Don’t Lock Me Out: My Competitor’s Comments Reveal Character Traits Voters Should Know.
Earlier this month, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., made a statement that cleared up the mystery about who has been attempting to limit my participation in Democratic debates and forums. No other Democrat has had his participation limited.
When CNN, along with The (Manchester) Union Leader newspaper and WMUR-TV, did not invite me to their prospective debates scheduled to begin in New Hampshire on June 6, my staff asked why I was being excluded and were told that the senator did not meet some arbitrary “criteria.”
The public’s overwhelming reaction to CNN’s unfairness forced the debate sponsors to reverse their earlier decisions.
An even more surprising mystery occurred next when MoveOn.org, the progressive anti-war organization, excluded me from its online Town Meeting. Its reasoning was that I did not receive any votes from its membership.
The final mystery occurred when the Los Angeles-based Human Rights Campaign chose not to invite me to its August candidate forum. The essence of HRC is justice and civil rights, and my positions on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights are the most progressive of any presidential candidate. When supporters learned of my exclusion, there was such an outcry that the HRC, too, was forced to reverse itself.
The comment by Sen. Clinton, in an exchange with former senator John Edwards at the NAACP forum in Detroit on July 12, explains why these things are happening:
Edwards:
Clinton:
When questioned about her comment the next day, Sen. Clinton, in an apparent attempt to shift blame to Sen. Edwards, said:
“I think he (Edwards) has some ideas about what he’d like to do.”
By implying that it was Sen. Edwards who was conspiring to limit my participation in public debates, Sen. Clinton was trying to deflect attention from her previous blunder. This reveals an interesting character trait in Sen. Clinton that Americans have come to expect from her.
Former senator Mike Gravel, D-Alaska, is a candidate for president.
© 2007 USA Today
Mike, you’re in the wrong party! Stop wasting your time with the un-Democrats. They’re addicted to corporate cash and fear genuine democracy.
I really hope you stay in the debate, the larger pool of ideas we have to draw from the more democratic the process will be. Like you I have major problems with the imperial stance taken by Clinton and I have no longer wish to be under the Bush/Clinton duopoly
Which party would you suggest he sign on with, nickhart?
He should try to get on as the Independent candidate.
The two party system is a complete failure. Presently, only elite, very rich and well connected (likely to corporate interests) individuals can run for President in the USA.
That just about rules out anyone who really want to help, or honestly can relate to, the average American citizen.
Imagine my surprise…
Good question Zoya. I like what Gravel has to say, and would probably vote for him, but I am reluctant, only because to me he seems like he is always bitching and moaning. He expects everyone to just bow down to him because he has the balls to say what needs to be said, when it needs to be said. Good on him for that, but the messenger has to appeal to the voters as well. Unfortunately, to me anyway, he comes off as a bitter old dude who would piss me off if I met him in real life. That said, I will still vote for him if Barack doesn’t step up to the plate, which I distinctly think he might.
Saying the two-party system is a complete failure and there “should” be a third party is like saying the games in Las Vegas are stacked against the gambling consumer and there “should” be ones with better odds.
All efforts so far, even well-funded ones like that of Ross Perot, to get a third party going have failed because the mainstream media will not take them seriously or let them into the game. I wish this was not the case. If anyone is able to get a third party going in a truly competitive way, I’m aboard.
The Greens, the Libertarians and several others have been around for years and have never been able to get themselves portrayed as anything other that “fringe crackpots.” It would take a charismatic leader beyond Gandhi to get such a thing going, and I don’t see anyone appearing in the media like that. The progressives can’t even get anyone other than Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore to talk back with any kind of forcefulness.
Gravel has a hell of a lot more to offer than Barak Obama. Anyone who is honest with the American people has a lot to be pissed about. Only Gravel and Kucinich fit that discription. Obama is an empty media savy corporate candidate and Gravel is right when he says that nothing will change if you vote for Obama, Clinton or the other corporate choices.
CRCox said
” I like what Gravel has to say, and would probably vote for him, but I am reluctant, only because to me he seems like he is always bitching and moaning. He expects everyone to just bow down to him because he has the balls to say what needs to be said, when it needs to be said. Good on him for that, but the messenger has to appeal to the voters as well”
So what your saying is telling the truth isn’t as important as being liked? Hmmm, could that be why this country is AFU? Have you bothered to look at Senator Gravel’s track record and what he’s singlehandedly accomplished for us? (ie the abolition of the draft,reading of the Pentagon Papers etc) This guy is the REAL deal, the rest of the field are corporate lackey’s, a vote for any of them is a vote for the same old status quo…
The National Initiative for Democracy
Government by the People via national ballot initiatives
The National Initiative for Democracy is becoming the first national law since
the Constitution to be ratified by a direct vote of The People!
Written by Presidential candidate and former US Senator Mike Gravel (consulting with many) the National Initiative empowers us to share law-making power with representatives, similar to ballot initiatives in 24 States, but at all levels from national to local and with major improvements (see below.) It empowers We The People to check and balance with legislators, Congress, lobbyists, and money!
Senator Gravel among others tried to get Congress to ratify the similar National Voter Initiative in 1977, but of course Congress refused to share power. Since then, Gravel discovered that the Founders had the same basic problem: the existing 13 Legislatures refused to share real power with the upstart USA. The Founders pondered and arranged so The People ratified the Constitution at the Constitutional Conventions -not the legislatures! James Madison said “The people were in fact, the fountain of all power, and by resorting to them, all difficulties were got over.”(See his 2nd response in the 1787 Debate)
Now we ask you to read and vote to ratify the National Initiative, to make real the promise of “government by the people.” The National Initiative consists of the brief Democracy Amendment and the more detailed Democracy Act. More info is at Senator Gravel’s web site.
Real Leaders Agree
* The Founders would agree! George Washington said “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.” More Founders’ quotes.
* Superlative people agree: Patch Adams to Howard Zinn
* The Economist Magazine agrees: in 17articles!
* Constitutional scholars agree: Popular Sovereignty and Constitutional Amendment by Akil Reed Amar
This vote is no poll. It’s as legal as the conventions which ratified the Constitution. Senator Gravel keeps your email, registered address, etc., with your vote so it can be verified, but will share this data ONLY with the government when ratification is complete: when more than half the people who voted in the previous Presidential election vote for the Initiative. You can change your vote at any time until then. This will take several years.
Why ballot initiatives?
* Initiatives put the people in the drivers seat. Responsibility brings more responsible people: more people vote in States with initiatives. In Switzerland, centuries of national initiatives result in the highest newspaper readership in the world. The mental health benefits are incalculable.
* Initiatives are competition for legislators, which brings more representative behavior from representatives. The National Initiative will break Congress’ monopoly on national legislative power.
* People are less influenced by money than representatives are. This study and book show that people favor “grassroots” initiatives over “big money” initiatives while the Associated Press shows Congress usually votes the way big money wants. Jack Abramoff can’t take us all on vacation!
* When legislators make mistakes they cover them up –to protect their careers & egos. Citizens lack the coverup incentive but have incentive to fix mistakes: regular people suffer more than the privileged. Thomas Jefferson said “The will of the majority is the natural law of every society and the only sure guardian of the rights of man; though this may err, yet its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived.”
* Large, diverse groups of independent people make better decisions. The award-winning book The Wisdom of Crowds shows how and why.
Improvements
The National Initiative makes these improvements over state ballot initiatives
based on a century of state initiatives and several centuries of Swiss initiatives:
* Far more deliberative by having randomly-selected “Deliberative Committees” hold hearings, take expert testimony, and negotiate amendments. Their reports would be disseminated by all media.
* Far easier by qualifying initiatives by poll, as well as petition: if a majority polled want to vote on an initiative, they get to.
* Far less influenced by money, by allowing only individual contributions to initiative campaigns. No corporate or union donations. The Deliberative Committee reports seen everywhere would make big-money ad campaigns much less important, too.
Please Vote to Ratify the National Initiative!
“We want saints and gurus and leaders and heroes because we are lazy. We think they have done all the work, and all that we have to do is just to follow them. You know, when you follow somebody, you’re not only destroying yourself, but the other whom you follow.” -Krishnamurti
http://www.vote.org/
“By implying that it was Sen. Edwards who was conspiring to limit my participation in public debates, Sen. Clinton was trying to deflect attention from her previous blunder. This reveals an interesting character trait in Sen. Clinton that Americans have come to expect from her.”
Gravel right. He is acting as the tribune of the people in this process, as no one else seems to be calling out the absolute mendacity of the leading corporate funded candidates, Hillary especially.
Sad to say, even if Obama is a bit sneaky, he at least keeps the door a bit open, as opposed to Hillary “Thatcher” Clinton.
I have been a Green for quite some time but I will re-register as a Dem to vote for Gravel in the California primary, if his candidacy is still going.
I even sent him a few bucks. He said he was staying in a $55 motel room for the South Carolina debate. That’s the kind of place us working stiffs stay at. Can you imagine Hillary at the Motel 6?
As for being likeable: Remember in 2000 the toadies at MSM told us how likeable W was and how it would be fun to have a beer with him? Look where that got us.
Gravel seems crusty because he says things that a lot of people don’t want to hear.
Go Gravel, give ‘em Hell.
It would help the progressive cause Mike if you would talk with Dennis Kucinich and form some sort of progressive alliance with him–and if you campaign for progressives instead of for yourselves as individuals. You and Dennis stand for we here at CommonDreams are part of, the “progressive community.” Your policies indicate you each are true progressives. I see you and Dennis Kucinich as well-intended, progressive, brilliant, and articulate–and ununifed, individually focused, and selfish. Run to create and sustain a movement while you pursue the presidency. But neither you nor Dennis will form an alliance. Neither you nor Dennis ever talk about yourselves as progressives representing the American progressive citizenry against the corporate Democrats and their republicratic corpocracy. Don’t just run for president as a lone individual! Unite with the other progressive in the race, and run to achieve a takeover of the corporate Democratic Party by the progressives. That’s how we can have a new progressive regime in this nation. (Read Charles Derber of this strategy in Hidden Power: Getting from the Election Trap to Regime Change.) Think big Mike. We like you. Get with Dennis. Represent us.
Frankly, I don’t see what’s wrong with excluding some of the candidates. How about a debate among only those who didn’t vote for the war? Or among only those who favor single-payer health care? Or among those who take the fewest corporate dollars? Or . . . .
Mike Gravel knows and Cindy found out that neither party nor politicians can make a difference unless the people become the deciders and tell them what to do. Mike’s National Initiative does that. The Green Party does that. No other politician, progressive or not, wants to let the people decide. Until the people become the lawmakers, Big Money will be the decider.
Oh, and Mike, I think your campaign slogan should be
“Give em’ hell Gravel!”
Edwards:“We should try to have a more serious, and a smaller, group.”
“serious”, huh? speaking of “serious”:
‘One of the favorite tactics of super-sophisticated Beltway media insiders is to band together and point to anyone who expresses views outside of their narrow orthodoxies and laugh at what crazy and unserious “wackos” they are — in contrast to the very serious-minded, sane and insightful Beltway elite. The current roster of crazy losers includes Mike Gravel and Ron Paul — the ones opposed to the war in Iraq and to American military domination around the world. They are insane lunatics, total losers, not fit even to be heard in public discourse among the Serious.
Thus, we are treated to an endless stream of snide little insults from the likes of Eve Fairbanks and Joe Klein scoffing at these “lunatics.” And, as we all know, in 2004 Howard Dean was completely crazy — a total wacko — and Al Gore is vaguely insane, too.
By contrast, the pundits of The New Republic and Time who cheered on George Bush’s invasion of Iraq and who work for Marty Peretz and who defend George Bush’s lawbreaking and who spent years treating Dick Cheney like royalty and who carefully ponder with Great Angst whether we should start a new war with Iran are the deeply serious, very sane, mainstream thinkers who can banish the nerdy anti-war outcasts to the “lunatic fringes.”’
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/26/2786/
vin:
Big Money picks the candidate and airs selectively. At least together, their disfavored get a tiny bit of airtime. BM would not air anyone favoring single payer or against corporate bribes. If they do, it’s to ridicule the candidate.
Mike Gravel, you sounded like a total nutcase when Mike Malloy interviewed you…if you can label that an interview.
I was open-minded about you until I heard your disconnected ramblings, your patronizing attitude, your interruptions.
Malloy exploded at you; I would have done the same thing. Were you drunk or something?
Everybody should listen to that interview because you came across as utterly goofy, with an air of being smarter than anybody else.
Accusations you make about the other candidates should be taken with a grain of salt. I can understand why the other candidates would want to limit you: You lack finesse and savvy. I can just imagine what kind of diplomacy you’d bring to the table.
Sorry, but you can’t win my sympathy.
“The only thing worse than soldiers dying in vain is more soldiers dying in vain”
That’s all he has to say-
You can take all the phony posturing, the dissembling, the bold-faced lies and the parsed deceptions all delivered in a slick, poll-tested scripted programmed, smug performance and give me the outraged and unpolished Gravel anyday.
Kistina40: You have indeed misread my point, although I didn’t do a great job of making it clear. I am merely saying that Gravel is a offputting to me, personally. He is very self-centered, and seems to much the slighted uncle. I’m sorry, but it is time that our candidates speak the truth as a basic pre-requisite for getting the job. So all I am saying is that having the guts to say what needs to be said, when it needs to be said, is not the only damn requirement if you are going to get my vote. For example, I like Kucinich a hell of a lot. I like his vibe, his stance, and the way he puts it out there. He is optimistic, yet quite fearless about putting out the truth. He’s not so damn bitchy about it all. In conclusion, I did indeed say Gravel may get my vote if Barack - who I still think has not shown his true colors yet - does not step up to the plate. I could go for Kucinich too. In other words I am very open at this point.
My father is a Vietnam vet, so believe me I have read all about Gravel more than once. The guy is a damn hero. It doesn’t mean I like his vibe though. Am I clearer now.
He may still get my vote though.
Sorry, one other thing: Part of the reason he bothers me is he wrote an article about how all the other are scheming to keep him out of the debates, like we don’t already know that! I’m sick of hearing about it. If he’s mad enough, he should pounding the grassroots like Paul Wellstone did.
“…smug performance and give me the outraged and unpolished Gravel anyday.”
Yeah, well, we live in a world of dictators and evil people, and diplomacy is not a nicety, but a necessity.
Gravel and George W. Bush were seemingly separated at birth when it comes to the diplomacy factor.
Man–have to wonder about the cognitive dissonance in these parts.
Ah yes, da evildoers..You mean like the big meany Chavez who Hillary got all huffy about having to extend a diplomatic overture with?
Gravel is forced to get his two cents in a milisecond –little wonder he is annoyed. He has good reason to be since he and Kucinich, who has no time to breath between words, are the only ones with something of substance to say.
This knee-jerk allegiance to the trappings of conventional establishment models as the exemplars of credibility is blindness. Nothing like identification with those who would sooner send you to die if it increaced their electibility odds.
Had Enough:
Here is the Mike Gravel, Mike Malloy interview. I think people here might find that YOUR accusations should be taken with a grain of salt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iabtQPvEH8
Funny, I thought the Democrat Party was supposed to be…umm…DEMOCRATIC..
It should be renamed the Republican Lite Party
All the fascism with half the calories
Does Edwards mean that More Serious = Less Females and blacks?
The all-white uptight swinging dicks Republican hopefuls all look pretty serious…seriously trying to turn the USA into a Fascist State, but serious none-the-less.
To my way of thinking, the guy who stood up in congress and exposed the Pentagon Papers, that effectivly ended the draft, is the most serious candidate there.
What are the alternatives?
a “Wife Of” an adulteror who didn’t read the NIE but voted for war anyways?
A failed VP contender with a nice haircut?
A wet behind the ears 1st termer with no track record?
Great article Mike. The only two progressives in the Democratic Party are you and Kucinich. Looks like I will be voting for Nader again for the 4th presidental election in a row.
It just keeps getting worse every year with the corporate candidates: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.
These people suck…
To Mike Malloy:
In reference to your “interview” with Senator Mike Gravel:
You behaved like the democrat version of O’Reilly. I can’t believe that you tied into him, castigating the accomplished elder statesman, condescending to him as if he were a child. All for not agreeing with your view of Kucinich? For talking the way he does? For trying to talk around your constant interruptions without letting him make a point? For trying to make a point despite your drilling him like a prosecutor? You didn’t even try to understand what he was saying. You ignored what he said and came off as an ignorant, cynical, arrogant, loudmouth asshole who REALLY doesn’t know what ANYBODY is talking about, as you said yourself. Did you really read Gravel’s site? It’s fairly obvious to us who have, that neither you nor the dittoheads who agreed with your assessment of him, that you did not.
If you are a progressive, by ridiculing Senator Gravel, you’re shooting yourself in the foot. You may have been planted there to destroy him, or you’re just a reactionary, but things backfired on you. It really galls me when a person who has not sold out, is viciously attacked. On the other hand, it’s good to know who the real progressives are and you’re not one of them. The majority of comments on YouTube are against you. You showed your true colors and lost this part of your audience.
Sorry folks, I take it all back! There is no way Gravel will get my vote. This guy is FAR to optimistic in his judgment of direct democracy as the ruling regime. I just listened to most of the Mike Malloy interview, and I have to 100% whole heartedly disagree with “ezeflyer” on his synopsis of the interview. First of all, anyone who has spent time listening to Mike Malloy has to know that he is by nature pissed and impatient. Nevertheless, extremely intelligent and a killer study of history. I thought Gravel was totally condescending, pompous, and naive in his assumption that mob rule would work so damn well in a country of over 300 million people. He is simply out of his mind!
Thank you for pointing us in the direction of the interview. Anyone in their right mind would like some of what Gravel is suggesting, but be very uncertain about most of the rest of it. Come on Mr. Gravel, wake up and smell the coffee! He was even so pompous as to say that Kucinich is “politics as usual.” Wow.
I tend to see the “top three” democrats driving their horses in tandem for a specific goal: Clinton/Obama, 2008
.
.
Slightly off topic, has anyone asked Mike Gravel about his (former?) affiliation with the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alexis_de_Tocqueville_Institution
*sigh* CRCox, so what you are now saying is honesty isn’t important but being liked is AND the people of this country are too stupid to be allowed to make their own decisions about how they want to live? Perhaps you should vote Republican after all…
Gravel’s exclusion from these debates is an act of POLITICAL BIGOTRY! This is the way the corporate parties maintain a stranglehold on democracy; the odd thing is that the Democrats are sweeping one of their own under the rug this time. Their usual MO is to exclude ballot-qualified third-party and independent candidates in order to ensure that only their “approved” candidates get all the airtime and exposure.
Remember: Independent candidate Jesse Ventura, who was way behind in the polls when he ran for governor of Minnesota, managed to get on the televised debates and against all odds went on to win the election. There is no doubt that being seen and heard by the millions of people who watched the debates on television was a major factor in his election.
That is why the Commission on Presidential Debates (www.debates.org/) excluded Nader from the presidential debates in 2000 and 2004 and why Gravel is being excluded from the debates in the Democratic primary. The status quo power brokers know that being seen in the debates can mean even more than money when it comes to establishing a candidate’s “viability” and raising awareness of his or her positions on the issues, and they don’t want any surprises coming from from any troublesome “outsiders.”
There hasn’t been much happening on the Citizens Debate Commission (www.citizensdebate.org) or Open Debates (www.opendebates.org) websites lately, but it is time to get behind some serious efforts to reform this crucial element of our political system. When the time comes for the general election, the bi-partisan (meaning “duopolist”) Commission on Presidential Debates will be back to its old tricks of severely limiting the voices and choices we are allowed to hear and see, and that is not acceptable.
Let Gravel debate! Unless ALL the candidates are present, THERE IS NO DEBATE!
Kristina40: The whole being liked is more important that honest thing is you trying to put words in my mouth. And you still have not acknowledged that in my original post what I had said about Gravel maybe still getting my vote after all. However, that’s mute now, because he won’t get it either way.
For your information, I think the location of Gravel and Kucinich on the political linear map is barely acceptable for me, so suggesting that I should vote Republican is quite ridiculous. What I am saying is that think Gravel is delusional. He has some good ideas, no doubt, but mob rule is has never historically worked out. He gives Switzerland as an example of working direct democracy, and I would even venture to say that Gravel’s logic fits pretty well there. However, trying that with a relatively uneducated public (sorry but true) in comparison, is not smart. Call me a pessimist (which I would say I am certainly not), but I believe that we need do a lot of basic reforming of systems that have been hacked away at since the Ford Administration, restoring some of them to their at least workable states. Then, and only then, can we talk about something as revolutionary as actual rule by the people.
I find it also quite odd that it is only when talking about Gravel that anyone ever labels me - a diehard social democrat - an establishment guy. Lastly, I really don’t know where you get the idea that I think likability is more important than honesty. To the contrary, I think honesty, integrity, grasp of history, grasp of foreign diplomacy, etc. and so on, are all more important than likability. But, if after hearing a candidate speak on these issues I, as one individual voter, decide that this person has got it going on on all those fronts, I then will ask myself, about the man or woman as a person. I consider it a job interview. Gravel is condescending, rude, and frankly a little too egotistical for me. Sorry. Are we not allowed to judge Presidential candidates in a similar way than we would judge other people applying for massively important posts?
I forgot to say one thing. Even though I say all of this about Gravel, I truly do hope that we can find a way to keep him in the debate. I bothers me to no end that it usually ends up as a debate between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Again I will say - to many folks discontent - that I really don’t think Obama has gotten over his fear factor yet, and that we might see him really step up to the plate. Of course Gravel nailed it on the head when he said, “Who would you bomb, Mr. Obama?” or something to that effect.
In the case of Gravel, age does equal wisdom.
And he does not have time to shit around.
I followed ezefllyer’s link for the Mike Gravel interview:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iabtQPvEH8
Mike does not go into the details about how his “direct democracy” would work. It is therefore too early to dismiss his ideas. He certainly is NOT advocating “mob rule”. When a specific proposal is on the table then we can be specific with valid criticism.
In my opinion our political system is broken. It is a billion dollar influence game. Politicians currently must obey those with the money, in order to have any chance of success. And once they are in they become the instruments of those who give the campaign funds and our media. The will of the people becomes very much secondary.
If anyone can come up with a method of democracy that the rich and the powerful cant manipulate, then I would be all for it. That is what Mike is trying to do.
In the short term, it is pie in the sky, because we cant usually get to that point from here. In the long term, however, we dont know what the future will hold and fate may give us an opportunity to implement a real democracy that would not be so easily broken. If we dont have a blueprint worked out by then, it will take a long time for opportunity to come knocking again.
So I applaud Mikes ideas about “direct democracy”. His may or may not be the right model, but we need ideas on how a real democracy would work, in order to eventually have a real democracy.
Can we exclude Hillary from the next debate, please?
I too liked Gravel’s presence at first, and he has been a first rate politician (Pentagon Papers, filibustering the draft, etc.) but if you listen to him talk long enough, there will come a point where seems like he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Anyone who supports Gravel and hasn’t listened to his Mike Malloy interview on NovaM Radio so hould do so immediately. It’s very telling.
As far as Gravel being excluded from debates, it’s a little frustrating for me as a viewer because there are so many candidates that have to make their thoughts understood in 30 second sound bites, no one gets enough time, let alone equal time. I’d actually like to see a real debate, with rebuttals and have them really delve into an issue, or challenge each other.
I’d also rather listen to Kucincich than Gravel.
CRCox says that “mobrule” historically has never worked. As far as I know it has only been applied once. In Sweden. So historically it is one for one. In batting average terms that’d be 1000.
After following the link and listening to the interview between Gravel and Malloy, I’d say they were both rude, short tempered and less than accomodating to the other. But how in the hell can you discuss the problems of the world in 20 minutes without allowing your self to dismiss a few of the pleasantries of conversation?
Gravel speaks of constant modification. He admits that trial and error would take place. Anyone who thinks we the people could not or should not be allowed to rule our own lives obviously isn’t capable of running his own.
I agree with and would support some system in which laws were initiated and voted upon by the people. The internet gives us the power to do so. Like in all other facets of life there would be problems and areas that need to be tweaked. But surely a system like that would be better than having one choice every four years between a shitty candidate and goddamned lunatic wouldn’t it?
To all of you: As I read these comments about the frustrated presidential candidate, Mike Gravel, one thing is for sure. Your written words sound as frustrating as Mr. Gravel’s speaking words. Personaly I thought he and Dennis Kucinich were the only two on that non-debate the other night that showed real feeling toward the problems we are all “frustrated” about. Mike’s emotions are from the heart and he expressed himself with as much candor as a 30 second sound bite allows. He and Kucinich were cut off repeatedly by Cooper, but the MSM pets were given ample time to speak. Ralph Nader pointed this out numerous times over the years about the two-party monopoly on presidential debates.
What I’m saying, folks, is, and I’m gonna shorten this post because my favorite cowboy, Randolph Scott, is on Turner Classic Movies, and I missed ten minutes already, but, what I wrote on the “Ruth Connif article on impeachment” last night, applies to you all, if you’d like to read it or maybe have. I like Mike Malloy, and Mike Gravel.
Sisters and brothers, you better “get it together” before it’s too late. We’re half-steppin’ too much, but I like you all, because you show an interest and are almost as angry as the peaceman.
Year by year we get deeper into corporate control of our society and political system. The National Initiative is one idea to be discussed, certainly, on how to extricate ourselves from what is crushing democracy and concentrating control in a small class of plutocrats. It is like state initiative procedures but at a national level with the stipulation that “natural humans” only, not corporations, are involved.
I think some folks are scared of anything so radical, but what scares me is the corporate fascist state - a clear and present danger.
Mike Gravel has heart, intelligence, and solid honesty and character and he “thinks outside the box”. Good for him. He is a longtime foe of the military industrial complex and corporatization of our political system, and he is looking into ways to actually do something serious about it.
That he doesn’t fit the corporate front man (or woman) character molded and fashioned by squads of PR creatures and consultants and probably couldn’t be is good, not bad. Mike is my choice. If we can’t elect him (never say die), let’s keep him in there as long as we can.
ezeflyer, you’re so full of it. Malloy’s whole claim to fame is his anger, his rage, and his ability to lash out at the world. With Gravel, would-be president, Malloy was a pussycat.
I’m not beholden to Malloy or Gravel. I was channel surfing that night.
Gravel came across as an old poop with attitude. His “points” were so convoluted, so lacking cohesiveness, I thought he had hoisted one too many before the interview.
Malloy isn’t going to read your rant above. Gravel, possibly.
The whole point is that Gravel lacks what it takes to be healer of a nation, of the world. He’s got no class when he’s talking to his peers. I’d hate for him to represent me with the leaders of Iran and Russia.
But the bright, shining aura of Mike Gravel has so blinded you…this is all a waste of time. I hate to break the news to you, but Gravel doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting this nomination.
“Mob rule” worked OK in the Commune of Paris. I, like Gravel believe that if people are given the information, they can make good decisions. I also know that they can be given twisted information and make bad decisions but it is elitist to think we need (owned) representatives to make decisions for us. Gravel is far from perfect but he is honest and isn’t owned.
http://youtube.com/gravel2008
“Gravel is condescending, rude, and frankly a little too egotistical for me.”
It is curious, isn’t it, Nader is attacked and blamed, by the so-called progressive Left, as the sole reason Gore lost. His ego is condemned continuously–and it doesn’t matter how many other factors contributed to Gore’s loss, including more Dems voting for Bush than for Nader, the Clinton impeachment, the shame of the supreme court, or how many times these, among other reasons, are repeated- the default position always reverts to blaming Nader. Nader has devoted his entire life to serving us vs the corporations, so who does it serve to herd the mindset that it is Nader and his ego? Who is threatened? Why is Cindy Sheehan now a publicity hound–or an “attention whore” (and why among so-called progressives is the term “whore” to characterize a strong, ethical woman acceptible?)for making a courageous stand and speaking truth to power? Why condemn those who speak for us as attention whores or egomaniacs and at the same time bemoan the fact that the antiwar movement has eroded away? Could it be because anyone who challenges the status quo is knocked down and abused as having too much ego or some kind of loony wacko. Do you see the tactic used? Do you see the conditioning? Ditto Michael Moore or Kucinich a fringe loon with no credibility, but Hillary, with her sole ambition is never refered to as an “attention whore”. And obama, so impressed with his own rhetoric, is running on little more than his own ego.
Why do people so mindlessly devour the very people who most loudly and consistantly represent their interests while doing the propaganda legwork of the DLC–which is basically the Right co-opting any semblence of a divide between Republicans and Democrats. Even if a Democratic congress, for six years now, has repeatedly demonstrated its complicity, or its incompetence or it unwillingness to act, why is anyone who confronts that and rallies for change scorned? Is threatening the status quo a greater fear than a social movement for real change? ‘Cause that is what it seems like–people would rather complain but when it comes to the possibility of acting, well those people are attention whores and should stop rocking the boat.
We probably won’t hear too many people on the “progressive left” blaming Nader these days.
Look at what Lieberman has shown of himself. If he’s a progressive-left VP candidate I have some ocean front property in Iowa to sell you.
When Mick Gravel was a Senator of Hawaii he did nothiing about this. Shame on him. And he wants to be our president.
www.protecthawaii.ws/page2.html
Mike Gravel was never a “Senator of Hawaii”.
I’m sorry Arry, You are right. It was Alaska, which has the same problem as Hawaii though.
Evelyn, DU wasn’t even thought about when Mike Gravel was a Senator. At least research what you are posting about. He hasn’t been a Senator since 1981! What should he have done back then about a problem that didn’t come about until the Gulf War in the 90’s? LOL
Evelyn is an old lady who is a bit senile. She just believes that the DU problem is the most serious problem we face, and after reading that website she posted on this string about Hawaii, and some others concering DU, I tend to agree with her on that score.
Evelyn got Gravel mixed up with another Senator from Hawaii and apologized for being stupid. Now she is so ashamed, she says she will never write anything here at Common Dreams again. I make mistakes now and then myself, humans at times do.
But for anyone who cares, DU was thought about and written about in 1945, a paper was written about DU by some of the wizards who built the first atomic bomb. They explained the potential militay value of DU and that paper has been available for the President ever since that time. DU weapons were first tested here in the United States in 1972. They were used in several little conflicts since then but it was kept very secret until the word got out durng the first Gulf War.
Kem, I agree it’s a huge problem and needs to be addressed and I’m not angry with Evelyn at all. I just wanted to correct any misconceptions her post may have caused. Evelyn, feel free to post, mistakes happen and what you have brought up is an important issue that needs to be brought to light.
Kristina, I was pulling your leg.
Evelyn passed on and I replaced her at Common Dreams. It was her last request. She was throwing her computer out of the attic window, where she lived, and went with it.
I held her in my arms as she whispered her goodby and final words. We’re gonna miss her.
She left me her false teeth and darned if she hadn’t been eating a chocolate chip cookie. Yum- yum,__ good.
I listened to the Gravel-Malloy interview. Jesus ! Gravel should get that off his website. He was off to say the least, and smug and arrogant.
And he really shouldn’t be pushing
1. No taxes on corporations
2. Replacing our current tax system with an even more repressive sales tax
3. Medical “vouchers”
He sounded like a Republican
Mike Gravel, May Seem like a gumpy old man, something I may appear to be as well, I am 37. This äppearence”Is due to a few things but ONE major charcteristic, The Deep Undiluted knowledge, of what mankind as a whole tends to be..And as One who sees what Mike Geravel does I know. If you look at him again, Or just watch a few videos of him talking, You see a few things you DO NOT in any other candidate(possibly Ron Paul). These traits are 1) Speaking with out stoping to think up answers…This comes from telling the truth, It has been said, Give anyones speachs to much rope and they’ll fuck it up. This IS True of most ALL Politicans, Mike Gravel Could speak for say…% straight months(as in his filibuster) and not lie once or be tempted to do such. 2) Mike Gravel Truly Cares for all people, all races, all shapes,sizes, and capacities for thought. This is the marking of a Truly Great Thinker. 3) Mike Gravel Acts The way he talks..No Bullshit. 4) Mike Gravel Does Not Take any BS, Nor does he give it. 5) Mike Gravel Is By Nature a Happy Man.Happy to simply be, His anger comes, only while caring for others and seeing them make mistakes,another Heart felt charecteristic, That gives one great troubles/worries, and Still yet he gives. 6) Mike Gravel KNOWS The miltary VERY Well, He know weapons,are strength, and How to use it. 7) Mike Gravel Chooses to let others Think for themselves, and does not Scare people into thinking as he does, He belives, If you tell the truth It will attract voters, It has and does.8)Mike Gravel Could Run for either party,minus the equality he feels for same sex couples.
As A single hetero sexual man. I am not scared his fairness with these people, will turn me gay, nor would I let qualified military personall go for no other reason than sexual preferance. As a Man who Has, NO OTHER Agreement with you people(all americans), OTHER Than The Constitution we all should live by, Feel very strongly that we can all get along under his leadership. I am a Freedom loving Man who would be willing die for such. And I will accept nothing less than freedom, of speach, religon, opinions, and I like to smile. Mike Gravel, Lets me smile again, even if his run is short, (I know better) I am Glad he is putting it all out there for US TI DECIDE, Every should respect that,
In case you all do not know, Letting the People choose, Comes at a very high price,at tines the ultimate price, and anyone whom puts themself in that position for no other reson than it is what a Leader should do is a Human of the highest caliber, such as a Washington, or a Jefferson, or a Franklin,etc. Since he is doing all this for YOU, don’t you owe it to Yourself, and Every Solider who Gave Their Lives,so you might hear such a leader speak. Listen,Hear,Talk, Act, Vote..Thank You My Fellow Americans..
“Peace When EVER Possible, Anything Is.”
Medley
p.s. sorry if that was a bit drawn out,, but I am not a professinal writer(or speller, lol), But I will no longer , …Not at least try. Take Care