Mike Gravel scheduled to appear on CNN tomorrow

According to his website, Libertarian/Democratic party presidential hopeful Mike Gravel is scheduled appear on CNN tomorrow:

Sunday, March 30 @ 6:30 PM
March 28th, 2008 by Peace Czar
Summary:
Interview on CNN Newsroom with Rick Sanchez

Senator Gravel will appear live on CNN Newsroom Sunday with host Rick Sanchez. He will discuss his recent switch to the Libertarian Party, his candidacy, and the political scene at large, including his thoughts on the other candidates.

61 Responses to “Mike Gravel scheduled to appear on CNN tomorrow”

  1. Hugh Jass Says:

    Is this good for the Libertarians, because it gives us exposure, or bad, because he misrepresents our views?

  2. will Says:

    as someone on the libertarian left i think its funny right wing libertarians think they have a monopoly on personal freedom. im not a gravel supporter mind you.

  3. Robert Milnes Says:

    “...his thoughts on the other candidates.” What other candidates? The other LP candidates or Billary, BHO & McWar?

  4. Steve Says:

    @Robert

    Do you seriously think anyone watching CNN cares what Mike Gravel has to say about the other Libertarian candidates?

    Sen. Gravel is sadly the highest profile member of the Libertarian party at this juncture to the outside world, he’s gonna discuss the other candidates running for President in the mainstream. He sure as hell isn’t going to give any of his opponents in the LP primary any credibility or air time, now would he?

    Idiot.

  5. disinter Says:

    A Barr/Gravel ticket would do wonders for LP name recognition. Would Gravel be willing to take the VP slot?

  6. Steve Says:

    There was this video from a few months ago, I’m pretty sure Sen. Gravel won’t go veep for anybody.

    Let’s not forget that Barr hasn’t even declared yet.

  7. Mike Gillis Says:

    “Sen. Gravel is sadly the highest profile member of the Libertarian party at this juncture to the outside world”

    Actually, I believe that honor goes to Ron Paul, who is a lifetime member of the party. Most folks don’t know that though.

    Odd how in a week, Bob Barr and Mike Gravel have gotten more REAL national press for their potential efforts than pseudo-celebrity Wayne Root has gotten for his.

  8. Robert Milnes Says:

    Steve, Idiot here. I don’t think Gravel could DISS any of his newfound fellow libertarian party candidates on national tv, now could he? The more positively he presents his new party & its candidates the better he appears.

  9. Robert Milnes Says:

    Steve, let’s not forget Gravel hasn’t won the nomination yet either.

  10. Free Al Says:

    Its probably true that Gravel is the highest profile Libertarin we have. Ron Paul is more famous, but as a Republican. Mike will be interviewed as a Libertarian, and will bring more exposure to the Party. Still undecided whether his media exposure makes up for some of his shortfalls, but this interview is a good thing for the Party, at least.

  11. Eric Dondero Says:

    Holy Shit! This is a major coup. For Gravel and the Libertarian Party.

    Now time for the 2nd tier Libertarian Party Presidential candidates who appear to oppose National Media “on principle” to drop out of the race.

    Look at Mary Ruwart. Last week she announced to great hoopla among the Purist “Small Tent” Libertarian faction, and what’s happened since?

    Still has a shitty website. No media. Not even small media.

    Gravel comes in, after 4 days, he’s on CNN.

  12. Eric Dondero Says:

    Free Al, Mike Gravel is a former two-term United States Senator. That’s leaps and bounds above a United States House of Representatives member. There’s 435 of them.

    Gravel is far more credible than Ron Paul ever was.

    And I say this as a Pro-War Libertarian. I can’t stand Gravel’s position on the War in Iraq. May ultimately keep me from voting for him in the Fall. But personally, I like the guy, and I think he presents a MUCH BETTER persona to the American public as a Libertarian standard-bearer than Ron Paul.

  13. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hmmn? Wayne Root is now a “pseudo-libertarian.” I guess that explains why the Advocates for Self-Government have been listing him as one of the “Libertarian Celebrities” for 6 years now. And why the LP itself crowed about him being a “new proclaimed Libertarian” in the pages of LP News a few years back.

    Can’t trust that ole’ Sharon Harris, and certainly not the Editors of LP News, now can we?

  14. Eric Dondero Says:

    Rightwinger Libertarian here, expressing his complete agreement with Leftwinger Libertarian “Disinter.”

    I agree, a Bob Barr/Mike Gravel ticket for ‘08 would be the best for the LP, for it would united both Rightwinger Libertarians and Leftwinger Libertarians.

    I’d prefer Wayne Root. But, this Rightwinger Libertarian could support Barr/Gravel.

    Ahh yes, politics makes for strange bedfellows. Just a saying there Disinter. Don’t get any ideas!

  15. dodsworth Says:

    Eric:

    We agree on Barr/Gravel…..but I thought your key priority was to fight the war in Iraq. Are you willing to sacrifice all of that cause now (assuming the result of such a third party is to deprive McCain of victory)?

  16. Eric Dondero Says:

    Good question. I still may end up supporting McCain. In fact, I think the most likely scenario is that I would support McCain. Cause I think the typical LP delegate is too stupid to nominate a decent Libertarian ticket. Witness the Badnarik dissaster of 2004.

    Getting back to your point, the War in Iraq is already won. Domestic issues are taking front and center. Taxes and spending are coming to the fore. I think by the time November rolls around, foreign policy will be way down the list of priorities.

    So, I’m willing to take a chance on a hardcore limited government LP ticket.

    But all that goes out the window if two things occur:

    1. Another terrorist attack on the US
    2. McCain picks Sarah Palin or some other libertarian-leaning GOPer for VP

  17. Eric Dondero Says:

    Dodsworth:

    My priority is not necessarily to “fight the War in Iraq.” That is merely one battlefield in this decades long War on Islamo-Fascism. And we’ve already won that War, spectacularly even. Perhaps the greatest Military victory in the history of the United States.

    The new battlefield, and the battlefield that presents even greater challenges for the US is Europe. The new War in raging in Western Europe, specifically, Paris, Denmark, and most assuredly The Netherlands. (To a lesser extend Great Britain.)

    With the release of the Geert Wilders film Fitna, this War is now raging Europe-wide. (See the article on the violence that was linked by CNN at our Libertarian Republican blog yesterday).

    I think we all need to turn our attentions away from Iraq, and Afghanistan now, over to winning back Europe from the freedom-hating Islamic Radicals.

  18. Eric Dondero Says:

    I’d be interested to know how Bob Barr, Mike Gravel and other Libertarian Presidential candidates stand on defending free speech, and the Fitna film?

  19. John C. Jackson Says:

    Gravel=Barr > Paul

  20. Hugh Jass Says:

    “Free Al, Mike Gravel is a former two-term United States Senator. That’s leaps and bounds above a United States House of Representatives member. There’s 435 of them.

    Gravel is far more credible than Ron Paul ever was.”

    Even though Paul raised >80 times more money for his campaign than Gravel has, and actually beat two former frontrunners in votes, whereas Gravel is in last place to candidates that dropped out in early January?

    “Hmmn? Wayne Root is now a “pseudo-libertarian.” I guess that explains why the Advocates for Self-Government have been listing him as one of the “Libertarian Celebrities” for 6 years now.”

    In actuality, they hve him listed as a Friend of Libertarianism, which is the same category that liberal Bill Maher occupies.

  21. Hugh Jass Says:

    “Getting back to your point, the War in Iraq is already won. Domestic issues are taking front and center. Taxes and spending are coming to the fore. I think by the time November rolls around, foreign policy will be way down the list of priorities.”

    Since it’s already been won, doesn’t that mean we have no reason to still occupy Iraq? You also realize that spending is a direct result of the War in Iraq, among other things, right?

    “My priority is not necessarily to “fight the War in Iraq.” That is merely one battlefield in this decades long War on Islamo-Fascism. And we’ve already won that War, spectacularly even. Perhaps the greatest Military victory in the history of the United States.”

    And that explains why we must occupy the country or surrender to terrists how?

    “I think we all need to turn our attentions away from Iraq, and Afghanistan now, over to winning back Europe from the freedom-hating Islamic Radicals.”

    And how exactly does an increased Muslim population in Europe present any threat whatsoever to the United States?

  22. Alexander S. Peak Says:

    I would be happy if Bill Redpath, Jim Lark, or someone in the LNC went with him during his CNN interview—to make sure Mr. Gravel doesn’t embarrass the party. For example, we certainly do not want it implied on national television that our party has anything to do with a fascist like FDR.

    As long as Gravel focuses on his non-economic positions, I’m sure he can represent the party well. Small government, end the war on drugs, no censorship, no REAL ID Act, no USA PATRIOT Act, no warrantless wiretaps, protect the right to keep and bear arms, protect freedom of religion, cut taxes, do away with the income tax, the war on Iraq, &c.

    But if he touches on healthcare, social security, the FairTax, or his national referendum initiative, it would be good to have Redpath by his side who can speak up and make it clear that those positions are Gravel’s and do not reflect the party.

    Mr. Dondero:

    The appeal of Ruwart is clear: she is one of the few candidates running—perhaps the only—that can unite the moderates and radicals in the party. She does not oppose getting media attention, despite your rather absurd implication. Her strength is in her ability to make powerful speeches and to, when circumstances call for it, explain the libertarian message in effective sound-bites. She’s has studied libertarian communication more than any other candidate in the LP race, and stands to earn more votes in the general election than any other LP candidate currently in the race, including Gravel.

    As much as I respect Gravel for the things he’s done in Congress, he is not prepared to be the LP standard bearer. The only reason he’s getting this short jump in media attention is because the media can use his switch in parties to boost ratings a tiny bit. A campaign cannot be built simply on a party-switch—Paul would have been able to pull it off, because he was getting loads on money and media attention—Gravel wasn’t. Ruwart has what it takes to give the media the libertarian sound-bites it needs to keep her going throughout the race. Gravel, unfortunately, is looked at as a crank, an angry man with an ax to grind. This already hurts him. Ruwart doesn’t have that stigma with which to deal.

    Finally, it would be a mistake in this election to nominate two old, white males. The media has made race and gender an issue. Because of this, there will be some people who support Clinton just because she is female and others who support McCain just because he is male. There will be some who support Obama just because he is black and others who support McCain just because he is white. We both know this is the unfortunate truth. If we nominate two white males again, we’ll certainly be able to take votes away from white, male Democrats who want to vote white/male and yet who can’t bring themselves to vote Republican—but is that the kind of vote we want to get? Of course not.

    Further, libertarianism is often seen by people as a club for males. There are a lot of women out there who are libertarian but who either don’t know it or who do know it but don’t feel comfortable surrounded by so many males. By running Ruwart, we show these young ladies that we’re for equal opportunity, and that women are as welcome in our movement as anyone else. We stand to gain momentum and members with a Ruwart/Bennett ticket, while pushing away the racists and sexists who somehow think that it makes sense for them to support libertarian-leaning candidates.

    I like Gravel, notwithstanding some of his positions. I think he’s a hero. But I would prefer to see a Barr/Gravel ticket in ‘12 than in ‘08.

    Respectfully yours,
    Alex Peak

  23. Jeff Wartman Says:

    I like Gravel, notwithstanding some of his positions. I think he’s a hero. But I would prefer to see a Barr/Gravel ticket in ‘12 than in ‘08.

    Gravel is wayyyy too old to plan on doing anything in 2012. It’s 2008 or bust for Gravel.

  24. Alexander S. Peak Says:

    Mr. Wartman:

    As I said on another thread, I don’t care about a candidate’s age. I’m not more likely to vote for a candidate because he/she is younger and, thus, closer in age to myself than his/her opponents.

    Why do young people rally behind the likes on Ron Paul or Ralph Nader? Not because of their age, but because the candidates are willing to stand up against the Establishment. As long as Gravel is willing to challenge the Establishment, he will get the support of young voters. Waiting four years to grow one’s libertarian bonafides can only help Gravel. Besides, he has almost no shot at getting the nomination in ‘08, unless he goes VP.

    Yours,
    Alex Peak

  25. Sean Scallon Says:

    Gee Mr. Rittberg, seven of out eight posts in a row? What are you trying to set a record? No wonder you love the Senate, they let you filibuster in that chamber and we all know how much you love to talk, even if it is hot air.

    Thanks for admitting you support McCain.

    Boy you just cannot let Paul firing your sorry arse go can you? Most people would have moved on, found work in the real world. But I guess it’s “Grudges-Are-Us” is where you’re employed at right now. Otherwise you have not made such a stupid statement about Gravel being more credible candidate for the LP than Paul.

    How much more money has Paul raised than Gravel? How many more votes does he have? Who’ supporters are out there as we speak storming state and district conventions? Looks like you’ll need to find another line of work Mr. Rittberg.

  26. Jeff Wartman Says:

    As I said on another thread, I don’t care about a candidate’s age. I’m not more likely to vote for a candidate because he/she is younger and, thus, closer in age to myself than his/her opponents.

    While his age may not matter to you, it will undoubtedly be an issue to others, and to himself. Part of the reason he’s doing this now is because it looks like even he knows that he will be 82 years old in four years. Sheesh.

  27. Jeff Wartman Says:

    As long as Gravel is willing to challenge the Establishment, he will get the support of young voters. Waiting four years to grow one’s libertarian bonafides can only help Gravel. Besides, he has almost no shot at getting the nomination in ‘08, unless he goes VP.

    He must do something, because his economic beliefs aren’t just against the libertarian mainstream, its that he preaches things that we directly have been working hard to oppose.

  28. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Just caught the short segment on CNN…Gravel is doing nothing to reassure economic libertarians.

  29. Eric Dondero Says:

    Huge Ass, in case you haven’t noticed Canada is experiencing a huge increase in Muslim immigration, as well.

    And just in case you flunked Geography class, Canada is situated to our North, right on our Border.

  30. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Sean, keep spreading lies about me “being fired from Ron Paul’s office,” and I just might be tempted to follow through with granting that full interview that an Inside the Beltway Magazine solicited me for on Friday.

    Let’s just say they are looking very, very deep into a certain area of a certain former Presidential candidate we all know well.

    I told them “No Comment.” But hey, keep pushing me by saying I was “fired” and perhaps that “No Comment” may change to something called Spilling the Beans. And if that were to happen, won’t be pretty, won’t be pretty at all, I’ll promise you that.

  31. Eric Dondero Says:

    Alex Peak, maybe Ruwart can unite “moderate” and “hardcore” Libertarians, but she will royally piss off us Pro-Defense and Rightwing libertarians.

    She offers us nothing. She’s Anti-War. She’s Anti-Death Penalty. A total weakling. If it’s Pro-Pacifist Mary Ruwart’s in favor of it.

    Worse, she’s got zero celebrity outside of the Libertarian Party.

    Worse than that, she’s run horrible campaigns in the past.

    Even worse than all that, she stupidly endorsed David Bergland in 1984, the very worst Libertarian Presidential candidate of all time.

    My view is that anyone anywheres who ever had anything to do with Bergland is disqualified from every representing the Libertarian movement in any capacity. All Berglandistas should just go to the backwoods and hide their heads under a rock in shame, including Ms. Ruwart.

  32. Richie Says:

    Hey Eric – some facts would be nice about why David Bergland was the very worst LP Presidential candidate. I’m not saying I don’t believe you… I’m just asking.

  33. Jared Says:

    Did anyone watch the interview?

  34. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Did anyone watch the interview?

    Yep.

    His economic beliefs are so authoritarian it’s scary.

  35. David F. Nolan Says:

    Well, I tried to watch it, but good ol’ Comcast was airing that gasbag Lou Dobbs at the time they said the Newsroom program would be on. Too bad. I would like to hear what Gravel has to say for himself. I don’t think he has much chance at the Libertarian nomination, but having a former U.S. Senator come on board has to be a good thing overall.

    (And the worst Libertarian Presidential candidate ever has to be Andre Marrou!)

  36. Jeff Wartman Says:

    having a former U.S. Senator come on board has to be a good thing overall.

    It’s definately a good thing for a former U.S. Senator to come on board. His coming on board is getting the name “Libertarian” on CNN, and that’s positive. However, his complete lack of understand of libertarian principles is a little off-putting

  37. Eric Dondero Says:

    Richie, glad you asked:

    Ballot Access in 1980 – All 50 states.

    Bergland’s campaign in 1984 – 34 states.

    Libertarian Party membership post Ed Clark Campaign 1980/81 – High of 15,000

    LP membership post Bergland Campaign 1984/85 – Dropped as low as 3,950

    LP vote total for President in 1980, Ed Clark for President – 920,000, 1.1% nationwide, including 3.5% in Alaska.

    1984 with Bergland – 228,000, .3% nationwide.

  38. Hugh Jass Says:

    “(And the worst Libertarian Presidential candidate ever has to be Andre Marrou!)”

    Just wondering, as the party founder, what’s the criteria?

  39. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Eric,

    Actually, I think Clark pulled 11.x% in Alaska.

    Hugh,

    Marrou didn’t poll much better than Bergland, even though he was a former elected state legislator, etc. Also, there were various scandals, actual or manufactured, associated with his candidacy. If I’m not mistaken, one of them involved a paternity or back child support action against him. At one point, someone or someones petitioned the LNC to remove him as the candidate. My recollection is that the petitioner(s) were Michael Cloud and/or Perry Willis, though, so it’s questionable whether there was real cause or whether he just wouldn’t let them at the campaign treasury.

  40. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Apropos of the actual post, I watched Gravel’s interview. Taking into account his pre-existing reputation as a bit quirky and over the top, I thought he did pretty well. He came off as friendly and intelligent, even if perhaps a bit cranky.

    He’s definitely playing the “centrality of foreign policy” card as his prospective ticket to the nomination, and I doubt that the delegates will think quite so one-dimensionally. But if he’s able to sustain the level of media he’s been getting the last few days, and if he continues to emphasize issues he agrees with the LP on, he may be the man to beat by the time we get to Denver.

  41. Alexander S. Peak Says:

    I’m rather annoyed at technology today. I made a post earlier showing that Dr. Ruwart neither opposes the death penalty nor defensive war, but—presumably because of my inclusion of links—the post never made its way into showing up on the blog. (I waited for what I believe was probably over an hour.)

    Maybe I’ll re-write the post some other time. But knowing me, I’ll probably not. Suffice it to say, Dr. Ruwart does not oppose the death penalty, is not a pacifist, and is a pro-defence libertarian. Her comments on the The Advocates for Self-Government website make this abundantly clear.

    Cheers,
    Alex Peak

    P.S. Did anyone YouTube the interview?

  42. Skyler McKinley Says:

    Alex,

    The campaign will have the clip uploaded sometime this evening.
    —J. Skyler McKinley
    National Media Director
    Mike Gravel for President 2008
    smckinley@gravel2008.us

  43. Dave Williams Says:

    KNAPP WROTE: “But if he’s able to sustain the level of media he’s been getting the last few days, and if he continues to emphasize issues he agrees with the LP on, he may be the man to beat by the time we get to Denver.”

    LOL…Anyone but Root aye Knapp?

  44. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Dave,

    No, not anyone but Root. I don’t expect to SUPPORT Gravel, I just expect him to be formidable if he manages to sustain the media and emphasize agreement with the LP.

  45. Eric Dondero Says:

    Ouch. I watched the CNN interview. That was painful. I admit, I was wrong. Gravel talked only about opposing the War.

    While I still respect him as a top-notch candidate who brings great credibility to the LP as a former Senator, I’m unlikely to be able to support him as the Libertarian nominee.

    Though, as VP, maybe? As a Rightwing libertarian, I’d admit that the ticket should be balanced. And if it’s a Centrist Libertarian like Root or Barr at the top, either a Rightwing Libertarian, or a Liberal Libertarian would be sensible to balance things off.

    Mike, you dissapointed this Pro-Defense libertarian who was willing to support you with the CNN appearance.

    Back to Root and Barr…

  46. Eric Dondero Says:

    Tom, Marrou didn’t poll much better than Bergland, true, but he still did better.

    I’ll take 292,000 over 228, 000 any day of the week. With the former number you can fudge it a bit to say “nearly 300,000 votes,” which is the standard Libertarian vote total.

    With 228,000 there’s no fudging. It was an utter dissaster.

    Plus, if I recall, that year Marrou ran – 1992, 4 Libertarians were elected to the New Hampshire State Legislature. And the LP’s membership was on the increase, even with Marrou’s dissapointing showing.

  47. Eric Dondero Says:

    Tom, there were scandals associated with Bergland’s campaign in 1984, as well. There were firings at the National LP HQ, murmurings of money misspent by the Bergland Campaigh higher-ups. Recall, Perry Willis was Bergland’s Campaign Director.

    Also, the Ballott Access drives that year were Keystone Cops. At one point, they missed 4 or 5 states in a row, spending all sorts of money on each one, only to miss them by a few thousand sigs each time. Alan Turin is an expert on this. He was one of those petitioners. He tells the story of the Bergland people first sending him to RI. Missed it. Then to NH. Missed it. Then to another State. Missed it. Then to another. Missed it. Each time paying for room and board, and top dollar for signatures.

    Worst run LP Presidential campaign in Party history.

  48. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Yes, I repeat, Barr/Gravel has to the potential for a step up to Triple A. Very outside chance to get on the debates. LOTS of media potential.

    I’d prefer Barr do most of the talking.

  49. suzie Says:

    I couldn’t get excited about any of the three remaining candidates.

    I just read Mike’s issues – http://www.gravel2008.us/issues – looks like he’ll probably get my vote.

  50. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Eric,

    Just to be clear here, I’m not arguing that Marrou was worse than Bergland. I was just explaining why Nolan might regard Marrou as worse than Bergland.

    If I had to pick a “worst ever” candidate, it would probably be neither Bergland nor Marrou. I recall we had a presidential candidate who polled very poorly—only 173,000 votes—only four years after the LP actually got an electoral vote, cast by that candidate himself, who was a former elected state legislator. It was a pathetic performance, almost 60,000 votes fewer than Bergland (who happened to be the VP candidate on that candidate’s ticket), from a candidate with real name recognition and credentials.

  51. dodsworth Says:

    Eric:

    Getting back to your point, the War in Iraq is already won.

    Obviously, George Bush disagrees with you because we still have 144,000 troops there and the death rate of Americans has increased over the last two months. In any case, let’s assume you’re right. Does this mean that you can link arms with antiwar libertarians, declare victory, and then bring the troops home by 09? If so, I’m willing to call it a victory too! Deal?

  52. Sean Scallon Says:

    Given the fact Mr. Rittberg you have about as much credibility as Joe Iszuzu, let’s just say I’m not fretting and I doubt Ron Paul is either.

    What, you didn’t know Gravel was antiwar? What planet do you live on?

    It really doesn’t matter who the LP nominee is going to be because you and all your cosmo libertarian buddies will be in John McCain’s dog kennel by the summer, singing the praises of campaign finance reform and the Patriot Act while McCain gives you your 100-years war you can watch from a distance, safely I might add.

  53. Trent Hill Says:

    Knapp,

    Roger MacBride was only the LP’s second presidential race—dont know if that’s fair.

  54. frank Says:

    I am debating if name recognition etc. is as important to me as a candidate who echoes my views on the issues. it seems to me that suddenly the candidates are all trying to be celebrities and media darlings instead of sharing the specifics of their platforms and programs. i was watching one candidate on his website where he said tghe fact that he had been on television more than any other candidate qualified him best as a candidate. come on how scary is that. what’s next infomercials?

  55. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Trent,

    Yes, MacBride was only the LP’s second presidential candidate. Remember who the Republican Party’s second presidential candidate was? His name was Abraham Lincoln.

    When MacBride ran in 1976, the GOP had just suffered several major black eyes. Vice-President Spiro Agnew had resigned over a bribery scandal. The Nixon administration had pissed off all sides of the Vietnam issue, implemented wage and price controls and proposed national health care, and the country was in the doldrums of double-digit inflation …

    ... the 1976 election was so wide-open that the peanut-farming governor of Georgia was able to secure the Democratic nomination and win the election. And MacBride, a former Republican state legislator and presidential elector, was only able to pull down 173,000 votes? Pathetic.

    In 1984, there was no doubt whatsoever that Ronald Reagan was going to win in a landslide. Everyone loved the guy, he’d stolen the LP’s rhetoric and even an eensy, teensy tiny bit of its actual economic and foreign policy, and according to Dondero the LP is just the GOP’s beard anyway. Who would expect an unknown like Bergland to do well in an environment like that? But he outpolled Roger MacBride by 50,000 votes even without Crane/Koch support.

    Is any of the above “fair?” Absolutely not. We can pick “best” and “worst” candidates by any number of criteria, and trying to explain why who performed how is incredibly complex and frustrating (hint: Michael Badnarik 2004 polled more than 3/4 as well as Ron Paul 1988 on 1/3 the money and with 1/3 the post-nomination campaign time). So when Dondero goes on for a week about “Bergland. Worst. Campaign. Ever,” I figure it’s worth actually discussing whether that’s a hard truth or not.

  56. Eric Dondero Says:

    Dodsworth, you mean to say George W. Bush disagrees with me?

    Wow, the thought of that will just keep me up at night.

    I lost all respect for Bush with that idiotic Port Dubai deal two years ago. I still like him personally, but seriously question his judgement on the War on Terror.

    Do you know the guy has used the term “Islamo-Fascist” a grand total of one single time in his entire Presidency.

    He’s a Moderate Squish in fighting Islamo-Fascism. He’s offered no help to the Euros who are under daily assault from these Fascists.

    And he covered up for Clinton and Janet Reno for their complicity in blaming McVeigh and Nichols as the sole purportrators for OKC bombing, instead of the real culprits Saddam Hussein and Iraqi Intelligence.

    Bush? Middle-of-the-Roader, right half the time, terribly wrong the other half.

  57. Eric Dondero Says:

    Actually, the exact number for MacBride’s vote total was 176,000.

  58. Eric Dondero Says:

    MacBride increased the LP’s vote total from 2,000 in 1972 to 176,000 in 1976. Bergland decreased the total from 920,000 to 228,000.

    Not too mention the very first elected Libertarians ever won office that year.

    And MacBride got a feature story about him in People Magazine.

  59. Eric Dondero Says:

    Carpozi is dead on. He’s right. Barr/Gravel or Root/Gravel have the potential of boosting the LP up to Triple AAA rank.

    Not the majors, but on the cusp of the majors.

    Ruwart, Kubby, et.al. keep the LP at Single ‘A’.

  60. Eric Dondero Says:

    Sean, no I honestly did not know Gravel was Anti-War.

    All I knew about him, was that he was from Alaska, had a rather odd video on YouTube a few months ago, and made a terrific statement in a debate back last summer about lowering the drinking age to 18.

    During all last year, you may recall, I was totally wrapped up with the GOP primaries to pay much attention to the Dems. If I had any time leftover at all, I spent that watching the LP.

  61. paulie Says:

    Worst LP presidential candidate?

    By objective standards (actual popular performance), Hospers. Then again, he was best by electoral vote total.

    See, I can be unfair too!

Leave a Reply