Loading ...UPDATE BELOW THIS POST…
Despite Lack Of Press Coverage, Former Democratic Presidential Candidate, Mike Gravel, Hasn’t Gone Away
In the early stages of the Democratic race debacle, I made no secret of the fact I favored former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel despite the fact he never stood a chance against the likes of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Perhaps, it could have had something to do with the fact I was raised in the Great State of Alaska, or more likely; his liberal libertarian (small “L” at the time; now a big one) leanings.
I liked the guy when he made that strange YouTube video of him staring into the camera lens by the side of Lake Otis (? — it appeared to me) for a very long moment, then suddenly tossing a boulder into the lake and strolling angrily away — his protest against Washington, D.C. Then, I REALLY liked the guy when he was the only Democrat amongst many at the time, in the entire debate who had the guts and integrity to proudly raise his hand when the moderator said, “Raise your hand if you oppose the issuing of drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.” — face it, outside of Washington, D.C. and “Kah-Lee-Phone-Ya”, I don’t personally know ANY Liberals who would disagree with Mr. Gravel’s response. When questioned about his support of the Fair Tax and the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS” for those who prefer acronyms) and he replied, (paraphrased) — “A flat tax IS a progressive tax. The more you spend, the more you pay in taxes“, I fell in love with the guy’s politics.
Do not get me wrong on the latter — it is not that I believe in the Fair Tax as the perfect solution; because I agree ALL millionaires should pay the exact, same percentage of their TOTAL income (i.e., no tax shelters; no corporate “frills” or “gimmes” of any kind) as you and I do – PERIOD. For example, if I pay a five percent FLAT (not “Fair”) tax on my OVERALL income, then so does Bill Gates. It comes right off the top every time a dollar is moved, in other words. If I purchase five grand in stocks, I pay a nickel on everyone of those dollars; when I sell it, I pay another nickel. INDEED, I agree with Mike Gravel’s (and Bob Barr’s, to be fair — small “F” on purpose) basic point of view that a taxation system based upon this principle is definitly more “progressive” than the system we have in place today. There is no doubt at all the wealthy amongst us would be paying a helluvalot more in taxes under such a system than they do now, and folks — that’s truly “progressive”, in my not-so-humble opinion.
But, back to the main point of this article — there’s a neck-and-neck race going on in America and I’m not talking about the Obama-Clinton race either — it’s the race nobody seems to want to cover — the LP race for their Presidential nominee. And, as today’s Washington Times article points out, there are more than a FEW reasons Liberals should take note:
“… Despite their very different political backgrounds — Mr. Barr was known as a conservative during his House tenure and Mr. Gravel was a leader of the anti-war movement — both fit quite comfortably in the Libertarian Party, according to party members.
“Democrats tend to support more freedom socially but not economically. Republicans want more freedom economically, but not socially,” said Clint Jones, president of Colorado Libertarians. “We would like to have more freedom on both sides.”
There’s plenty for liberals to like about the Libertarians, including their support for homosexual marriage and drug decriminalization, as well as their current opposition to the war in Iraq. Even so, Republicans worry that a Barr candidacy could pull votes from Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting Sen. John McCain.
Yesterday was a key test of strength — candidates had to turn in 57 delegate endorsements to be included in a debate last night, scheduled to air live on C-SPAN. Mr. Gravel and Mr. Barr were among the seven candidates who met that threshold, but support was evenly spread, suggesting a tight race today that could go to multiple votes.
Mr. Barr collected 94 “tokens,” according to a Libertarian Party press release, the same number as oddsmaker Wayne Allyn Root and author Mary Ruwart. Mr. Gravel gathered 67 tokens, followed closely by software businessman Mike Jingozian (63), college professor George Phillies (62) and pro-marijuana activist Steve Kubby (60). …“
Allow me to “o-pine”, since you’re already reading and since I own this web site. I am a firm believer in voting FOR somebody versus voting AGAINST somebody. I know many of you will disagree with that point of view, preferring to vote for “the lesser of X-Amount of evils”, election cycle after election cycle. Fine. We disagree then.
Do not get me wrong here — I do kind of like Senator Barack Obama, I do kind of despise Senator Hillary Clinton and I do kind of despise the politics of Seńor John McCain, originally of Panama (for those who might have missed it). On the other hand, I very MUCH like Senator Mike Gravel; not crazy about Bob Barr (“Ron Paul” look-alike, politically speaking). In other words, fill in the blanks…
Last but not least, enjoy this “must-see” YouTube video of Mike Gravel giving Hardball’s Chris Matthews and the mainstream media the “smack-down” directly following one of the Democratic Presidential debates before he jumped onto the LP bandwagon:
REFRESHING…
UPDATE (9:30 PM, CST — H/T to Reason Magazine):
Libertarian Party picks Barr as presidential candidate
DENVER (AP) — The Libertarian Party has picked former Republican Rep. Bob Barr to be its presidential candidate after six rounds of balloting.
The party is meeting in Denver.
Barr beat research scientist Mary Ruwart… ” – The Associated Press
Damn. Where’s Ross Perot when you need him? On the other hand, I’m betting Seńor McCain’s bottom lip is trembling at the news…
***
Other bloggers weigh in (H/T to MemeOrandum): Down With Tyranny!; Liberal Values; Truthdig; The Other McCain (Right); Lew Rockwell
Interesting. Guy seems to be a bit of a nut, but in a good way. Be interesting to see him and Ron Paul in a one on one open debate, Lincoln-Douglass style, not the choreographed group press conferences we have now.
The problem is that people laugh at those with great ideas. Look at Matthews reactions. It was laughter like Mike Gravel was a kook.
Yet Hillary, who is a certified kook to me, is not looked at that way. The world is upside down.
Well, I like the Barr/Root ticket. And will more than likely vote for them. As Root said in a speech he made “I want to stay out of your pocket, and your bedroom”. Doesn’t get my plain than that. Oh, and end the war. That sums up the Libertarian “philosophy”. No, it’s the “Libertines” that I’m uneasy with.
Mike Gravel gave a good speech, but he can ramble like no other. I enjoy him, and welcome him into the Libertatian family.
Regarding the comments on taxes, as strange as it may seem, I have to disagree – but maybe not in the way you would expect. I disagree with a flat tax mainly because I don’t believe that people who earn below a certain income threshold should pay any federal income tax at all. I also believe that people earning much higher wages should pay a higher percentage of their income than people in the middle or bottom of the taxable range. I agree that some loopholes need to be closed, but multiple taxation of income (i.e. taxing income when it is earned, and then again after it has been invested) is wrong and discourages investment – something that our economy needs in order to sustain itself. For these and other reasons, a flat tax is generally a bad idea and I believe any flat tax would favor the wealthy even more than now, and punish those who earn the least.
On the point of a third (or 4th or 5th…) party candidate, I understand the feelings of dissatisfaction with the current two party system, but multiple party systems also have serious disadvantages.
Third party candidates tend to function only as spoilers for one or the other of the mainstream candidates. They tend to siphon votes away from one of the candidates, usually the one they are closest to ideologically, thus improving the other candidate’s chances of victory. In other words, voting for a third party candidate almost always ‘backfires.’
Multiple party systems tend to rely on “unholy alliances” between parties (btw this is not a reference to the nature of the antichrist Obama) because one party rarely receives an actual majority of the vote. If proper controls are not in place, the country could find itself being run by a candidate who received a very small percentage of the actual vote. Or if no candidate receives the required number of Electoral votes, our leadership could be chosen by Congress – which would make the election even more ‘political’ than it already is.
One last remark – If Sen. McCain is less of a citizen, for the sole reason that his American-Citizen parents happened to be out of the country at the time of his birth – serving their country and enduring the extreme hardship of doing so while expecting a baby – than someone whose parents were NOT both American citizens but that happened to be in the U.S. at the time of his birth, then would it not follow that I am more of a citizen, because my family has been in this country for over three hundred years, than someone whose family has been in this country for only two or three generations???
Just curious how that whole “where you and your parents happened to be born” bias works for y’all liberals.
Heh… F&B — concerning taxation, it’s a TRIP you are more “Democratic” (didn’t say “Liberal”) than I. VERY interesting!
Won’t reply to the other responses as you already know I *respectfully* disagree with ya’ on ‘em (or at least, MOST of ‘em). On the other hand, if I’ve got to come out and say it, I’ll say it — all those references I keep making to Seńor “Panama John” McCain are stricly “tongue-in-cheek”, my friend