Should the next debate exclude Kucinich and Sharpton?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

[Sean Reynolds]

1. Why should it not?

[Endangered Specie]

3. ah so your the guy creating all the hammer sickle fuss.

hmmmm

[EXE619K]

8. Is there something wrong with the hammer and sickle?

I thought this was a "progressive" forum?

Are Communists and Liberal-leaning Indy's like myself not welcome here?

[Sean Reynolds]

12. As of today you're not.

Sorry, this forum has taken a hard right. Whether people want to believe it or not.

EXE, I've been here since this placed opened and I haven't seen it this bad EVER.

[Endangered Specie]

16. I dont have a problem with the hammer and sickle, but...

I do have a problem with that 3rd party thread you started.

This board is NOT leaning to the right by any means, most of us are accepting that it will be Kerry v Bush and are not going to let our personal gratification overwhelm our liberal desire to help the greater good, and that is by removing Bush in 2004 and not splitting our vote.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Endangered Specie]

29. Nazi agenda, I think you are overexaggerating.

[Sean Reynolds]

33. I've been censored so much...............

[Endangered Specie]

36. Heh, I aint censoring you...

criticizing maybe. I just want to see some proof to your claim

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnLocke]

88. Boo-hoo.

[Desertrose]

30. I agree Sean...this board has never been this right

and the left is being silenced...bigtime.

Like you Sean, I've been here since day 1 and I wonder where I am some days with some of the posts here....feels like our nice lefty little family has been invaded sometimes...remember the good old days when we trashed neocons and not each other....

:hi: stand your ground my young friend (I know you will)

Peace
DR

[Sean Reynolds]

34. I just hope it returns back to normal one day.

I'll still hold out hope.

[Desertrose]

38. lets hope we remember what the hell normal is/was, eh?

Hope is sometimes all we've got.....

....and its one of the things I like about Dennis...he gives me hope...wasn't a Dean supporter but I recognize he did the same thing...hope that something will change...unlike what we'll get with Kerry...the letter behind the candidate may change ...a few liberal crumbs to quiet the masses but basically business ( and I DO mean *business*) as usual!

Well...least there's still a bunch of us oldtimers who for the time being remember :)

Peace
DR

[Sean Reynolds]

41. Hey, how about a Dean/Kucinich, Kucinich/Dean ticket in 08?

Cause I can tell you Kerry isn't going to win and by '08 I think Hillary will be too washed up. :)

Or maybe Dennis and Howard can combine their movement and continue to fightt to change the DNC! OH BOY the power is there, we just have to use it.

[Desertrose]

43. I'm gettin' too old & impatient...I don't wanna wait LOL

I agree...Kerry will not win against Bush...

Hillary is not viable either...doesn't anyone remember how much the RW hates her? Hello...I doubt they'd let that happen .

It would be pretty powerful if Dean & DK combine the power of their supporters/movement...you know I can easliy see that happening. Just got an email from Dennis saying :

"I want to congratulate Gov. Dean on his campaign, his energy, his integrity, and his courage.

I am proud that Gov. Dean stands with me on so many issues: the urgency of bringing our troops home from Iraq, the critical need to provide health care to all our citizens, jobs, education, and hope for a better future. Together, we stand beneath that progressive banner, and, whatever role he chooses to play in the continuing dialogue, I intend to keep those dreams alive in my campaign."

Keep hope alive!!
Peace
DR

[Sean Reynolds]

45. We can create a force. And you're right....

2008 is REALLY far down the road. I'm young, so I can deal with it. BUT this only makes me want to fight more. I've seen what the media can do to a candidate(s) and it makes me PISSED as all hell.

[Desertrose]

47. right on Sean...you are our future

and I am glad you are seeing the truth of things...

Love your fighting spirit!!!!!
:yourock:

:hug:
DR

[Sean Reynolds]

56. Thanks!

:)

[Crunchy Frog]

76. Yes, maybe we could hold a

good old fashioned Stalinist purge, with show trials and everything. You should talk to Skinner about it and see if he might be open to the suggestion.

[Crunchy Frog]

74. Um no.

This is Democratic Underground. Ultimately it's agenda is about getting Democrats elected. It's biggest mission is to get Bush out of the White House this election and replaced by a Democrat.

If you find the basic mission and agenda behind this board to be too right wing for you, you might want to start looking around for a board that is friendlier to your politics.

The Democratic party is probably to right wing for you, therefor, you will probably find that a Democratic message board is also too right wing. Sorry.

[youngred]

82. so you're calling for purges?

like a stalinist....that you're caliming to oppose....my what a circle there!

Perhaps you'd do well to read the introduction to the board again. WE WELCOME DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS OF ALL STRIPES. But if you want to close the flaps on the big-tent party be my guest, just don't whine when the Republicans grab the best show in town title

[Crunchy Frog]

87. Where did you see anything

about me calling for purges. I just said that if the basic mission of this board, which is to promote election of Democrats is too right wing for some people, they might be more comfortable at another board.

The mods and admins are the only ones who can carry out purges, and it is my understanding that they will of anyone who uses this board to actively work against the election of Democrats, or to oppose the Democratic presidential nominee.

Otherwise, people have the right to express any viewpoint they want, and I have the right to express my views as well, which I intend to continue doing.

I wasn't the one talking about how great it was when thought on here was monolithic, and how maybe those times could come back. Those were other people's suggestions, and they do smack of purging anyone who doesn't meet some sort of left wing purity test.

Oh, and by the way, I don't consider Stalinists to be liberals, but I don't own the board, so it's not my call to make.

[EXE619K]

22. There's nothing wrong with Third parties.

Just because some feel threatened by them.

If the Democratic Party feels that it needs to eliminate the Third party agenda...Why not try to be more inclusive by listening and maybe promoting some of their agendas?

No need to pick on the little guy when you have more muscle.

But, that's just my opinion.

[EXE619K]

18. sad...

Perhaps due to certain conditioning, the American Liberals do not see the Communist agenda as a progressive one.

Although, I do not subscribe to the entire Communist agenda, It's sad to see that our freedom of speech and expression is being ravaged.

Good for you Sean!

My sincerest respect for your courage!

:hi:

[Crunchy Frog]

77. My views on the Communist agenda

are not the result of "conditioning". I spent years studying, and reading everything I could get my hands on about the Soviet Union, and not stuff by right wingers either. In fact, I read alot of Soviet publications. I arrived at my views through my own research and my own thought processes.

And I don't see anybody's freedom of speech being ravaged, I only see some people expressing some opinions which you disagree with.

This board has now become so big that there is no way it is going to be monolithic in it's views, and frankly I doubt that it ever really was as monolithic as you are making it out to be. I've seen some pretty diverse views coming from people that I know have been here for a really long time.

For monolithic views, I think you need to have a much smaller and more exclusive message board than what this one is.

[Crunchy Frog]

73. I'm sorry Sean

but I think that Stalin was one of the most viciously right wing dictators in all of human history.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but if you like Stalin, I really don't understand why you have a problem with Bush/Cheney and the neocons. They are the most Stalin like administration this country has ever had.

There is a good reason why many people on this board refer to them as the Busheviks.

So tell me, what exactly is your beef with the Bush regime?

And if my profound dislike for a man who murdered millions of people in cold blood makes me some kind of right winger, then whatever political spectrum you are using is just really screwed up in my opinion.

[rucky]

2. Sharpton slaps donkeys...

while some of us are beating dead horses.

[Endangered Specie]

4. There is no reason for them to be there...

Theyve never been viable candidates, you only allow the viable ones to a debate, or else anyone could come. Kinda like they dont let 3rd parties into PRes debates.

[OneBlueSky]

6. there's a very good reason for them to be there . . .

the debates inform not only the nomination process, but the platform process as well . . . both Sharpton and Kucinich have some great progressive ideas that should be listened to and considered when the party meets in Boston and constructs that platform . . . excluding them excludes their visions, and that's not something we want to do . . .

[Endangered Specie]

17. They take valuable time away from the real candidates.

[GreenArrow]

27. from the "fake" candidates, you mean

fake in the sense of disengenous, two-faced, phoney, and sterile. But oh, yeah, those are the ones that are electable.

[Deathadder]

50. That's not true

Plenty of us like to hear a range of ideas from different candidates, define the party and it's issues, since we do want to bring this party back together, right? Some of the ideas both Kerry and Edwards are running on now, they took for other candidates from other debates, hopefully they'll keep stealing issues, and maybe, just maybe, they'll act on those issues...maybe???

[youngred]

65. They get to speak half as long

the criticize Bush for the "big" candidates and the print media won't cover them for shat. They don't take up as much time as anyone and their voice is valuable

[porkrind]

20. Exactly !!!

Progressives like Sharpton and Kucinich provide some contrast to the debates. Keeps the more right leaning candidates honest.

[Endangered Specie]

23. that was good for early debates, but its now time to prepare for the GE...

(and if I might add, Dean probably did more of that right-lean countering than anyone else).

[corporatewhore]

5. yeah who needs to here from an uppity black and a uppity union member

:eyes:

[tritsofme]

7. Definitely.

Its time for the vanity candidates to step aside.

[GreenArrow]

40. "vanity candidates"?

You mean Kerry and Edwards, right? What are they running on, if not ego or vanity. It's not like either of them has any kind of new, exciting, or visionary approach. SOS, DD.

[Kanary]

48. Once again

Dennis doesn't have a vain bone in his body. He's sacrificing his energy, his time, and taking risks in order to bring YOU some benefits that the party isn't providing.

This parroting the vanity media line is shooting yourself in the foot.

There are plenty of Dems with ego issues. Dennis isn't one of them.

Kanary

[R3dD0g]

9. I say yes,

Sharpton has never been a viable candidate. I don't think there will ever be a viable black presidential candidate in my lifetime, I'm 52.

DK could never be elected in a nation where *, after all the obvious lies, still has 44% support. I'm sorry DK supporters, it's just not gonn'a happen in this election cycle. As much as I admire DK, hell I've been impressed with him since he was a very young mayor. This nation just ain't gonn'a do it.

So, that leaves Kerry & Edwards. I would hope to hear both of them be given enough time to enunciate their issues without some blow-dried POS talking head interrupting them every 90 seconds.

edit: didn't read the question closely enough

[revcarol]

10. $5.00 more for Dennis.

Give $5.00 every time Dennis is dissed or suggested he drop out or be excluded.

BTW: on edit: this undemocratic post brought to you by a Kerry supporter.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. A total of $65.00 for Dennis

after the fourth thread on this topic in two days.

[youngred]

66. nah, recount

its 6

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. You misunderstand me.

Far from suggesting DK should drop out or be excluded, I hope and expect DK to participate in the debate and stay in the race till the convention.


BTW, if I had been suggesting what you said, I would have worded the poll quite differently. Perhaps something like "Should Kerry and Edwards have a 1-on-1 debate?"


All that said, I think it is great that you are supporting DK with money. That's what it takes to get the message out, unfortunately.

Peace.

[SW FL Dem]

13. I loved watching both Al and Dennis so far

Al has delivered some of the best lines to date. Dennis speaks from his heart and I love what he says, BUT ,,, it is getting to be decision time. My guy is out and my goal is to get Bush out of office. I need to focus on the two candidates that can challenge Bush.

[Kanary]

54. Decision time for WHO?

Have you considered that there are still millions of people in many states who haven't even had the opportunity to cast their vote yet? Have you considered that maybe the rest of us would also like to have our votes count for something?

So much for democracy.... all in the name of expediency.

Kanary

[DaisyUCSB]

14. Sharptons campaign is being run by agents of the GOP

He should defenitly be barred from at least one debate

[hope42mro]

24. I can't tell if you're serious. Why would they be helping Sharpton?

And honestly, what aabout Sharpton's campaign is so threatening?:think:

He is critical of ABC (Ashcroft/Bush/Cheney)
He has little campaign money.
He has little media coverage.
He has few recognizable endorsements.
He polls in the single digits most of the time.
He has hardly any delegates.

So why would the GOP be helping him?
Why him?
What are they hoping for from his pitiable campaign?

I'm going to act like you're kidding because this just doesn't make sense.:crazy:

[Syrinx]

35. Roger Stone

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--politicaloddcoupl0206feb06,0,3126457.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

[feistydem]

15. I would miss Sharpton's snappy repartee!

One of my favorite responses in the Wisconsin debate came from the Reverend Sharpton:

HOLT: I'd actually like to let Reverend Sharpton follow up on that very question. Do you think that the president knowingly lied, and if so, why?

SHARPTON: Well, first of all, I think that if he didn't know he was lying and was lying, that's even worse.

(LAUGHTER)

Clearly, he lied. Now if he is an unconscious liar, and doesn't realize when he's lying, then we're really in trouble.

(LAUGHTER)

Because, absolutely, it was a lie. They said they knew the weapons were there. He had members of the administration say they knew where the weapons were. So we're not just talking about something passing here. We're talking about 500 lives. We're talking about billions of dollars.

So I hope he knew he was lying, because if he didn't, and just went in some kind of crazy, psychological breakdown, then we are really in trouble.

Clearly, you know, I'm a minister. Why do people lie? Because they're liars. He lied in Florida; he's lied several times. I believe he lied in Iraq.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

HOLT: And Reverend, you'll recognize, obviously, calling someone a liar is a very serious charge. So it does lead to that question...

SHARPTON: I think he lied.

HOLT: So it does lead to the question: Why would he lie?

SHARPTON: Why do people lie? I mean, if in my judgment...

HOLT: I mean, knowing he would be in the position that you're putting him in now, why would he...

SHARPTON: Well, first of all, Lester, let us look at the facts. The facts are that what they presented to the United Nations, what they presented to the world was not so. You can only assume that they had to know if they said that they knew where the weapons were, that they knew they didn't know where they were.

And now to come back and tell us that Saddam Hussein is a cruel, despicable person, which we all agree, but we believed him when he told us he had them. Can you imagine me telling you that I believe somebody that you should never believe, and I brought 500 people to their deaths believing in a man that was as despicable as Hussein, and this is who we're going to have over the troops' lives in this country?

I think that this is absolutely outrageous. Why he lied? I think we should give him the rest of his retirement to figure that out and explain to us.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

http://www.wisconsindebate.com/transcript.asp

[hope42mro]

21. Dammit! (I'm dislexic) Minus 1 from YES, add 1 to NO

I love Sharpton. He's hilarious. Everything he says I agree with and I'm always yelling, "Yes! Yes! So true! Tell 'em Al, tell 'em!" when he preaches to the other Dems onstage. He put things in Layman's terms, terms I can relate to. He's personable. He's such a different face, tone, perspective from the others. You have to admit the debates wouldn't be as interesting without him there.

Kucinich is great too because he gives me hope. I know he'd never win in today's America, but I'd like to think that someday his "radical liberal" ideas will one day be shared by a majority of Americans. He's a noble guy and it pisses me off when people laugh when he says, "When I'm president...". Like the smirkers, I know he won't win, but I hate that they're so rude to a man on our side, who's putting himself on the line to defend Democratic ideals and positions. That takes guts in a conservative country, and I admire him for that.

As long as they're bashing ABC (Ashcroft/Bush/Cheney) and promoting the Democrats party platform, they're welcome until the last primary.

[Mairead]

61. "Like the smirkers, I know he won't win"

Why believe the smirkers? They're like the junior-high kids who try to make themselves feel better by making other kids feel bad!

They don't know anything at all...they only want you to think they do. 'It'll never work' has been the cry of the stupid since people started walking upright.

[MuseRider]

25. Are you

all so afraid of Bush* that you will risk telling a significant group of your own party to STFU? What is the rush here? This is not what I ever expected to hear from my own party.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. Please see post 26.

[MuseRider]

32. Okey Dokey

There have been a plethora of threads saying they should be excluded and from reading some of the responses you can see that many do support that. I did not read it well. Sorry for the assumption. I think I will stay out of all of these threads from now on, I did this earlier to someone else. Time to realx.

[Endangered Specie]

31. Bush is that bad, its time we unite to fight against him...

not quarrel and split

[Feanorcurufinwe]

51. I think we can keep campaigning, debating, and still be united enough

to beat Bush... it's the Democratic way.

[Mairead]

62. So let's unite in favor of Kucinich. No one else is offering real change.

[edzontar]

69. Great Point!!!! Why not unite the anti-war vote?

While we have two good guys left in the race...hmmm...food for thought...

[MaggieSwanson]

71. I'm with you, Mairead n/t

[IrateCitizen]

70. IOW, "Shut up and do what you're told!"

I see that "quarrel and split" is solely defined by YOU, and is not open to debate by those who might still want to see as wide of a range of viewpoints discussed as possible, right up until the convention.

How "democratic" of you.... :eyes:

[revcarol]

37. I take it back.

But I am getting UPSET that our Democratic Party or its members here on DU think we should act UNDEMOCRATICALLY when the contest is 25% over, with 75% left to go.

Even bringing up the question is offensive.

If either Kerry or Edwards agrees to a one-on-one, or a debate without Kucinich or Sharpton, I would guess that they don't want the black vote, the blue collar vote, the former Green vote, the minority vote, the consumer vote,the progressive vote, the anti-war vote or any of the other parts of our party that these gentlemen so ably represent.

WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED.

[Desertrose]

42. rock-on revcarol...you are right!

WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED.

Peace & hope
DR

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. I agree with you but

you must be aware of the political reality. Kerry as the perceived frontrunner, naturally would want Kucinich and Sharpton in. Edwards as the perceived number two, naturally would want a two-person debate. That doesn't mean Edwards is dissing them or anyone, it's just politics. Any politician in that position would feel that way.

[diamondsoul]

55. "Any politician in that position would feel that way."

Except Kucinich.

[frogbison]

44. Did not read carefully

and voted to exclude. I absolutely do not feel that way. The more open the dialog, the more voices speaking, the better off we will be.

What kind of a a debate would it have been if Dean had never been in it?

I am thankful for Dennis, and Dean, and Mr. Sharpton, and Carol....

That;s democracy in action!

[Fleshdancer]

46. Keep Sharpton and Kucinich so I can stay AWAKE!

seriously. what could Edwards and Kerry POSSIBLY debate about? "I'm from the South" or "I'm was old enough to fight in a war". Not very interesting if you ask me.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[edzontar]

68. Right. Kucinich and Sharpton are the only bright lights left

Otherwise it is Tweedle-Dee vs. Tweedle-Dum in the battle of the snores.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

49. NO!

[Deathadder]

53. Yes

Having the race continue with more than two candidates:

Keeps the Right Tap Dancing Mad, since they can't lock onto their target yet.

Helps heal our party through a dialog of issues, which in the end, at the convention, will unite our party.

We don't want to have what happened to Dean, happen to another Candidate, while we're still early in the race. That's a lose of momentum I'm speaking about.

Let's also not forget, some of the best issues Kerry and Edwards are talking about, they took from other candidates, and I'm not just talking about Dean, because he borrowed platforms himself. Kerry and Edwards still have issues to absorb into their candidacy, guess who they'll get them from?

Or, if this race isn't about money or elitist, why not a series of two man debates, but ones where Kerry would face Kucinich, Edwards vs Sharpton, Kerry vs Edwards, Edwards vs Kucinich, so on and so forth?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

57. Good post. I agree and said no to the question which was

"Should they be excluded?"

I don't see a series of TWO man debates being practical since one can't simultaneously judge all the candidates in that forum.

[Kahuna]

58. Yes. Where else would America have heard Democrats say..

Bush LIED about Iraq without obfuscation?

[Kahuna]

79. Oops! I meant to say, they should not be barred...

See the message in my post. They bring a candor to the debate that Kerry and Edwards can't.

[LWolf]

59. No.

That's NO. N-O.

[libragirl73]

60. In one word...

...Absolutely, Positively, NOT.

[in_cog_ni_to]

63. Absolutely NOT!

As long as they are in this race, they should be in every debate....whether the media wants them there or not.

[youngred]

64. 5 threads in two days

its getting as bad as the NYT Op-Ed page in here

[Cuban_Liberal]

67. Absolutely not.

Both Rep. Kucinich and Rev. Sharpton are loyal Democrats actyively engaged in campaigns for the nomination, and it would be disrespectful in the extreme to both them and their supporters to exclude them from the debate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

72. No -- They make a good contrast with Kerry and Edwards

I think that they should be included so that swing voters can see that not all Democrats (and specificlly the man who is going to be the nominee) are not far-left. Sharpton and Kucinich will push their liberal agenda, and Kerry and Edwards will respond with their more moderate positions.

[Iverson]

75. the proportion of "yes" votes is disgustingly high

The eagerness with which people here would exclude voices on the left from a primary debate (It is the primaries, for crying out loud!) suggests that we should consider changing this venue's name to Democratic Mainstream.

Where's the Underground?

[Crunchy Frog]

78. No, I do not believe they should be excluded

Now that it is down to 4 people, there is plenty of room for the candidates to actually talk about their positions.

Dennis and Al add alot to the discussion and play a big role in keeping the more "viable" candidates honest. They also bring up important issues that should be a part of the discourse and keep the establishment candidates on their toes.

I think it's healthy for the more "viable" candidates to have their voices in there, otherwise they will simply get too complacent and ignore some of the more uncomfortable but important issues.

I won't watch it if those two are excluded.

[nonconformist]

80. Yes, but not only that - they should willingly sit out one debate

I don't want them gone from the process at all - they bring honesty, candor and (in Sharpton's case) a quick wit with a penchant for catch phrases. We need them.

HOWEVER (there's always a however, isn't there?), I think it's high time that we all, including the dark horse candidates, stood back and crossed our arms and said, "prove it". Prove to us that you're the best. Prove to us you can beat Bush. Because the reality is, what we're facing is either a Kerry or Edwards nomination. It's time to put up or shut up, NOW, before this goes on any further - while there is still a small window to change the course. We've had Kerry shoved down our throats by the media, the DLC, the DNC, his supporters, bandwagon supporters... and they all better the hell be right. This is our election to lose.

I would love for Kucinich and Sharpton to willingly sit out ONE (only one) debate under the mantra of "you owe it to America to prove WHY *you* are the one that can deliver".

[Paulie]

81. Compromise - Kerry/Edwards do one-on-one with Kucinich/Sharpton

They don't get to go head-to-head unless they BOTH make it pas Dennis and Al. Deal? :)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

86. A tag-team match?

;)

[West Coast Democrat]

83. No. I enjoy hearing from both of them...........

and I miss the candidates who have dropped out. I liked the old 8-9 person line-up we had early on. Shucks! I even got a kick out of Lieberman in the debates.

I just love them all!

[Slice]

84. There is no choice for me.

I can't vote in this poll, because I think that the debate should include Kucinich and exclude Sharpton.

[Darranar]

85. NO!

[curse10]

89. No!

Without DK and Al there isn't much excitement. I watch the debates solely to see Al swipe the floor with everyone :-) It won't be exciting again until we see Kerry or Edwards taking out w