The major parties are so controlled by the corporations and elites that only the properly corporate vetted canidates are picked anyway.

BFD

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...he is definitely has a minimal level of support, enough that he should be included in the debates anyway. To expand on the author's point, he is polling better than Giuliani in Iowa, better than Thompson in N.H. He isn't doing better than 4th anywhere but certainly TV networks can accommodate him in addition to Huckabee, Romney, Guiliani, McCain and Thompson.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From Reuters, January 3, 2008:

"Mean temperatures were above average across Australia every month last year except June and December. Recognizing the threat from climate change, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd ratified the Kyoto climate pact as his first official act after he was sworn into office early last month."

That means the United States is the last holdout not to ratify Kyoto.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ABC is actually a subsidiary of the Walt Disney media conglomerate. Walt Disney owns six major films studios, the ABC Network, ten major regional televison stations, eight cable television stations, around 65 major radio stations, four major record labels, fourteen magazines, three large book publishing houses, and a number of parks and resorts.

Disney's ownership structure ties right into the heart of British and U.S. finance - the top institutional holders include Fidelity, State Street, Barclays, Vanguard, etc - the biggest finaciers on the planet.

If you look at the ownership of Big Oil, such as ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, and Halliburton, you find the same names.

If you look into the ownership of investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, and Citigroup, you also find the same names.

Weapons manufacturers? Ditto: Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumann - the same names just keep showing up.

Let's try Big Pharma: Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson? Check.

Big Agribusiness? Nothing but the same: Archer Daniels Midland.

Getting back to FOX News, do we see any similarities? Sure we do.

So, when we talk about megacorporate control of U.S. elections, that's what we are talking about. The executives at Disney and ABC and Newscorp are elected by a small group of people who have done very, very well under the Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush regimes. They have a serious vested interest in keeping candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, who point to their anti-democracy agenda, out of the public spotlight.

The only major candidate who they can't kick out who does point to their dishonest and corrupt agenda is John Edwards. You can bet that he'll be given the least time to answer questions - and the questions will of course be scripted and slanted in the pro-corporate direction.

The major corporate agenda is a bit more sinister than that, however. They are pushing for the selection of Hillary Clinton because they know that she is the Democratic candidate most likely to be beaten by a Republican tool (their favorite would be Mitt Romney). Clinton, out of personal ambition, is going right along with the plan.

Analogies to the rise of I.G.Farben and the German Steel Trust in Germany the 1930s are not at all misplaced. Here's a little taste of the history of that era:

""On October 20, 1942, the US Alien Property Custodian, under the "Trading With the Enemy Act," seized the shares of the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), of which Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder. The largest shareholder was E. Roland Harriman. (Bush was also the managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, a leading Wall Street investment firm.)"

"Among the companies financed was the Silesian-American Corporation, which was also managed by Prescott Bush, and by his father-in-law George Herbert Walker, who supplied Dub-a-Ya with his name. The company was vital in supplying coal to the Nazi war industry. It too was seized as a Nazi-front on November 17, 1942. The largest company Bush's UBC helped finance was the German Steel Trust, responsible for between one-third and one-half of Nazi iron and explosives."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ignoring ,Dennis Kucinich, Dodd, and Richardson becuase they don't have the millions a few candidtaes have. I am amazed thst ROn Paul has managed to get even a whisper in big media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

for the sheeple, why not choose their president, too?
i know, instead of an election, how bout "we" pick the president via a top chef, top model, top designer "reality tv" format? ...each show could have the candidates write various types of legislation and ..hmm...maybe its not such a bad idea after all...

if they are on the ballot they need to be included in the debates, period.

VOTE KUCINICH the sane alternative to Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SAME AS IT EVER WAS … "You will have had ... about 641 debates. You will have had national polls and state polls and one state's vote. I think that's pretty indicative."

And thus, Charles Gibson defines and defends why it’s okay to exclude legitimate candidates from debates, and defends why it’s okay for mainstream media to tell us who may run and who may “win.” MSM still controls the outcome, in ways both subtle and explicit.

You’re going to have to look quickly tonight to see the undoing of the 2008 compressed primary schedule – it will happen in the blink of MSM talking heads racing to be the first to pre-pre-predict “winners” of tonight’s Iowa caucuses. By the time Wolf Blitzer says, “We’re predicting a winn … “ it’s over. Based on past performances by Faux News and CBS, I was guessing this would occur sometime around 8pm PST. CBS called Obama the winner at 6:57pm. My bad.

Think back over the past year to discussions by pols, pundits and press about how a compressed, front-loaded presidential primary would allow more populous states and “other” regions to have a say in who gets nominated. Okay, sounded fine. But compressing the primary schedule may short circuit the candidates’ attempts to define positions and develop more reasoned plans.

To choose one example, I’d like to hear a lot more debate about why Obama thinks he should use $3 billion of our tax dollars to pay American auto manufacturers to do what Toyota and Honda seem to be doing without a payoff – developing greener, more fuel-efficient cars. What other entire industries should expect a payday of that proportion, coal? Steel? Mining? And how will that fit into his overall health care plan?

But we may not get the benefit of this new primary schedule, because MSM will still have the biggest impact, perhaps the ultimate trump card in the primary process by telling Americans “what it all means.”

In the Iowa caucuses, “winning” is relative to meeting media expectations – expectations they set and then interpret.

Luckily, we’ve got empirical baselines against which to track MSM’s impact on determining the outcome of the primary season, following Iowa. Posted the evening before the Iowa caucus, here are New Hampshire tracking poll numbers:

Clinton Obama Edwards
Suffolk Univ. Poll 37% 20% 16%
Franklin Pierce 32% 28% 19%
Rasmussen 42% 23% 16%

As long as MSM continues to abdicate its journalistic role in favor of infotainment, horse race calling and fascination with “being first," Iowa and New Hampshire will continue to determine our presidential primary outcomes, regardless of a compressed primary schedule.

Isn’t this the very problem that a compressed and front-loaded primary was supposed to “cure,” or mitigate?

It is more important than ever that the blogosphere's better writers provide “on the ground” reports from Iowa to tell us about the realignment explanatory speeches following first round Democratic caucus votes, and not allow the MSM to essentially declare “it’s over” for any candidate. Blog early and often. Light up websites at CNN, MSNBC, and local stations. For every error or prognostication, counter their claim. Use language that can be televised.

Secondly, following Iowa outcomes, don’t attack or nit-pick Democratic candidates you don’t support. Save vitriol for reichwing Republicans. Cheer that a religious fanatic may have won or been stopped! Chortle as Giuliani and Romney stumble. Whatever the outcome, focus frustration on theirs – not ours.

And if you believe a more prolonged primary season can bring about a better vetting of the candidates... the more things change...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'cos I certainly did not hear anything about KUCINICH......
Which proves your own POINT!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think most of us know the obvious answer in some form or other, that the power structure has always decided this, that the rulers of America always have their say on which ideas are the ruling ideas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Letting the media decide who the presidential candidates will be makes little good sense, however we do. And we let them decide what deodorant we should use and what we should do about a variety of personal problems. The power that the media has over us is a bit frightening and the solution may just depend on us, individually, spending much less time each day in front of the TV.

But we also need a better way to select presidential candidates, and the individual political parties and individual states can have some effect.

Currently, the focus of the primaries is altogether wrong. The purpose of the nominating process should be for a party to find the candidate who has the least negatives - in other words, a consensus candidate that a majority can agree on.

Instead, the current process finds the candidate with the strongest positives - in other words, it chooses the candidate that the largest number of voters have as their first choice (and this often is a small minority of voters).

My proposal is that in primaries, we should each vote for the two candidates we find most acceptable (OK, maybe 3 or 4 if the field of candidates is large, but some fixed number).

This approach would help to find the consensus candidate, but it would also provide some resistance to the media's urge to narrow the field and turn each contest into a two-person horserace. If each voter is to vote for two or three candidates then there is little justification for narrowing the field to two or three candidates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gee !!!
You dont have it regulated?
You are indeed controlled by economical conglomerates even to that point ?
I think even india as a better democracy than you.
USA has really become third world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ABC and Faux Noise Channel are in the advertising business. Information is nothing more than bait.
Tell them that if they choose to not report in an evenhanded way you will not lend them your eyes to sell to advertisers. Write the large ad-agencies and inform them of the same. They- not the sponsors- do most of the ad buying on TV.
BTW- encourage them to buy time on Air America and other radio/TV that handles things more evenly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think we want these unfair media practices to catch up with the media and bite them in the ---. So there is no need to reiterate the point. But there is a need for there to be a general consensing understanding that something unfair did happen, and it must be redressed; Karma must be understood here. The media must not think its karma will never catch up with them.
namaste

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

big money controls the american media and american media controls the american mind. most americans have developed a mindset that if "we don't see it on tv it isn't important". just as surely as madison ave. put the cigarettes in our hands that put the cancer in our lungs they are now polluting our minds with the thought that only those worth of their attention are worthy of our attention. americans will only cast their votes from those chosen by the media. those chosen by the media all have a short list of things in common: they get most of their money from big money and are thus owned by big money. EVERY candidate will support what is good for big money, not what is good for america. NAFTA has the support of big money and NAFTA will be supported by any one who big money and the big media tells us has a chance to run for the US presidency. NAFTA will morph into the AMERCAN Union just as the European Union morphed from the Common Market. Big money and big media wants to tear down the us and replace it with their creation and that goal will be supported by ANY candidate you see supported by big media. WAKE UP before it is too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THANK YOU FOX FOR EXCLUDING RON PAUL from your upcoming debate.

Nothing will do more to energize his supporters -- and bring new supporters to his cause -- than this kind of blatant suppression.

Millions more dollars will flow to his campaign from outraged Americans who want to see and hear Ron Paul’s great message of peace, liberty, and free markets.

His absence will speak more loudly to millions of Americans than even his presence would.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm sick to death of the news people who are supposed to be objective telling me for whom I should vote. I'll make that decision, thanks. If the parties had any integrity, they'd refuse to let any of the candidates participate in anything that didn't include ALL of the candidates - and if the candidates had any integrity, they'd refuse to show up as well. What ever happened to integrity in this country? When did we become such calculating cowards? I want leaders who do the right thing, not the popular thing. I want leaders who will impeach law breakers, prosecute crooked defense contractors and enforce the laws already on the books about things like wire taps and and habeas corpus.

Is it going to take a revolution to get this country back on track? If so, let's get on with it. I can't take another stolen election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Was a secret program created by CIA (should be Corporate Intelligence Agency) to rule the media at home and abroad for multinational corporate crime.

In other words, aside from de facto corporate monopoly control of the few companies that supply and control MSM overclass propaganda – the truth is far dirtier.

Of course HW Bush claimed “Mockingbird” was dismantled under his cooked guidance. Even if true that’s hardly a guarantee the program wasn’t renamed and shuffled to the NSA or some other black ops Washington closet.

“The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses.”
Doctor Albert Einstein (Nobel Laureate refugee from Fascism. 1879-1955)

"Our Western history is every bit as distorted, censored and largely useless as that of Hitler's Germany or the Soviet Union or Communist China..."
Antony Sutton (Professor Economics at California State University, Los Angeles and a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. “America’sSecret Establishment” 1983. 1925-2002)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am really concerned there will be another stolen presidency in 2008 with Diebold voting machines. Bush wasn't legally elected in 2000 and 2004 - it was Diebold that got him in office, along with shoving off legally validly registered black voters off the voters registration.

I wish cranky Democrats would stop whinging about Ralph Nader costing Gore the election. He didn't run in 2004 and Kerry lost to Bush due to DIEBOLD voting machines and widespread election fraud. If all the hundreds of thousands of black voters who were denied their right to vote, had been allowed to vote, then Gore/Kerry would have won the election. It wasn't Nader who "spoiled" the election for Democrats.

I feel very powerless against all of this, so I decided if all I can do is volunteer to be a Precinct Poll Center Clerk on Election Day then I will at least be doing something to fulfill my civic duty. The more that citizens get involved in the election, the more hope I have we can actually have an HONEST election.

Here in California, Deborah Bowen, Registar of Voters/Secretary of State banned Diebold voting machines and decertified them because they are so easy to hack into. This gives me some hope since California can swing an election - Pennsyvalnia, Texas, New York and the "swing states" will make the difference.

The media already picked out Hillary and Guiliani as the winners of the election and THAT notion clearly was off base. Rudy's candidacy is dead in the water because of the sex scandal - using NY city tax dollars for illicit weekend trysts with his mistress. Hillary is so disliked and viewed as an Old Guard Washington insider power broker - voters don't LIKE her which is why she tanked in Iowa.

It really irritates me when the media decides for us who our next president will be, but with their crappy ability to predict elections, maybe there is SOME hope?

I was going to vote for John Edwards, but changed my mind now that Obama is doing so well. I can't stand Hillary Clinton and will move to Canada if she is elected, so I am going to vote for Obama in the California primary.

The same crap they said about Hillary "America is not ready for a woman president" is being said about Obama "nobody is ready for a black president". What planet are they are? America is ready for an incompetent, crypto fascist president for the last 7 years, but eveidentially we can't handle a black man or a woman in the White House?

Voters are FED UP with Bush running our nation into the ground. Obama could be our next president as long as no election fraud with Diebold voting machines.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big media has a dog in this fight. For example NBC, is GE. GE is beneficiary to huge profits and contracts that will continue to flow from the continuation of the war. If these same media get to influence who will be the opposition candidate, they will cherry pick the easiest one to beat. HIllary and Edwards are the strongest candidates, and so Obama has been annointed. Infact, he was pre-annointed before the Iowa caucas. They must believe that Obama is beatable. Obama can probably energize the racist right wing base to come out and hammer him. Everyone in the concentrated media is giddy, despite Obama's lack of knowledge, vagueness on the issues, and boost from young inexperienced voters who may not come out in November. And the media are thrilled to be able erase the stronger candidates. IF they get to pick, then we won't be able to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fox News has shown for the world it's ultimate agenda. By excluding Ron Paul it has shown for all to see; that it doesn't report the news, but instead tries to control, filter and spin the truth. Why would any thinking voter ever listen to Fox News? Bill O'Rielly, Hannity, Ann Coulter? This is pathetic

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

were in the New Hampshire debate and only the field of democrats was everely trimmed. The media is run by and for Republicans. There is no way a democrat can get an even shake. Notice that the New Hampshire primary showed more votes for Dennis Kucinich than for Fred Thompson. The right wing really does hate Dennis Kucinich. There is a simple rule. The more that the right wing, Fox news, and the Republican National Commitee hate you the better person you are. To be hated by that bunch is the finest compliment that a memeber of the human race can have. They hate Michael Moore also. They would hate me if they knew me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]