Steve G.

Will Gravel get to speak at Denver?

In Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics, Presidential Candidates on May 23, 2008 at 10:38 pm

I’m writing notes on the Bylaws debates in another thread, but this was interesting enough to warrant a separate thread. About an hour ago, one of the Gravel guys made a motion to expand the amount of time for Bylaws debates until later on in the evening. I raised an eyebrow, but that motion failed and I didn’t think any more of it.

However, we’re running close to the end of the session, and now the Gravel folks are scrambling around like crazy (Gravel himself’s on the floor)… and made a motion to skip directly to a proposal for changing the threshold for Presidential candidates being entitled to give nominating speeches and/or enter the debates. From the chatter I’m overhearing from his volunteers, they don’t yet have enough delegate tokens to get in the debate under current rules.

They still have time to gather more, but they better hustle… their motion failed, so they’ll have to work with the rules as they currently stand.

**UPDATE** As laid out in the comments by G.E. and myself below, the actual text of this proposal would have raised the required threshold of tokens. I’m not sure if that camp was hoping to defeat it and then offer more favorable amendments (as is the parliamentary procedure), or if things just got really mixed up.

  1. Does anybody have enough tokens already?

  2. People from two campaigns have told me privately that they have enough… people from other two campaigns have told me that they do NOT yet have enough. All in all, they’re being pretty tight-lipped about it… and we’ll know soon enough anyway.

  3. Shhh… it’s top secret!

  4. Hmm, not enough retard caucus members to give Gravel tokens?

  5. Disinter.

    Gravel own you any day of the week. What I don’t understand, is why you extremist libertarians don’t embrace the national initiative that goes hand in hand with Gravel. Even if you disagree with him on every issue, your vote will be worth more than his.

    That’s what the man stands for, and you belittle him. Shame on you,

  6. The man stands for something, but it’s not libertarian. I have no personal reason to belittle him. He fails on the issues.

    it seems like Gravel is the one belittling Libertarians and has delusion of grandeur. If only we throw-out everything we believe in and support the gravel, he will lead us to victory!

  7. Johncjackson is correct. He had a hard time getting 1% of the Democratic vote in their primaries. What makes him think he’ll get more than 1% in a general elections wih Republicans and Independents also voting?

  8. Also, even on a libertarian platform, the government as it’s run today is beyond corrupt. You sure as hell won’t be better off than the dems or the republicans. It’d still be the same corrupt system.

    As for Gravel being for government run educaition… its cause everyone has to have an option that DOESN’T COST THEM MONEY!. He sure isn’t against private schools at all, so whats the big deal. Talk about whining for nothing.

    Then we have healthcare. Gravel wants every american to decide on what they consider basic treatment and have that covered by taxes. Pretty much the same as every western country.

    However, he consider a 70 year old asking for a heart transplant excessive and outside of his system, so people would have to buy extra insurance for a cover like that.

    So why do you really whine about Gravels policies?

    The man is realistic.

    He’s bringing you the tools to perhaps actually win.

    And yet you whine about completely moronic issues that will never go through in the near future. Grow up.

  9. “johncjackson Says:
    May 24, 2008 at 12:27 am

    The man stands for something, but it’s not libertarian. I have no personal reason to belittle him. He fails on the issues.”

    I could create the Santa Party and wish for better christmas gifts any day of the week and then whine when that didn’t go through for the 20th time in a row.

    Libertarian apparently also stands for child porn being ok as long as the kid is ok with it. Seriously, either you bang your head against the wall just for the hell of it. Or you take the giant step towards being an accepted party and work from there.

    Considering that no other western country accepts what you run on, and you run against the 2-party system with their western beliefs(but worse ofcourse) theres no chance in hell your way will work. Sorry. Change strategy already.

  10. I was talking directly with Gravel senior staff, and my take on this was the opposite. Gravel and his people tried to STOP what you’re saying they tried to do. They didn’t want to change the rules, they didn’t want to move up the vote to change the rules, because those who did (you can guess who) wanted to increase the number of tokens needed.

    Bob Barr has never had to debate a libertarian yet. He wants a one-man debate.

  11. […] looks like Mikey might not have enough tokens to debate…which means that Barr might have to debate a real […]

  12. “What I don’t understand, is why you extremist libertarians don’t embrace the national initiative that goes hand in hand with Gravel. Even if you disagree with him on every issue, your vote will be worth more than his.”

    Since when did libertarians become fans of democracy. My impression was that libertarians favored decentralization and individualism, not tyranny of the majority.

  13. “Since when did libertarians become fans of democracy. My impression was that libertarians favored decentralization and individualism, not tyranny of the majority.”

    That Gravel obviously cannot grasp this fundamental point is all you need to know about how non-libertarian he. I rather like a number of things about the man, but honestly, if the LP somehow nominated him, the “Party of Principle” moniker would be officially DEAD.

  14. I was talking directly with Gravel senior staff, and my take on this was the opposite. Gravel and his people tried to STOP what you’re saying they tried to do. They didn’t want to change the rules, they didn’t want to move up the vote to change the rules, because those who did (you can guess who) wanted to increase the number of tokens needed.

    After going over the details, I agree with you to an extent G.E. The proposed amendment would have RAISED the threshold for getting into the debate. Nevertheless, the entire corps of Gravel volunteers were standing directly behind me during the Bylaws debate, and they all voted in favor of jumping directly to that proposal rather than letting the clock run out on it.

    For the record, almost the entire Georgia delegation present voted AGAINST it. Of course, our motivation was that it would have skipped over debate on the proposal to allow state and local affiliates to endorse LP members running under other party labels (i.e. Ron Pauls). However, afterward we were standing around scratching our heads on why in the WORLD the Gravel folks voted the way they did. It did seem to go against their own best interests.

    As an aside, the Gravel crowd has probably been my favorite of the other camps that I’ve talked to… they are nice and friendly people. I’ve bumped into Gravel on the floor about a half-dozen times times now, and found him to be exceptionally warm and cordial. I disagree with him on some things, but I am glad that he’s in Denver this weekend and personally I hope that he DOES make it into the debate.

  15. I’ve never actually posted a comment here, but I am an avid reader. Let me state first I am not a Lib, and I am part of the Reform Party. Could Gravel be pulling a fast one? I am not really down with the terms, but could he actually have more tokens then we all think?

    This is the third or fourth report that I’ve read saying how his supporters are the loudest and making up big crowds every time that he speaks. So could he just be playing it quiet?

  16. Welcome to LFV comments, thebattlefield. We welcome everyone, not just libertarians. 🙂

    I wondered the same thing. Could he be saying he doesn’t have enough tokens, just to get more and thus cut other candidates out of the debates? Good question.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: