Mike Gravel asks for one hour discussion with Ron Paul

[jrich4rpaul]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCxSscSC8UU
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Mike_Gravel_requests_hour_with_Ron_Paul

A debate would be useless, but the 2 of them sitting down and talking about current events like Gravel wants wouldn't be too bad at all.

[mwkaufman]

I don't think this is a good idea while Ron is campaigning for the Republican nomination. Once he wins it however, this would be one of many opportunities to advertise the parts of Ron's campaign that the left would like. That is, the pulling out of Iraq and his social liberalism. Talking about voluntarism, ending the war on drugs could do a lot for Paul in the National election.

[jrich4rpaul]

I see pros as well as possible cons from this happening. But, I'm just putting this out there for people who would like to see it happen. Yet, maybe we could win some Dems this way. You never know. It's hard to decide how it would effect the campaign.

However, it is true that many people switched Democratic in the past 8 years. Maybe this would bring them back?

I like the idea. It's not a debate so neither will be yelling at each other. It's a good opportunity for the people to see how smart each candidate is.

[BuddyRey]

I personally would LOVE to see this! The only two REAL candidates in this entire race going head-to-head would be one for the history books.

[Electric Church]

Bad idea. Ron Paul doesn't need him but he needs Ron Paul.

[jrich4rpaul]

Bad idea. Ron Paul doesn't need him but he needs Ron Paul.

I think it would be good to have one hour where everyone isn't trying to make Ron Paul sound like a "pinhead", "nutjob", etc. It would be nice to see someone allowing him to talk for once, as well.

TV time is TV time...

[Electric Church]

I think it would be good to have one hour where everyone isn't trying to make Ron Paul sound like a "pinhead", "nutjob", etc. It would be nice to see someone allowing him to talk for once, as well.

TV time is TV time...

Ya but he doesn't need Gravel to do that and mainstream media would not show it and if they did they would use it to bolster their image of him as a bottom tier candidate. Ron Paul is way above Gravel and it will appear that he's so desperate to engage that he’s willing to stoop to bottom tier Dems.

Now to see him going one on one with gulliani or hillary and watch him pick them apart piece by piece for an hour, that would not only be something to watch but it would instantly make him a great American icon.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Sit down and talk about what? lol

[peruvianRP]

I like Gravel ouspoken behavior but I dont think is good for DR Paul. The GOP will bash RP saying he is running on the dem platform.

[constituent]

this would be great for them both and even better for america. it would also catapult rp into the nomination
and the presidency. think about it, the media's angle against RP is to get confrontational, to make the air
in tvland's many rooms feel like an uncomfortable moment at the dinner table... this is the same image
projection that gravel puts off in the debates and the media chooses to show of him.

were the two to come together and have the civil, serious discussion that this whole nation
is dying for it would be classic (or viral, depending on your preferred source for infotainment).

i would like to see john stewart or stephen colbert moderating it too (the people,
not their t.v. characters ...for all those who don't get it).

[Perry]

Gravel needs to stop being selfish, drop out of the race and support Ron Paul.

[Kregener]

...and his social liberalism

Really?

Can you point me to these "social liberalisms"?

Thanks.

[reaver]

:DIsn't that the guy who threw a rock in the water? I don't think it's gonna happen!

[Pete]

this would be great for them both and even better for america. it would also catapult rp into the nomination
and the presidency. think about it, the media's angle against RP is to get confrontational, to make the air
in tvland's many rooms feel like an uncomfortable moment at the dinner table... this is the same image
projection that gravel puts off in the debates and the media chooses to show of him.

were the two to come together and have the civil, serious discussion that this whole nation
is dying for it would be classic (or viral, depending on your preferred source for infotainment).

i would like to see john stewart or stephen colbert moderating it too (the people,
not their t.v. characters ...for all those who don't get it).

This could be devastating to business as usual in American politics. Ah, but what network? PBS?

[kylejack]

I like this idea.

[kylejack]

Really?

Can you point me to these "social liberalisms"?

Thanks.

Supports same sex marriage, opposes DADT, end the war on drugs, pro-choice, end the war.

[specsaregood]

My impression of Ron Paul is that if Mr. Gravel stopped by his office sometime, he would be happy to talk to him.

But Ron Paul has other committments for his campaign and has no need to go out of his way to publicly meet with Gravel. This would help Gravel more than Paul and while that might be good for democracy, it won't help this campaign much.

[Electric Church]

Gravel's in the dust. Ron's ready for the big time, a big showdown. David vs. Goliath. Ron needs somethin MSM can't ignore and they can't ignore their front-runners. These front-runners are no match for Paul. Imagine: Paul one on one with one of the big front-runners ripping them to shreds on all the major networks. There would be an almost instant revolution. MSM would be knocked out cold when the average American realizes their great cover-up.

Time to start thinkin big and leave Gravel in the gravel.

[constituent]

This could be devastating to business as usual in American politics. Ah, but what network? PBS?

FreeMe.TV (http://www.freeme.tv) would be perfect. Anyone with a soft colored solid sheet, curtain or projector screen and a couple of good digital cameras/camera people. Get in touch w/ the folks at FreeMe.TV and have them upload it and host it exclusively for a few days.

kill (i'm seeing at least) three birds with one stone.

[Kregener]

Man, are YOU way off!


Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage.

* Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

He CLEARLY states that abortion is a State Rights decision, to be left to each state to determine its stance on abortion.

Ron Paul agrees (rightfully so) that homosexuals are not "children of satan", but he is NOT "pro-homosexual", he IS "pro-liberty for everybody". Being in favor of DADT is NOT pro-****, it is what it is: "Keep your sexuality out of my face and I will do same".

Ending the "war" on drugs and the wars on the other side of the planet are the OPPOSITE of social liberalism, which by definition it:


...accepts some restrictions in economic affairs, such as anti-trust laws to combat economic monopolies and regulatory bodies or minimum wage laws intending to secure economic opportunities for all. It also expects legitimate governments to provide a basic level of welfare or workfare, health and education, supported by taxation, intended to enable the best use of the talents of the population, prevent revolution, or simply for the perceived public good.

Confusing Dr. Paul's votes for or against some proposed legislation as his stance on the issue itself, instead of his perception of its Constitutionality is a very common mistake.

[kylejack]

Man, are YOU way off!

I am? You asked which socially liberal stances he takes and I pointed a few out. I didn't say Ron Paul was identical to him.

[Adamsa]

Gravel gets a lot of respect from me, first for being largely responsible for ending funding to the Vietnam war (something other democrat politicians don't have the balls to do for Iraq) and generally speaking from the heart.

I don't think it would be bad publicity, it wouldn't take very long and Ron did say he'd debate anyone, anywhere.

[Electric Church]

Ron's in the big league now. He don't need no exhibition sparring matches...he's ready to take off the gloves and tear the heads off the leading contenders.

[Triton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCxSscSC8UU
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Mike_Gravel_requests_hour_with_Ron_Paul

A debate would be useless, but the 2 of them sitting down and talking about current events like Gravel wants wouldn't be too bad at all.GRavelle has shown up at events with Paul supporters. He's looking to ride the wave. Paul should not have any discussions with him until after the General election. We don't need anyone waving a video around showing that Paul and Gravelle have something in common.

[Bradley in DC]

not worth an hour of Dr. Paul's time

[constituent]

not worth an hour of Dr. Paul's time

Ron won't be electing himself.

[mwkaufman]

Really?

Can you point me to these "social liberalisms"?

Thanks.

End the federal war on drugs, any voluntary associations should be permissable, prostitution, gambling.