"The Mainstream Media Has Gone Underground..."

After watching Sunday night's Presidential debate, Ray Buckley, the New Hampshire Democratic Party chair, plans to warn NBC about its September debate. "You're going to hear for sure that I'm going to discuss with them who's the moderator so it's certainly a much more fair and equal playing field than what we saw tonight," the Chairman said, referring to the shocking disparity in time afforded to the three candidates who have raised the most money, compared to the other candidates running for the Democratic nomination for President.

"The mainstream media has gone underground in its attempt to edit the Gravel campaign" said Presidential candidate and former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel, as evidenced by the June 3 debate in New Hampshire sponsored by CNN, the Hearst Corporation's WMUR-TV, and the New Hampshire Union Leader. During the two-hour, commercial-free debate, Senator Gravel was asked 10 somewhat irrelevant questions and then allowed only seconds to answer before being cut off by the moderator. In total, the Senator was afforded only five minutes and 37 seconds of time during the entire debate. The candidates with the most donations from corporate special interests were asked the serious questions, were allowed to speak at length, and were allowed time to respond to criticism.

Adam D. Krauss, the Democrat staff writer for Foster's Online, a Dover, New Hampshire-based news site, echoed the contention that Gravel and others were being excluded by quoting Dean Spiliotes, director of research at Saint Anselm College's New Hampshire Institute of Politics, who said, "It was interesting how those three candidates were presented. I can't imagine that that was random, with Hillary and Edwards and Obama, and then Kucinich and Gravel out on the end."

The placement of the candidates on the debate stage exacerbated the inequities of the time allowed to some candidates to respond to questions. For example, Senator Obama was given one full minute to answer each of 16 questions, while Senator Gravel was allowed only 30 seconds each to answer 10 questions. CNN's Wolf Blitzer and his producer appear to have selectively enforced time guidelines.

"Prominent talk show host Arnie Arnesen labeled CNN the debate's 'loser' because it 'made a decision for the rest of us that they (Clinton, Obama and Edwards) were going to remain the top-tier' candidates," Krauss added.

Despite the best efforts of CNN, WMUR-TV and the Union Leader to exclude Senator Gravel, his brief comments quickly became one of the most-watched videos on YouTube.com, which receives millions of hits each day. It also became one of the top-rated videos in news and politics.

Mike Gravel, a resident of Virginia, is a former two-term U.S. Senator from Alaska with a distinguished record that includes successfully ending the military draft with a five-month filibuster. He also released The Pentagon Papers, risking both prosecution and jail; played the leading role in making the Alaska pipeline a reality; and ended nuclear weapons testing in the seabed off Alaska. He is the driving force and author of the National Initiative for Democracy, a proposal to allow Americans to participate in making laws at the federal level on issues that affect their lives though a federal ballot initiative process—already proven in many states as an effective and necessary check on unresponsive representative government.

Comments

Next Debate?

When and where is Mike appearing next? What ever televised debate it scheduled next, it would be nice if we could start writing the sponsors of the debate ahead of time. Whoever sponsors the next debate needs to be told beforehand that shoving Mike Gravel off to the side, giving him lousy questions and comparatively little time to speak will not go unnoticed. The way Mr. Gravel was treated in the first two debates was reprehensible. Mike Gravel's accomplishments alone warrant his being placed center stage and treated with the greatest respect.

 

It's supremely insulting for the debate sponsors to manipulate the format in such a childishly bias and obvious manner. Do they really think that viewers don't notice these flagrant and transparent attempts to ignore and belittle Mike Gravel? The media, like the executive branch, are acting more like dictators of their own biases than the disseminators of information they pretend to be.

Time has come today

Time has come today
Young hearts can go their way
Can't put it off another day
I don't care what others say
They say we don't listen anyway
Time has come today
Time_Has_Come_Today.MP3

Polls

Thanks for getting all those polls set up like that for us. I just did them all for Mike. Please keep doing that as it is most helpful.

The only poll of interest to me was Kos'

The only poll of interest to me was Kos' poll. Interesting to note that the DLC Demoblicans, i.e. Kos, are worried enough about Mike and his message that they're trying to get rid of him.

It's a statement of the utter bankruptcy of the Demoblicans that they want to present a pressed and laundered image of commercial candidates. That is candidates completely sold out to monied interests.

I think it's good news that half of the Demoblicans themselves want Mike in the debates. Face it, they are the enemy.

If Mike doesn't get the Democratic nomination I'll be looking elsewhere for a candidate. I fell for the "anybody but X" spiel once.

Never again.

Upcomming July 23 debate

“Our next Democratic debate, by the way, will be a revolutionary approach to campaign debates. It will be held on July 23 from Charleston, South Carolina, in partnership with YouTube and Google. You're going to want to see that debate as well.”

This statement appears at the bottom of CNN's transcript of the New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Debate Aired June 3, 2007.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/03/se.01.html

Let's make sure this "revolutionary approach" includes Mike Gravel and that this time he is treated in the same way as the other candidates.

Other Debate Last Night

Hi, I heard the Republican debate last night on the radio. It was amazing how different it was from the Democrate Debate Debacle. Either they demonstrated their true colors and agenda during the Dem. debate, and/or someone got to them to change things for the Republican debate. The Republican debate time was evenly distributed with all candidates have lengthy time to respond to questions.

The Democratic Debate was an embarrassment, primarily to CNN demonstrating a lack of professionalism. How dare they eschew and belittle candidates with Senatorial service. No wonder when I asked a number of my teacher colleagues if they had seen it, with an answer of no. People are tired of the same old stuff.

Another comment made on this Forum was right on, when Gravel called out the other candidates for their lack of leadership, the look on their faces was like they wanted to disappear. The truth hurts! No other candidate can call it like it is, because most of them are involved.

Digg this story

Go here to digg this story:

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Mike_Gravel_only_gets_5_minutes_and_37_seconds_in_2_hour_Debate

It's important people see how poorly the CNN debate was handled!

Good post and so true!

I'm glad to hear the New Hampshire democratic party chair is going to get involved.  Hopefully he can get some influence in the next debate.  It's just gross what's going on.  I would love to hear more of course from Gravel but also from Dodd, Kucinich and Richardson.  They are just as legit candidates as the other so-called top three.  I think there is more than a consperiacy to get rid of the other candidates.  Just look at the examples already given in this piece a lone.  I read on the website DemocraticUnderground someone posted that during the republican debate Blitzer never interupted anybody and didn't rush anybody etc. like they did with Gravel.  Thank you to Mr. Buckley for getting involved!!  The truth is power.

Author Must Have seen a Different Show than I did

The author states that these three were center stage ,

with Gravel and Kucinich far out in the wings.

Jim Lehrer also stated that Monday on his "News Hour."

However, I distinctly recall the seating as follows:

gravel  table  Dodd Edwards table clinton obama richardson table biden table kucinich

That seating arrangement does ***not*** place clinton,obama, and edwards in

the center.   It places Obama in the center, with Clinton to his right, and Richardson

to his left.  The rules of power seating which i learned indicate that Obama had the most

powerful position, but limited by not having a table,  Richardson had the second-most

powerful position , and Clinton the third-most powerful seat.

Then, the rest follow in this order:  Gravel , Dodd, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich.

It was interesting to watch how everbody, including himself, made Biden to be

the outcast (outcasted as the only one in favor of funding the troops by supplement

appropriation)  when the seating arrangement displayed him as an outcast.

Biden is the one who "looked"  by himself, not  either gravel, or Kucinich.

Except for the fact that Kucinich looked like he was  "beyond" outcast status.

Offhand, I cannot recall the social term for that status.   Maybe it's  "U S Congressman!"

RoW thE GraVeL ! 

  tannhauser PACOM  ,  tanaiste

  Yes, what you say was the

  Yes, what you say was the true seating arrangement,  but,  if you move the camera angle to the left one seat, then you have a power triad in the middle.   Also the way that I saw it Gravel looked to be on an island (of course my focus was on that side of the room,  But even as the debate ended and most of them gathered in the middle to shake hands or what not, Gravel kept to the far left of the screen, all by himself.  Which is just fine by me,  no reason to make nice with thoes ppl,  but I would love for him to get as much camera time as he could.

  

I accept your confirmation that the blogger is in error

I think this is very important, because our campaign is to

be about the ***truth***.

Bloggers are not helping our campaign when they make a mistake or error,

or in some other way make a statement of things factually, which upon proof,

is then found to be not correct.

I think we always want to be talking about what we are talking about,

be serious, avoid double-dealing, avoid equivocations , and pangies ( "I'm for apple-pie" -type comments)

I even think that Romney had a good point ( which he did not actually realize)  that he was not

willing to waste his time thinking about the impossible, and respond to questions about what

did not happen, etc , which he called "null set."  However, as far as I know, I'm the only person

who even thinks he knows what Romney was talking about.  Wolf trashed his response at the time,

and The Daily Show , on the Comedy channel lampooned Romney's answer.  Several news commentators

commented on it unfavorably.  Oh, yes, Romney also called the question a non sequitor.

That question was  :  "If you knew then what you know now, would you consider the invasion of Iraq

to be a mistake."

Gravel had one of those type questions put to him, which was thrown into the future. It was about

a coming genocide in Iraq.  Maybe that question was :  ? Wouldn't you stay in Iraq to avoid

a genocide there?"  I thought Mike handled that question very well. In an outraged manner,

he boomed :  " You don't know the future  ! "  or something like that.  Also , you recall,

during our debate  Clinton and Obama struck a deal onstage that neither one of them would

answer any more "hypotheticals"  that night. I think the situation is bad enough already, to waste time

discussing things immaginary.  That has been Bush's basic source of trouble since 911:  he keeps on

**acting** on no other basis than what is not factual or actual.  For example most of the reasonable

conclusions are that Iran does not have either nuke nor missle to deliver it.  Those things

***do not exist**  !    Yet , Bush is willing to  ********act******** on the basis of those

things which do not exist , and physically install radar and missles in Europe  !  Once Putin **sees**

those, Putin says he should have no other reasonable choice than to target more in Europe than

he ever did , and demonstrated his ability to do that by testing a multiple-warheaded missle :  ICBM.

Mike is on the record as ***agreeing*** with  Putin's way of thinking, and warning of what he would then

be forced to do  .  I am with our candidate Mike.  Putin is being much more reasonable than Bush

in that matter.  Maybe Bush suffers either from fear, or too much imagination !  By the time 2009

rolls around , we might need a one-term President of the US who is not nearly as likely to act

on  imagination as Bush 43.

 

   In the Democratic Party, the most likely person , who also has other outstanding

qualities, is Gravel.  In the Republican Party , probably Romney would do the best job in

avoiding actions based on his vivid imagination . (Romey probably doesn't have  ***any** imagination.

His success was made on his executive skills in managing **other people** who were on his

imagination team.  He didn't spend time going over their wild imaginations: he would spend

time looking at what evidence had been developed.  That activity is much like

the role of a Hollywood film producer.  ( The executive producer is not the one with the

artistic talents.  If he were, everybody in that industry would be broke !  )

Well, I have bad news for you :  almost everybody agrees from observation , that since  **Bush 43**

the U S government is  ***********************broken***************************** !    !    !

RoW thE GraVeL   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  tannhauser PACOM  ,  tanaiste

This debate was the first

This debate was the first time that I had seen Gravel.  "Who is that cantankerous old man on the end?  I like him."  Yesterday was the first time in my life that I have contributed to a campaign.  According to CNN, he only had $498 dollars left in his campaign fund.  This being the case, a $10 donation didn't seem that pointless.   

Did You Notice that Gravel was the only one to Anwer Questions ?

After the debate, I tried to rank the candidates on their adressing

the question put to them.

After an Hour -- I had to give up.  I could always start out with Gravel,

but the others were about the same,  and far down the scale from Gravel.

RoW thE GraVeL  !  

 tannhauser PACOM  ,  tanaiste