Gravel now seeking Libertarian nod

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Baltimore Sun

by Matthew Hay Brown

Former Sen. Mike Gravel is leaving the Democratic Party – and his quixotic bid for its presidential nomination – for the Libertarian Party.

“It is a party that combines a commitment to freedom and peace that can't be found in the two major parties that control the government and politics of America," Gravel said in a statement released late Tuesday by America’s largest third party. "My libertarian views, as well as my strong stance against war, the military industrial complex and American imperialism, seem not to be tolerated by Democratic Party elites who are out of touch with the average American.”

Gravel will now pursue the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination. He plans to announce the move today.

Despite two terms in the Senate and a head start in the race – he announced his candidacy in April 2006 – Gravel won no delegates in the campaign for the Democratic nomination. Through Dec. 31, he had raised $428,692 – a little more than Ralph Nader, a little less than Keith Russell Judd, an engineer and musician who is listed on the Project Vote Smart web site as having once been a member of the Federation of Superheroes.*

Read more: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/gravel_joins_the_libertarian_p.html

[Ordr]

1. Whoa.

How cool is this? I love seeing the Libertarian Party get some big names.

[Ganja Ninja]

2. I agree and at least he's not another GOP retread.

[pnwmom]

20. As cool as hearing that the false-progressive Nader is running again.

No real progressive would pretend that handing the election to John McCain is any better an idea than handing it over to George Bush, as Nader did in 2000.

[Ordr]

21. What's a "real progressive"?

And there's no way that Gravel will get nearly as many votes as Nader did when he put Bush in office.

[pnwmom]

30. A real progressive believes in a social safety net, for example.

And for progressive taxation; and for government regulation of corporations and of the environment.

Other than the positions on civil liberties, the Libertarian party has few progressive goals.

[zonmoy]

31. Just the positions of civil liberties make them better than

the way the democrats act.

rather have complete freedom without the safety net than the safety net with no freedom.

although the best situation would be to have the safety net with complete freedom.

[Better Believe It]

45. Oh .... It's Nader's Fault .... Of Course

I thought the Supreme Court appointed Bush and stole the election.

I thought 250,000 registered Florida Democrats voted for Bush rather than Gore.

I thought over 40,000 people voted for various socialist presidential candidates in Florida and not Gore thereby enabling Bush to "win" the election.

I thought more people voted for Gore than Bush.

I thought Gore was automatically entitled to receive the votes cast by any progressive for other candidates such as Nader and socialists.

I thought Gore conducted a rather lame campaign.

I thought Gore had to convince people to vote for them and couldn't count the votes won by other candidates.

Again .... thanks. I didn't realize I and so many others were so mistaken on all of the above.

[floridablue]

3. Yeah Mike !!! My daughter loves you and even contributed

Now you should be on the ballot in Florida and definately have my vote.

[merwin]

38. You're going to vote Libertarian?

Really?

[GOPBasher]

4. Gravel is no Libertarian. He believes in universal health care, carbon taxes for GW,

and many more liberal causes that are the antithesis of the anti-government Libertarian party. I don't get it.

[zonmoy]

5. he is going the way of every liberal that has finally figured out

that the democrats are just going to fuck us over and play to the wealthy at everybody else's expense.

[Ordr]

6. More brilliant words have never been spoken.

:)
(well, maybe a few)

[Ordr]

7. Yeah, I don't really get that part either.

Perhaps he's rethought those policies.

[pnwmom]

18. Maybe he doesn't believe in those things. Maybe he's just another selfish

Libertarian -- wanting the freedom to do whatever he wants and no responsibility for anyone else.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. Looks like some DUers were right about him:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=G3W&as_q=crazy&as_epq=mike+gravel&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

[stimbox]

28. No, that's just the Right wing of DU. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. It would appear that most Democratic primary voters weren't big fans of him either

[stimbox]

40. Especially those on the right wing...

Most other voters didn't know enough about him or the other candidates since they were forced out by the corporate media and the complicit Democratic party.

[noamnety]

29. What's not to get?

We got republicans who do the exact opposite of what they claim to believe in, budget-wise.
We got democrats who do the exact opposite of what they claim to believe in, spending money on foreign wars instead of social programs.

Is party loyalty even still relevant?

[Freedom Train]

47. No, talk about "party loyalty" makes me want to puke.

It conjures up shades of a certain authoritarian regime I'd rather not mention because of Godwin's Law. My loyalty is to America. THAT loyalty is why in a winner-take-all system I will still vote Democratic, since they're the lesser evil, and since a vote for a smaller, REAL left-wing liberal progressive party would in practice be a vote for the GOP. But in a parliamentary system, which I hope we will one day get, I would vote for Gravel or go Green in no time. Gravel is absolutely right in this statement, and that's a sad fucking state of affairs indeed:

"My libertarian views, as well as my strong stance against war, the military industrial complex and American imperialism, seem not to be tolerated by Democratic Party elites who are out of touch with the average American.”

Hear, hear!

[fascisthunter]

8. I'll Wait for Another Source Before Saying Anything about This

What I will say, is if this is true, it is very dissappointing...

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. New York Times: Gravel to Run for Libertarian Nod

By Sarah Wheaton

Fed up with being excluded from the debates and otherwise marginalized, former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska announced today that he will seek the Libertarian Party nomination for president.

That’s right, we said Mike Gravel, who had been running as a Democrat – not Representative Ron Paul, who has run on the Libertarian ticket in the past, but recently submitted his name to appear on the ballot in the remaining Republican primary contests.

Skyler McKinley, a Gravel spokesman, said that Mr. Gravel would try to pursue the Libertarian nomination at the party’s convention, which will be held in Denver on May 22-26.

“Whether or not some of our delegates will accept Mike Gravel with some of his positions, that has yet to be seen,” said Andrew Davis, a spokesman for the Libertarian National Committee, adding that Mr. Gravel’s advocacy of universal health care, paid for with a national retail sales tax, could turn off some Libertarians. Also, there are already about 15 candidates vying for the nomination.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. And from 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

[fascisthunter]

11. I Don't Get It... oh Well

see ya Gravel.

[Jakes Progress]

22. Hasn't he read

anything put out by the Libertarians? He wants to revitalize FDR? For the Libertarians?

[crawfish]

35. The Libertarian platform is still there for defining.

Why does the term "Democrat" have to be in somebody's resume for them to be considered? Sad to say, the longer I'm in this party, the less there is to like. I'd love an alternative.

[stratomagi]

12. He should get Ron Paul to be his running mate.

You know, to build up his libertarian cred.

I wonder if Nader will accuse them of stealing his votes?

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. If Paul wanted to be on the Libertarian ticket, the top spot would be his for the asking

[stratomagi]

16. Probably true.

It would be funny to see them have a libertarian primary though. Imagine CNN or MSNBC going to steakhouses and porn theaters in every state to cover the vote. Everyone who votes becomes a delegate!

[GoneOffShore]

41. Yeah then he could get endorsed by this guy

[ozone_man]

13. He is left libertarian.

The most important issues he stands for are libertarian in nature, such as anti-imperialism, anti-war, anti-corporate welfare, restoring constitutional rights to privacy. So whether one is a left or right libertarian, they can agree on these issues.

It will be interesting to see if the right Libertarians will back him.

[Traction311]

33. They won't

Gun rights is one of the most important (if not THE most important) issue to libertarians. Gravel supports gun-control.

[krabigirl]

42. I'm also a left libertarian, who votes Democrat. Right libertarians won't accept him.

I could see him in the Green party, but not as a Libertarian (r).

[ozone_man]

43. He did throw his support to the Green candidate.

http://buildgreens.blogspot.com/2008/03/mike-mike-gravel-supports-jesse.html

It seems strange to both endorse the Green candidate and seek the Libertarian nomination at the same time. But when you view Gravel as an anti-imperialist, it makes more sense. Green (left libertarian) and Libertarian Party are both anti-imperialist, so they have many related issues in common.

I'm really am Green at heart, and I support most left libertarian issues, even a few big L Libertarian issues.

Mike apparently wants to continue talking about these issues and running under the Libertarian Party would provide that. Of course Libertarians may not like some of what Mike has to say, but there may be some room to negotiate.

Left libertarians would probably rather see Gravel than Paul as the Libertarian candidate. Am I right? :)

[onehandle]

15. He always smelled like a Libertarian to me.

And Libertarians do smell.

Many of his positions are actually pretty good. He would be the least crazy Libertarian I know of.

And that's the nicest thing I'll ever say about a Looneytarian.

[stratomagi]

17. Really? I thought he would smell a little more like old man.

Just sayin'

[Hugabear]

19. He's gonna have to fight Bob Barr for that nomination

Good riddance, traitor.

[onehandle]

32. Go Bob! Where do I send the check.

Barr would siphon off GOP votes like Crazy!

(Emphasis on the crazy)

[Kolesar]

23. Dennis was a candidate with "a different spin" that I liked in the primary

Mike Gravel was one that I did not like. He did not campaign or fundraise. He had a website and then he imposed himself into the debates.

I funded Edwards, btw.

[swag]

24. So that's what was going through his tiny mind as he silently stared

into the camera.

[pbca]

25. Well I guess

we'll need someone to cast a protest vote for if Hillary gets the nod. Good insurance.

[mitchtv]

46. Funny that's what I was thinking

only if Obama wins

[stimbox]

27. Good luck Mike.

Hope you get more support from the Libertarians.

Now there are no progressives running in the Democratic presidential race.

Sad.

[crawfish]

34. That's awesome

I think he could go far in making the Libertarian plank less extreme. They seem to want to support so many things that the dems have forgotten about - like civil liberties.

Anything that softens the wacko stances of some of its members is a good thing. Of course, it also strengthens the wacko stance in the Democrat party when its reasonable members leave.

[brentspeak]

36. I really like Mike Gravel, but there's no need for him to do this

He can speak out against the elitists within the Democratic Party without turning his back on the entire party.

[Nutmegger]

37. I wish he would stay within the party.

The same with Cynthia McKinney. I don't blame them for being frustrated, but they are needed to try and change the party from within.

[Tesha]

49. The party doesn't want to change. It's happy being pathetically useless. (NT)

[cascadiance]

44. With his support of a flat income tax, this doesn't really surprise me!

Ever since that interview he had with Mike Malloy, his true Libertarian spots were showing for me!

Now mind you Libertarians at least are half-way there to reasonableness over their Republican counterparts, but I think they're deluded if they think the Libertarian pipe dream will work.

[noamnety]

48. You are misrepresenting his position.

He's not in favor of a "flat income tax."

He's in favor of a progressive sales tax - no income tax, and a sales tax with the basic cost of essentials rebated to consumers, so those who spend all their income just to stay afloat aren't paying taxes on that.

http://www.gravel2008.us/?q=fair_tax