It is wrong for a media company to exclude valid canidate running for presidency based on funds they have raised. This is predjudice and should not be a determining fadctor to the validity of a canidate to run for presidency. NBC is WRONG! Let Mike Gravel speak!
NBC has no right to exclude Mike Gravel from further presidential debates. Yes, it is clear that he does not take big money donations from giant corporations, that is well known. We all know he speaks out against the war in Iraq,
I cannot believe that you would eliminate any candidate from a debate based on random statistics. Mike Gravel has a history of fighting for issues that he and many others believe are important to this nation and our government. PLEASE include him in this and ALL debates ....I believe it is in all Americans best interest.
It is unfair that Mike Gravel be excluded from a political debate, just because he holds an ideal that differs from that of the sponsors. Such debates should be open forums that allow for differing opinions to be brought forward. It can only make a person better to have to defend their stance. If they can't, than that should be their punishment.
It is unbelievable that in a so-called democracy that the financial beneficiaries of an illegal war will stifle free speech. We certainly need a change.
This is BS that NBC is not letting Gravel debate because he has not raised as much money as the other candidates. The only reason he has not raised as much money is because he refuses to accept money from big corporations, special interest groups, and lobbyist.
MONEY IS NOT THE ISSUE WE AS AMERICANS WANT ADRESSED. ITS SEPERATION OF POWERS AND THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE THAT NEED TO BE HEARD. PLEASE REMEMBER MIKE GRAVEL IN THE NEXT DEBATE.LP
If we are to have a fair election process Mike Gravel must speak. With Senator Gravel's decision to not accept big moey contributions the debates become his forum to be heard. Mike Gravel not only deserves the right to speak, but has earned it.
The relevance of debates to issues of serious importance will diminish without Mike Gravel present. There's no good reason to exclude him at this time. Let him speak!
Anyone who is running for President deserves to be included until the voters say otherwise. This is supposed to be a free democracy, imposing insane critieria for participation in a debate in America smacks of the corporate fascism we are living in, these war profiteering companies aren't even trying to hide it anymore. And the Democratic Party should be ashamed of itself, it's supposed to the opposition party, not the capitulation party. They won't be getting my money and they won't be getting my vote for any corporate capitulating candidate., no matter the money they
I strongly support Senator Mike Gravel's participation in the MSNBC debate on October 30th.His widtom, insight, and common sense clearly belong in the dialogue among Democratic candidates.We should not base dialogue on how much money a candidate raises, but solely on the fact that an individual is, in fact, a candidate.I strongly support the candidacy of Sen. Mike Gravel.
Gravel has the experience, independence and responsibility to raise the serious issues affecting our nation's future. Coprporate abortion of his campaign by the media is an affront to true Democracy.
I understand the reasons for trying to limit the debate to a reasonable size. I even understand that fundraising and polling requirements are perhaps the best method of limiting the debate's size, while still retaining the candidates who are most likely to win / are most widely supported. Nevertheless, one should not discount the value of a presence such as that of Mike Gravel. His voice and message standout amongst the other candidates for being markedly different. Such a presence is essential to a debate, providing context when it would seem that no dissenting opinion exists on a given issue.
Mike is a serious candidate representing serious stands on serious issues. To exclude him is political censorship at worst, irresponsible journalism at best.
Democracy should include everyone, irrespective of their financial status or fundraising. As a so-called developed Country, this applies to the USA more than other countries. As a world leader, it applies even more. As an Englishman, I totally support this campaign.
this media-corporate leading the mindless politics as usual morons has got to come to an end . money should never corrupt election. why doyou have to raise 30 million to campaign for a 400 thousand dollar a year position? power and ego is the only answer to that question.we need a caring american to put our country back in the hands of the people,by the people and for the people, not the almighty dollar.wake up mindless americans before there is only the wealthy and the poor!!!!!!
This is about fairness and freedom of speech. What does money have to do with a debate? I'm very concerned that only two parties are even allowed to debate on national media. And now NBC wants to censor who gets to speak in one of those parties. I want us to live in a democracy again.
Mr. Gravel is a legitimate candidate for President with a unique voice that should be heard. The campaign is not about money or travel, it is about issues and the future of our country--don't make arbitrary rules that silence him or any other candidate!
If the rule-making processes governing who can be a candidate for president (or any other public office) is based around how much money a person has raised, then America is really in trouble. I believe that all candidates who wish to run for office should need to demonstrate a minimum level of support (usually via a number of signatures which are gathered on petitions to get the candidate on a ballot). I believe that all candidates should be funded via the matching funds mechanism, and that outside contributions from such sources as corporate donors should be forbidden. This would put all candidates on an equal footing, and would probably result in more choices for Americans as to who would do a good job in running our nation, instead of (as it is today), merely showing who can raise the most money, and is therefore more beholding to corporate donors. This is an interesting point. Those of you reading this might begin to realize that corporations are having more and more influence and control over our lives (which certainly isn't what I want). Therefore, one must logically come to the conclusion that those candidates who choose NOT to take the matching funds are indeed getting huge corporate sponsorship. Then, when they become the president, they will be
This ban will spark interest in Mike Gravel, but a man who show's what America is about should be on all the debates to stop this industrial-military complex.
