Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Getting Pumped for the Mike Gravel Inaugural
The Democrats held their first all-presidential candidate debate tonight in South Carolina. I wasn't there, but an MSNBC web camera was, and it beamed the debate into the comfort of Reason HQ in DC. My impressions:
- Joe Biden underperformed. He's been plotting this run for 20 years and when naming the Supreme Court justices he doesn't like he calls Clarence Thomas (before he corrected himself) "that other guy." To be fair, he had the best joke of the night. When Brian Williams asked whether voters could trust a possibly-racist motormouth to represent them on the world stage, Biden said "Yes." Then he just smiled as time expired.
- John Edwards underperformed, too. If you've seen him campaign (or read about it afterwards) this year, you've seen a righteously angry bulldog whaling the shit out of Hillary and Obama. The guy who showed up onstage was as lightweight as ever. He tried to rebut a comment about his wealth by telling a rambling story about his family going to a restaurant (when he was a boy) and leaving when they saw the prices on the menu. That stuff sounds hollow after 59 million people vote to make a guy vice president, doesn't it? You only get one chance to be Tiny Tim.
- HILLARY CLINTON IS, BY ALL APPEARENCES, UNABLE TO SPEAK IN ANYTHING BELOW A YELP.
- Barack Obama had the biggest gaffe of the night by not naming Israel as one of our biggest allies until being prompted. It's lucky for him - another sign, possibly, of his messiah status - that the Jewish vote won't matter until after Iowa and New Hampshire.
- Can Obama have had the biggest gaffe and still won? Probably. Having watched a lot of his recent speeches I was expected a lot of umming and awwing, but that was minimal. He flagged towards the end of the debate before Dennis Kucinich made a remark about him wanting military action on Iran. In the following confrontation, where Obama expressed a sort of generic Albrightian foreign policy, I saw a flash of Reagan - the same kind of ballsiness and economy of language, if obviously not the substance. Any Republican who things he's going to fade out or implode is, frankly, delusional.
- Check out the lefty blogs, especially MyDD. They think Mike Gravel - whose brain I think I heard rattling around his skull - won. These people are different from you and me.
- Bill Richardson largely lived up to his reputation as the Democrat who induces the faintest gag reflex in libertarians. When moderator Williams pointed out that Richardson had the best NRA rating of any Democratic candidate, Richardson said "The vast, vast majority of gun owners are law abiding" and explained how Westerners live with guns. After Edwards proposed tax increases to pay for health care, a Social Security fix, and (I think) Mars colonization, Richardson muttered "As Democrats, I hope that we don't just think of new taxes to pay for programs."
Cesar|4.26.07 @ 9:01PM|#
Though this isn't saying all that much, Bill Richardson is far
and away the best Democratic candidate.
Mike Gravel is just an old crank. What is it with Alaska? They gave
us Ted Stevens, now they give us Mike Gravel.
|4.26.07 @ 9:07PM|#
No real winner, so to speak, but Richardson is now in the top
tier.
Mike Gravel is a hoot. You kids get the hell off my lawn; I've got
a gun in here!
Jim|4.26.07 @ 9:13PM|#
I'm a lefty. My wife's a lefty. We didn't think Mike Gravel won. When a question got tossed to him, we perked up with intrigued curiosity, eager to see which way he'd teeter next.
|4.26.07 @ 9:22PM|#
Caught only a glimpse of it, but my favorite part was John Edwards demanding a woman make her own choices about her reproductive health moments after demanding mandatory health care.
|4.26.07 @ 9:24PM|#
The military industrial complex controls the culture?
Sorry, Gov. Gravel, I don't think Rumsfeld had anything to do with
Rosie being hired.
Or Sec. Gates with her being fired.
I'll defer to your, um, expertise, however.
The reality based community will love this guy.
Silentio|4.26.07 @ 9:25PM|#
Richardson is a strong candidate on paper, but his demeanor
on-stage was suboptimal. His answers were rambling, and he had to
be interrupted by the moderator too many times for going
long.
I want him to do well, but I was disappointed tonight.
|4.26.07 @ 9:32PM|#
"Gov. Gravel, have you ever used any illegal drugs in your
past?"
"Does today count?"
Cesar|4.26.07 @ 9:34PM|#
I think the most entertaining race ever would be an all-Alaska general election--Mike Gravel vs. Ted Stevens.
|4.26.07 @ 9:42PM|#
Check out the lefty blogs...These people are different from
you and me.
Different from me...perhaps.
Different from you...perhaps not.
|4.26.07 @ 10:16PM|#
Is there any difference between "perhaps" and "perhaps
not?"
Perhaps the choice between the two reveals something about the
speaker's unspoken opinion.
Jim Murphy|4.26.07 @ 10:51PM|#
I actually feel sorry for the Democratic candidates for having
to spend even a few hours in Orangeburg, SC--otherwise known as the
armpit of the state.
At least Edwards can find himself a restaurant that doesn't cost
too much...he's got a choice even: Huddle House or Waffle
House.
I still think I'm going to vote for Hilary--here's my rationale:
none of the candidates with a realistic chance of winning are
attractive to me based on ideology. So I go to my next criteria,
which is entertainment value--I think the title "Bill Clinton,
First Man" sums up my position nicely. Worst case scenario, we get
to watch Bubba try to fill the role of "First Man" with a straight
face. Best case scenario, we get hijinx that make Bill's unique
cigar humidification methodology revealed during the Lewinsky
scandal look tame by comparison. If Roger Clinton is around to
reprise his role as "Billy Carter" so much the better...
|4.26.07 @ 11:22PM|#
"Best case scenario, we get hijinx that make Bill's unique cigar
humidification methodology revealed during the Lewinsky scandal
look tame by comparison."
Right, I mean, think about it. If he got up to that kind of stuff
when he had responsibility for the free world, what's he going to
get up to when he's sitting around bored, underemployed and vaguely
resentful that his wife is too busy for him? Tell me Christopher
Buckley isn't already shopping that one around.
Jim Murphy|4.26.07 @ 11:31PM|#
Right, I mean, think about it. If he got up to that kind of
stuff when he had responsibility for the free world, what's he
going to get up to when he's sitting around bored, underemployed
and vaguely resentful that his wife is too busy for him? Tell me
Christopher Buckley isn't already shopping that one
around.
Correct...I've got a theory that what he's *really* going to resent
is that Hillary is sitting in the Oval Office and not him, so he'll
be trying to subtly sandbag her presidency. And what better way to
do that then just, well, be himself....people that think he'll be
happy as "Ambassador to the World" or just traveling around
promoting some non-controversial issue like literacy are kidding
themselves...
And what happens when all those pretty young interns start coming
in? It has the potential for a real train wreck which given the
candidates with a realistic shot to win is probably the best thing
we can hope for...
|4.26.07 @ 11:53PM|#
This doesn't sound right, but is there anything preventing Hillary from picking Bill as her running mate?
|4.27.07 @ 12:07AM|#
I think the vice-president has to meet the same qualifications as the president. That would rule out Bill, because if Hilary died, he wouldn't be able to take over.
Ken Layne|4.27.07 @ 12:07AM|#
Dave: Yeah, I think Richardson "won," too, although it was more
a war of attrition.
If this was the first real look that likely primary voters had of
the dem crew, surely Barry Hussein Obama dropped down a few notches
simply for being boring and motormouthed. Hillary ... OMFG, does
*anyone* support her? Besides Halliburton, I mean. Biden: One of
the smarter ones, but no chance in hell, and no real reason to run.
Dodd: Go to sleep old guy. GraVEL: Hooray, Abe Simpson is running
for president. Kucinich: Suddenly Sane ... thanks to GraVEL. John
Edwards: Haircut 100 should just pack it in.
If Richardson can dumb down his remarkably cliche-free "message" of
"I won't destroy the country like the last asshole," he could do
it. Hillary and Barry are gonna wipe each other out. Edwards is, at
most, harmless veep material. GraVEL is an elderly potted plant who
probably had some righteous views in 1947 or whenever.
On the GOP side ... well, at least Ron Paul will make the debates
interesting. And maybe Rudy will do a show tune. And Walnuts can
declare war on Brian Williams or whatever.
Blessed Relief|4.27.07 @ 12:13AM|#
Hillary's unelectable.
she knows it and her party knows it.
they're letting her hang around front and center early like this
because she's good for solidifying the money-base needed to stock
the party's war chest for the brutally expensive run up to
November
but, when the political season comes down to brass tacks, she'll be
moved to the sidelines
|4.27.07 @ 12:15AM|#
"This doesn't sound right, but is there anything preventing
Hillary from picking Bill as her running mate?"
Yes.
Her desire to win prevents it. Theres no way that a Clinton/Clinton
ticket can win the electoral college.
|4.27.07 @ 12:16AM|#
So the only way we're getting to see Slick Willy run around the Oval office again is to get him to run for the house of rep and magically get to be the Speaker? And then both the Pres. and Veep. step down?
|4.27.07 @ 12:17AM|#
Some people have argued that she could still nominate Bill as VP, he just couldn't succeed her if it actually happened. That still makes it a goofy, distracting idea.
|4.27.07 @ 12:18AM|#
As far as Obama goes, I'm sure his strategy here was to be as lowkey as possible to prevent screwing up all the other momentum he's got. He didn't need the debates, his machine is flying without them. He just needed to avoid a Dean moment tonight.
|4.27.07 @ 12:25AM|#
they're letting her hang around front and center early like this
because she's good for solidifying the money-base needed to stock
the party's war chest for the brutally expensive run up to
November
I've always thought this too. I think there's something to be said
for candidate fatigue. After seeing someone in the news for such a
long time, people get bored with them. I personally think this had
just as much to do Dean melting 4 years ago as did his scream. He
was already falling (finishing 3rd in Iowa) when the scream
happened. The scream was the back-up parachute failing to open.
|4.27.07 @ 12:30AM|#
Richardson is a strong candidate on paper, but his demeanor
on-stage was suboptimal. His answers were rambling, and he had to
be interrupted by the moderator too many times for going
long.
That's how I felt. The entire night he looked like a puppy trying
to figure out why he's being shocked by his invisible fence.
|4.27.07 @ 12:32AM|#
I'm dreading the upcoming Republican debate. There is no way in hell that Ron Paul is going to leave it not looking as looney as Gravel
|4.27.07 @ 12:40AM|#
Doesn't change my views.
Richardson-->-->--->Obama-->-->-->--->-->-->--->Giuliani-->McCain-->-->--->Hillary.
Richardson is palatable, Obama is tolerable, the other three make
me gag, Hillary more than Rudy and John.
|4.27.07 @ 1:21AM|#
One thing's for sure: if she wins the Dem. primary, the campaign
will be an ugly fiasco.
The word on the street is that Hillary's notoriously hard to work
for. I've heard stories about her violent temper tantrums in the
White House. Of course, all of that's hearsay, and partisan hearsay
at that, but I have a feeling that Hillary on the campaign trail in
the era of Youtube will be good for a decade's worth of laughter
and cringing.
Imagine if we get a camera-phone upload of her cussing a blue
streak at her staffers. We might have the Dean Scream x 1000 on our
hands.
Then again, if the GOP guy is spouting "stay the course" rhetoric,
it doesn't really matter what she says or does.
|4.27.07 @ 1:28AM|#
I guess I'll do it up jb style too:
Ron Paul > Bill Richardson > Mike Gravel > Dennis Kucinich
> -----------GOP 2nd tier > Obama > McCain
>----Hillary/Guliani
Quiet_Desperation|4.27.07 @ 1:31AM|#
My take:
Richardson: spewed bullshit
Biden: spewed bullshit
Hillary: spewed bullshit
Obamaman: spewed bullshit
Gravel: spewed bullshit
Others: spewed bullshit
Seriously, do you think any of these... entities give a damn about
you or anything other than their own egos and power? I mean,
really?? Every single candidate in both parties makes me wish for
the Extinction Level Event asteroid.
The "debate" was an ideologyfest between eight walking penises
(Hillary being the largest and firmest) stroking themselves. A
bunch of jackasses out to save the Universe.
I don't want to hear what some politician is going to do for me. I
want to hear all the new ways they are going to leave me and mine
the hell alone.
Grrr. Hiss. Growl. And so on.
|4.27.07 @ 1:40AM|#
Seriously, do you think any of these... entities give a damn
about you or anything other than their own egos and power? I mean,
really?? Every single candidate in both parties makes me wish for
the Extinction Level Event asteroid.
I think most rational americans come to realize that as soon as
they begin the become even slightly aware of politics.
It's not the quality of person when it comes to politics, it's
whatever or not they suck up to an intrest group that you agree
with
|4.27.07 @ 2:22AM|#
I'm constantly astounded at the commenters on this website who
seem to have no problem with socialism.
Let's see, spend a few years and a few hundred billion in a
low-level war against arab barbarians that will probably accomplish
nothing, or socialize more of the economy and create more
government programs that will cost trillions over the the next few
decades and probably accomplish nothing. Oh, I'd prefer the latter
so I'll vote Obama/Kucinich/Hillary.
I'd suggest the order of preference for libertarians ought to look
something like this:
Paul/Thompson/Richards/Guiliani/Romney/[mediocre candidates from
both parties] /McCain/Hilary/Obama/Kucinich
D.A. Ridgely|4.27.07 @ 4:16AM|#
- Joe Biden underperformed.
- John Edwards underperformed, too.
Are either of these even possible?
|4.27.07 @ 6:22AM|#
Listen closely to Mike Gavel - (http://www.gravel2008.us/?q=node/473). He is what the Democrats use to be. He may not have a chance in today's bling world, but he speaks to my soul. And he will foster to a percentage of those fresh minds seeking hope, the reasoning that there are those who will always respect people over power.
edna|4.27.07 @ 6:53AM|#
re: hrc's temper, i had a drinking buddy who covered the white
house for cnn during bush 1 and clinton 1. his take was that the
public and private personae of barbara bush and hrc were exactly
the reverse of the real thing- according to him, barbara was a
total bitch to anyone who was one of the "little people," while hrc
was as sincerely nice as she could be to the lesser folk. that says
nothing about how they treat their peers, but i wouldn't hold my
breath waiting for that tape of hrc throwing a fit at
underlings.
that said, i'd love to see hrc as president only if the repubs take
back congress. it will be a great circus, nothing will get done
(libertarian's dream), and we might finally get tired of dynasties.
if the reps continue in free-fall, president giuliani versus
speaker pelosi will be as entertaining as the sopranos.
|4.27.07 @ 7:21AM|#
Go back up about 4 posts and read again the comments from Quiet
Desparation. Debates should be based on actually answering the
question...period. A panel of people that ask the questions would
rate whether the question was answered or not. If not answered,
then reduce that person's time for future questions during the
debate or if they answered the question then they get more
time.
It was brilliant, how can government keep out of my life? All of
these candidates want to do is control everything....government
does not have to be so big....let's focus on government spending
reductions and reducing the size of government....any candidate
that runs on this policy gets my vote...
Classic Movie Monsters|4.27.07 @ 7:42AM|#
Re Obama - I don't see how anyone CAN claim Israel is truly one of our biggest allies. Unless you take ally to mean 'someone whom we prop up with cash and get out of jams that they get themselves into.' That's not an ally - it's a ne'er-do-well brother.
|4.27.07 @ 8:40AM|#
"re: hrc's temper, i had a drinking buddy who covered the white
house for cnn during bush 1 and clinton 1. his take was that the
public and private personae of barbara bush and hrc were exactly
the reverse of the real thing- according to him, barbara was a
total bitch to anyone who was one of the "little people," while hrc
was as sincerely nice as she could be to the lesser folk. that says
nothing about how they treat their peers, but i wouldn't hold my
breath waiting for that tape of hrc throwing a fit at
underlings."
I don't expect a tantrum at an hourly wage worker either, but she
could still freak out on some interns or staffers, I suppose. OTOH,
my view of her is totally third and fourth hand. Perhaps she'll
conduct herself famously.
|4.27.07 @ 8:53AM|#
I find debates to be a waste of time. At best, they show how
good a public speaker a candidate is and how quick he is on his
feet. Honestly, though the former can be of some importance,
neither quality is critical in a president. A president will have
advisers, etc. He needs to be a good administrator and a good
decision maker. Of course, I'd like to see some principles and some
politics aligned at least somewhat with mine, but I don't expect
miracles :)
Richardson is going to be the guy. He's the only one with any
substance at all, and he's coming from the governor's mansion.
That's like having a great defense in football--everyone hypes the
other side of the ball up till game time, then defense ends up
winning like it always does. Senators are losers when it comes to
running for POTUS.
|4.27.07 @ 8:55AM|#
Although irrelevant, Bill could succedd Hillary as president for 2 years. A president can serve for 10 years, allowing for a VP that becomes president two years into a term, then runs for the office twice. That's the situation the idea was built for. I'm not sure how it would impact somebody who's already used up 8 of the 10 allowable years and is running for VP. I think at some point it defaults to NCAA eligibility rules.
|4.27.07 @ 9:00AM|#
I find debates to be a waste of time. At best, they show how
good a public speaker a candidate is and how quick he is on his
feet. Honestly, though the former can be of some importance,
neither quality is critical in a president. A president will have
advisers, etc. He needs to be a good administrator and a good
decision maker. Of course, I'd like to see some principles and some
politics aligned at least somewhat with mine, but I don't expect
miracles :)
I find them to be a waste of time and don't walk away from them
pretending that they have any use in the political system, but as a
political junkie, it is always fun to watch the circus of it
all.
|4.27.07 @ 9:25AM|#
We need a War on Politics. Who knows what these political junkies will do to get their fix? Electing more idiots is just the beginning, I'm sure.
|4.27.07 @ 9:44AM|#
Barack Obama had the biggest gaffe of the night by not
naming Israel as one of our biggest allies until being
prompted.
Remind me again which treaty it is that obligates Israel to come to
our assistance when we're attacked--you know, the equivalent of the
North Atlantic Treaty for our NATO allies. Or maybe you're using
the term "ally" to mean something else, as Classic Movie Monsters
suggested.
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 9:51AM|#
Of course, the true face of the Democrat party (why won't
writers write that properly?), the Honerable Dennis Kucinich, is
smeared in this article!
And no mention of the strongest Democrat candidate, Albert Gore,
Jr., who was absent from the bog Democrat infomercial.
A Kucinich/Gore (or the other way around) ticket would be the
greatest thing to happent to the Democrat Party since James Earl
Carter III.
|4.27.07 @ 9:53AM|#
"This doesn't sound right, but is there anything preventing
Hillary from picking Bill as her running mate?"
The President and Vice President can't be from the same state,
according to the Constitution. That's why Dick Cheney, who'd been
living in Texas for years, went back to his Wyoming roots for the
2000 election.
The ban on more than two terms refers to being elected.
|4.27.07 @ 9:58AM|#
I don't see how anyone CAN claim Israel is truly one of our
biggest allies. Unless you take ally to mean 'someone whom we prop
up with cash and get out of jams that they get themselves into.'
That's not an ally - it's a ne'er-do-well brother.
Wouldn't that be most of NATO?
|4.27.07 @ 10:01AM|#
Last sentence of the Twelfth Amendment:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of
President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United
States.
So no Bill, even if he lived in Wyoming with Cheney.
|4.27.07 @ 10:01AM|#
On the subject of Bill becoming Prez again, the last line of
Amendment 12 seems to preclude it:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of
President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United
States.
Dave Weigel|4.27.07 @ 10:10AM|#
Yeah, the Constitution is even clearer on that point than it is about Washington, D.C.'s congressional representation. The whole "can Bill run again?" crap is just something lazy political journalists will be kicking around til he's finally too old to run.
|4.27.07 @ 10:14AM|#
That's correct--it's rather well established among Constitutional scholars that Bill's done, but we'll be hearing about it if Senator Clinton does well in the primaries. Of course, it would really twist people the wrong way for her to even hint that she might do that, so I expect it's just talking head nonsense.
|4.27.07 @ 10:17AM|#
Here's how I saw the horserace:
Win: Hillary
Place: Richardson
Show: Obama
I think one has to pre-hate Hillary to say she didn't come off as
strong and decisive. She played loose with some facts (how long has
she supported a timetable? Hmmm? Not the years she claimed), but
generally spoke to the center.
Edwards: you should sue the barber for follicle malpractice.
Kucinich: Nothing inspiring until to thwacked Obama. Gravel: I tend
to agree that soldiers who die in a war started under false
pretenses and with no hope of a victory died in vain, but that
phrase doesn't sit well with people...at all. Dodd: oh, did he show
up? Biden: Not bad, but he seemed restrained. Maybe that's good,
but I think he needs to take risks and be the Democratic straight
talk expresser, not a yes-man.
Disappointed Moose|4.27.07 @ 10:20AM|#
sigh. a different kind of bating.
These debates would be a lot quicker, and easier to understand if
all the candidates (while doing the bunny hop) would chant the
mantra of Cletus, junior:
"I'm gonna fuck all y'all".
sigh.
|4.27.07 @ 10:31AM|#
Lamar,
I have philosophical issues with Clinton, but I don't have
Clinton-Hate™. However, I find her a not very compelling candidate,
and I think she's going to flop surprisingly early. I don't buy
into the Richardson as quasi-libertarian theory, so I'm not hoping
that he will win, but I do think he'll be the last man
standing.
|4.27.07 @ 10:36AM|#
Obamamessiah: Forgot that Israel is an ally of the United States
(but thinks that France is).
Hillary: Richard Nixon with an Epilady
(featuring Bill Clinton as "Checkers": the moronic dog she won't
apologize for).
John "The Breck Girl" Edwards: I haven't seen hair like that since
The Heat Miser in "The Year Without A Santa Claus."
Dennis: It's as if The Keebler Elf had a twin (that finally escaped
from the family's attic).
"Slow Joe" Biden: "No."
Bill Richardson: OK, now you're just being silly.
Mr. Gravel: I give up. Fred Flintstone's union steward?
The Dems top three candidates: a one term Senator, a one-term
Senator, and a one-term Senator.
Hillary's negatives are higher than that of Congress (over 50%!).
Once Obama passes Hillary in the polls ("hey, maybe she's not
inevitiable!"), The Clinton Smear Machine will really start in on
Obama. Stay tuned!
|4.27.07 @ 11:08AM|#
I respect and admire Hillary, but she's a hawk and, being a woman and a negatively-perceived woman, she won't fly in the general election. I think Obama's the real deal, but a black won't fly in the general. Of the three, Edwards is the most likely to win cause he's a white, attractive male. But yuk. So I think Gore will step in after Hillary's numbers fall even more. With his recent rise in popularity and chance to mellow since his last campaign, I think his chances are excellent.
|4.27.07 @ 11:54AM|#
John "The Breck Girl" Edwards: I haven't seen hair like that
since The Heat Miser in "The Year Without A Santa
Claus."
Nah. Its totally "Bobby Sherman Goes to Washington."
The Dems top three candidates: a one term Senator, a one-term
Senator, and a one-term Senator.
And the last time a Senator won a Presidential election was, what,
LBJ?
Scooby|4.27.07 @ 12:01PM|#
LBJ was president when he was elected president. The last to jump from the senate to the oval office was JFK.
|4.27.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Republicans tend to say that they hope Hillary wins the nomination because they believe she absolutely cannot win the general election. I believe that they say they hope Hillary wins the nomination because if the GOP puts up another turd like Bush, Hillary would be less repugnant to them than any of the other Dems. No, they would never vote for her, but if a Dem is going to win, you'd want it to be somebody closer to you in policy, no? She's not a hawk, but she's also not a cowering flower of a wimp.
|4.27.07 @ 12:32PM|#
"I have philosophical issues with Clinton, but I don't have
Clinton-Hate™. However, I find her a not very compelling candidate,
and I think she's going to flop surprisingly early."
Right, she forgot that she married her husband because he had the
natural gift for politics she lacked. She hopes to steamroller her
way through, and who knows she may, but I tend to think she goes
into the election with a ceiling of possible support about five
points lower than her own party's, which is NOT a recipe for
winning, even in a year very friendly to your party.
|4.27.07 @ 12:38PM|#
Lamar,
I think your first statement is correct and I think they're right.
They'll float some calming Big Daddy type like Fred Thompson and
it's all over. And yes, I should have said hawkish.
|4.27.07 @ 12:43PM|#
Lamar,
I don't agree with the idea that GOPers could live with Hillary.
Hillary Derangement Syndrome is as strong among them as the Bush
version is with Democrats. Whether it's valid or not is another
question, of course. Let's not find out.
|4.27.07 @ 12:53PM|#
Mackie, Pro Libertate: I really am trying hard to understand why the most conservative of the Democrats is the most repugnant to the GOP. It's easy to say stupidity has allowed them to think personality is more important than competence and platform, but that's too easy a cheap shot.
|4.27.07 @ 1:01PM|#
Lamar,
I don't suggest the dislike is all rational, but I think I
understand some of it. First, the nationalized healthcare
initiative and some of her stuff in It Takes a Village
came out as positively socialistic. Not a happiness-inducing trait
for GOP folks, even today.
Second, the GOP was not fond of Bill Clinton, as you may recall.
Round Two does not appeal to them.
Third, there's the whole question of why this country can't elect
someone with a new name. I totally agree with that one--there must
be something like 100 million eligible candidates out there not
named Clinton or Bush.
Finally, there's the whole stink of corruption that surrounds her
past. Maybe it's all smoke and mirrors and Rovian rumormongering,
but it's widely believed, nonetheless.
|4.27.07 @ 1:20PM|#
"Wouldn't that be most of NATO?"
"Forgot that Israel is an ally of the United States (but thinks
that France is)."
Right wingers spitting on soldiers who fought in our wars?
Nooooooooooooo...Can't possibly be.
|4.27.07 @ 1:26PM|#
Lamar,
Were you old enough to be politically aware in 1992?
A couple of hippies - Vietnam War protesting, draft-doding, pot
smoking, hairband wearing, maiden-name-keeping hippies - put an end
to the Reagan Era by winning an election over his vice
president.
And then they spent practically a decade being made to look like
fools as they chased after them Wile E. Coyote-style, and kept
going "poof" at the bottom of the canyon.
The Clintons have taken on the role, in the conservative mindset,
of the embodiment of the other side in the kulturkampf. There are
not enought spittle-flecked monitors in the world to capture the
degree of hatred these people engender.
|4.27.07 @ 1:28PM|#
Lamar,
What Pro Liberate said, and I will add that her personality just
hits so many, Left and Right, the wrong way. I think there's some
harsh mother/strict teacher vibe she strikes that people find
intolerable.
|4.27.07 @ 1:47PM|#
joe,
Always recalling that Clinton, by and large, remained in power by
being a Republican (the old version), albeit a very moderate one.
How soon we forget. As a matter of pure political expediency, I
understand how that happened--the GOP's huge victory in 1994 made
it clear that we wanted less government ("Era of big government is
over!").
Not to worry--both the GOP and the public got over that notion :(
Interesting though that Lamar's point really applied more aptly to
Bill Clinton.
|4.27.07 @ 2:13PM|#
Yes, I'm old enough to have voted in 1992. I'm really having a hard time putting the Hillary paradox (conservatives hating the most conservative candidate) in perspective. The more I talk and hear about it, the more it seems that conservatives are just angry pricks who can't see past their own bile. Maybe that's why they got roasted in the last election.
|4.27.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Lamar,
If it makes you feel any better, I think the über hate that is the
rule of the day goes both ways. Bush was pre-despised before he
turned out to be actually God-awful. I'm reasonably neutral in
this--a pox on both their houses, don't you know--and I think
that's one of the big problems. Polemics and false dichotomies have
reduced us to blind hate, even when the person we're hating may not
be quite as far off the reservation as we'd prefer to
believe.
Like I said above, Clinton was no hyper-liberal, and some of Bush's
domestic policies have been downright Democratic. Not that their
opponents would ever admit that! Unfortunately, neither party cares
much for reality or the facts. Better to just believe whatever you
want to believe. It's easier than dealing with real-world
complexities.
I'm old enough to have voted in 1984 :) And I did.
|4.27.07 @ 3:03PM|#
PL,
I can't help but notice that there's a flaw in your equation of the
two.
Hillary, we now know, was not the America-hating, leftist, feminist
ideologue her "haters" accused her of being. She's actually quite
the pragmatic, centrist hawk.
Bush, on the other hand...I mean, just look at the litany of
disasters and crimes in the man's wake.
I recall reading time and time again that only people suffering
from a mental disorder could think it was a bad idea to invade
Iraq, or think that Bush is a bad leader.
|4.27.07 @ 3:21PM|#
joe,
Well, I daresay that Senator Clinton could be argued to be wearing
protective clothing in her bid to be president. Frankly, I have no
clue what she really stands for--one of the negative
traits she shares with her husband--but I think she's not
necessarily the same person on the New York scene that she would be
on the national one. Remember Bush's compassionate
conservatism?
Honestly, I don't know what she'll be like if she gets elected. I
don't much like her; then again, I don't much like any of the
candidates.
Gary Farber|4.27.07 @ 3:47PM|#
"Check out the lefty blogs, especially MyDD. They think Mike
Gravel - whose brain I think I heard rattling around his skull -
won."
That seemed very curious, so I clicked the link, and found that the
sole comment on Gravel was this: "Mike Gravel is channeling a very
angry activist. Rock out, Mike!"
That's it, with other comments on the other candidates.
That clearly doesn't in any way, shape, or form, indicate a belief
that Gravel won the debate
This loses you two points for inaccurate reporting, I'm afraid.
(I'd say it appears to be outright distortion/falsehood, but
presume it was merely sloppy writing, or editing, instead, that
resulted in an unsupported estatement; maybe you had some other
link in mind?)
|4.27.07 @ 4:21PM|#
That seemed very curious, so I clicked the link, and found
that the sole comment on Gravel was this: "Mike Gravel is
channeling a very angry activist. Rock out, Mike!"
Scroll down. I think Weigel is referring to the very, very excited
commenters.
|4.27.07 @ 4:32PM|#
"Hillary, we now know, was not the America-hating, leftist,
feminist ideologue her "haters" accused her of being. She's
actually quite the pragmatic, centrist hawk.
"
I wouldn't go that far, joe. I think her feminist sensibilities are
alive and well. And I'm pretty sure she's still all for socialized
medicine and other leftist agendas. I agree she is centrist and
pragmatic as far as national defense.
|4.27.07 @ 4:38PM|#
"Republicans tend to say that they hope Hillary wins the
nomination because they believe she absolutely cannot win the
general election. I believe that they say they hope Hillary wins
the nomination because if the GOP puts up another turd like Bush,
Hillary would be less repugnant to them than any of the other
Dems."
I can't believe Republicans believe she is less repugnant than the
others. Most Republicans hate her with a passion. I have heard some
say they would like her to win because she would be the easiest to
win. Others don't want her to win the nomination because that gets
her too close to the presidency. She might just pull off an upset
if the public is sick of the Republican's wars and if there is a
dip in the economy at the time.
|4.27.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Not to say she won't be pragmatic and open to compromise on
social issues.
Here's an excellent analysis of her:
http://www.alternet.org/story/46237/
|4.27.07 @ 4:40PM|#
Never forget that HRC was a "Goldwater girl" and read Rand.
Let's hope she's just been laying low and will reveal her true
colors in
Jan. 2009.
|4.27.07 @ 4:49PM|#
"Mackie, Pro Libertate: I really am trying hard to understand
why the most conservative of the Democrats is the most repugnant to
the GOP. It's easy to say stupidity has allowed them to think
personality is more important than competence and platform, but
that's too easy a cheap shot."
From a Republican's point of view there isn't much difference in
ideology between Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. They believe, like I
believe, that she is really not a centrist, that she is just
triangulating to try to make herself more appealing in the general
election to moderates. Myself, with there not being that much
difference between the three leading Democrat candidates,
ideologically, I would take Obama over Hillary because of her past
criminality. Honesty and integrity is important to me.
|4.27.07 @ 4:59PM|#
"Never forget that HRC was a "Goldwater girl" and read
Rand."
That's unbelievable. Why didn't Rand sink in? How did that
Methodist youth minister have such an influence on her?
|4.27.07 @ 5:46PM|#
Rattlesnake: not gainsaying your opinion, but would you prefer Kucinich to Clinton because he has been more steadfast in his views?
josh l.|4.28.07 @ 2:51AM|#
bill could succeed hilliary if he were vp, or speaker. he just can't get elected president again, but the constitution doesn't address other scenarios. it's quite clear.
Larry Kotlikoff|4.28.07 @ 4:04AM|#
Mike Gravel has guts and a facility with the truth. Calling a spade a spade on Vietnam, explaining the legislative tactics needed to overcome the President's veto threat, pointing out that threatening first strike use of nukes is immoral, clarifying the incredible magnitude of our military expenditure, pointing out that the Iraqis want us gone and it's arrogant to claim we can fix their country, getting emotional on Iraq when it's long past time we did, ... -- Gravel is the real deal and deserves our support.
|4.28.07 @ 7:57AM|#
Those closest to the lead, said the least.
It is disgusting that little was said of Kucinich except crap
like:
"Dennis: It's as if The Keebler Elf had a twin (that finally
escaped from the family's attic)."
He was the only thoughtful and erudite speaker on the platform and
he is virtually ignored except for a juvenile comment about his
stature. Americans deserve an idiot like Bush, if they can't see
any deeper than that! It is frustrating to see someone
intelllgently express all the priniciples that led to any greatness
that the Democratic Party ever had and be dismissed so
trivially.
Gravel has the same good ideas, but unfortunately his frustration
over the idiocy that everyone just accepts shows through. I bet
Kucinich will eventually express the same anger and frustration. I
am going to support who I know is right Kucinich and Gravel.
|4.28.07 @ 4:58PM|#
It seems like the people posting is what IS wrong with America
today.Everybody downs a man who has the balls to speak up and say
the truth. You all may piss and moan about the system, but when
somebody comes along that may be able to make change, you all call
him an old quack, and make him out to be some kind of joke. Stupid,
lots of stupid people will to remain as sheep. I suppose your next
words will be "BAHH BAHH" I do not see many politicians out there
saying that the old way is bunk and lets do something about it. So
what if he is Pro choice, I have seen different post from people
that will refuse to vote for him if he is pro choice. Do you need a
politician making EVERY decision for you. Next they will probably
ask if they should whipe their ass from back to front or front to
back.
My vote will go with who will Hopefully be our next president Mike
Gravel.
stonefruit|4.28.07 @ 5:39PM|#
Gravel DID win the debate.
Will somebody please explain to me why anybody who exposes the
vicious murderous lies that pass for our "consensus reality" (on
those oh-so-rare-occasions when such a critique is actually HEARD
on the MSM) always immediately gets labelled a "kook," a "crank" or
- dog forbid - "unelectable?"
(This latter epithet of course being at least a subconscious
recognition that the president is the CEO to the military
industrial complex as the Board of Directors, not the leader of a
free, sovereign people giving their informed consent.)
What the hell is wrong with the .1% of the people in this country
who can still think?!
What I heard was righteous anger spoken with precision and force
against candidates and a political-economic-military system
all-too-accustomed to letting uni-party, blow-dried,
finger-to-the-wind, cardboard cut-outs get away with saying nothing
whatsoever while sustaining the imperial program of endless war and
corporate rapine.
I liked it and I want to hear more and investigate him and his
policy proposals further. Let's hope TPTB don't shut him out of the
future debates.
The Real Patriot|4.28.07 @ 7:02PM|#
I dont know if everyone that posts on this page is just really
ignorant or if gravels opponents have just been paying hundreds of
people to slanger Gavel on here. because it should be obvious to
anyone that he is the only candidate that is trying to help
america-
most important reason:
why should the U.S. have nuclear weapons?
no one should have them
we shouldnt just tell people to get rid of theirs when we have more
that anyone.
we should set the example and get rid of ours first.
Yeah Ok|4.28.07 @ 11:40PM|#
Gravel is no kook, why not do a little research into his background, this man did more for this country in 2 terms from alaska than anyone else on the stage has done, ever.
|4.29.07 @ 12:21AM|#
All the negatives brought up on Gravel were immature superficial
caricatures at best. It amazes me how myopic and narrow-minded you
people are... note this magazine is called Reason... not
Mind-Fart.
Thank god for these latter posts by Larry, Erika, Stonefruit, Real
Patriot & Yeah-Ok - i was getting really pissed-off and
bummed-out over these shallow simpletons going on and on critiquing
a bunch of scripted/coached phonies... when we had for once someone
being boldly 100% real... bringing to light our sold-out
congresses' tap dance around the most pressing issues we currently
face.
Unfortunately Gravel will most likely be derailed before he can
gather any momentum... thanks in large part to the combined
lobbying corporate powers that fear the truth he so brilliantly
delivered... also due to the large populous of ill-informed,
gullible, phony fools who actively vote... some of which wasted my
time here reading their weakly flawed mental-midget
observations.
|4.29.07 @ 1:39AM|#
I see you status quo FUCKING MORONS still don't understand that you are totally lost. You might have well watched American Idol. Your fucking brains can't handle more than soundbites. The height of the "American Dolt" is here to be found.
|4.29.07 @ 4:39PM|#
Most of you probably aren't aware of this, but Mike Gravel led a one man filibuster of the senate in 1971 (as a junior senator) for FIVE MONTHS that led to the end of the draft. This guy has courage, which I can't say for the other candidates.
|4.29.07 @ 7:19PM|#
Sir,
I'm not sure if I'm "not like you" or not. But the person who spoke
with the greatest clarity, vision and sincerity, was Mike Gravel.
You can have you're polished politicians that everyone wants to
prop up to be more than they are. If you think that Mike Gravel is
a lightweight in the political arena, or someone to be reckoned
with, you obviously don't know anything about him. I suggest you
learn. I am currently in Iraq. I see what has happened here. I see
the politics of it, and I see the truth. I've also read Mike
Gravel's "National Initiative" which he's been working on for the
last 30 years, and believe it to be one of the greatest works of
political genius since the U.S. Constitution. Mike Gravel has
inspired and motivated more young people, more veterans, and more
people from previously different sides of the aisle than anyone
I've ever known. The REAL people who don't go to the main stream
media and ask who their choices should be are actually paying
attention and making their own decisions. Even if they have to get
their coverage from a blogger. YOU are not mainstream, you're just
corporately funded.
E I, U.S. Government Bodyguard, Baghdad, Iraq
|4.30.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Ericka writes: "Everybody downs a man who has the balls to speak
up and say the truth."
I assume you are referring to Dick Cheney?
|5.1.07 @ 7:53AM|#
i think the majority choose candidates with the same simple
surface criteria they used back in high school... and i see
evidence in many of these posts that support this hypothesis. It's
the superficial packaging that is distorted with sophomoric
exaggerations... the content of one's
performance/character/platform becomes irrelevant as they are
blinded by their preoccupation with persona.
Steve K - pointed out a perfect example of this with Kucinich - one
of the best candidates... if not the best candidate we have had in
precious elections & are fortunate to still have today...
written off because he most closely resembles an "elf" being the
shortest candidate (if i recall right he got the same reception
last time he ran). Note: if Abe Lincoln ran today, i'm sure the
populous would ignore his record and anything he had to say,
instead focusing on how he most closely resembles a "wizard" being
the tallest lankly homely candidate.
|5.3.07 @ 11:16AM|#
The only way I can tell the Democrats candidates from the
Republican candidates is by the color of their neckwear. Then an
"old crank" comes along and uses REASON to ask the questions nobody
else is brave enough to ask.
Gravel, who was speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives
before serving for 12 years in the US Senate says the reason they
all look the same is because our legislative branch is
fundamentally corrupted and both parties work for the same group of
well-moneyed special interests: NRA, USCC, PHrma, NEA, AFL/CIO,
AIPAC or any of the 30,000 other professional lobbyists in
Washington. So he proposes expanding voter ballot initiatives from
communities and states to the national level, thereby minimizing
lobbyists and special interests from the issues that matter most to
Americans. The pharmaceutical drug benefit for seniors would have
been a far different law if it had been proposed by voter ballot
initiative instead of being negotiated by the pharmaceutical and
insurance industry lobbies.
He says the tax code is similarly corrupted by hundreds of
thousands of lobbyists over the last 60 years and needs to be
scrapped for a system that can't be used to give legislators power
at the expense of the governed. So let's switch to a simpler system
that is transparent and resists manipulation. And, by the way, the
only way you can wrest that power and control away from the house
and senate is by a voter ballot initiative.
Gravel, an Army veteran and former counterintelligence agent,
reasonably points out that there is no victory possible in Iraq
because there is nothing to win and the citizens there want us out,
so let's stop sacrificing our troops in a war that has no victory.
3,600 hundred dead and 50,000 wounded is enough.
He asks why we need to threaten others with nuclear war and why we
need to spend more on military procurement than the rest of the
world combined. He asks why the military shouldn't be sized for
defense rather than projecting power into other countries, which
should instead be the province of diplomacy and REASONABLE foreign
policy.
Gravel, who has himself been bankrupted by medical expenses (as
opposed to, say, an environment activist who lives in a 12,000 foot
mansion and flies in private jets), as happens to so many seniors,
promotes the idea of a single-payer voucher plan so that health
care decision-making is 100% in the hands of the individual and not
the government. Seems like I remember this was proposed by the
Republicans for schools.
He argues that removing the burden of providing healthcare benefits
from companies will make them competitive again and lead to more
employment and more exports.
Gravel, a Democrat, proposes tort reform to reduce the rate of
inflation in health care prices and to end the practice of
defensive medicine by doctors and hospitals. The lawmakers are all
lawyers and will never vote for real tort reform, so you guessed it
- a voter ballot initiative.
Gravel REASONABLY looked at the Harrison Act and our war on drugs
and that fact that we incarcerate more of our citizens than any
other peace-time industrial nation and concluded that the system
was broken and needed to be overhauled with a new ground-up
approach. Again, given the cowardice of our elected
respresentatives, it will require a ballot initiative.
He thinks the government needs to spend within its means and not
deficit-finance the present. He argues that we need to place real
financial reserves against our social security insurance
obligations. Of course the only way it could happen is a voter
ballot intiative.
More than just arguing for change, he has lived it. He was brave
enough to stand toe-to-toe against Richard Nixon and end the draft
(if you were never drafted, be sure and send Mike a thank-you
note). He has spent the last twenty years working on a way to end
the influence of the Washington lobbyists and he has come up with a
real solution.
Is that a cranky, crazy old man? Is that some humorous old coot
waving at the kids from the front lawn? Only if your measure is how
well a candidate can navigate the special interests that rule
American political life - Gravel's stance on the issues has
something for every vested interest to hate and every American
citizen to love. Mike spoke the truth he believed rather than what
he thought people wanted to hear, and he approached each of these
difficult issues with REASON rather than polling data.
Well then we could use a cranky old coot as our chief executive. It
is my sincere wish that people look at Gravel with REASON and not
the superficial and vacuous sound bites that have dominated a forum
ostentibly dedicated to reasonable thought. This brave, reasonable
man has my support and my vote.
|5.3.07 @ 3:02PM|#
Amen, Alan.
Gravel only seems cooky to these nimwits because they're so used to
seeing the same old politicans with their
straight-out-of-the-cookie-cutter, carefully phrased, pre-written
answers. Just because he actually talks like a normal human being
doesn't mean he's a nut. Wake the hell up.
Cutkomp|5.4.07 @ 12:01PM|#
'Graveltational Paul'
Congratulations to Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel
and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul for bringing life to
what would otherwise be an election full of pro-establishment
clowns.
|5.4.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Oh wow, people freaking out over his use of "illicit drug use". Because using those is "against the law", does that really make it wrong? Or maybe our legal system may be a bit wrong...
Tantroo|5.6.07 @ 4:03PM|#
The reason you are not drafted in Iraq right now sir? Mike
Gravel.
One of the leaders to expose Nixon's deception to the people? Mike
Gravel.
I have yet to see the media get any real dirt on this candidate?
Maybe they can't find any?
Though you believe his ideals aren't like you, they're like mine.
Stop assuming that everyone who reads your stuff thinks like
you.
|5.7.07 @ 12:09PM|#
Gravel wants to put power in the American's hands through the
National Initiative, wants healthcare to stop being a burden to the
private sector, wants a fair tax.
When you say "These people are different from you and me." Do you
mean people who want these things are not like you? :) It's a great
way to polarize your sheep, but really, keep your mouth shut if you
don't have anything informed to say.
Banter as usual.
Steve|5.8.07 @ 1:18AM|#
I can't believe what I'm reading from half the comments on here.
I thought Mike Gravel by far had the mosts honest and telling
comments. What we got from all the other candidates was typical
political fluff.
- Gravel wants us out of Iraq.
- Gravel isn't using scare tactics to get us all worried about Iran
getting a nuke (in ten years MINIMUM!)
- Gravel is willing to admit, as a politician(!), that our
government is being corrupted by the military-industrial
complex
- Gravel wants to put lawmaking in the hands of ME AND YOU rather
than government officials who don't give a shit about us
Mike Gravel for president in 2008!
http://www.gravel2008.us/
|5.9.07 @ 2:46AM|#
Sneer and jeer at Mike Gravel all you want. I've never seen
anything like the excitement he's generating. 200,000 views on
YouTube of his
comments at the debates. His organizations has gotten so many
checks they can't handle or process them all. His websites and
blogs have been more heavily visited than any other democratic
candidate since the debate. Whatever he is, or whatever you call
him, the momentum is growing.
|5.10.07 @ 6:56AM|#
As a soldier currently in Iraq, who has seen with my eyes, and heard with my ears, the TRUTH of what is ACTUALLY going on here. I can assure you, that the most accurate nuggets of TRUTH spoken in that debate WERE FROM SENATOR GRAVEL. Too many Americans have been conditioned to deflect points of reason, and counter with critisizm. Open your eyes my fellow citizens. There are things here that you don't know about, but if you want to know, the truth is getting ready to be revealed.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245