Gravel to NAACP "debate" audience: "just how gullible are you?"

[welshTerrier2]

The Dem candidates are holding another beauty contest today. I just shut it off. I couldn't stand it anymore.

Why? It's the same useless format as the last "debate". This format does nothing but lock in the status quo. It does not allow challengers and lesser known candidates with new ideas an opportunity to confront the big name candidates. Instead of at least debating the merits of all ideas, the first tier candidates just ignore the newcomers. This fails to give solid answers to the questions many of us have. And then we're expected to support the front-runners in the general election? Forget it. Answer the damned questions first and then we'll see.

A question on health care was raised. When it was Gravel's turn to speak, he pointed out that most of the others on stage were receiving millions of dollars from the health insurance companies and the health care companies. He challenged the audience to understand that there would be no meaningful change in health care in this country as long as we keep electing people who are funded by the for profit lobbyists like Big Pharma and Big Insurance.

He said, and I'm paraphrasing: "if you believe you'll make any progress on health care electing these other candidates, I'd like to know just how gullible you are."

At the conclusion of Gravel's remarks, he was chastised by the moderator for violating the rules of the debate. It was stated that no candidate is permitted to directly challenge another candidate because the other candidate is not able to get time to respond.

Maybe those who are setting the debate rules need to do a little more thinking about whether the debate format is serving certain candidates or serving the best interests of those trying to learn about them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Didn't see it, but it sounds to me like that was a rhetorical challenge

not a challenge to a particular candidate, so the moderator was out of line.

[welshTerrier2]

2. that was my reaction too.

Gravel did not mention any other candidate by name nor even make an implication he was singling out any specific candidate. The larger point, of course, is that we're not ever going to hear from Hillary or any of the others about why they think they can remain independent and act in the people's best interests with their hand stuck way down in the insurance industry's piggy bank.

Btw, the audience loved what Gravel said.

[flpoljunkie]

3. Gravel's voucher program for healthcare would not cut out the insurance companies

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE VOUCHERS

Senator Gravel advocates a universal health-care voucher program in which the federal government would issue annual health care vouchers to Americans based on their projected needs. Under the Senator's plan, all Americans would be fully covered and would be free to use their vouchers to choose their own health care professional. No one would ever be denied health insurance because of their health, wealth, or any other reason. A universal health-care voucher plan will also relieve American businesses of the financial responsibility of insuring their workers while ensuring that their workers get adequate care.

http://www.gravel2008.us/issues

Gravel remains a bomb thrower. I think his idea of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax is hooey, as well.

[welshTerrier2]

4. "bomb thrower" is a bullshit label

sorry, but either the point he raised about "follow the money" and the tainted candidacies of those who are being funded by Big Pharma and Big Insurance has merit or it doesn't. To toss around the "bomb thrower" label without addressing the issue he raised is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. Gravel is right when he says that candidates who are beholding to massive commercial interests will not fix anything once elected. That's the point.

BTW, I'm not a Gravel supporter and I don't support his sales tax ideas or his health care plan. I do support his very legitimate observations about the connection of campaign money to reinforcing the status quo.

[Totally Committed]

7. Gravel is right when he says that candidates who are beholding to massive commercial interests...

...will not fix anything once elected. That's the point....... but either the point he raised about "follow the money" and the tainted candidacies of those who are being funded by Big Pharma and Big Insurance has merit or it doesn't."

Exactly! That's why we are in the horrible straits we are in today. Like you, I do not support Gravel. His sales tax idea, and his health care plan are both, imo, plain wrong. But, I do agree with your assessment about why thw label "bomb thrower" doesn't apply here. He is saying something so essentially true, it doesn't apply. When does someone trying to get our attention and/or wake us up become a "bomb thrower"? He doesn't. At least he doesn't, in my book.

TC

[flpoljunkie]

16. Gravel's voucher plan for healthcare doesn't cut out insurance companies, so how does it save money?

[Donna Zen]

20. Did you see the thread about Hillary wanting them off the stage?

Not just Hillary but apparently Edwards want some of the candidates gone. I'm sure she'll get her way.

The real reason she wants Gravel out is because he keeps asking them about trade policies and the war. Can't have that discussion now can we?

[welshTerrier2]

21. instead of these beauty pageants ...

wouldn't it be interesting if, instead of taking questions from the audience or from journalists or whatever, they did one debate where the candidates made up the questions and the others had to respond to them. yeah, that will happen ...

i haven't seen anything to confirm this business of excluding other candidates from the debates ... if they do that, I hope supporters of those candidates respond appropriately ... maybe they could have a debate where Hillary is the only attendee and she just stands there and smiles and waves and doesn't say anything ... think she'd go for that?

[Donna Zen]

24. Maybe they could have a debate?

Ha! It's pretty much what's happening now.

[democratsin08]

27. special interests

i wonder if anyone represents us anymore or if they just represent big money from lobbyists

[w4rma]

25. I wonder if Gravel supports school "vouchers" too. His plan to abolish the income tax and replace it

with higher sales taxes is hooey, also.

[Doctor_J]

5. I heard Gravel on w/ Malloy the other night

He's kind of nuts, IMO.

[welshTerrier2]

6. would it be too much to ask ...

to request that, in addition to any other comments you're more than free to make, that you address the issue Gravel raised. Gravel may very well be "kind of nuts." I don't care if anyone thinks he is. The man throws rocks into lakes.

That doesn't make him wrong about candidates feeding off K Street and what policy implications that's likely to have in the future. Does it?

[Totally Committed]

8. Why is it, do you suppose, that anyone who raises this point about corporatist interests

polluting our well so badly that we might never be able to elect those who will make a real difference, is a "nut"? Is it that we have to believe that this Party, and those we elect would never mislead us that way, or what? Is it a defense mechanism, or are we REALLY THAT STUPID?

I have to wonder when I read some of the replies when people like us raise this unholy spectre here. Calling Gravel a "nut" about something that is absolutely true -- no matter how uncomfortable it makes us -- will be to our own detriment. I guarantee it. We need to face this now, and start electing those who WILL do our bidding, as they are elected to do.

As long as the corporatists get backing from the corporations, and win election after election, this will happen again and again like a bad dream, and our granchildren will be without the things they need well after we are gone.

TC

[msongs]

9. you have just ruled out all the current candidates :-)

you say:
"We need to face this now, and start electing those who WILL do our bidding, as they are elected to do."

Unfortunately the current lot are ALL on the corporate gravy train. Not sure about Mr. Kuchinich's situation.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[trashcanistanista]

10. Not all.

Kucinich has no strings attached.

[Totally Committed]

13. I agree... pretty much all of them, save Kucinich,

who more for that reason than any other is considered "unelectable" anyway.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

11. People Magazine culture

the remarks below are NOT intended to comment on other posters in this thread but rather are general remarks about our culture and, perhaps, the greater DU community:

I really worry that we have become a People Magazine culture. If those we disagree with and those we have little respect for promote an idea into the public discourse, we should easily be able to rip it apart. In fact, I see that as part of DU's mission. When arguments are endorsed, especially by our political enemies, it's important to really deal with them and put forward the best counter-points we're able to make so that others here might learn from them. Some counter-arguments are weak; some are very strong and effective.

That's one of the key reasons I post, and read, on DU. I contribute and I learn. When I talk politics in the real world, I'm that much stronger.

So, take this thread as an example. And take all the Nader bashing threads too while you're at it. Imagine arguing with a republican about Hillary Clinton. They say "how can you accuse Fred Thompson of being a big lobbyist. Hillary gets millions from the health insurance industry." Maybe that point would be worth discussing BEFORE she gets nominated. But nooooooo. What is the response: Gravel sucks. Well, what if he does? Is that the answer I should now give to the republican I'm talking to????? Should I just say: Thompson sucks and leave it at that? The real point is that standing listening to me debating the republican are five or ten undecideds. "Thompson sucks" is not what I would call an influential, well articulated position.

We see the same idiocy from the Nader haters. Frankly, I don't give a damn about Nader. The guy does have some great ideas though. The "I don't want to talk about anything Nader talks about" rules out discussion on almost every issue there is. It's the child with an index finger stuck way down in each ear screaming lalalalalalalalalalalalalala so they don't have to hear anything they don't want to hear. All we're left with is: Nader sucks.

That's the problem I see. It's all ad hominem. It's all about the messenger and we fail to understand the universality of all messages. Ideas "walk on their own." If you shoot the messenger, the idea remains behind. It either has merit or it doesn't. And some try to address this foolishness a little differently. I saw one post in a Nader thread the other day that said something like "it doesn't matter what he says because he doesn't really believe it." I loved that one. Let's accept the hypothesis that he doesn't believe what he's saying and that he has an ulterior motive. But what if I believe it? Does it mean just because it came from someone who isn't sincere that it automatically isn't a good idea? That's crazy. Again, it's failing to understand that ideas either have merit or they don't. The quality of the messenger or the sincerity of the messenger doesn't affect that.

And my grand solution to fix this mess: no idea ... it sure does lead to a lot of DU noise though ... we really have to do better ...

[Totally Committed]

12. You're right, of course.

"And my grand solution to fix this mess: no idea"

I hear that, my friend!


TC

[Lord Helmet]

14. you're an equal opportunity ad hominen attacker yourself

I can't get through your long-winded diatribes without being struck by the fact you frequently refer to people you don't agree with
in terms of "idiocy" and "uninformed" or worse in a preachy, condescending, ad hominey kind of way.

Talk about noise ...

[welshTerrier2]

15. i only glad that you still ...

read my posts ... thanks for that ...

[noamnety]

22. This is a great post.

Thank you.

[welshTerrier2]

23. and thank you, too ...

I do my best and I really appreciate your feedback.

[Doctor_J]

17. Malloy was trying to get to expound on what we at citizens can do

to wrestle our government from the lobbyists and their corporate johns. This is, after all, the base issue. Malloy tried in 6 different ways to get Gravel to actually provide two or three things that we can do - e.g. how can we stop the war, how can we get the elections back from Diebold et. al., how can we get our reps attention, etc. In response, Gravel kept ranting more and more loudly about abstractions. It ended up with the two of them shouting at each other and not really getting any answers.

Yes, it is very nice to raise issues, but he would have a hard time keeping my attention for very long. There are other stone throwers who deliver their rocks in a much more lucid and digestible format.

Edit: His issue in this case was dead-on. I think it could have been much more palatably raised without calling the audience (or other candidates' supporters) gullible. I haven't watched any of the debates. The Dems' are beauty contests. the GOP's are seances that try to conjure up the ghost of Droolin' Dutch Reagan. they're all sickening.

[tridim]

26. VERY nuts, and NOT A DEMOCRAT..

The guy is a fringe Libertarian, not a Democrat. He proved that himself during the Malloy interview.

Why does he still get to participate in Democratic events?

[penguin7]

18. Is the forum on the web?

I would like to see it.

[welshTerrier2]

19. sorry, not sure ...

here's the link I watched when it was live: http://www.naacpwebcast.com/naacp2007/player_naacp07_01.asp

not sure if it has the archive available ...

[hvn_nbr_2]

28. In our debates, you can't challenge the other debaters.

no candidate is permitted to directly challenge another candidate

:eyes: :crazy: :rofl:

In other news, up is down, in is out, and Publicans believe in the rule of law.