People! Mike Gravel's arrival as a Libertarian opens up a vast range of tickets!

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The 2 party system was a necessary legal precedent

this is interesting. more the better. tired of this two party crap.

Isn't the 2 party system American? When our government has operated as a tyranny in the past was when the 2 parties eroded to a single party totalitary system which is the claim being made today with our present system eroding to a filthy unity of Republicans and Democrats. This single party actually own their own Federal media who purposely ignore a Revolution awakening a larger movement surrounding Ron Paul.
It would seem a 3 party system is only necessary today to reestablish the 2 party system, as Dr. Ron Paul is trying to acheive by distinguishing Republicans from Democrats, or to outright usher in a new political party as a replacement for the ineffective party of the two.
Look, in my opinion, having 3 or more political parties is so European. It leads to extremism and idealism. The only thing that ever gets done with such a system is a lot of smoke in a room full of rich, fat gentlemen.
In our nations infancy, the wheels immeditately fell off our Constitution. As the Supreme Court itself was yet to work as a functional part of the government, the founding fathers didn't want the whole system severely revisioned by further consideration by Congress. Congress during that time took up the role that the Supreme Court handles now in regards to Constitutionality.
The 2 party system was a necessary measure created by concerned founding fathers who needed to gain enough power to submit their interpretation of how the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted. They needed to hold off a spirit of Federalism who argued for a more powerful central government to establish taxes and to better delegate inequities between larger and smaller states.

 

[BuddyRey]

Maybe what the poster means is that there is a difference between the LP purity brigade rejecting someone like Ron Paul because he has a couple conservative views (out of mostly libertarian), and LP members rejecting Gravel because he has almost 100% statist views (and not many libertarian).

What Statist positions has Gravel ever espoused, aside from government healthcare?

I'd say his libertarian-to-statist policies ratio is much higher than all of the other Democratic and Republican candidates (besides Ron Paul, of course) combined.

 

[mekrob]

I know it's kinda silly, but I remember doing one of those "What's your political ideology?" quizzes and then they would give your rating for conservative vs. liberal and libertarian vs. authoritarian, etc and they actually had Gravel as one of the more libertarian candidates, a good amount so.

But, they are silly quizzes and 20 MC questions can't properly define one's political views. I believe they even had Paul as slightly above the line towards authoritarian. So go figure. Probably because of his views on abortion and improperly asked questions/answers.

But I don't think of Gravel as a raging liberal, nor ever have really.

It is pretty remarkable that he would move from the left to the far right so quickly, isn't it? We see repubs moving back and forth, but that's because a lot of times there little or no difference between the two parties, but hardly ever from the left to the far right as this. It makes me think of the possibility that he knows he can't get elected as a D so he's going to a third-party with a decent track record (compared to others) to have a shot at office or at least policy influence. Let's wait and see how his views and speech change.

 

[BuddyRey]

I know it's kinda silly, but I remember doing one of those "What's your political ideology?" quizzes and then they would give your rating for conservative vs. liberal and libertarian vs. authoritarian, etc and they actually had Gravel as one of the more libertarian candidates, a good amount so.

But, they are silly quizzes and 20 MC questions can't properly define one's political views. I believe they even had Paul as slightly above the line towards authoritarian. So go figure. Probably because of his views on abortion and improperly asked questions/answers.

You mean this one?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

 

[familydog]

What Statist positions has Gravel ever espoused, aside from government healthcare?

I'd say his libertarian-to-statist policies ratio is much higher than all of the other Democratic and Republican candidates (besides Ron Paul, of course) combined.

Well, for one he is pretty big on taxes. People on this forum ripped apart Huckabee for his support of the Fairtax, I don't see why Gravel gets a pass. He wants more taxes to help fight global warming too. He supports the Kyoto Protocol. He opposes using SS money for other things, but he doesn't object to the idea of SS. He supports massive federal monies for education. Supports federal funding for stem cell research. Supports a minimum wage. Supports using taxpayer money to help in Darfur. He's not against welfare. Supports taxpayer money to fund election campaigns. Supports NASA. How many federal agencies would he actually get rid of? I know he wants to get rid of a few, but there are a lot more than a few wasteful federal agenecies.

I'm not attacking him. I'm not suggesting he is a "bad guy." I respect the man greatly. He has some libertarian positions, but he doesn't mind big government. I've been a LP member all my life until recently, and I'm just suprised he is being welcomed into a party whose platform clearly disagrees with a lot of his positions. I'm not a "purity" kind of person, nobody has to be perfect. But one has to draw a line somewhere, and when 50%+ of your positions are big government solutions...

 

[Caulfield]

I'm not attacking him. I'm not suggesting he is a "bad guy." I respect the man greatly. He has some libertarian positions, but he doesn't mind big government. I've been a LP member all my life until recently, and I'm just suprised he is being welcomed into a party whose platform clearly disagrees with a lot of his positions. I'm not a "purity" kind of person, nobody has to be perfect. But one has to draw a line somewhere, and when 50%+ of your positions are big government solutions...

Per the Washington Post:

Andrew Davis, a spokesman for the Libertarian Party, said that Gravel was welcome to compete for the party's nomination, noting that the only requirements for running were meeting the constitutional requirements for the presidency, being a member of the party and being willing to accept its nomination. But he said that Gravel might face a tough sell on some issues -- while the party's membership agrees with his stances against the war in Iraq and the military draft, among other issues, it differs with his stances in favor of universal health care and higher spending on public education.

"He has some libertarian inclinations, but there's still a lot of issues that he doesn't fall into step that perfectly with the platform on," Davis said. "We're hoping once he can become acquainted and see what the party's all about, he can adjust his views."

There are currently 15 candidates competing for the nomination, which will be decided by the roughly 1,000 delegates expected in Denver, who will be partly guided by the results of primaries and straw polls held in some states. The elephant in the room, so to speak, is whether Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who has run for president on the Libertarian ticket in the past, will drop his bid for the Republican nomination and take his legions of loyal supporters back into the Libertarian fold for a third-party run in November. Paul this week reiterated that he has no intention of doing that.

But still, one can dream. A Paul-Gravel ticket? "That would be interesting, no doubt," said Davis.

 

[familydog]

Per the Washington Post:

Yeah, I read that. It's nice to see it again though

 

[JMann]

mike gravel is old.
john mccain is old.


mike gravel, when
obama + ms hillary
duke it out even though
they may be distant
relatives, has bolted
the democrats. now.

obama and his 20somethings
and thirtysomethings is now the
future of the democratic party.


mike gravel, when sensing an instability like 1929
has now joined our geritol/pepsi generation crusade...

I'm 39 and there is no way in hell do I want some 40 year old Marxist/Black Panther kid running the country.

 

[Aratus]

there are three OTHER contenders in the two MAJOR parties! John McCain,
ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton... and ....................... RON PAUL ........................!


technically barack boama's dad is from kenya.
his mother is from kansas and evidently distantly
related to robert e. lee, winston churchill, james madison...etc

 

[Aratus]

Ms. Hillary R.C, in full cajones and steel magnolia mode wants YOUR vote!

John McCain, who DREADs anything au-h20 also desperately wants YOUR vote!

somehow i think RON PAUL already has YOUR vote! if i were HQ i'd run Ron Paul in 2012, even!!!

 

[INforRP]

Lifted from Lewrockwell.com

Gravel on limited government:
"To think that we... that the world can survive without some form of global governance... it's bad thinking."
"The problem is that the world is not mature enough to handle a world government today, and that's the direction we need to go in rather than go back in the other direction which is anarchy and jungle."

These comments were not made ten years ago. He said this in October of last year in a video that surfaced on YouTube.

A "Libertarian" candidate that advocates global government? This is unreal.

I am at work and can't watch the youtube for verification, but one of you can im sure.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016039.html

 

[INforRP]

Here is more:
http://www.gravel2008.us/issues

His issues page provides plenty of reasons, but surely the most compelling reason to reject Mike Gravel as a "libertarian" candidate is because he favors universal government pre-school and the even more ominous-sounding "parent education," whatever that may entail.

Gravel is great on foreign policy, but a war on American parents and children is at least as bad as a war on Iraqis.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/

Huebert, Mike Gravel, like Dennis Kucinich, does indeed pose a serious threat to individual liberty. He's a huge global warming alarmist. And while people bring up his plan to end the IRS, he'll replace that tax problem with a "fair" progressive tax that will slap a 'new tax' on necessities and services (some of which will be earmarked to help pay for his global warming alarmist agenda). And somehow, his new IRS-less government will sort out this massive tax program and decide who gets tax rebates at the end of each month. Another monstrous tax arm would be the result, with this government arm handing out welfare checks each month to citizens lining up for this 'monthly tax rebate check' that he promises will be a part of the tax plan. Like a typical leftist, he loves the idea of people being dependent on government in order to sustain their lives. It's also important to point out that his fair tax is revenue-neutral and this sham includes a likely tax rate of 20 - 25%. And he also advocates a universal health welfare program, of course, and is not a free trader.

 

[Luft97]

From Mike Gravel's Website:

A Personal Message from Mike
March 26th, 2008 by Senator Mike Gravel
I wanted to update you on my latest plans before news gets out. Today, I am announcing my plan to join the Libertarian Party, because the Democratic Party no longer represents my vision for our great country. I wanted my supporters to get this news first, because you have been the ones who have kept my campaign alive since I first declared my candidacy on April 17, 2006.

The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism -- all of which I find anathema to my views.

By and large, I have been repeatedly marginalized in both national debates and in media exposure by the Democratic leadership, which works in tandem with the corporate interests that control what we read and hear in the media.

I look forward to advancing my presidential candidacy within the Libertarian Party, which is considerably closer to my values, my foreign policy views and my domestic views.

Please take a moment to make your most generous donation to my presidential campaign today. $10, $20, $50 -- whatever you feel you can afford.

I want to thank you all for your continued support.

http://www.gravel2008.us/content/personal-message-mike

I'm not sure what I think about this.. I do not agree with him on a few issues but by and large I think he could put us on the right track. It should make things interesting at least. (That is if we don't get Ron a win at the RNC)

 

[INforRP]

From Mike Gravel's Website:
A Personal Message from Mike
March 26th, 2008 by Senator Mike Gravel
I wanted to update you on my latest plans before news gets out. Today, I am announcing my plan to join the Libertarian Party, because the Democratic Party no longer represents my vision for our great country. I wanted my supporters to get this news first, because you have been the ones who have kept my campaign alive since I first declared my candidacy on April 17, 2006.

The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism -- all of which I find anathema to my views.

By and large, I have been repeatedly marginalized in both national debates and in media exposure by the Democratic leadership, which works in tandem with the corporate interests that control what we read and hear in the media.

I look forward to advancing my presidential candidacy within the Libertarian Party, which is considerably closer to my values, my foreign policy views and my domestic views.

Please take a moment to make your most generous donation to my presidential campaign today. $10, $20, $50 -- whatever you feel you can afford.

I want to thank you all for your continued support.



http://www.gravel2008.us/content/personal-message-mike

I'm not sure what I think about this.. I do not agree with him on a few issues but by and large I think he could put us on the right track. It should make things interesting at least. (That is if we don't get Ron a win at the RNC)

A perfect response to this, again from lewrockwell.com:

I like Gravel a good deal. Few Democrats are good on war and guns, and skeptical of the IRS. I always preferred him to Kucinich.

But in his announcement to supporters of his intentions to run as an LP presidential candidate, he writes, "The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism — all of which I find anathema to my views."

This is just hysterical. Of course, FDR created the military-industrial complex. To the extent the Democrats are no longer the party of FDR, that is a good thing -- and indeed, one could argue the GOP became the party of FDR with Nixon, Reagan and the two Georges Bush.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/

 

[Shink]

did you know Barack Obama is related
to Ford, LBJ and JAMES MADISON...???




... and also Brad Pitt???

Don't forget Dick Cheney. Not even joking.

 

[Luft97]

But in his announcement to supporters of his intentions to run as an LP presidential candidate, he writes, "The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism — all of which I find anathema to my views."

Oh I agree, I'm no fan of FDR and like I said I don't agree with everything he has to say, I will say this tho if Ron is not on the ballot in November and Mike gets the LP nomination he will get my vote. Mike did say he wanted to make Ron Secretary of Defense. Here is the YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xYhPtomwCg

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Let's hope that by him being exposed to Libertarianism more, he'll slowly change some of his economic and social policies to more that; Libertarian.

His social policies are right on the mark.

 

[MarcS]

I think Gravel has just as many faults as Barr when it comes to leading the libertarian party. While Barr is good on on the economic side, his record on social issues sucks. Before he left congress he was an anti abortion choice, big military drug warrior. Gravel on the other hand is excellent on social issues, but a bit too socialistic on economic issues.

Both of them have wide appeal to their former parties.

What does this tell me? They should be running togeather on the same ticket. Bob Barr's past history of supporting jack-bootery in the war on drugs, and huge military expenditures, etc can be balanced by gravel, and gravel's support of government funded social probrams can be balanced by Barr. There would be widespread appeal.

 

[G-Wohl]

I don't understand what the big deal is here...

Gravel has a lot of libertarian views, and some that are not libertarian. Name one politician whose every position can defend the party's platform! A lot of people accuse Ron Paul of not following the party platform, and I would hate to think that we all here are becoming our enemy.

Mike Gravel is a really smart guy, with his own very honest and heart-felt views. His presence in the libertarian party will only draw even more people to the party and its movement, and spark much-needed discussion and debate.

 

[familydog]

I don't understand what the big deal is here...

Gravel has a lot of libertarian views, and some that are not libertarian. Name one politician whose every position can defend the party's platform! A lot of people accuse Ron Paul of not following the party platform, and I would hate to think that we all here are becoming our enemy.

Mike Gravel is a really smart guy, with his own very honest and heart-felt views. His presence in the libertarian party will only draw even more people to the party and its movement, and spark much-needed discussion and debate.

Hmm, Ron Paul's positions can defend the Republican platform. That's what he has been preaching for years