The Triangle

Help Let Gravel Debate, and email NBC, MSNBC, the DNC, or GE today letting them know.

First of all, John Lloyd is wrong. Is it Gravel's anointed "role" to criticize the other candidates while it is Hillary Clinton's role to provide "meaningful" discussion of issues? Or does this simply follow from the fact that Gravel is given less than 25% of the time of the "mainline" candidates in a debate? Why does the author of this article claim that Gravel is less serious than the "more serious" candidates? Could it be that the mainstream media has dubbed certain candidates as viable and others as not? Why is the amount of money raised the number one issue in deciding how "serious" a candidate is? What is the role of special interest money in all of this? I would hope the author would reply to these issues which he so conveniently overlooked.

"it creates more time for the more serious candidates to answer questions."

What the other candidates are "more serious" than Gravel please! This man from the beginning has be honest in every issue that he comes across and you don't believe him to be serious cause he lack money. Yes this is all about money and it's sick. Sad the country is ran by greed than by honesty.

I guess I would classify myself as an undecided independent, but Sen. Gravel resonates with me a lot. To say he is not a serious candidate is ridiculous. I'd say he's one of the more serious candidates. He truly cares about these issues, and has from the start. He cared enough to be confrontational, when the other candidates were being "nice" to each other. And he most certainly did not start out in the same condition as Rep. Paul and Gov. Huckabee, as Gravel had been out of the public eye for some time.
Chuck Todd is showing his bias against Gravel and democracy. Whether or not Gravel wins, his campaign and platform are certainly inspirational, and represent change more than anyone else's do (not merely a shift in the status quo).
While I understand that giving airtime to every person running for President would be quite difficult, it does not make sense to kick Gravel out now, since he's been involved with most of the other debates. And if anything, I think television should be working to show America the variety of views that exists in all the candidates candidates, and not moving in the direction of censorship.

This article is completely biased: it is obviously in favor of Senator Gravel's exclusion from the debate. Can't we at least try to be objective and display both sides of the story? The only person (besides yourself) who you give the point of view of in this story is Chuck Todd, one of the people who are responsible for Gravel's exclusion. Why not quote from Mike Gravel's Huffington Post blog on this subject as well?

Here's the link to it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-mike-gravel/why-nbc-and-the-dnc-want-_b_69397.html

The idea that a former, multi-term Senator, needs to meet a certain monetary threshold (what is the minimum anyway?) and have a certain number of appearances in each state (what is the minimum anyway?)to participate in the PRIMARY debates and before an offical vote (note: this means not a poll) is cast is preposterous. Maybe in the eyes of Chuck Todd, John Lloyd and Stephanie Takach one less person in the debate will give the more 'serious'(you must be kidding, correct?) candidates more time to 'meaningfully' present their platforms. OK. Go ahead. Gravel usually had 5 minutes TOTAL to speak. Each candidate will now get .71 more minutes. Well i guess the above three are correct afterall. That is about how long it will take to meaningfully distinguish between the remaining candidates. Let Mr. gravel have his 3-5 minutes. Let the voters decide if he should stay or go. No less a 'serious' candidate then John Edwards agrees. And if a more 'serious' candidate syas so, it must be true. What are we afraid of ?

So, Stephanie, have you actually ever read anything about Gravel?? What "polls" are you speaking of? Sen. Gravel has been right up there with Dodd and Biden and Kucinich. And when the hell does money become the deciding factor for a Presidential candidates ability to debate?? Sen. Gravel takes no money from corporations, hedge funds, etc. - he is completely funded by the average American. That makes the amount he has earned worth ten times the amount Clinton, Obama or Edwards has earned. And for your information, Sen. Gravel happens to be one of the most serious presidential candidates. He's serious about fixing the mess our country is in. He's serious about ending the war in Iraq and the quagmire we will be in with Iran (thanks a lot HIllary!!). He's serious about working for the people and empowering the people to work with Congress to end the insanity! He is the only Pres. Democratic canditdate with the guts to speak the truth on the stage and bring up the issues the other candidates would rather let the people forget! Do your research and speak the truth in your posts. We are sick of the lies and rediculous restrictions put on Sen. Gravel because he has the experience, integrity and guts to tell it like it is!!

Please, let Mike Gravel debate! We can't stand for this!!! Spread the word and let's make it happen for this true American hero and Patriot....

Gravel has been repeatedly marginalized in the debates, given a fraction of the speaking time that candidates like Clinton & Obama receive. He (and Dennis Kucinich) are not listed as an option in many polls, so he has little if any opportunity to gain traction in the polls. With regard to funding, he does not accept money from lobbyists or other corporate interests, which candidates like Hillary Clinton shamelessly do. Further, he has qualified for federally-matching funds, which shows that he is a fully legitimate candidate.

One of the specified criteria was polling at 5%... this cannot be met by either Kucinich, Chris Dodd, or Joe Biden. That alone disqualifies the legitimacy of such "criteria"... otherwise these candidates should also excluded if NBC wants to be consistent.

John Lloyd speaks with incredible disrespect for Senator Gravel. He claims Gravel's role is "unnecessary," yet he was the only candidate to mention the looming war with Iran at the last debate. He also directly criticized Hillary Clinton for voting in favor of labelling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which is one legislative step closer to war.

Senator Gravel's voice is absolutely vital in these debates, as he will bring up urgent matters that other candidates choose to dance around or completely ignore. There are no more "serious candidates" than Gravel, as Stephanie Takach implies. If voters want to see a real difference between candidates, they would do well to listen to Senator Gravel. With most other candidates, it is simply "politics as usual."

In case John Lloyd hasn't noticed, the involvement of the media-designated "top-tier" candidates has been meaningless. The more they say the more they repeat their tired platitudes. Only when they respond to the pointed comments of Gravel is there any hope of them saying something new.

Under the thumb on the military-industrial complex, DU is hosting a corrupted and biased event. The most passionate candidate among the Democrats is being unfairly excluded from the debate. Apparently DU Democrats, like the DNC, and also like MSNBC and its parent GE, are afraid of the truths that Mike Gravel dares to speak.

Don't accept the lies and innuendo you hear about Senator Gravel. Don't confuse hearsay for intelligence: do your own research; decide for yourself. Just for example, can you compare the record of legislative accomplishments of the eight Democratic candidates? Can you compare the actual accomplishments of the candidates? Not the things they talk about; not the things they say they'll do; not the things they wrote about in a book: the actual things they did. How many of the candidates filibustered for months to stop an out-of-control president from extending the draft? How many candidates risked their career and freedom to make public secret records about leading America into an immoral war? How many candidates worked to stop nuclear testing in the North Pacific? How many candidates have devoted decades to developing a plan to empower you to directly influence national policy? Intelligent voters must answer these types of questions before voting and also before deciding who is or is not a "serious" candidate.

Empower yourself. Mike Gravel is the candidate who trusts YOU. Repay that trust by finding the truth for yourself. If you agree that Gravel's exclusion is unfair, voice your opinion. You can sign the petition asking MSNBC and the DNC to include Senator Gravel at http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/letgravelspeakoct30

Then stand up and speak out against those who falsely claim the power to decide for you who you should hear. Stand up and speak out!

' Thank you for expressing your opinions about the October 30 Democratic presidential candidates debate. Drexel is proud to host this event and give our students the opportunity to experience the political process firsthand, but the University has no role in determining the debate format or the candidates participating. '

This is what I received from Philip Terranova of Drexel when I wrote protesting that Mike Gravel is indeed a candidate for the Democratic. He has in fact qualified for federal matching funds for goodness sake!

Apparently Philip Terranova is unaware of the sad irony of his statement. Drexel University is indeed teaching its students that they have no role in determining the format of their country's most important political debate, nor in the candidates participating.

"That's Amerika in the 21st Century. Get used to it." - Drexel University.

If by "more serious candidates" you mean "candidates that are less qualified, can't think for themselves, and will owe nearly a half-billion dollars in political favors after they are elected" then you are absolutely right.

I hope you enjoy your evening of rehashed spoon-fed corporate-sponsored bullsh**. Talking points for everyone!

Gravel is being specifically excluded. His polling numbers are very similar to several other candidates. Let Gravel speak!

Mike Gravel is the last person General Electric wants elected president and they've used their power to shut him out. I don't care, I've heard Mike's message, and he has my vote no matter what.

The only thing Drexel is doing is caving to the DNC so they can get some exposure. News Flash! It won't help any when people will only know your university as a partner in censorship!

Also, if Gravel is not a serious candidate, then why the hell is he getting matching funds?!

How is Gravel's lack of money a lack of seriousness? If anything, it shows his ability to persevere... and it showcases his care for this country. Gravel is willing to give what little money he has to try and change the country for the better. Meanwhile, rich candidates like Hillary and Obama smile for the cameras. And you say that they will become MORE confrontational? From what I've seen, at this point in the election, candidates like those will only become less and less opinionated, hoping to appeal to potential supporters.

To say that Senator Gravel is not a serious candidate is an insult to him and to the American people. From which other candidates have you heard any serious change? Change to EMPOWER the AMERICAN PEOPLE. The power to end the military-industrial complex, etc, etc.

Money should NOT be a criterion for who gets their voices heard.

Oh, and John Lloyd, who's the reason you weren't drafted into service? Who's the reason you can be getting an education in college while others are putting their life on the line?

MIKE GRAVEL.


PEOPLE, EMPOWER YOURSELVES.

Mike Gravel 2008.

"Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee were able to develop traction using the debates despite their financial circumstances," Todd said.

***

DESPITE their financial circumstances..., are you kidding me??? I find three parts of that statement extremely objectionable.

1) First, Huckabee is not even in the same league as Ron Paul when it comes to "financial circumstances". Ron Paul raised $5.1 million in the third quarter, whereas Huckabee raised $1 million. In fact, Paul raised $1.2 million in the last SIX DAYS of the third quarter. In the month of October, he's raised over $2.2 million alone and on November 5th, there's a grassroots fundraising blitz that will raise over $1 million IN ONE DAY!!!

2) Ron Paul is the only candidate other than Huckabee who raised more in the third quarter than in the second. If you look at all the poll numbers, Huckabee and Ron Paul are on the way up, Guiliani, Romney, and Thompson are on their way down.

3) The key number to look at as far as fundraising is Cash on Hand minus debts, that's the amount of real money each candidate has to spend on ads and such in the 4th quarter. Here's the breakdown:

Giuliani = $16,480,570
Thompson = $ 6,443,312
Paul = $ 5,443,667
McCain = $ 1,757,937
Huckabee = $ 603,491
Brownback= $ 94,654
Hunter = $ 82,742
Keyes = -$ 247
Tancredo =-$ 185,524
Romney = -$ 8,133,483

The only candidates who aren't virtually broke are Guiliani, Thompson, Paul, and Romney. The only reason Romney isn't is because he can keep writing his campaign big checks. McCain is virtually bankrupt, that $1+ million you see is only for use if he wins the GOP nomination, he can't use it for the primaries. Huckabee is going up in the polls, but this fudraising is running on fumes. He won't be able to compete with the likes of Ron Paul in the 4th quarter.

NBC, I think it's time to get yourself a new NBC News Political Director. Todd apparently doesn't know much about political finances.

It is unfortunate that Ms. Tackech chose to state that Senator Gravel's staff was unavailable for comment in this story. As a member of Gravel's staff, I have personally visited your campus more than 10 times in the last week. During that time, I called our campaign office in Virginia more than two dozen times and never failed to get a live answer to my calls. I don't know if her failure to seek a comment can be attributed to incompetence or malice, but as other commenters have pointed out, her tone was clearly biased. Had she asked, we could have faxed her proof that we have been to NH and IA more times than a couple other candidates as we did for Mr. Todd at NBC.

While on your campus, I was graciously met by Assistant Vice President David Wilson. Our campaign requested either a venue with a stage at which Senator Gravel may address students, an invitation to one of the planned debate watch parties, or even to be given a separate small room in which Senator Gravel could address the media. I was informed that it was the policy of the school as a non-profit entity to never invite a single candidate's campaign to speak at the University. Unfortunately, he refused absolutely to deliver that rejection in writing and indeed would not even share with me in writing Drexel's official response to Senator Gravel's eleventh-hour expulsion from the debate.

It is a little disingenuous to hide behind tax-exempt status, but I can understand the University's awkward position in this matter. However, in my mind it is unforgivable for individual students and indeed a student newspaper to take such a biased position against the free speech rights of one of the greatest legislative heroes our country had in the 20th century. If you aren't aware of his accomplishments, see www.gravel2008.us.

The only criterion Senator Gravel has failed to meet is to raise more than one million dollars for his campaign. The irony is that before this election cycle, a threshold so high so long before the election would never have been considered, let alone adopted, as indicative of a candidate's viability. Although no one can prove a correlation between amounts of money and amounts of corruption, the corrupting influence of money in politics is apparent to nearly every American. Is General Electric/NBC mandating that only the candidates with the most likelihood to have been corrupted be given a voice?

David Nelson-VanDette
Florida State Director, Mike Gravel for President
PhillyDebate@gravel2008.us
727-422-7190

If Gravel has less money but the same support as Biden, Kucinich, and Dodd, why exclude him? It means he can do more with less.

colbert gravel kucinich paul nader [conyers?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist.

honesty compassion intelligence guts...

HDNet Dec 1 DNC debate (Sat 7:30pm ET).
- all eight -

gravel kucinich paul nader