The "party crashing" must not terminate only because the established parties are nearing a finalization of their nominees. (Look for advanced conventions for tactical reasons.) John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich have had some shifting effect on Obama/Clinton, and even Paul on McCain. The exercise of the will of the people and this benevolent shift need not terminate prematurely.
Third party vehicles (and independents) can be used to sober and critique the debate right up through election day. People like myself will really consider voting for Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKenny or others as an exprression of our fervent beliefs. They are not "spoilers" and our votes are not wasted when we make that choice. The actuality is that if our most important issues are not properly addressed by a Democrat or Republican that it is our right and responsibility to look elsewhere. Politics is not sports and we are not betting on a winner. If you are voting on the basis of a personal payoff (tax cut, rebate, winning a fuel war)you are sadly mistaken because you are thinking in selfish short term gains at a time when democracy and ecology are both in danger. New choices have to start small somewhere: Seeds must be planted. If we can have no effect in the present election except to tweak the arguments, then at least we have a small positive effect. Bringing on candidates who have useful suggestions but little chance of being elected remains part of the Journal's (and others) responsibility.

Thank you, Bill for trying to balance things by bringing to the front those individuals who are not brought to the front by the vested interests. As we see the world economy crashing around us and the front-runners talking about more spending you begin to wonder if you aren't living in some planetary insane asylum. But if you look at the front runners and where they are getting their money, it all becomes clear. Listen to the front runners and note what they advocate - then figure out what special interest this would benefit. Then go and look at the contributions and a light may dawn. Thanks to the internet, this whole thing becomes more transparent, but we all have to take the time to LOOK or we will get swept up in the blather put out by the special-interest controlled media. As Paul said, it's not a democracy anymore, rather it's a soft fascism.

So if you want to see who owns the front-runners and who isn't owned by them go to this link. And try using the contribution lists to pick a candidate instead of sound bites. And, while you're at it, ask yourself who these guys owe their loyalty to when, in some cases, lobbyists have given them millions to run for office.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

Kucinich: Amy Goodman found a way for him to participate in the Las Vegas debate. GE excluded him, he said, for selfish financial reasons, and there lie many implications about how conglomerates control and censor media. It is analogous to the loss of net neutrality. Anyway, if you are Kucinich-curious check last week's archive at Democracy Now. It runs easily on most players as audio or video.

Thank You for finally giving the Democratic peoples choice a voice on the media. Poll after poll after poll shows that Dennis Kucinich wins hands down as the True Democratic party candidate.

Listening to the media's choice of candidates - I see little difference from the ones that are shoved at us and the Republicans that are shoved at us. In watching the media's campaigns for a candidate - each election year it becomes more of the same old thing and less of a true new direction and change.

Is it any wonder Americans are becoming apathetic and staying away from the voting booth in droves??

As long as we allow corporate media to decide our leaders we will have a corporate president. Just follow the money and you will have a president whose only interest is maintaing the status quo of big business and Wall Street enjoying great wealth while the rest of America are is facing a deep recession and the middle class is dying. We stand by Edwards.
Varda Burns
Norwich VT

I do not believe that a candidate who accepts millions of dollars from special interests will provide the kind of leadership that will change the status quo and stop the feeding frenzy that big money and powerful corporations have been enjoying. This powerful web that as Edwards says has an iron grip and a blank check from congress is why we are voting for Edwards who has been talking to people one everywhere as the media has tried to ignore his 2nd place win in Iowa. The people in power do not like Edwards exactly because they know he will challenge the status quo and this is why they are ignoring him. Who ever can't understand this is in denial. I'm very glad that Kucinich is demading a recount.

Thank you, Mr. Moyers, for interviewing Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I happen to very much admire both men, but even if I didn't, I would still applaud your efforts to give these gentlemen a hearing. Why? Because every candidate for the office of U.S. President deserves equal exposure. Our current system, in which the candidates who are willing to sell their souls for campaign contributions are the candidates we see plastered all over the airwaves, is a travesty.

It would be nice if you could provide a place and time to talk for all the lesser candidates one on one. That would be nice for democracy

As usual, I thoroughly enjoyed this week's program. I thought it was highly informative and compelling tv.

I am a thirty something liberal and am very frustrated. The issues that seemed to be covered in the MSM are of little importance to me. There seems to be very little discussion on campaign finance reform, media consolidation, or preventative health care. I am just glad there are Bill Moyers, Gil Noble, and Frontline around tackling these issues.

Thank you Bill Moyers as you continue to provide both forum and depth of analysis so desperately lacking in the mainstream, corporate-controlled media. The two-Party system and the money required to generate viable support in American politics these days hurts the political process. When combined with a "fast-food", drive-through journalism that emphasizes "sound bite" more than it does a well reasoned idea - it only serves to further anesthatize a nation already pretty drunk on bread and circus.

We live in a country where what used to be the obvious question is neither obvious nor asked; where the issue is not "The Emperor has no clothes", but rather, "Why do we even suffer an Emperor?"

Yet a few couragous souls like Bill still dare to bring these critical issues to the table. And while I support Ron Paul's bid for the presidency, I also very much respect Mssrs. Kucinich and Gravel. All three are modern-day freethinkers who place polity over Party.

I look forward to your show each week as one of the only shows of depth and intellect. Oh I watch and enjoy Tavis Smiley and Charlie Rose, but Bill Moyers regularly is the best of my week on TV.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich both have ideas and principles that are revolutionary but have marginalized them by the national parties and media. The saving grace is that their message is being heard and will likely be largely integrated into the "first tier" candidates.

Ralph Nader really had this effect the last time around and thank God for these vocal thinkers. Most of all, I thank God and PBS for the courage and conviction to keep Bill Moyers speaking for and to me each week.

While watching the show, I wondered how effective Ron Paul would be as president. I like his ideas, but I doubt that congress would pass legislation to support those ideas. I can't imagine what course the country would take with Ron Paul as president.

Ron Paul is good but Dennis Kucinich is better. I'm a democrat, but if by some miracle Ron Paul won the Republican nomination, and Dennis Kucinich didn't get the Democratic one...I'd consider jumping ship in the general election. These guys are the sh*t and a half, and everyone else is just playin' to the man. Well, I'm not the man, and I don't like it.

P.S. I think some sort of forum with Ron, Dennis, and Mike Gravel would be the greatest hour of television or radio or podcast ever devised! Somebody do it!

The independent – undecided voters in New Hampshire account for 45 percent,
are majority, and are being asked by the democratic party of 30 percent and the
republican party of 20 percent to vote for, either Democratic or Republican party.
A person would think that it would be the other way around i. e. the Independent
party should have been asking that the Republicans or Democrats vote for an
Independent candidate.
It would only than be a realy - true change. A change to the future, a change for the
“WILL OF THE PEOPLE” to decide their destiny, their Liberty, their Freedom,
to live, work end express “THEIR WILL” on ALL MAJOR ISSUES. The candidates of both
party have been talking about change for decades, for change in a bigger and
deeper whole, hopes of empty promises – brain washing, that tomorrow will be
better for “tomorrow never comes”!
The two party and the media manage to keep out other candidates from participating
in the debate as they did in the last election. The media even went to the ex stand
of a personal insult, that one candidate is “more like-able than the other” as that had
anything to do of the ability to run the country!
Who am I? I am no one! I am you! I am America! I look and search for change!
The change to express ”MY WILL on ALL MAJOR ISSUES”, It will be a TRUE
change! My vote is not for “sale”, “grab”, and never will be! It is better to suffer, rather
than to relinquish my “HOPES” to express “MY WILL ON ALL MAJOR ISSUES!

I would love to see a Real DEBATE between Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Ron Paul. I bet it would be the MOST WATCHED gop program on TV. With emphasis on How they would Fix & Resolve their top 5-7 issues. Can we do Another -- PBS DEBATE Special(s) 'The Other Side -Talking Sense' ? Too bad we can't protect our Ballets when there are modems are in the voting machines. Send absentee ballots!

Keep up the good work Ron Paul! This Republican supports you all the way!

It's not the "power of the people" that anyone fears, it is the loss of their own power. An interventionist government makes a few people very, very wealthy. They don't want to give that up, be they Xerxes, Alexander Hamilton, FDR or George Bush, or any of the "business" moguls who have made their fortunes through leveraging government power for their own benefit.

Ron Paul is a threat because he talks about divesting power. That's all he has to do, and suddenly he's a threat to all the vested interests. That's why Fox wouldn't let him on their debate, he's a threat to their profit margins.

so much talk about being the candidate of 'change'

in fact Ron Paul is the only only of either party who advocates real meaningful change

this country needs him badly

The U.S. public needs the solid information our conventional news outlets are so far proving incapable of providing. Does corporate news wake up to understand the global and long term stakes involved in its failure to support a process requiring an informed public (?), or does U.S. politics continue its slide into the quagmire of delusion, disinformation, and fear, fed by media shocks and mergers, and concentrations of power and wealth that presently drive this process ? In search of freedom from manufactured fears, for openness, and common purpose, thank you, Bill Moyers, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul, for encouraging the “great debates”, keeping the focus on ideas, and the subversion of corporate media trivia.

Farley Andrews

Last Friday's show was intelligently presented on all counts. I wish I could say the "counting" in the Iowa Caucus was as intelligent.

As an attendee of my local precinct caucus in Iowa last Thursday, I was already angry, not only about the outcomes, but particularly by the way the media handled them. And honestly, the media is responsible for deciding the contest. Who gets the most airtime, both paid for and in "news"? Where was any sort of parity in the presentation of the candidates during the ten months of campaigning that we had to endure?

Do you want to know what really happens at a tremendously crowded caucus site? Most people, if they've made up their minds, stand around like sheep. The campaigners for the "un-viables" run around trying to get the uncommitted or holdouts for the other un-viables to change their minds so a delegate can emerge for the county caucus--even an uncommitted delegate. The holdouts finally give in, and join a front-runner, or go home. There really wasn't much discussion of issues and priorities in the rooms of the "lesser" candidates; it was all about the numbers. And the persuasion idea was simply this, from the front-running candidate groups: You're going to lose anyway, so why not come now?

I'm convinced that the last-minute indecision of Iowans so often touted in the news, (and especially on NPR, it seems to me)was due to media manipulation. A lot of people didn't, and don't have the "facts"--we just got the spin. And that's what people acted on.

Mr. Moyers,

great job on the show. I am a Ron Paul supporter and watched the show because he was on, however I found that you were actually being fair and unbiased and I will be watching more of your show in the future. I know see why people are excited about Dennis Kucinich - I don't agree with him, but now I respect him - I think he is honest and truthful.

The economy and the national debt worry me the most and Ron Paul is the only candidate that I think really understands these issues. Thanks again for at least giving both men a fair shake.

I'm a Canadian and I'm definitely very impressed with Ron Paul. When it comes to government, small is beautiful and that's why I would support Paul were I an America. The rest of the world really is sick and tired of American messianic delusions and politics. What the world needs is for America to get out of our face. Really, that's how it looks to a fiscal and social conservative in Canada. The war in Iraq is truly an evil thing and the sooner the troops come home the better.

Excellent interview.

I would also suggest viewing the highly informative interview series John Stossel of ABC News recorded with Dr. Paul.

They have not been aired, but are available on the web: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3970423&page=1

Almost everywhere we hear campaign coverage, the focus is on who's ahead or behind in the polls, who's raising the most money, who made the latest verbal fumble. The issues get scant airplay, and then most often as a sound bite related to a gaffe or a personal attack. The campaigns are treated like sports talk in the run up to the Super Bowl; it's all about strategy and scores.
But this is not a sporting event, it is a job interview. We desrve to hear the candidates stand on the issues, because if we don't have this conversation in the marketplace of ideas, it will largely be held in the commercial arena through campaign adds. In their stump speeches, the candidates try to appeal to us through reason, but in commercials they appeal to our emotions, which are manipulated far easier than reason is.
We are ill served by allowing money to be the loudest voice in our democracy, when Disney has the power to exclude Dennis Kucinich from the debates. Shame on the Democrats for going along with Disney.

I too would like to add my voice to the chorus of incredulous viewers who watched the Moyers interview with Kathleen Hall Jamieson and were astonished that the name of John Edwards never once passed through their lips. It was particularly astounding given Ms. Jamieson's fevered defense of Ron Paul whom she described as someone "who gets largely ignored for a very fine 10% showing last night which should have been regarded as remarkable". That John Edwards could finish second with a 30% showing and not even garner a passing mention in the conversation is not only truly remarkable, but utterly shameful.

I am absolutely livid about the debate on Saturday night. ABC has no right to limit the participation of valid candidates. The Democratic Party should have stood up to ABC for Dennis Kucinich the way the GOP did to FOX for Ron Paul. The other Democratic candidates should have refused to participate if everyone wasn't included. What a sorry lot they are serving up to us to choose from.

My support is going to Kucinich. After this shoddy behavior, I am only a member of the Democratic Party so I can vote for him. I am ashamed of their lack of integrity.

Thank you Bill Moyers, for figuratively giving Ron Paul some rope so he can get on with hanging himself. I'd already evaluated his positions because I'd read his integrity and dedication to our Constitution were similar to those of Dennis Kucinich, and I'll grant you that they do appear to be. He was worth the look and, because of his grassroots following, bears watching closely.

Unfortunately, too many of Ron Paul's supporters don't apply enough scrutiny to some of his proposals, which should sound painfully familiar to anyone over forty. Too many and too recently, tax cuts, industrial deregulation, free global trade and all manner of other juicy sounding Libertarian / Republican fallacies have been tried - and they’ve failed us miserably. Worst of all, when their resultant debts and job and income losses are combined with the theft of our social security funds and strangulation of our social and educational programs, the least among us continue to bear an ever greater share of the burdens of these failures. For what it's worth, I know you understand this and wish you'd challenged him with that awareness.

Simply put, I don’t think Dr. Paul’s supporters appreciate that even if we do preserve our rulebook (The U.S. Constitution,) we will not score more, more equally, or as much as we'd like to think we could - if we simply let Ron Paul (or anyone else) take the lines and officials off our economic playing fields. I suspect everyone must know life doesn't work that way; but some apparently haven’t applied that understanding to reach this inevitable conclusion: We may run different economic patterns under Ron Paul, but the bigger players on the field will still mow us down. We’ll still be hurting.

Clearly I think everyone, including Ron Paul supporters, should give Dennis Kucinich a closer look. Thank you for presenting them both.

Great work, as usual, from Bill Moyers and PBS. Thanks for giving such a fine venue to these candidates who have been much ignored and who both have the kind of high integrity most needed at this perilous time in American History.

A number of people have noted that John Edwards didn’t get much mention on last night’s show. I like John Edwards, too, and would like to hear more of him, not to mention Joe Biden, but please remember time on any program is limited. The point of this program is an essential American principle being wilfully ignored and examples were shown in the form of two excellent candidates, each supposedly in good standing with their respective party, being systematically kept from the attention of the American people.

And, of course, the Greens and other small parties didn’t and don’t get the media time they need and deserve. That’s why we have to get Mickey and Bugs out of the news business! We the people have to take back the airways from the conglomerates and see that the internet stays free and open. Go to

http://www.freepress.net/

and push hard to make this happen.

By the way, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Bill does a show on that subject before long, but this just isn’t that show. Need I say it again: You can’t cram everything into one hour, even it you want to.

These are the sorts of things Bill does every week, so if you liked this show, go back to the Moyers Journal Archives and see more.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/archives/archives.php

I would especially recommend the July 13, 2007 issue Tough Talk on Impeachment, as it’s a subject near and dear to my heart and Bill approaches it from both the liberal and conservative viewpoint.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

Duane- The Ron Paul vid works for me, but you can also watch it on YouTube here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=R2r29HcH5nA

Is anyone else having this video (Ron Paul) cut off after 30 seconds to a minute or two? My buddies and I are. It is not happening on the other Moyer's Journal videos, such as the Dennis kucinich interview, just the Ron Paul video.

I do care about the rest of the world. But, I care about the United States and Americans a lot more. That's why I believe in Ron Paul.

While Dr Paul's main planks in his platform are sound money, federalism, constitutionalism, and foreign policy, he also takes significant issue with our electoral system. If one listens to Paul's answers about returning to the Republican Party after his '88 LP run, every now and then he brings up the difficulties of running as a third party or independent candidate as he did in this interview. It is important to remember to think as Karl Rove has and remember that the popular vote doesn’t matter at all, it is all about the Electoral College. H Ross Perot who launched the most successful campaign since Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party, received an amazing 19% of the popular vote across the country, yet received no electoral votes. Paul, who cannot match Perot for media coverage or monetary worth, would face the very same struggles and would without a doubt not receive a single electoral vote.

Massive electoral reform is required in this country. The system is corrupt and undemocratic, and something must be done in order to have the true voice of the American people heard. Proportional electoral votes being proposed in California as well as other states would actually provide electoral votes for many of the “lesser” candidates such as Perot or Nader, though the proposal is being attacked as a Republican attempt to rig the election by breaking the Democratic monopoly on the massive electoral block that is California.

Moving on to the questions:
Does the two-party system adequately provide citizens with real choices on various issues? If not, can citizens reform the parties to change this?

The “two-party” system definitely does not provide citizens with real choices. Life is not black and white as many would like to believe. The issue of abortion alone most likely causes many to vote for a party with which they would otherwise not associate with. It is not the parties that need to be changed, it is the system that supports the two main parties and rejects the rest that needs to be fixed. It will be immensely difficult to accomplish such a thing: removing the certainty of the GOP and DNC by making it easier for third parties and independents to get onto ballots at all levels, and eliminate funding disparities between “major parties and minor parties.”

We should not forget that even though this governmental system was set up not as a democracy, which the Founders feared, it has morphed over time with the 17th Amendment and secret ballot to become more democratic. However, do not forget Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence which states “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” There is no reason to think that we cannot change our form of government in this country at any level, after all, we’ve done it before (Articles of Confederation anyone?). A serious discussion of major reform such as the institution of a parliamentary system would be very interesting indeed.

Does the two-party system essentially mandate the exclusion of serious third-party contenders?

Yes. As I stated before with Perot, if you look where it counts, despite his massive presence in the media and the election as a whole, Perot was an absolute non-issue. Receiving zero electoral votes means that not only did he not even have a chance, he didn’t even make a blimp.

As Ron Paul’s Web-based, grassroots-driven campaign has seen some success, do you think the Internet can democratize the political process and/or the two-party system?

I believe the Internet is perhaps one of the greatest inventions in the history of man kind, and very specifically our own, American history. The internet is truly the great leveler, giving a voice to anyone and everyone, as well as putting enormous gluts of information and every point of view imaginable at one’s fingertips. So, yes, I believe the Internet could democratize the political process by giving people a method of uniting around a common goal and providing alternative information and news that would elsewise be lost over the airwaves and under the presses. Democratizing the two-party system is interesting because it almost seems that it has been doing just that this election with Dr Paul. While I would like to see a much more comprehensive electoral reform, forcing the parties to take note of candidates in the vein of Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich is a nice start.

The 2 party system is not providing the type of choice and direction needed. I feel Ron Paul has the right types of ideas to change the course and focus of our country. What I'm worried about is who will be the lightening rod after him? This is his only shot, he is not going to win anything, and what person is in the pipeline to pick up where he leaves off? This predicament might help the Dems & Reps because it will be back to the status quo again with the same stale air.

I am responding to Jane's letter regarding the American's seeming current preferences for Britany Spear and more engaged in the process of voting for American Idol instead of political canditates That is partially a result of our feeling of hopelessness. So many of my friends and acquaintenances have told me recently that they feel their voice means nothing anymore in government because of the "powers that be". That cyincism is going to lie at the base of losing our free society. In literature there are many examples of how public opinion can be shaped by subliminal messages. For instance, in Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451 written many many decades ago before reality TV, there is a world depicted where people's walls are really built in Televisions depicting stories and adventures with people's own faces in those telecasts which fascinated the population so much they were distracted by the control the government was utilizing over what they read, how they could work, etc. (How far away are we from that: "reality TV" producers already admit that the "reality "they broadcast is actually contrived. In Bradbury's story, The government had learned how to direct human emotions of sadness, disappointment and despair into the solace of mindless entertainment. We must understand that the more power the government wields over our work and private lives the more helpless the population feels. Wresting control back is as hard as breaking a habit of smoking. When the government hires experts to teach them how to sway the population the effects will be devestating to a thinking America. I remember when my fourth grade teacher made us underline articles in the paper showing which statements were FACT and which were OPINION...She explained back then (1950's ) that there would be powerful forces trying to confuse the reader about
which was which. I was shocked as a 10 year old to learn that there were people who were "in charge" that would purposely try to mislead me if they could. The recoginition of that sad, true yet understandable quest for power over thought and resources has served me throughout the years in my eduacation, my business and all other areas of public and personal life. I even tempered the "flower power" feeling of the 60's with the realization that Timothy O'Leary was trying to convince me that the drug world was a better reality studying hard and learning history. The entertainment industry offers the same allure and we have to warn our contemporaries (that includes all ages) that "phasing out" is pretty damn dangerous because the world will be a lot different when we wake up. In my lifetime there have been dozens of examples of government trying to shape my opinions through deceptive and distracting practices. Denials from the highest authorities during Watergate : The huge deception during Iran-Contra ("we will not negotiate with terrorists" even though they were doing exactly that behind the scenes and that the perpertrator (Oliver North was held up as a national hero as some even though he admitted LYING TO MY CONGRESS. That was a perfect example of trying to shape citizens opinions and therefore votes based on falsehood and enticing distractions) Believe me, I was truly depressed over that one and watched reruns of "the Beverly Hillbillies" with a quart of ice cream to restabilize my psyche and get regrounded. But I turned it off and watched AN NEWS ANCHORMAN WHO WAS ACTUALLY NOT SUBJECT TO CORPORATE STATION POLICY!
Tragically for them and us, Britany Speer, Paris Hilton and Nicole (Barbies come to life) have been used as enticing dangerous distractions to a poplulation that has to work harder than ever to make ends meet and protect the basic health of their families. Don't give up. Read biographies. There have been many who have made differences as individuals who could separate fact from fiction (often called spin) Margaret Sanger knew that unwed mothers needed birth control not religous condemnation, Ralph Nadar, Daniel Ellsburg, Elliot Richardson...on and on.
Don't let us excuse the American population for giving up their gumtion...set examples, understand the tendencies but help people around you fight the urge to "beg off"

Bush and Hillary are copying Obama on key aspects of his foreign policy agenda. Obama has been talking about STRIKING at bin Ladin and al Qaeda WHERE THEY LIVE. It's time. It's time to eradicate al Qaeda already. It's time to stop pussyfooting around in Iraq. It's time. Now Bush is copying Obama. Hillary is also making similar noises. I say we vote for the leader on foreign policy, Obama. Obama knew Iraq was trash from the start. Obama knew we needed to finish business in the Afghanistan region.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washington/06terror.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Hillary_seems_to_raise_possibility_of_0105.html

This is more proof that the self-proclaimed "experience" of the current politicians like Hillary and Bush are four steps behind Obama.

Sorry to sound like such a cheerleader, but I am calling it like I see it.

Your Jamieson interviews are always important, intelligent and interesting. In last night's, however, Jamieson comments on how "boxing in" candidates makes results appear too black and white - winners or losers - when many or most may be acceptable, with factors other than personal preference (perceived electability, tactics, etc.) influencing primary votes.

Polls would be much more revealing if they enabled those polled to rank order all potential candidates. Doing so, I am sure would show Hillary with much less popular appeal than current polls show.

I am not sure which program is the very best you have done, Mr. Moyers. It would be hard to choose between the discussion of impeachment and this one. Here you went one better and had three amazing guests rather than two. All I can do is add my voice to the many citizens thanking you from the bottom of our hearts.

Edward R. Murrow is smiling.

The truth “if gold were money, the oil price would not have gone up!"
The issues that were not address on January 6, 2008 at the debate: The National debt,
earmarks of billions of dollars such as “bridge to nowhere”, wasts of over 19 billions
of dollars in aircraft parts , Federal Reserve filling the banks coffers by 100 billions dollars,
Confiscation by a printing press, Failing to abide and enforce the constitution,
approving laws without reading, denying other political parties to participate in the
process, Corrupt justice system, denying the people to “express their will” on all major
issues [wars, laws, economy, earmarks, health care etc.], Loss of civil liberties -
“unreasonable search”, “the front doors of the courthouse will have an X-ray machine.
Visitors will not be allowed to pass the checkpoint”!
“We are not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but we're moving toward a softer
fascism. Loss of freedom civil liberties...” “unreasonable search” is a fascism!
Building securities walls is a communism. It is a reminder of “Mr. Gorbacev
take that wall down.”! The candidates have failed to perform their duties,
responsibilities assign to them by the constitution. To day, in the United Europe,
there are 25 countries that do not required to have passport to travel!
The articles in the Constitution should be amended, specificaly the duties for ALL
elected official should be replace from “LIBERARLY CONSTRUED” to “STRICTLY
CONSTRUED”! “Two bushels of rotten apples, which one would you pick”?

Great interview Mr. Moyer,
I have a hard time finding substance in most candidates answer's, except when it comes from Ron Paul of all people, by my view point, he is top tier electable byond his counterparts.
The media more than often has a hand in selecting their viable candidate, but it does not always reflect the viewer's position....I think there's a far contrast from delivering the news, and delivering commentary.

Mr Moyers, I hope you read these replies because you have been my hero since "Buying the War". In this day and age, heros are few and far between. Thank you for being one of mine!

Every Friday you impress me with your willingness to discuss issues that other journalists fear. You are articulate, non-inflamatory and even handed with your guests. Keep up the great job and know you have inspired me to donate $300 to PBS this year.

I am an active supporter of Dr. Paul and also respect Dennis Kucinich's impeachment efforts and pro-peace position. Wouldn't it be something if they voluntarily renewed the old practice of each party being represented in the White House? One President, One VP and both 100% behind our Constitution.

What a great way to Unite our divided nation.

I wish you would do an investigative story on why Dennis Kucinich was excluded from 2 debates. One sponsored by the Des Moines Register and the other by ABC News. I am absolutely livid over this as are many others.

Thank You Bill Moyers! Why is it so hard for these lesser-known canidates to get some air time?? Something is wrong with our system!!! After watching your interview with Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich I KNOW our political system is flawed.
Here are two REAL AMERICANS, with straight-forward ideas, honesty, and integrity, and they are not well known. well, not if I have anything to do about it, I have started letting people know that there are REAL PEOPLE running for president and to look them up. I agree with Ron Paul and will be voting for him!!!
Thanks again for the excellent show and for PBS.

I am blown away by this.... Ron Paul is truly the beacon. What lends him the power is his beliefs, and statments not his stature or mannerisms. The man simply speaks truths. Rid this continent of the weak, remove these rodents from our country... thank you Paul, though it may be the end of you, your message will live on...

I have great respect for both of the men in this interview and it was a pleasure to hear them discourse. The interview started out slow, and reached a nadir when Bill gaffed and asked the "Why are you a Republican?" question that has been intended from the beginning as a republican establishment hit against Ron Paul, right up there with "Why hasn't your internet support translated into 'real' support?" and "You're not going to win. Why are you running?".

But after that in the last 8 minutes or so the conversation finally got going and I have to say that despite the slow start and some meaningless wandering this is the best interview I've ever seen with Ron Paul. He really got a chance, in this longer forum, to get comfortable with expressing his ideas in more than sound bytes, and his message really rang out and reached deep in the last few minutes.

Thank you Bill Moyers. Thank you Ron Paul. Keep up the good work, both of you!

It would have been good to see Dennis Kucinich's photo included in the article, along with Kathleen Hall Jamieson's and RP's. It was clear to me that Dennis was very tired. I'm glad his campaign is suing ABC for excluding him from the debate for no good reason.

The MSM are NOT ignoring John Edwards.  Heavens to Betsy — he was on the cover of Newsweek just a couple of weeks ago.  Who owns Newsweek?  Some of the biggest corporations in the U. S. contribute to his PACs and his “One America” organization.  They do not feel threatened by John Edwards because he’s only recently begun to stand up to the corporations.  His votes to fund the War on Iraq have benefited some of the wealthiest military corporations.  His vote in favor of the “China Free Trade Agreement” has benefited major corporations in the U. S. and in China.  His mandated for-profit insurance company-based healthcare system benefits the insurance industry.  The corporately-sponsored debates, forums, and other “democratic” events in Iowa and New Hampshire have not barred John Edwards.  They have excluded the longtime opponent of corporate rule in America, Dennis Kucinich.  Please look at this objectively.  The corporations do not oppose John Edwards.  I see and hear him all the time on the corporate networks.  Chris Mathews and several others in the corporate media feature Edwards frequently on their programs.  Since Edwards has not been consistent on the issues on which he’s now campaigning, they know that they don’t really need to fear him.  They know that Kucinich is commited to democracy, not corporate rule (fascism). “Actions do speak more loudly than words.”

Thank you Bill Moyers for the excellent interview with our good Doctor Ron Paul. There is an excellent piece written by Jon Ryter, a journalist, regarding how the voting system here in America works. Very interesting piece of journalism. Well worth the read. http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon209.htm

Thank you many times over to Moyers ability to thoughtfully approach and attempt to equalize, in some small measure, the travesty of the media's stifling of Kucinich, Paul, and others' exposure.

I have to say though, what I think about Rep. Kucinich's exclusion from the ABC/WMUR debate on Jan. 5th (the LAST Dem. debate prior to the New Hampshire primary on the 8th). In a Jan. 2nd WMUR/CNN poll, it states: “However, only 42% of likely Democratic primary voters say they have definitely decided who they will vote for, 27% say they are leaning toward a candidate and 32% said they are still trying to decide.” That statement from one of WMUR’s OWN polls, discredits their basis for excluding Kucinich, because they base it on how high candidates are polling; that is, it is clear that the polling is not a valid justification for this, given that upwards to 58% of Dem. voters are undecided–as in, they could, to overstate the obvious, choose Kucinich, they’re simply looking for more information still. Therefore, the question becomes, if only 42% of these New Hampshire Democratic primary voters have "definitely decided," how will the other 58% make up their mind? Well, one might think it reasonable that they would watch the final Democratic debates, held a short three days before the New Hampshire primary. Not only is that reasonable, but is it not likely that many were waiting for this final debate to make up their mind? And what conclusion might they draw after tuning into this highly publicized media frenzy? Might it slightly (read: almost entirely) make them think that the only real options are the four candidates participating? These numbers and this quote are at the bottom of page one in the survey, located here: http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/primary2008_d emprim10208.pdf A more involved post of my own on this topic, analyzing this a bit more, is available here: http://election2008options.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-clintons-calls-to-include-all-in.html

The other quick point is to say that if Obama and Clinton truly felt this was an encroachment on the primary process, as they stated, then they should have refused to participate in tonight’s debate.

Anti-corporate candidates Paul and Kucinich certainly deserve your attention, and I thank you for giving it. There is another candidate, who has a vision for democracy in America, who also deserves your attention: Mike Gravel has said his running is his "bliss." The world needs a U. S. President who says things like that. There is one journalist who could elucidate it. Isn't there?

"If the government in bed with big business is soft fascism, how is getting rid of government regulation entirely not HARD fascism?"

Because corporate fascism requires government intervention. Corporatons need the benefit of legislative and regulatory favoritism to stifle competition.
In a truly free market, the only way to wealth for business is to serve the mass of consumers with a superior cost-effective product. In order to stay on top, a business would have to pay a competitive wage in the face of unrestricted competition.
When government is "is bed" with Big Business, you do not have "laissez faire." Corporate lobbyists don't line up in DC trying to get government out of the way; they are vying for favoritism, they want government to get in the way of any potential comptetition.

If you believe that individuals have a right to privacy, why do you NOT believe that women should have freedom to choose whether or not to bear children?

Thta's just absolutely ridiculous. Of course he believes women should be able to choose whether or not to bear children; its absurd for you to even imply otherwise.
He just doesn't believe women should be able to murder their baby while its still in the womb, that's all.

Thank you for taking the time to interview Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Paul certainly reflects the libertarian wing of the Republican party and Kucinich the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. It was immensely refreshing to hear these two outlyers speak and to hear something of political substance. Kucinich seems to have some realistic responses that are in the public interest.

We the good People of this great Nation believe Congress and the Federal Government has reversed its Constitutional role and no longer serves the people. So We the good People of this great nation follow the directives given in our Constitution to protect our inalienable rights. Said rights have been attacked,eroded and neglected by collective actions of our legislative, judicial, and executive branches of Government.
We the People herein state that a Congress that
will not act on impeachable offenses committed by the
President ,the Vice President and Attorney General is
not worthy of the offices it occupies. We the People
believe that our Congress will neither uphold their
oath of office, the constitution nor rule of law. We
further believe that our Federal Government has
abandoned the confidence of the majority. We the
People herein state numerous instances that Congress
has forfeited our confidence.

We the People have no confidence in the integrity
of the manner by which federal taxes are
levied,collected and distributed by the Congress and
President. There is no confidence that our taxes are
being actualized for the betterment and welfare of our
good population. Furthermore it is observed that the
Federal Government instructs an Internal Revenue
Service to intimidate and sublimate the good People of
this great Nation. It is further believed that the
income generated by said taxes fuel the malfeasance of
a liaison between private banking
consortiums,corporations and unduly elected or
appointed members of this Federal Government. Lastly,
a Congress that partakes of taxes levied to fund
salaries and benefits for itself, exempting itself
from realities it forces on the population cannot
instill confidence of the People.

We the People distrust the mechanics and conduct of
national elections. We question the
validity of their outcome. We believe that voter
fraud, vote, and election tampering has obscured the
possibility of democratic rule and increased the
probability of an unfairly designated oligarchy. We
believe that the seeds of fascism in our democracy
have been sown. Thus the People have no confidence in
the fair outcome of national elections. Furthermore
this United States Federal Government is consistently
elected or appointed by means of its ingratiation to
the most wealthy and least populated segment of our
population as whole. It is observed that the laws
created and passed by the three ruling branches of
government are to benefit the least of the population
and perpetuate a disparity of wealth.

We the People have observed that the Federal
Government does engage in a multitude of nefarious,
malicious, and villainous activities for the purpose
of dominating the good people of this nation and
forcing their submission . We the People have further
noted a consistent collusive effort to pit neighbor
against neighbor and divide the heart and will of the
great people of this nation. We have also noticed
manipulation of the press and media to promulgate
false issues, false information, and to prevent honest
scrutiny of governmental activities such as our
freedoms of press and speech were intended to
preclude.

We the People have no confidence that the Federal
Government does not imprison citizens for crimes that
are insignificant and victimless solely for the
purpose of subjugating the majority of our Good
People. We further believe that our government will
not respect Habaeus Corpus, or the Geneva Convention
even with regard to its own citizenry.

We have no confidence that the Federal Government
avoids war profiteering, war mongering, and war
provocation as it should. We believe that gross fear
mongering is
routinely conducted to intimidate and disrupt the
progress of peaceful endeavors. We believe as well
that the
ruling elite misuses the purpose of law for war
profiteering. It entraps the best of our youth into a
military that fights not for defense but for profit.
We observe that despite personal sacrifice, returning
soldiers are grossly neglected and dishonored. We the
People of this great Nation want our soldier's lives
to be considered as precious as the most wealthy.
Instead We believe the Federal Government colludes to
sacrifice good young citizens and cause ruination of
lives for the mere perpetuation of elitist wealth.

We the People believe that the offices of the Federal
Government has grossly neglected the welfare of the
Earth itself, thereby endangering the entire planet.
When the Federal Government should have exercised
caution and prevented erosion of our resources they
chose instead to exploit it. We believe that the
ruling elite have led the good people of this nation
into harms way by neglecting to address the matters of
global climate change in a timely fashion. Furthermore
the Federal Government condones actions of
corporations that harm our environment to the
detriment our collective health, and our pursuit of
happiness. Beyond this the Federal Government grants
itself liberal and complete access to health care and
denies its citizens the same. Therefore We have no confidence that the Federal Government recognizes the sanctity of life, liberty and health and happiness of the majority of citizens of the United States.

Therefore We the good People of this great Nation
country question the authority of this Federal
Government to continue destroying the principles of
our Constitution in the manner it has. Thus We engage
the technological means to promote the will of the
heretofore silent majority to be expressed
specifically. We the good People seek the complete
right to fund or unfund the work of our Federal
Government independent of the elective process. We the
people seek the specific right to ratify the laws that
Congress passes.

With the technology and means to allow the will of
individual citizens to be expressed accurately comes
the responsibility of individuals to seek out a better
reality for democratic rule. We the Great People of
this Good Nation have the moral obligation to engage
in the process of government, inclusive of funding and
budgeting of government, and the creation of law in a
manner heretofore uncharted. Therefore we work united
to restore the spirit of fairness to our proud nation.
As The People of this Great nation it is time that we
create a new mandate for our Republic to generate
conditions that promote the better qualities of
humankind. A Union of citizens themselves would be
able to generate a legitimate fourth
branch of Federal government. That Union must balance
the instability that has arisen from the
isolation of wealth and power in the Federal
Government. Only this measure of unity and
size of union can restore the principles of our
Constitution to our life as Americans. Our Constitution directs us to come together as United Citizens when it is needed to remedy the erosion of democracy.

We the people declare that such a time has arisen.
We pray for peace, prosperity and good health of our people. We the people pray that our efforts will restore the health of our Earth.

We pray that by our Union will we will meet the
needs of our Country, that our Constitution will be
honored,and that the equality of all our People will be
respected.

I appreciate the opportunity to hear and see this interveiw. If We elect a Republican that has the new "Republican values" that Mr Moyer attributed to the Republican Party, Would we have the opportunity to see an interveiw such as this the next Presidential Race? Fox news and the media lock down should wake America up. As Ron Paul stated we still have enough freedoms left as of right now that he can be heard. Will we tomorrow?

We can never give up the hope of getting back the power that the constitution gave us. We have more information now and I think that, if we can get a constitutionalist back in power we will not give up our freedom again, ever. We have tasted freedom but been lulled back into complacency and convinced we are to ignorant and immoral to decide our own destiny. The truth is tat no one else can decide what's right for us and I believe, given a chance to make our own decisions, that we can rise to the occassion. We are told we Can't but if the American people can't, who can. If we do the right things we can even lead the world in a new and yet 200 year old vision of government of the people, by the people and for the people, or put another way, liberty, fraternity, and equality. Are we ready now? I sincerely think that the explosion of information on the Internet and the free exchange of ideas on the Net has prepared a sufficient number of people to run the world and our own destinies. There are seven billion people waiting for us to pick up the ball. I think a Ron Paul - Barack Obama ticket would do the trick and demolish the overly rigid party system.

Thanks so much! Bill Moyers you did such a great job letting Ron Paul speak his ideas. We need more people like you in news and reporting.

Leroy

Brilliant interview: very well done, Mr Moyers. You are a true professional.

This was the best interview to date with Ron Paul. He was treated with respect for a change, and Bill Moyers did an excellent job of asking pertinent questions which covered much territory. Ron Paul speaks the truth. He delivers speeches and answers questions as a thinking man of much intelligence and integrity. I am voting for Ron Paul.

I was delighted to hear you interview Kucinich & Ron Paul in such a forthright manner, plus the fact they were given the air time they both deserve. Paul is the president we should have but , unfortunately it will never happen. I'm sure the republican party .would never nominate him.He was on CBS pres. debate 1-3-08. It was handled the way all previous q & As should have been done. An actual controlled debate. Kucinich was banned from the dem. portion. Paul from the next Fox Rep. debate. Maybe they're afraid Paul will over-take McCain and Rhomenmy(?) If we can't have Kucinich, or Paul my next choice is Obama. My greatest fear is, because of our tyrannical gov't, and no-one will impeach Bush & Chaney, that Bush & co. have a whole year to destroy this country and part of the world.

Never before has the truth about the real issues facing this nation and their solutions been so crystal clear. Unfortunately the political system has become hijacked by the rich and powerful. We have allowed the tools for Democracy to become lost and broken. As the line between greed and fear continues to sharpen we can only hope there will be no shortage of men of courage and wisdom like Ron Paul to lead us to salvation.

Kathleen is clearly a fan of Hillary Clinton. So she has deployed this hit job on Obama saying all he is is a nice orator and nothing else. Please Kathleen. Hillary Clinton was clearly looking at the polls when she voted to send American troops into Iraq. She didnt think of the Iraqi mothers who lost their children and the Iraqi refugee girls who are now turning to prostitution in Syria and Jordan. Kathleen is so obsessed with power and the thought of a morally compromised female at having it that she will go at any length to slime Obama. Shame on you Bill. Maybe you really havent regretted your time during the Johnson years. while you are at it, why dont your hire the KKK to make some comments on Obama too?

Great interview of Dr. Paul! Thank you for acting like a professional, Mr. Moyers. If only other reports/journalists/hosts behaved so respectfully even while asking tough, pointed questions.

Dr. Paul answered your questions in the expert manner that he always does in any media. In my view, he handles the media better than any other candidate out there. That's one of many reasons why Dr. Paul was recognized as PowerWealth.com's 2007 Person of the Year.

Thanks again for an excellent interview!

Logan.

"Kathleen's points are completely ignorant."

In case this was directed at me, I'd like to respond.

As a matter of fact, Dr. Paul is an ob/gyn and is personally anti-abortion. At least he comes by this opinion honestly, as a medical doctor who has delivered 4,000 babies. I can understand his personal viewpoint. But the remarkable thing about Dr. Paul is that his personal views are irrelevant because he does not want to inflict them on me by force.

Dr. Paul is guided by the Constitution, which was created to limit the power of the federal government. He believes (as I do) that matters of personal morality are just that--personal. He believes that the most contentious social issues (teaching evolution/creationism in school, prayer in school, gay marriage/civil unions, abortion, etc.) should be decided by the local people in their own communities or states.

Different states would choose differently, of course. Just as states and localities differ today. If abortion on demand is really important to you, you'd probably live in a state that permitted it. (Or you'd work within the political system to ensure it was available in your state.) If taxes are an issue to you, you'd move to a state with lower taxes (as my parents just did.) If concealed carry is important to you (as it is to me) you'd work to ensure that it's legal in your state (as I did).

Dr. Paul wants to get the tentacles of the federal government out of our lives, our of our churches, out of our doctors' offices, and our of our schools. He wants to return the power back to the people.

And as for my own personal view, I have a medical condition that could kill me should I attempt to carry a child. So yes, abortion rights are important to me. But even more important is my own responsibility for my own body. So I have never-- not even one time--had unprotected sex.

Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. One thing liberals and socialists forget when it comes to personal responsibility...if you you give responsibility for some aspect of your life to someone else, you've just lost your own freedom and your own power. You've become someone else's ward...almost like an adopted child.

If you understand the concept of personal responsibility and freedom of choice, you understand that Ron Paul is the only rational option.

"Kathleen's points are completely ignorant."

In case this was directed at me, I'd like to respond.

As a matter of fact, Dr. Paul is an ob/gyn and is personally anti-abortion. At least he comes by this opinion honestly, as a medical doctor who has delivered 4,000 babies. I can understand his personal viewpoint. But the remarkable thing about Dr. Paul is that his personal views are irrelevant because he does not want to inflict them on me by force.

Dr. Paul is guided by the Constitution, which was created to limit the power of the federal government. He believes (as I do) that matters of personal morality are just that--personal. He believes that the most contentious social issues (teaching evolution/creationism in school, prayer in school, gay marriage/civil unions, abortion, etc.) should be decided by the local people in their own communities or states.

Different states would choose differently, of course. Just as states and localities differ today. If abortion on demand is really important to you, you'd probably live in a state that permitted it. (Or you'd work within the political system to ensure it was available in your state.) If taxes are an issue to you, you'd move to a state with lower taxes (as my parents just did.) If concealed carry is important to you (as it is to me) you'd work to ensure that it's legal in your state (as I did).

Dr. Paul wants to get the tentacles of the federal government out of our lives, our of our churches, out of our doctors' offices, and our of our schools. He wants to return the power back to the people.

And as for my own personal view, I have a medical condition that could kill me should I attempt to carry a child. So yes, abortion rights are important to me. But even more important is my own responsibility for my own body. So I have never-- not even one time--had unprotected sex.

Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. One thing liberals and socialists forget when it comes to personal responsibility...if you you give responsibility for some aspect of your life to someone else, you've just lost your own freedom and your own power. You've become someone else's ward...almost like an adopted child.

If you understand the concept of personal responsibility and freedom of choice, you understand that Ron Paul is the only rational option.

This is the best interview with Ron Paul that I have seen yet. All interviewers should aspire to be as informed, thoughtful and courteous as Bill Moyers.

PBS has some excellent programing. But as a diehard libertarian, I don't believe in the concept of public broadcasting. This episode has "almost" changed my mind. It was the best show on politics this election season. My compliments to Bill Moyers and his staff. I may just have to send some of my donation-bomb money to PBS. Keep up the good work.

Thank you Bill and Kathleen for putting together a stellar program that gives voice to those who the establishment seems to want to exclude. Paul and Kucinich are great candidates, whether I agree with them or not. I support Paul, and wrote on my web magazine about the momentousness of Bill's interview with him. I am now watching the Kucinich interview, and am (a) embarrassed that I didn't know more about him, and (b) exhilarated that someone in the Democrat party has the courage to speak out about the heinousness of American foreign policy.

Paul and Kucinich NEED to be included in all debates so that each debate has TWO points of view instead of ONE.

I think there should be a federal law that all people running in an election must all be placed on all ballets and be allowed in all public debates equally.

I try NEVER to miss BMJ-it's a Friday night MUST-SEE! Kathleen Hall Jamieson is one of the most intelligent, knowledgeable, reasonable experts on journalism (all media). She is on TV far less often than she used to be, and I miss her pertinent comments and wise discourse. I was delighted to listen to her, and I DO think the media need to take a better look at how they cover elections. Since they are now ALL corporately owned (except CSPAN and PBS) I don't trust that they are looking out for anyone's interests other than their own - read "bottom line". As for the debates, the questions were in large part ridiculous, frivolous, and not what REAL VOTERS WOULD ASK A CANDIDATE, given the chance. I think some of the moderators were way off the mark in the types of questions they asked candidates, and NO ONE took the candidates to task to ANSWER questions. It was and will be just the same old BS we've had in the past - question asked, candidate turns it to his/her talking point and never responds to the question. Debates do nothing to make them accountable for their positions. I see more realism when they are out talking to people in various group settings than in the debates. Unless the moderators ask tough questions and INSIST ON HONEST, TRANSPARENCY IN ANSWERS, the debates are an exercise in futility - everybody's prepped for an "appearance" and they know exactly how they're going to answer, and what they're going to say, regardless of the question asked.

Great interview Bill, here is the answer for the "Narrow Media Question", if all interviewers would be brave enough to ask real questions like yourself the media would not be so narrow.

Well, if they were allowed maybe.

I too was terribly disappointed with your Dennis Kucinich interview. Why did you keep cutting him off? Why did you cut him a shorter interview. What was your agenda here? The difference with Paul was evident. Why?

This election season demonstrates, once again, that the two-party system no longer serves the health of our democratic republic. In my opinion, the collective will of We, the People would be much better served through a national primary. Or, better yet, a system in which all candidates run on the same ballot, without party designation, and the field is winnowed through one or more primary elections.

I ran across a great quote that fits Dr. Paul's message to a "T":

The state, according to Bastiat, "applies itself to loading everybody's brain with prejudices, and everybody's heart with sentiments favorable to the spirit of disorder, war, and hatred; so that, when a doctrine of order, peace, and comity presents itself, it is in vain that it has clearness and truth on its side; it cannot gain admittance."

Our founders guarded above all else, individual freedom. Dr. Paul's message represents that, if we just follow the Constitution. The supreme law of the land, what all military members and elected officials swear an oath to, just follow the rules THAT GUARANTEE INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM!

Thank you so much Mr.Bill Moyers for introducing me to Ron Paul. Through your well placed questions Mr. paul was able to cover a wide spectrum of issues in a amazingly short amount of time. Well done Mr. Moyers! I feel I know every thing about the man that there is to know.

Thank You for showing me who I will be voting for in the up coming California Primary!

Just another voice out here in Arizona, thanking Bill Moyers for giving Dr. Paul and Dennis Kucinich decent interviews with enough airtime to be heard. Big media elitists want to preselect our choices for us. Thank you for putting it on the net as well. Right now this is the only way around the corporate black-out.