Mike Gravel

[MiloMinderbinder]

Why no love on this site for Mike Gravel?

Here's a few things I've learned in the last day researching more about him after reading an article in Death and Taxes*:

-- No draft. In fact, he single-handedly prevented the Nixon administration from reinstating it when he was in Congress in early 70s.

-- Legalize and regulate all drugs. Treating drug abuse as a medical not criminal matter.

-- Eliminate the IRS and institute a fair tax (sales tax) instead of an income tax and corporate taxes.

-- Pro-choice.

-- Supports constitutional amendments for more direct democracy, allowing some issues to be proposed and voted on like state ballot initiatives to curb special interests control of Congress.

-- In favor of recognizing gay civil unions, to be treated similarly to heterosexual marriages under the law.

-- For a national health care system allowing choice of doctor. Phase out Medicare/Medicaid.

-- A new foreign policy replacing intervention with participation. Get troops home. Stop being the world's unilateral police and subsidizing the rest of the world's defense.

-- Terrorism is not a war. Treat through better defense and dogged global police work and prosecute perpetrators within the law. Fear sustains our military-industrial complex. Cut nuke arsenal from ~10,000 to a couple hundred as strictly a last resort deterrent. A nebulous "war on terror" (which is a tactic, not an enemy) will surely fail as badly as the wars on drugs and poverty. Iraq is a disaster that will end eventually no better than it is today, so get out rather than squander more blood and treasure.

-- Eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing laws. And stop punishment of non-violent, victim-less crimes like drugs, sex, and gambling.

-- Stop using immigration issue as national scapegoating. Make English the official language of the US.

-- Social security solvency, and let beneficiaries leave unused funds to their heirs not to the govt.

-- Promote conservation and energy independence.

-- For constitutional amendments to repeal the electoral college and place congressional term limits.

* The article didn't say he was a Dem and by his positions I was initially surprised when I realized. Like Paul, he transcends his party and is in some ways closer to a libertarian than either a Dem or Repub. Also like Paul, he won't win but more of his message should be heard anyway if we are going to progress, even if you don't agree 100% with his platform. His actions in the Senate in the '70s show he has the character to put his words into deed, as he personally forced the release of the Pentagon Papers and often took positions as an Alaskan Senator which were at odds with Alaskan interests (like commercial fishing) if he felt it was the right thing to do (like block efforts to declare 200 mile off-shore of Alaska as our territorial waters).

Google your own links, there are many.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
The article didn't say he was a Dem and by his positions I was initially surprised when I realized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weird, I'm not even American and reading the list I assumed he was a Dem.

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The article didn't say he was a Dem and by his positions I was initially surprised when I realized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weird, I'm not even American and reading the list I assumed he was a Dem.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a one-page article and highlighted his anti-IRS/anti-income tax, which seemed as at odds with Dems in theory (and Repubs in practice) as you can get imo.

[canis582]

Goes to show that the press controls our elections.

[UlidEyes]

Gravel is a true progressive. Kucinich leans populist and Gravel leans libertarian.

[ALawPoker]

Gravel sort of reminds me of RP if a hippie statist got control of his brain for a little while and re-wired a bit.

I'm sure he's the best Democrat by far and I can certainly see the loose similarities between him and Paul. But as close as he might happen to come to what seems like a "libertarian," he really is not one at all. He seems to have a libertarian bend, which is cool, but he still makes the mistake of thinking he's found certain instances where involuntary actions can be good (legalize drugs but regulate them, no IRS but fair tax OK, civil unions OK rather than get gov't out of marriage, no medicare/medicaid but national system with choice of dr. is OK, etc.).

It's almost like he has a practical/compromised approach to a strict libertarian philosophy. I'd like to know if he is basically a libertarian who has compromised in some ways (because life's too short and he's a politician or whatever) or if he's just a typical statist who happens to lean libertarian. That would basically require getting in his mind though. Based on these policies, my hunch is he doesn't really come from any consistent school of thought, but his conclusions so happen to be mostly libertarian-type positions. He accepts the legitimacy of the state but just happens to have views that are of a libertarian bend. I'm not sure though, just a guess.

Although the difference between MG and RP might be relatively small based on 10 or 15 generalized views, people on this board love RP so much because of his clear dedication to the principle of liberty. Someone who has socially liberal and fiscally conservative views, but doesn't argue from the principled extensions of liberty and the ineffectiveness of government, is really a totally different breed. (It's really a testament to how inane things have actually become that Gravel and Paul seem like the same breed.)

[stephan]

[ QUOTE ]
-- Social security solvency, and let beneficiaries leave unused funds to their heirs not to the govt.

[/ QUOTE ]
YAH! Solvency! Ohh wait, how does he plan on that. I guess the idea gets more votes than the actual solution.

[AzDesertRat]

I took one of those many political quizzes and it rated he and Ron Paul as the top two matches for me. I then looked him up and was surprised that he was a democrat too. Can someone say Paul vs Gravel for the presidential race [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] It would be the liberals and conservatives worst nightmare. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ALawPoker]

Those 1-on-1 debates would be great.

[xorbie]

I only support Paul and not Gravel because it seems peopole have heard of him. I, and I assume most in this forum, would be elated to have Gravel as pres.