Sharpton and Kucinich should be excluded from debates

[dolstein]

And before people jump all over me, I'd say the say thing about Lieberman, except it's pretty clear that he'll be dropping out of the race before another debate is held.

It's pretty obvious that Sharpton and Kucinich aren't really seeking the nomination at this point. They're simply seeking the media platform that goes with being a candidate for president.

I just can't justify giving equal time to candidates like Sharpton and Kucinich, when there are other candidates that actually have a shot at taking the nomination away from Kerry. And the fact is, as long as the debate stage remains crowded, nobody is going to get a clean shot at Kerry.

[Dookus]

1. as I put on my flame-retardant suit...

I'll say I agree with you.

They've had their chance to say what they have to say. We need to pick a candidate now and it's NOT going to be one of them.

[Bombtrack]

2. You will get jumped all over, but you're absolutely right

we haven't been able to have 1 real debate because of the rediculous format resulting from joke candidates

[rucky]

7. 3 Guys Agreeing With Each Other is NOT a Real Debate (n/t)

[DjTj]

42. When there's only 3 or 4 of them...

...they won't all agree with each other anymore.

Right now Sharpton and Kucinich stand out because they are truly different from the others, but if it is left to the 4 candidates, the debate will hit on more subtle differences.

[Straight Shooter]

10. Joke candidates? Kucinich nailed the WMD issue from the start.

But there's something about the truth, what's that expression? Oh, yes. America can't handle it! Kucinich was the only one at the last debate who brought up the PNAC issue, and it was promptly left in the dust.

I want to hear Dean and I want to hear Clark and I want to hear Kucinich. Even Sharpton makes very good points.

More face time for Kerry? *yawn*

[youngred]

19. joke candidates?

like a guy who immitates taking a toke while Puff the Magic Dragon is played?

like a guy who is desperate enough for publicity that he goes on the cover of The Advocate?

like a guy who can't control his emotions and lets loose ridiculous war whoops?

Or like a guy who has a positive message and direction for the country. THe only "Joke" is posts and sentiments like yours that seek to limit the debate and cut off important members of the party from having their voice heard.

PS I think Kerry and Clark's moves above were courageous and good, and Dean's scream is overblown and I think a wise political move in the end.

[Dookus]

24. why is appearing on The Advocate

a sign of desperation?

[youngred]

30. that was added for dramatic effect

to show that one person's joke candidate is another's mainstream and that limiting the voices of any is ludicrous.

[Dookus]

35. ah.. gotcha

but I don't think anybody's trying to limit the voices of anyone. Sharpton and the others are free to speak out on any topic they want at any time. But at some point we have to focus on getting a candidate.

Should LaRouche be allowed in the debates? Should other minor, unknown candidates be allowed?

[youngred]

38. LaRouche is a DINO

he's his own brand of nut-job.

Sure they're free to talk about it at any time they want, but if a tree falls in the woods and there aren't 40 reporters there to cover it will it matter to the American people? This is basically the only way for some candidates to get any kind of message out over the exclusion.

What do they hurt the process? I'm serious. There is a few fewer minutes for debate, but more ideas get out there and they challenge Bush on things other candidates wouldn't dare (PNAC, BBV, WMDs, etc)

[Dookus]

45. it is YOUR judgment

that Larouche is a DINO (and I agree with you).

But others disagree - the fact is, there *IS* a line drawn as to who can be in the debates. We're just drawing it in different places.

[youngred]

50. this is true

LaRouche got more matching funds than did Kucinich.

There is a line, but why would you draw it above people who actually have something constructive and good to say (you didn't answer that question).

Nader wasn't electable either, should he have been banned from the debates? I don't think so

[Dookus]

53. My personal feeling

is we should be very open early on. But as the primaries progress, we should start focusing on those who have any reasonable chance of winning. Sharpton and Kucinich don't meet that criteria now.

They had plenty of chances to debate and carried themselves well. But their candidacies have no chance to win. I'm watching CNN right now, and Sharpton got 18% of the BLACK vote in South Carolina. He has no chance to win, and now's the time to give a little more time to those candidates who actually CAN.

[youngred]

64. How much more time do you want?

in the ENTIRE PAGE article in the NYT after the last debates Sharpton got a blurb abd two sentences and DK got ONE SENTENCE....doesn't seem like that's taking up too much time or space to me.

The media already ignores them completely, give them some chance

[Dookus]

66. I have given them a chance

I've never wanted them out of the debates prior to this point. But now that the primaries are underway, and they have zero chance to win, it's time to focus on those who can.

They're given equal time in the debates - that's what I object to, not their coverage in the NYT.

I'm glad they ran. I'm glad they were in the debates. I'm glad they had a chance to speak their minds. I actually like them both. But now we need to pick a candidate.

[chimpymustgo]

3. Asbestos suit, gloves, mask and shoes - check. I agree.

We have a serious, life and death mission here.

[Forkboy]

4. D.A.D. Strikes Back!!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. KUCINICH

has many real things to say..atleast he has a mind of his own and isnt constantly swayed by polls

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. Nope. I want them in.

I want the Republicans who are the real enemy to remain off balance for as long as possible and Sharpton and Kucinich help in this regard. They also represent the voices of people the Democrats cannot take for granted.

Sorry you don't like Kerry but I really doubt any has a better shot over the other at Bush. I'll take the guy that has a legislative memory of how bills and programs that would have benefitted ordinary Americans were blocked over the people that can't do the same.

[KissMyAsscroft]

8. They have had plenty of time to have their say...

I agree 100%.

[youngred]

28. where and when exactly? nt

[ButterflyBlood]

9. yes, i must also agree

it's all about the candidates who have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination now.

[youngred]

34. oh really?

because up until today exactly 1.5% of the delegates had been chosen. We're still nowhere near decided on who will win the nomination and ignoring the voices of the left is partially what got us into this mess with Bush.

Paint your own doom if you must, but don't help the republicans

[youngred]

11. Hardly

Dennis is in it for the long haul, no matter what his critics think or say. They are wrong about him being fringe, leftist, and unelectable, and they are wrong about him dropping out. He is the ONLY candidate standing up for progressive issues out there, and considering that Kerry, Dean, Clark and Edwards have all borrowed his positions of late I'd say he's doing a pretty damn good job of getting his message out (if not his candidacy)

NO ONE SHOULD BE BARRED FROM THE DEBATE, DEBATE MAKES US STRONGER

[YNGW]

12. Let em stay

There needs to be at least one warm body on stage during the debates just to keep the audience from getting up and walking out.

[genius]

13. Let's let the Republicans take over the debates. Exclude Democrats

Without Sharpton and Kucininich, reminding us what the Democratic Party is about, the debates would generate into who can appeal most the the pro-war, pro-corporation crowd.

[genius]

18. Kucinich has a better shot at being the nominee than Dean.

Dean can't win it outright, and since the supporters of other candidates don't like Dean, he won't be picked in a brokered convention. There's a good chance that, since supporters of other candidates like Kucinich, he will be the party nominee to emerge from a brokered convention. So excluding him could mean excluding the Democratic nominee for President. As for Sharpton, anyone who wants to exclude him is a racist.

[Dookus]

21. that's bullshit

I don't want Sharpton out of the debates because he's black. I want him out because he's had his say, he has no chance whatsoever of winning, and we need to focus on those who do.

To those who argue for letting anybody and everybody debate, do you think LaRouche should be allowed to debate? Any other minor candidates?

[stopthegop]

23. "anyone who wants to exclude him is a racist"

how do you figure that?

[genius]

36. Sharpton is the only representative of the African-American community

in the debates. He is also the best speaker in the Democratic Party. He and Kucinich would make the best Presidents because they most embody the values of the true Democratic Party. American needs them and the Democratic Party needs them. Only the Republican Party and pseudo-Republicans wants them excluded.

[Dookus]

37. again...

bullshit.

I'm neither a Republican nor a pseudo-Republican, and I think his time is up. He's had his say, he's gone exactly nowhere, has absolutely no chance of getting the nomination, and now it's time to pick a candidate.

I like Sharpton AND Kucinich. But it's obvious that neither one is going to be the candidate.

[stopthegop]

39. or people who realize neither has any chance

at the nomination..much less in the GE...but then, that's not thinking with my heart...

[genius]

61. Kucinich will likely be the nominee from a brokered convention

Yes. He is still in the running.

[Dookus]

69. I guarantee

that Kucinich will not be the result of a brokered convention. I'm glad you have such optimism from your guy, but there's zero chance of him being the candidate.

[twilight]

92. I agree and DK said that himself!

:dem: :kick:

[dolstein]

46. He's the only African-American -- that's not the same thing

It looks like most African-Americans in South Carolina are going to vote for someone else.

[NashVegas]

89. Too Bad He's There Representing the Republican Party

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0405/barrett.php

[kixot]

14. Getting my asbestos jacket on.

It's going to get hot in here pretty fast.

[messiah]

15. Now I know why voted for the Green party last election

and probably will do so again.

[Terwilliger]

29. they seem to understand nothing

somehow they think that everything will be "all good" if they just go back to normal, standard, tried & true actions

[lastknowngood]

16. Just Sharpton now that he has been outed

as a republican in a donkey suit.

[messiah]

22. Republican no

someone who needs money yes.

[lcordero]

17. Kucinich, Sharpton, and very recently, Clark seem to be the

only ones saying anything that has any substance. If Kucinich and Sharpton dropped out then I would have been a registered Green instead of a registered Democrat without even hearing Clark out.

[truizm]

20. :/

Kucinich can win. He's not a vanity candidate.

If Sharpton and Kucinich are eliminated, you effectively eliminate the voice of progressives from the debate.

Kucinich is the only candidate to publicly mention the Project for a New American Century. If he's outed, it hurts the democrats. Who will mention the real issues? I don't see any of the others touching PNAC at all. Nor Patriot/II. Nor Bush-9/11.

[GreenArrow]

31. Maybe the Democrats,

for whatever reason, don't want things like PNAC brought up.

[Cocoa]

25. why is getting a clean shot at Kerry so important?

Why exclude the people expressing truly progressive views, for such a weird reason as "getting a clean shot at Kerry?"

[THUNDER HANDS]

26. I could do without Sharpton

But I think Kucinich serves a good purpose.

[Terwilliger]

27. You're right, dolstein

Kucinich, Sharpton, and Lieberman have nothing of value to contribute. They should be excluded.

Just like Nader...they didn't need his voice in 2000 either. Keep him excluded

Oh, hell, NO MORE DEBATES!! What is there to debate? The chosen candidates for the two parties in a two-party system...why, what could possibly be important enough to disagree about? :shrug:

[Padraig18]

32. how....'democratic'.

:eyes:

[Dookus]

40. sigh..

one of these days I'm gonna snatch that eye rolly emoticon from you :)

Padraig - should we let LaRouche debate? Should we let other, minor unknown candidates debate?

[Forkboy]

44. If they are on the ballot,then yes

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. Grrrr. Enough with the LaRouche comparisons already!!!!!

Dennis is not "minor." He's been in Congress for years as well as in other political offices, business, and the media. He has more political experience than Clark or Edwards, and his Congressional district has more people than Vermont.

LaRouche has been a free-lance nutcase with Moonie-like followers since the 1980s at least. He believes in the "international Jewish conspiracy" and the Queen of England as the head of a massive drug cartel. As far as I know, he has never been elected to anything and runs as a Democrat just to be annoying.

[Paulie]

58. LaRouche is also a CONVICTED felon.

No more felons in the whitehouse!!!

[dsc]

33. If Sharpton gets delegates in SC

he has every right to be in debates. Though he should have to publicly acknowledge his republican consultant.

[DemBones DemBones]

41. Silly me, I thought the purpose of the debates

was to give voters the opportunity to see and hear all the candidates discussing their positions on the issues and perhaps even thinking on their
feet.

You know, helping the voters make an informed choice.

These are the primaries, in which people can and should vote for the man who has the best platform for improving the lives of Americans.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Good heavens, dolstein

I've observed over the months that you've been on this board that you never met a DLC position you didn't like, but why should the debate be narrowed to "socially acceptable" parameters that don't upset the big boys? That's what you're proposing, because despite all the flame wars in GD2004, there's not a dime's worth of difference in policy among Kerry, Edwards, and Dean. Clark is slightly to the left, and Lieberman is way to the right. In other words, you want to limit the debate to the ideological spectrum officially approved by the New York Times, which once again completely failed to mention Dennis Kucinich today.

The American people deserve to hear that someone is proposing universal health care, fair trade, and cuts to the Pentagon budget. They may not accept this message, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't hear it. What voters hear in the debates may plant seeds for the future, especially if one of the "safe" Dems is elected and fails to deliver because he acts like Bill Clinton and plays "please don't hit me" with the Republicans.

Who are you and who is the New York Times to decide where the acceptable boundaries of political discourse lie?

[Dookus]

47. we make that decision all the time

Larouche was excluded. There are plenty of unknown candidates who have no chance of winning who are excluded. There *IS* a line drawn for every debate. We're just discussing where that line should be drawn.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. See my post #48 for what I think about that La Rouche crap

I'm not going to write it twice.

:grr:

[Dookus]

62. sorry... didn't mean to anger you...

my point is that YOU have decided Larouche is a fringe candidate. He does, however, have supporters who disagree with you.

The fact is, a line *IS* drawn. We're discussing where it should be. You believe Larouche is a fringe candidate. I believe Sharpton is. Neither one has a chance to win the nomination.

[charlie]

52. Is Clark going to be on the other side of that line

if his momentum stalls today?

[Dookus]

55. Very likely yes

I'm not sure today will be the deciding vote, but next week may well be.

However, if Clark has no chance to win, I think he'll drop out. Kucinich and Sharpton will not.

[charlie]

56. No, no

I mean if he shrinks to longshot status, but decides to slog on, will you petition him to drop out?

[Dookus]

60. there's a difference between

a longshot and absolutely no chance to win.

I honestly don't think Clark would stay in the race if he believes he won't win. I don't think the same is true of Sharpton and Kucinich.

[David Zephyr]

49. Dolstein: You Supported the Iraqi Invasion & Sharpton & Kucinich Didn't.

You sort of omitted that information within your call here for two candidates to drop out of their race, and I know it was accidental on your part, so I thought I'd help you out here.

We wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea.

David

[dolstein]

63. And they've had plenty of opporunities to make their positions known

Shaprton and Kucinich had have plenty of opportunities to participate in debates on equal terms with all the other better-known and better-funded candidates. But enough is enough. If Kucinich and Sharpton are "entitled" to participate in debates without regard to whether they have any chance of securing the nomination, how to you exclude anyone else? Believe it or not, there are a lot more than seven candidates seeking the Democratic nomination. Many candidates -- most prominently Lyndon LaRouche, but there are many others too -- have already been excluded from debates.

[David Zephyr]

76. Nothing to Do With My Helpful Post to You.

And here I was trying to help you out...

1.) You are a long time and consistent proponent of the U.S. War in Iraq.

2.) Joe Lieberman, also a consistent proponent of that war, is dropping out of the race. You mention this in your originating post above "...it's pretty clear that he'll be dropping out of the race before another debate is held."

3.) You then call for two longtime critics of the U.S. War in Iraq, Kucinich and Sharpton, to drop out.

4.) You gave a number of reasons why Kucinich and Sharpton should drop out, but failed to mention any of the above which could possibly give more, shall we say perspective, to your bold call for these men to give up their quests.

Now, of course, since you didn't mention any of this in your originating post, I thought I'd be helpful and do it for you. I'm happy to help.

[Dookus]

77. David Zephyr

I was adamantly opposed to the war. Let's discuss the actual topic rather than the personal history of the original poster.

What if Lieberman NEVER got out of the debates, no matter how badly he was doing. Would you feel he should be allowed to get a free platform as long as he wants?

I'm glad everybody got their chance to have their say. Now we need to pick a candidate.

And I'll state flat out that if Clark has no chance to win, he should be excluded from the debates, too. It's not about which candidates I like - it's about the process of choosing a nominee. At some point vanity candidates are no longer "owed" a free platform.

[charlie]

79. Heads up

The OK site is gearing up to report, they just updated their site with a stats framework:

http://www.elections.state.ok.us/04ppp.html

[David Zephyr]

85. Yes.

If Lieberman wants to stay in the race, I'd also champion his right to participate in the debates.

I have never posted here that any of the candidates should drop out. I think America is listening to all of these varied voices. I believe that it is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Further, I was one of the voices here at the DU that wrote "the more the merrier" when the list of candidates really began to grow.

I wrote then that the more voices criticizing Bush would be a good thing and that the Republicans would have too many moving targets to focus on. The same thing happened in 1992 with Tom Harkin running around with his suitcase with travel bumper stickers on them, Jerry Brown and his 800#, Paul Tsongas, Bill Clinton and even the hint of Mario Cuomo. A lot of people thought it was too crowded then, too. They were wrong.

Bush's poll numbers are sinking like a stone. I believe it is because of the numerous candidates and the textured, multi-dimensional message of the Party.

So, yes I would champion Lieberman staying in just as I champion the right of Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton and all the rest to stay in.

It's a good thing, not a bad thing.

[Dookus]

86. I agree with part of it...

Yes, the more the merrier at the beginning. But, say hypothetically, there were 16 candidates. Two were viable, and 14 had absolutely no chance to win. Would it be helpful to have a 16-way debate? Would it be helpful to do it all the way through the primaries?

I just think we're now reaching the point where we need to thin the field and let the candidates who can get nominated be the focus of the debates.

[Mairead]

54. "I just can't justify giving equal time to ... Sharpton and Kucinich"

Me, I just can't justify giving weight to an anti-democratic opinion like yours. I guess it's fortunate that neither of us has been chosen Arbiter Of Who's A Real Candidate, eh?

[flaminbats]

57. As more candidates dropout, others will have more time in future debates.

Doing badly in the primary isn't a reason to cut anyone out of a debate, but not being on the primary ballots is a legit reason. This would be wrong because it would make an uphill struggle against the frontrunner even harder for others also on the ballot.

I still remember in 1992, that even though Clinton and Jerry Brown were the only candidates left running in New York, Clinton did the right thing by participating in a one-on-one debate with Brown and won that primary overwhelmingly.

My point is simple, give democracy a chance...because it always works.

[in_cog_ni_to]

59. As long as they are in the race

they SHOULD NOT be excluded from the debates. :grr:

[greendog]

65. I'm with you, Dolstein...

We should make these debates completely uninteresting to progressive Democrats. We need to divert their attention to the marginal Green and Socialist Parties.

Then, the Democratic Party can can get on with important business.... like ridding America of all those nasty middle class jobs.

[Dookus]

67. I don't think Dolstein

has said, or believes, that they should've been excluded from all the previous debates.

They had their say, and I'm glad they did. We're better off for it. But now we're down to the serious job of picking a candidate, and those who have absolutely no chance of winning should back out and let us focus on those who do.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

68. Ha ha ha Sharpton is ahead of Clark and Dean in SC!

You were saying?

SC - 13% Reporting - Edwards 46%, Kerry 29%, Sharpton 9%, Clark 8%

[Dookus]

70. do you maintain

his 9% in SC means he's now got a reasonable chance of being the nominee?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

71. No I maintain that he has every right to debate

I am not for the DLC telling America who has the right to debate..and before I hear the La Rouche comparison....a felon with NO democratic party credentials is NO comparison

[Dookus]

73. the point of the comparison

is to show that there *IS* a line drawn somewhere. We're just discussing where it should be.

I'm not the DLC. Dolstein isn't the DLC. We're just two dumbasses posting on the internet.

I believe that, at some point, which we are rapidly approaching, the Democratic Debates have to stop being a platform for vanity candidates. They were given a full, fair shot, and they've gone nowhere. I hope to hear from both of them a lot more in the future, but I don't think the Democratic Party debates OWES them a platform.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

80. I'm not accusing anyone of being DLC..that's where the debates have

been controlled by in recent history.

I feel the record turnouts are due in large part to the VAST array of candidates getting in on the debate AND getting AIR TIME since they ARE candidates.
Sharpton and Kucinich have kept people in the process who would have thrown their hands up a long time ago.

Those people being included and hearing their views debated will be MUCH more inspired to make it to the polls in November and as I said above...it keeps Republicans off center.

[David Zephyr]

84. Thanks.

That's what was so malicious about the NY Times call for Sharpton to drop out...it was right on the eve of the South Carolina Primary, the one early primary state where Sharpton would make a good showing.

Thanks.

[Forkboy]

81. You're right

And Clark should be excluded after tonight to.

[Dookus]

82. as I've said elsewhere here...

if Clark has no chance to win, he should withdraw. I don't think today's primaries will decide that, though, but next week's probably will.

People seem intent on finding some hypocrisy here - as if I want Kucinich and Sharpton out because I don't like them. That's patently untrue - I like them both. But NO candidate who has no chance to win is entitled to a free platform forever.

[Forkboy]

83. Well now

here's an answer I can respect.I WAS looking for some hypocrisy,and I'm very glad I didn't find it. :)

[The Sushi Bandit]

72. I REFUSE TO GET INTO A BATTLE OF WITS WITH AN "UNARMED" MAN

NM

[Dookus]

75. why not

discuss the subject rather than make a sly insult?

It's not an entirely ridiculous position, and clearly people disagree on it. Can't we discuss it nicely?

[tinanator]

88. should be plenty of those coming out of Iraq

So lets back pro war, pro invasion, pro occupation candidates.
right?

[tinanator]

74. what debates?

when was the last time there were real debates in this country?
Oh, whatever would Bill Hicks say about that? Oh wait, I think he covers it on his latest album...

[shoopnyc123]

78. A Party platform is determined at the convention...

...or used to be. It is clear that handing the election over to the DLC would be a mistake...the other candidates are helping in that sense.

Issues concerning the next four years, (and the Dem Prez re-election), are where Dems have dropped the ball in the past. (What I got from the Gore campaign: it seems the DLC did not realize the country had changed in eight years. And looking at Joe-Mentum's campaign of late, he's still stuck there).

The control of the party by the DLC MUST be addressed. That's how Terry MacFluff-Liffe can be so openly disdainful to others in the party. Because he's used to control. The balance of power has shifted now.

[BruinAlum]

87. A couple points

First of all, since when is the point of the debates to take away the chance for candidates to "get a clean shot at Kerry"? I thought the debates were for ALL Americans to observe and make their own choice democratically.

And be careful what you ask for ... that works both ways. Kerry is a skilled debater an also has a clean shot at your candidate. (Let me guess who that is ....)

Incidentally, Kerry has not been announced as the nominee that I know of.

And second, Sharpton and Kucinich are still candidates, and until they decide to drop out they are entitled to a place in the debates. There's nothing wrong with seeking a platform that goes with being a candidate, it's beneficial to the process.

Neither Sharpton or Kucinich are spending much money so they don't really have any pressure to drop out any time soon. Their messages are important and I hope to see them hang in all the way up to the convention.

[redqueen]

90. Sounds like media spin

mmmmmm, fresh from the NYT!

:puke:

[Iverson]

91. Tell me again the story of the Great Big Tent.

Don't worry. You and the New York Times will probably get what you want.

[Dutch]

93. Yes, but obviously the "big tent" has to exclude "joke" candidates...

:eyes:

[Iverson]

94. It's recruitment for the Green Party.

It's unwitting, of course, but the old line that women - excuse me, that's "liberals" - should be seen and not heard isn't very persuasive.

[redqueen]

97. It's very effective

If the milquetoast nominee loses, this lifelong Dem is going Green.

If the milquetoast nominee wins, I'll wait and see what kind of leadership they offer. But after 8 years of Clinton, I'm not very optimistic.

[afraid_of_the_dark]

95. What's wrong with a few other opinions?

Even if the polls show that they don't have much of a chance, they still have the right (same as anyone else) to run for president. If they're running for president, they should be able to debate their platform. I think each of them added some interesting ideas to the debates, and hopefully the chosen Dem candidate will take a little of the best of them with him to the White House.

[RetroLounge]

96. Fortunately you don't get to decide.

It's called Democracy.

[Snivi Yllom]

98. this should be interesting....ouch

flame on