Mike Gravel joins Libertarian Party
I just got off the phone with Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory and he confirms the following information: Former US Senator and Alaska House Speaker Mike Gravel has joined the Libertarian Party. Cory says he’ll provide more in a media release to be expected over the next few hours.
Gravel is currently one of the Democratic contenders for president. Wikipedia provides a bit of Gravel’s colorful background:
As Senator, Gravel became nationally known for his forceful but unsuccessful attempts to end the draft during the Vietnam War and for having put the Pentagon Papers into the public record in 1971 despite risk to himself. He conducted an unusual campaign for the Democratic nomination for Vice President of the United States in 1972, and then played a crucial role in getting Congressional approval for the Trans-Alaska pipeline in 1973. He was re-elected to the Senate in 1974, but gradually alienated most of his Alaskan constituencies and his bid for a third term was defeated in a Democratic primary election in 1980.
Third Party Watch covered Gravel’s endorsement of Green Party candidate Jesse Johnson here and Gravel’s libertarian streak here.
This should provide some refreshing news to those insisting that the right-left balance in the Libertarian Party is slightly out of whack. Gravel joins former Republican Rep. Bob Barr as a recent congressional addition to the Libertarian Party fold. Both Barr and current Rep. Ron Paul are “Life Members” of the LP.
UPDATE: The LP statement as well as additional clues about Gravel’s presidential ambitions are located here.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I hope his name gets put into nomination at the LP Convention just to see if he has any support. Should be an exciting few days.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
LOL WUT?
March 25th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Why does he first endorse a Green party candidate and then join the Libertarian party?
March 25th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I think he’s a bit out of his mind.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I’d like to know whether he found out about the progressive alliance strategy-that the LP nominee COULD-if done correctly i.e. outreach to the left & Green party, be the next President of U.S. Admit it if true, Mikey. PS. Even Steve Kubby said the LP is like a plane with only a right wing! (paraphrasing)
March 25th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Now the LP is way out ahead of the GP and CP on former elected officials. Former senator and former cngressman. We had former Governor until Meachem died.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Sean Scallon, sure. Sign him up as a lifetime member & put his name in nomination at the convention. The more the merrier!
March 25th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Finally, someone more delusional than Milnes joining the LP…
March 25th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
“Now the LP is way out ahead of the GP and CP on former elected officials. Former senator and former cngressman. We had former Governor until Meachem died.”
Trent, a cast off flake is a good thing?!
March 25th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Trent: What was that about Governor Mecham?
March 25th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
“I think he’s a bit out of his mind.”
Tom, you sir, are correct.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I’m still skeptical of his economic policy…doesn’t seem like he has a single economic policy that can be desired by Libertarians.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
He brings a message that is considerably more accepted by the American People than the 2004 LP Platform:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8
March 25th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
There goes the neighborhood.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Bob,
When thinking about other candidates or potential candidates, it might be helpful to remember that the only place where the “progressive alliance” strategy could result in an LP presidential win in 2008 is Bob Milnes’s imagination.
Gravel’s a mixed bag policy-wise, but it’s an interesting mix. Filibustered versus the draft, protected publication of the Pentagon Papers, helped shepherd the Alaska pipeline through …
On the face of it, he doesn’t seem to be a worse fit for the LP than, say, Wayne Root. They’re both big-time deviationists from a RothRandian standpoint or whatever—it’s just that their deviations are in different directions.
And, of course, Gravel is a former US Senator, which is about four full orders of mojo magnitude beyond Root’s accomplishments (I’m assuming that whate we’re evaluating here is Gravel’s possible fitness as a presidential nominee).
I’m not sold on Gravel, though. He’s long in the tooth, and unlike Barr (whom I’ve said should wait four years and run a real campaign over a long period), Gravel has been running for some time now … and getting nowhere.
Right now, Kubby or Ruwart still look like the LP’s best bets.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Knapp, you kick ass…every chance you get, you bust Roots balls…that tells me he’s got you and others worried. And rightfully so.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
When I hear Mike Gravel I do NOT think “Libertarian”.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Although Gravel’s positions on such topics as minimum wage, social security, and healthcare are certainly not libertarian, I welcome Mr. Gravel into the party. Just as Mr. Barr has become more libertarian over the past few years, I hope that so too does Mr. Gravel.
As for whether or not Mr. Gravel should run for president as a Libertarian, I would urge him not to (at least not in 2008), and for the same reasons I would urge Mr. Barr not to seek the nomination in 2008.
I remain convinced that Dr. Mary Ruwart should be our presidential candidate in ‘08.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
March 25th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Gravel might make an excellent VP for the LP.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Carl, when viewed sideways: Hugh Jass + Hugh G. Wrekshin = Big Tent.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Alex Peak, haven’t you ever heard, ” May the best man win.”?
March 25th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Alex,
While your point about Barr or Gravel running for the LP nomination has SOME merit, Ruwart just announced. If Barr or Gravel announced, say, next week, don’t you think they have the capacity to overcome this late start far better than Ruwart? They are professionals; she really isn’t, nor is the rest of the LP announced candidate field.
Barr, Gravel, Ventura or even Penny could raise quite a bit more than any LP candidate could. To be clear, I’m not necessarily for them running.
That pros are coming our way is a good thing, all else equal, IMO. This MAY be the beginning of the R and D fracture, which is LONG overdue.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Although Gravel’s positions on such topics as minimum wage, social security, and healthcare are certainly not libertarian, I welcome Mr. Gravel into the party.
I agree on both counts. If we can welcome pro-war, anti-immigration, anti-gay …libertarians (?) into the LP, then why not someone who is solid on those issues but sucks on the economy?
In fact a balance of the two would be great. It would be a great counter-argument to the notion that, now that we have a lot of pro-war and anti-immigration people in the party, we should no longer have an official antiwar, pro-immigration position.
Just as long as it isn’t used as an argument for the contention that we shouldn’t hold any official positions on either set of issues. There’s a reason the Reform Party faded.
As for Gravel as a presidential candidate, I don’t think he has any real chance at the LP nomination, but if he wants to run, why not?
March 25th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Carl, when viewed sideways: Hugh Jass + Hugh G. Wrekshin = Big Tent.
LOL!
March 25th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Barr, Gravel, Ventura or even Penny could raise quite a bit more than any LP candidate could.
Gravel hasn’t raised much at all as a DP candidate. He’ll raise MORE as an LP candidate?
March 25th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Mr. Capozzi:
You write,
Not in 2008. If he becomes more libertarian over the next four years, maybe in 2012.
Mr. Milnes:
The best “man” is Dr. Mary Ruwart. May she win.
Mr. Capozzi:
You write,
I understand your point; perhaps I was too unclear with mine. Dr. Ruwart doesn’t have the celebrity status that Mr. Barr or Mr. Gravel have. Therefore, her late entry doesn’t prevent her from using her non-existent celebrity status to get the long media exposeur I would hope that Mr. Barr and Mr. Gravel would use.
Of course, I have to admit that I’m only guessing here when I say that a two-year election run for the likes of a Barr/Gravel ticket would be better than a less-than-one-year election run. They could milk, I suspect, their fame and use the media exposeur. Whereas I would have liked to see Mary enter the race earlier, I don’t think her less-than-one-year election run will cost her, given that the media likely wouldn’t have started paying attention to her until around now anyway.
Could I be wrong? Yes.
Yours,
Alex Peak
March 25th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I don’t know why the blog chose to embolden certain paragraphs in my above post.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“we should no longer have an official antiwar, pro-immigration position.”
Paulie,
When I joined the LP, I read nothing of being ‘officially anti-war’ or ‘officially pro-immigration’. I do agree with the ‘none initiation of force’ plank. Self-defense is critical. If one is completely ‘anti-war’, that person is a total pacifist, and if the entire country thought this way, well, the survivors of any one of the sure invasions which would have befallen us over the past 200 years would most definitely speak another language, and not of their own free will.
As far as ‘anti-immigration’, I’m married to a foreign national, we just want immigrants to enter this country in the same line and pay the same dues as my wife.
Also, the number of legal immigrants should be controlled so that they may be properly assimilated into our society. If you consider the 4 billion people on this earth that do live in a third world country, and the rate of said peoples entering the U.S.A. at say, 1 million per year, and their multiplication (on our tax dollars none the less), we will have no country in about 50 years. It will be a third world country. We could never support that many folks coming here and multiplying.
So, being totally ‘anti-war’ is a recipe for disaster. And being totally ‘pro-immigration’ is a recipe for disaster. And you, being the Anarchist you are, want just that.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
“look Daddy everytime a bell rings someone has joined the Libertarian Party” I say Welcome aboard, everyone should be welcomed. They might not be 100% libertarian they are still on the correct path.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Paulie, I think Gravel would be a bad choice for the LP for a number of reasons, but let’s give credit where it’s due: Gravel’s raised over half a million dollars this cycle. As impressive as that sounds, look at the numbers again: he’d bring over $100,000 in debt to the nominating contest. While some rich candidates could make that up instantly out of pocket, Gravel went bankrupt in 2004 and has virtually no cash at all (in fact, I wonder where he found $47,000 of his own money to pour into his race so far).
As courageous a guy as Gravel is, I can easily see him bankrupting the LP if he becomes their nominee.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
When I joined the LP, I read nothing of being ‘officially anti-war’ or ‘officially pro-immigration’.
When did you join? If it was before 2006, it was in our platform, and if it was after…well, it still is.
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#iv
The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
As far as ‘anti-immigration’, I’m married to a foreign national, we just want immigrants to enter this country in the same line and pay the same dues as my wife.
Why should anyone have to stand in line or pay dues? I totally disagree.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Also, the number of legal immigrants should be controlled so that they may be properly assimilated into our society.
Controlled? Assimilated? Doesn’t sound libertarian to me. Sounds more like the borg, or something.
If you consider the 4 billion people on this earth that do live in a third world country, and the rate of said peoples entering the U.S.A. at say, 1 million per year, and their multiplication (on our tax dollars none the less),
“On our tax dollars” is a huge myth. Try a subject search at reason magazine under immigration, and do some reading. Try Julian Simon’s books and articles, also available free online. Or read the Case for Free Trade and Open Immigration which is also free online – just enter into google.
we will have no country in about 50 years. It will be a third world country. We could never support that many folks coming here and multiplying.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
we will have no country in about 50 years.
I certainly hope so.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
We could never support that many folks coming here and multiplying.
So get rid of welfare. Problem solved.
Not that “we” are supporting people “multiplying” even under the present system, on balance.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Alex,
Thanks for re-explaining the point to Mr. Capozzi. I’ll throw in with a re-re-explanation:
A candidate like Barr has a lot of credentials, name recognition and fundraising ability. It’s not that getting a late start would prevent him from GETTING the nomination, it’s that getting this late a start would prevent him from USING THE NOMNINATION TO MAXIMIZE THE RETURN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.
If Barr is going to run, I want to see him run at least a $10-$20 million campaign, and that means plenty of lead time to get pre- AND post-nomination max contributions. If he declared right now, he wouldn’t have time to fully exploit his pre-nomination fundraising potential.
If Barr is going to run, I want to see him popping up on Fox News and CNN during the “major primary” party cycle as a dark horse. I want to see a “Bob Barr 2012” tent outside the GOP straw poll in Ames. I want to see him sitting across from Tim Russert after the New Hampshire primary, taking the guts out of the R&D winners. I want to see him speaking at, or outside of, CPAC and drawing a crowd comparable to whomever the GOP is running (even if it’s an incumbent McCain).
Regardless of whether or not one supported Ron Paul’s campaign, one should be able to admit the obvious: That campaign, coupled with Paul’s decision not to go LP once he lost the GOP race, blew any chance that the LP had to run a balls-out presidential campaign in 2008.
I’m not stating that as an accusation—I know a number of Paul supporters who thought, and still think, that it was worth it, and I don’t care to argue the point—but as a plain fact of reality.
The LP is not in a position to use the presidential race to maximum PR/electoral effect this year, and I’d rather see us run a candidate who can pull down 400-500k votes, maybe more if we get lucky, than run a candidate like Barr who might get a million this year but could plausibly get FIVE million in 2012. Hell, for that matter, I’d rather see us run a 300-400k candidate like Phillies or Smith, or a 200-300k candidate like Root, than waste Barr’s possible potential.
If Barr’s as good as he may be, then running him this year would be a waste. If he’s not that good after all, then he’s no better than the field, so why bother?
March 25th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I do agree with the ‘none initiation of force’ plank.
Excellent. Then on what basis does the government make a person stand in line or pay a fee to enter, unless it is the legitimate owner or part-owner of the whole country?
If you wish to say that it is the owner or part owner of the country, it can then legitimately charge rent, set rules, etc., as any owner can.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Mr. Williams writes,
That depends upon whether you define “war” and “defensive action” as mutually exclusive. For example, when we were defending our country from the aggressive British army in 1776, were we both engaged in “war,” or was only the Brits engaged in “war.”
If only the Brits were engaged in war, if our action was something mutually exclusive from war (i.e. defence), then I am completely and totally anti-war at all times.
If, instead, “war” includes defensive action, then I simply hold a disfavourable view toward war.
Assuming it’s the former, “anti-war” does not equate to pacifism.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
March 25th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Self-defense is critical. If one is completely ‘anti-war’, that person is a total pacifist,
OK, valid point. Even I am not “antiwar” in that sense. It’s shorthand.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Paulie, I think Gravel would be a bad choice for the LP for a number of reasons, but let’s give credit where it’s due: Gravel’s raised over half a million dollars this cycle.
As a presumably major candidate in a major party who was on stage with the leading contenders for the presidency in numerous debates and covered extensively (compared to any LP candidate) by major media? That’s downright embarassing.
As impressive as that sounds, look at the numbers again: he’d bring over $100,000 in debt to the nominating contest.
So far as I know, that debt belongs to him and his campaign committee, and would not pass to the LP even if it were to somehow nominate him.
As courageous a guy as Gravel is, I can easily see him bankrupting the LP if he becomes their nominee.
How?
March 25th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Tom, so you are saying Barr’s buddy Ron Paul ruined his chance to run a good LP campaign in 2008?
March 25th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Paulie, it’s my impression that Gravel would first have to raise money to retire his debt before sinking any into a new Presidential run. I doubt the LP wants the first $117,000 of donations to their nominee to go to paying down old debt from a previous race.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
“Regardless of whether or not one supported Ron Paul’s campaign, one should be able to admit the obvious: That campaign, coupled with Paul’s decision not to go LP once he lost the GOP race, blew any chance that the LP had to run a balls-out presidential campaign in 2008.”
How balls-out do you think it could have gotten? There isn’t a candidate announced to date that I can see breaking 500K votes – even had Ron Paul never walked the face of the Earth.
“The LP is not in a position to use the presidential race to maximum PR/electoral effect this year, and I’d rather see us run a candidate who can pull down 400-500k votes, maybe more if we get lucky, than run a candidate like Barr who might get a million this year but could plausibly get FIVE million in 2012.”
Thats the bit that burns in my soul right now, whether Good Barr should defer to Better Barr. I just don’t see this being a year for the LP to write-off. If Barr can push the LP past any symbolic/arbitrary threshholds this year, it seems plausible that the interest generated could be rolled over into more lasting gains. On the other hand, with half of McCain-Feingold looking to run the whole leviathan, I wouldn’t count on the LP being able to put up much of a fight in 2012, even with a rock-solid plan, without making substantial gains this year and in ‘10.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Dude, dudett or tranny, whatever you may be Paulie;
Pre-emptive war bad…self-defense good.
Uncontrolled hoards of immigrants bad…limited immigration good.
Anarchy bad…limited government good.
You’ll probably disagree with 2+2=4, and call it a mathematical conspiracy initiated by the Borg to overtake an AT&T Network or some whacko shit, go borrow BillTx’s gun if Milnes is done sucking on it yet.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I WROTE: As far as ‘anti-immigration’, I’m married to a foreign national, we just want immigrants to enter this country in the same line and pay the same dues as my wife.
PAULIE WROTE: Why should anyone have to stand in line or pay dues? I totally disagree.
You dillhole, you think I agree with this shit?! I just want the goddamn rules to apply to everyone.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Thomas L. Knapp Says:
March 25th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
If Barr is going to run, I want to see him popping up on Fox News and CNN during the “major primary” party cycle as a dark horse. I want to see a “Bob Barr 2012” tent outside the GOP straw poll in Ames. I want to see him sitting across from Tim Russert after the New Hampshire primary, taking the guts out of the R&D winners. I want to see him speaking at, or outside of, CPAC and drawing a crowd comparable to whomever the GOP is running (even if it’s an incumbent McCain).
#####
Minor quibble:
I certainly DON’T wish to see any of “our” candidates using the democrat or republican parties as a vehicle for power or publicity. It makes the LP out to be too subservient to those parties. A la Eric Dondero’s premise (I think).
Rather, I would much prefer our candidates exploit the primary system and actually run in each state that allows opposition parties to use the ballot. Having several candidates actually speaking to the voters during the primary season might be good for the LP.
So skip the GOP “tent”. CPAC is ok, and should be encouraged, as well as other venues, left and right. Otherwise I totally agree with you.
PEACE
Steve
March 25th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
For awhile, I ran a “Libertarians for Gravel” myspace group. Welcome aboard Mr.Gravel
March 25th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
This is insane. I can understand Republicans, small government, but big government libertarian? Don’t understand. Does not compute.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
PAULIE CUT
NPASTED: The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.Yes, and I agree with that…BUT IT DOESN’T MENTION BEING TOTALLY ‘ANTI-WAR’.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
I WROTE: We could never support that many folks coming here and multiplying.
PAULIE WROTE: So get rid of welfare. Problem solved.
LOL…no shit sherlock, why should you even bother commenting on this…what get’s me is you’re on your knees in front of a former Dem (Gravel) who was/is FOR WELFARE?! Holy crap…
March 25th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I WROTE: we will have no country in about 50 years.
PAULIE WROTE: I certainly hope so.
The truth comes out…you don’t care, you want anarchy…’Gravel 2008’ fine…because it doesn’t matter…that’s probably why you’re voting for BHO (a BLA member and part of the ‘BORG’ LOL)...you want to speed up the war that’s looming on the horizon…to fulfill your dream of total chaos…
March 25th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
March 25th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
This is insane. I can understand Republicans, small government, but big government libertarian? Don’t understand. Does not compute.
Agreed.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
What? Knapp strikes again with his utterly assinine remarks.
Ruwart and Kubby better bet for the LP nomination than a former United States Senator???
Look, I’m waaaaaay on the opposite side of the Libertarian political spectrum from liberal-libertarian Gravel. But even I’ve got to admit, this is a fantastic coup for the Libertrarian Party. This is HUGE!
Do you all realize that in the Party’s 36 year history this is the first US Senator to join the LP? Orin Hatch spoke to the LP National Convention in Salt Lake City in 1994. But that was the closest, the LP has ever come to landing a Senator.
My hats off to Shane Cory, Redpath and the National LP. Ignore Knapp. Like usual he’s got his head entrenched firmly up his ass.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
“Look, I’m waaaaaay on the opposite side of the Libertarian political spectrum from liberal-libertarian Gravel. But even I’ve got to admit, this is a fantastic coup for the Libertrarian Party. This is HUGE!”
...have to agree with Dondero here…
:(
March 25th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Ok…time for the daily 9/11 tirade. Who’s going first?
March 25th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Is Gravel still running for President as a Dem? I never heard anything about him quitting the race, and he was “still in it” a few weeks ago.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Mike Gravel may not be Ron Paul, but he has many of the same advantages, namely having put his name out there as a major party canidate. Another advantage is that it was the DEMOCRATIC party, which has the potential to bring Florida and Michigan protest voters in if Obama wins the nomination. ((Assuming the Dems were serious about not seating their delagates.)) Democratic voters in those states may vote for a former democratic canidate like Gravel to protest their partys decision. Obviously, that wouyold lead to an unprecedented percentage of votes in those two states. If we could also get Mcain protest votes, we might even WIN those states, and their electorial votes. ((Yes, I know it sounds like I’m living in dreamland, no need to tell me.)) Is he a perfect libertarian? Probably not. Could we accept him as a canidate to further the Party? Probably. Politics isn’t exactly the place for pure ideology. In my view, the LP exist to push the countries political process in a more libertarian direction. Not perfectly or directly, but in the general direction. I think we should at least consider him as a canidate.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
“This is insane. I can understand Republicans, small government, but big government libertarian? Don’t understand. Does not compute.”
Gravel isn’t a federalist like say, Ron Paul for example. But he’s still anti income tax, anti-war, anti government snooping, and pro-freedom. It makes sense.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Mike Gravel isn’t a perfect Libertarian, but instead of criticizing the man, why not make the best of this situation, be friendly neighbors and let him become “more Libertarian” through osmosis. Many, many people have joined the LP who were less than Libertarian, but who over time became MORE Libertarian.
This should be a coup for both the pragmatic Libertarians (a former US Senator joins the LP) and the philosophical Libertarians (an opportunity to educate someone new and potentially influential).
March 25th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Geez, if Fred’s agreeing with me, I better change my position on this.
Seriously, I just posted an article about this to www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com It’s concentrates on the elected official aspect of the story.
I think the problem you all have here, is that you’re focusing on issues, and Gravel’s possible presential run.
Not a single one of you here, has even mentioned the fact, that MIKE GRAVEL IS A FORMER UNITED STATES SENATOR, AND HE IS NOW THE VERY FIRST US SENATOR TO BE A MEMMBER OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY.
There’s plenty of time to talk about him maybe running for Prez. Right now, you LPers should bask in the glow of having a two-term US Senator as a member of your Party.
Or, do you all not really care about elections, electoral politics, and credibility?
Not even the Greens have a former US Senator.
THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY IS NOW THE UNDISPUTED THIRD LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES.
And as a Republican, I’m going to love using that as a big stick to prod my Republican friends with.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
I have seen one of Mike Gravel’s speeches in person. He is not delusional.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Welcome aboard! and welcome to the zoo!
March 25th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Why would Gravel endorse Green candidate Jesse Johnson for president and say that “Johnson and the GREEN Party have that environmental credibility that we Democrats have lost” and then join the Libertarian Party?
March 25th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Knapp, you make it sound like Barr only has one chance to run for the presidency. Remember Reagan in ‘76 and then in ‘80?
As for Gravel, he thinks he is a libertarian, but is clueless on economics, environment, education, immigration, health-care and social security.
This is all about money. Witness this recent quote from the Reason blog:
“The obvious question: Since Gravel considers himself a libertarian, would he run for the LP nomination? Yes. “I don’t have a big staff, so we haven’t done that yet, but I want to reach out to them. If Ron Paul could raise all that money with his libertarian message, you know, I think I could raise a lot of money.”
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125552.html
March 25th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Hi, I been a long time reader and been a follower of Mike Gravel since the democratic debates. I am registered to the Reform Party so I have no connections to the Lib. party. I just wanted to say that Mike Gravel will be touring the Northeast for the end of March into 2nd week of April. Visiting what looks like Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, & Upstate New York.
Also from late April to early/mid May he will be in North Carolina. I just wanted to let everyone know that so if anyone is interested they can see what Mike is about.
March 25th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
The Senator will be investigating the opportunity to campaign to become the Libertarian candidate for President, however, this does not preclude his current Democratic campaign, nor does it make a run for the Green party impossible.
The Senator would like to become the ‘fusion’ candidate in this election
—J. Skyler McKinley
National Multimedia Coordinator
Mike Gravel for President 2008
smckinley@gravel2008.us
March 25th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Skyler, well that is a rousing endorsement of Mike Gravel’s commitment to the issues that libertarian party members hold near and dear.
Way to piss on your candidate’s parade National Multimedia Coordinator of Mike Gravel for President 2008!
March 25th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
“This is insane. I can understand Republicans, small government, but big government libertarian? Don’t understand. Does not compute.”
Republicans aren’t “small government.” As a matter of fact, they’ve proven themselves, time and time again, to be the party of even bigger government than the Democrats. Both “major” parties talk a little bit about limited government (although usually on different issues), neither of them practice it in any significant way.
And Eric, I certainly have no problem with Gravel joining the LP and agree that landing a former US Senator is a coup. But as far as presidential prospects go, I’m just not seeing any way to make good use of these guys with real vote/media juice if they wait until this late in the race to enter. With the barriers we face, we need LONGER, not SHORTER, campaigns.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
To all Gravel skeptics out there, remember the guy is from ALASKA!!
What single state in the United States has had more success with the Libertarian Party than all others?
ANSWER: ALASKA!!
They’ve actually elected Libertarian State Legislators up there. Their current Governor is a “libertarian” under the GOP banner and actively sought the support of the Libertarian Party of Alaska for her election.
You don’t think that Gravel, who served two terms as a US Senator from Alaska in the 1970s and 80s, at the height of the LP’s success, doesn’t know what libertarianism is all about??
Get real you all.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Mike Gravel is a welcome addition to the Libertarian Party and it will be an honor working for liberty alongside him.
Eric Dondero wrote:
Actually, it’s my understanding that Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire has attended several NHLP conventions and even a few of their Executive Committee meetings. I’m not sure whether he is a member of the NHLP, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Sununu regularly scores very highly on the RLC’s liberty index. He hasn’t rejected the Republican Party by any means though, unlike Congressman Barr.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
In 2006, at the LPNH State Convention, I had a debate with Gravel. We each had a 20 minute chance to present.
Gravel will have one interesting effect on internal LP debates, should he become active. We currently have an anarchist wing and a libertarian wing and pragmatist wing and a Constitutionalist wing. Gravel will provide the ‘so what?’ response to every Constitutionalist saying ‘is it Constitutional?’
March 25th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Hey Jim—
Have some tact and clean your mouth. Skyler is merely citing what his candidate has stated. Who made you the grand vizier?
And to those who think Gravel is “big government”... he views government as a tool that the people can take or leave depending on the situation. He certainly does not view it as the pervasive, military-industrial beast that both Republicans and Democrats are happy sustaining.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Hey Jon, do you guys sell these tee’s http://www.rockabilia.com/product.php?productid=26022&cat=623&page=1
March 25th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
“Do you all realize that in the Party’s 36 year history this is the first US Senator to join the LP? Orin Hatch spoke to the LP National Convention in Salt Lake City in 1994. But that was the closest, the LP has ever come to landing a Senator.”
=The LP still does not have a sitting senator. It has a former Senator.
“Not even the Greens have a former US Senator.
THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY IS NOW THE UNDISPUTED THIRD LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES.”
Because you have a former Senator? Sen. Bob Smith joined the Constitution Party (then the US Taxpayers party) as a sitting-Senator.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
If we could get Gravel into one of those Black Flag IIII tee’s I’d vote for him…hahahahaha
March 25th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Let’s see, hmmm, Keyes to the CP, Gravel to the LP, when do all the other losers from the 2008 election show up in third party land? Root give us some odds. Is our little buddy Dennis Kucinich next? lol
March 25th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
“paulie Says:
March 25th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
‘Self-defense is critical. If one is completely ‘anti-war’, that person is a total pacifist,’
paulie Says:
March 25th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Self-defense is critical. If one is completely ‘anti-war’, that person is a total pacifist,
“OK, valid point. Even I am not ‘antiwar’ in that sense. It’s shorthand.”
Yes, and I am not anti-immigrant, I’m anti-bad ‘immigrant’ (ie-invader).
March 25th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
“If you consider the 4 billion people on this earth that do live in a third world country, and the rate of said peoples entering the U.S.A. at say, 1 million per year, and their multiplication (on our tax dollars none the less), we will have no country in about 50 years. It will be a third world country. We could never support that many folks coming here and multiplying.”
Yes, this is the New World Order plan.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
“Gene Trosper Says:
March 25th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Mike Gravel isn’t a perfect Libertarian, but instead of criticizing the man, why not make the best of this situation, be friendly neighbors and let him become “more Libertarian” through osmosis. Many, many people have joined the LP who were less than Libertarian, but who over time became MORE Libertarian.”
Sure, I’m willing to give him a chance to grow into the party. I just don’t want to see him get handed a spot on the National Committee or as a candidate for President until he shows that he’s achieved this growth.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:10 am
I love Mike Gravel. I can’t think of any politician I agree with more than Gravel. Is he “electable” ? ... No. But he’s a great man who has done great things during his career.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:09 am
Agreed with my friend (and now county vice-chair) Gene Trosper. let Gravel earn his spurs first. Good for him to join, bad for him to be on the LNC, and bad for him to run LP for President.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:43 am
Good for Barr and Gravel to join the LP.. IF they are committed to supporting Libertarian positions and are willing to work to promote Libertarianism. Barr has done little or nothing so far to convince me that he’s legitimately a Libertarian, but considering his background (Mr. Drug Warrior), some skepticism is built-in with Barr.
I honestly don’t know much about Gravel, but I hope this isn’t a case of somebody trying to buy their way into influence within the LP to promote a non-Libertarian agenda. I mean, hell, if buying a Life membership and having been a Senator / Rep under another party is enough to bump one immediately into the upper echelons of the LP, well… what does that say?
Still, until / unless shown otherwise, it sounds like Mike Gravel is now a Libertarian, so “Welcome, Mr. Gravel” is in order.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:47 am
For all you who want Gravel to hang around and be indoctrinated, well the man is 77y10m old, who will volunteer to push his wheelchair and hold his drool cloth in 2012 ?
It’s now or never, he’s joining the LP for the nomination THIS year.
Don’t know Gravel’s views, read’em (& weep?)
See Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)
http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=69496
A few excerpts
By instituting a progressive fair tax—a steeply progressive sales tax—and by dramatically decreasing military spending, my administration would be able to increase funding to domestic programs.
When elected president, I would significantly cut military spending across the board. The United States spends more than any other country on weapons. This is an unnecessary expense and should be reined in.
I would eliminate the income tax and replace it with a progressive fair tax, which would be set at 23%.
When elected president, I would work with Congress to enact a tax on oil to get Americans off carbon-based fuels.
Drug addiction should be treated as a public health issue, not a criminal one. That is why I support decriminalizing all drugs and providing health services to addicts—not putting them in jail.
I support funding education from the earliest years to higher education. In order for young Americans to be competitive in the global marketplace, we must dedicate resources to higher learning. Otherwise, we will be left behind by Asia and Europe.
My plan, called The Healthcare Security Plan, provides standard, quality healthcare for all Ameriacns regardless of health of wealth.
I support an immediate and orderly troop withdrawal from Iraq. This will be followed up with aggressive diplomacy to compel all parties in the region to work toward peace.
When elected president, I will work with Congress to fund education so that all American can achieve higher learning, not just those who can afford it. In addition, students should not be strapped with crushing debt before they even enter the workforce. We have to do more to prepare our youth to be competitive in the global marketplace.
First, I would end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home immediately. This has to be done before we can even hope to discuss bringing peace to the Middle East. Following that, I would cut the military budget in half and redirect those funds to domestic programs, including education. Finally, I would work with Congress to enact the National Initiative for Democracy, a legislative program giving citizens the power to make laws. Representative government is broken and only the American public can fix it.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:54 am
The, albeit small, Milnes-faction is the reason why I keep the LP at arms length.
If the LP becomes some monster right/left, big-tent party, it may still be the “party of principle,” but you won’t really know what “principle” you are going to get when you pull that lever. The LP would inherit everything that is wrong with the Republicans and Democrats.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:56 am
To Trent Hill: You mentioned Governor Mecham in an earlier post. What was it you were sayng about him? Who were the “We” you were talking about in the posting?
March 26th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Paulie’s comment that “he hopes” there won’t be a USA in 50 yrs sort of sums up why so many Independents like myself who are seeking an alternative will not find it in the LP. We actually feel an alleigance and an identity as Americans.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Paulie writes,
Let’s not confuse the country with the state. You hope we don’t have a state, in other words a criminal gang maintaining monopoly control over a given country, in 50 years. That’s no reason to oppose the country itself, which is not much more than a plot of land with a name attached to it.
Mr. C. writes,
Dr. Ruwart will break half a million.
Mr. Williams writes,
I really don’t want to get into a debate on immigration, as I believe this is the wrong venue. But if immigration control is such a good thing, why not control immigration between states, or better yet, between counties? Why not initiate a Soviet-style programme to control all movements? I mean, if we don’t, then we have “uncontrolled hoards” to deal with.
I also want to point out that the government has no control under the Constitution to regulate immigration. Article I, Section 8 mentions naturalisation, which means citizenship. Nowhere in the entire Constitution is immigration mentioned; the fact that the Founders clearly mentioned naturalisation and deliberately failed to also mention immigration speaks volumes to me about their consideration on the role of government.
In the same way that the free market internally regulates businesses, the free market also internally regulates immigration. It is because of the internal regulation of the free market that we don’t have to worry about interstate immigration, and it is because of the very same internal market regulation that we don’t need the government to control any aspect of immigration. (I don’t really mind it controlling naturalisation.)
Finally, maintaining non-market regulations on immigration is extremely bad for the economy. The advocates of non-market regulations on immigration make the same mistake that Marx made: they view people as workers but not also as consumers. Immigrants, because they must consume to survive, create more demand and, thus, more job opportunities. To not let the market work this out (as only the market can) is to limit the growth of our economy and, inadvertantly, make everyone poorer.
Mr. Williams writes,
Most libertarians reject pacifism, but use the term “anti-war” to describe themselves nontheless. If you believe the term is not the best term to use, that’s fine. But I do not think you (from what little you’ve mentioned here) and Paulie actually disagree on war.Mr. Williams writes,
I don’t think Paulie wants chaos, and I don’t believe you do, either. Keep in mind that anarchists, like Paulie, do not believe that anarchism will yeild chaos. In fact, most anarchists (particularly market anarchists) reject nihilism and believe that statelessness will yeild an orderly, free-market system that functions more efficiently than any level of statism can. As such, market anarchists like Paulie are inclined to maintain that government, not anarchy, yeilds chaos.
You want minarchy, believing that a minimal government will yeild the more efficient, least chaotic system. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend that Paulie and you are world’s apart from one another. What we, as libertarians, all believe is that the government is way, way, way too big. We simply have a disagreement on how far we should go. Until we actually reach minarchy, methinks minarchists and anarchists need to stick together.
Mr. Dondero writes,
Mr. Knapp never said we shouldn’t accept Mr. Gravel into the party. His point seems to simply be that Mr. Gravel ought not be our 2008 Presidential candidate—a point with which I agee.
Mr. Al writes,
Unless Dr. Paul is our nominee, we will not win any electoral votes from any non-faithless electors in ‘08.
Here’s what I wrote in another thread:
“As a left-libertarian, I’m more than happy to accept Democrats and Republicans into the party. But supporting universal healthcare is just as bad as supporting the war on drugs. I’m fine with deviations from the plum-line, as long as they’re not too numberous. I’m willing to put up with anti-immigrationists and pro-minimum wagers, but I’m not willing to put up with censoring, heterosexist, pro-drug war anti-immigrationists as a big candidate of ours, just as I’m not willing to put up with pro-social security, pro-government healthcare, pro-minimum wagers as a big candidate of ours. At a certain point, one ceases to be a libertarian; and although that’s a hard line to determine, and although I believe in keeping the tent big, we must be aware that a line (albeit a blurry one) does exist.
“When it comes to our presidential nominee, I prefer a bit of purism. The presidential nominee represents ‘libertarianism’ in the public eye. I’m much more forgiving of deviation from local and state Libertarian candidates than from our presidential nominee.
“I don’t think Mr. Barr is ready for the spot, despite the progress he’s made since becoming a Libertarian. I’m sure Mr. Gravel will make progress, too, but he’s also not ready. Perhaps by 2012, we could run a Barr/Gravel ticket. Perhaps.”
I completely agree with Mr. Trosper, who writes,
I am also in total agreement with Mr. Knapp when he says that
Mr. Andy writes,
The government is breaking the statutory law (see: Constitution) (and natural law) by regulating immigration. Immigrants are not breaking any constitutionally-permissible law (or any natural law). They are only invaders, thus, if they trespass on someone’s private property.
Mr. Ewart writes,
I mean no disrespect to Mr. Milnes, but as far as I’m aware, he is the Milnes-faction. I recommend bringing the LP closer to you, at least bring it as close as your elbow.
Mr. Garofano:
Most libertarians are minarchists, as are most Libertarians. Only a very small minority of us are anarchists, and those of us who are anarchists mean you no harm.
Of the small minority of us that are anarchists, I’d predict that at least half are the anarchist faction, if not most of the anarchist faction, are pro-patriotic. They love their country, but don’t trust their government, to quote that ever-wonderful bumper sticker.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak
March 26th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
The text-embolderer has a mind of its own.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I have to wonder if the reason that Gravel is joining the LP is because he thinks if he runs for the LP presidential nomination, it’s automatically his. I’m sorry but from what little I know of his past he would not be a good choice to bear the Libertarian banner. Kind of like when Ann Coulter called the LP years ago and wanted to run as an LP’er against a liberal anti-war Republican congressman in her district. She just wanted to split the vote and get the democract elected. Sorry, but if that’s the reason then there is no way that I would support him.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I normally don’t reply to arguments made against my posts, I just post my opinion on the matter and leave it that, but this time its different, mainly because my opinion is beginning to change. When I made my earlier post, I knew almost nothing about Gravel, other than he was the democratic equivilant of Ron Paul. The more I learn about him, the more I question whether he is libertarian enough to be our nominee. I’ll have to do a little more research. I not so sure now we should consider him as a nominee. I still think he should be involved in some way, maybe as campaighn manager or something like that, so we can take advantage of his name recognition among Democrats, but as far as being our actual nominee goes, I’m not as sure about it as I once was.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
“I also want to point out that the government has no control under the Constitution to regulate immigration.”
The Constitution does mention something about stopping invasions. I consider people who come here to rob, rape, and steal (including those whose theft comes from riding the welfare system) to be invaders.
The LA RAZA & MECHA crowd openly call their Movement a La Reconquista (ie-conquest) and want to take over and establish Aztlan (which will be a brutal, racist dictatorship).
March 26th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
“The, albeit small, Milnes-faction is the reason why I keep the LP at arms length.”
“I mean no disrespect to Mr. Milnes, but as far as I’m aware, he is the Milnes-faction. I recommend bringing the LP closer to you, at least bring it as close as your elbow.”
LOL @ the thought of Milnes having any followers!
March 26th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
One big opportunity that the Libertarian Party has this year is that there really isn’t a strong independent or “third party” candidate in the race right now.
Ralph Nader is running as an independent again, but his campaign has not picked up any momentum and I think that Nader is going to be even less of a factor this time than he was in 2004, and in 2004 he was not as big a factor as he was in 2000.
Cynthia McKinney is seeking the Green Party’s Presidential nomination and she’s got a lot of potential as a candidate but as of right now her campaign hasn’t done much and she’s got little momentum.
The Constitution Party’s Presidential nomination is a crap shoot right now and nobody has mounted any kind of serious campaign for their nomination. There is a small chance that they could end up with a semi-celebrity candidate but in all likelyhood won’t, which means that they will probably remain in obscurity this year.
If the Libertarian Party can nominate a decent candidate this could be a year where the party could breaks 500,000 votes. Although I’ve got some reservations about him as a candidate, Bob Barr could probably do this.
One big key for the Libertarian Party is being able to attract people from the Ron Paul r3VOLution.
Bob Barr could probably do this. Mary Ruwart or even Steve Kubby may be able to do this (although I doubt that either would pull as many votes as Bob Barr; note that this does not mean that I’d necessarily support Barr over either of them for the nomination). George Phillies has already alienated Ron Paul supporters with his constant attacks on Ron Paul, plus I don’t think that any Ron Paul support would like George’s favorable comments about the Federal Reserve. Wayne Root’s links to the neo-conservatives will be a big turn off to Ron Paul supporters. Mike Gravel’s socialist economic policies will also turn off Ron Paul supporters. The other candidates are not very well known.
Man, I wish that the Libertarian Party had a really strong candidate that would be good at tapping into the Ron Paul r3VOLution crowd. Aaron Russo would have been PERFECT for this but unfortunately he’s no longer alive. Michael Badnarik would be good for this but unfortunately his campaign for Congress screwed up and that killed his momentum for being a Presidential candidate this year (damn shame).
March 27th, 2008 at 6:03 am
DNC/RNC have exposed themselves.
Clintons v McCain = Clintons.
Dynasties & Coronations.
Not this time – not even as VP…
gravel kucinich paul nader
cynthia mckinney too
dare speak truth
demand peace
March 27th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I have lost all respect for this man.
He downplays Ron Paul then courts his supporters behind his back (He has shown up at Ron Paul meetups to brag about his Libertarianism then say some half-truth about Paul). This is not the first time Mike cares about popularity and influence over a firm ideology.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Mr. Andy writes,
I consider ALL people who come here to rob, rape, and steal (including those whose theft comes from riding the welfare system) to be violators of natural law and, thus, criminals—even those born here.
I consider all persons who do not rob, do not rape, do not steal, do not accept money from the government, do not aggress against others, do not hire others to aggress for them, and do not petition the government to aggress for them, as innocent—even those who were not born here.
:)
To put it another way, we would not criminalise drug use simply because some people who use drugs steal. We would criminalise theft. We would not criminalise car use simply because some people intentionally drive into innocent victims. We would criminalise the driving into innocent victims. We would not criminalise guns simply because some people use them to ro banks. We would criminalise the robbing of banks. Likewise, we ought not criminalise the hiring of undocumented workers, and should do away with government welfare, government schooling, et. al.
And the Constitution, if you believe it’s a legal document, allows for the states (under the tenth amendment) to make all the laws necessary, such as laws against robbery, rape, and theft.
If the founders had intended to make immigration itself a crime, they would have mentioned it in the same clause they mention naturalisation.
:)
Those who wish to establish dictatorship are de facto criminals under natural law. There is no reason why the states should not enforce natural law, i.e. arrest attempted establishers of dictatorship.
This has been a problem I’ve had with Dr. Phillies’s campaign. We need to attract the Paulites to the LP, now that Paul won’t make it. I’ve heard from some Paulites that they plan to write-in his name during the general election. Ruwart or Barr could attract these people quite effectively. Dr. Phillies, although a wonderfully intelligent man who is certainly passionate about freedom, shot himself in the foot by focusing on party loyalty. (Most libertarians don’t care a bit about party loyalty. If we did, most of us wouldn’t be here in the first place.)
The other problem with Dr. Phillies can be demonstrated in his sinking ship analogy. He described the Republican Party as a sinking ship. I obviously agree, and would be just as happy as he to see both of the Establishment parties sink. His argument, however, was that to achieve the sinking of the two parties, we need to never throw them life-savers, and always throw them anvils. This approach ignores the manner in which third parties have always made progress under plurality systems. If we throw anvils to most Democrats and Republicans, and throw life-savers to those few Democrats and Republicans who promote libertarian values (in this election I was supporting both Ron Paul and Mike Gravel), we make those not getting the life-savers ask themselves, “What can I do to get one of those?” Thereby, we shift both parties in our direction. But, I would argue, we should only throw life-savers in rare instances. The LP isn’t just here so that I can have someone to vote for without throwing up, it’s here to show that votes can be gained by a libertarian party. Thus, most of the life-savers must come here.
If Dr. Phillies becomes our nominee, I will definitely vote for him. However, I unfortunately don’t think he’s played his cards right in this election.
Last March, I was so, so, so happy to hear that Ron Paul would be running for president. This March, I was so, so, so happy to hear that Mary Ruwart would run.
I think Ruwart has what it takes to lead a strong campaign, because, if for no other reason, she can communicate libertarian ideas very effectively. Jim Lark III is also a great speaker. So is Sharon Harris. This is an incredibly, vitally important thing to have—and the reason I have no intention to ever run for that office. Dr. Paul, as much as I love him, stumbles too much in his short answers.
I also think Ruwart has what it takes to bring in the Ron Paul vote. Their only ideological differences are on immigration and abortion, and Ruwart has no problem pointing out that not all libertarians have to agree with her on all issues. She’s got the anti-war, pro-trade thing down, and doesn’t have the baggage Barr has on this issue.
But if Barr becomes our candidate, I also think he has a good shot of bringing in the Ron Paul vote, given that he was in Congress and can potentially use that to gain attention. But he does have baggage from his past, and I do fear that that might cost him some in ‘08. Virtually no one dislikes Ruwart—her negatives are very low, and her positives very high.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Some of his ideas are Libertarian like, although he needs to preach less government if he wants me to even consider him remotely.
In any case it might be good PR at least.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Socialists strongly criticize McCain’s Iraq War timetable
Stewart A. Alexander
Nominee for Vice President Socialist Party USA
Candidate for Vice President Peace and Freedom Party
May 18, 2008
On March 19, 2008, the U.S. occupation of Iraq entered into the sixth year; now Republican presidential contender, Senator John McCain is saying that “he believes the Iraq War can be won by 2013,” according to the Associated Press. Socialists, nationwide are sharply critical of John McCain’s irresponsible statement to suggest that U.S. forces will remain in Iraq and Afghanistan for another five years. Socialist Party USA and Peace and Freedom Party, both socialist parties, are opposing any further delays or future deadlines that would be required to bring American troops home.
Within the past two months, U.S. casualties in Iraq eclipsed the 4,000 mark, and more than 500 U.S. casualties in Afghanistan. Recent estimates indicate that there are more than 1,209,000 Iraqis casualties due to the war, and there are more than 4,200,000 Iraqi refugees. Recent scientific estimates project that the war will cost more than $3 trillion, and that estimated cost will likely be far too low as the war drags on. Though the cost of the war, in terms of Americans lives, are few by comparison of earlier wars, the Vietnam War, WWI and WWII, and the Korean War, every soldier lost is a lost of life that is shared by family, friends and a nation that is demanding the troops be brought home.
There are many other serious costs that must be considered; many U.S. soldiers will be burden by the cost of the war for years to come. Thousands of soldiers are scared for life; being required to fight extended tours, many troops are suffering mental and emotional trauma; and many soldiers have already revealed that they are not receiving the professional care and financial assistance that should be available from the U.S. government.
Contrary to the claims of the Bush administration and the two corporate parties, the Democrats and Republicans, the war is not to protect American freedoms or our independence, the war is not about Iraqi freedom; the Iraq War is about oil and to stabilize a puppet government in Iraq that will serve the corporate oil interests.
Information available, both before and after the onset of the war, shows that Iraq was no military threat to the United States, it had no weapons of mass destruction and contrary to the claims of the Bush administration, the Iraq government, under Suddam Hussein, had no involvement in the attacks of September 11, 2001. However, in the presence of overwhelming evidence, the Bush administration and the two corporate parties have spent over $500 billion to destroy a sovereign nation.
Senator John McCain is gambling that the road to the White House is to follow in the foot steps of President Bush, promising to fight a senseless and criminal war to advance U.S. imperialism. Unfortunately, millions of working people will be required to make greater sacrifices, at home and abroad, to protect the interests of the corporate ruling class and global capitalists.
For more information, search the Web for Stewart A. Alexander; Independent voters rejecting Democrats and Republicans.
http://labs.daylife.com/journalist/stewart_a._alexander
http://StewartAlexanderCares.com
September 10th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Third party candidates know that they will not win the presidency this year. They should focus on states like California and Texas where one candidate has a big lead. These states can afford to loose some votes with out disrupting the electoral college decision. The more votes the third parties get this year will help them build for the next election cycle. We all know that this won’t happen overnight.