Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNader Redux: Should Dems Fear Mike Gravel?
The political establishment has been doing its best to brush aside Mike Gravel, the 76-year-old former senator from Alaska—and fairly successfully so, until Gravel's appearance at last month's sleepy Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina. After challenging fellow Dems to end the war by legislative fiat—and make it a "felony" for the president to keep troops in Iraq—Gravel saw visits to his website zoom up, and YouTube clips of his debate remarks and even his campaign videos have been drawing tens of thousands of views. If this keeps up, could Gravel's name begin to resonate with the ring of that ultimate Democratic dirty word—Ralph Nader?
Of course Gravel, unlike Nader, has chosen to run in the Democratic primary, with no chance of tilting the general election—for now, at least. Banish the thought, but what if Fred Thompson or Chuck Hagel were to head the Republican ticket against Hillary, with her high negatives, or Obama, whose equivocation could begin to wear away his charm? What would happen if old man Gravel bolted to run as an independent (with Nader's backing, even) and started pulling one or two or three points? Keep in mind that nobody paid any heed to Nader in 2000 until he started running the dread campaign rallies in city after city, culminating in a screaming frenzy at Madison Square Garden. In a single night, Gravel managed to build a buzz among the mad-as-hell crowd. It's not clear how far this could take him—but mainstream Dems are undoubtedly at least a tad concerned.
Gravel shook up the otherwise safe, polite, and predictable by confronting mealy-mouthed fellow Dems with a dreck-cutting matter-of-factness. Commenting that his fellow candidates "frightened" him because they refused to take the nuclear option off the table with regard to Iran, he then confronted Obama with the question, "Tell me, Barack, who do you want to nuke?" Addressing Joe Biden on his plans for Iraq's future, he spoke of the "arrogance" of wanting to direct the government of another country—to which Biden replied that Gravel was living in "happy land."
He might have been the first candidate to officially announce—way back in April 2006—but until the debate, Gravel's low-budget campaign had been nearly invisible. Yet to progressives of a certain vintage, myself included, Gravel is hardly an unknown. During the 1960s, he was somewhat notorious for making public the Pentagon Papers, fighting nuclear testing and nuclear power as well as the Vietnam War, and cutting legislative deals that helped stop the draft.
Born into a working-class French Canadian family in central Massachusetts and educated in Catholic schools, Gravel moved to Alaska after serving a stint in the Army Counter Intelligence Corps in the 1950s. He worked as a brakeman on the Alaska Railroad and made some money as a property developer on the Kenai Peninsula before winning a seat in the state legislature and then the U.S. Senate. He lost that seat in 1980—the election that would send Republican Frank Murkowski to Washington— and has been largely absent from the political stage for a quarter century. When I met with him last week, he wasted no time before getting down to a few admittedly radical bits of business, chief among them his proposal to eliminate the income tax and the IRS and replacing them with a national sales tax.
Though appealing to libertarians—who have made Gravel an unlikely favorite on user-generated news sites like Digg—the proposal is bound to alienate people who might otherwise sympathize with the ex-senator: Sales taxes are considered "regressive," meaning they take proportionately more from those with lower incomes than from the better-off. But Gravel maintains that since the present tax system has become corrupted by "wealthy people gaming the system," his fix would provide a solution; to help the poor, he'd provide a guaranteed minimum income, distributed through Social Security.
Along with getting rid of the income tax, Gravel wants to "bring control of government into hands of the people," by which he means setting up a national initiative system allowing citizens to bring proposals to a popular vote. He insists, somewhat optimistically, that the American people would back gay marriage, if given the chance in a national initiative vote. Ditto on the war on drugs: "I think the American people realize the war on drugs is a total failure—waste of time, waste of money. What's wrong with marijuana? You can go out a buy a fifth of gin and do more damage to yourself."
Such proposals might be familiar fringe-candidate fare, but it is on the issue of the Iraq war that Gravel could prove embarrassing to the Democratic mainstream by relentlessly pointing out that Democrats could stop the war—if they choose to exercise their legislative power. "What we need to do is to create a constitutional confrontation between the Congress and the president," he says. "Most people have forgotten the Congress is more powerful than the president." Never mind impeachment, Gravel says: "That's a red herring right now. It would take over a year to screw around with it." Instead, he proposes a law commanding the president to bring the troops home. In 60 days. "The Democrats have the votes in the House to pass it. In the Senate, they will filibuster it. Fine. The Majority Leader starts a cloture vote the first day. Fails to get cloture. Fine. The next day—another vote on cloture. And the next day, and the next day, Saturdays and Sundays, no vacation—vote every single day. The dynamic is that now you give people enough time to weigh in and put pressure on those voting against cloture." (Here, Gravel knows whereof he speaks: As a senator, he filibustered legislation to extend the draft; eventually, a deal was cut to end it in two years.)
So, he goes on, "I would guess in 15 to 20 days you would have cloture and the bill would pass and go to the president. He would veto it. Wonderful. It comes back to the House and Senate. Normal thing is to try to override and fail. No guts. No leadership. So in the House and Senate every day at noon, you have a vote to override the veto. The Democrats are the leaders—they control the calendar. It only takes half an hour to have these votes. The media will jump on it, you know, `This guy changed his vote,' etc. But then peace groups can go out into the hustings and get these guys where they live, at home, and I would say that in 30 to 45 days they will override the veto. But it's got to be on a clean, simple issue, none of this "go out and manage the war, deal with the funds" stuff. We never cut off the funds in Vietnam. I was there. I tried it. I failed. What you have to do is go to their immediate survival. By Labor Day this could be all solved, and the troops be home by Christmas."
"There's one thing about politicians," Gravel concludes. "They are like every other human being. They are interested in their own personal survival. And that's what's at stake—a dynamic that will ruin their political careers if they don't shape up."
James Ridgeway is Mother Jones's Washington Correspondent.
© 2007 The Foundation for National Progress
60 Comments so far
Show AllTo all the outraged ones -- especially Kate Ann and Lobo Gris -- this is worth wrapping your head around:
When I suggested that people fed up with this Congress switch to the Green Party (that is, change Registration -- and notify their representatives that they did so), I am suggesting 2 things:
1- This is a tactical political move that can put this Congress on notice in a way that no other registration can. "VOTE" with your Registration. It is like a vote because it carries with it your political position on this war. Your regular vote does not apparently carry this weight! They are ignoring the November vote, aren't they?
THIS message is one they they will GET!
This is NOT about presidential politics. It is about using ALL the political tools at your disposal to make this Congress responsible. Having an FEC-recognized political party that speaks YOUR voice and publicly calls for an end to this war and occupation is one very strong tool. How you vote is up to your own conscience, but this REGISTRATION -- right now -- can have MORE effect than your vote did!
Why? Because public Green policies on the war are exactly the ones that people voted for in November and expected this Congress to do. This is a clear and unmistakeable message. It says, "Do your job! Cut the funding! End this war! Bring the troops home! Stop funding private-contractor mercenary cronies! Stand up to BushCo!"
Isn't that what you are trying to say?
A large change to Green of, say, 100,000 in the near future would wake this Congress up fast. Their two-party party game they play would be shaken to its roots.
Registering as an Independent only says that you are fed up and dropping out. It does not tell Congress what you want. Congress could care less right now, and they'll expect to court you back anyway in '08.
Remaining as a Dem, Congress will continue to IGNORE YOU! They feel they've GOT you.
Continued registration as a Democrat does not say what you think about...virtually ANYthing anymore: war, nuclear weapons, the media, impeachment, wages, women's rights, etc. It has become nearly devoid of meaning as Dems gut their own platform time after time. Their current platform is written by Corporate America, face it.
Oh, they'll let you run a Gravel or Kucinich to let your steam off (but keep you in the fold). Come the Primaries, it's all over: they'll get you just where they want you -- again.
2- Identifying with Greens at this moment (now matter how you end up voting) makes a loud, public CRY for that Progressive Agenda that so many want, but rarely crosses the lips of our elected officials, and NEVER comes out of the Dem or Republican official noise machines.
We NEED to hear those positions spoken out IN PUBLIC. Saying the words is the first necessary step to get ANYWHERE. The people's agenda must be made known. Green registration does that. Otherwise there is not a snowball's chance in hell this will ever be discussed nationally or -- gasp! -- become law.
Therefore, building and growing the Green Loudspeaker, grows YOUR voice and my voice. Dems only dampen or silence it, face it.
Presidential politics?? Please -- do not let what you do for 20 minutes every four years (presidential voting booth) stop you from making strong meaningful statements about what you want and what this country needs all the OTHER minutes of those four years!
Indeed, it may be the ONLY way to let them know how you feel and what you want!
Why give this cowardly Congress another chance to abuse you without telling them what it is you want -- and DEMANDING change. This IS your chance.
See more about the how's and why's and consequences on Switch2Green.org. It is worth looking at, thinking about -- and DOING!
This is one of the few things we CAN do right now that can have an immediate effect. We gotta do everything we can.
Chomsky is also a dues-paying Wobbly - a member of the IWW - the anarcho-syndicalist labor movement of Joe Hill and Frank Little fame.
Like I wrote, only is the US does "libertarian" mean "Chicago-school market fetishist" so only in the US is it "libertarian socialism" considered a contradiction.
As far as "knowlege labor" being somehow different, I can attest as a "knowledge worker" myself (Civil Engineer - or are you suggesting that the only real knowledge workers are computer workers) my relationships to the bosses in the home office were not a lot different than if I worked on an assembly line. Now I work for the federal government - mush better, and I belong to a union too.
What's really needed is a third party representing the far Right. Pat Robertson or some other popular bible thumper should run on a platform that claims 'Bush doesn't go far enough!' Or maybe we could get one of those racist bloggers I read all the time the says 'bomb all of Islam'. Split the Republican vote and only then can a truly liberal Democrat get elected. Unfortunately with 80,000,000 evangelicals out there, Jeb Bush may very well be the next president of the United States!
aymon, kelt is correct. Chomsky calls himself a left libertarian or anarchist. Look it up.
alank, once more, I concur.
aymon:
What else can I tell you? Read "Chomsky on Anarchism" as I've posted above. I won't even bother to address your absurd and silly comments about "white bourgeois kids"
kelt 65
There used to be joke in thelate 60's when the student movements in Europe were really into genuine political discussion about socialisms that the anarchists were the most organised party among all the movements.
Yes, i have read other people's analysis of what Chomsky believes in, and he has certailny had some youthful flirtations with anarchist "thought", but the substance of his work is summed up in the quote from Russel he has posted on his office door - - he is a humane socialist. Russel was very critical of anrchists because they had no clue about the people who would suffer the most under an Anarchy - - the poor, the weak, the disenfranchised, the old, the children and minorities.
I am no anarchist, and for good reason becuase of the above and because it is made-up of dilettante, white bourgeois kids. In fact, Wolfowitz was most likely, originally a "left" anarchist. They have no exit strategy from the state of anarchy into a truly humane society.
Wikipedia is hardly a source for deep analysis. As I said before, if Chomsky were a dyed-in-wool anrchist and not a genuine, humane, socialist, Castro would have long ago told him to get lost. Could you imagine what would have happened to Cuba after Batista if castro had governed anarchically? It would be an American colony by 60's.
kelt 65, you should believe in what you want, but as humane socialist I would like to know in plain English and staightforward first order logic how an anarchy would evolve into a humane society and not a bunch of fiefdoms ruled by warlords as in Afghanistan?
aymon:
I am an anarchist and I do not consider it a smear; and FYI no anarchist and communists have little in common. He's stated that he is an anarchist publicly many times. If you really have "read all of his works" I'm quite surprised you've never encountered this fact - you must have skipped "Notes on Anarchism," which can be read in its entirety here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_HkOaB89p7YC&dq=chomsky+anarchism&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=...
Here he discusses it somewhat more personally:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html
You might also want to read the biographical section of his wikipedia entry, he's identified with anarchist politics since the age of 13 or so.
Oh, and one more thing: The 16th Amendment only gives the gov't the RIGHT to tax, it doesn't impose the wage tax, nor does it require you to file a return. I'm still waiting for that law number!
kelt 65
I have known the American left for more than 40 years. It is true that the large majority is not like the organized left in Europe, particularly France. But that left is pretty ossified and lock-stepped in old marxist ideas which cannot cope with new forms of human resource - - knowledge labour. convincing knowledge labor about humane socialism is going to take considerable knowledge and savvy, something that people like Chomsky have and propagate so well.
There was a possibility for humane socialism in america during the Great Depression, but FDR cleverly diluted it. also your unions are or were really fascist, and beat up anti Vietnam war students during marches in the 60's.
when i talk about the american left, and by the way i have lived stateside for nearly 20 years and have been a cannuck longer, I mean people like Izzy Stone who used to edit the best weekly review of news and views a long time back. Chomsky wrote in that. So did Einstein who said that the best form of government was humane socialism.
The clever fascists conflated with the help of the MSM socialism with stalinism during the Cold War, and the American pscyche, already somewhat jingoist, was easily manipulated to fear commies under the bed. The communist party in the states was so dyed- in- wool Marxist that they overlooked all stalinist and neo stalinist anti-people governements in the soviet gulag. That is why Izzy Stone, Noam chomsky and others would not lend intellectual credibility to the retro communist party in the states.
I have read more or less all of Chomsky's works. You do not cite any evidence that he is not humane socialist which is what I am. Just flinging labels without meaning such as "corporate, syndicalist ..." is ad hominem and not worth discussing. Come up with something concrete and substantial to back up your smear of Chomsky and we'll talk. Also patronizing me is not an argument but shows latent jingoist tendencies and obfuscation of the issues.
Okay, kids, I'm back.
The 16th amendment does NOT allow for taxation of ANYTHING that wasn't taxable before it's (supposed) passage. And that includes WAGES, which even at that time congress was VERY loath to try taxing and in fact, DIDN'T. See, even back then they knew what the founding fathers intended, and they considered taxing he labor of people to be tyranny. And it is.
As to it's ratification, look into it a bit deeper. It appears that it was NEVER ratified by the required number of states, and in fact, states like California NEVER sent in any paperwork indicating they were for it at all. There are all sorts of real questions about the actual passage or not of this amendment. They just announced it like it had actually passed. Money rules, you know.
There is still NO LAW that requires you to file or pay tax on your wages. On BUSINESS incomes, on capital gains, on investments, YES. THOSE things are considered income by this amendment, but wages are NOT, or at least weren't originally.
Business is what is SUPPOSED to be taxed, NOT individual's wages. What do you think Thomas Jefferson's comments on a wage and labor tax would be? I can bet you easily that it wouldn't be kind. The word tyranny would be used many times in the discussion.
And now that we are in a complete turn around of the original idea of our country (where WE aren't taxed but business IS), WE are paying 4 TIMES what business is. Does THAT sound right, American, or what the founding fathers would approve of? Hardly. Business makes FAR more than we as a population do, but WE are the ones paying more and more taxes for the benefit of business, and to the detriment of our own situations.
Look into a guy named Aaron Russo. His movie is called "America: from freedom to fascism". It will open your eyes to what the reality is. Research it yourself, and you will find what I have been since I started this: THERE IS NO LAW THAT REQUIRES YOU TO FILE A 1040 OR pay taxes on your wages. NONE. The 16th aside, because it doesn't impose new taxes, and indeed, the court rulings after that say that anything not taxable BEFORE the 16th is NOT taxable afterwards, either.
Look into another guy named Bill Benson. He wrote a book on this very topic after he spent some years in the big house for not paying taxes. He STILL doesn't pay taxes, and the feds won't prosecute him because he can use his book as defense, and it has the actual info. He researched it heavily, and found that the 16th was NOT properly ratified by the required 3/4 of states. And if that is true, then we are indeed involved in mass extortion.
And I'm still waiting for the law number that requires you to file. Just a simple number, please. That is all. NOT cases based on the assumption of legality, NOT cases that are based on things that don't apply, but the actual LAW number, please. If you give me the actual law number, I will drop this. Otherwise, I will keep on it until things are either changed, I'm underground, or they put me in the slammer for speaking the truth.
aymon:
Chomsky most certainly is an anarchist, you are obviously not very familiar with him, nor are you familiar with left politics if you don't know what a left libertarian is (libertarian socialist)
Within anarchism Chomsky falls more or less into the anarcho-syndicalist camp, that is, workplace democracy - those who work in the factories should own them.
The American liberal is not in any way part of the left and never has been. The american liberal is most certainly a Capitalist, albeit one that believes in strong state regulation.
Forget the Third Parties at the presidential level, Lobo Gris, until we get campaign finance reform and/or preferential voting! I still think John Kerry (who really did win Ohio except the woose didn't care enough to fight for it, but then he was guided by Clinton thugs who wanted to preserve the prize for Hillary) certainly would have been better than George W. "Intent-on-bringing-on-the-Apocolypse" Bush.
Everything else aside, THANKS for reminding me that I should make a contribution to Mike Gravel's campaign (though I admit I am for John Edwards and maintain my 2004 soft spot for Dennis Kucinich).
What we need is a good third party candidate. The Dems and the Repubs are steadily losing support as shown below. Not to mention that an unoffical online poll today showed that 97% of the people that responded don't think their Representatives in Congress represent their interests.
Here is the current breakdown for how people have registered;
33% Democrat
25% Republican
42% Independent
People are tired of being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils every election cycle. They have finally figured out that the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Lobo Gris
Gravel makes sense. He tells it like it is. is that some sort of crime?? Let's stop this NONSENSE about fearing another NADER!!
To our everlasting shame and to the great detriment of our nation and the world, Democrats have shown more fear and venom towards Ralph Nader than to the fascist thugs who stole two US elections and threaten the world with Armageddon.
All they needed to get Ralph's votes was to take up his issues and talk about substance instead of the fluff of the "Debates."
NEVER in this country will there be a"debate" or even a discussion about corporate takeovers in Congress, the media, healthcare, eductation. Or about the abandonment of the American worker. There is no immigration problem--The same corporations that send our jobs overseas want "guest workers" to take low-paying jobs here: a two-tiered Race to the Bottom. Thanks, Dems, for not telling us and for not listening to your "labor constituency."
Look around. What more could it possibly take for you Dem apologists to figure out that the mainstream Democrats ALWAYS ignore the progresssives, and are complicit in this treason to our nation!
YES, there is a threat to our nation, but it comes neither from Iraq nor Afghanistan. It comes from Pennsylvania Avenue, an allout attack on our Constitution, freedoms and rights.
We talk all about the troops, honoring them, supporting them because they put their lives on the line for....for WHAT!!? To save America? THAT's a laugh. From what? An Iraq which suffered over a decade of embargo and destruction BEFORE our invasion and occupation?
This is a war ON America. Wake up! Iraq is merely a symptom and energy-rich distraction.
NO. The "Line in the Sand" lies right in DC where a "Mr. Smith" or any truly patriotic Congresspeople foing to Washington should sacrifice, if not their lives, at least their careers to stop this hijacking of America, her laws and her people.
Stand this Regime down, already! 70% of the people are behind you. Ah, but they don't represent 70% of the campaign funding. My bad.
The irony is that Dems, suffering from Terminal Cognitive Dissonance, will continue to believe that if they only plead a little more, only beg a bit harder, send a few more emails, that their representatives will maybe suddenly remember why they were elected in November.
What was that definition of Insanity again? If you keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results. Well...
Oh yes, and the complaints about the MEDIA. It is the Media that keeps Democrats' voices quiet, right? Well which Communications Act did Bill Clinton sign allowing more media concentration?
There is plenty of blame to go around. You can't slip out of this anymore. Time to grow up. Stop whining. There is no Dem on a white horse waiting to save you. If there was he/she has already been swift-boated or howard-deaned, or pelosied, or PaulWelstoned, get it?
No, no, Dems, you can't get away with this any more, ducking your own liability for our present ugly situation. Blaming Nader and the Greens, indeed!! Not one bit of that is provable by the facts. That 2000 election theft was planned and paid for (cf., Enron) MONTHS before November. The evidence is all around.
Dems can no longer escape their role in this illegal war of aggression. Only by conjecture and bitter denial of the true role of the Democratic Party -- which IS: to take the energy of all those opposed to hard-core, ruthless neo-con corporate expansion and HARNESS it so it will do no harm to their campaign funders. THERE. It is SAID. It is sad. It is pathetic, but it is the truth.
Again, the IRONY is that with all the venom cast at Nader and Greens who advocate for an END to this abomination of a war and an END to this sick Regime in DC, there is a much better chance to get our Congress to show some cajones by switching your registration to Green than by remaining a "progressive" Democrat, pleading for change, and being ignored (or worse)!
TRULY. A massive switch to Green right now is vastly more useful than declaring oneself "independent." A switch to Green puts this Congress on notice: "you cannot take us for granted anymore." Those registration numbers show up. Tell your representatives: "We have moved to a party which sounds just like our hearts and minds and consciences, and you cannot ignore this progressive constituency any longer!" For more on this logic, see Switch2Green.org.
The corporate-funded Dems take Progressive's votes, take their money -- and then take them for a ride! NO MORE! Make your voice heard -- LOUD: Switch2Green!
A switch to Independent is a meaningless gesture of pure frustration, like a kindergartner stamping his feet. A Green registration, on the other hand, carries as much weight as a vote!! Why, you ask? Because the registration ITSELF says far more about you and your politics and your desired destinations than any of the many candidates you have voted for over the years.
VOTE with your Registration! Make your views known. It may be the ONLY chance you get to show your progressive credentials without being silenced. And those numbers SHOW UP, pointing to a growing progressive constituency that DEMANDS attention.
Use your head and your feet. Stop being taken for granted. Leverage from the OUTside will get more results quickly than DECADES of "work" INside.
You can vote anyway you want to, but this new GREEN Registration can do more than your vote!! This isn't hype. Just look at what your November vote brought you.
These cowardly, pompous clowns in Congress have simply IGNORED the single greatest threat to our sovereignty: the Bush Administration, and have given them a pass on everything, crimes, negligence, torture, and worse.
All Dems ever had to do if they wanted Nader's votes or looking ahead Gravel's votes is to TAKE THEIR POSITIONS -- something they are unwilling or incapable of doing. They'd prefer to abandon reason and justice and the law. They expect their Dems to act like lemmings even when the whole mess is falling apart. What a sad irony.
DEMAND and end to war funding! DEMAND impeachment proceedings! DEMAND accountability and lawfulness from this Congress! DEMAND a reversal of the extremist Patriot Act and the government's right to intrude on our lives. Register Green...and TELL them you did so. They'll get the message.
oops, I made a mistake:
It is ezeflyer to whom the above is addressed, and not to PJD.
Sorry folks
PJD
Where did you get the idea that Chomsky is a "left" libertarian, which is a sort of contradiction in terms, if not an oxymoron. Neither is he an anarchist, at least not from the works I have read. Chomsky is thinking socialist in the mould of Einstein, Russel and Orwell. He lays out his positions and uses impeccable logic to show that a lot of corporate and rightwing "intellectual" shit is just that. Further he is an analytical lingiuist par excellence so that he can cut through verbiage by which neocons thrive to cut to the chase and blow their arguments out of the water. If he were an anarchist or liberatrian of any kind, I would dump him in a second and so would Chavez, Castro and host of others across the world. You should see the war crimes trial he and Arundhati Roy held in 2004 against Bush/Chenny. No anarchism there.
He's not running, but I actually think an interesting candidate would be Bob Bowman. He is a retired military officer, some kind of PhD in Physics, worked for the government on top secret security projects, christian as all get out (catholic, I believe) and progressive as hell. I mean, everyone but the neocons would vote for this guy. He has this commanding presence -- almost looks like a Republican in a way, but then you hear all this progressive stuff coming out of his mouth like doctor-run, single-payer health care, end the war now, no more AFTAs. He is an incredibly charismatic, effective speaker, and is not afraid to tell the truth. And he knows 9/11 was an inside job and would hold the bastards accountable. He made a very strong showing in his District in Florida for Congress against a 6-term Republican.
http://www.bowman2008.com/pg_01_about_1.html
I worked my a** off for Kucinich last time and probably will again...
The dems. are split almost in half between progressives and the trilateralists. The reps. are also split, but because they have painted themselves into the neocon-theocon part of the populace (about 40-50 million) of which nearly 50 % is southern white trash, they have no hope but to spout that zioevangel shit (look at Guilliani). The problem with the spoiler strategy of voting for third party candidates is to give the fascists four more years to complete their control. That is what Nader forgot. The better strtategy is to get Kucinich as defence secretary, Gravel as state secretary, Feingold in treasury, Gore in environment, and Conyers in justice. Then it nakes no difference if Clinton or Obama is prez. Progressives should cut this deal with the trilateralists or let America go fascist. Fascists don't last long, and for huge country like the States where at least 100 million people are progressives, including most minorities, and with some really intelligent military leaders who are making a lot of noise lately, this deal will work because the trilateralists will know that they have been checkmated by an organized, savvy progressive grass roots organization equal to half their party.
For the good of the world and the U.S of America, the war criminals George W Bush and Dick Cheney should face justice in the World Court. That unfortunately is a virtual impossibility. Then where to start? The Republican party, even with all the problems it has, cannot be brought down. But the phony opposition, the Democratic party, can and must be brought down for the good of the country. They continue to present themselves as a false alternative to the Republicans, with the rare exceptions of the brave souls Feingold, Kucinich and Gravel. They merely serve as window-dressing for an otherwise center-right party. False hope in illusions like this can be very dangerous.
Hopefully, with the Internet and alternative media, we can help rebuild a real progressive movement and a true progressive party. No more Hillarys, Obamas or Kerrys, who are nothing but fake "token" opponents created by the media elite in partnership with the fully corporatized Democratic party. Even Gore was overrated, especially when you consider that Lieberman was his running mate(I believe the Internet played a large role in almost costing Lieberman his seat in the last election).
I'm an independent. Although the result might be nightmarish, I'm willing to punish the Democratic party if it nominates Hillary or Obama by voting for a 3rd party candidate, which would likely turn the election in favor of Republicans. Can someone show me proof that Hillary or Obama would be better or more "moderate" than a Republican?
A few years into the nightmare maybe some of the moderate conservatives will wake up, realizing the Republican party has turned into the American Fascist party; I know a few who already realize this. Anyway, it may take a while if/when we ever elect a real progressive, but it will never happen by letting the Democrats pretend to represent us. I believe it is almost impossible such a candidate will be produced by the corporate-owned feckless Democrats, which is why they must be punished and destroyed. Remember that everything is a political act: Vote with your dollars; live more sustainably; educate others; barter; rebuild communities; support alternative media; maybe we can get the ball rolling so that someone in Washington listens.
Once again, Nader gets blamed for 2000, even though Gore failed to win his home state, failed to take New Mexico, and was a wussy little ponce about a recount. Gore should have fought the Bushies, but didn't, arguably because there isn't much difference between the twin parties of the ruling class.
Gravel has moxie, but he's nowhere near Ron Paul for sheer audacity.
And aas far as the income tax goes, it's a crying shame that a school teacher making 30,000 sends 20% of her income for taxes and some stock trader living off of dividend and capital gains sends far less.
We live in a country where poor people pay for rich people's subsidies.
"Atlas Shrugged"-have a look..neither left or right..pretty good tale of what is going down at present..with some tough love thrown in...love the idea of John Galt..Wonder if Greenspan made it with Ayn as in the tunnel with Dagny and John??
ken
PJD May 22nd, 2007 3:40 pm
I'm glad you mentioned most of your libertarian friends seemed to be the wealthy elite, and this is to be expected from pleople who completely buy into the concept of laissez-faire. I guess this doesn't match the way I think because I see it as greed inspired rather than adhering to the concept of 'commonwealth'. After seeing how this administration has run rough shod over virtually the entire world raping, pillaging, and murdering countless thousands in the name of 'free markets', just so a few 'elites' can live well, I don't see how the concept is humanistic at all. Considering we are all in this world together, and should share the Earth's bounty, rather than fight & horde it, I reject the concept of laissez-faire altogether as an immoral philosophy to live one's life by. It's the, "I, me, my" John Lennon wrote about.
Libertarians hold two concepts dear, rejection of the 'welfare state' and conscription. With a gauranteed income it appears Gravel rejects at least part of the libertarian goals. When I consider the money wasted in Iraq could have ended poverty worldwide (and in the US) I have no choice but reject the anti-humanitarian libertarian agenda also.
As far as conscription goes I was against it during the Viet Nam era, but have a moral dilemma now because I see it as one of the only means to bring to a conclusion the utter madness of this administration's folly in Iraq. In this war of criminal imperial conquest most Americans have not been asked to pay a price. When the sacrifice is widespread there will be a realistic examination of motives ultimately pointing to trading blood for natural resources; this will result in a paridigm shift away from this administration's foreign policy, and this war will end.
Ditto on that, opeluboy.
Should the Dems fear Gravel?
No. They should fear their base that has had enough of their capitulating, cowardice and general whoring.
WJM: The income tax was set up by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1913. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." I sympathize with your position, but I'm not sure that I agree.
http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=575
http://www.warresisters.org/consequences.htm
On Gravel, though I don't agree with all of his ideas, he definitely seems to be the most honest person in the race and that ought to count for something. I hope he helps halt the steady rightward slide of the Democratic Party.
First off, let's get the official crap out of the way. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv.
That being said, I've only checked into a few of these objections so far, but here is ny repoly at this point.
Title 26, section 6012 is NOT law. It's tax code. It is NOT law. Let's be clear here. the tow things re NOT the same thing. I am asking for the law that requires you to file a return.
US vs Tededer is a wrongful forfeiture case. Forfeiture has also been called into quesiton, but that is a different topic. This does not give me a law number. Any decision here is based on NO law. Number, please.
Helvering vs Mitchell is a fraud case, and not the proof that there is a law. Putting false information on ANY federal form is a crime. The fact that the form involved isn't legal doesn't even matter at this point, as the case doesn't apply. It still doesn't verify the existence of teh law.
I'm not asking for things that are based on supposition. Give me the law number. Tell me what year it was passed. Oh, and BTW, the term "income" is not intended to mean wages. It is intended to mean things like capital gains and business gains. Taxing your wages was the LAST thing the founding fathers had in mind.
I will look into the other cases listed after I get home from work this evening, but I am willing to bet that they don't mean any more to this than the others.
LAW NUMBER, PLEASE!
So what are you saying COMarc May 22nd, 2007 1:20 pm , that we need to destroy the Democratic party, so the Republicans can win a few elections, and that will make the Democrats pay attention to us?
If I believed you had really thought about what you were saying I would be inclined to believe you were some sort of devious Rovian plant seeking some underhanded way to keep the Republicans in power.
The fact is we can't afford the Republican administration/control foisted on us the last dozen years FOR EVEN ONE MORE VOTING CYCLE. Look at all the damage they have done during the Nixon/Reagan/Gingrich/Bush continuum, and many matters are coming to such a head they just can't wait (climate change, consolidation of resource & media power, peak oil, absurd military spending, social security & medicare fund depletion, wages down & poverty up, new nuclear plants being proposed, the effects worldwide of depleted uranium, etc ad infinitum).
The worst is yet to come, and what is coming up will make elections a moot issue. In an article I discovered today I see the seeds of another 911 type attack, Bush declaring martial law, and even cancelling the next presidential election altogether (they'll call it a 'postponement' though).
Here is the article if you would like to look it up:
Bush Anoints Himself as the Ensurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
By Matthew Rothschild
The Progressive
Friday 18 May 2007
"In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a "catastrophic emergency."
http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807.html
The Presidential Directive was signed on May 9 (very quietly I might add), and gives Bush veritibly unlimited dictatorial powers superceding the authority of ALL branches of government in the event of a national emergency, whether man caused (like 911 or nuclear explosion) or even natural (like Katrina or a tsunami or a large earthquake/volcano).
I've been telling people for a year this was/is in the works, but with this last piece in place it seems even more likely a scenario now.
Here is the link
http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807.html
Pass it on. I believe more people need to be aware of this and I doubt you'll see/hear anything on the MSM, right?
The Dems should live in fear that we will all vote Independent next time. Today was the ultimate betrayal. Reid and Pelosi handed over that blank check for Iraq, and probably then sat down to a nice banquet in the Rose garden.
We gave them a chance, and they blew it.
Isn't it about time to recognize that the two-party operation we've got going is a resounding failure? Articles like this one illustrate the problem - politics as a competitive sport. Is there any essential difference between Ridgeway's analysis and the average sports commentator's speculations on a football team's chances at a Super Bowl crown?
There needs to be discussion of whether this political game we play produces the sort of political outcome we'd like. All the devout players modestly lower their heads and mumbble:"Politics is the art of compromise. We can't get exactly what we'd like in our democratic system." Poor little Nancy Pelosi is only trying to do what's possible, not what she'd really like.
That is the attitude of every member of Congress. The only political figure we gets more of what he likes than anyone else is the President. Clearly, this President is a cunning idiot, leading the nation away from every value it has traditionally stood for. Some one who stands for principle is then analyzed as a "spoiler" because the game is all there is. Values are compromised until they bear no ressemblance to values at all.
There is not a single leader among the Democratic contenders. Not a one will say a word that is not properly pasteurized and homogenized, except a man like Mike Gravel, who hasn't got a snowball's chance in h ell in this process.
That is precisely how Bush got his job in 2000, by lying and posturing for the polls, and then by rigging the process so that the election was effectively stolen through an illegal action by his friends on the Supreme Court. And now he "stands for something", he says pretty much what he likes as the head of his party and is turning this country towards military dictatorship.
The Democrats play off him. They don't stand for anything except what is possible in the process of playing off Bush. They do not lead. They are led by the polls in a political environment created by BushCo initiatives. Bush has established the new status quo. They don't want to stray too far from Bush or the status quo. That would be "radical", or "extreme".
And this is what the two-party system is all about, perfectly described by W.B. Yeats when he wrote: "The best lack all convictions, while the worst are full of passionate intensity" Bush is the worst, even mild-mannered Jimmy Carter says so, and he's calling the tune to which the other party dances.
This is the two-party system. It really sucks, friends. Have you noticed? Will you continue to read this process-crap and believe that it is meaningful or important? Wake up and recognize who the two-party system serves. This is an Establishment game. Are you really so contented with the conditions this Establishment has created? What disasters will you have to endure before you recognize that politics is not a football game?
Get out of the game and in touch with reality, please!
It's too late already, I'm afraid, but when you cannot afford to drive to Grandma's because gas is $5/gallon, at least you will have some way of figuring out just how you fucked up.
Nancy Pelosi and whoever is "advising" her (Emmanuel Rahm?) have driven many of my friends (lifelong Democrats) to declare themselves Independents. They want a Special Prosecutor to investigate War Crimes and more and they want impeachment. They want Halliburton Raided by the US Special Forces and the Executives dragged by the neck to serve time in Crawford Texas in Bush's Barn. They feel Halliburton is America's worst enemy and Nancy Pelosi is the next worst. The only reason I do not support impeachment is then she would President. GADS, N O!
Here are the results of a poll, we took in my community: Obama (who won here 2-1) equivocal has a Medical Care Program Advisor who is chasing backers away. He is better suited for a host of a late night TV talk show.
H. Clinton: She won't even beat the worst republican candidate,
Gore: His blowing of 2000 soured us on him. Whoever was his campaign director should be running school for pussycat-People. He should have fought to the death for recounts to Florida and Tennessee.
Edwards: He doesn't seem to be making any headway against Hillary and if he can't beat her, he won't beat any Republican.
Howard Dean (huh?) He is tough, might be a decent alternative to the Bushites, but lacks bedside manner.
Hugo Chavez: Now there would be a candidate! Too bad, he wasn't born ion the USA. Let's change that issue in the Constitution.
Let's face it. There is no FDR running for the Democrats. In short, we have no candidate.
WJM, check United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10 th Cir. 1986), which references involuntary collection. Or Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938). Or United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8 th Cir. 1983). Or Woods v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 88, 90 (1988). Or Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-312, 78 T.C.M. (CCH) 468, 471 (1999). All of these are on point.
And United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8 th Cir. 1993) addresses the "voluntary issue." Voluntary means the method of assessment, NOT the fact of payment.
WJM, as far as there being no law on the books that requires you to pay an income tax, how do you account for Title 26, Section 6012's requirement to file a return? And the 16th Amendment allows Congress to levy taxes on income, an ability that Congress has explicitly delegated to the IRS.
I understand your point, I do. But the 16th Amendment seems clear.
blueorbs:
It's ironic that Gravel, the best candidate, is partly responsible for ending the draft. But you're right. With a draft, wars would be few and far between. A draft is needed, providing the oligarchy's children don't get deferrments. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need one.
PJD is right about libertarians. Right libertarians that is. Chomsky is a left libertarian or anarchist. The Libertarian Party is an organization of right libertarians. Lacking a similar left libertarian party, the word refers to the right wing faction.
Some libertarians are backing Gravel and considering a coalition with the Greens because they have common issues such as ending the WOD, victimless crimes, decentralized government and such. These and other issues differ in intent, as do their ultimate goals. But third party coalitions are common in other countries except ours. They are legitimate forms of sharing power and are prevented from doing so by the American duopoly.
Speaking of personal survival, bring back the draft. The ensuing protests by draft-age citizens will finally stop the war.
It makes me at least slightly optimistic to see the posts here. The democratic party is a huge obstacle to progressives of any kind. Writers such as the author of this article make me puke. Hillary Clinton and Obama are media scripted Republican-lite corporate shills who speak on a 3rd grade level. Gravel and Kucinich are who we should be giving our attention to.
I'm sick and tired of the Dempublians/Rebublocrats....same stink-different crap..
I'm ready for a 3rd party or good independant.
the dems are going to lose the base that gave them the House if they dont stop pussyfooting around the are issue.
COMarc is right. The Democratic Party is the place reform goes to die. I see in the last couple of days that the "leadership" is cutting a trade deal with the White House and Pelosi is talking about an Iraq funding bill without deadlines, but rather benchmarks. Does she really think a president who ignores the Constitution is going to abide by benchmarks? Six months since the last election and they are selling out their constituents again. I'm sorry I donated to their Congressional campaign in '06 and I want my money back! How about a national Progressive clearing house to watchdog all Democratic Representatives and Senators, collect funds, hire organizers and RUN PRIMARY CHALLENGES and general election THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES against the Democratic wusses who play ball for the other side?
nader redux?!?!? if i was gravel, i would be offended being compared to nader. i see nothing in common between the two. it sounds like james ridgeway is trying to scare people away from considering gravel.
I'm not talking about ALL taxes. In fact, if you look at where the in come tax we pay actually goes, it may surprise you. It doesn't pay for a single service you receive. It goes to do nothing but service the debt. Nothing but interest. Gas taxes pay for the roads and bridges, etc etc, etc. You and I pay for nothing but the interest.
I'm not against all taxes, but a wage tax is not only unconstitutional, but it's been shot down by the supreme court at least twice.
And I would still like to see the law. Just a number, I can look it up myself.
There seems to be only 3 represtatives of the people in the house and senate.Kucinich,Feingold,democrats and Ron Paul,a repub rep.You just cant tell the good guys from the bad even with a score card.Tony
In my previous remark, by "libertarian", I mean the poeple I've met who are members of the Libertarian Party, USA.
They invariably revere the late author Ayn Rand and economist Milton Friedman as great philosophers. They believe in the ultimate abolition of all laws governing the conduct of business, labor, the environment, land-use, and the privitization of all public spaces and resources. As such, they sometimes call themselves "anarchists" something that would set Bakunin spinning in his grave.
Invariably they are rich - in fact, the "libertarians" I've met are trust-fund babies who've hardly worked an honest day in their lives.
Of course, such Libertarianism has been tried before - the results well chronicled by authors like Charles Dickens, Upton Sinclair, or John Steinbeck. I've never been sure if their beliefs are borne of greedy self interest (they largely seem to be members the wealthy propertied class) or extreme nieivte.
The Libertarian party has been in decline lately, largely a victim of their own success via the pro-big business policies of the Republicans.
I am aware that "libertarian" means something different in other countries - "reactionary neoliberal" would be a better description to a European. And among the left, there is "libertarian socialism", like Albert and Hahnel's ParEcon.
And, WJM, while taxes can certainly be made more fair by taxing unearned wealth more and work less, if you are so opposed to taxes and supporting your society and community, please go find an island somewhere to live all by yourself.
kathyodat--What are Democrats supposed to act like? Every Democrat administration has waged war--even FDR BEFORE WW2--in the 20th century and has worked quite hard to further the interest of business, albeit with some welfare tossed here and there to avoid revolution. Democrats conjured up the National Security State when NONE existed before whereas Republicans resisted prior to the age of McCarthyism and Nixonian reactionaryism.
I realize that the federal political level carries the most power; however, the only possible way to mount a challenge against the entrenched 1 Party/2 Factions' hold on that power is for the Alternative Party to gain sway at the state level, which means winning at the local level first. This, as you may recall, was Nader's realization going into the 2000 election cycle and provided the energy for the Alternative Party Conventions. IMO, a golden opportunity is presenting itself as the Democrats are following the Republicans down the same hole the latter are still digging for themselves; in my recollection over 30+ years as a voter/engaged citizen, I've never seen so many congresscritters so distant from the desires/demands of their supposed constituents, which makes them ripe for defeat at the hands of a well organized grassroots campaign that closely focuses on that wide degree of divergence in values.
Point out the depravity in their policies and votes in a cogent manner and NO candidate can win a fair election given an openminded electorate.
So I am sending letters to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and notifying them that they lost me until they start acting like Democrats. Politely, of course.
I don't see Mike Gravel as Libertarian, but I do see him as empowering the people, which is actually a Libertarian goal, but coming from a different direction. He's proposing about a 25% sales tax across the board, with monthly rebate checks to low income people, and excluding food, clothing, and pharmaceuticals from the tax. Don't know where he stands on gasoline. But basically it's a luxury tax. At first, I didn't like the idea, but it has possibilities, although a major flaw is that the rich can just fly to other countries to spend their money. So we would also need a tariff on what is brought into this country as well.
As for the Democrats, piss on their house. When I read Gravel's explanation how the majority leader could force the issue, I knew (as if I didn't before) that the Democrats have NO interest in ending this war. Not now, and probably not later. We are being lied to and suckered along.
CoMarc has it exactly right. The majority of the public isn't paying attention, the left keeps going into panic attacks and voting Democratic. And we keep getting more of the same. A rightward drift, the Democratic Party getting more and more entrenched in corporate money. Now they're sounding like the Republicans on ethics reform. Back to the revolving door and a chummy K Street relationship. That is, lots of campaign fund money, lots of partying, and make sure being a politician means you will retire rich. And the sappy public? Oh yeah, we are paying for all this. And what do we get? Crumbling schools and roads, failing students, health care we can't afford, decent jobs going overseas, and college disappearing out of our reach. Oh yeah, and then there's the environment and global warming. And what are the Democrats doing about all this? Pretending to do something. But they're very busy looking after their own interests. Too busy to look after ours. So CoMarc is right, slap them up the side of their head. And kivals is right, I was wrong. Do it now. If we don't, it's agreeing to stay in an abusive relationship, and the abuse will only continue. Do it now and give them a chance to mend their ways. They take care of all their other constituencies, but take us for granted.
With early primary's we can vote him in, everyone get out and VOTE, do it for Gravel if you have to write it in, he is speaking truth to power and would do a fine job as president.
peachmed: You shouldn't have said that, now you got me started.
There is NO law on the books that requires you to file a 1040 or to pay income tax. I repeat: There is NO law. In fact, even the IRC Tax code says that filing and paying are "voluntary". The world "mandatory" is NOT used.
The SCOTUS has weighed in on this at least twice that I know of, and it's said each time that it's not constitutinal for you to have to do either.
Check out a guy named Aaron Russo and a movie he made recently that tells all about this. I belive it's called America Held Hostage, but I'm not sure. The thing is that we are being extorted from and it's just not right.
There are many people in the no tax movement who are ex IRS agents, who know that there is NO LAW. They were asked for it, and when they couldn't find it, they quit and joined the other side. When peole in the movement have been taken to court, they have either won, or the judges went cfrazy and said things like "The LAW doesn't belong in MY courtroom", and that SCOTUS decisions don't either.
If you disagree with me, go ahead and find the law. Or tell me when it was passed, even, and we can find it from there. But the truth is that no one has been abel to find it because it's NOT there. This is nothing but extortion, pure and simple.
"AD May 22nd, 2007 11:08 am
This fellow is 77 and not 76, way too old to take on all the pressures of the presidency. Forget about him and concentrate on Dennis J Kucinch, a candidate who with Russ Feingold could take the Democratic national ticket to a landslide victory in the 2008 presidential race."
"Seventy is the new fifty", or something like that. People are living longer and healthier lives. It would be a shame, not to mention discriminatory against an age group, to not take advantage of Gravel's intelligence, knowledge and experience. This elder statesman unmasked the rest of the corporate Dem pack in the debates. He not only has the vitality, selfless courage and charisma to lead, but has the best plan--to let the people decide. A plan that no other politician, not even Kucinich has because it would take away much of the power of politicians and give it to their rightful owners, the people. That is why Nader, a real democrat, endorses him.
Do you want universal healthcare? With Gravel as president, you could start a binding referendum with the force of law that mandates it. Or a referendum on anything else now decided by the decider and the best government money can buy. Direct democracy, this old, now revolutionary but pure form of democracy has worked to give the Swiss, a country with few natural resources, the highest per capita income in the world, no wars in 150 years and plenty of other benefits previously mentioned.
The Green Party's direct grassroots democracy would better fit Gravel's candidacy, but for now, he is still a Democrat. I would like to see him switch and run as the Green Party candidate once he has used the bully pulpit in the Dem debates and the corporate candidate is chosen as expected.
Gravel has the power to unite progressives. Since Kucinich likely won't be chosen, he might also consider switching to Green and running with Gravel. A new home for progressives in the Green Party with Gravel, Kucinich and Nader would be great. Some libertarians endorse Gravel too as shown in this article and a coalition has been talked about. As a unified political force, progressives could still mix our votes with Dems, but no longer could they take us for granted.
We have to say that we're sick and tired of the Democrats and won't take it any more. That we don't want Big Money pols making our decisions. Support for Gravel means supporting ourselves to become the lawmakers. It means we get justice NOW, not whenever we get rid of the corporate DLC, or get real campaign finance reform, or impeach Bush, or end the corporate wars, or end the WOD, or go on strike or have a bloody revolution or whatever. That we can only change things if we the people make the decisions.
Hmmm ... Gravel made an impact. The pro-corporate Dems are starting to smear him as 'libertarian'. Creating the expected Pavlovian dog reaction.
Gravel must be doing something right. :)
If we want change in this country, the first thing we must do is to take on and defeat the largest obstacle to change ... the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party exists today to deflect and resist calls for change. It takes the energy that might be applied to achieving changes, and instead diverts it into a complete waste of effort inside the Democratic Party. By using rhetoric that sounds like an opposition, the Democrats lure those who want change within the party. But the party is so tightly controlled at the top, and the rules of the game are all so rigged, that it is impossible to achieve change from within the Democratic Party. So the overall effect is to defeat the calls for change by smothering them within a useless debate inside the Democratic Party.
Since the Democrats pose as an opposition, they lure people to cast their votes for their candidates as an illusionary option for change. This has two effects. It dries up and eliminates support for the candidates that truly want change. Voters who want change feel they are wasting their vote by voting for the candidate that truly wants change, and instead vote for the candidate that appears to be the lessor of two evils but who can actually maybe win and achieve something.
This is when the second effect comes into play. When the candidates from the Democratic Party that were mouthing the words of change during the election win, they take office and quickly reverse course. Now that they are in office, they oppose change. So the candidate that siphoned off the votes of those who wanted change now is in office serving as an opponent of change.
All in all, the role of the Democratic Party in today's American politics is to act as an agent that either stops or deflects calls for change. And to act as a tool to make sure that no candidate that truly wants change can get elected.
If we want change, the first thing we must do is to destroy the Democratic Party.
And we can do that. The party exists on their ability to win. If they can't win, then its useless to the professional politicians who want to use it to gain office. And if it can't win, it loses its sole appeal to voters which is to say that even if you don't completely like the Democratic positions, at least they can win and block the Republicans. If they can't win, they lose that argument.
And we can make sure they can't win. We may not be able to win ourselves right now. But I believe the progressive and anti-war forces can cause the defeat of Democratic candidate in many races. If its a close race, and the progressives and antiwar votes make up 10% of the vote, then the Democratic candidate must have our votes if they want to win.
This means that we can chose to defeat them anytime we want to. All we have to do is to run a strong third party candidate, and then stay unified in our refusal to vote for the pro-corporate Dems. The final vote on the election will always be something like Rethug=49%, Dem-41%, 3rd Party=10%.
That may not seem to get us power, but it does. If we do that a few times, we will send a message the Democrats will get very fast. That is that they can not win without us. At that point, we need to stand firm and demand action on what we want. We can't repeat the mistake of 2004. The mistake of 2004 was not that the anti-war movement supported Kerry. The mistake of 2004 was that it did so with no negotiations and no demands.
We have political power in this country, because the Democrats can't win without us. We must have the strength to wield that power.
For example, we should make it very clear that if the Democrats nominate someone like Hillary who is very pro-corporate and who has basically supported this war since the beginning (pretty talk against, votes in favor), then we will guarantee her defeat. We must use that leverage now to get a Democratic candidate like Gravel or Kucinich who supports our views. Or at least get another candidate who is willing to firmly pledge to support some of our positions. We must firmly make that deal that says give us at least some of what we want, or you don't win. To me, if the Dems here that and still nominate someone as awful as Hillary, well they were told in advance what would happen and they deserve what they get.
But I still firmly believe our number one goal is to destroy the current Democratic Party. We can force a change in that party. Or we can force the development of a new party. But we have the power to guarantee the defeat of the pro-corporate Dems. We need the political will to wield that power.
No income tax at all? In a country with such an amazing concentration of wealth and such a huge need for aggressive social programs to repair the damage done by this horrible administration? Fuggedaboudit!
I'll take Kucinich, who has proved himself in every way to be a man of much needed integrity, energy, and perseverence.
Gravel is just the type of leader that this country needs. Not because he is a fire-brand, or solely an alternative to the politics-as-usual democrats. Rather because he is a caring, intelligent man with a stellar Senate record who will represent this country as it should be represented. If you have ever met him you will see that he could easily be 67 rather than 77 (his 77th was last week) and his energy is infectious. Gravel has not built his platform around the 'politically correct' or money interests. For instance, he support gay rights. Not because it is mainstream or because the gay lobby is giving him money. Rather, because he believes it is the moral thing to do.
I particularly like his stance on the Iraq War (full military and corporate withdrawal) health care (health care vouchers paid for by government, the user chooses their provider) Immigration (fix NAFTA and give the 2.5 million Mexicans back their jobs who lost them as a result) and Israel/Palestine (1967 borders, economic equality, and a vote offered to the people on both sides to ratify the agreement).
Gravel is a candidate that is well deserving of our consideration.
I find his "libertarian" leanings a downside, although I admit, there is nothing "libertarian" about a guaranteed minimum income.
Does he have a plan for universal health care?
Regardless of his age, Gravel or anyone who gets air time to "tell it like it is", can at least illuminate progressive ideas. Sometimes a party can be forced to take up some of these ideas. I sure hope so. The majority of DEM candidates are repub-lite.
Yes, I agree with AD. Dennis Kucinich has the energy and the courage to do the job. His stands for impeachment and against the Iraq war are just two examples of his stellar credentials.
The point Gravel makes in the last sentence is absolutely key and is wortn repeating: "There's one thing about politicians," Gravel concludes. "They are like every other human being. They are interested in their own personal survival. And that's what's at stake—a dynamic that will ruin their political careers if they don't shape up."
The "vote-shifters" and "bill-sponsor saboteurs" need to be shown they face a serious, credible challenge to their seats from the left. It's just that sort of challenge that's worth thousands of emails and phone calls to protest war-extension and other pro-corporate votes.
This fellow is 77 and not 76, way too old to take on all the pressures of the presidency. Forget about him and concentrate on Dennis J Kucinch, a candidate who with Russ Feingold could take the Democratic national ticket to a landslide victory in the 2008 presidential race.
What Democrats have to fear in Gravel is reality. He isn't afraid to speak the truth and so they try to portray him as a "fringe" or "unwinnable" candidate. He and Kucinich are the only candidates thus far worth considering.
If Gravel is serious about holding politicians' feet to the fire, then his own party is the right place to start. If the Dems in Congress refuse to exercise their power to stop the war, then threatening to run as an independent is precisely what Gravel should do.
Based on the weak, dodgy criticisms of Bush's war-making skills, the MSDs seem perfectly willing to keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely and to engage in future foreign adventures like Iraq. Every honest Democratic Party voter already knows this.
Ralph was right. There are few significant differences b/w the MSDs and the MSRs, esp. when it comes to war.
It's not fringe candidate, it's mainstream… but the MSM paints it as a little guy challenging the good ol' boys.
It's a man with a lot of courage to chart an alternative path, something not many are courageous enough to do. Why isn't it BIG news?