Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel is running for President in the Democratic primaries. At seventy-six, he has been out of politics for two and a half decades. Now he wants back in. And he’s making his strong opposition to the Iraq War the centerpiece of his longshot effort to win the nomination.Gravel’s outspoken performance at the first Democratic Presidential debate in South Carolina on April 26 brought him some instant attention.
Gravel said from the podium that the Democrat frontrunners “frightened” him with their refusal to rule out the use of even nuclear weapons against Iran. “Tell me, Barack, who do you want to nuke?” Gravel asked Senator Obama.
“Our leaders are promoting delusional thinking when boasting that the United States and Americans are superior to the rest of the world,” says the Democratic Presidential candidate.
By the next morning, “the Internet was abuzz with Gravelmania-blogs were burbling and clips showing his debate highlights were circulating online,” reports the New York Daily News.
Gravel was merely echoing a position he’s been stating for months, only this time the media could not ignore him. He told the Democratic National Committee winter meeting in February that because of the “extreme importance of any decision to go to war,” anybody who voted for it “is not qualified to hold the office of President.”
Though the Democrats controlled the Senate at the time of the vote, “the fear of opposing a popular warrior President on the eve of a midterm election prevailed,” he said. “Political calculations trumped morality, and the Middle East was set ablaze. The Democrats lost in the [2002] election anyway, but the American people lost even more.”
Gravel says implicit in Congress’s power to declare war is the power to end it, so he wants Congress to pass a law declaring the Iraq War over and shame a filibustering Republican minority into submission.
“It goes to Bush. He has two choices: End the war or veto it. Obviously he’ll veto it because the good God told him to invade and keep it going, so God trumps the Congress,” Gravel says.
Gravel thinks Bush should be criminally indicted. “He lied to the American people and it has cost us more than 3,000 people,” he says. “They have manipulated the powers of government and thousands of people have perished. Until you do that, our leaders will never be disciplined. They will feel like they can get away with anything.”
For Gravel, opposing a foolish war is nothing unusual. He cosponsored a resolution in the Senate to cut off funding of the Vietnam War. And on June 29, 1971, even as he was hooked up with a colostomy bag and was hauling two large, black-leather valises, he entered the Senate on a new mission against that war.
“I went onto the floor with the flight bags and put them next to my chair,” says Gravel. “Muskie comes over to me and asks, ‘What the hell have you got there? The Pentagon Papers?’ ”
Maine Senator Ed Muskie was on target. Daniel Ellsberg had given Gravel the top-secret Pentagon study detailing government deception in the Vietnam War, which had been published a few days earlier in The New York Times. But the Nixon Justice Department had then shut down further publication with a prior restraint order.
Without a quorum, Gravel was forced into a basement conference room for an emergency session of his Building and Grounds Committee. Gravel read from the Papers until just after midnight on June 30, when he broke down in tears, emotionally distraught over what his country was doing in Vietnam. He de facto declassified more than 4,000 pages. Later that day, the Supreme Court reversed the prior restraint against all publishers but indicated that they would be at risk if they continued to publish.
Gravel not only released the Pentagon Papers and filibustered an end to the draft, he also spearheaded the opposition in the Senate to nuclear weapons testing in Alaska, an issue that led to the creation of Greenpeace. His iconoclastic stands against the draft, government secrecy, American adventurism, and corporate dominance and for public financing of elections, national government by popular ballot initiative, a universal single-payer health care voucher plan, and a national sales tax were essentially laid out while he was still in the Senate. But he believes current times have resurrected those positions and refurbished his relevance.
After emerging from his disillusionment with representative government that stemmed from his 1980 loss in the primaries to State Representative Clark Gruening, Gravel worked in real estate and finance.
He then began a foundation for the study of direct democracy in America. He consulted constitutional experts and conducted ten years of research to come up with what he calls the National Initiative for Democracy. It would greatly expand the power of the initiative process for direct passage of legislation on both the state and federal level.
Gravel says he decided to run for President after a friend suggested it was the only way to get publicity for direct democracy and for his other major issue: what he calls the “fair tax,” which would tax all goods and services at 23 percent. This turns some liberals off. But Gravel says his tax would be cushioned by a “prebate”-every citizen would receive a monthly government check to help offset life’s basic costs.
Calling himself a maverick, Gravel says, “I am not far left. I’m not far right. I’m eclectic.”
He is for a carbon tax on energy companies to fund an international scientific consortium to find alternative energy sources, and he wants to build a nationwide high-speed railway system. He also backs gay marriage and the legalization of drugs. He believes that marijuana should be sold in liquor stores, and that harder drugs should be dispensed only by a doctor’s prescription.
But Gravel’s foreign policy agenda is what sets him apart from the other Democratic Presidential contenders, except perhaps for Dennis Kucinich.
“We have a military presence in 140 countries,” says Gravel, who opposes an aggressive American empire. “Who the hell are we? Who are we afraid of? Are we that paranoid?”
He is the anti-candidate, pricking Americans’ exaggerated opinion of themselves, an opinion that the other candidates, the media, and the schools constantly reinforce. Gravel thinks America can change only by dispelling its comforting myth of exceptionalism.
“Our leaders are promoting delusional thinking when boasting that the United States and Americans are superior to the rest of the human race. We are no better and no worse,” he says, in a highly unusual pitch for a candidate.
Gravel says “we’re number one” is a hollow slogan when the United States is actually number thirty-seven in health care and when 30 percent of students fail to graduate high school.
On the other hand, the United States is number one, he points out, in the production of weapons, consumer spending, government, commercial, and personal debt, the number of prisoners, energy consumption, and environmental pollution.
Gravel’s platform would make him a mainstream Social Democrat in Europe. But in America, he’s seen as either confused or mad.
Even emissaries of foreign governments dismiss him. Asked what he thought of Gravel, an ambassador from a Central American nation told me: “He’s slightly more serious than Pat Paulsen, right?”
Until the South Carolina debate, the American mainstream media ignored him, except for the occasional swipe.
“The larger disaster was the long harangue of former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, a strident critic of almost everything and promoter of a folly-a national initiative process- not even a deranged blogger could love. Someone has to give him the hook before the real debates begin,” wrote The Washington Post’s David Broder, the dean of American political reporters, about Gravel’s speech before the Democratic National Committee in February.
CNN, the New Hampshire Union Leader, and a local television station initially bought Broder’s advice and said they would exclude Gravel from a June debate. CNN said in a written statement that Gravel was not invited because he hadn’t shown “measurable public support.” (According to a mid-March Harris Poll, Gravel, Kucinich, and Senators Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd all had support in the single digits.) But after Gravel’s performance in the South Carolina debate, CNN reversed course and invited Gravel, after all.
© 2007 The Progressive Magazine
I’ve said, for a long time, that we’ll never get leadership out of Washington so long as there are only two parties.
For 2008, the USA has a real, and uncommon, opportunity. An extremely large number of voters are disenchanted with both the Republicans and the Democrats. Both parties have qualified, yet “non-mainstream” candidates. And those candidates, considered non-viable by both parties, are really not far apart on the issues, nor on their vision of what America should be.
It’s almost 18 months until the election. How about a National Unification Party, with Mike Gravel and Ron Paul (in either order) at the top of the ticket, Kucinich on board, strong endorsements from Lee Iacocca and a bunch of retired military brass, and frequent appearances on the Daily Show and Colbert?
Might shake things up a bit, and get some real discussion going!
So long as there are only two parties? You wished there were two, there’s actually only one with two wings, the conservative wing, known as Democrats, and the reactionary wing, known as Republicans (thank you Mr. Vidal).
Gravel is a true leader and a truth teller, so he doesn’t belong in the Democratic Party. To be a true Democrat, you have to speak from both sides of your mouth, which Gravel doesn’t. You have to be pro-war in private but speak against it in public. You have to be pro-corporation in private but pretend to be for the little guy in public. At least Republicans are less hypocritical, they don’t mind looking like the fascists that they are in public.
I have to agree with rjmart01, a new party running people like Gravel, Kucinich, Ron Paul and others not afraid to call ‘em the way they see ‘em (unbeholden to the corporate oiligarchy) would be a great improvement and yes, it would shake thinks up. It would have to have a large public support network to get into official debates and onto state ballots.
James Madison was right. We should have heeded his advice!
None of the other candidates some of us like, not Kucinich, not Gore, not Paul, not even Nader should he run, has a plan to undo the corruption that has always plagued representative government. Mike Gravel is the only candidate that has a plan for pure and lasting democracy, direct and decentralized.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=995fEp7Ci7Y&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clIDr4xVXRo&mode=related&search=
truth-telling would seem to be an appropriate commitment for candidates (presidential or otherwise) in the land of the free and the home of the brave. but that’s obviously too much to expect, as what “the people” want to hear is so often at odds with the truth in this country. “tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies…” could be played at our political conventions instead of “don’t stop thinkin’ about tomarrow…”
The only line we have voted for, ever since I can remember is “more prosperity”.
The new line should be “more reality”.
We have been fooled into believing that we can ALL have it ALL if we just vote for “X”. The truth is we will need to consume less to have a more prosperous future.
The whole country needs to come to this realization before they can see the lie of “American Main Stream Media”.
Would King George afford a Third Party, Secret Service protection the way he did Obama? No, because that legitimizes the importance of a candidate. Obama is the choice of the Bush administration should Republicans loose in 08.
A bird can’t fly with two right wings!
A third party is indeed what’s needed — but a viable one, not some cobbled-together group of the unlike-minded. Leave these mavericks where they are, cats among the pigeons, and demanding some kind of response from inside their parties.
The problem is our reliance on leaders. Emma Goldman, Kropotkin and other anarchists saw this. We can have good leaders, like some other countries do, or we can have a disaster like in our own, every four to eight years. We can only be sure that good government can’t last when we put ourselves in the hands of corruptible representatives. Good government is directly proportional to public involvement. And no form of government has more public involvement than a direct democracy where the people are the lawmakers. For more information on how we can have direct democracy, pure, decentralized and permanent ASAP, click on this link:
http://ni4d.us/
BTW, the Green Party is the largest, international, fastest growing, direct grassroots democratic third party. It’s platform includes every progressive issue and is the only party that can challenge the duopoly’s hegemony without taking corporate and other Big Money bribes.
Though Mike Gravel is a Dem, his plan will make it easy for third parties to participate in politics. Regardless of whether one agrees with all his fine proposals, it is the lawmaking public that will have the last word. This is the direct democracy that has given the Swiss the highest per capita income in the world though it has no natural resources, plus no wars in 160 years despite being surrounded by warring nations.
I really like this guy. THanks ezflyer for turning me on to him.
I am glad Gravel is running within the Democratic party because anyone outside of those two, in my opinion just waters down the “real” possibilities…no one in America is going to elect an independent, libertarian,, green or other party, until there is some shining superstar, like Jesus Christ himself, and we are not there yet.
The problem with Gravel is he does not have as much money, sparkle, or “special” as the token woman, or token ethnic (don’t get me wrong I am not racist)…but Obama and Hillary are (for reasons unknown to me except money) hogging the spotlight, making all others running virtually invisible!
But I beleive in miracles and I DOOOOO beleive portions of the American public are sick of the BS, hype and fascist/consumerist/cronyism rampant these days…whether or not they will vote to change it, and whether or not more than 50% of the people dislike it, remains to be seen.
I do know that nothing will change unless each of us that really wants to see change happen MAKES it happen.
Every town has a Democratic party organization (if my small GA town does, yours must) GET OUT THERE and volunteer.
“BE the change you wish to see in the world”-Gandhi…It’s not just a bumpersticker, it’s a suggested life course!
Knock on doors, stand on street corners with a sign, pass out flyers.
I think it is crucial NOW to get the name Mike Gravel KNOWN, even just heard by others!
I am off to email my friends.
BTW, the YOUTUBE footage of Gravel is awesome.
The “so-call” mainstream media aids and abets in maintaining the status quo in all phases of american life, especially in the areas of international corporations, military expansion,and the illusion that the american people have a “two party” system. Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich made more sense then all of the other canidates combined. I do not think that either of them will ever be elected to the highest office in this country because the american people have been conditioned, imprinted, brainwashed, and programmed to accept a reality that is not consistent with true reality nor of their own choosing because “skynet” has become sentient.
“Gravel’s platform would make him a mainstream Social Democrat in Europe. But in America, he’s seen as either confused or mad.”
Indeed, and that is so sad. I’m voting for Kucinich, but I really wish he would get the nomination and make Gravel his VP; it’s sad to almost be taunted with these wonderful possibilities (not including corrupt right-wingers like paul)only to have them taken away because, in some foolish place away from commondreams, people actually unashamedly support people like hillary and obama.
http://www.dreamingearth.net
I missed the June 3rd debate, but apparently Gravel was given a ridiculously small amount of time to talk, compared to the “big buck” candidates.
“…sponsored by CNN, the Hearst Corporation’s WMUR-TV, and the New Hampshire Union Leader. During the two-hour, commercial-free debate, Senator Gravel was asked 10 somewhat irrelevant questions and then allowed only seconds to answer before being cut off by the moderator. In total, the Senator was afforded only five minutes and 37 seconds of time during the entire debate. The candidates with the most donations from corporate special interests were asked the serious questions, were allowed to speak at length, and were allowed time to respond to criticism.” From http://www.gravel2008.us/?q=node/1360
HOW does it make a fair debate when CNN and the Hearst Co. funded it!
You can see some of his short answers on Youtube.com
ron paul?!? he’s got some good ideas, and his consistency is admirable, but he’s a free market/corporatist wet dream! at this point & time, given the corporations’ power over american life, much of what ron paul has to say is totally unrealistic, if not ridiculous.
Most politicians seem to be psychopaths. One of the main characteristics of psychopaths is a lack of empathy and manipulative behavior.
Hillary seems to fit this definition well, considering how she pretends to be for the common people but is really beholden to the rich. All the while, her “act” is so unconvincing to me. Her cold, scripted demeanor is frightening. Obama seems similar but doesn’t have the same track record. Gore and Edwards may by just slightly less conservative than Hillary and Obama.
Just about everyone I like is “unelectable”: Kucinich, Gravel. I’m an independent thinking of going Green. A 3rd Party is the only solution.
I agree with ballsy. Other than his anti-abortion and immigration stands, Paul is a right libertarian. Some of their ideas make sense. Yet their total reliance on the “free market” is not only unrealistic, but keeps us under the corporate yoke which only serves to concentrate wealth. Concentrating wealth centralizes power, the antithesis of democracy. It is not the purpose of corporations to be charitable or just. It is by law, to be as profitable as they can be. Corporations cannot clean up their act voluntarily unless there is profit in it.
The purpose of government is “to keep the labors of the few off the backs of the many”. To keep corporations from taking over the government and establishing a fascist state. This cannot be done by a few easily bribed politicians. That is why Gravel wants our citizens to be the lawmakers. If two heads are better than one, 300 million are better than 500. A few billionaires can buy our government, but it would be next to impossible to bribe us all.
One of our first direct democratic accomplishments could be to take back our airwaves so the money-power could not skew public opinion against the public.
Paul says Dems are advocating socialism and that may be true. It is also true for the Reps who advocate socialism for the rich. But the problem is not capitalism versus socialism. It is a problem between right or left wing dictatorship versus democracy. And for democracy to last and withstand the assaults of the money-power, it needs the public involvement of direct democracy that Gravel is talking about.
I think Kuchinich/Gravel are the ticket that would really redeem the Democrats and increase that dime’s worth of difference from the Republicans by at least a few hundred bucks.
Ron Paul has a nice demeanour, and I like his stance on foreign policy, but libertarians to me are merely Republicans disguised in “nobody’s business if ya do” chic.
NMBill says, “A bird can’t fly with two right wings!” This is wrong. A bird can fly with two right wings except that it has only the ability to fly in a never-ending circle unable to break the pattern. Politics as usual.
What we need are matched pairs of Greens and Libertarians to agree not to vote for Dims or rips so the spoiler argument become moot and we can get people to break their fear and vote for third parties.
Wow, the excitement mounts. The electricity in this thread is amazing. A savior among us. Or Kucinich….or Paul….or?
Ever wonder why these outspoken but rarely heard through the media candidates are allowed to crowd the campaigns of the two corporate parties? Ever wonder why they don’t have enough money in their campaign chests to finish a race but just enough to ‘keep it interesting’? Ever wonder why, even though these types of candidates pluck our heartstrings on the Left, they never bolt from their parties and lead a national movement?
The answer is easy if one is willing to face the truth. As bold and energetic as their platforms may be, they are still shackled to the belief that corporations are this country’s driving force and that only through continued membership in either corporate party will they have a voice (and a job). The powers that be are quite confortable with allowing these ‘free thinkers’ to keep the progressive community hoping and “involved” in their corporate owned parties. And, as star-struck dreamers for a new America, we will do anything to feel that our hearts and minds are finally being heard. We follow these ‘different’ candidates all the way to their ultimate demise in the grueling campaigns of their respective parties; most often being dismissed by debate moderators and media. When the smoke clears and corporatists are once again chosen, progressives are left standing in an empty field with no where to go. It’s then too late to shift gears and begin supporting a third party that needed our support from the very beginning. And it’s usually too late to gather around an Independent who also could have used the financial and moral support. For many, unfortunately, progressives are duped into being led by their noses back into one of the corporate parties to line up behind the corporate candidate, the very type they didn’t want in the first place. the “lesser of two evils” come to mind?
It’s all a circus and until progressives realize how they are being played in this country, nothing will change. Only when a third party like the Green Party has its ranks swell and its coffers filled will men of honest vision like Kucinich and Gravel have the guts to jump ship and lead a real change in this country. Otherwise it’s political suicide for these men to take the plunge. I think we should re-read Richard Posner’s post above. I’m afraid that this kind of action he’s suggesting is the only non-violent one left for those who don’t want to cave to corporatism.
Partisan politics IS the problem, with two or more parties. Orignally, one achieved ballot staus by gathering enough signatures of registered voters within the district of the office a candidate was seeking. No party affiliation was required. A candidate gathered support on an ad hoc basis, not an entrenched party line.
In Presidential elections, the two party system has usurped the true function of the Electoral College. Originally, a candidate for President must have a SLATE OF ELECTORS pledged to him in each of the 50 States. Before the horseless carriage and the telegraph, there were several candidates across the country, with slates of electrors in some of the states, but not all 50.
Presidential electors were bound by law to vote for the candidate they were pledged to on the ballot, but were free to change their vote on subsequent ballots. With several candidates, a plurality of electors was not enough to win. A majority is requred and this is how our Founding Fathers balanced the various needs of the country, urban, suburban, farmlands, wilderness.
Most important about this method of ballot access is that the will of the people is expressed first. The two party system, does the sifting of candidates in a back room BEFORE the will of the people is expressed.
Just a few years ago, there were only six primaries. The rest were by State Covention. The Vietnam War and 1968 in Chicago ended that, as anti-war voters pushed changes in the election laws to have more say in the choice of candidates. Nevertheless, it’s still partisan sifting, before the people speak.
I would like to see an UnAffilated candidate for President, with a SLATE OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS in all 50 States. In the meantime, I agree that a balance of Greens and Libertarians would be a giant step in the right direction.
Switzerland is prosperous because it does not waste its resources to wage war.
Italy has the highest voter participation in the world, 97 %. Perhaps, because their government has the dignity to step down, voluntarilly, when they lose a consensus.
We in the USA should be so limber and engaged.
There are lots of good posts on this thread, but it’s a shame that so few Americans have an opportunity to hear views not vested by our Monopoly Media.
Help spread the truth, email these postings to your friends and local newspapers.
EDIT
One wonders if we are not programmed by the state to be killer apes. That would serve our masters economic/political aims and thin the hordes. But now the question is: Can we breed and condition enough killer apes to keep up with corporate killer ape demands for never ending war?
Geez, I hate Suits.
.
We are programmed to depend on politicians to make our decisions for us. To think the people are too stupid to make the decisions that affect our own welfare. Some founding fathers thought so too. “The people who own the country ought to run it” they said. The Electoral College was set up to overturn the people’s vote and make sure that the oligarchy had the last word. Our electoral system is a sham and the MSM is their propaganda tool.
The constitutional amendment Mike Gravel proposes would give people the power of the referendum. With this simple act that establishes direct democracy, people would become the lawmakers. In our Bill of Rights, the best of our founding fathers wrote that direct democracy was the preferred form of government. Logistical impediments, now gone, prevented it’s implementation at that time.
Besides giving the Swiss the highest per capita income in the world despite having no natural resources and giving them no wars in 160 years though surrounded by warring nations, direct democracy has given them other unique benefits: No War on Drugs and no drug problem, few crime and immigration problems, the best universal education and healthcare, a healthy environment, no boom and bust economy and so on.
In contrast to the US where over 50% of the population doesn’t vote, the Swiss all participate in self-government knowing that they are the lawmakers. If we can learn just one thing from them I think it would be that trusting ourselves, the people, to make the laws that govern us will give us the best and most lasting kind of government, a pure democracy, direct and decentralized.
I watched the demos debate on CNN from cable t.v. here in Caracas.
Mike Gravel was the surprise of the bunch–the others a bunch of hacks and lackeys–in that he didn’t shit around.
At his age, he has clearly decided that he does not have time for that.
Maverick? Radical?
Who is it that takes our tax dollars to kill and maim around the globe preaching a “democracy” we do not enjoy at home?
The RADICALS and EXTREMISTS are those who currently detain power and keep the American people out of the processes by keeping them working hard, distracted, misinformed and amused.
Pick any bill in our congress. All the sound and fury of their internal “debates” are about which corporate version of the bill has the most backing. We the People are not even there in spirit.
Speaking of spirit, with the current attack on our Constitution, it is more a moment for the Spirit of ‘76 than for the Spin of ‘08.
Gravel and his Intitiative deserve serious consideration.
All voices merit consideration.
Take the Presidential Debates OUT of the HANDS of the DUOPOLY and of the Corporate media and get citizens groups to sponsor them — and not only to include, but to INSIST UPON fresh voices and ideas.
The “third party” we need to embrace people-centered values, an end to this war, and bringing “official” crimes to Impeahment is here already: the Green Party.
That party is already an important, eminently wieldable political tool to pressure our Congress to pay attention to the Americal people’s will to stoop this war. You can “VOTE” for a platform of peace, sanity and a re-birth of democracy simply by registering Green (see: Switch2Green.org for the compelling logic of this action).
We must use every tactic and means to communicate our will that we can. This is surely one of the most readily available means, and its message is unmistakable.
Even for those who see the sense of supporting a Gravel or Kucinich (who in any case will be gone after the primaries), the case for their candidacies is also greatly supported with a burgeoning Green registration. It is quantifiable evidence that can be used to support any and all anti-war candidates. In fact, it is likely the only public means we have to register our opposition the Occupation of Iraq (et. al.) and the War On America have today.
Concerned about Primaries? Look on that website switch2green.org) for tactical suggestions on that.
Gravel makes great points and great sense. Let’s use every ahnce and tool we can to amplify his — and the End the Occupation/War Voice in general — to push this Congress to the wall. No retreat.
I don’t understand why the networks and the party leadership that organized the debates could not find a way to exclude Mike Gravel. He is garnering media attention for his anti-establishment platform, and forcing the top Dem candidates to address some of these things (Hilary and Obama now voted against supplemental funding for the war, which I don’t think was Hil’s original plan, in part because of pressure from the Dem “base” voiced by Kucinich and Gravel). It would have much easier for the Dem front-runners to stay on message without Gravel (as a Congressman Kucinich would have been harder to exclude). Also, Gravel might stick around and be a thorn in the side of the next Dem president like a prophet reprimanding the leaders in ancient Israel. Was someone asleep at the switch? Was the popularity of Gravel’s message and his rhetorical skill underestimated? How did the big wigs at the networks and the party leaderships let this happen?
I’m still trying to understand why any of you people really think anything is going to change soon. You are delusional.
With respect to a couple of posters, I really dont think that a third “green” party is the answer. DOn’t get me wrong, I am green as green can get and would do away with all of the parties and start over if I were in charge.
The US people are still mostly main stream, Dems or Reps, and to try to “Win” an eletion outside of those two, in my opinion-as seen in the last two elections-only takes away from the Dems, which lets the Reps win. Could the GREEN party be a subversive measure by the Reps to take votes away from the Dems?
Just my two cents.
I agree with Sunshine. If we switch to green party now…our votes wont be counted. I fully support Mike Gravel and I believe he chose to run as Democrat because it is the only way he would stand a chance and the only way he would get into the televised debates. Only the Coporist (Repubs and Dems) get in on debates. The media will not cover anyone else because the media is a huge coporation. Think about it!!
I would like to thank Richard Posner for posting about the July 4th protest. I will be joining you for as long as it takes. I had friends the other day as me why we dont protest and I said..we do..the media just doesnt cover it! Lets see media avoid coverage of this one!!
I forgot to say….Someone should invite Mike Gravel to this 4th of July party….
How many people whinging here are in the Democratic party and vote in the primaries?
“How many people whinging here are in the Democratic party and vote in the primaries?”
Me. Registered Dem. Vote in primaries. Voted for Kuchinich last time out.
Hello all I Know that this is like utopian idea in a big country like USA, but USA needs a united socialist US party, like the Venezuelan Socialist United Party
Sunshine-1111, Greg Palast’s book *Armed Madhouse* shows how/where the votes were cast away, and it wasn’t by the sliim percentage of the population that voted Green Party! Republican Party operatives in Ohio and New Mexico, just to name two of them.
The fight for decency in our public life is much larger than national elections. But the value of impeachment lies not only in removing the cancer (pun intended) at the top but also in sending a message down through all the levels of corruption that the game is up.