Mike Gravel wants a one on one debate!

[jrich4rpaul]

Mike Gravel vs Ron Paul, one on one for an hour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEzKjjdwC9g

http://www.petitiononline.com/gvsp2008/petition.html

http://www.digg.com/videos/people/Mike_Gravel_Meets_Ron_Paul_Supporters,_Requests_a_ One-On-One_Debate

[McDermit]

I vote no. RP needs to stick to debating other "top tier" candidates. Doing otherwise gives the old media more ammo against him as a fringe or 2nd tier candidate.

[derdy]

Gravel has to win battles within HIS party first as do we. It's utterly pointless to engage in debate with the other party at this point.

[mdh]

I vote no. RP needs to stick to debating other "top tier" candidates. Doing otherwise gives the old media more ammo against him as a fringe or 2nd tier candidate.

As unfortunate as it is, I agree with this.

[jrich4rpaul]

I disagree. A debate like that would get lots of attention, especially if the media tries to use it against them. Because all that would do is make more people want to see it.

And when they do, without RP or MG having to argue against other candidates instead of answering questions, people will finally get to see where they stand on the issues in full detail. An hour with each man calmly answering questions without being cut off would do a lot more good than bad.

[cujothekitten]

Before you discredit the debate I want you to think about how amazing this could be. We haven't seen a debate in this country that was truly right vs. left, especially when the two parties are bickering about war. Both of these candidates won't need to discuss that since they're both anti-war, anti-IRS, and anti-military industrial complex... it really comes down to the two ideologies. I don't think I've ever seen a pair of candidates discuss the philosophy behind their stances so this could be pretty incredible.

Please consider signing the petition. Don't think about how this will effect the election and instead think about how it's a chance to educate people. We aren't going to change the world by discussing issues; we need to get to the heart of why we feel the way we do.

[McDermit]

You have more confidence in the average American voter than I do. People are relatively stupid, and most won't fully understand many of RP's philosophies as laid out in a debate. It wouldn't help.

And for those who don't see the debate as it's happening, when the MSM later tells the average person that RP's ideas are crazy, they'll accept it. They won't go online and research those ideas or go hunt down the youtube of the debate to find out for themselves. If the average American took and active interest and educated themselves, we wouldn't be where we are.

[jrich4rpaul]

You have more confidence in the average American voter than I do. People are relatively stupid, and most won't fully understand many of RP's philosophies as laid out in a debate. It wouldn't help.

And for those who don't see the debate as it's happening, when the MSM later tells the average person that RP's ideas are crazy, they'll accept it. They won't go online and research those ideas or go hunt down the youtube of the debate to find out for themselves. If the average American took and active interest and educated themselves, we wouldn't be where we are.

If that's true, then there's no point in Ron Paul even going to debates right now, and there's no point in anything that we're doing, no? People are opening up. Slowly, but surely, it's happening.

People will watch it, and not just people that already knew about them. And those few curious people that do listen to the debate will at least have a chance of learning something, and they'll learn more in a one hour debate with 2 candidates than they ever will in a 2 hour debate with 9.

I don't have confidence in the average voter. I have confidence in people like us educating the average voter.

[thuja]

I vote no. RP needs to stick to debating other "top tier" candidates. Doing otherwise gives the old media more ammo against him as a fringe or 2nd tier candidate.

i agree

[thuja]

You have more confidence in the average American voter than I do. People are relatively stupid, and most won't fully understand many of RP's philosophies as laid out in a debate. It wouldn't help.

And for those who don't see the debate as it's happening, when the MSM later tells the average person that RP's ideas are crazy, they'll accept it. They won't go online and research those ideas or go hunt down the youtube of the debate to find out for themselves. If the average American took and active interest and educated themselves, we wouldn't be where we are.

i think it is very unfortunate that such an educated conversation would be used against Ron Paul by the old media, but unlss it were aired on PBS, it would not be to the advantage of either candidate. i really would love to hear them debate, and its sad to have to concentrate on the average voter.

[Electric Church]

This would not be a debate. This would be a chance to show that it's not a dem repub thing but it's about two Americans who want to save America while the rest of the bastards on both sides want to destroy it

[Spirit of '76]

I vote no. RP needs to stick to debating other "top tier" candidates. Doing otherwise gives the old media more ammo against him as a fringe or 2nd tier candidate.

Bingo.

[BuddyRey]

I vote no. RP needs to stick to debating other "top tier" candidates. Doing otherwise gives the old media more ammo against him as a fringe or 2nd tier candidate.

I feel the need to point out the fact that this same argument was used by GOP elites to justify barring RP from the Republican debates. If we're going to be fair to our candidate and reject the media defining this process for us, we have to stand up for other candidates as well. A Paul/Gravel debate would be brilliant and, if televised, would only bolster RP's status, especially among conservatives.

Besides, if the two strike up a mutual admiration for one another, we may see that Paul/Gravel ticket many of us have been dreaming of!

[Alabama Supporter]

Ron Paul has nothing to gain from debating a nobody in the Democrat race.

[mdh]

Please consider signing the petition. Don't think about how this will effect the election and instead think about how it's a chance to educate people. We aren't going to change the world by discussing issues; we need to get to the heart of why we feel the way we do.

Wait, what? I have to think about how it'll effect the election, because I'm here to win... errrr... an election. I don't know about others here. We don't win by educating people, we win by turning out voters.

[mdh]

I feel the need to point out the fact that this same argument was used by GOP elites to justify barring RP from the Republican debates. If we're going to be fair to our candidate and reject the media defining this process for us, we have to stand up for other candidates as well. A Paul/Gravel debate would be brilliant and, if televised, would only bolster RP's status, especially among conservatives.

Besides, if the two strike up a mutual admiration for one another, we may see that Paul/Gravel ticket many of us have been dreaming of!

If we're going to see that, it has to be after the primaries... We need to focus on winning the GOP nomination first.

It would be a neat ticket.

[jrich4rpaul]

Like it or not, we can't stay ignorant to the fact that some people just refuse to vote republican, and those votes will never go to Ron Paul. Some people want what a democrat stands for, and Mike Gravel is the most honest, probably the best candidate on the dems side.

A debate like this would allow each candidate to fully express their ideas, and democrats and republicans would both benefit.

[constituent]

i've been saying this needed to happen, and i'm still saying it needs to happen.

but soon or not at all.

[Tin_Foil_Hat]

Ron Paul has nothing to gain from debating a nobody in the Democrat race.

RP wouldn't put it that way...but, yeah. What's the point?

[Kregener]

Mike Gravel DOES NOT want a debate with Ron Paul.

He only thinks he does...

[Cowlesy]

I don't know about others here. We don't win by educating people, we win by turning out voters.


I absolutely agree.

And frankly, I'd have to punch Rudy in the mouth when he said "See, I suggested Paul and Gravel debate...and they did, harr harr harr."

[jrich4rpaul]

I absolutely agree.

And frankly, I'd have to punch Rudy in the mouth when he said "See, I suggested Paul and Gravel debate...and they did, harr harr harr."

Or if it goes well, he'll be kicking himself in the ass.

[john_anderson_ii]

A Paul/Gravel debate would be bad, very bad. It would be seen as a 2nd or 3rd tier debate over how to "influence" politics. Ron Paul should never debate down, he should debate only up. Sorry democrats, but a debate like this would be Gravel debating "up" and Ron Paul debating "down". I'm not saying its right or its wrong, I'm just saying thats how it is.

[BuddyRey]

Bump!

[KingTheoden]

He should absolutely NOT debate Gravel at all. Gravel is not a serious candidate so by associating with him, Ron Paul would be marginalized as the Republican Gravel.

[skyorbit]

I was disapointed the Huckster/Paul debate is, perhaps not happening, like CNN originally hoped it would.

If Paul and Huckabee got into it over economic policy Paul would win Hands down. Huckabee just wants to change the tax system. Paul wants to abolish it completely.

Tracy

[mdh]

He should absolutely NOT debate Gravel at all. Gravel is not a serious candidate so by associating with him, Ron Paul would be marginalized as the Republican Gravel.

I wouldn't say he isn't a serious candidate, he just doesn't have the traction, support, or funding that Paul does.

[jj111]

I don't see anything wrong with a Gravel debate if it was well publicized and covered by national media. If hardly anybody were to see the debate, though, then I would have reservations. The only plus to this is if it exposes millions of people to Ron. If it does not, then possible negative blowback from the MSM might outweigh the potential benefits.