Comments on: Gravelanche warning? http://blogforidaho.com/2008/03/25/gravelanche-warning/ Official Blog of the Idaho Democratic Freedom Caucus Wed, 07 Jan 2009 06:16:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: W. Lane Startin http://blogforidaho.com/2008/03/25/gravelanche-warning/#comment-10 W. Lane Startin Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:58:17 +0000 http://blogforidaho.com/?p=13#comment-10 Contrary to what they might claim, none of the contemporary third parties are big on things like "tolerance" or "diversity." If you're not in line, you're ostracized. Apparently <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/bobbarrruns.html" rel="nofollow">Barr is going for the Libertarian Party nomination</a> with Ron Paul's support (at least his tacit support). If so that'll effectively shut Gravel - and the more progressive libertarian element - out of the LP for the foreseeable future. The flip side is with Barr as the LP nominee, the effect on the Democratic ticket will be virtually nil regardless of whether our nominee is Obama or Clinton. Barr is a much bigger problem for McCain. I agree Gravel has more in common with Edwards than Barr. He could have used that fact to his advantage within the Democratic Party, perhaps even with the DFC. But he didn't, he bolted to the Libertarians, and in all probability they'll snub him too. The best Gravel can hope for is Barr's VP slot, and I'm not sure if that's a place where he wants to be. This was a major mistake on his part. Contrary to what they might claim, none of the contemporary third parties are big on things like “tolerance” or “diversity.” If you’re not in line, you’re ostracized.

Apparently Barr is going for the Libertarian Party nomination with Ron Paul’s support (at least his tacit support). If so that’ll effectively shut Gravel - and the more progressive libertarian element - out of the LP for the foreseeable future.

The flip side is with Barr as the LP nominee, the effect on the Democratic ticket will be virtually nil regardless of whether our nominee is Obama or Clinton. Barr is a much bigger problem for McCain.

I agree Gravel has more in common with Edwards than Barr. He could have used that fact to his advantage within the Democratic Party, perhaps even with the DFC. But he didn’t, he bolted to the Libertarians, and in all probability they’ll snub him too. The best Gravel can hope for is Barr’s VP slot, and I’m not sure if that’s a place where he wants to be. This was a major mistake on his part.

]]> By: liberaltarian http://blogforidaho.com/2008/03/25/gravelanche-warning/#comment-8 liberaltarian Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:54:15 +0000 http://blogforidaho.com/?p=13#comment-8 Mike Gravel probably could have done a lot more in terms of influencing politics from within the Democratic Party then he ever can outside of it. While not completely in line with my own positions on every issue, nor with the <a href="http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/principles-of-the-dfc/" rel="nofollow">DFC's</a> completely, he was a strong voice for Freedom in our Party, and could have helped forward the movement nationaly. As to the Libertarian Party accepting him? It depends on their goals. If they only desire ballot access, credibilty with a wider range of voter to increase there total vote, then they will nominate him. But if they are, as they've only proved to be in the past, devoted to there own, and some (including myself) would say narrow, interpretation of Liberty, he won't have a chance. This is because econimicaly he is a populist. He has more in common with John Edwards and to a lesser extant Mike Huckabee (remember, I'm talking econimicaly here) than Rob Oates' Ron Paul, or Bob Barr. It appears his goal is simply to run for President, and seeing he had no chance of effecting the discourse in the Democratic debates, especialy after being shut out of them completely, he decided to try the Third Party route. Given what I've said regarding how the hard core Libertarians will view him, I think he would be better off instigating a rebirth of the Populist Party. Mike Gravel probably could have done a lot more in terms of influencing politics from within the Democratic Party then he ever can outside of it. While not completely in line with my own positions on every issue, nor with the DFC’s completely, he was a strong voice for Freedom in our Party, and could have helped forward the movement nationaly. As to the Libertarian Party accepting him? It depends on their goals. If they only desire ballot access, credibilty with a wider range of voter to increase there total vote, then they will nominate him. But if they are, as they’ve only proved to be in the past, devoted to there own, and some (including myself) would say narrow, interpretation of Liberty, he won’t have a chance. This is because econimicaly he is a populist. He has more in common with John Edwards and to a lesser extant Mike Huckabee (remember, I’m talking econimicaly here) than Rob Oates’ Ron Paul, or Bob Barr. It appears his goal is simply to run for President, and seeing he had no chance of effecting the discourse in the Democratic debates, especialy after being shut out of them completely, he decided to try the Third Party route. Given what I’ve said regarding how the hard core Libertarians will view him, I think he would be better off instigating a rebirth of the Populist Party.

]]>