Mike Gravel: Libertarian for President

The most neglected candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, appears to have found a new party – and perhaps a route onto the ballots of November voters.

Gravel, a quirky but often contender contender, spiced up the early Democratic debates by suggesting that most of the other candidates scared him with their casual talk of flexing the nation's nuclear capacity. Those comments earned Gravel a disinvitation to later debates. But he continued to campaign, raising a little bit of money and a lot of important issues, especially with regard to needed reforms in the political process. None of this got him many votes and he won no delegates to Democratic National Convention.

Perhaps, he will do better as a Libertarian.

Gravel, who had seemed to be flirting with the Green Party in March, announced this week that he is quitting the Democrats and registered as a Libertarian.

"I'm joining the Libertarian Party because it is a party that combines a commitment to freedom and peace that can't be found in the two major parties that control the government and politics of America," declared Gravel, who was elected to the Senate in 1968 and served two terms before his defeat in a 1980 Democratic primary. "My libertarian views, as well as my strong stance against war, the military industrial complex and American imperialism, seem not to be tolerated by Democratic Party elites who are out of touch with the average American; elites that reject the empowerment of American citizens I offered to the Democratic Party at the beginning of this presidential campaign with the National Initiative for Democracy."

Does this mean that Gravel will now offer those ideas to the Libertarians as a candidate for the party's nomination?

Of course.

In an email to supporters, Gravel wrote: "The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR," he said. "It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism -- all of which I find anathema to my views.

"By and large, I have been repeatedly marginalized in both national debates and in media exposure by the Democratic leadership, which works in tandem with the corporate interests that control what we read and hear in the media.

"I look forward to advancing my presidential candidacy within the Libertarian Party, which is considerably closer to my values, my foreign policy views and my domestic views."

Gravel is not the only former member of Congress who is toying with a bid for the Libertarian line on the presidential ballots of states across the country – the party has already secured more than 25 and is hard at work on securing the rest. Among those welcoming Gravel to the Libertarian camp was former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, who left the Republican fold to join the Libertarians in 2006.

Barr, who has been boomed as a possible Libertarian nominee this year, declared that, "Just as Senator Gravel believes Democrats have lost touch with the American public, I too concluded Republicans had lost their core principles, and could no longer associate myself with the GOP. While coming from opposite sides of the aisle, Senator Gravel and I definitely agree on the fundamental need for systemic change in our political system, and that the only way we have of effecting that change is by supporting and working in the Libertarian Party, which is the only political party in America that consistently works in word and deed to maximize individual liberty and minimize government power."

Does this point to a Gravel-Barr, or perhaps a Barr-Gravel ticket on the Libertarian line in 2008? The party is not without candidates, some of them longtime members, for its presidential and vice presidential nods.

But a ticket made up of a former Democratic senator and a former Republican congressman who find agreement on a number of Constitutional issues would gain attention – and perhaps a decent number of votes – in a fall election season that may see former adherents of both major parties casting about for alternatives.

Comments (67)

1. If you don't vote for Obama or...yes, Hillary, if she gets the Dem nomination....and you lean left-of-center....

   you're helping to elect John McCain.

   Same for whoever the Green guy/gal is....same for Nader's latest ego-trip....same for Gravel and the Libertarians (who I like).

   Period.

   Posted by Mask at 03/27/2008 @ 4:13pm

2. Hey, I thought that's what my Repub Party stands for....and sometimes, succeed.----Posted by HAPPY2 03/27/2008 @ 4:30pm

   They did.... a long time ago.

   Posted by Mask at 03/27/2008 @ 4:48pm

3. Posted by MASK 03/27/2008 @ 4:13pm

   The only people helping to elect John McCain are the people financing and voting for him. Period.

   Posted by HAPPY2 03/27/2008 @ 4:30pm

   Hey, I thought that's what my Repub Party stands for...and sometimes, succeed.

   Feel free to identify the successes. If your up for a moment of critical thinking, consider the failures as well. Ron Paul's campaign provides some areas to explore, compare and contrast.

   National ID? McCain: Yea. Paul: Nay.

   Patriot Act? McCain: Yea. Paul: Nay.

   Iraq War? McCain: Yea. Paul: Nay.

   Posted by srjenkins at 03/27/2008 @ 5:02pm

4. If you don't vote for Obama or...yes, Hillary, if she gets the Dem nomination....and you lean left-of-center....

   you're helping to elect John McCain.

   Same for whoever the Green guy/gal is....same for Nader's latest ego-trip....same for Gravel and the Libertarians (who I like).

   Period.

   Posted by MASK 03/27/2008

   It's true. At this point any third-party candidates (don't forget Nader) will hurt the Democrats' chances in November, however, I totally agree with Gravel's assessment of the party's devolution.

   Anybody want to start up a USA Socialist party for 2012 :) We could propose candidates from Dog Catcher to Premier and everything in between.

   This whole primary cycle is making me very sleepy. Like I said this morning. ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.

   Posted by jackwells at 03/27/2008 @ 5:08pm

5. if you want to minimize the government, then good riddance!

   republicans (er, libertarians) are so afraid of government. why is this? just look at the effects of a radically deregulated and diminished public sector (bush, paul, gravel): trillion dollar wars, domestic surveillance, no habeas corpus, global warming, extreme right wing judges, extreme right wing media.......shall i say more?

   this is what you get with goverment-fearing types....

   Posted by darladoon at 03/27/2008 @ 5:55pm

6. Nevertheless, MASK and JACK, some of us will vote on principle and not for Obama or (double hurl) Clinton.

   Which doesn't mean I can't discuss the minutia of Democratic (or Republican) Party politics. Keeps the blood pumping.

   By the way, JACK, the Socialist Party will almost certainly have a candidate for President on the ballot in a few states this year, as will the Socialist Workers Party and the Workers World Party. On the right, the Constitution Party is gearing up their machine for a run. For news on third party efforts to get or stay on the ballot, from Water Commissioner to President, google for Ballot Access News, a newsletter put out by a libertarian lawyer who also happens to be the leading expert on ballot access issues for third parties in the country.

   Posted by cka2nd at 03/27/2008 @ 5:58pm

7. i have a question for all the conservatives: if a tax-free, deregulated environment is so auspicious for society, then why has bush (who favors such policies) failed so miserably? so tragically?

   why are we in such debt? why are we bogged down in two wars?

   how can you possibly argue that bush has not, en lieu of his policies (which you happen to champion), driven this country into the ground?

   Posted by darladoon at 03/27/2008 @ 6:01pm

8. Posted by MASK 03/27/2008 @ 4:13pm | ignore this person

   Just how much Alka-Seltzer can one drink before they die?

   Posted by Benchrest at 03/27/2008 @ 6:01pm

9. SRJ, CKA, BEN....go ahead, vote on principle. If it's the 1-2 or 3rd vote that Obama (or Hillary) needed to carry your state, get the electoral votes, and win the White House....then, you've kept your principles...and McCain has won. (Obviously astronomical odds that your 3 votes would do that...but multiply yourselves by 100X, 10000X, 1000000X).

   So...we go through another 4 years of essentially "Bush'ism"...and people suffer, deficit/debt rises, wars continue, maybe NEW wars, etc., etc., etc.

   but you've kept your principles and are holding out for the perfect progressive, liberal, socialist or whatever.

   Unless you WANT more "Bush'ism"...to "hasten the collapse" or "make things SO bad that the masses will DEMAND OUR revolution!"?

   Is that it? Not a demand for perfection...but a desire to LET things go to Hell in a handbasket because that's the ONLY way to get the "real change" YOU want??

   Posted by Mask at 03/27/2008 @ 7:34pm

10. Posted by MASK 03/27/2008 @ 7:34pm | ignore this person

    Mask, I would never presume to cross swords with you, unless you were gracious enough to grant quarter, though you ask none.

    If Obama gets the nod, and it is highly likely he will, then there will be no argument.

    If however, by some twist of fate Hillary gets the nod, then I believe I could make a reasonable argument that McCain would be the better choice, but until that time it is all conjecture and counterproductive to cut each other to ribbons over something that will likely never happen.

    Posted by Benchrest at 03/27/2008 @ 8:28pm

11. Unless you WANT more "Bush'ism"...to "hasten the collapse" or "make things SO bad that the masses will DEMAND OUR revolution!"?

    Is that it? Not a demand for perfection...but a desire to LET things go to Hell in a handbasket because that's the ONLY way to get the "real change" YOU want??

    Posted by MASK 03/27/2008 @ 7:34pm

    And as I am forced to point out TIME AND TIME AGAIN...the history of revolution is to trend towards the suspension of basic rights and move to a more authoritarian system of government. In other words, revolution throws everything out the window, including the Bill of Rights and everything else that exists to ensure what little freedoms we have left.

    We don't have a perfect system as Obama pointed out, but we have a system that goes through constant perfection. Heck if even Bush hasn't totally broken us by now that's a great credit to the system our Founding Fathers set up over 200 years ago. We as progressives seek that constant improvement, conservatives prefer standing pat or regressing, and hence the constant push and pull in our governance. One side wins over the other but never is one side always right. We sung too far one way now it's time to correct.

    Posted by yutsano at 03/27/2008 @ 8:36pm

12. Posted by BENCHREST 03/27/2008 @ 8:28pm

    I'll grant that maybe a possibility. If the Supreme Court wasn't on the line and all it takes is McCain appointing a Roberts, Alito, Scalia or Thomas...and not a Souter or two.

    Posted by Mask at 03/27/2008 @ 9:55pm

13. Posted by YUTSANO 03/27/2008 @ 8:36pm |

    Emma Goldman, the old Red from the 1910s, said basically the same thing...especially after seeing where the USSR went in the 20s and 30s.

    But, I think we have a lot of "purists" around here, who see even Obama! as "not good enough" and want a "Kucinich" or nothing else and are willing to let us go through ANOTHER 4 years of Bush'ism to both keep their "principles" and possibly a hope that things will "get so bad" that American will swing Hard Left.

    My fear is, things get so bad...and America doesn't swing Hard Left, but fascist (not "fascist" as in Dubya, but the REAL DEAL)...and those purists will knuckle under, and it'll be the rest of us that form the Resistance.

    Posted by Mask at 03/27/2008 @ 9:59pm

14. For myself, glad to hear Gravel could show up as an alternative option. Really tiresome to find repeated over and over that a vote for a Gravel or Nader is a vote for McCain. Somehow FDR managed to get elected with Norman Thomas on the ballot who got some 900K or so votes. Previously Eugene Debs was on the ballot when Wilson was elected getting somewhat near 6%. TR also ran in 1912 as a progressive alternative to Taft. Would say the US democracy was all the more vital for the participation of third parties alternatives

    Calling on support of the Democratic Party candidate to keep out McCain is another play on fear. Have seen this same argument made again and again since Goldwater and the results have been the increased domination of politics by Democratic and Republican parties who share similar social, economic and international world view, less vital and less participatory.

    Charlie M.

    Posted by cmsandia at 03/27/2008 @ 10:20pm

15. Posted by MASK 03/27/2008 @ 9:55pm | ignore this person

    touche'......damnit......(merely a flesh wound)......

    Posted by Benchrest at 03/27/2008 @ 11:14pm

16. Posted by HAPPY2 03/27/2008 @ 11:35pm

    Taxes are much lower today even while Gov't revenues have rocketed up.....and it ain't due to the lower half of the income spectrum!

    This is false. You need to look at the IRS revenue numbers. Revenues declined after the Bush's tax cuts and only recently (2005) returned to levels above what he started with. Compare with Clinton who had an increase every single year and a much larger total increase.

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/table_6_2006_dp.xls

    And I don't see how lower taxes combined with increased spending increases anyone's liberty. It's shifting the burden to whomever has to raise taxes to pay for that spending. It's cooking the books. It's also true that you can't "secure the borders" when you don't even have enough people to staff the National Guard or Border Patrol - because they are in Iraq.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/28/2008 @ 09:42am

17. Posted by MASK 03/27/2008 @ 9:59pm

    Emma Goldman, the old Red from the 1910s, said basically the same thing...especially after seeing where the USSR went in the 20s and 30s.

    Emma Goldman was an anarchist or a Black, if you prefer, not a "Red". While she initially supported the Bolshevik revolution, she didn't do so for very long and certainly never was a communist herself. As an anarchist, she wouldn't vote at all because it legitimizes state power - which is obvious from the fact that she was outspoken of the feminism of her time partly because of its focus on suffrage.

    ...it'll be the rest of us that form the Resistance.

    Really? Or would you'd be too busy talking politics and voting for the lesser, kinder, gentler Fascism?

    Posted by MASK 03/27/2008 @ 7:34pm

    Not a demand for perfection...but a desire to LET things go to Hell in a handbasket because that's the ONLY way to get the "real change" YOU want??

    Perhaps it's as simple as wanting to vote for someone rather than against someone? I find it rather strange that relatively you don't seem to have much resent for the people voting for the guys bringing on hell in a handbasket or who didn't vote at all. No, you save all your vitriol for people that vote, but didn't vote for one of the two major candidates.

    What does this say about you - particularly when you self-identify as libertarian? Does a libertarian berate people for exercising their liberty? And even if you think this negatively impacts other people, the fact that the critique doesn't equally apply to people voting Republican or staying at home, is most curious. Wouldn't you agree?

    Might I interject some comment here about "purity", your own? Nah, I'll just drop the seed and see if perhaps you might reflect for a moment and see if perhaps you keep using the term because it hits home, for you.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/28/2008 @ 10:06am

18. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/28/2008 @ 09:42am

    SRJ, keep in mind when discussing taxes, revenues, and the budget with HAPPY....that he's a staunch "deficit dove", who has NO problem with high deficits or massive spending. (on the "right" stuff, of course).

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 10:07am

19. Oh one other thing MASK,

    "Perhaps most alarming for the Democratic Party, several polls also show that at least 20 percent of Democrats would vote for Senator McCain in November if their preferred Democrat does not get the nomination. If such a high defection rate were to hold all the way to November, that could hand the election to McCain."

    Perhaps the problem isn't purity.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0328/p01s05-uspo.html

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/28/2008 @ 10:12am

20. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/28/2008 @ 10:12am

    That's mostly Hillary folks...the Obama'ites would go Nader or Green or, more likely, stay home.

    But we've been having this "If it's not Kucinich" or the softer "If it's not Edwards" Gang since before the Iowa Caucus, who won't cotton to anybody not Left of Bernie Sanders getting the nomination and still use the Nader 2000 paradigm of "there's no difference".

    But...do you really want to go another round of "I'll keep my principles even if it elects Republicans"?

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 11:24am

21. Posted by MASK 03/28/2008 @ 11:24am

    Still the same old line. You give Frank Grits a free pass for voting FOR McCain (if Obama wins), as well as the Obama folks that will stay home (if Hillary wins), but you want to pretend CKA2ND's socialist vote is a problem, because it's about "purity".

    Let's be real, too. The fact that McCain can pull 20% from the other party's supporters (or vice versa) suggests that, there isn't much differentiating the candidates. The whole "purity" question you like to bring up revolves around how much real difference there is between the major candidates and whether the range warrants supporting the "less evil" candidate. And I don't think there is a compelling argument for Clinton, if she were matched-up against McCain. While Obama is better, his support for the general direction of our foreign policy over the last five decades - my central issue - makes me question him as well.

    So, in short, it's much more complex than "purity".

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/28/2008 @ 12:03pm

22. The only thing I can say for certain, at this point, is I will not be voting for McCain this November. I can also say that I am reconsidering whether I should be voting at all, particularly if the vote is consistently between two moderate conservative candidates that are ideologically so similar that, in a society with a real range of political expression, they would be in the same party.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/28/2008 @ 12:08pm

23. I'm dumbfounded. Has Gravel lost his marbles, or does he not actually understand the Social Darwinistic core of Libertarian belief? Libertarians abhor social safety nets - they're a drain on the taxpayer- but Gravel has long championed universal health care. He's on record as saying that the purpose of the economy is to benefit people not businesses. while the near-religious dogma of the Libertarians holds that benefitting businesses unfailingly benefits society automatically, and should be left to do as they wish. Community doesn't exist for libertarians. Society is simply comprised of self-interested individuals.

    I've watched with alarm the sympathetic Nation coverage of Ron Paul - a believer in the law -of- the- jungle economy, whose social views are sufficiently reactionary to have won a 100% approval rating in several recent years from the John Birch Society, no less. Paul's acceptance of "states' rights" to promote traditional marriage is hardly robust social libertarianism, and he is happy for the state to endorse and promote his personal religion. In denouncing the "secular left" or "secularism", he takes a position closer to the Christian right than to that of social libertarianism. The Family Research Council gave him 75% (2005) and the Christian Coalition 76% (2004). These ratings contrast with the ACLU 55% (2005) and Human Rights Campaign 25% (2003-2004)..figures that reflect a dismal social libertarian record, despite his consistent survival-of-the-fattest economic libertarianism. How come Gravel and , apparently, The Nation are unable to recognise the true nature of these dangerous wolves in progressive sheep's clothing?

    Posted by pongacat at 03/28/2008 @ 12:16pm

24. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/28/2008 @ 12:03pm

    Okay, SRJ, have it your way. But unlike economics, there IS a "limited pie" theory to election votes. Split up the pie that would have gone to the Democrat...and the Repub wins...or vice-versa. Just as in 1992, Perot hurt Bush....just as in 2000, Nader hurt Gore....if you have two candidates "left-of-center" (Yes, I realize you put the Center somewhere around Barbara Boxer...but others might disagree)...and one who is "right of center", the pie can go 45% Repub...and 40% Dem and 15% Wobblies and the GOP, who would lose with a united "left", wins.

    As for "giving FRANK GRITS a pass on his vote for McCain"....go back and re-read my comments to the GRITSTER when he made that comment....no pass was given. I chastised the old Hillary cultist for his "take my ball and go home" attitude.

    Same as I do to the "purists".

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 12:43pm

25. LVLIB wrote on another thread that he will vote for McCain even though he does not agree with him on every issue. He is only one example, but I wish more on the left here would take the same approach.

    The country cannot afford to wait for the "perfect progressive."

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/28/2008 @ 1:11pm

26. Posted by HMAN23 03/28/2008 @ 1:11pm

    Exactly. They turned out for Bush-41, bought his line about "Read my lips".

    But let Obama or Hillary refuse to come out for single-payer, a 95% top margianl rate, or say "I'll CRUSH the capitalist exploiters of the proletariat, fellow workers" and it's "I'm not voting...I have principles!" and let the Repub win.

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 1:58pm

27. All the posters here seem to understand the Two-Party system well enough. Unfortunately, many do not understand how democracy works. So, for these folks, please get a pen and paper and take some notes.

    In a democracy, the winning candidate is the person who has the most votes. The people voting for him or her are "responsible" for that candidate's victory. People voting for other parties (e.g., Democratic, Green, Libertarian) bear no responsibility for that candidate's election.

    If you argue that people who could have voted Democratic, but voted for a Libertarian or Green candidate instead, are somehow "responsible" for a Republican victory, then you must also be prepared to argue the following proposition: The 50% of eligible voters who typically do not vote (but could have voted Democratic) are also "responsible" for a Republican win. Do you really want to hand a 75% mandate to John McCain? The logic is yours, not mine.

    The vote is an expression of a person's political will. I will not waste my vote in endorsement of the Two-Party System. I certainly will not be brow-beaten into doing so by people who don't understand the most basic tenet of democracy--however well you comprehend the Two-Party System.

    The only thing worse than Two-Party tyranny is One-Party tyranny. I refuse to cast my vote to support tyranny.

    Posted by IceNine at 03/28/2008 @ 2:15pm

28. Posted by ICENINE 03/28/2008 @ 2:15pm

    Speaking as a general principle, my Vonnugut fan friend.

    I'd have had no problem with Ralph Nader in 2000, IF, he had curtailed his "Gore and Bush are no different" rhetoric a bit...and WISELY and less egotistically told his voters to "vote trade" in swing states. Allowing those in "solid Red" or "solid Blue" to vote for Nader, and HIS voters to vote for Gore.

    Thus Ralph's vote tally would be the same (even higher) but without the disasterous result of Bush winning Florida by 600 votes....and there being 93,000 Nader votes in Florida that a mere 1.5% of would have given Gore the electoral college victory.

    As it was, the supposed "thoughtful and intellectually gifted" Mr Nader demanded "all or nothing" ...actually convinced the simple-minded on the Left (yes, like the Right, they have them there too!) that there "was no difference"....and Bush got it (by hook or crook, whatever, he got it and NO, Jeb Bush couldn't have "stolen" 93,000 votes for Bush, i.e. the Nader vote)

    And, when it came to 2004, Nader proved himself on an obvious power-trip...and Bush's "difference" from Gore had been well established...only THEN did he discover vote-trading, but fortunately by then his support had shrunk to reasonable proportions for him, i.e. 0.34%.

    And by the way, where are all the Greens, Libertarians, etc. winning state house seats, governorships, US House seats, US Senate seats, etc....if they are a "real alternative" and not merely spoilers?

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 2:43pm

29. Posted by MASK 03/28/2008 @ 12:43pm

    Split up the pie that would have gone to the Democrat...

    See, that's the bad assumption. Take CKA2ND is an example. He has never voted for a major party candidate, not once.

    While I understand the problem of the spoiler effect, the solution is not to limit one's choices but to correct the election system which produces it. For example, preferential voting would enable me to vote for the third parties that best represent my position, then a Democrat and then marking McCain either last or not at all.

    Posted by HMAN23 03/28/2008 @ 1:11pm

    LVL is a terrible example. The modern Crusade is his central issue and McCain is a perfect fit for him.

    Take a moment to review what the Christian Right has gotten from its support of GOP candidates. Now, feel free to explain to me why this is a good strategy.

    Posted by MASK 03/28/2008 @ 1:58pm

    Funny how you use a straw man rather than a real argument. Feel free to mark out the major foreign policy differences between McCain, Clinton and Obama - and why, as peace being my central concern, I should vote for one over another.

    See, you don't want to address it when it is set-up this way because there's nowhere to go. So, you'll make some vague comments about how Clinton's and Obama's promises around Iraq sound better than let's do 10,000 years McCain. But I have to look at the reality, which is once these people get my vote, they are going to do the old bait and switch, just like Bush 41 and taxes.

    So, tell me again why I should just smile, say that's alright with me, and vote for the Democratic nominee? This makes for rational decision making....how?

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/28/2008 @ 2:50pm

30. "Feel free to mark out the major foreign policy differences between McCain, Clinton and Obama..."----Posted by SRJENKINS 03/28/2008 @ 2:50pm

    Hmmmm...let's see.

    Clinton and Obama-- "I'll get us out of Iraq as soon as possible."

    McCain-- "We will stay 100 years if that's what it takes!"

    Oh, no, Ralph, virtually no difference between the Dem and Repub on foreign policy, since neither is calling for total withdrawal within six months of taking office (Kucinich's claim, which while it SOUNDS good, is logistically impossible!) or for cutting the defense budget in half (which is POLITICALLY impossible due to the fact that no Republican and less than 1/3 of Democrats would support that).

    No...no...you're right. Just because one side wants to get us out of Iraq as soon as feasibly possible...and the other wants us to set up permanent bunkers and outposts and stay for a century....no difference because one of them doesn't embrace THE most radical "pro-peace" agenda.

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 3:08pm

31. My dear Mask: You argue well from the Two-Party perspective. But you have not addressed my central point: Your arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with democracy. The 93,000 votes in Florida are simply what they are: 93,000 people cast their votes for Nader. They are no more "responsible" for the Bush's victory (whether real or stolen) than the million-plus eligible Floridian voters who did not cast a ballot for anyone.

    In a curious way, your logic of Only Two Alternatives, mirrors the "logic" of Bush on the war. If you don't support my war policy--or in this case, my party's candidate--then you will be responsible for the Huge Catastrophe that will follow. Please don't misconstrue that comparison as "fighting words." I'm only trying to hold up a mirror to the bankrupt reasoning you are using.

    "[W]here are all the Greens, Libertarians, etc winning state house seats, governorships, US House seats, US Senate seats, etc....if they are a 'real alternative' and not merely spoilers?"

    I see this as powerful evidence of the Two-Party monopoly of power. They have monopolized our nation's political discourse, rigged election laws, and have a hammerlock on every institution of government. The clearest indication of their century-long duopoly may be seen in the phrases "bipartisan" and "bipartisanship." If either party cared a tinker's damn about statesmanship and nation's interest, they would use a word like "nonpartisan."

    I am a quaint sort of voter, perhaps--a throwback to the late 18th century. But I have a long and consistently-held position since I cast my first vote in 1968: I do not vote for Democrats or Republicans (for any office) and will not do so this time. Don't presume, that I will vote for Nader, Gravel, or McKinney: I may write in a name of some private citizen that I admire.

    Posted by IceNine at 03/28/2008 @ 3:30pm

32. Hey, I thought that's what my Repub Party stands for....and sometimes, succeed.

    Posted by HAPPY2 03/27/2008 @ 4:30pm

    No your Republican party wants to maximize business liberty, take away individual liberty, minimize government power in business, maximize government power in individual lives and in the military. You are very selective.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/28/2008 @ 3:30pm

33. Posted by MASK 03/28/2008 @ 3:08pm

    Just because one side wants to get us out of Iraq as soon as feasibly possible...and the other wants us to set up permanent bunkers and outposts and stay for a century....no difference because one of them doesn't embrace THE most radical "pro-peace" agenda.

    Do you remember the 2006 elections? The elections where everyone thought it was a mandate to do something about Iraq...and the Democrats did what? Nothing.

    There is no difference because the outcomes will be more or less the same. McCain isn't getting a 100 Years and "feasiblity" is Democratic ass covering.

    Clinton's withdrawal rhetoric is, frankly, about as believable as if McCain had started doing it. I, for one, don't buy it. If she gets in the Oval office, she'll handle her campaign promises much like she handled her vote for authorization in the first place - and I'll guarantee that feasibility will be the way she backs down on this issue and she'll have the "experience" not to qualify her sloppy justifications by suggesting there is ambiguity in the word "is".

    Obama? I'm more inclined to believe him, which is why I might consider voting for him if he gets the nomination. I definitely believe McCain on this issue, although I think he would be willing to offer up any kind of lie to become President. I don't think he'll be able to do much more damage than Bush has - but he could surprise I suppose.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/28/2008 @ 4:15pm

34. Posted by ICENINE 03/28/2008 @ 3:30pm

    Well a few points.

    1. No way to fully prove it, but it is a good suspicion that SOME percentage of the Florida "Nader vote" would have existed and would have voted for Al Gore, if Ralph Nader had never entered the race. Take out 98.5% of that vote and say "They would have stayed home" "They were inspired by Ralph to come out for him"....if 1.5% of that vote had decided, "Okay, I'm going to vote and with no left-wing 'pure' candidate...I guess I'll vote for Gore, who's AT THE LEAST pro-choice, pro-gay rights, BELIEVES in global warming, and won't appoint Clarence Thomas-types to the Supreme Court"....

    Gore would have won, and we would have been spared so much.

    2. I don't see the Democrats as monumentally different from the Republicans...but they ARE different on several key issues. The "purists" see NO differences and are willing to let the GOP win, until such time as the Democrats demonstrate THEIR "purity" by accepting the "purist" stance on the issues...which by the way, polling shows is a SMALL MINORITY of all the votes, and a minority of the Democratic voters specifically.

    So THEIR reasoning is...I'll let the "bad guys" keep winning, because the "good guys" aren't good enough, because they will only do 20% of what they want and not 90% of what they want...so they get not just "0%"...but a NEGATIVE number on the balance sheet. And then repeat the losing endeavour every 4 years to the same result. All 'progressive' from my Democratic candidate or no support.

    Is THAT logical? In fact, doesn't THAT seem more "Bush-like", given his mind is "All or nothing on Iraq...no time-lines, no withdrawal plans, no negotiations with Iran...just continueing occupation and continual funding of it...and if you don't support me on the war, you want us to lose!"?

    3. As for the power of the "duopoly", if the Green Party dumped their entire budget for quixotic, quadro-annual runs for the President....into three or four, even ONE U.S. Congressional seat race....you think they'd lose IF the people supported their agenda, due to "monopolized our nation's political discourse, rigged election laws, and have a hammerlock on every institution of government"???

    No...don't think so. They'd swamp both Repub and Dem alike AND show that they can obtain some "smaller" positions and that they are a true political party...and not a GAME that gets played every 4 years by some smug or fantasy-minded left-wingers.

    But see...that's no fun. Building up a party at the grass-roots, winning "small" elections, finally establishing yourself to the point where all the "powers" of the GOP and DNC cannot stop you. Takes hard work...takes time...and isn't that glamorous or gets your candidate on "Larry King" or "Meet The Press".

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 4:17pm

35. Obama? I'm more inclined to believe him, which is why I might consider voting for him if he gets the nomination.----Posted by SRJENKINS 03/28/2008 @ 4:15pm

    SRJ, if you're inclined to vote for Obama....the nominee for the "corporatist, just-the-same-as-the-GOP Democratic Party"....

    you're not a "purist"!

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 4:22pm

36. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/28/2008 @ 2:50pm

    You carry some truth in your accusations and some misconceptions. I respect what you say but your argument for not voting for them is because you think they will pull the bait and switch when it comes to Iraq. However you are working on an assumption without proof that they are lying. Obama has openly stated his intentions and made it known. Clinton has less than openly stated her intentions. We can assume every candidate is just going to pull a bait and switch because they are politicians which means inherently they lie. But then if thats the case why vote at all because I think Nader lies just as much as them? So if you are going to vote, vote with the information you have and make the choice that not only best represents you principals but also has the best chance of getting into office. If you do this then you may be able to see your principals represented. If you vote according to who best represents you principals but has no chance of ever getting into office you will never see your principals represented in a political forum.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/28/2008 @ 4:24pm

37. that there is even a debate in this country about whether to "pull out" is yet another indication of american imperialism and arrogance. the united states had no authority to invade, nor the authority to occupy; it currently has no authority to remain.

    the invasion of iraq was the beginning, of the end, for the united states.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/28/2008 @ 4:29pm

38. the invasion of iraq was the beginning, of the end, for the united states.

    Posted by DARLADOON 03/28/2008 @ 4:29pm

    I think thats massively melodramatic.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/28/2008 @ 4:30pm

39. Posted by CCCOMFO1 03/28/2008 @ 4:30pm

    She has a tendency to do that....we just kind of smile and let her go at it.

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 4:49pm

40. I think thats massively melodramatic

    it would only be "melodramatic" if there were music involved.

    i guess you'll have to choose another adjective.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/28/2008 @ 4:50pm

41. i don't many of you really comprehend what bush's war has cost the united states. the effects reach far beyond the "melodramatic".....bush's failure is so incredible, so tragic, so grotesque, so awful.....there are no words to adequately describe the magnitude of bush's failures.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/28/2008 @ 4:54pm

42. Hey, I thought that's what my Repub Party stands for....and sometimes, succeed.----Posted by HAPPY2 03/27/2008 @ 4:30pm

    They did.... a long time ago.

    Posted by MASK 03/27/2008 @ 4:48pm | ignore this person

    They never really did. They've been fully on the side of the oligarchs for at least the last 125 years.

    Posted by jmusolino at 03/28/2008 @ 5:03pm

43. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melodrama

    Posted by darladoon at 03/28/2008 @ 5:04pm

44. Posted by DARLADOON 03/28/2008 @ 4:54pm

    No I have more of an understanding of his failures than you think. However it is not the end of the United States. That is my point. I think you are over inflating his effects.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/28/2008 @ 5:11pm

45. Mask, I really don't care if I'm "helping" Mccain to win, as long as I'm voting based on my principles. Stop the low brow hive mind bullshit and get behind a real progressive.

    Posted by badtimmay at 03/28/2008 @ 5:13pm

46. Gravel always was a stooge, from his prowar, redbaiting campaign in 1968 to his passive-aggressive attack on McGovern in 1972. How this guy ever got a rep as a progressive is beyond me. If he runs 3rd party, he definitely intends to be a spoiler.

    Posted by lnh at 03/28/2008 @ 5:30pm

47. He has no chance at all of even getting close to making it into office. I mean that is 100% guaranteed. When was the last time someone who got almost no votes in the primaries switch to a third party and got enough votes to truly compete?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/28/2008 @ 5:34pm

48. Posted by MASK 03/28/2008 @ 4:22pm

    If I were a "purist" Mask, I would be like Emma Goldman (or Ammon Hennacy for that matter) and not vote at all.

    Posted by CCCOMFO1 03/28/2008 @ 4:24pm

    Actually, my argument for not voting for them is that they will continue the flawed foreign policy practices that the U.S. government has been engaged in for the last 50+ years. There discussions on national security say as much:

    Clinton: We must widen the scope of our strength by leading strong alliances which can apply military force when required and promote our values.

    She's not as up-front about her attitudes about the military as Obama or McCain, but I think her past actions speak volumes.

    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=3884

    Obama: The excellence of our military is unmatched. But as a result of a misguided war in Iraq, our forces are under pressure as never before. Obama will make the investments we need so that the finest military in the world is best-prepared to meet 21st-century threats.

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#21st-century-military

    I talked about bait-and-switch because Mask offered an argument that says, essentially, at least they aren't talking about 100 years in Iraq. There's some truth to that, but both Clinton and Obama equivocate and talk about "feasible" which gives them a lot of wiggle room. So, given their larger policy positions about using force when "necessary" or to meet "21st century threats" we know as a fact they are not going to address the underlying military-industrial underpinings of our society and while they may (or may not but have covered their ass just in case) get us out of Iraq, they are still committed to the ideas that got us there in the first place.

    I'm pragmatic about it, and I agree with Mask that getting out of Iraq would be better than talk of staying for 100 years. But, the candidates haven't sold me that they will do what they say they will. I could even see myself (just barely) voting for Clinton if she committed herself and said it will be done by X date, but she won't - and I have to factor that into my overall assessment of her.

    But then if thats the case why vote at all because I think Nader lies just as much as them?

    Excellent question. Why vote at all - particularly if by doing so I lend legitimacy to the state? As a Christian anarchist, I'd have to say it is because I'm pragmatic, but I do appreciate the irony (or hypocrisy, if you prefer).

    So if you are going to vote, vote with the information you have and make the choice that not only best represents you principals but also has the best chance of getting into office. If you do this then you may be able to see your principals represented.

    I both agree and disagree with this comment. I agree that you have to go with the information you have and vote for the candidate that best represents your principles. But, if there isn't much difference between the candidates or none of them represent your principles, then sometimes you have to go with a third-party candidate or stay at home.

    It's a judgment call. People like Mask want to make it into something that appears absurd, "My candidate must only refer to me as comrade" or whatever. I just think people should think more about that line and just not go with one of the two major parties because they feel they have no other choice.

    We do have other choices. The ballot box, as Ammon used to say, is our weakest weapon. I'm open to using whatever forwards my concerns given certain parameters (must be nonviolent) whether that is marching in the streets or even casting ballots. But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend there is a significant difference between Coke vs. Pepsi or Bud vs Bud Light.

    If you vote according to who best represents you principals but has no chance of ever getting into office you will never see your principals represented in a political forum.

    This is also not true. I'll give you one example. Let's use Obama's home-state of Illinois, a Green candidate won slightly above 10% of the vote in the governor's race in 2006, the result of which made the Greens the first fully ballot-qualified third party in Illinois since 1922. This makes it much easier for the Green party to field candidates in Illinois, at every level, and it shows how a vote for a losing candidate may actually provide substantial political benefits.

    If you were someone that lived in Illinois, do you think it would be better to elect the Democratic governor or to throw your vote to the unelectable Green candidate for governor - if you could win ballot access for your party in the process? I know how I'd answer that question.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/28/2008 @ 5:50pm

49. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/28/2008 @ 5:50pm

    Well the reason I think they use the term feasible is because both of them know they don't have the whole picture and they cannot commit to a strategy without all the information. The President knows things we don't and on top of that they say feasible because the future situation may not allow them to do everything they promise. It gives them wiggle room in case something comes up that forces them to break their promises. Nothing is ever 100% so to commit pigheadedly to a strategy and leaving no room for compromise is something Bush does, not someone intelligent.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/28/2008 @ 6:11pm

50. Posted by CCCOMFO1 03/28/2008 @ 6:11pm

    Meaning all this Iraq withdrawal talk is about winning votes - and no one actually means it. There's a reason why when we make a commitment like, "I take this man (or woman) to be my lawfully wedded husband (wife)" we don't qualify it with words like "feasible", "convenient", "prudent" or whatever. Because committing to a person or to doing something is often not "feasible", "convenient" or "prudent". Withdrawing from Iraq won't be either, and they are telling us in advance when they use such words that they are going to go back on their promises.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/28/2008 @ 6:24pm

51. Withdrawing from Iraq won't be either, and they are telling us in advance when they use such words that they are going to go back on their promises

    because they fear what the republicans would do if their (meaning the republicans) forecast of Gloom and Doom comes to fruition.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/28/2008 @ 7:17pm

52. "if we pull out of Iraq it will be chaos....."

    the so-called Domino theory didn't work in 'Nam either.....

    Posted by darladoon at 03/28/2008 @ 7:18pm

53. Meaning all this Iraq withdrawal talk is about winning votes - and no one actually means it. There's a reason why when we make a commitment like, "I take this man (or woman) to be my lawfully wedded husband (wife)" we don't qualify it with words like "feasible", "convenient", "prudent" or whatever. Because committing to a person or to doing something is often not "feasible", "convenient" or "prudent". Withdrawing from Iraq won't be either, and they are telling us in advance when they use such words that they are going to go back on their promises.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 03/28/2008 @ 6:24pm

    No they are telling us in advance that complications may arise to the point that they can't. It's one thing to commit to a person. It's another to commit an entire nation to a plan of action bullheadedly with no information about what the future may bring. You are just being a cynic. You assume that because they are smart enough to not be narrowminded and without compromise, like Bush, that hey must be lying. Have you thought that maybe they have every intention in the world of doing what they say but they are smart enough to know that shit happens?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/28/2008 @ 8:05pm

54. If you commit yourself to a plan of action and that plan of action is proven to not work in any way shape or form. That plan of action does 1000 times more harm than good based on unforeseen future events. But you continue along that plan of action because that is what you said you would do no matter the consequence. What kind of a leader does that make you?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/28/2008 @ 8:07pm

55. Clinton is counting on the typical crap I'm reading here to get her ladyship elected. That is, if we don't vote for her (should she succeed in stealing the nomination) we are guilty of electing McCain.

    Sorry, that will be the fault of the Democratic party, who uses and then discards its base. I have stated, along with millions of others for years now, that I would not vote for anyone who voted for the Iraq war. Period. They ignored this, like they have ignored everything else we have said.

    Clinton not only did that, vote for an illegal war ( a war crime, folks) but unlike Edwards, has yet to apologize for the MILLIONS of dead and displaced Iraqis and thousands of dead and maimed Americans.

    Not satisfied with that slaughter, she jumped at the chance to sign on to the Kyl-Lieberman bill, granting Bush power (he thinks) to invade and destroy yet another Muslim country.

    Now she is waging the most divisive, deceitful, racist campaign I have seen a Democrat run in my 55 years. And never have I seen a Democratic candidate -- and their spouse -- state that the Republican opposition is more qualified than their own Democratic opponent. Twice.

    Now she is working feverishly to get delegates seated from states that rejected the rules and in which her opponent was not even on the ballot. Do you people have a vomit threshold at all, or are you just voting Democratic because mommy and daddy did? Jesus!

    Telling me that I MUST vote for this warmongering, lying, racist AIPAC mole is not going to work. If the Dems choose to run this pig, it's just too bad if she loses (and she will).

    I'll vote Nader and those that don't like it can...well, you know.

    Posted by opeluboy at 03/28/2008 @ 8:16pm

56. As much as I love true mavericks (as opposed to phony ones, like McBush), Gravel is a nutty old coot.

    I have heard this guy interviewed several times. He has a bad temper, can't answer anything directly, and is full of not only stupid ideas, but dangerous ones.

    That being said, I'd say the Libertarian Party is just the place for him.

    Posted by opeluboy at 03/28/2008 @ 8:34pm

57. Madlib, I heard Mike Malloy (about as liberal as radio gets) interview Gravel for one whole segment of the show. Not only was Gravel combative and rude, he hemmed and hawed, evaded every question, went off on tangents, eventually getting Malloy so pissed off he could hardly keep his cool. After the interview he was furious. Gravel acted like a total dick.

    Here's a great Gravel idea: let that 60% you refer to vote our laws into effect. Real smart.

    Posted by opeluboy at 03/28/2008 @ 8:59pm

58. Posted by JMUSOLINO 03/28/2008 @ 5:03pm

    Okay, JMUS....only Democrats have a component of good people. Republicans are all evil people.

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 9:27pm

59. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/28/2008 @ 5:50pm

    SRJ, as I said, you're NOT a "purist"...your ability to vote for Obama proves that.

    The real "purists" consider anybody a hair right of Dennis Kucinich as "one of the corporatists and a DINO"...and would NEVER consider voting for Obama.

    And they're the ones I'm talking about.

    As for "Greens"...soon as they win a major office (governor, Congressperson, US Senator....hell, Speaker of a state legislature).....I'll consider them a "real party" and not a lark, which can't even muster up Eugene V. Debs numbers.

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 9:34pm

60. Posted by CCCOMFO1 03/28/2008 @ 8:05pm

    No they are telling us in advance that complications may arise to the point that they can't.

    What complications are going to suddenly arise that anyone that bothered to gain an understanding of the region doesn't have a good grasp on? Let's assume the candidates have bothered to do their homework. Why are they promising withdrawal at all then? Why don't they just say I'd like to withdraw but we'll just have to see.

    When you make a campaign promise and then change your mind when you are in the saddle and have to make the decision and go for the political expedient cop-out and start talking about "complications", what kind of leader does that make them?

    Any no, once in the Oval office they aren't suddenly going to get the magic brief that is going to explain the genius of the Bush plan, but what will happen is they will do nothing because of what Darla says "because they fear what the republicans would do if their (meaning the republicans) forecast of Gloom and Doom comes to fruition." It happened with Democrats in 2006, and I have every expectation that it will happen again in 2008.

    And when it does happen, I'm sure you'll be able to explain it all to me and tell me why I should, yet again, vote Democratic in 2010 and 2012. Rinse and repeat. I'm sorry. That dog doesn't hunt anymore. Either step up to the plate and commit or put away the dog and pony show and your promises based on "feasibility". Like viability, just another word for let's keep doing the same old thing.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/28/2008 @ 9:40pm

61. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/28/2008 @ 9:40pm

    Isn't what you argued they should say exactly what they DID say. You are saying they shouldn't commit if they can't that they should say we would like to do this but we have to see what's possible. Then you're complaining about the fact that that is what they said. You're saying it's a cop out but that they should do it if they can't fully get behind something.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/28/2008 @ 10:04pm

62. Only an total idiot would use the U.S.A. as an illustration of imperialism instead of Russia or Germany or China!

    none of your arguments dispute the claim that the USA has been, and continues to be, imperialistic.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/29/2008 @ 12:24am

63. Posted by CCCOMFO1 03/28/2008 @ 10:04pm

    Clinton: If President Bush does not end the war, when Hillary Clinton is president, she will.

    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

    Obama: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

    You'll notice that the discussion of their respective websites doesn't have all the qualifications about "feasibility". They are flat out saying they will do it, which is not, as you put it, "exactly what they DID say". It's their responses to questions during the debates is where most of the hedging and talk of "feasibility" occurred.

    You'll also notice that Obama offers an end date and Clinton does not. For me, that's a central component that I factor in about whether I believe the candidates are serious about the promises they are making about withdrawing from Iraq.

    Both have hedged, but I'm more inclined to believe Obama will do (or at least try to do) what he says he will do because of his record and because he has committed to a date. Clinton's rhetoric, on the other hand, doesn't match up with her history, and she isn't offering a concrete timetable for withdrawal. She is actually primarily talking about a strategic change that might well take years to effect a withdrawl - which is why there is no end date for the completion of withdrawl on her site.

    On a personal note, it's fine that you want to vote for the lesser evil and want to give candidates the benefit of the doubt. However, if you are going to be pragmatic, you have to assess likely results. In this case, the likely results is that we are going to be in Iraq for a good long while yet, no matter who gets in office.

    Given that, the Democrats don't have a particularly compelling argument on the Iraq front - especially because they are making promises and then are waffling on them when asked direct questions about how they will be executed. Obama, to his credit, has made the strongest commitment. Enough of a commitment that I will give him serious consideration. Clinton, on the other hand, has not.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/29/2008 @ 1:13pm

64. NICHOLS: .....Libertarian Party, which is the only political party in America that consistently works in word and deed to maximize individual liberty and minimize government power.

    Hey, I thought that's what my Repub Party stands for....and sometimes, succeed.

    All the Republican party stands for is big military, big corporations, privileges for 10% of the population and America mastering the world but since there should be "no tax increase" ...then the American citizen is to pay the bill in the accounts of : diminished living standard, negated access to health care, deficient education and restricted civil rights.

    Posted by HAPPY2 03/27/2008 @ 4:30pm | ignore this person

    Posted by Frank42 at 03/29/2008 @ 3:21pm

65. Throwing vote away vs. voting on principle, for ex., SRJ's two-party views. If there's room for another perspective here. These are apples/oranges. The true merits of either side become lost as one stays on one side or the other of the interiorist/exteriorist line. This dichotomy is an incredibly fundamental one, supposedly one that goes all the way up to the ultimate awareness and down to quarks. That is to say, everything has an inner and an outer, an interior and an exterior.

    Posted by winyahn at 03/30/2008 @ 12:10pm

66. Gravel a straight talker? Google "gravel" and "earnest gruening" and see what a redbaiter he was. He voted against just about all environmental legislation that came his way. His speech at the 1972 convention was anything but straight talk, it was a very nuanced stab in McGovern's back. He's a stooge. His job this time was to make sure that Kucinich didn't gain any traction. Now his job is to make sure that any real third party doesn't get anywhere.

    Posted by lnh at 03/30/2008 @ 12:33pm

67. LNH... 1972 - Wouldn't be unreasonable to wonder if he's grown, matured in 36 years? But you are saying he has always had an ulterior motive. I don't quite understand the nature of this - just Narcissism, or is he a closet rightwinger?

    Posted by winyahn at 03/30/2008 @ 9:06pm