I don't know enough about his platform, and I'm not American so I can't actually vote, but I love him coming out in such strong support of secularism and science.  I really wish that some of the mainstream candidates had such obvious views on secularism.

Thanks for the posting Kelly.  Also interesting to see that they would contact the RRS asking for support. 

If anyone raises the issue of my age in this campaign, I think you should remind them that Washington needs adult supervision. - Gravel

"Anyone who voted for the war on October 11 based upon what President Bush presented to them, is not qualified to hold the Presidency of the United States." <applause>  - Mike Gravel

I just read some of his stands on the issues.  I have to say I really like him.

For everyone frustrated enough by the current candidates that they just don't plan on voting, this is definitely another option.

I'm tired of every candidate using "it's time for a change" in their campaign only to see them follow pretty much the same road as the last candidate.  Clearly Mike Gravel would be actual change.

And a President who makes Science & Education a huge priority.. Can u imagine ?  A whole country of smart people.  I can almost smell the progress !

Absolutely I'm voting for him!  I didn't even know his views on religion and science, but now that I do I like him even more.  I've been a supporter of Gravel since the first time I saw him in one of the Democratic debates, and I can proudly say I'll be voting for him.  If he were elected president I'm certain we would see much progress and positive change, much more so than with any other candidate currently running.

What would be entailed in "sending the message?" I do not see a fundamental problem in casting my vote for someone that is unlikely to win. I would be disappointed to see the RRS endorse any political canidate though.

Yes, I think it would.

No comment.

Yes. Yes.

9 on a scale of 10.

No.

The problem is, in the debates all he does is rant and rave and come across as a lunatic. He seems quite rational in that video, and I agree with him 100% (in terms of what he said in the video), but I couldn't support him because every chance he's had to impress me, he's just frightened me with incoherent rants and yelling.

i like what he has to say and has a very sound  and plausable plan 

support of evolution and denounceing the joke called creationism is a big bonus lol  

I've liked Mike Gravel since I first heard him speak.  I like him more now, and would very much support him in any run for any office.

Forbes had this to say about him:

Forbes on Mike Gravel 

"Gravel calls for an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq, to be completed within 120 days of his becoming president. He proposes aggressive diplomacy and cooperation with regional powers to return stability to Iraq.

Gravel is pro-choice, supports gay marriage, believes global warming is a threat to America’s national security and proposes the elimination of the income tax, arguing that a progressive national sales tax is fairer. The national sales tax would raise money for universal health care vouchers and educational benefits for training doctors and nurses. He believes in government regulation of hard drugs and expanded rehabilitation for addicts."

Sure. Since Kucinich is gone, I need someone to at least like instead of hate less.

Can anyone tell me why Kucinich didn't throw support to Gravel? I can't seem to find a reason for not endorsing anyone else. 

From what I have seen of him i have to say I like him, although since i'm in canada i can't really vote.

I'm not sure if he'll ever get into office BUT if he grabs the large non-voting apathetic middlle, who knows? 

I don't know, but Gravel has a post on huffingtonpost talking about Kucinich favorably. 

I doubt he will win with there being so many religious people in this country, but it's still a good first step in the right direction.  I may not agree with him 100%, but I like much of what the man has to say.

I think Gavel is a good candidate, obviously, and also as obvious is his unrealistic chance of winning. These are minor points, however, as there are probably just as good candidates who have just as much of a chance of winning any election. I think it is counterproductive to consider supporting such candidates’ presidential bids, simply because it sets up a more uninviting choice: A great candidate with no chance of winning v. a horrible candidate, who we inadvertently support. Either we vote for the best candidate based on his ideals, and risk ending up with a disastrous future president, from whom we will have to recover in four years, and start the cycle all over again, arguably in a worse position than we started.  Or support an electable candidate, who in my opinion isn't very bad at all (Obama, and to a lesser extent Clinton) who will help drive us toward progress, albeit at a slower rate than we would like, and leave us in a far more progressed state than we started with four years from now. In my opinion it is obvious what the right choice is: Vote for Obama or Clinton, but continue to voice your support for the likes of Gavel and his, and your, ideals. Clinton and Obama, in my opinion have the same ideals as Gavel or myself, but they understand they can not voice them to the same extent and still have a realistic chance of winning any election. The name of the game should be to defeat our opposition (Crazy religious and conservative people), not undermine our less brave allies.  I welcome responses and opposing arguments.  Peace

Huckabee's and Gravel's idea of a national sales tax is absurd since it will burden the poor.  Imagine buying a house for $50,000, then having a additional 25% sales tax added upon that increasing the cost to $62,500.  The poor will have to deal with the higher mortgage costs over the life time of the loan.  The idea that making everything 25% more expensive doesn't sound progressive.

 If he wanted something more progressive we could go back to the old tariff system to prevent manufacturing jobs from going overseas.  More jobs in America mean better protection from recession and increased job competition means higher wages (which have been stagnant for years).  Overseas manufacturing doesn't decrease the cost of goods, it merely increases shareholder profit.

The reduction of tariffs, and drastically reduced income taxes on the wealthy occurred under the Reagan regime and it's those policies which need to be repealed as that is what started the move of jobs overseas and the increased importation of foreign labor to reduce wages.

Now back to the sales tax.  The wealthy are only paying a 35% tax rate, which is much less than it used to be.  Regardless the national sales tax would be giving them a tax break and would increase the tax rate of the poor by 15% (as they currently pay a 10% rate).  The sales tax will be in addition to the payroll taxes which the wealthy don't have to be as much in since the Social Security cut off is at $90,000.

As for the 50% expense of the budget on science that too is absurd.  Right now 50% of our federal budget is on defense which is a complete waste of money.  To drastically shift the spending to science there will be a lot of money delegated to scientific research but not any way to spend all of it.  The consequence is that a lot of other spending will have to be eliminated.  I don't see how he plans to have the finances to provide for a national health care system when half the budget is going to science.

Gravel doesn't appear to have thought things out.  

I hate to piss on this parade, but isn't it a little late to enter the race? I voted in the primaries on the 19th (S.C.) and don't remember Mike Gravel as a candidate. However, I think it is fantastic that a real politician is bringing up these topics. Do I think he has a snowballs chance in Hawaii? No.

Clinton and Obama, in my opinion have the same ideals as Gavel or myself...

I would respectfully say to look closer.

Gravel's open challenges to Clinton is what assured his exclusion from the debates. He first commited the "sin" of calling her on Bill's BS surplus - pointing out that is was no more than an accounting trick.

In his last appearance he called out Clinton for voting for the Iran resolution and Obama for not bothering to vote on it. He also praised Biden & Dodd for voting against it, so this wasn't just a hit against the front runners.

You hate to "piss on the parade" but you voted not even knowing who was actually running, much less checking them out?

Gravel was on the ballot in South Carolina.

While I like Gravel's social positions, and he talks a lot of sense, I think he lacks the economic/diplomatic competence and good health that a good president needs. If you read his wiki page, it's among other things are mentioned bankruptcies, health problems, and alienation of constituents. Why does anyone think he'd manage the country better than he does his own life? Sure, a lot of it is owed to health problems, but we need a fit president too.

 On the other hand, I welcomed his presence at debates. Much like Paul in the republican debates, his greatly differing viewpoints were good for highlighting failings in the other candidates. It's a shame they're excluding him now.

You are right, looks like he was. So why haven't I heard of him? There were a lot of names I didn't recognize, but it was a cold and crappy day so I just clicked for Ron Paul and got out of there without studying all the names I didn't recognize.

I think that Mike Gravel has the right idea on many issues, but he hasn't been getting anywhere politically. Even Ron Paul is way ahead of him there, though it must be conceded that it is hard to compete with Ron Paul's online following of "Ronulans" and "Paulsies". I've asked about him in some other messageboards, and hardly anyone seems to have heard of him.

I would have liked Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, but between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, I'll choose Obama. Hillary's husband was too much of a right-wing sellout for my tastes, and I'm concerned that she will follow in her husband's policy footsteps.

 But I think that we ought to make our political system more multiparty-friendly. First-past-the-post and single-member districts make anything outside of the two big political parties impractical; you'd have to form a faction inside one of those parties.

There are alternatives like Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation; some of them are surprisingly easy to implement. Imagine the more populous states electing their House Representatives by proportional representation. For more, see the advocacy cite FairVote.

I'm willing to write an article on voting systems if you people are interested; to compare the different types and describe how they work out.

 Finally, I think that the RRS ought to avoid endorsing political candidates as much as possible; that is potentially divisive. And I say that from studying political-quiz scores in several messageboards -- they usually have twice as much economic-issue variation as social-issue variation, indicating significant left-right splits.

However, I think that engaging in lobbying is legitimate, something like what the Secular Coalition for America is doing. 

Well, I didn't know Mr. Gravel was running this year, but I guess he didn't know I was running also. I know an unfunded atheist has no chance of winning in todays America (tm) but it IS time we stood together as a voting block and had our voices heard. I started www.bartforpres.com to voice those ideas, to say that reason should rule. If we choose Dawkins, PZ, Gravel... me? anyone, and stand forth, we can make a difference in the politics in the US.

Most Skeptics I know choose the lesser of two evils. We are too rational. We try to apply the small force we posses to the greatest effect. We submit to the reality that our vote has little effect on the national scale.

We also are non-joiners. Its difficult to get us all moving in one direction. We all have different opinions, ideas and goals. I see a corollary to the 'black vote' where the post civil rights generation wants to vote for the candidate they feel is qualified. Not just because he is 'black'. And the older generation feels that Obama hasn't 'paid his dues'. As non-believers, we have faced similar trials. Murders, political imprisonment, censure. Yet, we have never had our 'civil rights movement' until now.

The choice is ours. Do we succeed through attrition, or through conquest?

Just in case you are seriously considering an endorsement, please don't throw your 501c3 status away on someone who has no chance of winning. You can cite him as an example of a politician with enlightened view on many subjects, but how many people have even heard of him, much less would vote for him? Where is he in the polls (hint, it rhymes with one percent) ?

If you are going to forgo non-profit status, the time to throw your weight behind someone is well in advance of the initial voting. At this point, any statement we could make would be too small to register, and I'd rather spend my vote making sure that someone at least half way rational gets elected.

I would have to disagree that Billy Bills Surplus was BS, or an acounting trick. I've heard that argument before and seen some of the "evidence" but it seemed pretty weak to me.

I read you wrong; I thought you were talking about Iraq.  haha. Just a quick point about her voting on the Iran resolution. I never said, nor believe, that Hillary or Obama vote or are as passionately devoted to certain cause as I. However, I believe they share similar beliefs about many issues; it is their political savvy that saves them from having to have balls on such issues! : )

i replied to your bulletin on myspace

about mike gravel.  he is a unitarian universalist according to wikepedia.

,`,`,aybe you ,`,`,issed it.

atheists are really agnostics because

they don't know if there's a god or not.

or maybe they do know and want to control others by deceiving them into disbelieving.

a bat bat hall a dip da

be enlightened, now.

ish oo ah who ha mal eckh!