No Difference Between Dem and Republican? It's Our Own Fault

Written by: Bill Jacobs on Dec 14, 2007 12:47 PM EST

Linked to groups: Gravel for America

Ralph Nader on Mike Gravel's hard work and the self-satisfied press.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/13/5798/

 

NYT’s Gail Collins and the ‘2nd Tier’ Presidential Candidates by Ralph Nader

Gail Collins, the columnist for the New York Times, has a problem. While regularly writing in a satirical or sometimes trivial way about the foibles of the two major Parties’ front-running presidential candidates, she can scarcely hide her disdain for the small starters, the underdogs.

In a recent column about what she saw as the repetitiveness and small-mindedness of Hillary Clinton (and her spokesman), Barack Obama and John Edwards, she took this unexplained swipe at former Senator Mike Gravel’s presence in a debate sponsored by National Public Radio:

“What the heck is Mike Gravel doing back on stage? Didn’t we get rid of him 10 or 20 debates ago?”

This dismissal may be seen by some readers as a laugh or as an impulsive throwaway line. Not so with Ms. Collins. She has little tolerance for filling media debate chairs with candidates; pundits like her believe candidates who are not front runners do not have a chance to overcome their super-low polls.

Nor does she lose any sleep over NBC (a subsidiary of General Electric) keeping the anti-nuclear Mr. Gravel out of its hosted debate in Philadelphia last month because he had not yet raised a million dollars.

Ms. Collins’ treatment of the “second tier” candidates in the Democratic Party, such as Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, is remarkable for at least three reasons.

First, although she is a more sand-papered progressive than in her more radical, younger days as a small starter reporting for the Connecticut State News Bureau, I’ll bet she agrees with much of the two-time Senator Gravel’s record in Congress and his present positions on the war in Iraq, Presidential accountability, corporate power and crime and the mistreatment of workers, consumers and uninsured patients.

Second, for several years ending a few months ago, she presided over the New York Times editorial page, producing some of the finest editorials in the paper’s history. Many well considered subjects were included such as: standing up for whistle-blowers, dissenters, the rights of small business and workers and especially, the civil liberties and rights of minority voters afflicted with myriad electoral abuses and obstructions.

Thirdly, she has written a book about the history of women’s rights in America-titled America’s Women (William Morrow, 2003), which must have touched in a sensitive way those lonely self-starters, known as suffragettes, along with those very small parties and even smaller candidates pressing for the female voting franchise. She knows there are many ways to win short of winning an election.

In recent weeks, her paper’s editorial page has delivered brilliant excoriations of the similarities in the converging the Republican and Democratic Parties, taking the latter severely to task on important national issues.

I doubt very much that Gail Collins disagrees with these editorials. In fact, privately she is known to be even more critical of the political status quo in this country. One might surmise that she should therefore welcome more voices and choices to come before the citizenry during election times, including more third party and independent candidates as well.

After all, aren’t we all glad that ballot access was so easy in the nineteenth century, compared to today, that small parties like the anti-slavery, women’s rights, labor and farmer-populist parties got onto the ballots and pioneered hugely important agendas, ignored by the Democratic, Whig and Republican Parties? These small starters never came close to winning the Presidency, except for the populist parties, winning many Congressional elections.

Put Gail Collins back into the 19th century and she would be whooping it up for those valiant few voters and little candidates who voted and ran against the grain of the business-indentured, often bigoted major Parties. Here in the twenty-first century, Gail Collins writes the predicates of progressive values and then sprawls to the dead-end conclusions-stay with the least-worst major Party candidates.

Just as small seeds need a chance to sprout to regenerate nature and sustain humankind, just as the tiniest of businesses need to have a chance to innovate in the business world, so too, small candidates need to have the chance. For they can often enrich the political dialogue, move the big boys to overdue recognitions, even if they do not have a chance to win on election day in a rigged, monetized, winner-take all system, bereft of both instant run-off voting and proportional representation procedures.

Columnists such as Gail Collins and her humane colleague, Bob Herbert, abhor going into these fields of political fertility. Instead, their rendition of political and corporate abuses flows into the repetitive, narrow ruts of political servility-not just the two party duopoly ruts but its major candidate groovers.

So progressive columnists, such as there are, wring their hands over why the Democratic Party, its incumbents and its major candidates do not heed their findings, their pleas, their hopes for the American people. They keep on wringing their hands until they encase their minds in a cul-de-sac that categorically disallows even a contemplation that political alternatives in person and party should be given visibility.

Open your mind a little, Gail Collins, and you might learn something about the need for frameworks that enable the sovereignty of the people to be expressed in a variety of practical ways, including national initiatives. You may laugh at Mike Gravel having difficulty explaining his studious proposal for a national initiative during sound-bite debates. Instead, try writing a column on why some noted constitutional law professors believe there is a sound constitutional basis for such a proposal.

This would be a good way to spark a serious debate about the myth of government of the people, by the people and for the people. Such an excursus would help deepen a very shallow Presidential campaign and be more becoming to you than wanting to rid Mike Gravel from the so-called debates. And you and the members of your profession, who regularly confess boredom with the major candidates, might actually find some excitement in your daily work.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.

 

Gravel Answers MSNBC Debate Questions

Written by: Bill Jacobs on Nov 1, 2007 10:13 AM EDT

Linked to groups: Gravel for America

What would the debate have been like if Mike Gravel had been included?

Hear his insights at:

http://www.ustream.tv/Gravel2008/videos/lYSUmY,gpZixLmp7zuvXQA

 

(The sound is a bit fuzzy before the two minute mark.)

 

 

--Bill Jacobs

Host, Gravel for America

Try the "Candidate Calculator"

Written by: Bill Jacobs on Nov 1, 2007 8:52 AM EDT

Linked to groups: Gravel for America

I am supporting Mike Gravel largely due to his efforts with The National Initiative (www.ni4d.us).

 

What a happy surprise it was that Gravel crushed the others when I tried this calculator!

 

Try it yourself at:

http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_results.php

 

 

--Bill Jacobs

Host, Gravel for America

New DFA poll. Please log in to support Gravel!

Written by: Bill Jacobs on Oct 25, 2007 8:50 AM EDT

Linked to groups: Gravel for America

A terrific IRV poll.

http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll

Mike is currently ahead of Dodds by a whisker.  Let's give him some breathing room!


--Bill Jacobs
Host, Gravel for America

AP: Gravel out of Oct. 30 DNC debate

Written by: Elizabeth Cable on Oct 20, 2007 3:50 AM EDT

Linked to groups: Gravel for America

According to an Associated Press Article, former Democratic Senator
from Alaska, Mike Gravel, is being excluded from yet another debate
(big surprise). It is the October 30th debate in Philadelphia, co-
sponsored by the Democratic National Committee and MSNBC. It is
essential, in a Democracy, for all voices to be heard. We should
continue to attempt to adhere to this Democratic ideal, so please
contact the DNC and MSNBC today about Mike Gravel's exclusion. And,
please, spread the word about this. Even people who are not Mike
Gravel supporters might help get Gravel re-invited to the debate, if
they value freedom of speech and fairness. Links to contacts, my
petition, and a live chat on this subject are listed below.

Democratic National Committee: http://www.democrats.org/contact.html

My Petition:
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/letgravelspeakoct30

MSNBC contact page: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339/

NBC Contact page:http://www.nbc.com/Footer/Contact_Us/

Live Chat: http://irc.wikia.com/campaigns/

Comprehensive Info on the Senator for Download

Written by: Bill Jacobs on Oct 15, 2007 9:38 AM EDT

Linked to groups: Gravel for America

If you want to drop some Gravel literature off at strategic locations in your community or want to brief an open-minded friend or two, a terrific handout has been made available at

 

http://www.gravel2008.us/Mike_Gravel_Booklet.pdf

Gravel on Iran: A Letter to Senator Clinton

Written by: Bill Jacobs on Oct 5, 2007 2:05 PM EDT

Linked to groups: Gravel for America

I found the data on the IRG especially useful.

 

Hillary, War with Iran is No Laughing Matter

Posted September 30, 2007 | 06:28 PM (EST)

---

Hillary, I'm glad to see you got a good laugh when I confronted you during last week's debate over your vote calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) a terrorist organization. The American public finally got to see your cavalier attitude toward our march to war. Your vote however is no laughing matter.

By labeling the IRG a terrorist organization, the Democratic-controlled congress has impeded our ability to negotiate with a huge portion of the Iranian government. The IRG is a 125,000-person organization with ties to every power base in Iran. The IRG is also admired by a vast potion of the Iranian people for its heroic stand against Saddam Hussein's invasion during the Iran-Iraq War. Mohammad Khatami, the former reformist president of Iran , warned the United States not to label the IRG a terrorist organization because doing so would preclude any diplomatic settlement of our differences .

While I'm sure your vote plays well with the hawks and military contractors who support your campaign, it is the height of irresponsibility. Like with Iraq in 2002, elements in our government have already decided to attack Iran and are now trying to "sell it." Last week, Congress gave the warmongers a big gift. (Note to Congressional Dems: You were elected to stop a war, not start a new one!)

Hillary, war with Iran will have devastating consequences for all Americans.

The Iranians are sure to respond with strikes at Americans at home and abroad. Imagine a dozen 9/11s. Is that something to laugh about?

The Iranian navy will intercept oil shipments through the Persian Gulf that fuel the European economies. Oil prices will skyrocket above $150 and the global economy will fall into a worldwide depression. Will you be amused when millions of Americans lose their jobs?

Will you chuckle when the Shiites in Saudi Arabia and the other oil states rise up and destabilize our allies in the Persian Gulf?

A war with Iran will not be contained. It's easy to imagine a "Guns of August" scenario that draws in Israel, Saudi Arabia and potentially Pakistan, India, Russia, and China. Hillary, a potential Third World War is no crackpot fantasy, and it's no joke.

Based on the questions during Wednesday's presidential debate, I suspect the mainstream media isn't interested in a serious discussion about this impending crisis. Tim Russert's questions had us spending more time on smoking, teenage drinking and Red Sox versus Yankees than on Iran. But this crisis is real and it's time to take it seriously before it's too late.

Mike Gravel wins IRV poll.

Written by: Bill Jacobs on Sep 6, 2007 8:47 AM EDT

Linked to groups: Gravel for America

Certainly, we know the Seantor's net roots are enthusiastic.

There may have been some ballot stuffing going on here. (Can you blame us?)

Check it out here:

http://www.choiceranker.com/election.php?eid=114

The key reason I'm sending you there is to look at a superb explanation of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV); a worthy cause, in itself.  You can see the powerful effect it can have; putting better candidates ahead of those less worthy of support.

 

When you are allowed to vote your conscience, you get more conscientious candidates. When you must choose from lesser evils, you get  "less evil" elected officials.

 

If only we had this choice in our elections nationwide.

I live near a city called Takoma Park that has adopted IRV in their local elections. In my off moments I support IRV in my political circles.

 

All Gravel, All the time.

Written by: Bill Jacobs on Jul 3, 2007 8:27 AM EDT

Linked to groups: Gravel for America

If you need to send friends a pretty good link that covers issues in his own words,  this YouTube clip from the 3rd debate has 6 minutes of nothing but Gravel's responses.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PU9Lm6V1rc

 

 

They may not realize it, but... Soldiers want Mike Gravel

Written by: Bill Jacobs on Jun 8, 2007 8:51 AM EDT

Linked to groups: Gravel for America

from:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0706.cohen.html 

How a Democrat Can Get My Vote - Withdraw Decisively

By Ross Cohen

n 2003, I spent the summer engaged in a three-month training deployment to Fort Knox, Kentucky. Knox is best known as the repository of America’s gold reserves, but it also houses a state-of-the-art complex for training the Army in urban warfare. Replete with an artificial sewer system, a piped in muezzin calling the imaginary faithful to prayer, and paintballers firing live rounds (of paint), the Knox site seeks to replicate the intensity and claustrophobia of a nasty urban skirmish.

As my unit advanced upon our objective, we lumbered up to a building on the town’s outskirts that needed securing. Running in a file from our cover behind a train car to the building, we had strict orders to keep moving—no matter what.

Advancing, I felt a hard splat against my leg, and I froze. I had never actually been fired at before, and the shock stopped me. I couldn’t make a decision, and the advance came to a temporary and frantic halt. With paintballs pouring down on us, we had become stuck in a soldier’s worst nightmare: the kill zone.

I was reprimanded for my inaction, of course, but it was good that I learned my lesson while in training and not later, when I was a paratrooper in Afghanistan. Indeed, this lesson—whatever you do, don’t just stand there; do something—is central to the military mentality. It also explains why so many servicemen and -women voted for George Bush in 2004 and why I, a lifelong Democrat, briefly considered doing the same. The president, for all his flaws, appeared to understand the dangers of the kill zone intuitively. John Kerry, on the other hand, seemed like a man afraid to lead. Fairly or not, the flip-flop charge, especially in relation to his changing positions on Iraq, worried people, and no one more than military voters. He seemed like a man trapped in the kill zone.

Kerry, of course, wasn’t the first Democrat to suffer from such perceptions. Among those in the services, Democrats are thought of as unable to confidently make command decisions. They are too eggheaded, too political, too weak. And yet, today, Bush’s failures afford the Democrats a unique opportunity to dispel such caricatures and make inroads among those in uniform. As a recent Military Times poll shows, increasing numbers of troops are now disenchanted with the president and with the war. While the military in 2008 will not necessarily be looking across the aisle to replace Bush, it will be open to any candidate who can enunciate a clear idea—whatever that idea may be—of where he or she will be taking the country, especially in relation to Iraq. A Democrat can tap into this vote simply by displaying clear leadership on issues of war and peace.

A candidate who proposes a speedy withdrawal need not fear an overwhelmingly negative reaction from the troops. That would be the result only for a candidate whose position seemed camouflaged in fuzzy language and hedged bets. The “Fighting Dems”—Democratic veterans such as Jim Webb, who ran for largely Republican-leaning congressional seats this year—represented a good start at speaking clearly.

Certainly, leadership is not the only concern the military has about Democrats. The red-blue cultural divide exists in extremis between the military and Democratic voters. Kerry, with his windsurfing and his Swiss-boarding-school education, was only the latest in a string of candidates perceived as culturally alien elitists, unable to connect at the gut. Guns, too, play a role in losing votes. Until a Democratic nominee can convince the NRA that he or she is no threat to the Second Amendment, the party will have a hard time winning over new military voters. It is easy to imagine the GOP attempting to shift the debate back to these issues in the upcoming election.

But Iraq remains the critical issue facing the country, and more and more troops have come to believe that victory is impossible. They also know that the war is hollowing the Army out. Not only does this harm our national security—witness our lack of options vis-à-vis the Iranians and the North Koreans—but it also strains service members’ morale. Since Republican policies can be directly linked to the weakening of the Army, Democrats can credibly claim that the GOP is endangering our national security.

In November 2004, most of my colleagues, officers and enlisted alike, voted to reelect George Bush in spite of the fact that he had sent them to fight a poorly planned war being waged for ever-shifting rationales. They overlooked these flaws because his firmness inspired their confidence. If Democrats come out with equal firmness for withdrawal, they may find themselves picking up some unexpected new military votes. The men and women of the military fear, above all else, someone who will abandon them to the kill zone. They want someone who will lead them through it.

. . . return to cover story

 

 

Ross Cohen is a former paratrooper and a veteran of the war in Afghanistan. He is currently completing his master's degree in public affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, and he interned last summer for the reelection campaign of Governor Bill Richardson. He has two short stories published in Operation Homecoming: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Home Front, in the Words of U.S. Troops and Their Families.