Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dennis Kucinich frequently refused to debate challengers in Congressional elections

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:32 AM
Original message
Dennis Kucinich frequently refused to debate challengers in Congressional elections
Edited on Fri Jul-13-07 12:15 PM by rinsd
On Edit: I changed the headline from regularly to frequently and cahnged it from primary challengers.

Not that that is so unusual for a Congressman but it certainly undercuts his point in the Prez debates.

http://www.newsnet5.com/politics/8604065/detail.html

http://blogs.clevescene.com/cnotes/2007/03/kucinich_is_a_hypocrite.php

"Mike Dovilla, Kucinich's GOP general election foe in 2006, was stood up by the congressman at two separate scheduled debates: First, at the prestigious City Club of Cleveland (where Dovilla debated Kucinich's empty
chair) and then at a major candidates forum, hosted by the League of Women Voters (LWV) at Cuyahoga Community College.

Both times, Kucinich claimed "scheduling conflicts" prevented his participation. The previous April, the congressman stood up Barbara Ferris, his 2006 Democratic primary challenger, at another City Club forum. Ferris was so angry that, after leaving the event, she traveled to Kucinich's Lakewood district office and, in full view of a group of veterans and a local TV crew, challenged the congressman to debate. (He refused).

And in October 2004, Kucinich failed to show for still another City Club primary debate with Ferris (running then as an independent) and Ed Herman, the GOP challenger. Despite having confirmed his appearance beforehand, he cancelled at the last minute, saying "the people already knows where I stand."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
demnan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. Do you have a link for that?
Or is that your opinion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Link
http://www.newsnet5.com/politics/8604065/detail.html

And I changed the OP to add the links
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamJordan23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. So do you, as a HRC supporter, agree with her comments from yesterday?
It is just mind boggling that we want to limit democracy here in America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Enlighten us with your criteria...
Say you are in charge of sponsoring a a Democratic debate and you have to decide who to invite...how do you make that determination?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamJordan23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. By inviting everyone who is running for President. B/c that is after all what democracy is.
And I would eliminate some of the BS questions they have gotten asked (ie "What role would Bill Clinton play in your admin?").
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. So you would include these 9...plus...
The dozen or so other Democrats that have filed with the FEC to run?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #15
40. Yep, it's sad when the Repos can be the big tent party and some Dems work to
be the small tent party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. So you think a debate with 21 candidates on the platform...
WOuld be an effective thing to sponsor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. I've listens to the audio 3 times now.
And I am inclined to think they are discussing the amount of debate forums.

Otherwise why would they descirbe the other candidates as trivialized?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
32. Another BO fan promoting a lie
Why don't you tell us why you "know" they were talking about what Faux said they were talking about? Face it: this will not help BO's fading campaign. If the IWR could not save him this will not. He needs to find another issue, a real issue, not just abstractions like a "new politics", to run on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. BO's fading campaign...that's funny
Consistently #2 in the polls and outraising everyone. Where does that leaves John Boy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
5. Uh oh...Dk being hypocritical on something...
Shocking!!!

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I actually thought that was a blog. But are the facts wrong? That's 3 debates in 2 elections
"Pretty shameless, rinsie -- ONE "debate" not "regularly" and then you post an LTOE from an obvious right-winger -- You should work for Faux Noose..."

Hey just pulling one out of Dennis book, using rw sources to attack my fellow Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Strawman argument
Choosing to participate is up to the candidate. Being excluded by rivals so they don't have to be presented with uncomfortable opposing views isn't 'little d' democratic. More Bush-like than most fans would like to admit.

I assumed that the MSM was the roadblock to promoting open forums for the 08 candidates. Now it seems that the self-identified top-tier candidates are worse than the MSM.

Pretty sorry lot, I'd say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Strawman argument?
Edited on Fri Jul-13-07 12:18 PM by rinsd
"Choosing to participate is up to the candidate"

So if there are only two candidates and the incumbent refuses to debate, that is ok?

"Being excluded by rivals so they don't have to be presented with uncomfortable opposing views isn't 'little d' democratic."

That is exactly what Dennis did by refusing to debate his opponents as incumbent.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
30. Par for the course for Hillary
Wanta bet her campaign was responsible for NY1's decision to deny access to her primary challenger in 06?

Throw stones at your peril.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2940

NY1 Silences Debate
Refuses to allow Clinton challenger Tasini in television primary debate

NY1's criteria reflect the undemocratic way in which media outlets measure the seriousness of a candidacy. By the station's rules, a candidate's popularity with the public is meaningless without hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign funding. But without the exposure that debates provide, grassroots candidates running on a shoestring budget have little chance of communicating their positions to the majority of voters—people whom deep-pocketed rivals can reach easily through advertising campaigns and media coverage from mainstream media gatekeepers who have sanctioned those candidates as legitimate.

As writer/activist Barbara Ehrenreich said at a Tasini campaign forum protesting the exclusion (Village Voice, 8/2/06), "When you have to have half a million dollars to tell people what you stand for, then we're not talking about democracy anymore, we're talking about plutocracy."

The League of Women Voters, which for many years served as the main sponsor of national and local debates, requires only that a candidate has met the legal standard for getting on the ballot—in this case, 15,000 signatures. Tasini received 40,000 signatures, placing him well over that mark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. Except Hillary isn't blasting her fellow Dems about excluding people from debates.
So is Kucinich a hypocrite for what he said based on his actions as the incumbent? I think the answer is undoubtedly yes.

And Hillary didn't debate Tasini at all. You don't need the tinfoil garbage that she was behind NY1's decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. From what she said yesterday, her campaign has already been trying to limit
the number of candidates in the debates this time around too.

So.... par for the course for Hillary -- she just got caught.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. So is Kucinich being a hypocrite based on his past actions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. Deciding not to 'debate' and being excluded by your rivals are different
If you don't know the difference, perhaps you should spend a few moments reflecting on the difference between:

1) Being excluded from a Bush event because the gatekeepers don't like your politics and
2) Deciding not to go to a Bush event because you can't stand the rhetoric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. If as the incumbent you refuse to debate the challenger, you have excluded them
Many times its the best chance for the public to see an opponent of the incumbent.

In fact I think the incumbent refusing to debate challenger is of far great threat to democracy then some contenders deciding not to share a stage with others.


"
1) Being excluded from a Bush event because the gatekeepers don't like your politics and
2) Deciding not to go to a Bush event because you can't stand the rhetoric."

I seel. So being a gatekeeper is bad but thinking your ideas are infalliable and unworhty of debate is good.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. There is a difference between not choosing to participate and locking others out
of the process.

I don't have a problem if HC decided not to participate in any debate, but to keep others out is pretty underhanded. It hasn't gone unnoticed that Edwards was the one who initiated the conversation. BTW, it was Hillary's mike that was on....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #50
56. There is a difference but neither are good for the citizenry
Kucinich basically refused to participate at the biggest forum (how many debate do you think they hold for Congressional primaries & elections?) as incumbent doesn't allow the public to see him challenged.

He's hardly alone in that. Hillary refused to debate her primary opponent and he was able to make alittle poltiical hay out of it and get 20% vs her in the primary. Cynthia McKinney refused a priamry debate as well and it cost her a majority in the primary election forcing her into a runoff (she did debate in the mini-election period between priamry election and runoff). Incumbents do that far too often.

And organization limiting participants to a debate can stifle views not present in their selected participants.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #56
62. Empty Chair debates can be to a challenger's benefit
In most local and state elections, having the incumbent not show up for a debate or forum allows the challenger(s) to have the whole crowd to themselves. I think it would be just fine if Hillary and Edwards didn't show for a debate..... but they'd be ridiculed for it.

But there's a difference between a local/state/congressional race and a presidential race. If the 'headliners' don't participate, the MSM won't carry it. It speaks quite a bit about the corruption of the process and the mutual-benefit society that the MSM and so-called 'top tier' candidates have going.

As annoying as I find some of the 08 candidates for the Presidency, I don't believe they should be excluded from these forums/debates and I think any candidate who believes they should needs to re-examine their committment to the democratic process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. Sometimes but when there is only one opponent there is no debate or it is canceled.
McKinney was hurt by the empty chair debate because she had two challengers for the primary but Clinton was really not. Tasini got mileage out of it because the network was trying to say he did not have enough money/support to get into the debate and that got him some publicity.

I've been all over the place on debate participants though I think in principle more voices = better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. In Texas, the forum gets held whether both/all the candidates show up or not
so if there are just 2 contenders (for instance) the one who shows up gets the whole crowd.

There's some justice in that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Exactly how do you suppose Candidates would be excluded,..?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. Leverage
(see the FAIR post above)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. So these candidates would refuse to attend debates...
Edited on Fri Jul-13-07 01:03 PM by SaveElmer
They didn't think would benefit them politically? Kinda like what Kucinich did in his Congressional races.

But if Gravel and Kucinich are legit candidates...don't you suppose they would still get invited?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. Didn't you listen to what she said?
Her campaign had been working on limiting the number of candidates in the debates (since the sponsoring organizations decide who gets invited ) her 'people' would have to persuade them. If she and Edwards (for instance) refused to participate, the sponsoring organizations would have been blackmailed into acceding to the demands.

You can spin it however you want... it still doesn't make me dizzy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. Where does she say that?
I've listened to that video at least 5 times now and I don;t get that at all.

Oh I guess you're reading FoxNew's captions...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. So unless the debate were to her liking...
She would refuse to attend? Correct? Same with Edwards and whoever else felt that way...right?

Do you think the sponsors of such a debate, say if they refused to give in to these demands would still view Obama and RIchardson as big enough fish to still hold the debate?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #42
51. I don't care if she shows up or not
but yeah, the sponsors probably would. That's leverage -- unless she and JE got such bad press from NOT showing up that they were shamed into it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. But if Kucinich and Gravel are legit candidates...
Don't you think they would have little trouble finding someone to sponsor a debate whether Hillary or Edwards was there or not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Realistically, yeah... but that doesn't mean HC and JE should subvert the process
or are you in the 'Hillary is annointed" camp?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. What process...?
There is no process...there are nine campaigns all doing what they think is in their best interests...nothing new or wrong about that at all...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. The primary process
you know.... where we get to vote. THAT's supposed to reduce the field.

So I guess "annointed' works better for you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. How does each candidate deciding which debates they want to participate in...
Reduce your choice...you just said you believed Kucinich and Gravel are legit enough to find debate sponsors...no one is limiting their free speech rights...

ANd what about the dozen or so other declared Democratic candidates that aren't included in any of these debates...?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
24. Here's Dennis skipping the City Club debate in 1998
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
9. Not showing up is one thing ...
but being discarded is quite another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamJordan23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. He's never missed a Presidential debate. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavyDavy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. might as well have missed them....I want to hear from people
who actually have a chance at beating the repukes....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. How do you suppose it is decided who gets invited to debates...
And who participates...do yo imagine there is some rule somewhere...

What is your understanding?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
12. regularly ?
3 times out of how many chances?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #12
25. 3 deabtes in the last 2 elections.
And I have also confirmed he skipped a debate in 1998 at the City Club as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
16. he has frequently not debated but I would not say regularly
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Yeah regularly is a bit harsh so I changed it.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. no worries -- care in choosing words cuts down on chafing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
penguin7 Donating Member (962 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
21. Bogus argument
I don't know the facts regarding these debates Kucinich has purportedly refused to participate.

The issue is excluding candidates from a debate, not refusing to participate.

Kucinich has been very forthright on where he stands on the issues.

Perhaps this attack on Kucinich shows he is a serious threat and a serious candidate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. How do you suppose the precess would be changed to exclude candidates?
Any idea?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. So Dennis's views are above debate? Is that what you are saying?
That its ok for Dennis as the incumbent to refuse to debate his opponents but its horribly wrong that candidates who have a real shot at the Presidency seek to exlude fringe candidates like himself?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
27. the plot thickens!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
28. nice change of subject
Show me when Kucinich conspired with someone else to keep other candidates from participating in debates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. How do you think the process of eliminating participants would happen...
What is your understanding of the process?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #29
47. it's not my understanding
that the top 3 corporate money grubbers make the decision - but perhaps you have a different understanding.
Why don't you share why you think Clinton and Edwards should be allowed to decide who does and does not get to participate in the debates?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. And again...avoiding the question...and again...not surprised...
Well, in fact the sponsoring organization decides who to invite...and candidates decide which debates are in their political interest to attend...if a sponsor believes a debate would be more effective with some of the candidates eliminated from participation that is their decision, and the candidates will decide whether they want to attend or not...

Much like DK decided it was in his political interest to not debate his opponents in his COngressional races...

Or like all but DK decided attending a Fox supported debate was not in their interest...

That is how it works...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #49
67. why
don't you want all the voices to be heard, Elmer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #67
70. Distortion...
There is absolutely nothing in what I said that would stifle anyone's voices...in fact probably just the opposite...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #28
36. So Kucinich as incumbent Congressman refusing to debate his opponents (primary and GE alike) is ok?
But a few fringe candidates of of a large field possibly not being included in debates only newsjunkies watch would be a travesty of democracy?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #36
48. you still
haven't shown me an instance where DK kept others out of a debate. When you do, we'll have something to talk about.
Until then, you're just smokin' strawmen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
44. Are we supposed to fault him for kickin Repuke ass now? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
53. Can anyone say Hypocrite?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamJordan23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. Last time I checked, he has never wanted to exclude OTHERS from the debate process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. Then read the article, you might learn something. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. Naaah he's just too important as the incumbent to debate the little people challenging him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddhamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
63. someone should ask Kucinich why...
of the candidates he has the best continuous voting record. he has missed very few Congressional meetings/votes. if that were the reason for his not appearing re: scheduling conflicts, then i would applaud him for it. if not, it is poor form.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamJordan23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. We must also find out why he is the only candidate for true universal healthcare. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
68. Kucinich a hypocrite on this?
Kucinich, along with the other 7 "serious" candidates are excluding these 11 Democratic candidates for president. Where has Kucinich been on this? Has anyone heard a word from him on allowing these candidates into debates? I guess Kucinich does not consider them "serious" enough, even though they are within the MoE of him...

Warren Ashe (D-Virginia)
Randy Crow (D-North Carolina)
Laura Davis-Aaron (D-Tennessee)
Michael Forrester (D-Colorado)
Dan Francis (D-New York)
Alfonzo Jones (D-California)
John Joseph Kennedy (D-Georgia)
Karl Krueger (D-South Dakota)
Sal Mohamed (D-Iowa)
James Prattas (D-Hawaii)
Ole Savior (D-Minnesota)

http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximusveritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
69. This isn't about Dennis
It's about Clinton and Edwards. They need to hurry up and explain themselves. So far, all they've offered are diversions. Trying to turn this into a story about Dennis is just another example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 09th 2024, 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC