posted August 18, 2006 10:47 PM              

This is an activist letter. If you agree about Hillary Clinton and the right for Jonathan Tasini to debate her on the issues then you can contact the people at NY1 Cable television at the email addresses supplied below. I suspect they don't want another Joe Lieberman loss in New York.

Activism Update

NY1 Dismisses Calls for Tasini-Clinton Debate

8/18/06

On August 4, FAIR issued an action alert calling for New York cable news channel NY1 to allow Democratic antiwar candidate Jonathan Tasini to debate incumbent Sen. Hillary Clinton as part of its series of televised primary debates. NY1, which is owned by Time Warner, had created rules for participation that required candidates to not only stand at 5 percent in polls (Tasini has reached 13 percent) but to have raised or spent at least $500,000.

NY1 senior vice president Steve Paulus has responded (Associated Press, 8/15/06) that while $500,000 "seems like a lot of money" to many, "there are 5.5 million registered Democrats in New York. All Tasini would need is for each one to send him a dollar. Right now, with the money he's raised, he does not represent the party he claims to represent."

Paulus' suggestion that the amount of money a candidate raises defines whether he or she represents the party is absurd and dangerous; much of Clinton's campaign chest has come not from one dollar donations from registered New York Democrats but from wealthy corporate employees and their employers—like Time Warner, which according to FEC.gov has donated thousands of dollars to Clinton's campaign through its Political Action Committee. Clinton also received money from a July 16 fundraiser held for her by Rupert Murdoch, a conservative media mogul not known for supporting the Democratic Party or its interests. It would seem that voter signatures to put a candidate on the ballot (Tasini collected 40,000, well above the required 15,000) would be a better measure of that candidate's legitimacy within the party than an arbitrary amount of funds raised from such sources—or from any source.

Moreover, as an antiwar candidate challenging Clinton's pro-war record, Tasini would appear to represent the Democratic Party even better than Clinton on that central issue: A recent poll showed that 78 percent of Democrats want candidates who oppose the Iraq War (Zogby, 8/9/06).

According to the AP report, Paulus argued that NY1's coverage of Tasini far exceeded that from other media outlets. But debates among all candidates are valued in democratic elections for good reasons: They bring out discussions on issues that often get short-changed in mainstream media interviews and carefully planned campaign speeches; they increase public interest in elections; and they increase voter turnout. NY1 should stop playing gatekeeper and let the public decide if Tasini represents them or not.

CONTACT:
Robert Hardt
NY1, Director of Politics
Robert.Hardt@ny1news.com
212-379-3330

posted August 19, 2006 12:57 AM            

The General Manager of NY 1, Steve Paulus just informed me that there are no debates and that Hillary Clinton refuses to debate...anyone.

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:57:45 -0400
From: "Steve Paulus"
<Steve.Paulus@ny1news.com>
Subject: Re: Democratic Senatorial Primary Debates
To: "jwhop"

Hello,

NY1 has not disqualified Jonathan Tasini from any debate because there is no debate. Hillary Clinton will not agree to a debate with anyone so there is no debate to be held. We have featured Mr. Tasini in several stories and he has been a guest on “Inside City Hall.” We are planning to invite him back at least once more before the primary.

Regarding Mr. Tasini’s financial status…although he has gotten enough signatures and is polling at about 13%, he has still raised less than $150,000. That is not enough to run a statewide campaign…for example, he doesn’t have any kind of organization outside of NYC (no field offices anywhere in the State). We originally set the $500,000 criteria this way. There are 5.5 million registered democrats in NYS. If one tenth of them (one out of ten registered democrats) sent him $1 he would have raised $550,000.

In the 2005 Mayoral Campaign, the NYC Campaign Finance Board set a financial target of $50,000 in order to participate in their debates. To run for Mayor you need to buy television time in one market. To run a statewide campaign you need to buy television time in seven Nielsen markets. Multiply the $50,000 by seven and you get $350,000, a total the Tasini campaign hasn’t come close to raising.

NY1 has given more coverage to Mr. Tasini’s campaign than ANY other television station. We are seen across NYS so he has gotten enormous exposure from his appearances on NY1. It isn’t fair to blame NY1 for “disqualifying” a candidate when we are the only organization putting the resources into holding these kinds of debates. When an editorial in the NY Post chides NY1 I have to ask what about Fox 5 and the Post? Both are owned by News Corporation. Can’t THEY make the effort to hold a debate in this race. If you Nexis or Google the NY Post and Tasini, they have mentioned him TWICE since his campaign began.

We’ve taken a lot of heat, unfairly, and I hope that the facts make some sense.

Thanks for the feedback and please keep watching.

Steve Paulus
General Manager, NY1

I suppose it's my error for taking anything you say at face value.

posted August 19, 2006 01:01 PM              

Poll Shows Lieberman Leads Schiavo Candidate By 12 Points

Apparently Connecticut voters aren't impressed that Michael Schiavo has endorsed Sen. Joseph Lieberman's opponent.

Or, maybe it's BECAUSE Schiavo is boosting Ned Lamont.

The latest Quinnipiac University Poll showed that U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, a three-term Democrat now running as an independent, leads Lamont by 12 points in a three-way race.

Lamont, who has money but little political experience, defeated Lieberman in the Aug. 8 primary, basing his campaign on anti-war sentiment and claiming that Lieberman was too supportive of the Republican policies and the Bush Administration.

The poll, conducted between Aug. 10-14, shows that as an Independent, Lieberman gets 53% of likely voters with Lamont trailing at 41% with 4% for Republican Alan Schlesinger.

Among registered voters, Sen. Lieberman gets 49% followed by Lamont with 38% and Schlesinger with 4%, the poll shows. This compares to a 51 - 27 percent Lieberman lead over Lamont, with 9 percent for Schlesinger in a July 20 poll by the independent Quinnipiac University.

In this latest survey, Lieberman leads 75 - 13 - 10 percent among likely Republican voters, and 58 - 36 - 3 percent among likely independent voters, while likely Democratic voters back Lamont 63 - 35 percent. Two percent are undecided, but 28 percent of those who name a candidate might change their mind before Election Day.

"Sen. Lieberman's support among Republicans is nothing short of amazing. It more than offsets what he has lost among Democrats. As long as Lieberman maintains this kind of support among Republicans, while holding onto a significant number of Democratic votes, the veteran Senator will be hard to beat," said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D.

"Ned Lamont's Democratic primary win was based on a very small percentage of voters statewide. He must expand beyond this base if he is going to beat Lieberman."

Connecticut voters approve 55 - 40 percent of the job Lieberman is doing and likely voters give him a 46 - 30 percent favorability rating, with 23 percent mixed.

posted August 20, 2006 02:42 AM              

Odd though that I didn't get any return email from NY1 and Mr. Hardt or Mr. Paulus personally. Instead I got a form letter thanking me for my correpondence and assuring me that they will take what I said into consideration. Form letters are the norm.

Are you pulling a fast one here, Jwhop? Now if as was stated in the email to you that they "were taking a lot of heat" that would mean they were getting a lot of emails from people on this matter. Heads of cable stations don't have the time it would take to respond personally to everyone. That is why these people use "polite" form letters in response.

The activist email I posted above stated that it was Jonathan Tasini that requested a debate with Hilliary Clinton in the stations series of candidate debates. Also it refers to a statement made by Mr. Paulus to the AP stating that Mr. Tasini did not represent his party as he has not raised enough funds as the reason for no debate. He did not state that Hillary Clinton "refused to debate anyone" as it says in the email he supposedly sent to you. He did not deny that there were a series of scheduled primary debates to the AP.

Nothing of the nature suggesting that I was ill-informed regarding any debates was contained in the form letter that I got in return, Jwhop. If Activist is just spreading lies about them as you suggest from this so-called email you got in return from Mr. Paulus, wouldn't they also want to clarify that in a form letter to all the people they are getting heat from?

My conclusion: You posted a phony reply letter here from NY1 ( isn't there a law against impersonating someone else?} So what I will do in the attempt to prove that is copy your return email from Mr. Paulus and send it to him asking him why I got a form letter reply and he wrote you personally regarding this matter. I will also mention that you posted this on an online public forum.

Because I think this is just another attempt on your part, Jwhop to follow in the footsteps of your leaders and their phony swift boaters and use their tactics to smear my character. You are desparately trying to convince the other people here of what you are constantly accusing me of doing, lying and posting liberal lies. To go this far, Jwhop is pathetic and only proves just how much of a threat you seem to think I am.

If Mr. Paulus didn't write that letter and knows you are using his name on public internet forums you might be in big trouble if he checks it out and chooses to do something about it, Jwhop. And it would serve you right for sinking so low.

If this letter turns out to be true I will apologize to you. But if it turns out to be a phony email you posted here and I find out the truth from Mr. Paulus I will also check with a lawyer regarding what I can do in the way of a personal, public attempt at character assassination. Won't cost me a dime to consult with a lawyer as through a contract that is still binding between the United Auto Workers and Daimler/Chrysler Corp. we receive free legal counseling and representation. So don't think the cost of suing your a$$ would put me off. That is not a threat either, Jwhop. That's a promise.

posted August 20, 2006 03:12 AM              

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:57:45 -0400
From: "Steve Paulus"
<Steve.Paulus@ny1news.com>
Subject: Re: Democratic Senatorial Primary Debates
To: "jwhop"

It's also odd the time and dates on these two emails, Jwhop. I didn't get my form letter until today and I sent my letter out long before I posted this here at LL.

Mr. Paulus, as head of the NY1 cable station sure doesn't seem to have much to do to have all that time to personally email you back and especially that quickly.

Another thing that is curious is that it says (PDT) after the time on your email, Jwhop. Explain that since you live in Florida which is EDT not PDT. The cable station itself is located in New York which is also EDT. It must be very difficult for Mr. Paulus to run a cable network station that far away.

posted August 20, 2006 03:28 AM              

NY1 stands by decision not to host Democratic Senate debate
8/15/2006, 5:51 p.m. ET
By BETH FOUHY
The Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — An all-news cable television station is standing by its decision not to host a debate between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the anti-war activist challenging her in the state's Democratic primary.

NY1 has been criticized in recent weeks for refusing to include a Democratic Senate debate among its political offerings this summer. So far, NY1 has hosted debates involving the state's Democratic gubernatorial candidates and Republican Senate candidates. It will host a forum for the state's Democratic candidates for attorney general later this week.

But a debate between Clinton and Jonathan Tasini did not materialize because NY1 executives determined the cash-strapped Tasini cannot be considered a viable candidate.

Under rules set by NY1, candidates must meet three criteria to be invited to debate: They must have qualified for the ballot, have at least 5 percent support in the polls and have raised or spent at least $500,000 in their campaigns.

Tasini has met the first two criteria. He gathered 40,000 signatures to appear on the ballot, far more than the 15,000 required, and recent polls show him winning about 13 percent support among Democratic voters.

But he's raised only about $132,000 and spent $120,000 in the race.

Calls for NY1 to reconsider its fundraising criteria have grown louder since last week, when another anti-war candidate, Ned Lamont, knocked off Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary. Lamont, a multimillionaire businessman, spent at least $4 million for his race, mostly on ads criticizing Lieberman for his support for the Iraq war.

On Tuesday, the New York Post editorial page weighed in, saying NY1 should "cut Tasini a little slack."

"Traditionally, the test of seriousness in a statewide candidate in New York is successful completion of the grueling ballot access process. It ain't been easy, to put it mildly, but Tasini has made that grade," the paper wrote, adding that Clinton's stance on the Iraq war "could stand a little clarification."

But a senior vice president at NY1, Steve Paulus, said the station's criteria for debates were fair. He acknowledged the $500,000 threshold "seems like a lot of money" to many voters.

"There are 5.5 million registered Democrats in New York," Paulus said. "All Tasini would need is for each one to send him a dollar. Right now, with the money he's raised, he does not represent the party he claims to represent."

Paulus said NY1 had given Tasini far more coverage than he'd received from other media outlets, including the New York Post.

Tasini points to his successful petition drive as evidence there is "tremendous support" among Democrats looking for an alternative to Clinton.

posted August 20, 2006 12:03 PM              

Which means that he wouldn't be donating to Hillary Clinton if she did not in some way serve the self-interest of his media corporation. Since Rupert Murdoch has no concern for the U.S. Constitution and no scruples that means that Hillary Clinton doesn't either regardless of her pretense of serving the people rather than corporate interest, the very thing she charges the Republican party of doing.

posted August 20, 2006 07:12 PM            

Can I change the time stamp on outgoing mail?
Currently, it is not possible to change the time stamp on your outgoing XXXXXXX Mail messages. The time stamp is set by the time on the XXXXXXX Mail servers here in California (Pacific time zone - PST).

The number with a "+" or "-" to the left of the time stamp shows how many hours ahead or behind Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), or World Time, the time stamp is.

Please note: It is also not possible to change the time stamp of incoming messages.

Was this information useful?

posted August 20, 2006 07:54 PM              

Here is an example of that. I copied and pasted this from an email I received today:

Sent: August 19, 2006 12:25 AM

You haven't explained how the email you sent from your computer had a PDT stamp on it when you live in Fla. which is in EDT.

You can also alter a form letter by editing it to say what you want it to say.

The times are interesting. I would say that Mr. Paulus has a lot of time on his hands for the head of a cable station in NY to answer your email that fast. I received this Action newsalert on Tues. I sent my mail out right away on Tues and only got a form letter delivered early Sat. morning that was emailed Fri afternoon. From what you posted here you sent out your letter on Fri. and Mr. Paulus replied to you in not only a short time after you sent the email, or so it appears to me, but on the same day as well.

This is not scanned from the original email. That was checked out to see if you scanned it to post here by a friend of mine who knows how to check those things.

Any letter you post here if not scanned from the orginal bears no weight because it could very easily be edited and changed and have copied and pasted email stamps applied to it.

This information was used to refute a pathetic rightest's allegations.

posted August 20, 2006 08:17 PM              

I have not had time today to email Mr. Paulus at NY1 regarding this matter, Jwhop.

I have no wish to get you into any trouble. So I will give you a grace period to fess up and if you do show some semblance of honesty by doing that I will just drop the matter. Otherwise I am emailing Mr. Paulus tomorrow evening.

posted August 20, 2006 09:47 PM            

Mirandee
I know this may sound like I'm "taking sides" here but I really am not. Just hoping to clarify before anyone reading this misunderstands ...
You sound (ok, read) kind of paranoid here. And I don't normally get the impression that you're a paranoid person.
You're not the only one around here lately that's been making allegations that people are being devious or dishonest in some way.
I'm shocked to see it here, too.

Just out of curiosity, and you are by no means expected to answer unless you want to ... why do think jwhop would go to such extremes to lie about something so completely unimportant here? I mean, who forges e-mails like this? What could jwhop possibly have to gain, that would actually matter in his eyes, by doing something like what you're accusing him of?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Hope I'm not offending you by asking questions. If I didn't actually care about your opinion, I wouldn't ask.

posted August 21, 2006 12:51 AM            

Because your post misstated the facts about the debate(s), I wrote an effective email letter which called into question the integrity, impartiality, idealism, desire for good government and standards of the 2 men you mentioned in your post...and NY1 itself. I'm not surprised the General Manager answered it himself.

I am sorry I acted on your misinformation. I dislike having to apologize but good manners, civility and social custom required it. Of course leftists know nothing about any of that.

Why wait, you should send that email to Paulus immediately...especially since the tone of your posts suggest you're already acting on the belief I forged an email and used his name.

By all means, discuss your legal options with the lawyer geeks down at the Union. I eat people like them for breakfast, as they will discover if they p!ss me off by making any accusations. OCAW already found that out when they lied to workers at a manufacturing plant where I was general manager in California in the 1970's. All they got for listening to the lying union organizer was four months of marching around outside the plant in the Southern California summer sun but they never got a contract and I had a whole new workforce on the job at 8am on the day they struck. I felt sorry for the workers and took better care of them than their union did. I bought 5 large water coolers, Styrofoam cups and kept the coolers well stocked with ice water...more than the idiot from the union managed for them. I even let them in one at a time to use our restrooms...except for the union thug who I told to keep off the property or I'd have him arrested for trespass.

You've been libeling public figures both here and at CE. While you're discussing your "legal options" with the union lawyer geeks you might want to have a discussion about the legal difference between libeling a public figure and a private person.

I'm not going to any trouble to cover my ass or anything else Mirandee. The answer to your question about Pacific Daylight Time, PDT for emails sent through my service provider was in the explanation I already posted. Their servers are in California and all outgoing email will bear a California time stamp.

posted August 22, 2006 02:12 AM              

I don't mind you asking questions and I do not feel like you are taking sides here.

I was confused as to why when I sent out my letter to the named gentlemen above I got a form letter in return and Jwhop posted a letter from Mr. Paulus.

No I am not a paranoid person at all. However, the very first thing that Jwhop did was to come back and accuse me of misinforming people here. Then he went on to state that he supposed it was his error to take anything I say at face value.
Which to me sounds like he is calling me a liar and accusing me of deliberately misinforming people.

Since Jwhop is constantly calling me a liar and telling me that I only post leftist lies here my first thought was that he was trying to further promote that image of me at GU. I don't like that at all, Elanore. I have always been a very honest person all my life. I esteem honesty as the highest moral value next to love. Some people would say that I can be brutally honest at times. I never say anything that I do not truly believe or think. This image of me as a liar seems to be a repeated mantra of Jwhop's and when people repeat things over and over others start to buy into that image. That is a technique that has been highly used by the Bush administration especially regarding the war and WMD's in Iraq. In fact recent polls have shown that in spite of the news coverage to the contrary, 60% of Americans still believe that there were WMD's in Iraq.

Anyway, Jwhop strikes me as a man who is full of hate just by his posts and what he says and the way he personally attacks anyone with a different viewpoint than him. People who are full of hate are capable of doing anything in my opinion. So rather than paranoia it is more a distrust of Jwhop's motives.

I meant every word that I said to Jwhop regarding checking into this matter and I also meant it when I told him that if I find out that letter is for real I would apologize to him.

I am even more confused now because the first thing I decided to do was to re-submit my letter to NY1 Cable News and Mr. Paulus to see what happened. I expected the same form letter that I got after sending my first email to the station last Tues. when I got this Activist Newsletter. Only I didn't get that same form letter when I emailed the station today. Instead I got the same letter that Jwhop got from Mr. Paulus.

I cannot explain what happened here and why I got just a normal looking form letter thanking me for my correspondence on the matter etc. when I sent my first letter. I send out a lot of letters and sign a lot of petitions and what I normally get in return is a form letter. Obviously this is a form letter as well because word for word it the same as the one Jwhop received from the station. But it is definitely different in content than the first reply I received. Maybe they decided to go with a different form letter that explained their position in the time between my first letter, Jwhop's letter and my second letter. Who knows?

At any rate, I do owe you an apology, Jwhop and I sincerely apologize of accusing you of forging the letter. However, in no way was I lying or trying to misinform or deceive anyone. Activist Newsletter comes to me from the Progressive Democrats and they are normally a very reliable source. At least to me. I am sure that being progressive democrats you would not consider them a reliable source, Jwhop. Not to say that what was stated in their newletter above is not true or unreliable. The story and inteview with Stephen Paulus was printed in the AP and I posted that article above. That is why I am confused about all of this.

Someone is lying here and misrepresenting the facts but I assure you it is not I who am doing the lying. I posted that newsletter action alert in good faith. I can't explain any of this other stuff.

I do know one thing. It will benefit the Republicans a whole lot more to have Hillary Clinton back in Congress than to have Jonathan Tasini replace her. I have heard nothing from any other source regarding Hillary Clinton refusing to debate anyone. So I don't feel that Mr. Paulus is being honest about that. He may be but since I haven't heard anything that supports his statement regarding that I will remain skeptical of his remarks.

The point of the newletter article was what Mr. Paulus once again stated in this letter. Why should every New York Democrat have to send in money for Mr. Tasini's campaign and Hillary Clinton who could actually pay for own campaign with her own money but who gets large contributions from corporations even be able to say she will not debate other Democrat candidates? If she does refuse to debate anyone I like her even less and I never liked her anyway.

Once again, Jwhop, I apologize.

Here is the form letter I got this evening and regretfully I deleted the other form letter right after I read it as it was just a normal form letter otherwise I would post it here as well:

Steve Paulus <Steve.Paulus@ny1news.com>Monday, August 21, 2006 11:46 PM
RE: Clinton/Tasini debate

Hello,

NY1 has not disqualified Jonathan Tasini from any debate because there is no debate. Hillary Clinton will not agree to a debate with anyone so there is no debate to be held. We have featured Mr. Tasini in several stories and he has been a guest on “Inside City Hall.” We are planning to invite him back at least once more before the primary.

Regarding Mr. Tasini’s financial status…although he has gotten enough signatures and is polling at about 13%, he has still raised less than $150,000. That is not enough to run a statewide campaign…for example, he doesn’t have any kind of organization outside of NYC (no field offices anywhere in the State). We originally set the $500,000 criteria this way. There are 5.5 million registered democrats in NYS. If one tenth of them (one out of ten registered democrats) sent him $1 he would have raised $550,000.

In the 2005 Mayoral Campaign, the NYC Campaign Finance Board set a financial target of $50,000 in order to participate in their debates. To run for Mayor you need to buy television time in one market. To run a statewide campaign you need to buy television time in seven Nielsen markets. Multiply the $50,000 by seven and you get $350,000, a total the Tasini campaign hasn’t come close to raising.

NY1 has given more coverage to Mr. Tasini’s campaign than ANY other television station. We are seen across NYS so he has gotten enormous exposure from his appearances on NY1. It isn’t fair to blame NY1 for “disqualifying” a candidate when we are the only organization putting the resources into holding these kinds of debates. When an editorial in the NY Post chides NY1 I have to ask what about Fox 5 and the Post? Both are owned by News Corporation. Can’t THEY make the effort to hold a debate in this race. If you Nexis or Google the NY Post and Tasini, they have mentioned him TWICE since his campaign began.

We’ve taken a lot of heat, unfairly, and I hope that the facts make some sense.

Thanks for the feedback and please keep watching.

Steve Paulus

General Manager, NY1

posted August 22, 2006 01:20 PM              

Obviously it seems from what I found at Jonathan Tasini's web site that what Stephen Paulus states in his letter is true, Hillary Clinton has refused to debate Tasini. I feel that since Tasini is an anti-war candidate he will win the votes of the Democrats in NY and have no problem getting their monetary support either. Hillary Clinton, though she has been backtracking lately regarding the Iraq War has not outright said she is against it now. The fact that she refuses to debate Tasini I also feel will go against her in the NY primaries. Who does she think she is? Pretty arrogant stance if you ask me.

Hopefully this helps to clarify at least from the viewpoint of certain people and Tasini hisself.

NY TIMES CALLS FOR CLINTON TO DEBATE TASINI

NEW YORK, NY - Jonathan Tasini, Democratic Senate candidate in New York, today released the following statement on The New York Times editorial (see below) which called on Hillary Clinton to agree to debate Tasini. The New York Times joins The New York Post, The Albany Times Union and Newsday in calling for a debate in the primary:

"Voices from across the spectrum are calling on Hillary Clinton to stop hiding behind her political machine and come out and debate the issues. Voters in New York have many questions of the incumbent and they deserve to have answers before they cast a vote on September 12th. Voters want to know who would best represent them on matters of security, the economy and civil rights. I am ready to debate my opponent any time and any place and as many times as we can agree on from now through September 12th. The Republicans have debated, the Democrats in the governor's and attorney general's race have debated. What is my opponent afraid of?"

Regarding the War in Iraq:

Tasini would appear to represent the Democratic Party even better than Clinton on that central issue: A recent poll showed that 78 percent of Democrats want candidates who oppose the Iraq War (Zogby, 8/9/06).

Ny1 Quietly Cancels Senate Town Hall Meeting

Imagine our surprise when we checked the Pace University website last night only to find that the Senate Town Hall Meeting, scheduled for August 22nd, is now marked CANCELLED. As you know, Jonathan Tasini was denied participation in this event due to the arbitrary "threshold" set by NY1 of $500,000 either raised or spent by the campaign. NY1 presented a Republican Senate debate last weekend; no Democratic Senate debate was set.

So this is NY1's response to the outpouring of grassroots outrage to the station’s suppression of political debate? NY1 feared the power of the grassroots, the power of regular citizens.

Press Release: In response to free-speech outrage, NY1 cancels Senate debate

NEW YORK, NY – Local television station NY1 has quietly cancelled its scheduled August 22nd Town Hall meeting for the U.S. Senate race. Senate candidate Jonathan Tasini condemned the cancellation.

NY1 had previously refused to invite Tasini to the event because, although he had met the ballot certification and polling requirements, he had not passed the arbitrary financial barrier set by NY1 of $500,000 either raised or spent on the campaign.

“NY1 is continuing to undermine democracy and fair political discourse,” said Tasini. “Rather than rescind its undemocratic and anti-free speech position, the station is closing off debate.”

This is What Democracy Looks Like? - by Katrina Vanden Heuvel

"Celebrity is no substitute for an honest and vigorous debate on a matter as fundamentally important as war."

That is what antiwar Senate candidate, Jonathan Tasini, told New York Times columnist Bob Herbert last May in describing his rationale for making a Democratic Party primary run against incumbent-Goliath, Sen. Hillary Clinton.

The Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — An all-news cable television station is standing by its decision not to host a debate between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the anti-war activist challenging her in the state's Democratic primary.

NY1 has been criticized in recent weeks for refusing to include a Democratic Senate debate among its political offerings this summer. So far, NY1 has hosted debates involving the state's Democratic gubernatorial candidates and Republican Senate candidates. It will host a forum for the state's Democratic candidates for attorney general later this week.

But a debate between Clinton and Jonathan Tasini did not materialize because NY1 executives determined the cash-strapped Tasini cannot be considered a viable candidate.

posted August 22, 2006 02:11 PM            

All is never "what it seems".. Something was amiss but not what perceived.

May we look to this as a reminder of what occurs when we count our chickens before they`ve hatched

Kudos to the level headed sleuthing of you both

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted August 22, 2006 03:10 PM            

You did not just "merely" question jwhop, you threatened him. You threatened to "expose" him when he did nothing wrong. You threatened to bring in lawyers and threw out suggestions that he did something illegal.

But again, you threw blame onto him.. you never would have resorted to it if he hadn't proved you wrong in the first place....it is all his fault for stating you mislead / misinformed people with your "activist" e-mail that wasn't even properly checked out.

This is so ugly....

posted August 22, 2006 05:17 PM            

Thanks Pid

There are the operative words in the explanation for why there are no NY Senatorial Primary debates scheduled...at this time...as you have determined and confirmed from other sources...other than NY1 and Paulus.

"Obviously it seems from what I found at Jonathan Tasini's web site that what Stephen Paulus states in his letter is true, Hillary Clinton has refused to debate Tasini."

The rest is rhetoric...as it relates to the cable TV station.

OK Mirandee, apology accepted.

Without putting too fine a point on this, I would remind you that I don't have to make stuff up, that I consider lying, cheating and misrepresentation obnoxious and contemptible and that I work in a heavily regulated field where contracts rule and any deviation from ethical standards of conduct would cost me my license.

I would like to see Hillary debate Tasini..not that I would actually see it but NY voters would have a chance to see them both on the stage answering questions.

You think Hillary is pro the Iraq War but Hillary is a poseur...attempting to fool as many independents and moderate democrats as possible...without losing the far left fringe, which is the democrat base. Hillary is a radical leftist and she is right in line with the folks at moveon, dailykos, democratic underground and other so called "progressives"..she just can't say so and have any hope of ever being elected President.

posted August 22, 2006 09:30 PM              

To Pid, yes I did say if it turned out to be a forgery I would consult an attorney for attempted public defamation of character. And I meant that and would have. I also stated right after I said that to Jwhop that if it turned out to be real that I would apologize to him. Which I did. Jwhop has graciously accepted my apology so we can now let it rest and follow Juniperb's wise words. Chalk it up to experience and take it as a lesson to be learned.

However it was more than just jumping to an assumption. It all has been very confusing in fact. I did get another type of form letter the first time I wrote my letter and I deleted it. So in writing the second letter I was really aiming to get another copy of that form letter to post here. Instead I discovered that Jwhop's letter that he posted here was indeed what he received and the only explanation I can think of is that sometime last week they changed the content of their form letter.

However, Jwhop deserved an apology for my suspicions and what I said. Thank you, Jwhop for being a gentleman and graciously accepting my apology.

In regard to what you said about Hillary Clinton I would agree. I agree that Hillary is often not what she claims to be and is really no more than just a politician who will say anything to get votes but not follow through on what she claims. We have had more than enough of those.

I agree that the base of the Democratic party is liberal but not radical liberal. There are varying degrees in both major parties. All the way from the far right to the far left and many inbetween. So it's really hard to say where a person lies within the party lines. Since the Bush administration has proven to be the most radical regime in the history of U.S. government I would say he and his followers are all the way to the right or radical rightests. Bush is even too radical for the taste of the liberal Democrats.

posted August 24, 2006 12:52 AM              

FAIR brings up the obvious by stating that Hillary Clinton cannot accept or refuse to debate when she hasn't been invited. She hasn't been invited because of NY1's set criteria that a candidate has to have collected a half million dollars in order to debate. Tasini was just disqualified under the stations set criteria of determining who is and who is not an actual candidate. Seems to me if the person is on the ballot that makes that person a serious candidate. In short, Paulus played the Republican card in his form letter and blamed it on a Clinton.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2947

Activism Update

NY1 Responds to FAIR
Cable station stands by debate rules

8/23/06

NY1 general manager Steve Paulus has responded to FAIR activists challenging the New York cable news station's decision to exclude Jonathan Tasini from a debate with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton (FAIR Action Alert, 8/4/06; Activism Update, 8/18/06). Tasini is running against Clinton for the Democratic senatorial nomination, and has 13 percent support in the latest Marist poll (7/11-14/06). While that amount of public support is more than enough for NY1 to consider him a viable candidate, Tasini apparently lacks a more important type of support: money. NY1 has determined that Tasini should not be allowed to participate in a debate because he hasn’t raised half a million dollars.

The letter below has been sent by Paulus to FAIR activists; FAIR's response follows.

**********

Hello,

NY1 has not disqualified Jonathan Tasini from any debate because there is no debate. Hillary Clinton will not agree to a debate with anyone so there is no debate to be held. We have featured Mr. Tasini in several stories and he has been a guest on "Inside City Hall." We are planning to invite him back at least once more before the primary.

Regarding Mr. Tasini's financial status…although he has gotten enough signatures and is polling at about 13%, he has still raised less than $150,000. That is not enough to run a statewide campaign...for example, he doesn’t have any kind of organization outside of NYC (no field offices anywhere in the State). We originally set the $500,000 criteria this way. There are 5.5 million registered democrats in NYS. If one tenth of them (one out of ten registered democrats) sent him $1 he would have raised $550,000.

In the 2005 Mayoral Campaign, the NYC Campaign Finance Board set a financial target of $50,000 in order to participate in their debates. To run for Mayor you need to buy television time in one market. To run a statewide campaign you need to buy television time in seven Nielsen markets. Multiply the $50,000 by seven and you get $350,000, a total the Tasini campaign hasn't come close to raising.

NY1 has given more coverage to Mr. Tasini's campaign than ANY other television station. We are seen across NYS so he has gotten enormous exposure from his appearances on NY1. It isn't fair to blame NY1 for "disqualifying" a candidate when we are the only organization putting the resources into holding these kinds of debates. When an editorial in the NY Post chides NY1 I have to ask what about Fox 5 and the Post? Both are owned by News Corporation. Can't THEY make the effort to hold a debate in this race. If you Nexis or Google the NY Post and Tasini, they have mentioned him TWICE since his campaign began.

We've taken a lot of heat, unfairly, and I hope that the facts make some sense.

Thanks for the feedback and please keep watching.

Steve Paulus
General Manager, NY1

**********

FAIR appreciates Paulus' response—but it fails to challenge the main point FAIR made, that the station's rules for the debate are far too restrictive. Setting any sort of fundraising requirement for participation in a debate is anti-democratic, akin to a poll tax or a property qualification for voting.

While NY1 may believe that it's highly unlikely that a candidate can get elected without spending large amounts of money, it's not impossible; Sen. William Proxmire of Wisconsin is one candidate in modern times who repeatedly won re-election while limiting his campaign spending to $200. It’s certainly (and unfortunately) true that it’s difficult for a candidate without a lot of money to get elected, but there are any number of things that might greatly reduce candidates’ electability that one hopes would not get them barred from a debate; it’s unlikely that NY1 would exclude a candidate who is an atheist, even though many political observers would think it nearly impossible for such a candidate to be elected to major office.

Paulus places the blame for Tasini's exclusion on Clinton and her presumed refusal to debate, but Clinton cannot accept or reject a debate she has not been invited to. Moreover, one candidate's refusal to participate in a debate in no way prevents NY1 from holding the event anyway, giving the other candidate or candidates the opportunity to field questions and make their positions—and their opponent's refusal to debate them—known to the public.

Paulus is correct, of course, when he writes that other outlets should also host candidate debates. But their failure to do so does not absolve NY1 of its decision to exclude candidates based on the amount of money they've raised; in fact, it makes it all the more important that NY1's debates be inclusive.

posted August 28, 2006 07:30 PM            

Does that mean they are just trying to "foolem" (voters) as is the usual democrat strategy?

August 27, 2006
Most Democratic Candidates Rejecting Withdrawal Timetable

Democrats in competitive Congressional races have distanced themselves from the activist wing of their party, rejecting calls for a timetable to withdraw from Iraq and backing the Bush administration's insistence on victory instead of retreat. This surprising survey redefines the "mainstream" of political thought in a manner that some Democrats will strongly dislike:

Most Democratic candidates in competitive congressional races are opposed to setting a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, rejecting pressure from liberal activists to demand a quick end to the three-year-old military conflict.
Of the 59 Democrats in hotly contested House and Senate races, a majority agree with the Bush administration that it would be unwise to set a specific schedule for troop withdrawal, and only a few are calling for substantial troop reductions to begin this year, according to a Washington Post survey of the campaigns.

The large number of Democrats opposed to a strict timeline for ending the military operations runs contrary to the assertion by President Bush and top Republicans that Democrats want to "cut and run" amid mounting casualties and signs of civil war. At the same time, the decision by many Democrats to refrain from advocating a specific plan for withdrawal complicates their leaders' efforts to convince voters that they offer a clear new direction for the increasingly unpopular war.

George Bush and the GOP can be forgiven for that characterization of the Democrats since most of their leaders continue to demand unconditional withdrawal. Led by John Kerry and Russ Feingold, and underscored by the dark-horse victory of Ned Lamont in Connecticut's Senate primary, Democrats have demanded an end to the mission in Iraq since last fall. Their street activists and money raisers have not only demanded that but also the impeachment of George Bush for getting us into Iraq in the first place.

As the Post reports, even the Democrats who won't call for a timetable avoid talking about the war at all. If they do nothing but complain about the war, they gain the support of the MoveOn wing without losing the moderates. Of course, this means they provide no explanation or plan whatsoever about how to succeed in Iraq. They see this as an opportunity to score points by blaming Bush without the messy task of formulating a coherent policy of their own -- a strategy they also employed in 2002 and 2004, with no success at all.