The Instigator
Toored
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
clsmooth
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

Mike Gravel should be allowed to attend the major democratic debates

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,587 times Debate No: 864
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (16)

 

Toored

Pro

The networks should stop banning Mike Gravel from their Democratic debates. Over the past couple of months Gravel has not been allowed to attend debates hosted by CNN, CBS, and MSNBC. The last "major" prime time Democratic debate he was allowed to attend was the NPR Democratic debate.

Sure, Gravel has no chance of winning and has only 17,527 dollars in his war chest (according to CNN). However, if you let Kucinich into a debate it only seems fare to allow Gravel to attend. This is not about who you support in the election but about doing what is right.
clsmooth

Con

I admire Gravel more than any other Democrat in the race for president. However, there has to be some level of cut-off, and no matter what the level is, he is clearly below it.

You cited that Gravel had only $17,000+ in his "war chest" (more appropriately a "peace chest"?). Well as of the end of the third quarter, he had only raised $238,745. Dennis Kucinich, by contrast, had raised almost ten times as much, $2.13 million. The disparity between Gravel's level of support and Kucinich's level of support is awesome. Therefore, the argument "if Kucinich is allowed to participate, so should Gravel" does not hold. In addition, Kucinich is an office-holding congressman, while Gravel has been out of public life for over 25 years.

I love it when Gravel makes the other Democrats look stupid and hypocritical, but his level of support is so low, he simply does not belong on the stage. By what criteria do you suggest Gravel is a "legitimate" candidate?

Here is a list of other declared candidates for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination:

Roland Aranjo (D-California)
Warren Ashe (D-Virginia)
Christina Billings-Elias (D-California)
Robert "Bob" Boyer (D-Illinois)
Willie Carter (D-Texas)
Randy Crow (D-North Carolina)
Laura Davis-Aaron (D-Tennessee)
Phil Epstein (D-California)
Michael Forrester (D-Colorado)
Wrendo "JP" Godwin (D-Virginia)
Al Hamburg (D-Wyoming)
Alfonzo Jones (D-California)
John Joseph Kennedy (D-Georgia)
Karl Krueger (D-South Dakota)
Dal LaMagna (D-Washington)
Frank Lynch (D-Florida)
Lee Mercer Jr. (D-Texas)
Sal Mohamed (D-Iowa)
Ole Savior (D-Minnesota)
Mike Skok (D-New York)
Jeff Thomas (D-Wisconsin)

Source: http://politics1.com...

If money isn't a criterion, then what gives Gravel the right to take the stage, and not these people?

Gravel had his chance to spark up support. He caused a stir in the early debates. But he failed to translate this "stir" into any real support -- unlike a certain candidate, equally unknown a few months ago, in the other major party. The people have spoken loud and clear in favor of an anti-war candidate, and it isn't Gravel. At this point, Gravel's candidacy is a vanity one, and as such, the Democrats are right in shutting him out.
Debate Round No. 1
Toored

Pro

Toored forfeited this round.
clsmooth

Con

Bummer.

I will remain silent this round and hope that my opponent rejoins the debate for Round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
Toored

Pro

Sorry about that. Would you believe that I timed out as I was writing my rebuttal.

What makes Gravel qualified to attend these debates is the fact that he is just as experienced as any of the other candidates. Gravel was a U.S. Senator for 12 years and in that time he served on the Finance, Interior, Environmental, and public works committees.. In 1971 he waged a successful one-man filibuster for five months that forced the Nixon administration to cut a deal with the Senate, effectively ending the draft in the United States. He founded and served as president of The Democracy Foundation, Philadelphia II, and Direct Democracy, nonprofit corporations dedicated to the establishment of direct democracy in the United States.

In comparison, Barrack Obama has only been a national legislator for a couple of years.

Also, I looked over that list of Democratic write in candidates and not one of them is qualified to run for public office. Senator Gravel is an experienced statesman. Most of the men and women you listed have never held an appointed government position, let alone an elected position, and some were just crazy (in my opinion, of course).

Senator Gravel should be allowed to attend debates because of his experience as a statesman.
clsmooth

Con

It is true that the other "gadfly" candidates have less experience than Gravel. But his fundraising -- a paltry $200,000+ as of October -- shows that he lacks real support. A candidate need not only appeal to the interests of the rich in order to gain support -- just look at Kucinich, who has raised nearly ten times as much. And of course, no candidate threatens to upset the unfair monetary system more than Dr. Ron Paul, who in a single day raised more than TWENTY TIMES that amount Gravel had raised through October.

Gravel's experience justified his inclusion in the early debates. But his support level is SO LOW, it is clear that his ideas have not caught on. Kucinich is far behind the fundraising leaders, but still has TEN TIMES as much support as Gravel. Thus, Gravel is just taking time away from other candidates that people actually do support. He's just a vanity candidate, and does not belong on stage.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
Again you imply you know how much support he has, measured by money. Well as long as you got your shot to plug Ron Paul once again. And I don't really know what the Obama thing was an attempt at, since I like both Gravel and Obama.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Because he just doesn't deserve to be on stage by any objective measure.

I like Mike Gravel because he is the most anti-war, the least pro-big government, he's anti-IRS, and especially because he makes the other Democrats look like the hypocrites that they are (including your Obama). But there could be an even better Democrat, say a true Jeffersonian in the Ron Paul mold, and I would still say he shouldn't be on the stage if he had failed to achieve at least as much support as Dennis Kucinich.
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
That's a good question. Why do you?
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Libertarianism is about private property. The people who host the debates have the right to determine who attends. The question here is whether Gravel SHOULD make the cut. I see no objective standard by which he should and Randy Crow should not.

Why would I want to exclude Gravel? I like him the most of all the Democratic candidates, by far.
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
Again you're directly linking money with support.

To say he does not have support is silly, since there are obvioulsy people who do support him.

And chill out! This is exactly why Ron Paul people are so annoying. You don't see everyone else plugging their candidates name whenever they have a chance or comparing everyone else to him in every way.

It's funny have you broadcast your libertarianism and love of freedom but when it comes to something that's not on your side, you are quick to mix money in to put a cap on someones freedom.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Ron Paul doesn't get support from special interests, either. And yet he raised more money yesterday -- not a money bomb day -- than Gravel has raised his entire campaign.

Gravel does NOT have support. Get real.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Sorry I took so long. I was playin games.

Here is the vid - http://youtube.com...

Gravel's time starts at ~1:20 or somethin.

Clinton starts respondin at ~4:00
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
Yes but don't you think sometimes a very worthy candidate can't raise money? Ron Paul is an exception for reasons that require another debate. It's not fair to use him as an example when one of the days that he raised the most money was due to the popularity of the movie V for Vendetta.

Just because Gravel doesn't have people on his side who are good at fund raising or even just because he is not good at fund raising doesn't mean he wouldn't have supoprt if given a proper chance.
Posted by Toored 9 years ago
Toored
Korezaan, do you have a video link where I can hear her actual response (after the cackle).
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Not really.

Mike Gravel is getting money purely through the people, not through corporations or "legal persons".

As for seriousness, well, I think he takes it more seriously than other competitors and took the debates in a better way than our "front runners".

Notice how they can't answer a question directly, they always have to add some sort of stupid condition-ality to em? For all the debates I've seen, Obama interrupts people as if he's some sort of God, and both he and Clinton always use something along the lines of "what the question REALLY is is this...." and for Clinton, well, she avoids hypotheticals altogether UNLESS SHE'S PREPPED OUT FOR IT.

God freakin.

Here, let me summarize to you what I think of front runners.

http://youtube.com...
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by sully 9 years ago
sully
TooredclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
TooredclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
TooredclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
TooredclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by buttercupx224 9 years ago
buttercupx224
TooredclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Vlast 9 years ago
Vlast
TooredclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by artC 9 years ago
artC
TooredclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by aaltobartok 9 years ago
aaltobartok
TooredclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
TooredclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by l2jperry 9 years ago
l2jperry
TooredclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03