Mike Gravel in Reason Magazine...

[Kludge]

I got a chuckle from their "List" article this month...

Rough Gravel

In April 2006, former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel became the first official candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Two years and only about 25,000 votes later, he left to seek the Libertarian nomination. "I'm a classical liberal," Gravel said during an April interview. "All of those other candidates, they scared the hell out of me."

Gravel grumbled his way through every Democratic debate until October, when he was excluded because of his low totals in the polls. reason asked him for three lessons he learned from his experience as a major-party candidate.

1) Debates are unfair. "We haven't seen real debates. The debates have been designed to sell the anchors of the networks - not a debate between candidates. That final debate in in Philadelphia was a farce."

[B]2) Little guys ALWAYS get shafted. "Before I'd arrive at the CNN and MSNBC debates, I'd ask: 'Are you going to provide equal time?' They'd say yes. So why do you think I was so mad when they finally called on me? I was standing on the edge of the stage, getting no questions! How would you feel if you were being lied to and you couldn't go over and punch the guy who'd lied to you in the mouth?"

3) Democrats are bad news. "I was sucking up their air, so they wanted me out of there. I don't want anything to do with the Democratic Party."


www.reason.com

[Kotin]

"I was sucking up their air, so they wanted me out of there"

what a poet..

[mport1]

Watching Gravel debating with libertarians was hilarious. He has no idea what libertarianism is and was pretty much learning as he went along.

[Kludge]

Watching Gravel debating with libertarians was hilarious. He has no idea what libertarianism is and was pretty much learning as he went along.

Naa, he was a "social libertarian". What was truly frightening though, was how many votes he received at the convention.

[constituent]

Watching Gravel debating with libertarians was hilarious. He has no idea what libertarianism is and was pretty much learning as he went along.

posts like these = why the LP will eternally symbolize "fail"

have fun congratulating yourselves, shaking your own hands, pating yourselves on the back and what not.

[Kludge]

posts like these = why the LP will eternally symbolize "fail"

have fun congratulating yourselves, shaking your own hands, pating yourselves on the back and what not.

Your post = fail.


Going to a LP debate and calling for socialized healthcare was nearly as bad as Phillies using religion as a scapegoat for everything wrong in.... Everywhere.

[electronicmaji]

Your post = fail.


Going to a LP debate and calling for socialized healthcare was nearly as bad as Phillies using religion as a scapegoat for everything wrong in.... Everywhere.

Hardly. The LP like the Republican and Democrat accepts all supposedly; Thats like saying. "Ron Paul going to a Republican debate and calling for a end to the war in Iraq is nearly as bad as Phillies using religion as a scapegoat for everything wrong in...Everywhere."

[Kludge]

The Republican Party is a party of conservatism, hence Ron's comment that the party lost it's way - the Republican Party's own platform would support Ron..

The LP has done no such thing and Gravel was mistaken in thinking the LP would be receptive to socialist ideas.

[electronicmaji]

The LP is whatever it wants to be. More importantly the planks that the Republicans use for "conservatism" were stolen from Democrats. It's values change every 50 years.

[Kludge]

The LP is whatever it wants to be.

Oh fuck! I used a collective word thinking you would assume I meant the individuals that make up the collective idea.


** Gravel was mistaken in thinking Libertarians would be receptive to socialist ideas.

[electronicmaji]

I am a libertarian and I am receptive to them.

[Kludge]

I am a libertarian and I am receptive to them.

Big "L". I was not mistaking libertarian for a proper noun as someone else I know appears to have a bad habit of doing.

I am glad that you are on these forums though. You taught me not to use umbrella-labels to describe myself. I may be a libertarian, but that's too broad. I'm a hard propertarian - and I thank you for making me realize that I need to say that.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

2) Little guys ALWAYS get shafted. "Before I'd arrive at the CNN and MSNBC debates, I'd ask: 'Are you going to provide equal time?' They'd say yes. So why do you think I was so mad when they finally called on me? I was standing on the edge of the stage, getting no questions! How would you feel if you were being lied to and you couldn't go over and punch the guy who'd lied to you in the mouth?"

I'd feel like I feel any time I see a politician or news reporter. It feels like I'm being lied to and I can't go over and punch the liar in the mouth.

[muh_roads]

Gravel talked about wanting national health care at a libertarian debate.

http://media.g4tv.com/images/blog/2007/12/06/633325462873135493.jpg

[Mesogen]

Wasn't he also talking about the need for global "governance"? Maybe that was just in interviews and not at the Libertarian debate.

[constituent]

i didn't say he was right, so let's clarify that.

barr is a great parrot, but how many NEW folks is he bringing into the LP?

barr like the present LP is merely republicrap light.

Gravel would come around, and that's the point (he'd also legitimize the party to many on the "left" who only consider themselves on the left b/c they've not "seen the light" so to speak). The LP (ahem, specifically the wonky/obnoxious and/or overly militant branches) squandered a huge opportunity.

i think of Rayzer.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I got a chuckle from their "List" article this month...

Rough Gravel

In April 2006, former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel became the first official candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

1) Debates are unfair. "We haven't seen real debates. The debates have been designed to sell the anchors of the networks - not a debate between candidates. That final debate [between Clinton and Obama] in in Philadelphia was a farce."

www.reason.com

Some of US were just having this discussion...

The first HALF of a 2 hour Presidential Debate should be:

ALL candidates from the top 6 political parties get put into a sound PROOF BOOTH

One by One, each is asked the exact same message with the exact amount of time to reply. Then they go back in the sound proof booth.

when the MODERATOR is done on the debate, all come out of the booth and go to their respective podium allocated by lotto. The debate begins with the Moderator asking new questions.

No cheating like George Dubya BUSH did with his WIRED of HELP as in the KERRY debates.

THE PEOPLE would get an entirely different and more accurate view, than the CONSPIRING MSM and PANDERING BS from some of the candidates.

I guess we know who would win hands done! RP!

[qaxn]

that libertarians hate the libertarian party and hate everyone who isn't the right brand of libertarian p. much ensures that they will continue to languish in irrelevance.

gravel's pretty chill, his politics remind me of libdems. always confuses me that many of you don't see those ideas as very coherent.

[Kludge]

Property rights are all that matter.

To deny it (through coercive taxation/mandated programs in Gravel's case) is to demonstrate absolute failure in understanding liberty.

[qaxn]

Property rights are all that matter.

To deny it (through coercive taxation/mandated programs in Gravel's case) is to demonstrate absolute failure in understanding liberty.

then you will not have that.

enjoy your lonely, minuscule, principled stand.

[qh4dotcom]

Watching Gravel debating with libertarians was hilarious. He has no idea what libertarianism is and was pretty much learning as he went along.

I remember him saying that he was more libertarian than Ron Paul. Ha Ha.