Mike Gravel needs to be removed from debates - attacking Edwards

[MalloyLiberal]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rOmtUK8Hb7w

[Clintonista2]

1. Yeah, let's remove people from debates because we don't like what they say. nt.

[MalloyLiberal]

2. All he does is attack, attack, attack

Yell,yell yell..

[youngdem]

13. Yeah. Why can't he roll over and vascillate like real candidates do

Look, Gravel is certifiably nuts, but you can't ban him for attacking candidates. That's what you are SUPPOSED to do. It's a fucking debate, not English tea.

[ellisonz]

66. Umm...

Why is Gravel certifiably nuts? Care to back that up at all.

:eyes:

[PresidentObama]

3. I'm for Edwards, but I disagree.

The candidates should be allowed to discuss differences and contrast one another.

[MalloyLiberal]

5. He's attacking. We are supposed to be better than that

[LittleClarkie]

33. So he won't make it out of the primaries, and with any luck won't be able to fundraise

effectively.

Let the system work.

[MonkeyFunk]

39. says who?

They're all running for the same job. Of course they attack.

I swear, it seems some people have never observed an election before.

[billyoc]

4. The guy who leaked the Pentagon Papers and fillibustered the draft

singlehandedly? He can say whatever he wants about whomever he wants as far as I'm concerned.

[bedpanartist]

22. Can any detractor of Gravel point to anything untrue he has said?

because the more and more I listen to him, and read about him, the better he sounds.

I can't believe people who authorized the imperialistic invasion of a country that was no threat to us that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead innocents can be considered "serious candidates" anywhere other than a country that is mentally ill.

[ProudDad]

37. He did both at the same time

Entering the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record WHILE filibustering the draft...

Neat trick...

He also saved some really good people...

"How the Pentagon Papers Came to be Published by the Beacon Press: A Remarkable Story Told by Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, Dem Presidential Candidate Mike Gravel and Unitarian Leader Robert West"

A really great Democracy Now show. Listen here:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/02/1331255

[Alexander]

41. Agreed, he's a distinguished politician with a reputation

and as such should be included.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

65. Thank you billyoc,

Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, these are the guys who are willing to fight us!!

Both Edwards and Hillary can't wait to get rid of anyone who's willing to point out the hypocrisy of these corporate crowned "front runners".

[EFerrari]

We can't have actual debates!

[dflprincess]

11. We don't have actual debates - we have Q&A sessions

Personally, I've been enjoying Gravel's comments about the DLC and the affect of big money on elections. It's high time someone said it.

[Olney Blue]

6. I disagree. John Edwards can handle himself just fine.

[saracat]

7. Well who listens to him anyway.He attacks all the Dem candidates

and for that reason alone, he should be removed.He asks voters , during the Debates , NOT to vote for any of them for Prez! .Fine , I understand he is a candidate but he has no class or sense of loyalty to his own party.If he hates the Dems this much , he should leave the Party.he isn't going to be the nominee but he is trying to hurt whoever it might be.Disgusting.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. He should be made head of the party. We could use the integrity. All the other candidates

should leave the party. (Except for Kucinich and maybe Richardson)

Just say no to the bush enablers!

We need to quit kissing the ass of those who want an American Empire.

Why don't they just go start an American Empire party and quit embarrasing the Democratic party?

Loyality? Is that one of Hillary's personality traits? Go ask John Kerry.

Disgusting is right!

[ellisonz]

67. Maybe Richardson?

Good priorities, sir! I salute you!

[frylock]

17. sense of loyalty to his own party

[DemBones DemBones]

8. Nobody should be removed from the debates.

They are all criticizing each other and making the case for their candidacies. Gravel's kind of amusing because he wastes most of his time complaining he doesn't get any time. Of course, he's right. The so-called "top tier" get the majority of the time, which is unfair.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. I smell a double agent. n/t

[MalloyLiberal]

15. Yeah I've been thinking he's on Rove's payroll, like Zell Miller

[John Q. Citizen]

16. No, I meant Mike Malloy. He pretends that he kind of likes Gravel, when

in reality he's pulling for Biden.

Or are we taking about the same Malloy?

[Mr Rabble]

25. Malloy pulling for Biden?

Pass the bong please!

Mike Malloy is not a fan of Biden.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. mmmmm.....

bong!

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Alexander]

42. The Democrat who ended the draft AND the Vietnam War?

Yeah, a real Republican mole. :eyes:

[Tom Joad]

10. Another anti-democracy thread. I support the inclusion of all candidates, even those that voted

for the illegal war against Iraq.

[MonkeyFunk]

43. Yeah!

let Dal LaMagna in the debates!

[Adelante]

14. Let's not have free speech

So bad for everyone and all. Let's just do away with it altogether.

[Connie_Corleone]

18. Well he's been attacking other Democratic candidates, especially Obama.

What makes Edwards so different? I'm sure he can handle himself, just like the other candidates have been doing since Gravel has been in the debates.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. He doesn't belong in the debates, but not for that reason

He doesn't belong in the debates because he is running a vanity campaign with no chance of winning. Same goes for Kucinich.

[bedpanartist]

23. yep, only the rich should be allowed

because after all, American politics is all about money anyway.

The real thing that comes out of all this is that our political system isn't serious.

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. His lack of money isn't the problem, it's his lack of support

[bedpanartist]

55. without money, he has not attention, no support

it's the classic catch-22 that those who are not bought and paid for by the corporate political structure always get cut down with.

It's also systematically built into the system to keep those without money or those unwilling to do the bidding of money out of the process.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Maybe they are there precisely because they know if they weren't

nobody would hear anything other than the DLC line.

Democracy is a plant which grows only in the soil of the free exchange of ideas. They believe in democracy, and though there is little chance they will be nominated, their ideas deserve a place at the table. Their presence ensures a better, more rounded debate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. Why do Kucinich's idea's deserve a place at the table and not the ideas of

Dal LaMagna?

http://www.lamagnaforpresident.com

Or Sal Mohamed?

http://www.salmohamedforpresident.org

Where do we draw the line between serious candidates and the joke candidates?

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. I'd be more than happy to give them a listen.

Maybe they have some good ideas.

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. And you would support debates with dozens of candidates?

Every publicity hound and nut job would be running for President if there guaranteed face time in national TV.

[RaleighNCDUer]

64. You have a problem with democracy? nt

[Maat]

26. Well, I'm campaigning for Kucinich, and I disagree with not allowing him to participate.

America needs to hear what Dennis has to say.

If they don't let Dennis participate, then I won't be watching them. There worthless, as far as I'm concerned, if it's only Edwards, Obama, and Clinton. Why not just hand me the centrist talking points, and be done with it, instead of putting us through what is essentially a dog-and-pony show.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. Do you have something against dogs? Or ponies?

I like Dennis and his position papers are very detailed, thoughtful and about as mainstream as you can get with the TV off, but if he's got something against dogs and ponies, I may have to reconsider....

[Maat]

29. Uh-oh, I didn't know about that ...

but, I must admit I AM a cat-person.

HeeHee. Are you joking?

[John Q. Citizen]

32. Well,

yeah.

But I suspect the OP might be also.

[Maat]

34. HeeHee.

Anyway, the whole thread made me think - and I watched a few Mike Gravel "YouTube's." I learned a few things, and, so far, haven't heard anything I disagreed with.

[John Q. Citizen]

35. i watched a couple too.

Funny how that works...

[Maat]

36. Yeah ...

;-)

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. Kucinich has already participated in numerous debates

And despite that, he is still languishing within the margin of error of zero in public opinion polls.

The three who are supposedly giving "centrist talking points," are faring much better in the polls.

[slick8790]

61. Oh ok.

I didn't realize only pre-anointed frontrunners were allowed to enter debates. God forbid someone should see a candidate they agree with more than one of the top 3. And they are the top 3 at this point mostly because of name recognition. (In the interest of full disclosure, I consider myself an Edwards man at the moment). How can anyone have any chance of winning if theyre not allowed on debates to speak to the largest audience they can get? Do you realize the ridiculous catch 22 you've put candidates in? Gravel is an american hero for his work with the draft. and kucinich is one of the most principled, straight talking politicians i've ever seen. it's disgusting to tell either of them to leave because "they have no chance of winning".

[ellisonz]

69. And Biden, Richardson, Dodd, right?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

20. IMO definitely a "Loose Cannon". Like the Dan Ayckroyd character in the eponymous

movie. You can't predict what will come out of Gravel's mouth next--not even ballpark range.

[maximusveritas]

21. He should have never been in the debates

Hillary and Edwards would have been right had they just been calling Gravel "not serious", because he's not.

He doesn't register (0%) in most polls. The guy has $31,141 COH and $64,716 in debts. Other than the fact that he was a Senator almost 30 years ago, there is no reason for him to be in the debates.

[ripple]

28. I don't mind him

And he attacks my candidate quite regularly. Hell, I like a good debate.

[zulchzulu]

31. The more you give Gravel cred, the more he stays on

I used to like him until a recent interview on Rachel Maddow's show. He is an ass.

[saltpoint]

38. I would like to see the Orange Cleaner guy removed from television.

But this is a first amendment/capitalist kind of society and I have to tolerate him. I can buy the cleaner or not. But I can't impose my private view onto public airwaves.

Same goes for Senator Gravel. He meets all qualifications for the office of president according to the Constitution -- you know -- the Constitution -- that document held fairly high until the election of 2000...?

A sturdy Democracy isn't going to be toppled by criticism of its basic tenets or any of its elected representatives. Gravel's voice should be the same as yours or mine or anyone else's. And he has declared his candidacy and is owed a podium in these debates.

You can vote for him or not. You can buy Orange Cleaner or not.

[Alexander]

40. They all say things that need to be said. Gravel should stay.

Kucinich, Dodd and Biden don't have much of a chance either.

But they all have different ideas, and some of them are worth listening to.

[w4rma]

44. Gravel attacks everybody. It's too bad that Gravel's tax plan is whacko. (nt)

[Clintonista2]

45. Candidates like Gravel DO serve a purpose by the way...

They force candidates to stay on their feet, to answer for previous wrongdoing.

[LWolf]

46. I like Gravel, and I'm glad he is present to

point out things that many politicians don't want aired.

I'm not for silencing ANYONE. If I were, I'd suggest kicking HRC and Obama out of the debates; they monopolize the conversation and we don't get to hear enough from everyone else.

[dogman]

50. "Follow the money!"

Ain't that the truth. Yes, remove Gravel, keep corruption in the process.

[Forkboy]

52. That's dumb,and I like Edwards.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

53. free speech eh?

[Milo_Bloom]

54. Hmmmmm.

I like your style. You have a thread with a title that will get looks because it pretends to be anti-Gravel and then include a video that pumps up Gravel and attacks the capitulator candidates.

Good one!

[Clark2008]

56. I'd sooner vote for Gravel than Edwards.

Edwards flip flops on everything.

[mitchtv]

58. I like Gravel

He is a patriot who will end the war on drugs. That alone will get my support, besides the others deserve a good attacking, even JE.

[high density]

59. I'd rather solve the problem by removing Edwards NM

[MiserableFailure]

60. I'd vote for Gravel over Edwards

nt

[Canuckistanian]

62. He attacked all the other candidates collectively before

Remember "These people scare me!"?

And nobody said he should be removed from the debates. In fact, he created an instant fan-base with that statement.

[Colobo]

68. Edwards > Gravel

[goodgd_yall]

70. Gravel's like an annoying gnat

He doesn't contribute anything but, perhaps, comic relief, which I'd rather give up for time to hear what the other candidates are going to do on various issues. I don't even know what he said about Edwards, but after the first 2 televised debates, I've decided he needs to be disinvited. I would not say that about a candidate just because he or she is not polling well. Gravel's problem is he has nothing constructive to say. He's made himself into a joke.

[Rowdyboy]

71. He's a pathetic, delusional old man and if the media had any decency....

they'd send him home. He embarrasses himself more each debate and eats up time the seven serious candidates could be putting to much better use.