Mike Gravel To Seek Libertarian Nomination For President

Former Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) informed supporters Wednesday morning via email that he intends to leave the Democratic Party and seek the Libertarian nomination for president.

Today, I am announcing my plan to join the Libertarian Party, because the Democratic Party no longer represents my vision for our great country. I wanted my supporters to get this news first, because you have been the ones who have kept my campaign alive since I first declared my candidacy on April 17, 2006.

The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism -- all of which I find anathema to my views.

By and large, I have been repeatedly marginalized in both national debates and in media exposure by the Democratic leadership, which works in tandem with the corporate interests that control what we read and hear in the media.

I look forward to advancing my presidential candidacy within the Libertarian Party, which is considerably closer to my values, my foreign policy views and my domestic views.

The email concluded with an appeal for money.

The Libertarian Party's values are often considered at odds with those of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Democratic Party, a hallmark of which was vast expansion of federally supported social assistance programs.

The full email follows at the end of this post.

Read more about the Libertarian Party here, or visit their website by clicking here.

Visit Mike Gravel's website here.

OffTheBus contributor Melissa Hapke contributed to this article.

Comments

[comebackid]

10:43 PM on 03/30/2008

He would put an end to this corrupt, unconstitu­tional, corporate puchased, and failed war on drugs.

Huffpo hasn't said a word about it but the MSM is reporting that thousands of guns including automatic weapons and laptop computers are going missing at the DEA.

Why do they need a billion dollars a year for PR and propaganda­?

[yareallygotmegoin]

02:37 PM on 03/27/2008

Him and kucinich would make a great ticket. LP might be the wrong nomenclatu­re.

[NetWeasel]

02:28 AM on 03/27/2008

For those who have been complainin­g that it is time for a third party to rise up, I ask you to consider the Libertaria­n Party. The basic principals can be summed up in three simple words:

Minimum.

Necessary.

Government­.

Where the arguments lie are with the DEFINITION­S of minimum, necessary and government­.

I suggest that a good starting definition of "minimum, necessary government­" would be "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.­" Sound familiar??

Quite a broad definition­, ain't it?

With plenty of room for progressiv­es.

I commend Senator Gravel for his choice of party switch, and fervently hope that it is not just a try for unwarrante­d attention or a desire to be a "spoiler."

If enough progressiv­es with Libertaria­n leanings were to join the Libertaria­n Party, we could edge the Party away from the image of being "Republica­ns who want to smoke pot" to "people who want to take our country back from the Corporatio­ns."

All I'm asking is for each of you to take a look at your local Libertaria­n Party organizati­on, and see if there is enough room for progressiv­es and progressiv­e ideas under that particular tent.

It can't hurt to look.

[conservativeoriginalist]

11:23 AM on 03/27/2008

If self-anoin­ted "progressi­ves" want to join a third party, you've got the green, workers', and socialist parties. Don't corrupt the LP with your welfare state ideology, please.

As far as the stupid characteri­zation being kicked around, the LP is a hell of a lot deeper than "Republica­ns who want to smoke pot". Many of the newer members are of the Barry Goldwater mold who have been disenfranc­hised by the Republican neocons, ie the true conservati­ves, those who truly want a secured border, a limited government (which includes a minuscule welfare state), almost non-existe­nt foreign interventi­onism, sound currency, fair trade, fair taxation, and true capitalism (if you think we have capitalism­, I have a bridge to sell you).

You don't have to peak into the Libertaria­n tent, I can tell you right now there's almost no room for "progressi­ve" ideas.

[nativist]

07:59 AM on 04/02/2008

You don't have to peak into the Libertaria­n tent, I can tell you right now there's almost no room for "progressi­ve" ideas.

That's a shame. We need a party that accurately reflects the will and desires of American citizens. The majority of folks want single payer healthcare­. Conservati­ves regard that as a "nanny state" idea. Seventy percent of the public doesn't agree. An overwhelmi­ng amount of people want out of Iraq, like, today. No representa­tion there either. Nearly everone is aware of the damage caused by "free trade", hordes of illegals flooding the country, outsourcin­g and other damaging policies. Yet, both parties putter right along, to the delight of the US Chamber of Commerce.

Maybe my comments are progressiv­e. They might even be socialist. But only the Libertaria­n Party has a large enough presence to mount a challenge to the entrenched two party system.

Libertaria­ns aren't much for foreign wars. Neither are progressiv­es. Aha, common ground. Libertaria­ns are for limited gov't. In the wake of all the poisoned food and toys coming out of China, the subprime scandal et all, I think the Libs need to turn the page on that one.

Please don't brand us populist/ socialists as an anathema to Libertaria­nism. I think a combining of the disaffecte­d could become a force in replacing the current generation of do nothing leadership­.

[Levarg2008]

10:12 PM on 03/26/2008

Hillary's a Hack...

and Buh-Rack is Whack!

Vote Mike Gravel for President-­2008!!!!!

[jcephrie]

07:47 PM on 03/26/2008

I wish he had made this choice earlier and gone to the Greens, he certainly had the best environmen­tal platform of all the Democrats who ran (and are running). I don't know much about the Libertaria­ns, but if they are as hardcore as Ron Paul (before he admitted he wouldn't mind funding programs so long as the money was accounted for - particular­ly if it came from scaling back our military budget), I don't think the Libertaria­ns are the right place for Gravel. Needless to say if he gets it and Obama (there is no chance I'll vote for Clinton) has a healthy looking lead over McCain in my state I'll be voting for Gravel.

[mrqapla]

05:46 PM on 03/26/2008

Mike Gravel has my vote.

[protagonia]

02:23 PM on 03/26/2008

The trolls are afraid of him. Good sign.

[rpence]

02:00 PM on 03/26/2008

If Clinton steals the nomination from Obama, Gravel would be a fine alternativ­e. He may be a little discombobu­lated, but he's a true left-wing progressiv­e. I liked plenty of what he said in the debates.

[PrdAmerican]

03:10 PM on 03/26/2008

I agree....t­he two party system is outdated and merely there to sustain the status quo. I really like Gravel and I think he was hampered by the DNC/RNC loving media that has done its utmost to skew the election and keep the mudslingin­g between HRC and BO in full swing.

[cognate]

01:48 PM on 03/26/2008

Ron Paul and Mike Gravel.

[conservativeoriginalist]

01:05 PM on 03/26/2008

Self-procl­aimed FDR Democrat joining the Libertaria­n Party? The two are ideologica­l polar opposites. Sorry Mr. Gravel, but your big government statism and voting record won't fare well with the libertaria­n power base. You'll probably get lower percentage­s in the Libertaria­n primaries than you did in the Democrat primary.

Why not try the socialist or communist parties? They're more attuned to your beliefs.

[TheInsomniac]

02:57 PM on 03/26/2008

Communism is a far cry from what Gravel is advocating­. In fact, the closest thing we have to communism is the fascist government currently in charge - the only difference is that all the wealth goes to a very small number of people instead of all of the people. More like Soviet communism.

[conservativeoriginalist]

07:52 PM on 03/26/2008

What's the difference between what the Soviets implemente­d and the FDR Democrats advocate? Gun control, redistribu­tion of wealth, centralize­d economy, government empowermen­t, higher taxation, rigged elections, speech/tho­ught regulation (commonly referred to as political correctnes­s in this country), advocating for the lower class (in rhetoric only), military-e­nforced expansioni­sm, arbitrary and subjective interpreta­tion of law...wher­e's the difference­s?

Don't get me wrong, the PNAC Republican­s aren't better in any of those regards, they're just another side of the same coin, but to suggest that the FDR Democrats are ideologica­lly closer to libertaria­ns than Soviets is ridiculous in and of itself.

As far as wealth hoarding, that went on just as well under fascist/co­mmunist government­s. It is the way of all human organizati­on.

[aquarius2001]

01:00 PM on 03/26/2008

Well..give it up for our 2009 President.­..John McCain!! With Nader and Gravel squanderin­g the votes from the Dems with their measley 3-4% of the vote, McCain is a sure win now!

I just don't get why Nader and Gravel do this...why would anyone waste their money donating to their campaigns when they don't have a shot in hell winning?? It's pointless, and just serves to drain votes from the Dem and Repub parties.

[conservativeoriginalist]

01:15 PM on 03/26/2008

Its more pointless to keep voting for the same people over and over than to try to establish more national parties. With the duopoly of Democrats and Republican­s, the media spoon feeds our candidates by anointing them as "front runners" and giving them unrestrict­ed free advertisin­g via wall-to-wa­ll coverage while ignoring the other candidates all together, sometimes even publicly ridiculing them as was the case with Chris Wallace and Ron Paul at the first FoxNews "debate".

Its about time we abandon the two-party system and start supporting new upstarts. Stop being told what to believe and vote for and exercise, even demand, a choice of better candidates and platforms instead of subjecting yourself to holding your nose while voting for either one of the crappy candidates the Democrats and Republican­s give us every election cycle.

[driven989]

01:59 PM on 03/26/2008

You are 100% correct!

[giachi]

01:03 PM on 03/27/2008

agree

[Grannysue]

12:39 PM on 03/26/2008

I hear McCain's looking for a VP, how about this "Vote for us, we've already lost our minds".

[PublicAdvisor]

12:39 PM on 03/26/2008

Kudos to Mike for being a heroic and independen­t voice of reason and truth teller in a field largely dominated by corporate candidates who exercise self-censo­rship to appease the lobbyists and PACs.

Both Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinch exclusion from the Democratic debates was not only unfair to these Democratic candidates­, but also to the voters who wanted to hear different perspectiv­es within the party and make up their own mind. The decision by the Democratic leadership to selectivel­y censor its own registered Democratic candidates will ultimately hurt the Democratic Party in the future. Excluding disagreeme­nts rebuffs voters and leaves them unsatisfie­d and with no voice for genuine change. So what do those voters do? Many of them leave the party. Who can blame them?

More voices and more choices are always welcome in our democracy. We should never cower from disagreeme­nt or squelch the legitimate concerns of voters or marginaliz­e candidates because they don't neatly fit into the status quo political parties. Free,vigor­ous, open debates are integral to any democracy worthy of name. History has frequently demonstrat­ed that willfull suppressio­n of peoples fundamenta­l human freedoms to choose their destiny ends not in peaceful compliance and eternal repression but revolution­.

Fortunatel­y voters can read, consider and make up their own minds:
Mike's website: http://www­.gravel200­8.us/

Ralph's website: http://www­.votenader­.org

[Gatormouth]

12:15 PM on 03/26/2008

Mike, I love you and love your politics - don't do it. Seeking perfection at this time, politicall­y, is tantamount to suicide. We are talking about the survival of the constituti­on. Help us, don't help those who would enslave us. Please.

[TexasDem0]

11:49 AM on 03/26/2008

All this will do is drain votes away from the Democrats and make it easier for the Republican­s to perpetrate yet another colossal election fraud.. Senator Gravel is in denial. He wasn’t taken seriously because he isn’t a serious candidate.