Mike Gravel reminded the world of his presidential candidacy today when he announced he'll run as a Libertarian, rather than a Democrat. And he adorably cantankerous politico took the occasion to blast his former colleagues:
The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. 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.
Good for you, Mike! We appreciate your gumption, party criticism and civi dedication. As for your grasp of reality? Well, that's something else entirely.
Who’s to Blame for Maine’s Marriage Failure? (139)
· 1EqualityUSA says: After having read Linda Greenlaw’s “Hungry Ocean” I Was going... »
Maggie Gallagher’s Maine Condolence Letter Will Surely Cause You to Tear Up (49)
· Steve says: Don’t be too hard on Maggie. She actually believes the hateful nonsense that she... »
· 1EqualityUSA says: “The two most powerful warriors are patience and time.” “We... »
· me says: we f’d up? how did we f up? old people just have nothing better to do than to go to... »
Will Iran Cancel the Death Sentences of 3 ‘Homosexual Conduct’ Criminals? (7)
· Tallskin says: Just to add to the debate and to provide illumination as to the mindset of muslims on... »
Robert Bellamy Jr. Bashed 2 Guys Because ‘God Made Me’ (21)
· Fitz says: you don’t go to prison for mugging 3 people. And rapes that happen there are what... »
Can’t A Television Show Say ‘Fag’ Anymore Without GLAAD Getting Upset? (64)
· MD says: i totally agree with “Jake the libertarian”. »
Was Making Matthew Shepard the Face of Gay Rights a Mistake? (140)
· Levi says: I think it is ok for Matthew to be the posterchild. I think that it doesn’t matter... »
Is It Wrong to Refuse to Have Sex With HIV-Positive Men? (89)
· rLm says: #83 Rob Moore: Guess I touched a nerve. Good. Not here to be popular. “Truly... »
· mark says: Distigue’ I never knew of any HIV prevention agency in the least about getting POZ... »
..and he thinks the Libertarians are any closer to FDR?! Libertarian: I want Social Justice, I just don't feel I should pay for it.
Based on what he campaigned for, you'd think he'd go green, socialist, or heck, even join the Pirate Party.
Stupid hack. What's up with all these terds trying to split the freaking vote – do they really want to see a President McCain? Gravel's as bad as Nader.
The only ones intent on electing McCain president besides the Republican Party of God are the Democrats. Instead of Hillary and Barack slicing and dicing each other, why don't they focus on Republican Party of God candidate McCain and let us decide which of them compares better against him. 2008 might be the last year I consider myself a Democrat if they manage to vomit up another defeat in 2008. If that happens, I'll switch to something else.
Why the jab at his grip on reality? His grasp of reality is a lot clearer than Barack Hillary John Obama-Clinton-McCain.
This type of thing is what I hope for – more and more defecting to the third parties until we get so many dissatisfied voters that they all defect and then we can have some real democracy instead of voting between candidates who essentially stand for all the same things.
What a pity. I would much rather vote for Grandpa Mike than any other the remaining Dems.
I think it's fair to say that Mike Gravel has no grasp on reality. He doesn't stand a chance of becoming president, he didn't even win the primary in his home state of Alaska. I liked him, he supported gay marriage fully. But he really shouldn't be stomping his feet just because he 'lost'.
Good on him for supporting marriage equality. I'm sure that took a lot of courage for him, he who had absolutely no chance. The sad fact is he was so irrelevant that he didn't even steer the conversation in the right way.
The fact of the matter is he was a no-shot loon and wouldn't have done one iota of good for our community. His policy on things like the "flat tax" would have been an economic disaster. Furthermore, and most importantly, for someone who DIDN'T FREAKING CAMPAIGN, he's a true drama queen, just loving his tiny attention that he's gotten. He had less events than any of the other Dem candidates, didn't try to raise money and didn't do any of the things necessary to compete in a primary, including the all-important connecting to the people. He just wanted to show up to debates and got annoyed when we finally said no, so we could make some more room for the candidates who were actually campaigning when it got closer to Iowa. (As the media should; because a debate among 8 people is useless and doesn't allow for enough time for any depth, or even to cover a range of topics.)
I had a friend once who told me that Libertarians were just Republicans who smoked pot… a statement which I cherish to this day.