More Gravel media

Here’s the local view (from Fairbanks):

Former Alaska senator Mike Gravel said on Thursday that he has no intention of giving up his struggle to be the next president of the United States.

Gravel, who earlier in the week announced he was leaving the Democratic Party to seek the Libertarian Party nomination for president, blamed the leadership of his former party for marginalizing his campaign.

“The Democratic Party has not been fair to me in any of the debates,” he said. “They’ve been in cahoots with the networks to cut me out.” Gravel said the Libertarian Party was a better fit for his political views. He said he disagreed with Democrats’ attitudes on the war in Iraq, health care, education, foreign policy and the economy.

“People are fed up with candidates who want to continue the war and waste our treasure being the policeman of the world,” Gravel said in a phone interview. “I’ve been trying to change those policies from within, but I can’t get to first base because the Democratic Party leadership has cut me out. I’m tired of tilting at windmills.”

Gravel, 77, believes he’ll be well received by members of the Libertarian Party and said he was unable to generate much interest in his direct democracy ideas among mainstream Democrats.

“I got a lot of support from Libertarians and Greens and not much from Democrats,” he said.

Here’s the national view (from CNN):

21 Responses to “More Gravel media”

  1. Robert Milnes Says:

    I saw this interview last night. It was replayed around 11PM. Gravel might be a better fit in the GP. Me too. However the issue is how to possibly WIN the election. The LP has near 100% ballot access. The GP has less but a LOT MORE potential voters. If the GP were to endorse the LP executive ticket that could add to their total vote by not splitting it & ballot access, especially Washington, D.C. & Maybe 1 or 2 others..The progressive alliance strategy is to maximize the potential of both parties. Bob Barr’s candidacy would be problematic. IMO the best ticket is Milnes/Ruwart. The second best is Gravel/Ruwart. That is IF the GP & LP are interested in possibly actually WINNING!

  2. Robert Milnes Says:

    Sure Barr/Gravel or Gravel/Barr is a good ticket. Former rep congressman & former dem senator etc. & if it were not for the progressive alliance strategy it would probably be best. But the strategy calls for a left-libertarian or leftist p. m. & a counterbalance right libertarian vp. f. Let’s go with that rather than play politics as usual.

  3. Robert Milnes Says:

    But nobody listens to me.

  4. Sean Scallon Says:

    You can tell CNN has become “Fox Newsized” by employing this idiot announcer. I could barely get through the interview.

  5. Free Al Says:

    I think Mr. Gravel represented us rather well in that interview. I also think that a sort of Progressive alliance strategy could work, but it should play little to no part in the nominating process. The Lp should simply nominate its canidates, then wait for the Green, Constitution, and any other interested parties to decide whether they want to support us, or run their own canidates. Personally, I think a Gravel/Root ticket would be best, (out of the canidates who have actually announced) since its a combination of a left wing libertarin and right wing libertarian. This brings balance to the party and each canidate can try for protest votes from both major parties. I’m still hoping the dems never resolve Florida and Michigan, so we can mine the disenfranchised voters in those states. With lots of republicans still upset with McCain’t get out of Iraq, and lots of Democrats in two major states simply not being counted by their party, we have a major opportunity to break all records for vote totals.

  6. Stefan Says:

    Robert, so you do not see yourself as the nominee or VP anymore…

    Well, I agree with you about a co-option of the CP, as division between two third parties in this crucial election could be fatal. One wonders if you have an outspoken christian LP candidate, the CP could be persuaded to support such a candidate. They do have a different view on the constitution and would be socially conservative, where as supporters of the LP range from socially conservative to moderate to liberate. Well, every party has its different factions, so the two parties should see if they can work together and possibly merge at some time, possibly under another name then. For now, this election, I think the CP would be more likely persuaded to have someone like Barr as the presidential candidate with Gravel or Ruwart as VP than the other way round. I formulate someone like Barr, also has we do not know whether he will announce his candidacy or not. It would be good if what is left of the Reform party also be brought in. Dr. Ron Paul would be the ideal person to be a candidate acceptable to both the CP and LP, and he is also a member of both and has support from both. The Gravel connection is at least symbolically significant for the LP to attract more votes from the left and not only from the right, but the domination is probably still from the right. This is another reason why I think it would be the best to have a right leaning libertarian on the no. 1 spot as nominee.

    The LP should also already start to arrange for an effective campaign plus fundraising for the ideas, before the party nominee is named. As soon as he/she is nominated, it can go into the next gear.

  7. frank Says:

    Is it me but wouldnbt a gravel/barr ticket be just a retread Dem/Rep ticket. Why not Gravel/Jingozian or a Barr/Phillies. A fusion ticket is an idea that Jingozian floated several months ago. A ticket with Barr or Gravel and one of the current LP candidates seems to me to be a better fit for the party. Point being if you let any johnny come lately who cant get his party’s nomination run to the GP and LP arent we doing a disservice to the candidates who participate inm the process and are LP’s or Green’s. The LP has ballot access Barr and Gravel would join the socialist party if they had ballot access. Neither have supported the LP or GP until now and once again a former D or R is just using the LP and Greens because they couldnt cut it in their own party

  8. Tom Bryant Says:

    I too congratulate on Robert no longer seeing himself as a credible Presidential or VP candidate. I think that is a good thing for him. He can move on and work on other aspects of his personal life that need far more attention that his campaign.

    Good job Robert!

  9. Tom Bryant Says:


    Do some fact checking.

    Barr has been with the LP since 2006. He’s not using the LP for ballot access, as he hasn’t even announced his intention to run for office yet. If he does, I will wager that it is because of the pressure Libertarians are putting on him to run - rather than some diabolical plan he had for 2 years to use the LP’s ballot access.

  10. Jerry S. Says:

    Gravel has shown no ability to raise the big bucks needed to be competitive. He could raise enough within the LP to run a VP campaign targeted at dems, indies and progressives in 10 to 15 key states. Barr could generate much more funds and if MCCain screws up on his VP selection, Barr would have 30 - 40 million conservatives he could possible woe into his camp. McCain isn’t the conservative’s boy and Barr could appeal to their support and deep pockets.

    A Barr-Gravel ticket with funding could be a major player in this race because McCain is a loser, Bob Dole 2 ! He’s making major blunders almost on a daily basis. Let’s be frank, Obama 3 yrs from the IL state senate isn’t qualified to be the POTUS and if you listen closely he is as much of a socialist as Jesse Jackson, if Clinton is allowed to steal the nomination millions won’t vote Dem in Nov leaving more for Gravel to attempt to gather. If Barr can rejuvenate @ least 60 to 70 % of Paul’s grassroot effort to do the volunteer groundwork and he could take conservatives from both parties, indies and some moderates also if they think he has a chance, who knows ?

    Barr actually is a much better candidate than Paul within Republican circles and would get much more funds from them. Almost all of Paul’s funds came from libertarians, constitutionalists, patriots, 9-11 truthers, and the youth (who for the most part are unaffilliated, except to Ron Paul).

    If Nader and McKinney can put up credible campaigns a 5-way electoral college contest could be interesting. If Barr-Gravel would hire a professional manager and raise big bucks for paid ads, with a major grassroots effort specifically targeted, who really knows ? I can show you on a piece of paper how they can win with less than 27 million votes.

    There is one major problem with my daydreaming. Barr won’t pull the trigger. He is definitely thinking long and hard before he takes on McCain and the Dems. If he failed and McCain lost also he would forever be branded as the man that gave us Hillary or Obama (or both). I’m not sure that Barr is ready to carry that brand ! Barr, no doubt a bright man, is under the faults impression that in a choice between a Dem and Republican POTUS it is always best to have the Republican in the White House. The truth is that the Dem administrations always are more fiscally conservative and spend less money on pork than Repubs. Some of you don’t believe that statement. It can be proven ! Bush 2 has us @ $9 trillion in debt the last I heard. It has to do with the Senate, they (Repub senators) will block Dem POTUS, but let the Repub Prez’ pork slide by and the Dems don’t mind if they get theirs. Hence Republican administrations are always more wasteful of the taxpayers funds.

    With Barr hesitating, what’s left to do ? Turn to Milnes and the fusion campaign. He should be able to raise $50 millions from the Teddy Roosevelt wing of the Green Party to finance this effort…


  11. Tom Bryant Says:


    Bush did not put us $9 trillion in debt. He inherited about $6.5 trillion, and much of the debt can be chalked up to existed programs. Bush was a big-spender and terrible for fiscal conservatives, but you can’t put all the debt onto him.

    As you noted, the Senate plays a part. So does Congress. They ultimately control the purse strings of the federal government. You can rightfully put most of the blame for our debt on both houses of Congress. Remember, the legislature controls the budget.

    Your “proof” is simply terrible, as it doesn’t take into account any facts. For example, with Republicans controlling the white house and congress, government shrank in 1954-1955 by 8% and 5% respectively. When Democrats controlled everything in 1966-1968 spending went up by 8 to 10% each year. So much for Republican adminsitrations “always” being more wasteful.

    For some real information on federal spending, this is a great piece:

    Republicans do tend to be worse spenders than Democrats, but there are exceptions.

  12. Jeremy Young Says:

    Robert Milnes, a suggestion: people might be more likely to listen to you if you didn’t claim to be a candidate. Your ideas have merit; your candidacy, with respect, has not gotten off the ground, and you’d do well at this point to endorse Phillies or Gravel or somebody else.

    Re: Gravel: I have to say, I was far from impressed with his performance in the Dem debates, but he’s damn good at this third party maverick stuff—in many ways better than Nader. If I were Wayne Root, I’d be very, very nervous that this guy was going to steal my thunder at the debate.

  13. Robert Capozzi Says:

    FRANK: Is it me but wouldnbt a gravel/barr ticket be just a retread Dem/Rep ticket.

    ME: A concern, but no. First, in concept, I’d prefer it be Barr/Gravel. Again, in concept, a right/left balance would be important to not give voters that the LP is “conservative” or “liberal.” We’re dealing in metaphors, not science in this scenario, Frank.

  14. Robert Milnes Says:

    Jeremy Young, ok, progressive historian, are you going to weigh in on the election of 1912 or not? Also, “...your candidacy…not…off the ground…”? Have you looked at LP candidates FEC filings? Evidently most libertarians emptied their piggy banks for Ron Paul. Except for financially self reliant types like Millionaire Republican or Phillies, Jingo, Imperor & Bob Jackson see LibertyDecides, the donation range is $5-15,000=peanuts. Even the great Steve Kubby, who for some reason Tom Knapp prefers, is hard pressed to get to Heartland for financial reasons.

  15. Jeremy Young Says:

    Robert, that was before Gravel entered the race—he’s raised over $500k for his run so far.

    I’ve been thinking about your 1912 idea, and it has two problems. One, the Bull Moose Party was basically a surrogate Republican Party built because TR got cheated at the convention. In order to get that kind of pull, you’d have to have something like Obama getting his nomination stolen by Hillary and then bolting to form his own party. Two, TR’s platform was well to the left of either of the major-party candidates, so he wasn’t a true left-right fusion candidate at all—just a leftist.

    There are other models you might consider, but I think the best of these would be Perot. While Perot pulled more votes from Bush than from Clinton, he did draw liberally from both parties, and people allied with his party (Jesse Ventura, for instance) drew more from the Dems. True, Perot had billions, but these days it’s easier to find a billionaire lying around than a washed-up former President. You’ve essentially got two choices there: Carter and Bush Sr. Neither one would make a good fusion candidate.

  16. Joseph O Says:

    I know Senator Gravel well and tried to get him to run third party last year before he entered the Dem race. His quote: “I have to get in the debates.” On that he succeeded and proved that they are a party of exclusion.

    I recommend all of you read his new book: “Citizen Power”. This is a powerful rewrite of his 1972 book while he was in the Senate. The upgrade includes a whole chapter on the FairTax which has been around much longer than Huckabee and Gravel stumping for it. And his National Initiative for Democracy which is something all of the third parties ought to advocate.

    Since starting a movement to draft Bloomberg in late 2006, I have been advocating a fusion of the third parties. Even if we have to suspend our separate ideological principles for one cycle to get behind a candidate with either the National Initiative or serious Election Reform that allows fair third party participation - now is the time. Gravel may not be the best to lead this effort, but he does have the gravitas to represent us well.

  17. Robert Milnes Says:

    Jeremy Young, LOL, right, Gravel doesn’t go back quite that far! Agreed: I pretty much agree with your assessment of 1912. & Essentially I agree that there are no present day close parallels to that time & circumstances. e.g. “...washed-up[?!?] former president.” However, an LP executive ticket with near 100% ballot access that leans heavily left/progressive is possible & duplicates 1912 nicely. I’m no Teddy Roosevelt-if only I were. Neither are Gravel & Barr. I do not think any present personality/celebrity is quite comparable. Remember he was much more than just a president! Noble Peace, Medal of Honor, photographic memory, Phi Beta Kappa/magna cum laude Harvard, conservationist, explorer ETC! Fortunately I do not think that is necessary. IF the strategy is emphasized rather than personality/celebrity. True there are a lot more billionaires than ex-pres. However I instinctively am skeptical-to put it diplomatically, of a billionaire president. As I think most Americans would be.

  18. Robert Milnes Says:

    Joseph O., I have concluded that a fusion of all third parties is unfortunately not possible. BUT fortunately NOT necessary. To keep it simple-only Lib & Green parties. Not fusion-only vote coordination-not split the vote. Hope foe & encourage centrist parties/independents-take votes from the dems & reps. Fusion LP & CP-not possible & not desirable & not necessary. Lib & Green parties become much more inclusive. Discourage ALL other progressives-party or independent-NADER! New Progressive Party-unnecessary.

  19. frank Says:

    my point was that while Barr or gravel might bring some politcal inside knowledge to the campaign, i for one would prefer a running mate that was not a political insider and someone who was not “in” the system we are avocating needs changing. all respect to paul gravel barr but they are all part of that which we all agree needs an overhaul. true we cant abolish the whole system but we can bring in some fresh points of view fresh ideas and fresh faces. i happen to stumble upon Jingozian’s website i like what he has to say. i dont agreee with all of it but he does have amny sound ideas and good points. check him out at

  20. Free Al Says:

    Why is it everyone continues to talk about a Barr/? ticket, when Bob Barr hasn’t even announced his canidacy yet? I stated in my earlier post that of the Canidates who have actually, you know, ANNOUNCED, a Gravel/Root ticket would be best, from a left/right balance standpoint. Instead of speculating about possible future canidates, why don’t we take a good hard look at what we can do with the ones we already have?

    By the way, my earlier post is reply #5, if anyone is interested.

  21. Larry Breazeale,Msgt.(ret.)USAFR Says:

    Gravel sounds more like a GREEN Party candidate than anything else…all worked up about the so-called “military industrialized complex” as the main meany we have to deal with. HE has a right to run, just like Nader but, even “HE” does NOT get it. He gives NO MENTION of the REAL number one issue….”illegal immigration” and our broken borders, all the 25 million illegal aliens in our country, the NORTH AMERICAN UNION scheme, and the ever powerful Federal Reserve putting even more of a grip on our economy. AND, no mention of the CFR conspiracy (Council on Foreign Relations) that has a strangle hold on our government and its foreign policy. The Constitution party has the real answers to THESE REAL ISSUES. Stand by to stand by.

    -Larry Breazeale, Msgt. (ret.) USAF,
    Vietnam/Desert Storm veteran,
    Chairman, National Veterans Coalition
    of the Constitution party…

Leave a Reply