Thus to me whether Joe Kennedy should be covered by the media and allowed into the debates depends upon: Does he take an intelligent and new look at issues, and are his ideas worthy of being taken seriously? While I don’t agree with him on all issues, I think that reading through his issues statements the answer is a very strong YES. Joe Kennedy offers an important and sensible independent look at the issues and deserves to be listened to. If the media chooses to ignore him, then the media is contributing to the dominance of two parties who don’t need to think about the issues because their minds are already made up, and to our continued failure as a nation to take a serious and intelligent look at what is actually needed to solve our major problems.

Joe Kennedy does not represent the Tea Party movement. He is a life-long democrat who is recently become an Independent, but he is not one of us. Code Pinko, pro-abortion candidates are not representative of the tea party movement.

That means that MANY MANY CONSERVATIVES want low taxes and less control over their personal lives–just what a libertarian like Joe Kennedy represents. All the PAC money and organized money is flung at Brown, so don’t tell me he ‘earned’ his spot. Bankers and special interests gave him everything he’s got, starting with Bain Capital in Boston, the same place Steve Pagliuca and Romney got their loot.

Scott Brown is a Republicrat. He supported Mitt Romney as he doubled the state’s annual spending. He voted for Romney Care, the most liberal health care program passed by any state in the history of our country. Republicrats also voted for a 24 trillion dollar banker bailout in which the criminal Federal Reserve Bank gave funny money to all its buddies.

Are you a Republicrat or a Tea Party conservative?

While Brown and Coakley are the leading contenders in the senate race, with many believing Coakley is the front-runner – that in itself creates another whole set of stories. Is the attorney general the leading candidate because of qualifications, personality, trustworthyness, or is it because she is member of the favored political party? There are a lot of stories here other than what the candidates have to tell themselves.

There is a big story here, too, perhaps, about the current senate race which may not be about Coakley and Brown at all – it very well could be about why some of these other candidates entered the race – their motive and do they offer anything in the pubic forum. And, not that this hasn’t been covered already, but there is a story here about Massachusetts voters, special elections, voter apathy, and why this election does not draw interest similar to maybe the Weld-Kerry campaign, or John Kennedy campaign. Have times changed, and if so why, or is just the people, the mood of the country, etc?

There are a lot of potentially good, interesting, informative, entertaining stories in the current political environment aside from the narrow contest of two leading contenders, and, as an aside, there is a major story about Coakley, too, but not unlike Brown, there has been a constant feed of bits and pieces feeding out such as academic achievement, upbringing, infractions, working as a model to earn money going to college, etc.

I think the objective voter should be looking for everything they can find out about Coakley and Brown – the kind of people they are and how they will contribute or distract if elected. That is what we need to know in this contest. Each political contest has to be evaluated separately, not as a universal rule.

The news is the focus on the real candidates while there are almost infinite side stories about this election, the voters of Massachusetts, and the minority candidates.

I also think it’s safe to say that, by my standard, the media would give quite a bit more coverage to the minor candidates than they do now. I am not calling for the status quo.

@insideknowledge: Yes. The law also tells us that criminal suspects are innocent unless proven guilty, and that there shall be no religious test for political office. And the government must follow those dictates. We, the people, are free to conclude otherwise. So again, I think some inclusion for minor candidates makes sense, but not necessary full and equal inclusion.

@Amusedbutinformedobserver: Good grief. No, we don’t need any more reporter panels at debates. What a disaster those have been. Either a single moderator with a maximum emphasis on getting the candidates to address one another, or some way of including the public. CNN tried it very awkwardly with YouTube, but they had the right idea.

Now, some inside knowledge: Nothing in politics just happens, it is planned. Frequently the “brilliant” analysts in the media are clueless about the cause and effect. Often it reuslts in bad outcomes, but just once in a while some good occurs. That is the situation we have here. Anyone who thinks that the result of this election would be anything other than the Democratic candidate winning by a comfortable margin must have gone to weatherforecasters’ school. Or else they got their jobs as efficiency experts because of their experiences working at the Registry of Motor Vehicles. But, the inclusion of Joe Kennedy into the race changes the whole picture, in a very pleasant way. Now there is actually a real chance for any one of the three candidates to win. Scott Brown should love Joe Kennedy because he gives him some chance of winning instead of being just another sacrificial lamb of the anemic Republican Party. And the voters who want to vote for the candidate that they think is the best can do so without wondering if they should vote for the lesser of two evils so as to “not waste” their vote. There were two small groups of people who made sure that Joe Kennedy would be on the ballot, and they are the true heroes for giving the voters a real choice of three. Everyone should forget all the strategy nonsense and just vote for the candidate who best reflects their desires and beliefs. And the elitists and pseudo-intellectuals in the media should stop trying to curry favor with the Establishment, and just report the news in a fair fashion, and confine their personal opinions to narratives that are clearly labelled as editorials. Show some respect for the legitimacy of all three candidates, and thank the people who made this truly democratic race possible.

Kennedy desrves equal unbalanced coverage, if te media possesses the values and integrity to maintain such impartiality