The opinions, views, thoughts, and ramblings of editors of PoliticalAffairs.net – and other stuff worth reading or viewing.
Showing posts with label dennis kucinich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dennis kucinich. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
NBC Blows It in Kucinich Debate Fiasco [Updated]
***Update: MSNBC just reported (8:12 pm) that the Nevada Supreme Court ruled to vacate the injunction against airing a debate without Kucinich. Another blow to democracy.***
****Update #2: MSNBC personality and failing talk show host Tucker Carlson characterized the issue as one of "judges deciding who gets to be on TV" and the company is calling it a First Amendment issue. In other words, NBC has the First Amendment right to decide the political discourse in this country. Their speech is protected from our right to know where the candidates stand. Another blow to the Constitution.****
--Sending a signal to the American people that it has the right to select the presidential candidates presented to them, NBC today appealed a court decision that would have barred tonight's Democratic presidential debate if the media corporation excluded Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
In early January, according to the New York Times, Kucinich met the conditions the media giant set for being included in tonight's debate to be aired on its cable network MSNBC [and locally on KVBC in LAS Vegas on air [updated info: 11:20 pm]. After the results in Iowa and New Hampshire caused Richardson, Dodd, and Biden to exit the race, however, NBC arbitrarily altered its criteria and announced its intention to exclude the Ohio representative.
Kucinich sued. And he won, arguing that not only was NBC in effect endorsing three candidates by doing so, they were in breach of their contract by arbitrarily changing their criteria.
For its part, NBC argued, according to the Times, that it has every right to arbitrarily set criteria for who is included in debates, implying of course that it has a right to tell voters who they should vote for and what issues should be discussed.
Nevada District Court Judge Charles Thompson sided with Kucinich and issued an order against airing the debate unless Kucinich is included.
NBC's smarmy political director Chuck Todd is quoted as saying the decision to arbitrarily exclude Rep. Kucinich was “a good faith editorial choice of a privately-owned cable network to limit debate participants based on the status of their campaigns.”
In other words, Todd is admitting that NBC's business practices and editorial choices are related to General Electric's ownership of the company he works for? What other interpretation of these remarks could there be? NBC wanted to exclude Kucinich because in their editorial judgment Kucinich is "bad TV." And TV is all about the dollars, right, not debate, discussion, issues?
If Todd isn't fibbing when he further claimed that the decision to exclude Kucinich, and, presumably, the subsequent legal battle to have the court's injunction against the exclusion overturned by the Nevada Supreme Court, was not intended to reflect the corporation's political bias, then it was a business decision.
NBC may be privately owned, but it doesn't own the airwaves, and it doesn't own the political process in this country. NBC has no right, private multinational corporation or not, to decide who will stand on a stage and discuss the issues facing working families.
Todd's statement and NBC's actions reflect the sort of media elitism that disgusts most Americans.
****Update #2: MSNBC personality and failing talk show host Tucker Carlson characterized the issue as one of "judges deciding who gets to be on TV" and the company is calling it a First Amendment issue. In other words, NBC has the First Amendment right to decide the political discourse in this country. Their speech is protected from our right to know where the candidates stand. Another blow to the Constitution.****
--Sending a signal to the American people that it has the right to select the presidential candidates presented to them, NBC today appealed a court decision that would have barred tonight's Democratic presidential debate if the media corporation excluded Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
In early January, according to the New York Times, Kucinich met the conditions the media giant set for being included in tonight's debate to be aired on its cable network MSNBC [and locally on KVBC in LAS Vegas on air [updated info: 11:20 pm]. After the results in Iowa and New Hampshire caused Richardson, Dodd, and Biden to exit the race, however, NBC arbitrarily altered its criteria and announced its intention to exclude the Ohio representative.
Kucinich sued. And he won, arguing that not only was NBC in effect endorsing three candidates by doing so, they were in breach of their contract by arbitrarily changing their criteria.
For its part, NBC argued, according to the Times, that it has every right to arbitrarily set criteria for who is included in debates, implying of course that it has a right to tell voters who they should vote for and what issues should be discussed.
Nevada District Court Judge Charles Thompson sided with Kucinich and issued an order against airing the debate unless Kucinich is included.
NBC's smarmy political director Chuck Todd is quoted as saying the decision to arbitrarily exclude Rep. Kucinich was “a good faith editorial choice of a privately-owned cable network to limit debate participants based on the status of their campaigns.”
In other words, Todd is admitting that NBC's business practices and editorial choices are related to General Electric's ownership of the company he works for? What other interpretation of these remarks could there be? NBC wanted to exclude Kucinich because in their editorial judgment Kucinich is "bad TV." And TV is all about the dollars, right, not debate, discussion, issues?
If Todd isn't fibbing when he further claimed that the decision to exclude Kucinich, and, presumably, the subsequent legal battle to have the court's injunction against the exclusion overturned by the Nevada Supreme Court, was not intended to reflect the corporation's political bias, then it was a business decision.
NBC may be privately owned, but it doesn't own the airwaves, and it doesn't own the political process in this country. NBC has no right, private multinational corporation or not, to decide who will stand on a stage and discuss the issues facing working families.
Todd's statement and NBC's actions reflect the sort of media elitism that disgusts most Americans.
Friday, January 11, 2008
AFL-CIO Endorses Rep. Dennis Kucinich...
...for reelection to his congressional seat.
Kucinich will be campaigning in Michigan this weekend ahead of the primary on the 15th. Though the primary is meaningless (unless "uncommitted" wins) given the fact that the Democratic Party forbade campaigning after the state bumped up its primary, Kucinich will speak to issues that Michiganders care about deeply: fair trade, workers' rights, living wages, peace, and much more.
Check back for updates on what Kucinich has to say.
Kucinich will be campaigning in Michigan this weekend ahead of the primary on the 15th. Though the primary is meaningless (unless "uncommitted" wins) given the fact that the Democratic Party forbade campaigning after the state bumped up its primary, Kucinich will speak to issues that Michiganders care about deeply: fair trade, workers' rights, living wages, peace, and much more.
Check back for updates on what Kucinich has to say.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Kucinich Campaign Needs Your Help
For all those people who blame the big media and the Democratic Party leadership for holding Rep. Dennis Kucinich back and not letting him get his message out, this is the perfect opportunity to make a difference. Rep. Kucinich was kept out of the latest Iowa debate because he did not have staff in Iowa by a certain deadline. Now that may seem like an arbitrary rule, but the plain fact is that if you don't have people staffing your campaign somewhere, it suggests you don't really have a lot of support, so why should you be in a debate? So to everyone in the northeast who thinks that is just plain wrong, check out the following from the Kucinich for President Campaign:
We need volunteers in New Hampshire
Working on a presidential campaign is always exciting; whether working locally or traveling to another state.
We're asking people from all walks of life to come together in New Hampshire and help the volunteers already working here to elect Dennis Kucinich as the next President of the United States. We need you.
This is even more exciting because Dennis will be in New Hampshire with you, meeting people in town halls, going door to door to introduce himself, asking voters to take part in the First in the Nation Primary and reminding people a vote for principles is always a vote that counts, and making his presence known at polling stations across the state.
There are lots of jobs that need to be done, some of this work you may already be doing, some of it may be new and we have experienced leaders in the field who welcome your presence. To all those who can come to New Hampshire we'll provide lodging.
Your presence can make a difference in New Hampshire and news of that difference will spread across the nation on January 9th, 2008 and make a difference for the entire nation!
To find out more, or to sign up now please contact:
Amanda Harrow at 603-792-0053 or amanda.harrow@kucinich.usStrength through Peace
Kucinich for President Campaign
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Interview with Dennis Kucinich
"I am a candidate of the mainstream"
If you were elected president, what do you think would be the first thing you would do in office?
Cancel NAFTA, get out of the WTO. Bring our troops home. Reintroduce legislation for a not-for-profit health care system and for fully paid two- and four-year college for every American young person. Put in motion legislation to create a full employment economy. I want to create jobs, that's what I want to do. I want to get people back to work and get them in health care, make sure their children have education. This is fundamental.
READ THE FULL INTERVIEWTuesday, August 21, 2007
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
AFL-CIO Presidential Debate
In my view, the longest, most resounding applause at last night's presidential debate sponsored by the AFL-CIO came not when Sen. Obama delivered a clever remark about Washington insiders running amok or when Sen. Clinton accused the Bush administration of misleading the country into war or even when Rep. Dennis Kucinich promised to establish a "workers' White House."
It came when retired steelworker Steve Skvara of Indiana talked about his situation. "After 34 years with LTV Steel," he said, "I was forced to retire because of a disability. Two years later, LTV filed bankruptcy. I lost a third of my pension, and my family lost their health care. Everyday of my life, I sit at the kitchen table across from the woman who devoted 36 years of her life to my family, and I can't afford to pay for her health care. What's wrong with America, and what will you do to change it?"
In that question, in the tremble in Mr. Skvara's voice, one senses the frustrations of working men and women built up over the last few decades as we have seen our wages and benefits eroded, our rights to union protections, good jobs with decent pay, safety and health protections, our access to health care eroded, and our voices unheard. One felt Mr. Skvara's anger and anxiety erupt in the sustained applause of the thousands of workers who attended the event.
Mr. Skvara's is a question that puts to shame the carefully crafted and spun responses of the candidates, the squabbling over he said-she said, and the endless platitudes. It is a question whose answer is based in serious, fundamental policy changes. Do our candidates really care about working families?
I think this debate, the questions and demands of workers presented there, are a watershed moment in US politics. It is a turning point in the public debate about what should be on the agenda of the next president. Get ready for some big changes. Get ready to help make those changes happen.
It came when retired steelworker Steve Skvara of Indiana talked about his situation. "After 34 years with LTV Steel," he said, "I was forced to retire because of a disability. Two years later, LTV filed bankruptcy. I lost a third of my pension, and my family lost their health care. Everyday of my life, I sit at the kitchen table across from the woman who devoted 36 years of her life to my family, and I can't afford to pay for her health care. What's wrong with America, and what will you do to change it?"
In that question, in the tremble in Mr. Skvara's voice, one senses the frustrations of working men and women built up over the last few decades as we have seen our wages and benefits eroded, our rights to union protections, good jobs with decent pay, safety and health protections, our access to health care eroded, and our voices unheard. One felt Mr. Skvara's anger and anxiety erupt in the sustained applause of the thousands of workers who attended the event.
Mr. Skvara's is a question that puts to shame the carefully crafted and spun responses of the candidates, the squabbling over he said-she said, and the endless platitudes. It is a question whose answer is based in serious, fundamental policy changes. Do our candidates really care about working families?
I think this debate, the questions and demands of workers presented there, are a watershed moment in US politics. It is a turning point in the public debate about what should be on the agenda of the next president. Get ready for some big changes. Get ready to help make those changes happen.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Monday, July 2, 2007
Democrats Score Well on LGBT Civil Rights Survey
Democratic presidential candidates have earned high marks for supporting LGBT equality.
This according to a report released last week by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, examining the positions of the presidential candidates on LGBT issues.
The report looked at the voting records and campaign statements of both Republican and Democratic candidates on issues such as a transgender inclusive anti-discrimination laws, HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, lifting the anti-gay military ban, transgender inclusive hate crimes laws, civil unions, domestic partnerships, marriage equality, adoption, and the Federal Marriage Amendment.
The clearest result of the study is that while Democratic candidates have a mixed record on equality for LGBT people, they have shown a willingness to accept the expansion of civil rights.
All of the Democratic presidential candidates scored well across the board in the study, but only Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) earned a perfect score for his stand on the issues.
The only issue where most candidates parted ways with the civil rights organization was on the question of same-sex marriage. Most candidates oppose same-sex marriage, preferring civil unions or domestic partnerships as a substitute.
On the other hand, Republican candidates appear to be overwhelmingly driven by divisive politics, homophobia, and anti-gay sentiment.
Nearly unanimously, Republican candidates find job discrimination based on sexual orientation acceptable. Most appear to view the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories in anti-hate crimes laws along side race and religion as "special rights." Just about all of the Republican candidates have opposed new funding to promote HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programs.
Read the full story tomorrow on PoliticalAffairs.net
--Joel Wendland
This according to a report released last week by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, examining the positions of the presidential candidates on LGBT issues.
The report looked at the voting records and campaign statements of both Republican and Democratic candidates on issues such as a transgender inclusive anti-discrimination laws, HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, lifting the anti-gay military ban, transgender inclusive hate crimes laws, civil unions, domestic partnerships, marriage equality, adoption, and the Federal Marriage Amendment.
The clearest result of the study is that while Democratic candidates have a mixed record on equality for LGBT people, they have shown a willingness to accept the expansion of civil rights.
All of the Democratic presidential candidates scored well across the board in the study, but only Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) earned a perfect score for his stand on the issues.
The only issue where most candidates parted ways with the civil rights organization was on the question of same-sex marriage. Most candidates oppose same-sex marriage, preferring civil unions or domestic partnerships as a substitute.
On the other hand, Republican candidates appear to be overwhelmingly driven by divisive politics, homophobia, and anti-gay sentiment.
Nearly unanimously, Republican candidates find job discrimination based on sexual orientation acceptable. Most appear to view the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories in anti-hate crimes laws along side race and religion as "special rights." Just about all of the Republican candidates have opposed new funding to promote HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programs.
Read the full story tomorrow on PoliticalAffairs.net
--Joel Wendland
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)