their policy proposals would be detrimental to big business?
Or do you believe that their ideas have no merit?
2007-09-28 04:21:19 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
james : Is it possible that they don't have any chance of winning because they don't get any ink, or equal air time during the 'debates'?
2007-09-28 04:29:41 · update #1
It's because a) they make too much sense and b) they aren't headfirst up to their ankles in the corporate pockets.
Funny thing is, I don't think the solutions to America's problems are going to be detrimental to big business per se, but these three guys wouldn't allow corporations to actually draft legislation the way Bush has; nor would their first advice to the public in the wake of a major terrorist attack be to go shopping.
2007-09-28 05:01:56 · answer #1 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I love these guys. What they have to say has truth. It is so far from what people have been programmed to think. When they speak people get scared and confused. What really dismays me is people call those who call for peace kooks. And yes some of their ideas are detrimental to big business and the war machine.
2007-09-28 04:28:50 · answer #2 · answered by gone 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It isn't so much the message as it is the delivery. From a marketing point of view:
Kucinich is small in stature (negative) and seems compelled to end most of his statements with big grin even the serious ones (negative) when ever their is a closeup shot of him.
Gravel has the stones, yet he mainly scowls and yells which over time becomes tiresome.
Paul makes great points yet he seems like he is one step away from having a coronary.
That being said they do bring a lot to the debate.
edit: Note the thumbs down for explaining why the public doesn't receive these men that well. Is it possible that if someone pointed this out to them, they might do better?
2007-09-28 04:25:26 · answer #3 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Actually, Paul wants to remove a lot of government blockades to big business and believes strongly in free trade.
However, he would shake up the lobbyist system of paying off Congress for favorable votes and legislation, and that is what scaring the hell out of the big corporations.
2007-09-28 04:26:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Well, look at how much they have raised in fundraising. People don't give to losers. Also look at poll after poll and you will notice that those guys are consistantly in the lower end. To waste time on candidates with no real chance of winning makes sense. Time and space are expensive in the media. They cannot afford to waste it. I would not vote for Kucinich, Gravel, and definately not Paul.
2007-09-28 04:26:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
I don't know enough of their campaign to say...
but my best guess would be that it's about the Almighty Dollar, and they haven't raised enough millions to win the Presidency.
2007-09-28 04:31:00 · answer #6 · answered by no one 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
All three are all anti war both Paul and Gravel are both anti neocon that's why the media ignores them.
2007-09-28 04:28:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
They don't get any ink because they don't have a prayer of winning their party's nomination.
2007-09-28 04:26:54 · answer #8 · answered by james 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Yes, corporations own the media. Their ideas have much merit but nobody is listening. The media will elect the President this time.
2007-09-28 04:26:26 · answer #9 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
MINI Politicians!~!
2007-09-28 04:25:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋