Mike Gravel is a former Senator from the state of Alaska. He served from 1969-1981 refusing to swing to the beat of Washington. He has been running for President since April 17, 2006 making him the first candidate to officially launch his bid. He is the "bizarro world" version of Ron Paul.
In 1971, he waged a successful one-man filibuster for five months that forced the Nixon Administration to cut a deal, effectively ending the draft in the United States. What he is most famous for is his release of the Pentagon Papers.
Senator Gravel was never able to get his candidacy off the ground. He constantly struggled for campaign cash and worked hard to get federal funds to match donations. He made very strong showings in the debates being the vicious attack dog against Clinton, Edwards, Obama. He did not mention Dodd, Biden, or Richardson by name but felt they were just as bad as the front runners. The only person he could spar was Rep. Dennis Kuchinich who he often fell in the same boat with being a staunch liberal advocate and an extreme underdog. He did however receive surges in attention after his showings in the debates. His website received more hits than any other candidate, had hundreds of thousands of his you tube clip viewings, and had a jump in contributions.
What Senator Gravel has long championed on his shoulders is "The National Initiative for Democracy". He spent many years fighting to elect good people to office, but eventually started to give up finding that political office changes people. He felt that the only way for the people to be heard in government is for them to take part in the law making of government through voting on national initiatives much like most states currently have.
In the very beginning of the race he was seen in the light of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas who was running for the Republican nomination. People that followed the race that early in the game, hardly knew who these two men were and joked at their prospects of moving in the polls past 1 percent.
Ron Paul was able to however make the big move bringing his candidacy from a nothing to a "Ron Paul Revolution". He was successfully able to court to anti-war conservatives and independents by drumming a new tune in the political spectrum.
He strongly emphasized the Constitution and founding fathers as he would argue for lost personal liberties and a disgracefully historic foreign policy. He takes issue on the country not declaring war since WWII, the implementation of the Patriot Act and the Iraq war. Both issues of which he was one of the only Republicans to vote against. He has also argued for the abolishment of the CIA, IRS, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Reserve, and leaving the UN.
In spring of 2007, I felt that if there were to be an underdog candidate on either side come out of the shadows it would be Senator Gravel on the Democrat side. Historically that is how things go. The Republicans pick the person in succession to the nomination while the Democrats give the underdog a chance. They clearly did this in 1976, 1992 and 2004.
What I failed to recognize back then was that the 2008 election is simply different and can not be compared to history. The Republican Party is at a crossroads on which way to go ideologically while the Democrat Party needs to win the White House or concede political viability on the national level.
The country is frustrated with almost everything and so are these two candidates. The Democrats have their stronghold candidates while no Republican was ever able to grab hold and unite the party. The Republicans are continuing to not unite behind one candidate because of many divisions. The Obama for Change movement and the Clinton War Machine have silenced the possibility for Democrats to take a look at all the candidates.
Rep. Ron Paul probably will not succeed in his bid for the nomination, but his message has gotten out which seems like his biggest goal. There can be no denying the showing that he made and hence, Why? Senator Gravel has under the cover of darkness conceded that he will not be the nominee. His goal is to get his message out and most of all to succeed in his National Initiative for Democracy. It is the only chance for citizens to have a real say in what their government does.
http://www.nationalinitiative.us/
http://www.gravel2008.us/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
-Ed Paxson (a Mitt Romney supporter)
Fairbanks, Alaska
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Mr. Paxson,
I would like to thank you for this thoughtful and well written article, and I’ll take up your offer to respond. Here are some of my own opinions.
I agree that Senator Gravel has been much abused by the majority of our news people, who seemed and still seem quick to call him derogatory names (when they deign to discuss him at all) while ignoring his patriotism and admirable achievements while in office. In the televised “debates” he was asked the fewest questions and given the least amount of time to respond. I believe that his repeated and legitimate challenges to the “status quo” candidates caused him to be excluded from future “debates.” As you point out, thousands of people who got to hear and see Senator Gravel were drawn to find out more about him. However, the Senator embarrassed those candidates who were the “darlings” of the major media corporations, and he had to go.
Congressman Paul has received similarly poor treatment, and continues to be left out of the media’s analysis even at this late date despite decent finishes in previous primaries. Tomorrow our nation will have 22 primaries, and many voters remain undecided. The political news they receive may likely affect their voting decision. During my commute to work this morning I listened to National Public Radio, which many consider to be a reasonably unbiased source of news and information. During their political discussion they omitted mentioning Senator Gravel and Congressman Paul. They excluded them again when they covered politics a second time. About 10:30 a very good friend of mine called me after having caught MSNBC’s political coverage. Before I had a chance to mention my own experiences, she asked. “Guess which two men they left out?”
I’m sure you know the answer to her question just as I did.
Unless we assume that our media and news sources know who is best for us to hear from and learn about, knowing the answer to her question only raises more questions.
Best regards,
Charles
Your right on when it comes to the media. They have this arrogance that they have the right to decide what is to be covered and what is not. The only time they will mention these lower tier candidates is when they make a huge showing at a debate or raise millions of dollars.
We all expect the media to talk about the front runners most. What bothers me is if a voter goes to the booth, and looks at three names on the Democrat ballot when the media told them only Obama and Clinton were running, then the media did a poor job of informing the voter.
-Ed
Post a Comment