2008 Presidential Contender: Mike Gravel

Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (pronounced as if it were spelled "Gravelle") announced his candidacy for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination last April. That's not a misprint -- he's been campaigning for almost a year now. He is nearly 77 years old and is by far the oldest candidate currently running for president from either of the major parties. Gravel was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1968 and served two full terms before being defeated in a Democratic senatorial primary in 1980. During his 12 years as a senator, he was best known for putting the Pentagon Papers into the public record in 1971.

He made his political debut as a member of the Alaska House of Representatives, serving there from 1962 to 1966 -- the last two years as the Speaker of the House. He quit to run for Alaska's only seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, but was defeated by the incumbent Republican. However, two years later, he defeated the incumbent Democrat in a primary and subsequently won the general election to capture a seat in the U.S. Senate. 

Gravel has always been an extreme left-wing, populist politician. Some would even say he's so liberal that he makes Dennis Kucinich and Ted Kennedy blush (if that's possible). He actively campaigned for vice president in 1972, the year that George McGovern was the Democratic presidential nominee. Gravel was too liberal even for McGovern, who saw to it that Gravel did not get the vice presidential nomination. 

Among the concepts Gravel has advocated during his political career are a guaranteed annual income for all Americans (regardless whether they are working), abolition of voter registration and other things he deems "barriers" to voting, an end to the death penalty, the breakup of the military-industrial complex, school vouchers, expansion of the Freedom of Information Act (to combat government secrecy), public financing of all elections, and universal healthcare. He favors replacing the current federal income tax with some type of progressive tax (presumably a sales tax) with no deductions or exemptions.

In addition, he advocates an end to what he calls America's "imperialistic foreign policy" and insists on an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. In 1971, Gravel was partially responsible for ending the U.S. military draft by holding up the renewal legislation until President Nixon and Senate Republicans ultimately decided to let it expire in 1973.

Almost completely unknown nationally, no one seems to be taking him seriously right now and the national media is ignoring him. Gravel hopes to mimic the success of past quixotic and previously ignored candidates like Paul Tsongas and Howard Dean by coming out of nowhere to rise to the top of the polls. However, he hopes to ride his momentum all the way to the nomination, rather than fizzling out in the early going like they did. But even if he succeeds in making himself more of a known quantity, both his age and his numerous out-of-the-mainstream stances will alienate him from most Democratic primary and caucus voters. Therefore, the chances of him doing even as well as Tsongas or Dean are extremely remote.

Comments

[Joem]

I like Mike gravel because he is fearless as shown by his attempt to pout the Pentagon papers into public record. He is also against the war in Iraq. However, i agree that he may be too old and unpopular to win in the 2008 presidential race. The front runners are just too strong for him.

[Evan Ravitz]

Mike is old enough to know he doesn't know it all. That's why he wants to give "power to the people" with national ballot initiatives (with many improvements over state ballot initiatives.)

[Jim Brauner]

Mike Gravel is a unique blend of both conservative and liberal values. If one really attempts to 'get it' it becomes obvious that he is the only candidate in either party who genuinely believes that government and governance is really to be for the people. This is the ultimate act of Conservation for 'The People' and at the same time excitingly Liberating of the human spirit.

I think your summary conclusions about Senator Gravel in some ways are misleading but I leave that up to the readers to go to the Gravel08 site www.gravel08.us and maybe even more importantly go to the National Initiative Ballot site www.ni4d.us and see if you get the inklings that I do that this just may be the only possibility (or something like it) for 'The People' to ever really have a say so in their own governance.

[Scarlett]

It isn't the media's responsibility to decide coverage based on who the likely top candidates will be. Regardless of whether Gravel or Kucinich or any of the others have a chance of winning the nomination (which perhaps they would if the media would quit pounding it into the public's mind that they don't have a chance). The election SHOULD be about the candidate's vision for the future and solutions for current problems. If the public could hear a candidate speak passionately about universal health care or repealing the Patriot Act, they would influence the debate on those issues and force other candidates to explain their positions.

But perhaps that is the problem after all. Media corporations don't want those views put out there ... they want to make sure that no "unacceptable" candidates can make it through (Dean is a prime example of this). To run for president you have to sell your soul to the big money donors (AIPAC, insurance companies, big oil, etc) or you'll be shut out of the process. Republican or Democrat -- it won't matter who wins b/c the powers that be will make sure to stack the deck with candidates they can control. The partisan bickering is just a ruse to make us think we have a choice in the election. They are all so thoroughly corrupt (save a handful in the house and senate combined), that nothing will change. Look at the Dems now -- they are "pretending" to oppose the Iraq war, while the submit and bicker over wimpy, non-binding resolutions that accomplish nothing. They have the power to force Bush to bend to the will of the people. The only reason they aren't is that they are CHOOSING not to.
I feel great sympathy for the soldiers (and their families) in Iraq and Afghanistan (and soon to be Iran, Syria and Lebanon). They are fighting and dying to preserve a way of life (American Democracy) that no longer exists and sadly may never again.