Mike Gravel

[Awful Reality]

I was wondering what the forum thinks of Mike Gravel. He's somewhat of a Social Democrat, and for me he's the only alternative to the likes of McCain, Clinton and Obama. Check him out at gravel2008.us

I'm not for Social Democracy, but he can certainly do some good. Opinions?

[Dros]

He's a bourgeois politician. He represents the interests of the bourgeoisie.
He's not going to do anything differently. Don't vote.

[Dimentio]

He will never become president, because the ruling class does not see any use of him, for the moment.

[RedAnarchist]

Unless he runs as an Independant, he has no chance anyway.

[Demogorgon]

Unless he runs as an Independant, he has no chance anyway.

He is not going to become President. Full stop. No matter what he does. For two simple reasons.

1. He is unlikely to benefit the bourgoisie

2. He hasn't got any money

[RedAnarchist]

He is not going to become President. Full stop. No matter what he does. For two simple reasons.

1. He is unlikely to benefit the bourgoisie

2. He hasn't got any money

I know, I was saying he had no chance.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

He's a bourgeois politician. He represents the interests of the bourgeoisie.
He's not going to do anything differently. Don't vote.

Abstaining from the political process is illogical. Mike Gravel may not be a Leftist, but he certainly does not pander to the bourgeois either. Support for direct democracy initiatives are counter to state oppression. A victory for any social democrat in America would be a (small) victory for labor.

[MarxSchmarx]

Abstaining from the political process is illogical. Why? If anything, participating in the political process is illogical, because the chance of your vote making any difference is effectively = ZERO. And if you become a politician and succeed in implementing much of your agenda, please do let us know.

[RGacky3]

voting is a waste of time, your times better spent eating dorritos watching a shot at love with tila tequila with a bottle of jack, at least with the latter there are no illusions that your not achieving anything.

If your going to vote at all, vote in local elections with things that might actually effect you substancionally.

[Awful Reality]

voting is a waste of time, your times better spent eating dorritos watching a shot at love with tila tequila with a bottle of jack, at least with the latter there are no illusions that your not achieving anything.

If your going to vote at all, vote in local elections with things that might actually effect you substancionally.

I think this is precisely why we want a revolution.

[LSD]

He is not going to become President. Full stop. No matter what he does. For two simple reasons.

1. He is unlikely to benefit the bourgoisie

2. He hasn't got any money

Add a third one to that list: he's unpopular.

Mike Gravel isn't going to get the Democratic nomination for the same reason Ron Paul isn't going to get the Republican. But then they both went into this thing knowing that.

They're just here to get their point across, to get their issues raised and their voices heard.

There's a lot to respect in Mikea Gravel, he's the man who got the Pentagon Papers read into the congressional record, he's the one who made them a permanent matter of public record and criminal imunity. No doubt he's a fairly decent fellow, and I'm certain he feels strongly about his issues.

And, in all honestly, he'd probably make a fine president. But he's not going to get elected, and he knows it. He's basically Ralph Nader, just inside the Democratic Party.


If your going to vote at all, vote in local elections with things that might actually effect you substancionally.

It's funny, isn't it, how local election have such massively lower turnout and yet tend to practically affect people's lives so much more? It really highlights how much of politics is about emotion and ideology rather than a rational assesment of interests.

Here in Montreal, we recently had a series of referendums to de-merge the City of Montreal; pretty much all of the former municipalities voted to restore their independence, but almost half failed to achieve the nescessary number of votes. On an issue that was pressing on everyone's mind, that was the front page story for months, that threatened to directly effect everyone's pocketbook and front steps ...most people still didn't vote.

But when January rolled around, they came out to support the Liberals in the federal election even though the federal government (Liberal or Conservative) has done very little for Montreal in recent years.

If there really is going to be a reforming of democracy in the west, it's gotta start at the local level, 'cause that's where it's really lacking and that's, honestly, where it really matters.

[Demogorgon]

Add a third one to that list: he's unpopular.

Mike Gravel isn't going to get the Democratic nomination for the same reason Ron Paul isn't going to get the Republican. But then they both went into this thing knowing that.

They're just here to get their point across, to get their issues raised and their voices heard.

There's a lot to respect in Mikea Gravel, he's the man who got the Pentagon Papers read into the congressional record, he's the one who made them a permanent matter of public record and criminal imunity. No doubt he's a fairly decent fellow, and I'm certain he feels strongly about his issues.

And, in all honestly, he'd probably make a fine president. But he's not going to get elected, and he knows it. He's basically Ralph Nader, just inside the Democratic Party.

Well hang on, is he really unpopular? Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain are all unpopular in that around half of America strongly dislikes each of them. Does half of America dislike Gravel? Hardly, he'd be skipping with happiness if half of America even knew who he was. Go onto a normal mainstream board and ask people what they think of Clinton. You may get half of them (probably less now that she is stalling) say they like her and another half say they hate her. Ask about Gravel and you'll get some lukewarm "Oh yeah, he was okay in the debates" but mostly they'll ak who he is. In short it isn't that he is disliked, it's just that people don't know who he is.

Why is that, a number of reasons. One as I pointed out, he hasn't got any money. As he points out himself, he is completely broke, all his money has vanished into divorce settlements and to the vultures in the bank, he can not afford a campaign. And on top of that of course, because he is no friend of the corporate lobby, he cannot get the donations that can compensate for this. Secondly the media ignores him. They do not want him to become President obviously and further they don't want him to re-appear as a serious political voice (Gravel will never become President but he could make a brilliant political commentator, but they don't want him to even manage that). Who becomes President of America is very little down to popularity but rather how much money they have, how well they can manipulate the dodgy electoral system and how much attention they get from the media.

I am not going to jump on you for making the unfortunate political u-turn you have. However don't make the mistake of throwing out every aspect of common sense along with your old ideology. One does not need to be even vaguely a Communist to see there is nothing Democratic about the way an American President is chosen. I mean simply compare voting in America with (for example) voting in Germany. The West German constitution was drawn up by a Christian Democratic dominated convention (with some social democratic backing of course) and is far from leftist, but nonetheless it offers a system of choosing offices of power more Democratic than America has. Obviously as a Communist I say that neither is Democratic in practice, but you may well want to claim that German style elections are Democratic. That would be consistent with the position you are now holding. However you simply need to compare an American election with a German election rather than an idealised Communist election to see why American elections are not fair and why popularity barely comes into it.

[Orange Juche]

He's now a member of the Libertarian Party.

[RedAnarchist]

If hes "jumped ship" like that, then its obvious that he wants to be in power, although as a third party candidate in the US he has virtually no chance.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If hes "jumped ship" like that, then its obvious that he wants to be in power, although as a third party candidate in the US he has virtually no chance.

What? By joining the Libertarian Party, he's effectively cut all ties to the dominate political parties. I would say his move to the LP is irrational due to that party's fling with nonsensical deregulation practices, but he certainly doesn't strike me as someone who loves power. For gawd's sake, he's campaigning for a national initiative.


Add a third one to that list: he's unpopular.

On the issues, most Americans are quite "liberal" in their beliefs. It's hard to compete against a system where wealth and party allegiance are the primary factor in determining whether or not you're qualified to become president.

[luxemburg89]

He's a bourgeois politician. He represents the interests of the bourgeoisie.
He's not going to do anything differently. Don't vote.

FUCK YEAH COMRADES TO THE BARRICADES, ARM YOURSELVES WITH RIFLES NOT VOTING SLIPS!

You have got to be more pragmatic. It is in the better interests of the world that the more right-wing parties do not get into power. Although abstaining from voting prevents them getting large numbers of votes it does not stop them winning as they can maintain a majority. You see none of us like the 'bourgeois politicians' named above, and very very few of us agree with parliamentary democracy. The point is, though, we have to do our best to fight the moderate right-wing as we are so weak at the moment. It is best to win small victories at a time for now - no revolution is round the corner yet, hasn't even got on the bus, so by preventing the Republicans getting into power we can at least reduce America's world-wide war-mongering. I say vote, it's meaningless for the working-class in the long term, but it can make a small difference to oppressed people in the short-term.

[Random Precision]

I was wondering what the forum thinks of Mike Gravel. He's somewhat of a Social Democrat, and for me he's the only alternative to the likes of McCain, Clinton and Obama. Check him out at gravel2008.us

I'm not for Social Democracy, but he can certainly do some good. Opinions?

Gravel is not a social-democrat, he's a full-on capitalist. He is in favor of a national sales tax that would be regressive and hurt the working class even more.