Should the networks and interest groups that have been sponsoring the seemingly endless series of debates and candidate forums start limiting their invitations to those contenders who seem, by whatever definition, “viable”? Having so many candidates onstage fighting for air time does make it harder to come up with any format that goes beyond gotcha moments and sound bites. With a smaller group, we might actually learn something about the people who have the best chance of becoming the next President of the United States.

But I have generally liked the idea of including candidates from the second tier–and beyond–in these settings. You never know when lightning may strike, and how is an underfinanced long-shot going to get a breakout moment otherwise? Just as importantly, candidates such as Dennis Kucinich often are the only ones giving voice to ideas–like single-payer health care and a quick withdrawal from Iraq–that have not been embraced by the leading candidates, despite having significant support among the party rank and file.

Still, having decided to include them, should they be given the same amount of time and attention as the leaders in the race? At his blog Newpairodimes, frequent Swampland commenter Trifecta argues that Democrat Dennis Kucinich and Republican Ron Paul “are getting hosed” by the networks:

http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/08/dennis_kucinich_vs_abc.html

In other words, it busts unions.

CEO’s and their boards have a natural vested interest. Their collusion is perfectly legal.

But collective bargaining has a ball and chain around its leg by gov’t but is told nothing is holding it back.

Do I have to draw a diagram for you?

Let the workers negotiate collectively without the full power of the gov’t to bust unions like it has since Reagan.

The rest will take care of itself.

Reagan btw was hired by General Electric IIRC to do PR work against unions . . .

BD has got this right. Kansas is a right to work state and because of that workers have fewer rights. This term is one of those Rovian/Orwellian misnomers – “clear skies initiative” anybody?

Absolutely! ^5 LJ, you rock!

But yes, I’d say a retired person or someone on disability has very little room to be discussing matters related to workers. It is very easy for someone like Kansas to think the “right to work” laws are a good thing. They have no effect on him.

Posted by: J R | October 05, 2007 at 04:05 PM

I understand about it being to one person. But the principle was there. i would not necessarily take out those who have retired, they have paid their price. I probably wouldn;t take out the disabled, if they cannot do anything about it. But the rest, in my mind, those on the public assistance, shouold be quiet about spending my money. But it’s a free country. Anyway. I’m out.
Peace.

But yes, I’d say a retired person or someone on disability has very little room to be discussing matters related to workers. It is very easy for someone like Kansas to think the “right to work” laws are a good thing. They have no effect on him.

Posted by: J R | October 05, 2007 at 03:56 PM

While I am not interested in the back and forth personal attacks, this post got my attention. SO, those who don;t work have no stake in the argument? So, all of those who don;t work, or are on the government dole somehow, don;t have a stake? Are you sure that’s what your position is? There are a hell of a lot of Americans that are not working. They vote. Perhaps we should take their vote away until they are contributors to the tax dole that they are milking?
Personally, except for that inconvenient thing called the Constittuion, it would be alright with me.

Posted by: J R | October 05, 2007 at 03:51 PM

Translated meaning you have no answer, just more rhetoric.

You want freebies without having to earn it.

Typical Lib.

I’d just say it isn’t very productive hearing opinions on the working conditions and pay of Americans FROM someone who likely hasn’t turned a tap in a very long time. That is unless you are employed being an irritant here.

Posted by: J R | October 05, 2007 at 03:43 PM

But J R, are you and your buddy Blogladytes the one proposing that a nanny government take care of us all?

I mean you want redistributed wealth, free health care.

So, unless you are a hypocrite of your own ideology, you want to be “on the dole” yourself.

At least I worked for mine. You just want the government to give it to you for free without having to get off your wide butt to earn it.

Draining the mother’s milk out of society brought forth by entrepreneurship and hard work and Capn condemns the same system that provides him with a paycheck.

Another Blogladyte without a clue of what he writes or speaks.

And in 2002 Bush said he needed the AUMF to prevent a war, not start one.

Posted by: CapnAmerica | October 05, 2007 at 12:58 PM

That is the financial worth of any product, including labor, or televisions or tennis shoes. Nobody pays any more than they have to. proof? Wal-Mart is the world’s largest retailer, no matter their practices.

So you would decide how much someone gets paid how?

Posted by: CF2K | October 05, 2007 at 12:49 PM

He already has, several times. And the Democrats keep approving the funding.

You Dems cannot take the high road on the Iraq war. Most Dems voted for it to begin with. And even if they claim now to have been “lied to” (Bill Clinton told the same lie remember) your Dems in Congress keep writing the checks.

You would base it how?

Posted by: littlejohn |

That’s the free-marketeerian mythos again, LJ.

People don’t earn what they’re worth, they earn what the company can get away paying them.

That’s why we need unions to protect the rapidly shrinking middle class.

The CONs want to go back to life in the 50’s. And what was so great about life in the 50’s? Big, powerful unions bring the fruit of their labor to the people who earned it.

“I tell people, ‘to hell with charity,” Saul Alinsky used to say. “You only get what you’re strong enough to get.”

Posted by: littlejohn |

The alternative is a free-market job, yes, but with gov’t protections in place, particularly on union organizing, which we don’t have now.

Indeed. This war has been largely financed through supplemental bills, which aren’t subject to the same sorts of oversight and budget accountability as normal ones. It’s time for the ‘war now, pay later’ approach to end.

If Bush wants to have his war, let him go through proper channels to fund it.

We could put the same amount of money — $150 billion a year and growing — into alterative energy research and get off oil once and for all. But try and push that idea you’ll be branded a tax-and-spend liberal.