participants

can work as a practical matter?

[FREEWILL56]

62. Yes

[AtomicKitten]

44. I don't think anyone running should be excluded from debates for whatever reason.

It's just not democratic.

[onenote]

50. There are over 20 candidates on the NH Democratic primary ballot

It would be ridiculous to have a "debate" with more than 20 different participants.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

58. How about a debate with fifty candidate?

After all, if their names are on the ballot, they must be serious.

[LWolf]

52. I'm sure no one is "whining"

because I didn't bother with the debate, and because I may not bother with the dem on my ballot next November, lol.

That kind of attack is inevitably going to rebound on the attacker.

Way to make enemies instead of allies!

[Fire Walk With Me]

53. Political visibility is the result of spending money. Obviously, the corporations have given money

to Hillary, etc.

Obviously, those who are anti-corporate stand less chance of getting all those millions of buddy bux, and even worse, the rich who own the MSM might play a part in contexting who will be able to get even more visibility.

This is one of the things that Dennis hopes to change. Obviously, those who can help purchase leadership must balk at this.

Supporting Dennis will help to change this sad state of affairs.

[mrmx9]

57. I feel sorry for Ron Paul - Fox News are excluding him from their debate tonight!

Imagine how Ron Paul feels - he's leading both Giuliani and Thompson (and in some cases Huckerbee) in many of the New Hampshire polls but is being excluded from tonight's Fox News debate. Given that he seems to be the only Republican with anything interesting or useful today its a real shame - clearly Fox are worried he might say something too controversial which might get some of their viewers foaming at the mouth!

[FrenchieCat]

60. First they came for Kucinich, and many said "good Riddance".....

and by the time they came for you, there was no one to defend your right to speak.

DU is getting real ugly!