NBC Wins Battle Over Debate: Looks like Dennis Kucinich will be excluded

[Phantom]

NBC Wins Battle Over Debate (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/nbc-wins-battle-over-debate/)

By Brian Stelter

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled Tuesday (http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/documents/cases/50889.ordergrantingpetition.pdf) that MSNBC is not required to include candidate Dennis Kucinich in its scheduled Democratic presidential debate. The seven-member court overturned Monday’s ruling (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/nbc-appeals-ruling-on-adding-kucinich-to-debate/) by a Nevada district court judge.

The decision, which came one hour before the debate was scheduled to begin in Las Vegas, meant that Mr. Kucinich would not share the stage with the party’s three leading contenders, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. The debate is expected to begin at 9 p.m. Eastern on MSNBC.

Read the rest here (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/nbc-wins-battle-over-debate/)

[JimInNY]

We need to help Kucinich supporters bombard NBC.

[Son of Detroit]

No, leave socialist clown Kucinich alone. We don't need to associate Paul with him.

[JimInNY]

We don't have to associate anyone with anyone, we just have to express our concerns as responsible American citizens.

[Ethek]

Goverment backed Monopolies FTL.

I see little about accessing the airwaves as private property about the media. In an economy and society that is as more about information services than manufacturing media is akin to public infrastructure.

[UtahApocalypse]

Everyone who doesn't care because this is Kucinich keep this in mind:

They now have precedent to change the rules and exclude Ron Paul at ANY time. They could wait until a hour before if they want, and avoid all the blowback that we gave FOX.

It's a sad day in America, the courts have ruled that the Media decides our elections.

[itsnobody]

Great decision, in a free society a private company is free to do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe constitutional rights...

You can't tell a private company they MUST include someone into their private debate forum...that's unconstitutional

[jake]

they would need to exclude Thompson and Ghouls if they wanted to exclude Paul.. and if they think they can avoid blowback by waiting until 1 hour before they debate? that's a laughable suggestion !

[AnalogDan]

We need to help Kucinich supporters bombard NBC.

Ron Paul supports Kucinich more than any other candidate; they consider themselves good friends, and though certain policies would need to be ironed out, it would be very symbolic should the two ever run together on the same ticket. Kucinich is a great patriot; that man should be applauded.

[JimInNY]

Great decision, in a free society a private company is free to do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe constitutional rights...

Is it a great decision? I haven't followed the particulars, but I read some things about a "contract". Was there a signed legal contract involved, or was it an expressed contract, kinda like, anyone with over X% will be included, blah blah blah...?

[Kade]

Great decision, in a free society a private company is free to do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe constitutional rights...

This is sheer ignorance.

A private company does not have individual rights. How the majority of you here came up with this fatuous conclusion is beyond me. In this country, the media is the gateway to votes, the same reason you are mad at the decision to exclude Ron Paul from a debate, should be considered here as well... the problem is, there does need to be a line, but think about the setup. This is a world event, broadcast to millions, by a privately owned company, about a public election. They are deciding for us the main candidates.

By this logic and their understanding, Thompson and Guiliani are candidates to be removed from the next debate held for the republicans...

[itsnobody]

Is it a great decision? I haven't followed the particulars, but I read some things about a "contract". Was there a signed legal contract involved, or was it an expressed contract, kinda like, anyone with over X% will be included, blah blah blah...?

I'm not sure

But you can't force a private company to include someone into their private debate forums, that's unconstitutional

[JimInNY]

Ron Paul supports Kucinich more than any other candidate; they consider themselves good friends, and though certain policies would need to be ironed out, it would be very symbolic should the two ever run together on the same ticket. Kucinich is a great patriot; that man should be applauded.

I think calling him a great patriot is a stretch given his stand on gun control and some other socialist issues, but, what they get away with against Kucinich, they can get away with against Paul.

[JimInNY]

I'm not sure

But you can't force a private company to include someone into their private debate forums, that's unconstitutional

You can if there is a contract.

[itsnobody]

This is sheer ignorance.

A private company does not have individual rights. How the majority of you here came up with this fatuous conclusion is beyond me. In this country, the media is the gateway to votes, the same reason you are mad at the decision to exclude Ron Paul from a debate, should be considered here as well... the problem is, there does need to be a line, but think about the setup. This is a world event, broadcast to millions, by a privately owned company, about a public election. They are deciding for us the main candidates.

By this logic and their understanding, Thompson and Guiliani are candidates to be removed from the next debate held for the republicans...

Right....and the people will pressure whatever company to include someone...that's how a free society works...

But the government should NOT force a private company to include someone, that's unconstitutional...

You all are socialists

[UtahApocalypse]

Right....and the people will pressure whatever company to include someone...that's how a free society works...

But the government should NOT force a private company to include someone, that's unconstitutional...

You all are socialists


I fully expect you to be in favor of Ron Paul exclusion at the next debate than.

[itsnobody]

I fully expect you to be in favor of Ron Paul exclusion at the next debate than.

No, I won't be in favor of it at all, but I also won't be in favor of the government forcing something onto a private company, that's tyrannical

Don't you understand?

We can get Ron Paul included without government intervention

[Kade]

Right....and the people will pressure whatever company to include someone...that's how a free society works...

But the government should NOT force a private company to include someone, that's unconstitutional...

You all are socialists

Calling me a socialist doesn't make me one. That word is thrown around here like grenade in a Foxhole. I don't believe in corporate rule. And the people had no vote in this... because if they did, they would vote for Kucinich to be allowed....

The Republic maximizes freedom based on a standard understanding... in this country, that is the Constitution. In this group, people think they know much about something they don't....

[itsnobody]

Calling me a socialist doesn't make me one. That word is thrown around here like grenade in a Foxhole. I don't believe in corporate rule. And the people had no vote in this... because if they did, they would vote for Kucinich to be allowed....

The Republic maximizes freedom based on a standard understanding... in this country, that is the Constitution. In this group, people think they know much about something they don't....

Stop lying

You're a full blown socialist

You believe the government should pretend to help people based upon the government's opinions...right?

Why doesn't the government ban the media from being able to write certain articles then?
Maybe the government should start to ban guns
Give free welfare
Make government laws so everything would be equal

Socialist

[revolution4freedom]

It may just be because I've paid more attention to the elections this year, but it seems that we are seeing more media influence on this election than any other. Candidates like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich represent differing view points on various issues, and the voters should be able to see these issues, and make up their own minds. It is my belief that Dr. Paul's views truly represent a majority of America, but he may never get the chance to express his viewpoints to a large percentage of the population. With the media and polls censuring these candidates and their ideals, corporate America and the media are effectively deciding the election before it has really even started.

Truthfully, I have never even looked at Dennis Kucininch's "election issues" issues before this week and the MSNBC debate fracus, and although I still wouldn't vote for him, I see quite a few points that should probably be put in a public forum. Before this, all I knew about him was that he was the "UFO guy" - a testament to the crazy and unprofessional questions that both he and Dr. Paul have to put up with (when they are even invited to the debates) instead of questions that investigate their platforms and stimulate thought. We are truly seeing the dumbing down of the national populance!

RevolutionforFreedom
Birmingham, Alabama

[Mort]

I fully expect you to be in favor of Ron Paul exclusion at the next debate than.

Even Ron Paul agreed Fox News had the right to exclude him. They just didn't realize the blowback.

[Kade]

Stop lying

You're a full blown socialist

You believe the government should pretend to help people based upon the government's opinions...right?

Why doesn't the government ban the media from being able to write certain articles then?
Maybe the government should start to ban guns
Give free welfare
Make government laws so everything would be equal

Socialist

Government's opinions? I didn't know they had an opinion. I suppose if they did, it sounds remarkably similar to the way you talk to me... Good vs. evil? Right vs. Wrong? Them vs Us?

I believe in the maximum amount of freedom for the individual. I want this freedom extracted from the corporations and the government. Kucinich had a right to a national stage, like the other presidential candidates. Like Ron Paul does....

[Lord Xar]

Great decision, in a free society a private company is free to do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe constitutional rights...

You can't tell a private company they MUST include someone into their private debate forum...that's unconstitutional

Though I think you have a point, one must consider the implication AND intent of the nationalized debate format. Each debate is endorsed and has an expectation of 'those running for president' - When the defacto source of info ON presidents is the MSM, then one must conclude that it is infact not 'private' but the veneer of public service hiding a private agenda.

Kucinich should of been included. That is a fact. He doesn't fit the agenda, so he was tossed. WHEN the 4th candidate was someone else, it was cool - when he dropped leaving Kucinich for 4th, new rules. COMPLETELY wrong, and COMPLETELY corrupt.

[Ethek]

I think where this whole thing jumped the shark is when the Supreme Court started judging companies as having the same rights as private individuals without any of the responsibilities. I don't see it hat way.

Also, the government controls the distribution of the airwaves. It effectivley makes media companies goverment backed monoiploies. There has always been a precident for anti-trust issues where the Gov has stepped in.

In an information based society controlling the flow and content of information effectively makes peoples decisions for them. Thats why it is so important for the Internet to stay completely unregulated, especially by the 'tube owners'

Freedom of the press works both ways in my opinion... The press should not be allowed to set the agenda.

[Kade]

Though I think you have a point, one must consider the implication AND intent of the nationalized debate format. Each debate is endorsed and has an expectation of 'those running for president' - When the defacto source of info ON presidents is the MSM, then one must conclude that it is infact not 'private' but the veneer of public service hiding a private agenda.

Kucinich should of been included. That is a fact. He doesn't fit the agenda, so he was tossed. WHEN the 4th candidate was someone else, it was cool - when he dropped leaving Kucinich for 4th, new rules. COMPLETELY wrong, and COMPLETELY corrupt.

+5

That is all I'm saying... thank you.

[JimInNY]

All this constitutional vs unconstitutional vs government vs corporation vs the people BS is deflecting attention away from the issue. NBC has excluded Kucinich and FOX has excluded Paul.

We made FOX pay and we need to make NBC pay by filling up their inboxes and voicemail with our complaints.

[Kade]

I think where this whole thing jumped the shark is when the Supreme Court started judging companies as having the same rights as private individuals without any of the responsibilities. I don't see it hat way.

Also, the government controls the distribution of the airwaves. It effectivley makes media companies goverment backed monoiploies. There has always been a precident for anti-trust issues where the Gov has stepped in.

In an information based society controlling the flow and content of information effectively makes peoples decisions for them. Thats why it is so important for the Internet to stay completely unregulated, especially by the 'tube owners'

Freedom of the press works both ways in my opinion... The press should not be allowed to set the agenda.

+1

It wasn't the Supreme Court though. The giving of individual rights to companies started with policy. The Supreme Court is not really the people's enemy.. for the most part, they have shown to be very protective of Individual progressive rights... Only recently, in the more conservative benches, have we seen this trend of corporate favoritism reach the bench in totality...

[itsnobody]

Government's opinions? I didn't know they had an opinion. I suppose if they did, it sounds remarkably similar to the way you talk to me... Good vs. evil? Right vs. Wrong? Them vs Us?

I believe in the maximum amount of freedom for the individual. I want this freedom extracted from the corporations and the government. Kucinich had a right to a national stage, like the other presidential candidates. Like Ron Paul does....


Though I think you have a point, one must consider the implication AND intent of the nationalized debate format. Each debate is endorsed and has an expectation of 'those running for president' - When the defacto source of info ON presidents is the MSM, then one must conclude that it is infact not 'private' but the veneer of public service hiding a private agenda.

Kucinich should of been included. That is a fact. He doesn't fit the agenda, so he was tossed. WHEN the 4th candidate was someone else, it was cool - when he dropped leaving Kucinich for 4th, new rules. COMPLETELY wrong, and COMPLETELY corrupt.

You all aren't understanding what I'm saying

I believe Ron Paul and Kucinich should've been included, but I don't believe the government should force private companies to do what they desire

[Paulitician]

Sickening...

Corporatism FTL.

[Kade]

You all aren't understanding what I'm saying

I believe Ron Paul and Kucinich should've been included, but I don't believe the government should force private companies to do what they desire

Did you just get out of high school or something? Let's start over...

Governments do force private companies to do what they desire. Right now, that is the case. Sorry. I don't agree with it... but at the same time, there is nothing you can do about it...

Except maybe HEAR out a few people who have a way to lessen the government? Kucinich? Paul?

Oh wait, they are banned from the corporate owned media... that's right.

Kid. Think for yourself.

[itsnobody]

Did you just get out of high school or something? Let's start over...

Governments do force private companies to do what they desire. Right now, that is the case. Sorry. I don't agree with it... but at the same time, there is nothing you can do about it...

Except maybe here out a few people who have a way to lessen the government?

Oh wait, they are banned from the corporate owned media... that's right.

Kid. Think for yourself.

Sure...I know they do to a certain extent, but they shouldn't, certainly not in this case..

What if the government forces you to invite someone to your house? Do you think they should be able to?

Sounds like you have no education, you probably think the government should put people on a diet or ban guns if they desire, or maybe tell Fox News they should stop broadcasting if they wanted

Again you stray away from what I said, I want Kucinich and Paul to be included, but I don't want the government forcing private companies to do things

Clearly you don't even understand the constitutionalist philosophy

This is the typical socialist/liberal mindset "the government will fix everything"

You don't want freedom, you want tyranny (freedom for all who agree with your opinions)

[Kade]

Sure...I know they do to a certain extent, but they shouldn't, certainly not in this case..

What if the government forces you to invite someone to your house? Do you think they should be able to?

Sounds like you have no education, you probably think the government should put people on a diet or ban guns if they desire, or maybe tell Fox News they should stop broadcasting if they wanted

Again you stray away from what I said, I want Kucinich and Paul to be included, but I don't want the government forcing private companies to do things

Clearly you don't even understand the constitutionalist philosophy

This is the typical socialist/liberal mindset "the government will fix everything"

I'm an individual. I do have protection from the government "forcing" someone in my house. Again, continuing to define my position for me, while yours continues to deteriorate. The "Constitutionalist" philosophy that you callously toss around is not exactly a cake recipe. There are many understandings and many ways at looking at Constitutional Law... all of which are exhausted by different schools of thoughts. You can't just tell me I don't understand something and make it so... unfortunately, it isn't very clear.

Some people believe in original intent. Some people believe in original spirit. Some people believe in textualism or formalism. Some people believe in a living document. Some a combination of all. Who is wrong? Who is right? What matters is that intelligent people come together to protect what we do in fact hold dearest; our freedom. If either of those schools of thought brought more freedom to the people, they should be embraced. None of them do...

I can illustrate this with a very simple example...

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Should we bring back hanging or fire squads? They were not considered cruel and unusual back then... It goes beyond this though... so many things are implied but not written, so many things are written but not implied. Believe me, as a student of law, it is not easy. So please don't pretend that you know.. admit that you are, (what 18 or 19?) and just listen for once, instead of jumping out like you know every answer to the world. I'm not a socialist, fascist, zealot, or whatever.. I'm someone who actively works towards a common sense goal of maximized freedom.


Read something worthwhile, by someone who is smarter than you. You might learn something: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925558

[ceakins]

Great decision, in a free society a private company is free to do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe constitutional rights...

You can't tell a private company they MUST include someone into their private debate forum...that's unconstitutional

Great I don't want this private company transmitting on our public airwaves.

[UtahApocalypse]

Sure...I know they do to a certain extent, but they shouldn't, certainly not in this case..

What if the government forces you to invite someone to your house? Do you think they should be able to?

Sounds like you have no education, you probably think the government should put people on a diet or ban guns if they desire, or maybe tell Fox News they should stop broadcasting if they wanted

Again you stray away from what I said, I want Kucinich and Paul to be included, but I don't want the government forcing private companies to do things

Clearly you don't even understand the constitutionalist philosophy

This is the typical socialist/liberal mindset "the government will fix everything"

You don't want freedom, you want tyranny (freedom for all who agree with your opinions)

The big difference is that this is a matter of Public Interest and should not be done by Business intent. What would you propose? There is no easy answer is there? Maybe we should just let the MSM decide it all, who cares anyway right? Look im against the government forcing people to do things, but my god man think about what is happening.

[Kade]

The big difference is that this is a matter of Public Interest and should not be done by Business intent. What would you propose? There is no easy answer is there? Maybe we should just let the MSM decide it all, who cares anyway right? Look im against the government forcing people to do things, but my god man think about what is happening.

Another voice of reason.

[Paulitician]

Great I don't want this private company transmitting on our public airwaves.
Too bad, you have no say...

Oh wait, that would contradict the supposed fact that we live in a free society. Darn it :o

I hate corporatism.

[UtahApocalypse]

Great I don't want this private company transmitting on our public airwaves.

You just gave me a epiphany!!

Yes, the cable companies and channels are not regulated by the FCC and we cannot hit them that way. However, most all of these companies have Affiliates that do broadcast over the air. There must be some type of legal recourse we can take about OUR airwaves as the People. It's on the tip of my brain I don't know what or how though.

[Ethek]

You just gave me a epiphany!!

Yes, the cable companies and channels are not regulated by the FCC and we cannot hit them that way. However, most all of these companies have Affiliates that do broadcast over the air. There must be some type of legal recourse we can take about OUR airwaves as the People. It's on the tip of my brain I don't know what or how though.

No Cable cos arre also government backed Monopolies in that access to the home by utilities such as these is controlled with public right of way easements. Not everyone can be a competitor. Most of this infrastructure is also funded with public dollars.

[itsnobody]

The big difference is that this is a matter of Public Interest and should not be done by Business intent. What would you propose? There is no easy answer is there? Maybe we should just let the MSM decide it all, who cares anyway right? Look im against the government forcing people to do things, but my god man think about what is happening.

No we shouldn't let the media do what it wants...there's lots of ways to solve this without government involvement, the people and the free market can solve virtually anything

I don't know why you all cry for the government all the time