Larouche declared eligible for matching funds..

[paulsbc]

I found this (http://www.fec.gov/press/20031008eligible.html) interesting.

Why is he not included in the debates yet others polling way low like CMB and AS are included?

[jmowreader]

1. He'd make a better president than Dubya, which is why

Then again, I have cats who would make better presidents than Dubya.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

2. He's a crazy cult leader, but he should be in the debates

It seems that ignoring him has just made him stronger. Usually, putting these people up to the light of day gets better results.

[denverbill]

3. Cause he's a f*ing lunatic.

That's why.

[paulsbc]

4. but has properly filed and did what is required by law

so why deny him the right to participate? (for the record, I really have no idea what he stands for or not, or if he is a nut or not, and I'll take your word for it).

I consider restricting him from the debates as similar to these "free speech zones" (sic) that they set up to keep people away from Bush. This type of thing shouldn't happen in our country.

[denverbill]

5. The guy has never held ANY elected office.

He's been running for President since 1976. If he was truly even marginally electable, he would have run for his own state legislature, governor, mayor, or Congress and been elected at least once in 30 years.

He's got a fairly large cult following though that manages to give him enough cash to get publicity.

[revcarol]

8. Neither has Clark.

And he has a fairly large cultic audience, too.

[MGKrebs]

6. Hell, for all I know he may not want to debate.

edit: OK, so I visited the Larouche site. He says he wants to be in.

But he could just be saying that because he knows they will exclude him, and therefore he will get to claim that there is a conspiracy against him, to which the DNC will claim it's not a conspiracy, it's a policy, and Lyndon can then say the DNC is corrupt, and...it's all right there on his website, but I forgot the link.

[David__77]

7. There is a point in what you say.

If you are, as I suspect, a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche, then you are aware of the reasoning of the DNC and others about LaRouche. He is, to say the least, "unorthodox." I do not trust him because:

1. He was a Marxian socialist for decades until in 1977 he decided that he would become a "conservative Democrat" or as he sometimes put it a "whig." He obviously made this shift because he wanted to gain more support from the social base that made up the far-right Liberty Lobby and other anti-Semitic and racist groups. While I do not consider LaRouche himself to be racist in any way, I do think he's an opportunist, and that is a condemnable offense.

2. He leads a sect that is dominated by a cult of personality. The Int'l Caucus of Labor Committees is dedicated, above all else, to him personally, and not to an enduring cause of ideal. That is a shame, and it is the road to political doon. What happens to the LaRouchies when the octogenarian LaRouche passes from this world?

So, you see, although LaRouche has exactly the same chances as Al Sharpton of becoming president, I do think that the political interests of the Democratic Party are served by including Sharpton and not LaRouche. Sharpton represents an important constituency. Making a a BIG stretch, LaRouche would claim to represent the "FDR wing" of the Democrats. I think that this "wing," however, is certainly represented at the debates, by Sharpton, Kucinich and others who are not DLC-type Democrats.

[paulsbc]

9. not a supporter

at all, I know little of him, just what people here say about him about being a loon/crazy/unelectable, etc.

My point is that it is not fair, and, like other things that aren't fair, I believe should be fixed :)

Whether the man is a quack or not, did he or did he not fill out the proper forms and submit the proper papers? If he did, not putting him in the debates/ballots is wrong, IMO. Who makes this decision, btw, and why are they able to go around the law?