Gravel Paul 2008

I'm just saying out loud what I think we've all been thinking the last few days.

I will fill this in later tonight once I get home from work, I just thought I'd like to solicit some feedback here on the kos before I leave.

Thoughts?

Update:

http://www.gravel2008.us/

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

If you really think about it, it's the perfect marriage of opposite ends of the political left/right spectrum.

•  I think your diary is short

  And it'll fall off the rolls by the time you get home...

  by Steven R on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:15:48 PM PDT

  •  beauty in brevity n/t

    n/t... really

    by cosmic lattice on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:17:00 PM PDT

  •  i know it's short...

    ... as mentioned, I'll post a longer more detailed thought process this evening, and repost with comments and feedback received in the interim.

    by mandot on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:17:44 PM PDT

    •  the explanation is longer than the post

      heh heh

      good luck

      by cosmic lattice on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:20:00 PM PDT

    •  Spare us

      Its one diary a day, and we really don't need the 10,000th diary about an anti-choice, anti-gay, racist piece of shit like Ron Paul on a Democratic website.

      by Mia Dolan on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:14:51 PM PDT

  •  several bricks short n/t

    by Hprof on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:58:01 PM PDT

  •  Not just short

    but a diary guideline violation as well.

    by ortcutt on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:24:02 PM PDT

    •  and his promise to update it?

      5 hours later and counting....

      Of course, as the diary says, it took him a few days to think up these few lines--so a few words every 12 hours is perhaps the most he'll manage.

      by Hprof on Mon May 07, 2007 at 07:40:59 PM PDT

•  Uncle!

  by citizenx on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:16:58 PM PDT

•  Crazy / Crazier '08 ~ I love it!

  if you HAVE to be insane to want to be president, then why not go all in, and take on the "craziest" people running for it.

  shake it up!

  gravel / paul!
  lyndon larouche for attorney general
  ross perot dept of defense
  dennis kucinich dept of peace

  by cosmic lattice on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:19:09 PM PDT

  •  Whereas

    someone who sings "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" is a "mainstream candidate".

    I'm not sure I understand the definition of "crazy" as applied to American politics.

    by Enjoy Every Sandwich on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:31:42 PM PDT

    •  just what i was thinking.

      but thanks for nailing it.

      the media narrative has already shaped the perception on both sides of these two gentleman. they clearly won both of the first debates. exploring this concept is a no-brainer in my mind.

      M.

      by mandot on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:33:12 PM PDT

    •  yes, eez why i put crazy in quotes

      any time someone says someting different it equals insane.

      it's like so toxic...vituberatively speaking of course

      by cosmic lattice on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:36:10 PM PDT

      •  Something new every day?

        Thanks for making me learn a new word today. I rather enjoy it.

        One might say the mainstream media narrative is vituperatively tainted?

        M.

        by mandot on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:40:44 PM PDT

        •  well if you were joe lieberman...

          you would

          by cosmic lattice on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:47:38 PM PDT

  •  Batshit crazy 08

    Why the Hell not?  After See All Evil/Do All Evil, can it really get any worse?

    Maybe I'll just stay on in China til after the 08 elections just in case...

    by Sharon Jumper on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:06:40 PM PDT

•  All this Ron Paul nonsense...

  ...coming from this site lately is beginning to irritate me, and I'm probably among the three people here most sympathetic to his actual vision for America.

  When y'all actually get around to learning why Rep. Paul believes that we should abolish public schools, then let's start seeing how many people here actually want to see him elected to higher office.

  by Jay Elias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:22:40 PM PDT

  •  Permalink or quote to back that up?

    Where'd you first hear about that?

    by mandot on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:24:48 PM PDT

    •  Well...

      ...he is a signatory of the Proclamation for the Separation of School and State, for starters.

      It was also a plank in the platform of the LP when he was their Presidential candidate.  Meanwhile, here are some of his remarks on public education from 2000:

      The role of the U.S. Government in public education has changed dramatically over the past 100 years. Most of the major changes have occurred in the second half of this century. In the 19th century, the closest the Federal Government got to public education was the land grant college program. In the last 40 years, the Federal Government has essentially taken charge of the entire system. It is involved in education at every level through loans, grants, court directives, regulations and curriculum manipulation. In 1900, it was of no concern to the Federal Government how local schools were run at any level.

      After hundreds of billions of dollars, we have yet to see a shred of evidence that the drift toward central control over education has helped. By all measurements, the quality of education is down. There are more drugs and violence in the public schools than ever before. Discipline is impossible out of fear of lawsuits or charges of civil rights violations. Controlled curricula have downplayed the importance of our constitutional heritage while indoctrinating our children, even in kindergarten, with environmental mythology, internationalism and sexual liberation. Neighborhood schools in the early part of the 20th century did not experience this kind of propaganda.

      The one good result coming from our failed educational system has been the limited, but important, revival of the notion that parents are responsible for their children's education, not the state. We have seen literally millions of children taken from the public school system and taught at home or in private institutions in spite of the additional expense. This has helped many students and has also served to pressure the government schools into doing a better job. And the statistics show that middle-income and low-income families are the most eager to seek an alternative to the public school system.

      There is no doubt that the way schools are run, how the teachers teach and how the bills are paid is dramatically different from 100 years ago. And even though some that go through public schools do exceptionally well, there is clear evidence that the average high school graduate today is far less educated than his counterpart was in the early part of this century.

      Due to the poor preparation of our high school graduates, college expects very little from their students since nearly everyone gets to go to college who wants to. Public school is compulsory and college is available to almost everyone, regardless of qualifications. In 1914, English composition was required in 98 percent of our colleges. Today, it is about one-third. Only 12 percent of today's colleges require mathematics be taught where in 1914, 82 percent did. No college now requires literature courses, but rest assured plenty of social babble courses are required as we continue to dumb down our Nation.

      Federal funding for education grows every year, hitting $38 billion this year, $1 billion more than requested by the administration and 7 percent more than last year. Great congressional debates occur over the size of the classroom, student and teacher testing, bilingual education, teacher salaries, school violence and drug usage. And it is politically incorrect to point out that all these problems are not present in the private schools. Every year, there is less effort at the Federal level to return education to the people, the parents and the local school officials.

      For 20 years at least, some of our presidential candidates advocated the abolishing of the Department of Education and for the Federal Government to get completely out of public education. This year, we will hear no more of that. The President got more money for education than he asked for and it is considered not only bad manners but also political suicide to argue the case for stopping all Federal Government education programs.

      Talk of returning some control of Federal programs to the States is not the same as keeping the Federal Government out of education as directed by the Constitution. Of the 20 congressionally authorized functions granted by the Constitution, education is not one of them. That should be enough of a reason not to be involved. There is no evidence of any benefit and statistics show that great harm has resulted. It has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, yet we continue the inexorable march toward total domination of our educational system by Washington bureaucrats and politicians. It makes no sense. It is argued that if the Federal funding for education did not continue, education would suffer even more. Yet we see poor and middle-class families educating their children at home or at private school at a fraction of the cost of a government school education, with results fantastically better, and all done in the absence of violence and drugs.

      A case can be made that there would be more money available for education if we just left the money in the States to begin with and never brought it to Washington for the bureaucrats and the politicians to waste. But it looks like Congress will not soon learn this lesson, so the process will continue and the results will get worse. The best thing we could do now is pass a bill to give parents a $3,000 tax credit for each child they educate. This would encourage competition and allow a lot more choice for parents struggling to help their children get a decent education.

      (As this is from the Congressional record, this speech can be quoted beyond three paragraphs)

      by Jay Elias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:35:11 PM PDT

      •  Let's leave no child behind!

        Heaven forbid the system advocated above produce any number of famous historical academics ala` Edison et. al.

        M.

        by mandot on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:36:58 PM PDT

        •  Heh...

          ....aren't I the libertarian in the room?

          Like I said, I think very highly of Rep. Paul's positions on most issues.  But I think that it is either ignorance or delusion that suggests that a person who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard is a candidate Kossacks can get behind.

          by Jay Elias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:38:50 PM PDT

          •  I disagree.

            I think that the defacto financial trading standard has been since the 70's for sure and perhaps earlier, the Oil Dollar. In a historical perspective that system is very near to collapse. Paul's policy concept in that case would seem to be very much ahead of the curb.

            M.

            by mandot on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:42:35 PM PDT

            •  Again...

              ...I tend to agree in principle, but I don't see any shot that a rollback of the New Deal, starting with the abolition of the FDIC, is going to go over with anyone here, much less the nation at large.

              by Jay Elias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:45:57 PM PDT

              •  Deposit Insurance?

                I had no idea that Deposit Insurance was the #1 libertarian bugbear.

                by ortcutt on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:17:49 PM PDT

                •  It isn't...

                  ...just something that Rep. Paul in particular would eliminate.  He doesn't like central banking; the FDIC is just a small (but popular) aspect of that.

                  I think that for the libertarians who I agree with and myself, the drug war is the #1 bugbear.

                  by Jay Elias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:48:02 PM PDT

            •  Yikes

              So, you're basically saying that you're a crackpot.  What is it about the loony anti-Fed people?  I feel like you're the sort of person who would drink silver solution and turn his skin blue and horde cans of spam for the coming financial collapse.  

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

              Because despite central banking being endorsed by nearly every competent economist, Monetarist or Neo-Keynesian, left or right, you somehow think that you know better because you've read Ron Paul insane writings on the Gold Standard and the Fed.

              by ortcutt on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:34:01 PM PDT

        •  more like "leave every child behind" n/t

          by Hprof on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:00:41 PM PDT

      •  I Like Ron Paul Even More Now

        After reading this.

        Abolish public education?  $3k tax credit to educate children at home?  I already educate my kids at home and all I get now is screwed financially for it.

        Hell yes.

        Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling.

        by Near Vanna on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:49:28 PM PDT

        •  Awesome...

          ...you, me, and a handful of others can really build the libertarian Democratic caucus.

          by Jay Elias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:50:27 PM PDT

          •  Soon

            In a few years you'll have enough members to kill a keg.  ;)

            by Trapper John on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:59:10 PM PDT

            •  Far too funny n/t

              by Jay Elias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:00:35 PM PDT

          •  Why don't you do it on another website? (n/t)

            by ortcutt on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:32:18 PM PDT

            •  Well, we do...

              ...you point me to where I am pushing libertarianism on anyone here, ortcutt.  What I believe as my guiding philosophy of politics does not define how I interact with this community.  But thanks for being so welcoming.

              by Jay Elias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:46:35 PM PDT

      •  er

        Maybe I'm misreading that, but it seems as though he thinks the federal government should stay out of education, a considerably less alarming and more tenable position than the one you suggest he holds.

        by Conservative Liberal on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:35:38 PM PDT

        •  Well...

          ...that's what he is saying, but he is saying it to Congress; it isn't by any stretch the summation of his views on education at all levels.

          The earlier link to the Proclamation for the Separation of School and State is in opposition to all public schools.

          by Jay Elias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:41:27 PM PDT

  •  In a Gravel-Paul administration, VP Paul

    would not have the power to close the public schools.

    But that kind of fusion ticket would have a chance of getting elected.

    by lysias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:26:59 PM PDT

    •  It's so crazy it just might work?

      I guarantee you that they would at least do what's right for America, let alone whether or not the electorate and media could muster the political will to recognize that.

      M.

      by mandot on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:29:14 PM PDT

    •  A 1% chance.

      by clonecone on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:30:12 PM PDT

      •  Heck...

        ...if I thought his odds were that good, I'd have stuck with the LP.

        These people are dreaming, mostly because they just don't know enough about him.  This is a man described by even his sympathizers as a dick.

        by Jay Elias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:37:09 PM PDT

      •  you're a cock-eyed optimist

        Try .000001% chance, if that.

        by N in Seattle on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:22:59 PM PDT

        •  Nah

          I believe 1% of the voting population are fucking morons.

          by clonecone on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:29:45 PM PDT

    •  By who?

      Seriously?  Have you seen Rep. Paul speak in public?  You think he could be elected at the national level?

      by Jay Elias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:36:14 PM PDT

      •  I just can't wait...

        for America to realize this is really a one party election.  Trotsky (ironically, the GOP) is gone, barring Newt Gingrich's cataclismic rise in November when he announces, beating out fellow polygamist Rudy.  Ron Paul, even if he is the most successful communicator among the GOP's contenders, has been completely shut out by the media, and he doesn't have enough support to push back into the American household.

        At this moment, this is an election between Obama and Hillary.  Edwards is triangulating a third option, but he's not there yet.  Republicans are increasingly aware of it, and are on both sides, buying shares as it were, and influencing the media and the campaigns.  Leftists are increasingly (subconsciously?) aware of it and looking for a Nader. Sad.

        by Nulwee on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:40:45 PM PDT

        •  Wha....

          Ron Paul, even if he is the most successful communicator among the GOP's contenders

          Seriously, have you seen the guy speak? He's awful - he mumbles, he looks nervous, and he's got a crap tone. His thing is that he's unpolished and tells it like he sees it, which stands out against the rest of the GOP crowd.

          The problem comes that when you see how he sees it, you realize that - aside from his stance on the war - you don't agree with it. You also see that all his positions are on the extreme of whatever he's talking about (no military intervention, no gun laws, totally return to the gold standard, ban the Fed, etc.), whereas governing requires compromises in the middle of the spectrum.

          by Scipio on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:47:58 PM PDT

          •  Why then

            did he finish well in the post-debate polling?  I think you're describing Kucinich, honestly.

            As for extremism, that point in and of itself doesn't stand.  Humphrey was the "moderate" but Bobby Kennedy was kicking his ass.  Republicans even applied the "extremist" card to FDR.

            by Nulwee on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:51:00 PM PDT

            •  in SUSA's post debate poll

              Paul was at 2% in "who won the debate."  

              Of course, that is a # of which Dennis K could be jealous.

              by Hprof on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:04:17 PM PDT

              •  He won it in terms of foreign policy

                and in non traditional performance metrics.

                M.

                by mandot on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:16:22 PM PDT

                •  Non-traditional metrics?

                  Like your imagination?

                  by clonecone on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:23:19 PM PDT

                •  And...

                  He won it in terms of foreign policy

                  What does that actually mean? That you agree with his foreign policy more than others? That many people agree with his foreign policy?

                  Regardless, it doesn't matter - we're not voting on his foreign policy. We're voting for the whole package - his foreign policy, his domestic policy, his economic policy, his image, his party, etc. And when it comes down to that whole package, SUSA says that between -3.6% and 7.6% of California would vote for him.

                  As for your assertion that he has the best foreign policy - which, for all intents and purposes, means the best ideas for Iraq and Iran - the numbers say that 3% (with an MOE of +/- 5.6%) agree with him, compared to 25% for Rudy.

                  by Scipio on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:25:24 PM PDT

              •  confusing the issue

                we're still in netroots/base stage, since it is a year from the primaries today.

                How did Ron Paul poll according to MSNBC after the debate?

                how does Ron Paul poll on MSNBC's website?

                and here?

                by Nulwee on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:20:39 PM PDT

                •  Sorry

                  "confusing the issue" was addressed to Scipio, about who said they would vote for Paul.  I think discussion about who simply won the debate is much more realistic, since the election is over a year from now.  Those kinds of questions (would you vote?) are useful to campaigns, not meant for hammering out blogosphere dogma.  Even Hillary's high negatives could change should you pull some miracle in the eyes of the American people.  It's possible that none of Guiliani, Obama, Clinton, McCain or Romney will be on the ballot.  Not likely, but possible, and we certainly don't know which ones.

                  by Nulwee on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:23:32 PM PDT

        •  The biggest deal about Paul's candidacy...

          ...which is of course what everyone is ignoring, is his surprising popularity among Republicans, considering that he opposes letting the Iraq war continue for so much as a day.

          There is a huge anti-war element in the Republican camp, and Rep. Paul is showing us that.  Beyond that, he has little to offer anyone supporting Democratic success in elections.

          by Jay Elias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:49:03 PM PDT

        •  Are you kidding me?

          After the last 7 years, anyone considering voting for Nader would have to have an IQ lower than Bush's approval rating.

          by clonecone on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:21:34 PM PDT

          •  Note the use of "a" before Nader

            people are rejecting Clinton and Obama as the media's appointed candidates, and there's been no shortage of material from motherjones to jerome a paris hating on either for not being a peacenik.  It's even happening here with some in the Edwards camp.

            Then there's Ron Paul's popularity here (what?) and Kucinich and Gravel's.

            People are fed up. So maybe they're stupid, and maybe some individuals in the Democratic Party are getting jaded.

            This is, yet again, the Democratic Party's election to lose.  And like all the other agains, who are we looking to elect as candidate?  Someone in the mold of Kerry/Edwards, Mondale, Dukakis, Humphrey.

            In other words, Democrats appearantly don't know how to take a football goal sized victory (running against the war, flat out) and throw a ball through it.  Instead we're supporting people who are trying to appear "moderate" on war down through most of the candidate list.  The American people are fed up with war.  Even Republicans are considering defecting to Obama or Hillary if they'll realistically and responsibly close the war for the American imperial machine.

            by Nulwee on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:56:19 PM PDT

            •  Oh, I get it.

              I'm talking to a person who has no grasp on reality.  

              by clonecone on Mon May 07, 2007 at 06:59:49 PM PDT

              •  Or rather,

                you use mudslinging to make apparent your own rightness, only people aren't convinced.  

                It doesn't work. Go back to Carville and Shrum.

                by Nulwee on Mon May 07, 2007 at 07:58:34 PM PDT

                •  Nader called.

                  He wants your help electing another Republican president.

                  by clonecone on Mon May 07, 2007 at 08:06:50 PM PDT

                  •  Unlike MANY people on DailyKos

                    I've never voted third party, or Republican, or told anyone they should.

                    So go fuck yourself.

                    by Nulwee on Mon May 07, 2007 at 08:11:21 PM PDT

                    •  I invite you to do the same.

                      by clonecone on Mon May 07, 2007 at 08:20:40 PM PDT

  •  You're telling me

    Obviously, I'm not that sympathetic to Paul, who is an anarcho-randian loon.  But if even you're getting ticked at the Paul love, then I don't feel like I'm being too harsh on the Paulists.

    by Trapper John on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:40:46 PM PDT

    •  The thing is...

      ...if it was a serious discussion about libertarian ideas and the alternatives that Rep. Paul is offering to the general Republican/Democratic discourse, I'd be thrilled, even though I still think that no matter what, Rep. Paul is a lousy candidate who would be hard-pressed to even contend for senator in Texas.

      But it isn't.  It is a bunch of people who think he sounds good based on his yelling at others during the Republican debate.  And that's annoying, esp. when the bulk of his opinions are simply fodder here to tear him down.

      Oh, and I would imagine he and Sen. Gravel would hate one another, assuming they don't already.

      by Jay Elias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:44:40 PM PDT

      •  I think

        Gravel and Paul, if for some reason they became the two major party nominees, are probably the two most likely candidates to opt to settle the Presidential election by pistols at 20 paces instead of conventional electoral means.

        If Gravel's really looking for something to do in 2008, maybe he should run against Ted Stevens. It'd be a good ol' fashioned Coot-Off, consarn it!

        by Crisitunity on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:51:34 PM PDT

        •  Heh

          Shades of Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr!

          by Sharon Jumper on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:07:38 PM PDT

  •  It's diaries like these...

    That make people look upon this community with suspicion...

    by DemDog on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:36:15 PM PDT

    •  This I don't get...

      ...who?  Suspecting what?

      There are lots of diaries which are poorly reasoned, many far more silly than this one.

      by Jay Elias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:53:48 PM PDT

•  Hell/Freeze Over 2008.

  by tigercourse on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:24:13 PM PDT

•  What we're all thinking?

  No, I don't think we've all lost our minds.  I really don't want to see Gravel's ultra-rightwing tax policies combined with Paul's desires to repeal Roe/Wade, pull out of the UN, eliminate the Federal Reserve, abolish public education, privitize social security...

  Paul is against the war.  Being against the war does not automatically make you an ally.  If it did, we'd be welcoming David Duke, Pat Buchanan, and Fred Phelps into the party with open arms.

  by clonecone on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:28:44 PM PDT

  •  You're Right

    but an anti-war candidate has more chance of winning than a Hubert Humphrey.

    I hope I'm not the only one who's learned from 40 years of history and more.

    by Nulwee on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:42:00 PM PDT

    •  Those who forget history

      are doomed to repeat it.  To which was added IIRC, first as tragedy, then as farce.

      by ActivistGuy on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:13:40 PM PDT

    •  Who? Dick Cheney?

      I had no idea that he was running for President.

      by ortcutt on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:30:42 PM PDT

•  Mmm. I loves me some + votes. What about rec's?

  I think there are some interesting dialogues forming here.\

  M.

  by mandot on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:35:12 PM PDT

•  Hell No

  Mike Gravel may be interesting in some respects, but FairTax is an awful idea (and "fair" among the last words I'd use to describe it), and one only has to look at California (and the low voter turnout rates nationally) to see why the National Initiative would - in the long run - be hugely destructive.

  Ron Paul is a whackjob libertarian, who's main redeeming feature seems to be that he's not a neocon and against the war. Some of his greatest policy hits include ruling out any amnesty for illegal immigrants, removing citizenship as a birthright, pulling out of the WTO, and the UN (and making up FUD about it), eliminating the Fed, banning stem-cell research, ending affirmative action, voting no on raising CAFE standards, supporting the Cuban embargo, voting no on Net Neutrality, returning to the gold standard, and is against any campaign finance reform.

  Lastly, saying you're not going to stay for discussion of your own diary - I'd like to solicit some feedback here on the kos before I leave - isn't a great way to promote discussion.

  by Scipio on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:40:57 PM PDT

  •  whackjob libertarian?

    Is there any other kind?  

    (please, don't answer that - post it on a libertarian blog).  

    by markymarx on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:44:54 PM PDT

    •  Well...

      ...there is me, after all.  I'm not entirely whackjobed.

      by Jay Elias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:49:35 PM PDT

      •  Jay

        I served with Ayn Rand. I knew Ayn Rand; Ayn Rand was a friend of mine...etc.

        by markymarx on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:29:12 PM PDT

  •  Seeing as how

    I have been staying to reply in kind to comments, your last point is left for mute. What I don't have time for is to sit for a time and gather links, formulate my thoughts, and postulate a longer diary entry of original content and insight into the topic. As mentioned, that will come later.

    As far as the FairTax plan is concerned, I think that given the American fiscal situation, (a housing market looking to collapse + an unsustainable bull market + low consumer spending + low REAL job growth + impossible trade deficit + record personal and government debt), the next US administration is going to be forced to overhaul the federal reserve and tax schemes.

    Here's an exercise for you before you label him or many of economists who advocate a simplified tax code: what is the annual operating budget of the IRS and other related departments? The cost of administration that could be saved will be an attractive black line in future budgets.

    As far as your 2nd to last paragraph, it's been made clear that he wouldn't ban stem cell research, but limit direct federal money for it. Not a bad compromise given the support amongst christian conservatives for a total ban.

    As to the rest of your comments, you're clear much more informed than I am about the man.

    For awhile.

    M.

    by mandot on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:52:49 PM PDT

    •  Here's an exercise

      The rebates under Gravel's plan would require an expansion of the IRS to administer it.  The right wing fuckwits writing Gravel's economic platform forgot that point.  

      by Mia Dolan on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:02:21 PM PDT

  •  Gravel wants to tear up the Constitution

    Gravel is proposing that in order to introduce a National Initiative that we should just ignore Article V of the Constitution and "amend" the Constitition through an "election" conducted by a non-profit company, Philadelphia II.  

    http://www.gravel2008.us/...

    Totally crazy, and very dangerous.  If you think GWB has no respect for the Constitution, you ain't seen nothing yet.

    How can American voters amend the Constitution and enact the National Initiative if Congress opposes it? The people must go around all three branches of government to amend the Constitution.

    What he should really say he thinks the people (or at least a majority of the people who "vote" with the non-profit company Philadelphia II) need to go around the Constitution to amend the Constitution.

    There are only two venues within our government structure where constitutions, constitutional amendments, and laws can be enacted into law: the people or their elected representatives. The Framers in Article 7 of the Constitution provided a procedure for We, the People to ratify the Constitution and thereby create our government, but failed to provide procedures for the people to alter the Constitution, even though they repeatedly said the people had the right to change their government as they saw fit.

    In actuality, Article VII never mentions anything whatsoever about "We, the People" ratifying the Constitution.  State Conventions ratified the Constitution and the number of people who voted for and against ratification was staggeringly small.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    It's sad to see Gravel rewriting history here.

    However, the Framers did provide amending procedures for themselves in Article V, thereby perpetuating control of government be elites.

    Conventional wisdom now holds that Article V is the only way to amend the Constitution. Article V is how the government amends the Constitution, not how the people do it. If the people had to use Article V to amend the Constitution they would need permission from two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures. This would mean that the creator of our government, the people, would have to get permission from their elected representatives, the createes of the people, to amend the Constitution. This logic is ludicrous. The constituent power of the people––the source of all political power––cannot be subject to the power of its creation.

    James Madison had it right when he said that the people could just do it. The people can amend the Constitution and make laws as long as the process they employ is fair, transparent and reasonable. The National Initiative, the ongoing people’s legislative procedures, is just that and the national election conducted by Philadelphia II to enact the National Initiative under the precedent of Article 7 is fair, transparent and reasonable. Today’s communication technology permits us to ask all American citizens if they wish to be empowered as lawmakers and if a majority of voters who voted in the last presidential election so affirm–– regardless of the view of those in government––then the National Initiative becomes the law of the land

    Yeah, just do it, just ignore Article V and treat a bogus "election" conducted by a non-profit company Philadelphia II as if it amended the US Constitution.  Mike Gravel would have us tear up the Constitution and subject ourselves instead to the unrestricted will of the majority.  If the majority wants no free speech or a theocratic form of government, then Gravel wants them to have it because he thinks that amending the Constitution via Article V is "ludicrous".  That's something that no American who loves our Constitution should allow.

    by ortcutt on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:59:38 PM PDT

•  No We're Neva Gonna Survi-i-ive U-unless We Get

  a Little Cra-azy.

  One of those things that makes a nice pipe dream but in this "reality" place we actually inhabit won't happen no way no how.

  by Near Vanna on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:41:44 PM PDT

•  Best thing about this diary is the tags

  and they need to be separated by commas and first then last names please.  There's my tip to you.

  by trashablanca on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:47:18 PM PDT

  •  thanks!

    /blush

    M.

    by mandot on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:57:06 PM PDT

•  How about Gravel / David Duke?

  We can have a VP who thinks all black men are criminals, instead of 95 percent like Ron Paul believes.  

  by Mia Dolan on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:58:05 PM PDT

•  Where is the poll choice

  "Don't be an idiot"

  by Brother Dave on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:03:07 PM PDT

•  I'd go for Kucinich/Gravel.

  by ormondotvos on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:01:59 PM PDT

•  Thoughts?

  How about "Screw off"?

  by ortcutt on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:22:50 PM PDT

•  Is this a concerted effort to besmirch Gravel?

  This is the third stupid diary trying to link Paul to Gravel.

  by Wilberforce on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:42:21 PM PDT

•  Diversity of Ideas are Healthy

  Lets be honest.  Candidates like Paul scare the hell out of corporate America.  This man has a long history of sticking to his Libertarian ideals.  

  The biggest current problem as I see it with the federal government is cronyism / favoritism.  Several major issues are symptoms of this including: No-bid Military Contracts, Corporate Welfare, Unfair trade policies, Loss of National Sovereignty, National Debt, etc.

  A Libertarian who holds to his principles takes no part in corporate pandering.  Personally I would like to see more candidates adopt Libertarian ideals.  Property rights, personal privacy protection, reduction of debt, Fair trade (not free trade), opposition to military intervention are all ideas which I support.

  Some Libertarian positions appear on the fringe such as the elimination of the Federal Reserve.  However, it is important to remember that the constitution expressly gives Congress the right to control the U.S. Dollar.  It doesn't make any sense that we should pay interest on our own money to a private company (the Fed).

  Gravel raises the important issue that the private military industry often controls the levers behind our government (see Duke Cunningham).  Although it is highly unlikely that either he or Paul will win, each provides a critical perspective and adds value to the debates by their presence.  

  by The Anomaly on Mon May 07, 2007 at 06:20:03 PM PDT