Previously, IPR had reported that insiders from the Gravel campaign claimed Steve Kubby “stabbed Mike Gravel in the back.” The allegation was that Kubby had agreed to endorse Gravel and not Mary Ruwart. “He put friendship over principle,” the source said. Those same words appear in a recent article from Last Free Voice, sent to the site’s editor from someone calling him/herself “Austrian Economist.” Below is an excerpt:
There was a point during the Libertarian Convention on Sunday at which all was not yet lost to Bob Barr and his Republican-lite sympathies.
You may have seen the eccentric pro-Mike Gravel signs encouraging delegates to “Fight Senator with Senator†or comparing Barr’s career accolades with those of Gravel. Signing the Patriot Act or ending the Draft? Defense of Marriage Act or releasing The Pentagon Papers? Hmmmm… Sufficed to say, it was amusing and poignant. Less amusing was proto-fascist and turd-for-hire Stephen Gordon ripping these signs down in the supposed “Free Speech Zoneâ€.
On the first ballot, there were a few surprises. One: how Barr would seemingly flatline around 160-ish votes. Two: Mary Ruwart’s dedicated acolytes, pushing her into a similar vote range. And third, how Wayne Allyn Root had more support than many gave him credit for. But there was still plenty of room to wrangle support scattered throughout the delegation. Or so one would have thought.
Read the rest at Last Free Voice.
Editor’s note: Based on the “friendship over principle” phrase, I suspect that my source and the author of this article are one in the same. In this case, I can say with 100% certainty that the individual in question is not an “Austrian economist,” and was probably unaware of the term until visiting Denver for the convention.
There’s a difference between “Congress shall make no law” in favor or religion, which Ron Paul (and I) agrees with, and they way the Supreme Court and federal government in general has misapplied the 1st amendment in the wake of 14th to regulate religious expression of the states. As a libertarian, I am against church-state comingling. But I’m even more against the federal government telling the states what to do!
He’s not against gay marriage, per se, but he has said he supports DOMA, which is not only anti-gay (in my opinion), but unconstitutional, too (again, my opinion).
Just pointing these things out.
Well said, Neil. I really think you should read that on your show. But that’s just me…
Ron Paul made it clear in a lot of the clips I watched of him that he backs that congress should make no law in favor of a religion. He is not against Gay marriage, etc. If you can give me a clip of him saying that, I will check it out. That might be the end of Ron Paul being featured in my shows. It’s ok to have your religion. Just keep it out of my government.
“I personally never said “Gravel is not libertarian in any sense†— that would be absurd. It is clear he has some libertarian positions, and a few more CATO libertarianesque positions.”
I don’t think he was pointing this directly. The main argument before the convention was that he wasn’t a real Libertarian. I heard countless times: “I’d support Gravel if he was a real Libertarian”.
!!!
ok, criticize Gravel, He’d be glad to defend himself. Unfortunately he’s sick right now. He’ll get back to you.
🙂
VTV – As a former Ron Paul supporter, are you aware that Ron Paul has said “there’s no such thing” as the “separation between church and state” and that Paul supports DOMA? Paul’s positions on religion and “gay rights” are not Barr’s, but they’re not Gravel’s either.
I personally never said “Gravel is not libertarian in any sense” — that would be absurd. It is clear he has some libertarian positions, and a few more CATO libertarianesque positions.
But VTV… One can criticize Gravel and still not support Barr!
As for Barr’s record — that would all be “okay” if he strongly repudiated it. But he doesn’t. That’s the problem.
here here, VTV!
I was a Gravel supporter. And still am a supporter of a lot of his ideas. I am astounded that people say that Gravel was not a Libertarian in any sense, but they can fall behind someone who:
Voted FOR the patriot act.
Voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution.
Was such a drug warrior that the Libertarian Party he just got the nomination for had to run ads against him in his congressional race to get him out of congress.
Tried to ban the religion of Wicca in the military. Because clearly only Christians get to practice their religion while defending our country.
Lied on my radio show and said that the defense of marriage act was to protect gay rights. That was classic.
Since then, he claims to of reformed. Then his PAC funded REPUBLICANS who in many cases were running AGAINST Libertarians. Their voting records in most cases went on to do things like:
Re-new the patriot act.
Continue to fund the war.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
I didn’t have to make any leaps of faith to figure out what Gravel’s positions on the war were. He was ALWAYS strong about that. And rather then say, voting for the Iraq war, he read the pentagon papers to END the Viet Nam war. He phillibustered the draft to make sure that people like us are not in Iraq right now.
I didn’t have to make any leaps of faith to figure out what Gravel’s positions on the drug war were. He was always strong on that.
I didn’t have to make any leaps of faith to figure out what Gravel’s positions on civil liberties is. He was always strong on that.
I didn’t have to make any leaps of faith about Gravel’s position on religion or gay rights. He was already strong on those issues.
Yes, he had a socialized health care plan. One that would of cut the costs of public health care to a fraction of what it is. He was also for eventually turning it off when we didn’t need it anymore. If you think you are ever going to get a candidate that doesn’t have a health care plan elected, you need to get out of fantasy land. When Ron Paul HINTED at getting rid of Social Security and Medicare the American voters panicked. Particularly the elderly who generally pick our President. Ron Paul suggested that we leave the current health care systems in place until people are no longer dependent on them. And even then it hurt his votes beyond repair.
Personally, I think this movement needs to pull their heads out of their derriers about this. We can argue about defeating socialism after we defeat fascism. I am FAR more worried about the Patriot Act, and the war then I am about my neighbors having food stamps. We chase off good candidates who really are trying to help all the time because we have this perfect pipe dream of a candidate who is going to be able to keep all our values and still have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. If we keep going this way all the Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists etc will all be sitting next to each other in the same FEMA camps thinking to ourselves how stupid we were to be fighting over the obvious distraction that is the argument over socialism. Ron Paul left this party for a reason. And I am starting to understand why.
Meanwhile, while we bicker about social programs that if any candidate says they will get rid of they will never stand a chance of winning, they are passing more legislation just as bad if not worse then the Patriot act.
By the way. Gravel is not going anywhere. Nor are his supporters. We don’t need your permission to be Libertarians. The only reason I had not joined the party sooner was because I didn’t have any hope for America until Ron Paul surfaced. And I hadn’t heard of the Libertarian party until then. When Mike Gravel joined the party I followed him because I had been following him and Ron Paul very closely. Ron Paul won’t run third party. So I made my choice and I don’t regret it.
Meanwhile, some Libertarians have their principles, and .32% of the vote on average. We have our conventions and we stick our chests up in an illusion of importance. Holier then thou, and just continue to divide what is already divided. And accomplish NOTHING. If that idea helps you sleep at night, I will ask you how much comfort it is to you when Bush declares martial law.
As for the issues about tokens and all that.
Barr only provided the Gravel Campaign with six tokens. And after Mike got his, he helped Steve Kubby get the ones he needed. He actually looked at his campaign people and told them to get them for Steve, and anyone else who needed them. There was a serious effort to try and make sure everyone got into the debate.
As Gravel’s Manhattan Campaign Manager, I’d like to point out that Kubby did not “stab Gravel in the back”. Kubby always told Gravel that he was leaning towards Mary Ruwart, but Kubby did say he liked Gravel’s National Initiative, and said that he may think about endorsing Gravel, though it was highly unlikely. We tried to get that Kubby endorsement since day one of the convention, but alas, he endorsed Ruwart. But Kubby never made a deal with Gravel regarding an endorsement. Kubby is a decent man, and his calls to unify the party and support Barr was noble. I am now Barr’s Manhattan Coordinator, because I love the party.
Maybe that’s because they just don’t agree with them? I see at least some level of government necessary to maintain a major civilization. Assuming that’s the case, then some form of taxation is necessary. Voluntary taxation is kind of stupid, because you don’t know how much money will come in, and you can guaruntee that it won’t be that much.
I’m not sure how I feel about the Fair Tax. However, I do know that I like the idea of complete transparency in taxation.
Who said anything about utopia? People are FORCED to pay taxes. If people were no longer FORCED to do so, they’d be FREE not to. People today are no longer FORCED to fight in wars of aggression, thanks to Mike Gravel. They are FREE not to. Removing coercion and FORCE gives people more FREEDOM. If you can’t see that, then again, perhaps you caught senility from Gravel. It’s normally not contagious, but a lot of his supporters seem to really struggle with some basic libertarian concepts.
It’s not just as simple as eliminate the government watch a utopia appear, GE.
I’ll admit, I supported Gravel…after Kubby, Ruwart or Phillies.
I really did think that Gravel would be good for the LP. Better than Root or Barr, at least. But my first, second, third, and fourth choices lost.
I will support Barr/Root in November. Might hold my nose when I do it, but I’ll do it. It’s not the first time I’ve had to do that with the LP ticket. In ’88 my first choice was Russell Means and second was Jim Lewis.
Since that time, each of those candidates made me proud to be Libertarian, each in their own ways. I am still in periodic contact with Russell.
It is time for everybody to get behind our candidates, as bad as we might think they are. As bad as they may be, they are worlds better than any alternative.
And I predict that Barr/Root will surprise us all with a Libertarian campaign we can all be proud of.
PEACE
Steve
BTW, I ordered a Gravel t-shirt a month ago, hoping to wear it to HempFest. It still hasn’t arrived. I would like to wear it in a couple of weeks at a local festival where we will have booth. I even paid extra for DHL delivery.
Ross – If you don’t see how eliminating taxes would bring freedom, then you need to have your eyes examined.
Andy – just compare their voting records. Because that is what actually counts.
And you’re completely oversimplifying the Ni4D beyond recognition.
I think Gravel has libertarian positions, but where his libertarianism ends is when he sees the need for the government to provide for its citizens. There SHOULD be a safety net to keep people from going into poverty. But it should not be easily taken advantage of. There SHOULD be health care for the people. But it shouldn’t be 100% controlled by government bureaucrats. He thinks that it’s the government’s job to protect people – from violence, from poverty, from a threatened environment. He sees “all people” as being “created equal.”
I think Gravel’s most ardent supporters like the Ni4D more than anything else.
And I don’t see how eliminating all taxes would bring freedom, GE. I think it would just bring anarchy. And I’m no anarchist.
Andy – You’ve gone one-half notch too far. Gravel is more libertarian than Kucinich. Gravel at least sees the need for vouchers as opposed to single-payer stuff, both for education and healthcare. He sees the inefficiency of government, in theory. He is opposed to the income tax. Now, his solutions are possibly worse than the current system, but at least his followers have been made the question the wisdom of traditional socialism. They are younger than Gravel, who’s old and stuck in his ways. Maybe his followers will make the leap from vouchers and the FairTax (both of which are worse than the current regimes, imo) to freedom.
“Compared to Barr, he is very libertarian.”
When has Barr ridiculed people who opposed government schools? People who oppose government health care? People who think it’s a bad idea to give unlimited power- including to violate the Constitution- to half-plus-one of the American people?
Gravel is some kind of populist, perhaps, but he is no more of a libertarian than Dennis Kucinich.
FDR “stood up to the banks” by closing every bank in the country by executive order.
I’ll take the banks over FDR any day.
Matt – what do we have now? Tyranny of the minority?
Peter – the Ni4D wouldn’t be a chaotic mess of everyone throwing out stupid laws. There would be a process you’d have to go through to get a law on the ballot, and then a process to get it passed into law.
And I think that a lot of people didn’t understand the Ni4D, and that giving people power is a creative way to give them freedom.
Direct democracy might give the people “power”, but it would be a sum total loss for individual liberty in this country. I wouldn’t give an infant a scissors, nor would I give 51% of our constitutionally illiterate voting public the power to change anything the media could convince them needed change. The latter is even more dangerous than the former, IMHO.
What he meant there is that FDR stood up to the banks. Personally, I think Gravel would have been a good choice because he is a principled man who does have some libertarian principles, and he has done a lot for the libertarian cause throughout his life. Compared to Barr, he is very libertarian.
And I think that a lot of people didn’t understand the Ni4D, and that giving people power is a creative way to give them freedom. Because regardless of his health care plan (which was similar to Root’s, in essence) or his opinions on public smoking, the people would have really come first in a Gravel administration. Don’t get me wrong, I’m just talking hypothetically.
Ross;
Nobody questions that Gravel is a man of some principle. It’s just that those principles aren’t libertarian. As he himself said (without irony) on his joining the LP,
“The fact is, the Democratic Party 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.”
Seeing as FDR is the President who destroyed free-market capitalism, interned innocent citizens and undertook to carve up post-war Europe for American imperial ends, it’s laughable that Gravel thinks that FDR’s views are best represented contemporarily by the laissez-faire, individual rights, non-interventionist LP. If he genuinely believes it, he’s an idiot – if he doesn’t, he’s a cynical politician.
Ross – I agree with you on both counts.
I can’t defend everything Gravel does (I know it’s a lame excuse, but he IS a politician), but he IS a man of principle. I don’t see what’s wrong with joining a new party, though.
I have to say, I was extremely disappointed when Gravel endorsed Root.
I’ll clarify- I don’t see how anyone who actually compared Gravel’s positions and arguments with actual “principled libertarianism” could come away thinking Gravel was more principled than Barr.
More principled than Root, I might be willing to accept.
A principled candidate whose principles included joining a new party, as a former Democrat, and then helping two former Republicans to the ticket. That’s what I mean by “major-party ethics.” Oh, and the sinister slime, Jingozian, accepting tokens from Ruwart in order to gain a platform to endorse her opponent. Gravel could not even get into the debates himself without help from Barr’s people, so it is a little disingenuous to now label one’s benefactors as “turds for hire.”
No one ever said gravel was THE principled candidate. He was A principled candidate.
Major-party ethics? What does that mean?
“I can say with 100% certainty that the individual in question is not an “Austrian economist,†and was probably unaware of the term until visiting Denver for the convention”
Why does that not surprised me.
Only some one as ignorant of the LP and libertarianism as Gravel and his supporters would describe Gravel as the “principled” candidate.
Since there has been some confusion between my opinions and the content of articles posted, I want to state clearly that I do not believe Steve Kubby would have made such a deal with Mike Gravel, and it is absolutely absurd to think that Kubby and Gravel share more in common than Kubby and Ruwart. This is how utterly clueless the liberal-statist Gravel supporters are in regards to libertarianism. My guess is that Kubby said something to the effect of “You would be a good standard bearer for the LP” to Gravel, and the Gravel supporters took it the wrong way. The Kubby-Ruwart alliance was the worst kept secret in political history. Unlike the shady pact between Jinogzian and Gravel; two outsiders with typical major-party ethics.