Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Let's talk about Mike Gravel

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Let's talk about Mike Gravel (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/116950-lets-talk-about-mike-gravel.html)

Let's talk about Mike Gravel

Wow. This guy blew me off my feet. For a first impression, I gotta say I'm sold. I've got some videos for those who don't know him and I've got some notes if you're interested.

Here is someone's commentary about this guy's standpoints. If I had to rewrite this, I would do away with the comparison and categorization (Libertarian, Democrat... whatever. I dont make my decisions based on what party endorses it.) but I am too lazy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErrorS

I'd just like to remind everyone that this guy is as much Democrat as Ron Paul is Republican.. forget his party lines, he has little in common with Democrats.

1. He's more fiscally conservative than Democrats, damn near Libertarian views on defense.
2. He's more socially liberal than Democrats(which is a shame... Clinton and her stupid anti-gaming bull), again, damn near Libertain views on social freedoms.
3. Because he still likes spending on a lot of social issues, he's not a Libertarian.

Not to say he's conservative fiscally, he's not going to kill welfare and pull all funding from schools.. but he will cut our budget on defense a huge amount, he will abolish the IRS and all income taxes and he will push to bring on a federal sales tax to take place of income tax.

Some key things he supports, in a list to make things easier for people. I just want to make sure people fully understand his views, being good on TV doesn't necessarily mean you agree with everything they do.
1. Kill the IRS, no more income tax, at all.
2. Bring on a Fair Tax (sales tax only)
3. Cut defense spending by a huge amount
4. Legalize most drugs
5. Pro-Gun
6. Pro-Choice
Sound familier?

Then again:

7. Universal healthcare
8. Has a social security plan where we simply 'invest it better', I'm not sure if it's privitization or not, I don't think it is.
9. Increase funding to schools and most other social programs, very Democrat in this area.
10. Isn't big on free market, is against big business screwing "the people" and "the government"

Mix a Democrat with a Libertarian and you get Mike Gravel. I find it intriguing, as do many others I'd assume. If Libertarians scare but you like some of their views, Gravel is your candidate.

Don't view this like I'm saying he's good or bad, I'm not, I did some research and I'm trying to share what I know, that's all.

So, some of this guy's ideas are quite radical, and that is going to scare a lot of people, but socially and politically I feel like this guy is exactly what I want from a President. When it comes down to financial stuff, I just have to say I don't know enough to have an opinion.

As far as I'm concerned the only reason he was invited on was to try to make the candidates with a chance look moderate in the Democratic war movement.

He said it himself in the video, he was nominated to attend. He did not write himself in.

And how does he claim to filibuster the draft? The draft has ONLY been proposed by Democrats to stir up anti-war sentiment.

Seaver.. those talking points you mentioned took place 30 years ago.

Here's some more:

CNN removes Gravel from their next debate on the grounds that he isn't popular enough.

Quote:

Washington, D.C. March 19, 2007 Presidential candidate and former United States Senator Mike Gravel rejected a statement CNN, Hearst owned WMUR-TV and the Union Leader issued Friday, March 16th in justifying its censorship of Senator Gravel by excluding him from a planned debate of Presidential candidates. The Senator said,“This statement is woefully ignorant, void of sound judgment and Kafkaesque in its conclusion.” Gravel continued, “There are several points in the statement, the full text of which follows, that cannot go unchallenged. First, when the statement says that I have not demonstrated measurable public support, it reveals an abysmal ignorance of the dynamics of political campaigns that is truly hard to believe originated in such important media institutions. It is common knowledge that polling numbers at the outset of a campaign,ten months before the first of many state elections reflect little more than name recognition and are simply not measures of public support. This does not mean that other candidates do not have some public following but rather that such support has not been tested by the crucible of a long campaign in which these supporters are given a chance to assess other options. The only accurate measure of public support is election-day. Finally, for what it is worth,I have, in a recent Harris poll improved my standing from February to March and exceed, in one test, one of my rivals for the nomination who I believe has been invited to the New Hampshire debate”.

The Senator continued, “The statement said that there are literally dozens and dozens of declared presidential candidates. That is true but out of those dozens of candidates, how many are former United States Senators who have been given the stamp of legitimacy by the Democratic National Committee, SEIU, AFSCME, ABC, the Nevada Democratic Party, the Center for American Progress Action Fund etc? Only two, former Senator John Edwards and myself.

“Though this is not the only criteria for deciding the legitimacy of a candidate as other aspirants may have contributed distinguished public service as an appointed official or as an officer of an NGO or excelled as individual public figures such as Ralph Nader, the Reverend Jesse Jackson and the Reverend Al Sharpton making them eminently worthy, it is one indisputable criteria for defining a legitimate candidate.”

The Senator continued, “The statement confirmed that I had not received an invitation but said that I nor anyone else has been excluded from the debate. It went on to say that if I meet their criteria between now and the debate, I will be invited. What was Orwellian in my not meeting certain criteria which the media organizations would not divulge becomes Kafkaesque when I am now told that I have not been excluded and can still be invited if Imeet this mysterious criteria. CNN, WMUR-TVand the Union Leader sent out invitations weeks ago. I did not receive one. I am told I have not demonstrated measurable public support, which, besides being a galactic misunderstanding of polling numbers ten months before an election is also a self-fulfilling prophecy since being included in the debate would provide me and any other candidate who may have not been invited an important opportunity to secure such public support.”

Senator Gravel concluded, “CNN, Hearst’s WMUR-TV and the Union Leader have been important sources of news for their listeners and readers. Why they want to deprive their audiences of differing political voices that aspire to the highest level of public service by exercising a form of insidious censorship, unbecoming a free society and a state with the motto 'Live Free Or Die' is a mystery.”

Mike Gravel, a resident of Virginia, is a former two-term Senator from Alaska with a distinguished record that includes successfully ending the military draft with a five-month filibuster, releasing the Pentagon Papers risking both prosecution and jail, playing the leading role in making the Alaska pipeline a reality, and ending nuclear testing in Alaska. He is the driving force and author of the National Initiative for Democracy, a proposal to bring the ballot initiative lawmaking process––already proven in many states as an effective and necessary check on unresponsive representative government––to the Federal level.

STATEMENT BY CNN, WMUR-TV AND THE UNION LEADER
The three debate partners, closely following Federal Election Commission guidelines, established objective criteria to determine who we invite to the debates. Because there are literally dozens and dozens of declared presidential candidates, most of whom we have never heard of, we have to have a method of determining who is invited. Our criteria simply identifies candidates that have measurable public support for their campaign. Because Mike Gravel has not demonstrated measurable public support for his campaign to date, he has not received an invitation. But we have not excluded him (or anyone) from the debate. If he meets our criteria between now and the debate, he will certainly get an invitation.

I bolded the summary of what this guy is about.

And.... that's that. Does he have any shot if he won't be in the next debate?

Following Gravel's five whole minutes on NBC's "Debate" ("Sound Bites" would be more accurate), there has been immense interest in him and his policies. He has been showing up on numerous talk shows, both radio and tv, and I suspect we'll see more of him. I loved how he shamed the current pack of Dems, but I don't see him pulling off the nomination.

He's got a great passion that, when held up against Hillary and Obama, makes them look so fake and plastic. He's very animated and captivating. I'd like to think that he has a chance.

As Elphaba said, he's been given a lot more publicity lately so CNN (as stated) might extend the invitation to him after all.

Don't confuse yelling with passion. I strongly suspect he's not dissimilar from every other practiced politician you've ever seen.

Except that his policies make sense?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

Except that his policies make sense?

"fair tax"?, "direct democracy"? No thank you....great ideas in mostly rural and white Alaska, and very popular among WASP males in red states.

You've spent time in the Bronx. With the current, but hobbled by Bush tax cuts, progressive tax and inheritance tax structure, the wealthiest ten percent still own more than 70 percent of total US assets. Do you think that the "fair tax" would distribute to the bottom 50 percent of the US population, more of the 2-1/2 percent of the total US wealth that they manage to own?

Do you think that "direct democracy" would strengthen minority representation in our government? Why do you think so many white. affluent, conservatives back "fair tax" and "direct democracy"? They are confident that they will have more money and more political power, as a result.

I'm not saying that Gravel is fronting for WASP males. I think that he is sincere and is direct and has integrity. I think that his policies are misguided, though. The poor and under represented do not need more policies that would make them poorer and less represented....IMO.

Video 1:
1) The war is wrong.
He clearly stands alone on this issue.
2) Bush will veto stuff and we have to figure out how to get around him.
I'm sure Pelosi hasn't thought of that.
3) The people I'm running against scare me.
Maybe he needs a nap?
4) "There will be no preemptive wars with nuclear devices."
Wow! What a decisive and difficult decision! He's sure out on a limb there!
5) Joe is arrogant.
At least Joe isn't screaming at people...
6) We should get out of Iraq.
Again, a fascinating new strategy that no one has thought of.
7) I'm old and they're young.
Indeed...
8) We spend too much on defense.
Something that most of the candidates would agree on.
9) "We are 'mischaracterizing' terrorism."
More new insight into what's left of the liberal news media has been reporting on since 2001.
10) The sanctions were wrong.
Again, is this something anyone is going to disagree with?

I just don't see how Gravel stands out except for his decibel level.

He stands out because while his ideas are nothing new, he's the only candidate actually stating a clear standpoint on them and a very specific means of achieving his goals.

Hal, he is one of the last Big 'D' Democrats, and they are an endangered species. There is nothing that he wants to do than can be done without compromise with both dems and reps. That wasn't the case when he last held office and he doesn't acknowledge that what he proposes now is not as easily done as it once was.

I like his grit, but I prefer bipartisan cooperation to one-party rule under either party.

Maybe it's just the idealist in me that enjoys HIS idealism. I'm not above giving my support to a dream that things could be better.

I like Gravel, but one person's idealist is another persons ideologue.

There's a place for folks like Gravel in the Senate, but I dont want him in the White House.

IMO, the country is too diverse politically for an idealist/ideologue. Things will only be better if the president is a consensus builder, something seriously lacking in our current leader and a leadership quality I dont see in Gravel either.

I am a left leaning independent and he came off as a crazy man in the debates. He will never get the nomination.

I'm a libertarian so I really like the first few points you posted, but disagree with his social programs. I really do appreciate his candidness though. I think my favorites right now in order would be Ron Paul then probably Mike Gravel.