Gravel signs on for LP presidential debate
In an email sent to Missouri Libertarians a short time ago, Heartland Libertarian Conference organizer Mike Ferguson announces:
Former US Senator Mike Gravel (AK), who recently was a Democratic candidate for President until joining the LP this week, has accepted our invitation to participate in the LP Presidential candidates’ debate in Kansas City.
The conference is scheduled for April 4-5th at the Intrigue Park Place Hotel in Kansas City. Other confirmed participants in the debate include George Phillies, Wayne Allyn Root, Christine Smith, Michael Jingozian and Mary Ruwart.
Other speakers include VP nomination candidate Chris Bennett, former Congressman Bob Barr, 2004 LP presidential nominee Michael Badnarik, Libertarian National Committee Chair Bill Redpath and Secretary Bob Sullentrup, Sharon Harris of Advocates for Self Government, talk radio host (and 2004 LP presidential nomination contender) Gary Nolan, Mark Rutherford of Atlas!Liberty and regional and national libertarian figures of note.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Sounds like fun, but a bit too far for me to drive. Those six presidential candidates sound about right. If the delegates do a straw poll, then maybe the bottom two should finally pull out.
Because some libertarians have serious issues with the libertarian bonafides of several candidates, just what is the mechanism for “disavowing” one if he or she gets the nomination and on Oct. 15th, say, calls for a resumption of the draft, bombing Tehran, and escalating the war on drugs?
March 27th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I’d love to see or hear the debate. I hope there will be an effort made to webstream it or make the files available to the public shortly thereafter.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I would love to listen to streamed audio of the debate. Hopefully that will be available.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
This will be a good opportunity to put the screws to Gravel on such things as one-world government and compulsory state funded health care for all. I’m glad he’s in. But what’s with all the extra “speakers?”
March 27th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
huh? what about Steve Kubby?
I hope you all will dwell on the issue that,
according to the New York Times,
the Democrats,
and BOTH the leading Democrats,
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton,
are “OWNED”
by the SAME CORPORATION
and the SAME FAMILY ! ! !
hUh?
Billionaire Penny Pritzker,
“Obama’s vaunted finance machine”,
is the sister of Jay Pritzker,
who is co-chairman
of Senator Hillary Clinton’s
Presidential campaign.
So, Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton,
PRETENDING to run against each other,
are vastly supported by the
same family
which just happens to own
a sprawling family
empire,
the Chicago Dynasty,
known as the
HYATT HOTEL CHAIN.
Now, do you still really believe
they are really
competing with each other?
Oh, my new business web should be online tonight,
http://EB-5.BIZ
I was so thrilled reading about the
Pristzer family billions and how
they “own” both leading Democratic
Presidential candidates,
that I decided to try to start
my own mega-billion dollar business.
Well, we’ll see how I do…...
My new business is IN-Sourcing,
the Opposite to corporate OUT-sourcing,
bringing money and jobs into the U.S.A.
Libertarians really need to
jump
on this subject, kiddies
This subject is the NEW CAMPAIGN ISSUE OF 2008.
!!
It is all about kicking the poor, poor illegal aliens out of the U.S.A.
while allowing aliens with MONEY
to BUY their way in
You’d better learn this subject
Seriously
Cris Ericson
March 27th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Roscoe;
See the following, from the LP Bylaws:
ARTICLE 12: PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS
1. Nominations of candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States may be made only at the Regular Convention immediately preceding a Presidential election.
2. No candidate may be nominated for President or Vice-President who is ineligible under the United States Constitution, who has not expressed a willingness to accept the nomination of the Party, or who is not a member of the Party.
3. In the event of the death, resignation, disqualification or suspension of the nomination of the Party’s nominee for President, the Vice-Presidential nominee shall become the Presidential nominee. Two-thirds of the entire membership of the National Committee may, at a meeting, fill a Vice-Presidential vacancy, and, if necessary, a simultaneous Presidential vacancy.
4. The National Committee shall respect the vote of the delegates at Nominating Conventions and provide full support for all nominees for President and Vice-President as long as their campaigns are conducted in accordance with the Platform of the Party.
5. A candidate’s nomination may be suspended by a 3/4 vote of the entire membership of the National Committee at a meeting. That candidate’s nomination shall then be declared null and void unless the suspended candidate appeals the suspension to the Judicial Committee within seven days of receipt of notification of suspension. The resolution of suspension must state the specific reasons for suspension and must be signed by each member of the National Committee agreeing thereto. The Judicial Committee shall meet and act on this appeal within 30 days and before the election.
Allen Hacker,
Member, LP Judicial Committee
0March 27th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
We would rather have you here in person
We are planning to stream the debate, as of today:
http://kcxl.com
Tune in to KCXL (1140 am in Liberty, MO) or KCTO (1160 am in Olathe, KS) to listen to the Presidential candidates debate on Saturday, April 5th from 10:00 to 11:30 am (central) followed by a special post-debate program from 11:30 to 12:00. You can also listen live online at kcxl.com.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Thank you Allen Hacker for the except from the LP Bylaws. It answered several questions that were on my mind. Best regards and see you in Denver.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Thanks Rob. I’ll be listening.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
“So, Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton,
PRETENDING to run against each other,
are vastly supported by the
same family”
Cris—My father and brother are both Republicans who work for the party. I am an Independent who agrees with most of the principles of the Green party. So I guess by your logic, Cynthia McKinney and John McCain are in cahoots. Its all a big conspiracy. Families never disagree about politics, right? I’ve never gotten into a heated political debate over Thanksgiving dinner, right!?
March 28th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Thanks Mr. Hacker. Though the remedy leaves much to be desired if a candidate were to pull a last minute surprise – say, “After due consideration, I’ve decided Libertarians should vote for Sen. McCain.” -within a week or two of Election Day.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Roscoe, you aren’t afraid World W.A.R. III might “pull one” are you ? Gravel is more anti war than half the field and probably anti McCain as well so I don’t think you are worried about him. I understand Root has endorsed McCain before, so your concerns deserve contemplating…
March 28th, 2008 at 11:10 am
I want to see Impewacko and Milnes debate Gravel.
March 28th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Roscoe,
You’re right, there’s always a way past reasonable precautions. It’s not a perfect world. The LP would have to be ready with a repudiation statement and press release.
Jerry S.,
Anti-war may be a big issue for many Libertarians, but (a) it’s not the only one, and (b) the LP isn’t officially anti-war, it’s anti-aggression. Anti-war means pacifist to everyone else even if not to those among us who use the phrase, and we are anything but pacifists. Perhaps if those among us who oppose the current foreign adventurism of the US “leadership” {{spit}} would use a more accurate term for their position, they’d get a little further with those others who have found ways to justify that adventurism.
In politics it is always how the issue is framed that sets the parameters of the disucssion. (For example, the discussion about abortion would be quite different if it were about responsibility rather than choice; immigration would be a different discussion if border security were not the context (or vice versa).)
More to your point, would Root betray the party over an alleged pet issue? I think first you must keep up to date with any new member who becomes a candidate, to see whether he is increasingly “geting it” and reflecting that change in his statements. That’s the convention’s task, discerning who would be the most stanle and effective spokesperson for the party.
I haven’t joined into the primary fray, and I haven’t spoken with Gravel yet at all, but I have spoken with and watched Barr, Root and Imperato, and I have seen each make great strides into Liertarianism, all three at an impressive rate.
The caution I ask for against clinging to initial impressions of new members probably applies to Barr least, Root somewhat (as reflected by your concern) and Imperato the most.
Like any other libertarian, each has had to take time to get to know and debate the positions and applications of our Principle. It might be well to note that such discussions don’t happen when the conversation is out of date and centered around past statements and endorsements (Root), associations (Barr), or personal criticism (Imperato).
But that’s always been a failing of libertarians: purity and personality tests being applied too harshly against new people; criticism and one-upmanship instead of mentoring. But that is changing.
Meanwhile, as always, vigilance!
0March 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Jerry,
“Roscoe, you aren’t afraid World W.A.R. III might ‘pull one’ are you ? Gravel is more anti war than half the field and probably anti McCain as well so I don’t think you are worried about him. I understand Root has endorsed McCain before, so your concerns deserve contemplating…”
I haven’t seen enough evidence to allege that Root is a ringer, put in for the express purpose of withdrawing and endorsing the GOP nominee at the last minute … but there’s reasonable cause to suspect that the GOP would not be above making such an attempt.
Every two years (i.e. every election cycle since 2000), the GOP has paid more negative attention to the LP, and for good reason. If one stipulates to the accuracy and validity of the allegation that LP candidates tend to “take more votes away from” their Republican opponents than from their Democratic opponents, the LP has “cost” the GOP, right off the top of my head:
– Slade Gorton’s US Senate seat from Washington. – John Thune’s first attempt at US Senate from South Dakota. – The governorship of Washington (Democrat Christine Gregoire won it in an election that turned on ~100 votes, while the LP candidate polled about 65k votes—can’t remember the GOP candidate’s name). – Conrad Burns’s US Senate seat from Montana. – Jim Talent’s US Senate seat from Missouri.
... and there were others before that (for example, Democrat Harry Reid went to the US Senate over Republican John Ensign, who won the other seat later, when Libertarian Michael Cloud pulled a “balance of power” vote).
I don’t happen to stipulate to the accuracy/validity of the “they stole our votes” argument, but if one does, then the LP “took away” the GOP’s US Senate majority in 2006, and the blokes at National Review and other conservative publications have pissed and moaned about it with regularity.
The LP hasn’t covered “balance of power” in a presidential election yet, but it’s not out of the question that that could happen—Bush beat Kerry by 1.x million votes in 2004.
It would not surprise me a bit if the Karl Rove types decided at some point to try and torpedo the LP from inside via its presidential nomination.
March 28th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Correction—I was thinking in terms of raw national popular vote, and so I forgot:
Harry Browne covered the “balance of power” in New Mexico and Florida in 2000, but since the Republicans were able to prevent a full and accurate recount and steal Florida for Bush, it was to no actual effect. Still, it was probably noticed by any GOP operatives concerned with the LP’s impact.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
BillTX, I would like very much to attend conference & debate Gravel. However, it looks like I will not be able to make it.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I would very much like to see a video of this debate, and I’m sure others would like to see that as well.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Yes, video documentation would be excellent.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Well, if anyone has a video camera I can borrow, I’ll tape it for you.
March 30th, 2008 at 1:29 am
Where will you be posting this? This is directed to the fellow recording this? I have to see this. Frankly, with the candidates the Libertarians have to offer right now, most seem to be running for the nomination, not for President. Except for Mike Gravel. At 77 years old, he has little to lose.