And Then There Were 2

In case you missed it, Mike Gravel dropped out of the race yesterday, March 26th, making this democratic primary officially a 2 person race. If you’re with the Dems, its down to either Obama or Clinton. Gravel says

I am announcing my plan to join the Libertarian Party, because the Democratic Party no longer represents my vision for our great country. I wanted my supporters to get this news first, because you have been the ones who have kept my campaign alive since I first declared my candidacy on April 17, 2006. The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism — all of which I find anathema to my views. By and large, I have been repeatedly marginalized in both national debates and in media exposure by the Democratic leadership, which works in tandem with the corporate interests that control what we read and hear in the media. I look forward to advancing my presidential candidacy within the Libertarian Party, which is considerably closer to my values, my foreign policy views and my domestic views.

I thought he was the crazy liberal of the group, but apparently he’s supporter of a party that wants to “get tough on crime”. Perhaps Nader will fill the hearts of the leftists.

22 thoughts on “And Then There Were 2

  1. Anonymous

    It’s funny that he’s upset the Democratic Party is no longer the party of FDR. I sure don’t think the LIBERTARIAN party is more akin to FDR. “What are all of these big government progams? Minimum wage? Oh no!”

  2. Anonymous

    It’s funny that he’s upset the Democratic Party is no longer the party of FDR. I sure don’t think the LIBERTARIAN party is more akin to FDR. “What are all of these big government progams? Minimum wage? Oh no!”

  3. Anonymous

    It’s funny that he’s upset the Democratic Party is no longer the party of FDR. I sure don’t think the LIBERTARIAN party is more akin to FDR. “What are all of these big government progams? Minimum wage? Oh no!”

  4. Anonymous

    That summary at the end makes it sound like the Libertarian party wants to “get tough on crime” like they would step up enforcement of anything at all. That couldn’t be further from the truth.The Libertarian party would probably only really throw money at “getting tough” on violent crime, not anyone-doing-anything-the-government wants-to-dictate-their-involvement-with.Maybe you’re confusing them with the Republican party?

  5. Anonymous

    That summary at the end makes it sound like the Libertarian party wants to “get tough on crime” like they would step up enforcement of anything at all. That couldn’t be further from the truth.The Libertarian party would probably only really throw money at “getting tough” on violent crime, not anyone-doing-anything-the-government wants-to-dictate-their-involvement-with.Maybe you’re confusing them with the Republican party?

  6. Anonymous

    That summary at the end makes it sound like the Libertarian party wants to “get tough on crime” like they would step up enforcement of anything at all. That couldn’t be further from the truth.The Libertarian party would probably only really throw money at “getting tough” on violent crime, not anyone-doing-anything-the-government wants-to-dictate-their-involvement-with.Maybe you’re confusing them with the Republican party?

  7. Anonymous

    That summary at the end makes it sound like the Libertarian party wants to “get tough on crime” like they would step up enforcement of anything at all. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

    The Libertarian party would probably only really throw money at “getting tough” on violent crime, not anyone-doing-anything-the-government wants-to-dictate-their-involvement-with.

    Maybe you’re confusing them with the Republican party?

Comments are closed.