Was the judge right or wrong to put Kucinich in debate?

[upi402]

"Judge puts Kucinich in Nevada debate
ASSOCIATED PRESS

A Nevada judge says Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich must be included in Tuesday’s candidates’ debate in Nevada.

Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson says if Kucinich is excluded, he’ll issue an injunction stopping the televised debate. "

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080114/NEWS19/80114039
Was the judge right to force MSNBC to allow Kucinich debate his fellow nominees?

[kikiek]

1. That is wonderful news.

[cboy4]

2. Oh, this makes my night!

:)

[boston bean]

3. I'm not sure how to answer because you ask if it's right or wrong and then ask yes or no.

I don't think they should let him debate. He is a distraction imho

[Kucinich4America]

6. A distraction from WHAT, exactly?

Hillary's race baiting campaign against Obama?

[boston bean]

14. no, he has actually further marginalized himself.

I use to have great amount of respect for him. And I actually still have alot, but and to this day think he is the true progressive candidate.

But telling his supporters to support Obama over Edwards in Iowa was pretty telling. He compromised his own convicitons.

Then throw in the useless recount request in NH. Which will show no fraud. Will undermine the party if something happens in the election.

Those are my two reasons.

[Pastiche423]

13. A distraction from democracy?

How patriotic of you. :thumbsdown:

[upi402]

17. edited, thanks n/t

[AnOhioan]

4. Yes the judge was correct

NBC is planning an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. Why do they hate democracy??

[Kucinich4America]

10. Because they're owned by a war profiteer, maybe?

And because their "political director" Chuck Todd is a Dean hating, Kucinich despising, Edwards ignoring, DLC shill.

[LakeSamish706]

5. I think that all of the candidates whould be included in all of the debates... n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

11. there are dozens of candidates

most of whom you've never heard of. Do they all deserve to be included?

[LakeSamish706]

24. Perhaps not the ones that are never mentioned, but I certainly think that candidates...

such as Kucinich and Gravel should be.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. But what reasonable line do you draw?

When is Gravel ever mentioned?

[Truth2Tell]

34. Mike Gravel. There.

If you're on the ballot in all 50 states as a Dem then you should be in all of the debates. Anything less is undemocratic and anyone who disagrees doesn't really believe in democracy. But that's OK MonkeyFunk, lots of people in the world don't believe in democracy. So you're not alone.

[Double T]

7. Absolutely RIGHT!!!

NOW things are getting INTERESTING!!!!!

[Omega3]

16. He's on the ballot, so why not? What is everyone afraid of?

[Double T]

22. truth and reality............

I think hope and change just took a backseat.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. Lots of people are on the ballot:

Biden, Caligiuri, Capalbo, Clinton, Crow, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Hewes, Hughes, Dr. Hunter, Keefe, Killeen, Koos, Kucinich, LaMagna, Laughlin, Obama, Richardson, Savior, Skok.



Should they all be there?

[MonkeyFunk]

8. I don't care either way

if he's in the debate, but legally, I don't understand how a judge can force them to include him.

Will he force them to ask him the same number of questions? What if MSNBC invites him, but turns of his microphone? What's the legal recourse? What if they don't put a spotlight on him? Will a judge make them? It's legally very messy. So for that, I voted No, the judge was wrong (and I agree with the poster above that the wording is poor.)

[still_one]

9. What are some of the leading candidates so afraid of the man with funny ears?

Could it be they might have to talk about the issue that has been put on the back burner by the media, i.e. IRAQ?

Could it be that they might have to talk about REAL issues that affect Americans, and not personality differences?

They are afraid, because they welcome the distraction. They thrive on issues whether a Constitutional amendment should be created to bar gays from marriage, or flag burning, etc, etc, etc

[lonestarnot]

27. Truth to power is what they are afraid of, and cowards like to ignore until they can't any more.

[still_one]

28. well said /nt

[bluestateguy]

12. It was none of his goddamn business

A debate is a private event, hosted by a private party. There is no constitutional right to be in a debate. Maybe DK should have been included in the first place. I'm not sure, but it's the choice of the party and the sponsoring organization. A judge has no standing to "order" someone to be included in a debate. Very bad precedent.

[AnOhioan]

15. From my understanding....

the basis of Dennis' lawsuit was that they invited him, then changed the criteria, dis-inviting him. He sued under contract law.

[upi402]

20. Here's a link

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/default.asp

[Evergreen2U]

18. MSNBC is contesting the decision

But yes, it was the correct decision....who in the hell is NBC/MSNBC to tell us who we can't hear at this stage of the game? Dennis met the qualifications.

Just remember that if YOU vote for a corporate crony (any politician who takes corporate donations) you are voting for the demise of democracy and earth.

And the only 2 candidates who are not covered in the stench of corporate sell out (that I know of) are John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich. They walk the walk.

[cboy4]

19. Wow, the Kucinich haters are foaming at the mouth.

Not surprising, but a spectacle none the less.

[Individualist]

21. That's a no brainer

DLC supporters will say no, everyone else will say yes.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

23. No doubt about it, the media is our enemy. They're manipulating our thoughts and vote. nt

[RoadRage]

29. Yup.. ya can't set rules, then break your own rules to fill your own agenda. NT

[caligirl]

30. Why should it be okay for any media group to decide who we listen to

in a political debate? It amounts to the media interferring with the electing of a President. Duh, they were doing this all along. Good for DK, do it again.

[baldguy]

31. MSNBC set up the rules, the judge just made them follow those rules.

[Raine]

32. Judge was correct nt

[upi402]

33. He walked the path of truth

no matter if he's alone or not.
Sometimes you do the right thing and you just know it's right. I think the judge had one of those moments. Maybe a lonely moment, and maybe there will be punishment from the elites. But the path of truth was walked here. I think it's obvious.