First let me say that I don't give a shit about Duncan Hunter and he can burn in hell for all I care. Second, I find a story like this a bit conflicting. On the one hand, I can understand why someone might not want a more or less non-viable candidate in a debate. I think we could say with an extremely high level of certainty that Mike Gravel will not be the next president. On the other hand, we shouldn't be so quick to silence candidates that some people see as having no shot. Who knows what will happen between now and Tuesday or next month. Who knows what would happen if these people were allowed to participate further. Plus, this is a supposedly democratic process and limiting who has exposure sort of throws a wrench in said process. Realistically we can say that the outcome will be no different whether these people are in the debates, however, there are at least philosophical reasons for not doing this.
Oh well, it isn't up to me and the powers that be have spoken.
Story