CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Kucinich defies General Electric/NBC and debates anyway
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kucinich defies General Electric/NBC and debates anyway

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
I love Kucinich. I know he's being locked out, and likely wouldn't have a huge chance to win ultimately even if he were included, but it seems downright anti-American to change their rules at the last minute just because God forbid their viewers should actually have to hear an alternate (some would say more truthful) viewpoint and make up their own minds. Democracy Now gave Kucinich a platform to answer each question posed in the debate and presented it with a transcript of the other three candidates, with questions and answers in context. It's brilliant. Here's an example:
Quote:
Amy Goodman: And now the voice excluded from this debate on this key issue around war, we put that question that Tim Russert put to you, Congressmember Kucinich, as well as the other candidates in New Hampshire, around the withdrawal of troops.

Representative Dennis Kucinich: I'm the only person running for president who not only voted against the war, but voted 100% of the time against funding the war. What you've heard here is a bunch of nuancing. They're all saying the same thing, that they will keep troops in Iraq. The troops will be kept there to protect an embassy. The troops will be kept there for counterinsurgency and for training the Iraqi military.

Well, the fact of the matter is, we must get out of Iraq. We must end the occupation, close the bases, bring the troops home. We don't have a right to have an embassy there, as we are an occupying army. And any way that the United States government would keep its foot in the door of Iraq is a way that the war will continue, because the occupation is fueling the insurgency.

I'm the only one running who had a plan that was introduced immediately after the invasion that called for not only an end to the occupation, closing of the bases, bringing the troops home, but also a parallel process of an international security and peacekeeping force that would move in as our troops leave. We cannot get such a force until the United States determines it will end the occupation. Once we determine we will do that, we can move and to have a rapprochement with Syria, as well as opening diplomatic relations with Iran for the first time in twenty-nine years.

It's vitally important that we work to effect a program of reconciliation between the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds; an honest reconstruction program, where we get rid of the crooked contractors and the mercenaries who have compounded the American occupation. In addition to that, we need to have a program of reparations to the Iraqi people. Over a million innocent Iraqis have been killed. We must repair the breach. That breach was a monetary one. It is a moral and social one. We have a lot of work to do there, and we're going to have to do it not by occupying, but by showing that we can have a leader who's compassionate enough to recognize a moral and financial responsibility to the Iraqi people.

We also have to make sure that the Iraqi people have full control of their oil. I'm the only one who's running who understood immediately that the Bush program for reconciliation was in fact a plan to privatize Iraq's oil in order to gain control over a $30 billion oil wealth.

I think that it is manifestly clear that the only person running for president who will bring our troops home, who will get out of there within three months from taking office, is myself. And all the others have tried to game this issue. They either voted for the war, in the case of Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton, or they voted to fund the war, in the case of Senator Edwards, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, who, by the way, campaigned in saying, well, he opposed the war from the start, but then when he was elected to the Senate, his voting record is indistinguishable from Senator Clinton's with respect to funding the war. So you can't talk out of both sides of your mouth on this thing. You're either for getting out of Iraq, or you're not. If you're for getting out of Iraq, you don't keep troops there for any purpose whatsoever.
The whole thing is interesting and worth reading, especially if you missed the debate like I did. It's here.
post #2 of 24
Hmm...work blocks Democracy Now's home page.

Odd...
post #3 of 24
I'm all for more participation in the debates, but don't you think that at a certain point people are more interested in the candidates who have even a small chance of winning? For the amount of support Kucinish gets, I think he already more than enough opportunities to participate in debates.

Don't know why you are singling GE/NBC out here (and its weird to call it GE/NBC ... does adding the GE make it sound like a more evil organization?)
post #4 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
Don't know why you are singling GE/NBC out here (and its weird to call it GE/NBC ... does adding the GE make it sound like a more evil organization?)
Because NBC broke a contract with Kucinich saying he would be able to participate in their debates.
post #5 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by bendrix
Because NBC broke a contract with Kucinich saying he would be able to participate in their debates.
No, he was referring to the act of making a point of calling the company GE/NBC instead of just NBC.
post #6 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared Melton
No, he was referring to the act of making a point of calling the company GE/NBC instead of just NBC.
I read that point as parenthetical. The question I saw was "Why are you singling out GE/NBC?"
post #7 of 24
Got it, carry on.
post #8 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
I'm all for more participation in the debates, but don't you think that at a certain point people are more interested in the candidates who have even a small chance of winning? For the amount of support Kucinish gets, I think he already more than enough opportunities to participate in debates.

Don't know why you are singling GE/NBC out here (and its weird to call it GE/NBC ... does adding the GE make it sound like a more evil organization?)
Well, the point here is WHY do these candidates have a chance of winning? Kucinich's point is that these media outlets, who, of course, are owned by corporations (like GE) throw money to certain candidates, give airtime and press to certain candidates over others.

I think this one is pretty cut and dry. Kucinich should have been allowed at that debate according to the rules NBC had for it (top 4 candidates). I'm glad that he's pursuing this beyond the ruling and beyond the debate.

I think Kucinich has a lot of admirable qualities. But one thing you really have to admire is that he pushes and fights for the betterment (or restoration) of the electoral process - stuff that will help future candidates and not necessarily himself.

Anyway, with a process as screwed as ours, there is no reason to get annoyed at DK. You need and want people doing what he's doing.
post #9 of 24
I don't think this has anything to do at all with GE supporting a candidate that is not Kucinish, really. Is just that he's not really going anywhere and is starting to get in the way, very simple. I know it doesn't sound fair, but that is what is giong on here.
post #10 of 24
Starting to get in the way?

One of us. One of us.
post #11 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
I'm all for more participation in the debates, but don't you think that at a certain point people are more interested in the candidates who have even a small chance of winning? For the amount of support Kucinish gets, I think he already more than enough opportunities to participate in debates.
No, and I think if anyone really thought about it they'd conclude that it's better to hear candidates who take a different point of view go toe to toe with the so called leading candidates. That's what a debate is, isn't it? And he hasn't already had more than enough opportunities. If you back up and look at the debates he has participated in, you see in some cases he wasn't called on to answer anything until like 45 mins. in on one, sparingly on others.
Quote:
Don't know why you are singling GE/NBC out here (and its weird to call it GE/NBC ... does adding the GE make it sound like a more evil organization?)
Because they invited then disinvited Kucinich when it sunk in that he's the one who might say negative things about the way they do business. They would have kept their 4-candidate rule if it had been Richardson. You don't think that's even slightly Dr. Evil-esque? And I call it GE/NBC to remind people that NBC is not an independent company, and is in fact owned by a corporate parent in the energy industry, which partly explains why they would take such extreme steps to keep him out.
post #12 of 24
Quote:
corporate parent in the energy industry, which partly explains why they would take such extreme steps to keep him out
Full disclosure ... I kinda work for the evil conglomerate. The GE "parent" is a big corporate entity, ironically I work in the "energy" side of things ... which has little to nothing to do with anything Kucinich ever talks about.
post #13 of 24
Thread Starter 
Disagree. HC & BO have been shoved down our throats from the beginning. Also, I think the show the networks prepare and present is what it is, and we watch it or we don't. They're not catering to what we necessarily want to see.

And JB, you're Monday morning quarterbacking. Their rule was the top 4 candidates would debate. At the eleventh hour, Richardson dropped out; they invited Kucinich; then went to court not once but twice to lock him out. I would argue that it's in the public's best interest NOT to only hear from the top three candidates. It's still fairly early in the game, and the presence of people like Kucinich and Ron Paul push the top candidates into addressing uncomfortable issues that the generally mindless TV robots would never throw at them in between softballs. It's in the public's best interest to hear the candidates' take on those things the corporate media avoids like the plague. And, to me, something's clearly rotten in Denmark when you see GE/NBC -- sorry, ECA. -- go to an emergency hearing at the supreme court to keep Kucinich out. You don't find that suspect?? It's against their own rules!
post #14 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared Melton
Hmm...work blocks Democracy Now's home page.

Odd...
It's reprinted here.
post #15 of 24
I checked but I still haven't gotten the memo about Kucinich in Outlook.

NBC Universal is more accurate BTW. And I'm still confused and interested in your "energy" remark.
post #16 of 24
Thread Starter 
The big industries to which GE belongs have a lot to gain from pro-corporatists politicians who will play ball. In light of the oil-fueled wars and the scary specter of global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil, regular Americans are starting to wonder why the government officials whose salaries they pay aren't protecting their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness because to do so might cut into the profit and control of gigantic corporate outfits like GE. If Kucinich were elected president, it would be disastrous to GE's bottom line, Edwards to a lesser extent, and Obama and Clinton very little to not at all.
post #17 of 24
Thread Starter 
NBC-Universal is a subsidiary of GE:


General Electric
www.ge.com

Television
NBC Stations:
WNBC
New York
KNBC
Los Angeles
WMAQ
Chicago
WCAU
Philadelphia
KNTV
San Jose/San Francisco
KXAS
Dallas/Fort Worth
WRC
Washington
WTVJ
Miami
KNSD
San Diego
WVIT
Hartford
WNCN
Raleigh
WCMH
Columbus
WVTM
Birmingham
WJAR
Providence
Telemundo Stations:
KVEA/KWHY
Los Angeles
WNJU
New York
WSCV
Miami
KTMD
Houston
WSNS
Chicago
KXTX
Dallas/Fort Worth
KVDA
San Antonio
KSTS
San Jose/San Francisco
KDRX
Phoenix
KNSO
Fresno
KMAS
Denver
WNEU
Boston/Merrimack
KHRR
Tucson
WKAQ
Puerto Rico
NBC Universal Television Studio
NBC Universal Television Distribution
CNBC
MSNBC
Bravo
Mun2TV
Sci-Fi
Trio
USA
Film
Universal Pictures
Parks
Universal Parks & Resorts
Other
Paxson Communications (30%)
Other General Electric Businesses
GE Aircraft Engines
GE Commercial Finance
GE Consumer Products
GE Industrial Systems
GE Insurance
GE Medical Systems
GE Plastics
GE Power Systems
GE Specialty Materials
GE Transportation Systems
post #18 of 24
You obviously haven't enjoyed our ecoimagination commercials.

We're not a big oil company way, we make money off of clean energy too (Wind == $$$)

Either way it is very unlikely Kucinich was left out because he poses a danger to GE (hahahaha!), he's not in the debates because as far as the Dem primaries are concerned he's completely irrelevant at this point.
post #19 of 24
I think we're grasping at straws if we think that the CEO or someone similarly high up in GE is concerned about whether or not Kucinich can appear in the debate. He's a non-factor to them. His ability to "spread the seeds of truth" or what have you is nominal. This strikes me as NBC trying to create the "sexiest" possible debate.

Also, as a lawyer, I promise you, big companies will litigate anything.
post #20 of 24
Thread Starter 
Well, maybe I'm wrong. It doesn't feel like it to me though. It feels like a muzzling. The smoking gun is really the fact that Richardson would have been included without any hand-wringing.

And ECA, I would love to love GE. But at the moment it is too big and controls too much of the flow of information in a very conflict-of-interest-y way. Zombie Teddy Roosevelt would speak softly but carry a big stick if he walked into GE in this day and age.
post #21 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Bolivar
SHowever (and I haven't caught a debate in full for a while now, so correct me if I'm wrong), it's seemed to me that the outside candidates have been more and more marginalized as those in the lead gain even more momentum. It's unfortunate, but it mitigates even the amount of influence they have even in the debates, let alone pursuit of the nomination. Again though, I see this as a logical flow of events.
No, I think the narrative was set at the beginning that the race was between Hillary and Obama. Whether that's because they're both very well known and camera-ready, or because they're the most palatable to the corporations that seem to hold the reins in this country, I don't know. But it has been that way since the beginning, with the illusion that there were others in contention. If you watch the earliest debates, you see this fact bear itself out. A positive response to Edwards and his visibility appears to have forced them to include him and pretend it's a three way race, but I would wager that if you google news their respective names you would see that Edwards would have to be basically on fire to get the media to notice him.

It's not a natural whittling-down effect. I think Kucinich has enough of a following that his participation is well warranted. It's an UNnatural, forced whittling-down effect. The more you repeat the lie, the more true it becomes.
post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
And ECA, I would love to love GE.
Us giving you light bulbs and "30 Rock" should be more than enough reason to love us deeply, among many other things ;-)
post #23 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
I'm all for more participation in the debates, but don't you think that at a certain point people are more interested in the candidates who have even a small chance of winning? For the amount of support Kucinish gets, I think he already more than enough opportunities to participate in debates.

Don't know why you are singling GE/NBC out here (and its weird to call it GE/NBC ... does adding the GE make it sound like a more evil organization?)

You mean who the media says has a chance of winning? Maybe he doesnt have a chance because that's all the media says about him. Just like Ron Paul. If the establishment wanted someone like Paul they would prop him up and talk about his flawless voting record and love of liberty but NO he is a threat to them so they ignore him and push the same ol song and dance candidates.


.
post #24 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Matchstick View Post
Starting to get in the way?

One of us. One of us.

One of us what? Martians?

Seriously, Matchstick, why do you support Kucinich? Is it a case of "speaking truth to power?". You admit that he has zero chance of getting elected.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Kucinich defies General Electric/NBC and debates anyway