Cspan Debates

February 22nd, 2007 by john from NJ

Well. it's clear from the Carson City Debate's that Kucinich and Gravel were the only two uncompromised candidate's on the Forum. It was a good first start. I was a little taken aback at first when Mike went with Richardson or Vilsack over Kucinich as an alternative choice for suppport, but his agrument had some merit. I'm still a little uncomfortable with that though. Everyone on the Forum with the exception of Kucinich was compromised to one degree or another with backing of the Financial Corporate Elite, Domestic and Foreign. Anyone on the same sheet of Music with this one ?

‹ Fox hosting a debate and Gravel Is Gravel going to AFSCME? ›

Comments

To Southern Belle

Submitted on February 26th, 2007 by alex

There's been some question concerning Senator Mike Gravel's position on issues concerning LGBT rights.

Senator Gravel:

Unequivocally supports same-sex marriage and opposes the Defense of Marriage Act.

Supports expanding hate-crime legislation and opposes laws that allow discrimination against sexual orientation, as well as discrimination on the basis of one's gender identity or expression.

In the absence of full marriage rights, supports domestic partner benefits for all Americans.

Will repeal the military's 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, as it restricts the rights of gay Americans.

Opposes any state or national constitutional amendment that restricts the rights of the LGBT community.

Recognizes that the U.S. is lagging behind The Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, Belgium and Canada in recognizing same-sex marriage and wishes to see our inclusion in this exclusive group of countries.

The senator has not been silent about his support for the LGBT community. He has on several occasions announced his position on Christian radio, as well as to various church groups and religious organizations. On February 3, 2007 he took the stage at the Democratic National Committee's Winter Meeting, which he shared with nine other candidates, and denounced our country's `culture of fear' that forbids gay Americans from having full marriage rights. He said, "Love between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman is love the same way that love between a man and a woman is love."

Alexander Colvin

Press Secretary

Gravel 08

BOTH CHURCH AND STATE SHOULD GET OUT OF THE MARRAIGE BUSINESS

Submitted on March 6th, 2007 by pacom

pRIMARILY  to keep our candidate from being suckered into

some position detrimental to his campaign for the White House ,

I propose that his stated position always be that the government has

no business in the marriage business , and just stick with that.

Then the focus of debate can turn to what it is that we really want done.

Even though I think the churches should also stay out of the marriage business,

our candidate should NOT reflect that thought , as he is not actually running

for clerical duty  .

He might bring it up that one example of the need for the National Initiative

would be to test the waters for the government getting out of the marriage business.

  tannhauser PACOM  ,  tanaiste

CSPAN-DEBATES

Submitted on February 22nd, 2007 by GEORGE DEMETT

I FEEL THAT MIKE GRAVEL SHOULD FOCUS ON THE NATIONAL INTIATIVE IN FUTURE DEBATES,  SAY IT PLAIN, SO  THE AVERAGE VOTER CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.  WORDS LIKE FILIBUSTER ARE NOT KNOWN BY ARCHIE BUNKER.

I tend to agree!

Submitted on February 23rd, 2007 by Donald Grbac

Although Senator Gravel needs to make his position on other issues clear (and that's not easy with limited debate formats), he should focus as much as possible on the National Initiative - absolutely! Empowering the people is the issue that really sets him apart from the rest.

I think it would be good to illustrate how the people could be handling some of these other issues with the initiative process.

 

DON

Only democracy will save us!

Yeah, the NI is good.

Submitted on February 23rd, 2007 by Cubbie Girl

But he's got lots of good other stuff too. My gay friends swear they'll vote for him because they heard him speak about gay rights at a gay pride event, and they never vote!

.

I think so too

Submitted on February 26th, 2007 by SouthernBelle82
So far the only candidate running who has come out fully in support of gay marriage has been Mr. Gravel.  All the other candidates have been for "civil unions" when they do address the topic.   I think it would be awesome if Mr. Gravel could be the one to lead the charge for gay marriage as a democratic proposal.  And your gay friends I see why they don't vote because nobody really cares about them which is sad.  I have told a few people about Mr. Gravel and they're always surprised he's for gay marriage.  While Iraq and Iran are definitley the number one issues I think there's some room in there for the other important issues such as gay marriage.  I think Mr. Gravel could win over a lot of people if he talked about it more. 

Sure he was a bit nervous.

Submitted on February 22nd, 2007 by B Allen

But there's no doubt that he was different from all the other candidates. His statement "I am not politics as usual" may have saved the whole thing. Each and every one of the other candidates were either as phony as a $3 bill or kooky beyond compare. Gravel, if a bit scattershot, appealed to people who wouldn't vote for the other crooks anyway.

In world of conflict, victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, not to be on the side of the executioners - Camus

NEVADA DEBATE

Submitted on February 22nd, 2007 by GEORGE DEMETT
I THINK MIKE WAS NERVOUS AND DID NOT FOCUS ON THE PEOPLE AS LAWMAKERS. THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, AND THE FAIR TAX CONFUSED THE PEOPLE VIEWING C-SPAN.

It wasn't Gravel's best performance.

Submitted on February 22nd, 2007 by Suzy 2s
But he made some good points. I think he was nervous.

Why didn't George ask Hillary that question?

Submitted on February 22nd, 2007 by Juan Flores
It wasn't such a bad response, to support the governors over the Washington fat cats. But in the future it would be a good idea to reject the premise of the question entirely.

I agree

Submitted on February 22nd, 2007 by jeffhaley

I also was suprised Sen. Gravel would support governors with "executive experience" over a candidate like Rep. Kucinich (who like Gravel) hasn't compromised his integrity.  I hope the Bush Jr.presidency has demonstrated the need to raise our standards way past accepting a person's ability to sit at a desk and be a "decider".