Suppose I told you that there was a candidate in the US Presidential Election who would give the people more say in how the government is run by federally instituting the National Initiative For Democracy. Suppose this candidate also supported the FairTax, which would eliminate the IRS, and not penalize the rich for being so succesful, while at the same time, not overtaxing the poor. Do they seem like the ideal candidate? Unless you are a Fascist or someting similar, you'd probably think so. So who is this candidate, you might ask. He is Mike Gravel, a 78-year-old Democrat and former Alaskan Senator. He was running during primary season for the Democrats but received almost no attention. Gravel is strongly opposed to the Iraq War and feels it is turning into Vietnam, which he was also strongly opposed to. However, during the early Democratic debates, few questions were asked of him, and even the ones that were asked of him, he was basically given significantly less time than other candidates to answer. When asked in the YouTube debate, whether he thought the soldiers in Iraq were dying in vain, like the ones he said did in Vietnam, he replied "Why did we go to Vietnam? So the Vietnamese can go to a Baskin Robbins in Hanoi and order an ice cream? .... The soldiers in Vietnam died in vain, and the soldiers today in Iraq are dying in vain. And the only thing worse than a soldier dying in vain is more soldiers dying in vain." Gravel was immediately cut off without being able to continue, and the moderator turned to Barack Obama, who simultaneously said Iraq was a pointless war and that the soldiers were not dying in vain. Back to Gravel, however. If more people knew his opinions, he would far and away have won the Democratic nomination. Granted, Gravel wasn't able to raise a lot of money, and be able to appear on TV, but how do you get the attention to raise money? By being on TV! So, it's a kind of catch-22. Gravel didn't have the media notability that he needed, although his YouTube channel was more popular than that of John McCain's for a while, and as a result he lost. Is this fair? By no means. It is not fair to Gravel, it is not fair to other Democrats such as Dodd, and it is not fair to Republicans such as Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancedro. None of these received much attention, and that is why they had no chance. It is quite unfair. Whatever happened to equal time? It's time the media market stepped up and didn't favor one candidate over another. However, this is not going to happen as the media is always biased. Hopefully, there will come a point where the people are truly informed. Unfortunately, we are not there yet, or even close.
Copyright © 2010 ddrapayo
Why Gravel Should Have Won, And Why He Didn't
Why Mike Gravel should have been the person to get the Democratic nominee, and why he didn't win.
Copyright © 2010 ddrapayo
About the WriterWant to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!
5 comments on Why Gravel Should Have Won, And Why He Didn't
Rate This Article
Your vote matters to us