Digg - Mike Gravel's YouTube account

138 Comments
Who Dugg It?

nico623, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14agreed. it seems like a hard strech but from what he said in his video's posted on youtube he is the only one with the cajones to say what alot of the now lower-middle class are experiencing every single day.
- noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8Yeah, and the cajones to sidestep any issue that wasn't related to Iraq. Don't get me wrong, I agree with what he's saying, but when you go from nuclear power to "we should pull out" you need to ask yourself if someone's a little one-track minded.
  
  You are shallow and easily distracted, digg. Now go the ***** ahead and digg me down.
- LBTS, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4noreturn, Is this your first election? The process moves quickly and it's going to be a long political season ahead of us, so please try to keep up.
  
  Did a little thing like a candidate changing the subject in mid-sentence prove to be more than your shallow and easily distracted mind could handle? Gravel has positions on every issue under the sun, and has no problems speaking to any of them; do your due diligence.
  
  In the instance you cite Mike Gravel changed the subject because he felt Iraq, which had just been discussed and was the topic of the moment, was a critically important issue that he wanted the chance to give his views on.
  
  Just between you and me, I wouldn't go around accusing diggers of being shallow and easily distracted because, unlike yourself apparently, they are neither of those things.
- DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Gravel talked about Iraq because they were ignoring him. It seemed the questions were mostly targeted to the big 3. Biden seemed to get ignored a bit too, which is odd.
HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -29/+18"Let's see if we can get some exposure from Digg"

This is about the 6th Gravel story today.

So you can stop now.
Veight, on 10/12/2007, -55/+7He's a kook and he'll never be elected. You all are retarded for latching on to him.

Dissent is great and all but only when it's not coming out of the mouth of a crazy old man with unrealistic ideas. Gravel needs to learn that it's not the 70s anymore and things don't work the way they did back then.
- Koray, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33I'm not exactly a Gravel fan, but this country was founded by a few "crazy old men with unrealistic ideas". Never discount a person because they buck the trend. Political innovators are what keep a bloated empire from collapsing in on itself.
- evilregis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3 "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." —Margaret Mead
Stevejsam, on 10/12/2007, -39/+7Buried as spam
mthe0ry, on 10/12/2007, -7/+60You might disagree with what he says but you have to appreciate his honesty. He doesn't give a ***** about politics.
- lemon67, on 10/12/2007, -21/+10I wouldn't say he doesn't give a ***** about politics. Hes a senator bro, I very much like his views though, Im Canadian and I wish I could vote for him.
- n0sferatu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22@lemon67, Mike Gravel hasn't been a U.S. Senator for the last 26 years...
- blizzardice, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Which means he should run for a political office.
- jockser, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5you are very naive to think that he doesn't care about politics
  because thats exactly what he does, he is a politician.
  and if you know he didn't get there by his honesty.
- noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Actually, what I like about Gravel is that he seems (for the most part) honest and principled, but he also seems to know how to work within the machine and has already accomplished something as a senator (according to some, at least. I'd want to fact-check that more). As much as I dislike politics and am cynical about it, I must admit that it seems like a good idea to vote in someone who knows how to get the dirty stuff done.
  
  Also, Ron Paul has expressed himself in favor of cutting taxes considerably, which kind of seems like a bad idea considering our massive deficit at the moment.
- PRlME, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@blizzardice
  
  Bush dont know about politics and hes in office.
  Mike Gravel for President '08
- AKBryant54, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@noamsml
  Ron Paul would cut taxes, but he would also cut spending, which is what the "fiscally responsible" republican party HASN'T been doing in the past couple decades.
mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6He's too good to win. Sorry everyone.

Obama is a good trade off. He can win.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3hm, I was actually expecting people to agree with me. ah well, keep living in denial. It won't help him Gravel into office, as much as I wish it would.
- oblivinated, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I agree! I just don't like your screenname.
- KicktheDonkey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"I just don't like your screenname."
  
  So, I take it your more of a boob man?
TheRealNojo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19Gravel is the best candidate for president hands down. He wants what's best for our society.

Gravel For President '08!!
- klaymen2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6i wouldn't say "hands down". i still like ron paul better.
PaulRClark, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Mike Gravel discusses National Initiative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOKTyOvmGOs
- slugicide, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The initiative process is not a cure-all. In Washington state we got a law passed through the process that gave us cheap car tabs. It was funded by some pretty rich people. Unfortunately, middle- and lower-class people didn't really benefit from it--as they don't seem to have expensive cars. All the tax revenue that was lost came from public transportation and schools.
- libertao, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Pure democracy solutions like that sound good in theory but are horrible in practice. There's a reason we set up a democratic REPUBLIC.
JAG731, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5I like this guy, and he says things I want to hear. But unfortunately, once he's in, those great ideas and ideals get tossed aside. Too many "good ole boys" in politics that are used to business as usual.

Saying good, and being able to do it = two different things.
- nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18i agree, but then again this guy has proven he's done good things once in power (pentagon papers)
gsteff, on 10/12/2007, -16/+13These infatuations that young political activists get with contrarian candidates like Gravel and Paul are incredibly naive. Their supporters seem to think that their candidates are different because they have the "balls" or courage to say what the others won't. The entire reason that Gravel, Kucinich, Paul, and Lyndon Larouche are willing to say these unusual, maybe even truthful things is BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO SUPPORT. They have nothing to lose. If any of them started to have even a small chance of actually winning a major party nomination, they'd all become quickly become much, much more moderate. Each one isn't "the only one willing to tell it like it is." They're just imperfect, well-intentioned human beings, like every other politician. The passion that their supporters demonstrate has more to do with the supporters' youthful arrogance and naivety than with the candidates' actual views. Disaffected youth like to think that they're smarter than the older generations, and supporting unpopular candidates is a way for them to psychologically confirm to themselves that they truly are wiser than the crowd. I say this as a recent college graduate who strongly supports political activism, and protest- just not immature infatuations.
- Eleo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6In after sweeping generalizations.
- nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13good idea, instead of supporting someone that says what they mean, we should support the one thats best at selling out.
  
  no wait a second, shouldn't we vote for who we agree with the most? and besides, if all the politicians are to afraid to speak their mind or act according to their true beliefs then wouldn't it be a good idea to show support to those that do that now? then the others might not be so afraid. its how politics always work in this country, the mainstream attaches itself to counter culture popular beliefs (to an extent) in order to stop the counter from gaining power.
  you think we have min. wage and a 40 hour work week and social security because the politicians were noble good people? no, we have it because socialism was gaining popularity in this country in the 20's and 30's and if they threw the dog a small bone it would stop barking.
- gsteff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@Eleo
  
  What?
  
  ------
  
  Those of you supporting longshot candidates should read Hunter Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, about the 1972 presidential election. It describes what happened when the longshot candidates, powered by an extraordinarily passionate youth grassroots movement (and a strong anti-war fervor) actually won. Thompson is a brilliant writer and political analyst, and early in the campaign he felt exactly as mrassman does above: McGovern was "too good to win." Thompson provides a pretty good argument that McGovern's victory in the democratic primary was actually orchestrated by Nixon- Nixon basically convinced the moderate democratic leaders to support a longshot like McGovern out of the belief that he'd lose miserably and provide them with the opportunity to pull the democrats back to the center in 1976. Nixon basically exploited internal democratic divisions by trading them the 1972 election for the 1976 one (at least, that's Thompson's argument). And the results were predictable... immediately after the nomination, McGovern alienated all his supporters by toning down his rhetoric and acting like "just another politician" (see: the Eagleton affair) in an effort to win more moderate votes, and then lost anyway in basically the biggest landslide in American history. And then the democrats won easily in 1976, as Thompson predicated (you could attribute that to Watergate, but I think it would have happened even without the Watergate scandal). And several thousand American soldiers- draftees, no less- probably died because Nixon felt no political pressure during the campaign or during his year in office after the election to withdraw from Vietnam.
  
  Anyway, remember, if you think that you're one of the only people who "get it" about American policy, try to show some modesty. Just because everyone believes something doesn't mean it's false. There are good reasons to be willing to compromise sometimes.
- DuffyDirect, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Uh, did you actually read Fear & Loathing? He didn't say George McGovern would be a good president! He pointed out that the media played up the incident where he started crying when they were picking on his wife as a mental break-down because they knew he was a nut and would destroy the country, but they couldn't come out and say that since (back then) they had to at least pretend to be objective journalists.
  
  I think that's why they played that "yell" from Howard Dean in the last election -- they knew something about him that we don't know and they played on that little incident to death to make sure he wouldn't get in the office.
- LBTS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1gsteff, your comment may just be the silliest piece of garbage I've yet to read on Digg. You pass judgement on the youth of America by calling them naive and arrogant. Buddy, look in a mirror, you're describing yourself.
  
  I may no longer reside within that "youth" category, unfortunately for me, but that doesn't mean I find young people in America any less intelligent, naive, politically active, or more arrogant than their elders, and I certainly wouldn't go around disrespecting somebody because of their age; young or old, as you did.
  
  Your post was lame. All you did was attempt to deflate young people's interest in politics by refering to them in derogatory terms. You don't need to concern yourself with the youth of America, they're sufficiently intelligent to find their way through the political process just fine. You, however, should grow up.
- Hypermarkalan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@duffy
  
  While I don't disagree about McGovern, I do think you're off-base on the Dean incident. What you've said lends the media far too much insight and discernment than I'm willing to believe. Come on, the media just ain't that bright, and in today's salacious and scandal ridden culture you honestly believe the media could sit on something, or even try to lead the American people to an intelligent decision? Maybe in the seventies, but not now.
- SiliconBadger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1gsteff: If you bothered to research the basics of Ron Paul, you might learn that he is from a district that is fairly rural, and contains many operations that are often subsidized by the federal government. Yet again and again he wins in his district, though many of his constituents could benefit from having a Representative who vowed to "bring back our federal tax dollars!" Dr. Paul votes to "never send your tax dollars!" I like that much more; it cuts out the middle man. :) Despite your assertion that with support he would go moderate, history has shown that scenario to be quite unlikely.
  
  So put THAT in your pipe and smoke it... instead of the crack which has apparently been affecting your thought process.
Jazzisnotdead, on 10/12/2007, -8/+42Listen, I'm a long time reader - first time poster. Does that make a difference? Not at all.

My message to the Digg community and those who are aware/pessimistic of Mr. Gravel's campaign is this:

The chances may seem slim for him to be elected President because of our outlook of society and those currently inhabiting it. But because of this assumption and doubt, we are already creating failure in our own minds and those who read it. We MUST realize that we, as a nation - and above all else - a society of equal human beings - is that his presidency IS POSSIBLE. We as a nation are in a disastrous war BECAUSE OF OUR APATHY AND PASSIVE ATTITUDE - we must not let this continue any farther. Whether you're a Republican, Democrat,or a human being - I am positive you can all agree upon the value of life - no matter what your definition of it is. So if you truly value Mr. Gravel's candidacy PLEASE express your voice, your power, you individuality. If you do not, then please express yourself to those who you feel properly represent you. The message here is less of "Go Gravel! Go!" but a message in hope that individuals such as yourself will triumph through even when the odds "appear" to be stacked against you. We must NOT FAIL OURSELVES.

We may be weak alone, but there IS strength in numbers. It all starts with one person, one moment. Let us bring a better future for our children, and our children's children. We CAN do this. For the sake of society as we hope it, we NEED to do this.
- gooddaysunshine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8spot on
- nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5"Listen, I'm a long time reader - first time poster." =) i dont wanna put lol but that was funny
  
  but here here on your post! the internet is one of the most powerfull tools of democracy mankind has ever seen and we waste our time yelling at each other and telling each other why their candidate will get defeated.
  we need to realize this power before the internet becomes just another television (highly regulated tool of the rich)
- Suplyndmnd, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4*kicks soapbox from under feet*
  
  Move along hippie! Get a haircut!
- nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@supply
  
  actually didn't hippies say tune in turn on and drop out?
  which is the opposite of what we're saying?
  oh and im bald so a haircut will do me no good =)
  no please run along and finish that anne coulter book youv'e been dying to read
- Hypermarkalan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@Jazz
  I don't disagree with anything you've said. We do need to organize, the system does suck, and Gravel would likely be a nice change in the system.
  
  But I'm sorry, in our representative democracy with an electoral college it's extremely, extremely unlikely he would ever make it to the presidency. The internet is an active community, but we like to run our mouths and sit on our collective asses, so the odds of him making it through the primaries is pretty bad, too. And I hate to be the cynic, but voting for someone like Gravel could actually help the opposition. 2000 election is a perfect example of that. Nader made seemed like a better choice than Bush or Gore, and voting for him seemed like a good way to flex those muscles of freedom. But when it comes right down to it, the man never had a chance, and he was already on the ticket.
  
  These things are bought and paid for long before we know who the candidates are. Whoever has the most money will most likely win. And don't misunderstand me, I don't like this system, but it's the one we've got and we need to face that.
- Suplyndmnd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1nesst, I hate conservatives so why the hell would i read her book? Oh, I see. If i don't agree with your liberal views I must be Republican as things can only be Black or White with liberals. I see. Stupid liberals.
  
  (btw, the irony here, is intentional)
- jockser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Gravel ? Your a digger ?
- bratpack8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Whether you're a Republican, Democrat, or a human being"
  
  No truer words were ever spoken. I'll choose choice #3.
keithburgun, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17People, we have to keep a positive attitude and do OUR BEST to get this man elected. It is WITHIN the realm of possibility, for god's sakes, if George Bush can get elected, this man can. So keep a positive attitude about it and just do everything in your power, it's far too easy to throw your hands up and say it's futile. Good work, diggers who keep his name up high. Let's keep this going, you'll keep the diggs coming from me. and EVERYONE must sign this petition!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/283054100

Thanks!
- nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0oops dig down
Newlow, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Everybody forgot about Barack "The Magic Negro" Obama?

Can we get a president that is not a WASP?
- nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I dont care what color my president is as long as he/she/it (?) cares about a color other than green
blueire, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2He has good -ideas-. Let's not forget that communism was a good -idea-.

Unfortunately, Gravel doesn't have what it takes to conduct himself in a responsible manner on the world stage. It is about more than simply going against the current political system.
- nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5how do you figure he doesn't have what it takes?
  
  p.s. who do you think does?
  bush 1 who threw up on the Japanese prime minister?
  clinton whos known best for a blow job?
  or bush 2 perhaps, who...well, i dont even know where to start. =)
Gash77, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0If you like Mike Gravel but you think he has no chance of winning. Through your support behind him. If it looks like her has support the other candidates will try to woo his supporters. They usually do that by trying to take that best aspects of his campaign and ditch the things that makes him a fringe candidate. Gravel speaks truth (and America needs that after six years of being treated like mushrooms) but his platform is a bit... nuts.

Most third party or fringe candidates do not change things themselves, they show the mainstream candidates that there is demand for a certain policy/style of government. So if you like him, support him, and watch the others become more like him.

Frankly, the best thing about him is answer to what enemies America has. "None" is such a tonic after the Bush years of fear and more fear. Maybe that is the key to Gravel... an end to the fear. Give America its confidence back.

He would be a great opposition leader in the Westminster system.
- LBTS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Your post was very insightful, but consider this: Mike Gravel may be considered a fringe candidate right now, and you could say that of Ron Paul at this time, too, but it's a long campaign and people can and will make the difference.
  
  If one throws their support to Mike Gravel it will make a positive difference and will build his candidacy, and if enough people join you, a viable candidate will emerge who can in fact win. Like Yogi said, it ain't over til it's over.
poet, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@afx1:

Press Alt+F4.
- snlildude87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@poet:
  
  Click [reply].
lockalsh, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Yeah. um. I dont support him. I think he's actually pretty lame. He would get crushed in the national arena. great convictions though.
- kodek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8So you don't support him because he's not well supported?
diggomancer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Many refreshing things to say, but pulling out of Iraq would be a dreadful mistake for world stability - essentially leaving a hornets' nest of potential terrorists.
- kbreezy04, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Yeah you are a complete idiot, Iraq has been this way long before we got there and us being there isnt stopping anything. We are making things worse.
- DuffyDirect, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I like digging up comments like these that are dugg down for no reason, just because you blatantly called him an idiot for voicing his opinion. Saying Iraq was a hornet's nest before the war is like saying Shiloh was a hornet's nest before Grant engaged the Confederate Army there for 2 days.
Suplyndmnd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So wait, you want a president that has the people of the United States voting to make the new laws? The same people who voted Bush into office twice. The same people who voted for Sanjaya on American Idol. These are the people who should be voting to pass laws? Maybe it's a good idea....

sanjaya08.us anyone?
- iTorrey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The problem is, this guy is for a larger federal government. We don't need people making laws at the federal level! The federal government has gotten too big and overpowering on the states and we need to swing the power back. There is no reason that people in Maine need to be making laws that affect people in Colorado. Government should happen (mostly) on the local and state level. The federal government is there to keep the union together and provide for a common defense of the states not to dictate what people can do in their local communities.
  
  Yes, there is a place for federal laws however we shouldn't be relying our these federal leaders in the first place. It shouldn't have much impact on us locally who the president is. It's much more important who our local representatives are and yet people hardly show up to these elections.
- im469, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just for the record, Gore won the popuar election in 2000 by a healthy margin.
aleahey, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Libs go home.
- nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8we are home.
  oh wait, i forgot, only conservatives are true americans
progressive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Ron Paul, while vastly better than most democrats, is worthless compared to Nader. Nader/Gravel would be a good ticket
blizzardice, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Are there any democratic canidates worth electing?? Seriously, is that all they can come up with. I hope the dems can find someone with balls by election time.
- adhesivesynergy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2blizzardice: no, no there aren't, if only one could say better of the republicans, but they're even worse. I'd support Gravel just because he seems to have a little integrity on foreign policy and social issues, and might be able to stand up to imperialists and the religious right. I don't think he would be a fantastic leader, but when is the last time we had one of those? We're in the ***** right now, we have issues on a fundamental level that no politician or same-old ideology can solve. All this presidential ***** is mostly a circus to make us think we have a significant impact when we don't. If you want our political system to improve then the only way to do it is a mass change in consciousness by the electorate (I'm not talking about everyone taking 4 dried grams of shrooms, but that might help). People need to realize that they're responsible for everything they do and stop making up ***** excuses for not finding themselves some ***** ideals and living up to them.
- blizzardice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"blizzardice: no, no there aren't" I stand corrected.
DuffyDirect, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I repeat (stop digging down for not conforming to your opinions!):

Disassembling the IRS (that is, the Federal tax collection agency) will cause an economic catastrophe the likes that hasn't been seen since the Great Depression. A 25% tax on all consumer goods would further aggravate and devastate the economy. Consumer electronics sales would plummet. The American auto industry would go from being on the brink of collapse into complete meltdown, airlines would shut down, small businesses would be out of business... I can't emphasize enough how disastrous this would be.

This man has NO plan for universal health care. On his web page there is literally a vague four to five sentence paragraph on the subject that passingly refers to "vouchers" that let people choose their own doctors. It does not mention who is going to pay for it, how it is going to be implemented, how to reduce the price of expensive drugs, or anything. No specifics at all!

I don't support a particular candidate at all right now, but what I do know is that aggressive rhetoric is and always has been DANGEROUS. From Marc Antony to the reign of terror it has been the mark of bullying, over-extended idealism, and dictatorship.

Now I'm no genius, but I think elevating a man who violated a supreme court mandate not to release the Pentagon papers to defend the laws and rules of the Constitution is very odd. In that particular case it was a good thing to do for the country (or so people seem to think), but what happens when the court order that's violated is one he violates just because "he thinks its right" even though the highest court of our nation says it isn't? I don't have any idea, and that scares me. It scares me a helluva lot more than maintaining nuclear weapons that have maintained mutually assured destruction and a measure of peace since the end of WWII.
keegan3d, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1dugg for the power of youtube!
anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Obama ftw
T0PS3O, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This guy should ride the wave of "The Secret" and "What the Bleep". He and those two movies seem to have a lot in common. And piggybacking those brainwaves will enable him to get along on his shoestring budget.
rmmcclay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Gravel strikes me as someone who could get some ***** done...like he did fillibustering to get rid of the draft in the 1970's.
Maynza, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Random CAPITALIZATION for the WIN.
kanned, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Gravel for 2008!
napk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2He's not getting coverage because he's irrelevant.
jae1227, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Gravel could not even win re-election in Alaska. Beside this guy is 76 and seems like a nut. Gravel is the guy to make the debates look exciting. Did you see what he was going off about last week?
mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Awwww, Digg has a new man-crush.
TSCheredar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you want Mike Gravel to attend the CNN Debate Help Digg this to the front page: http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Message_to_CNN_Put_Mike_Gravel_on_Dems_Debate_08
SuckItUp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Dems, you need to do whatever you can to promote this guy. He is a Republican's wet dream.
skilly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Help Mike get a voice in the Debate. LETS show the Media elite we have a voice use any and all the info below to reach out before June 3rd!

To sign a petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/283054100
To Let CNN know how you feel: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form.sound.off.html
Jim Walton, President of CNN Newsgroup, can be reached directly in his office at 404-878-1720.

The following three individuals were involved with the decision to keep Mike Gravel out of the June 3rd debate in New Hampshire:
Andrea Jones, ABC News, Washington D.C. (202) 222-6896
E-mail: andrea.jones@abc.com
Alex Jasiukowicz, WMUR-TV. (603) 641-9073
E-mail: ajasiukowicz@hearst.com
Charlie Perkins, Editor of the New Hampshire Union-Leader. (603) 668-4321 x 321
E-mail: cperkins@unionleader.com
- andr3y, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Dont Forget
  
  Jim Walton, President of CNN Newsgroup. (404) 878-1720.
  jim.walton@turner.com
SouthsideIrish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Mike Gravel/Ron Paul ticket would be amazing. Simply amazing.

Why would Dr. No want to be VP? He has little in common with Gravel and where they differ is in taxes and social policy. Paul wants you to keep your money, Gravel wants to take it, and redistribute it to other people. They could never run on the same ticket.
serpicolugnut, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Yes! The libs are falling for the uber liberal bait! Take it! Take it! The last far left President (Jimmy Carter) was such a stunning success. We need some more of that. Forget the principles of the only successful post WWII Democrat president, Bill Clinton, and stay away from the center. America loves ultra left wing radical thinking, and will embrace all such candidates with open arms.

For those unsure, the above is called sarcasm.
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For those unsure, the above was an idiot.
- mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In a two-party system you DO have to carefully consider your vote. In the past I have advocated that people just vote their conscience but that has yielded 2 Bush administrations that have caused...well we all know what they have caused.
  
  I'm really wary of the dems putting up anyone who has the hint of wingnuttery about him, as Gravel does. I also don't want another DOA like Kerry. I'd rather see some compromise and a candidate that can actually win. In this case I happen to know a bit about Guiliani and I'm not really all that terrified about him winning but I'd still rather see a viable Dem candidate.
  
  Honestly I LOVE the fact that Edwards will actually say that not only should the Bush tax cuts be repeals but we ought to consider nudging rates up on the wealthiest Americans. Personally I think we're not at the optima on the Laffer curve.
jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1He seems good on a lot of issues, but there are a few that would prevent me from ever voting for him.

His support of Universal Health Care alarms me. He would have to be up against quite the ***** candidate given his support for expanding the scope government entitlements right as we're facing a looming social securiy crisis, while at the same time jeopardizing our future by (presumably, this is the case in every other nationalized healthcare system I've heard of) cutting down the profits to the big pharmaceutical companies, denying them money needed for R&D.

His stance on global warming sucks, but it's the same stance that most Democrats hold. His stance on education is ambiguous, it seems that he supports vouchers/school choice, but he doesn't say it.

How about we have a congress that thinks like him, supporting to end the drug war, maintaining fiscal discipline, hopefully giving us school choice, figuring out a way to bring in the fair tax (or, as I prefer, a flat tax even if it's flat on all money earned over the poverty line -- the middle class would get a huge cut and the rich would pay into it -- i don't see how the electorate doesn't demand a flat tax). A lot of what he supports I like, but I don't like him as a President.
- DuffyDirect, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0No offense or anything, but there's nothing more important in the country than implementing universal health care. I come from a government person and literally the entire NYS DOH is DESPERATE for universal health care. 20 million poor have no health coverage and another 10 working class and middle class families have no health coverage. How can any American see this as the status quo that needs to be maintained? It's absolutely insane! I'm not saying everyone should have a free heart transplant and bone marrow operation and viagra so that they can go back to drinking 40's in a gutter, I'm saying people need to be able to get anti-biotics, vaccines, allergy medicines, anti-septics, and everything else they need in order to literally survive and provide for their families. The fast majority of the poor aren't the people you see on the street -- sadly that's just a minority and they are usually mentally or physically impaired and aren't capable of providing for themselves (the state NEEDS to provide for these people it is the state's duty both or their natural rights and for the rest of the populace's security and well-being). But no, the vast majority of the impoverished are WORKERS. Sometimes workers with two or three jobs even who cannot make ends meet because the only places with jobs (cities) are also the most expensive places to live.
  
  My father is a career HUD + NYCHA manager/section 8 administrator and I can tell you from the people I've met living in these units that the vast majority are hard working, desperate people trying to give their children better opportunities then they had. The drug dealers prey on these defenseless people and then these people can't get any help and are forced into lives of crime. Meanwhile middle class suburban kids go smoking dope and cigarettes rotting their lungs and playing Halo all day, and they can go to the doctor or get some more prozac whenever daddy and mommy please!
  
  Apparently some of you must have slept through the 2 days your high schools covered John Locke or Rousseau or whatever. Man has inalienable natural rights that are more sacred than any piece of paper (the constitution) or insurance card. What kind of sick world do we live in where we crack the human genome and invent new medicines but only give those medicines to the wealthy?
  
  How can "conservatives" moan and groan about the preservation of placenta and fetuses but look pitilessly upon the poor who could be cured if they were given proper medical treatment? How does that make any sense whatsoever? How does make any sense to give NASA $100 billion dollars a year to look at piles of dirt on Mars while Americans are dying and orphaning kids just because they couldn't get any anti-biotics? What a sick and twisted country this has become.
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'll read your essay in its entirety later. I didn't say that the status quo is the way to go, just because the system is broke doesn't mean socializing it is the answer. It's an easy solution, but we will pay the price with an inefficient, less innovative health care system if universal health care is enacted.
- DuffyDirect, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0On what basis are you making such a claim? Who are you to assume the efficiency of national health system?
  
  (in case you haven't noticed, US coffers dwarf Canada, the UK, and other nations with national health care).
  
  I also find it ironic that you say its an "easy solution" when trouble makers who are still living in the cold war associate universal health care with Communist tyrannies...
dragonopolis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Please, the elimination of the IRS is not going to cause economic chaos. First of all, we are already paying a consumption tax. Its hidden. What? you say. Let me explain:

The government taxes us with an income tax and there are several types of taxes placed on businesses. Where do you think businesses get the money to pay all those taxes? It comes from us. That's right we pay those taxes. Businesses make their money selling products to the people and the government takes that money we gave the business from us. Talk about double taxing the people. All the fair tax supporters want to do is get rid of the income tax (which should have never happen) and to stop double taxing the people through businesses. However its more than that. I can't believe Americans support targeted taxes for specific products. For instance, specific taxes placed on cigarettes and liquor and now there is talk of gas guzzling tax in some states - at least we can eliminate this abuse at the Federal level. Yes, States are the biggest abusers of this type of taxation but the Federal Government does it too. At least by Eliminating IRS (which is reducing government by the way), abolishing the wrongly instituted income tax, and by unhiding the hidden consumption tax we already pay, would keep government out of our lives as well as out of the lives of businesses as well. Since there is no Corporate taxation this will bring the cost of operating down significantly meaning more money to work with for businesses. It cost a lot of money to comply with the federal tax code and should also help small businesses, new and old, who don't have as much money as larger corporations. Costs of products should start to go down as businesses start to adjust to not having to work with a tax code and of course faith in the Free market system that some companies will use the freed dollars from taxation to drive their prices down to compete. Also, I believe it is a fair compromise between what American people want (better wages) and corporations/businesses who need to find away to pay for it should it be enforced (for instance a minimum wage increase)

Mike Gravel seems to be a very smart man and doesn't like secrets. His past as proven that he was willing to face prosecution to give the American people the truth like releasing the Pentagon Papers. He has had experience in the Politics of War, namely Vietnam War, and strongly opposed sending troops there and also created a situation that ended the draft (sounds like someone Americans would want handling the Iraq War).

With a fantastic political record, and the idea to treat the rest of the world as equals rather than be the world's Bully....I mean police force, perhaps we can repair the damage reputation we have among the world. Some people say that if we pull out the world would destabilize and that maybe so if your a pessimist or perhaps the world will surprise us. Either way, it is better to wait and let the world Beg for our help rather than bully our way into micromanaging every little thing the world does (it costs a lot of money). Its time for the world to take on some of the responsibilities and the cost for policing itself. Our government has been living in a time capsule since WWII. The world isn't the helpless defenseless place it use to be. We need to place the government's focus back on its citizens and I believe Mike Gravel is the man for the Job. (first Democrat candidate I like since I was born, and no, I didn't vote for Bush a second time).

Mike Gravel for President '08
- im469, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@jcm267 Just a point of concern that is often overlooked but medicare will run out of money sooner than social security incomes drops below its benefits paid. This is mainly attributed to the exponentially increasing cost of healthcare.
  
  As for the "fair tax" a couple of questions:
  1. What entity will replace the IRS to oversee the collection and regulation of this new tax plan? Including distributing and calculating the monthly benefits?
  2 How long will it take to implement this entity and at what cost initially and per anum?
  3. No state has successfully managed to accurately tax labor, as the "fair tax" proposes. This is due to the fact that cash items can be left off the books. This is also a cause for concern for small business, particularly in the construction and trades since they generally do not have the resources to deal with the tax on a monthly basis (as opposed to filing income tax yearly).
  4. The estimated tax rate would be 30% to match current tax income levels. How will that help people realize the American dream? Today the average price of a home is $217000 give the governement their share, $65100, and now it costs $282100 for a house. That's a pretty substantial bump in cost ($13000 more to avoid PMI) and is due at closing. If your reply is that we will exempt that or modify the rate you are going against one of you main tenants. That the system is universal and simplistic. If you set the presedent for different items having different rates it just opens up a huge can of worms, especially given the ability of lobbiests to bend the ear of legistators. The plans I have seen avoid doing this for needed goods with a refund. You gonna get a $60000 refund the same month you buy a house? You know how much interest you will pay for that? And what It will do to your montly payment with an original loan amount so high?
  5. What will happen in the case of a home refinance?
  6. Will my stocks and bonds be taxed? or just the trade costs?
  7. What happens to the money in my Roth IRA? Will I be taxed again? Do I get a refund?
  8. None of the legistlation put forth so far has been introduced with a measure to remove the income tax included. It is always assumed that another bill will be introduced to do this. This leaves the issue that we could end up with not only a sales tax but also an income tax.
  9. Corporations have an interest to keep prices low to stay competitive in the market place. Thus keeping the "hidden costs" as low as the market will allow. The government has no such incentive to keep taxes (and effective costs of goods) low.
  
  Just wondering Thanx.
Amateurcruzer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Anyone find it funny that on his video pages , there is an advertisement for John McCain?
LLamaStar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1ehh, i'll go with obama.
iburyfamilyguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That's some dingy house he has there. He'll be like "this oval office needs more rot".
ownwonnow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0lol, Gravel's a nutjob. If nothing else, two words automatically disqualify this guy as being anything close to competent - "Direct Democracy" We already have enough idiots involved in the decision, and this guy wants to run the federal government the same way they choose the winners of American Idol.

Digg me down if you like, but this guy is only pulling less than 1% of the polls for bloody good reasons.
MaxK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think what a lot of naysayers are failing to realize is that Mike Gravel only has to win the primaries. If the DNC determines he's the best candidate for the ticket, he'll be on the ticket. And if that happens I think enough Democrats and Republicans will pull together to put him in the White House. We should support him all the way. If he doesn't win the primaries, then we reconsider. But meanwhile, I think he's the best candidate I've seen.

There are too many racists to elect Barack and Hillary pisses too many people off.
RaysinX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I 100% agree with Veight

there's no way he will or should be elected

He's an the democratic version of someone like Bill O'Reily.
AlexKid007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Finally a breath of fresh air in politics. I love how he doesn't want "business as usual" when it comes to running the country.
teterville, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1He is a nut case.
DuffyDirect, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ Dragonopolis

There is a major need for a codification and simplification of the tax system in this country, but Gravel's way is not the way. The system, for one thing, equalizes the tax burden on all citizens. Responsibility should be proportionate as our current system suggests. If you make $100,000 and you pay 25% more on all consumer goods and services you are not being as responsible a citizen as one who makes $20,000. Why? Because the poorer citizen is taking on a higher burden per cent. Flat taxation is not "equality" (as advocates for a flat tax believe), it is sucking the poor dry.

Your faith in capitalism and the free market mistakenly believes that businesses will pass the savings onto the general public and make up the lost revenue on luxury goods that only the rich would buy. That's not how it would go. First off, the food industry let's take for an example, would favor simply pricing soybean oil-packed garbage like Cheese Nips and Rice Cakes and sell them cheap while taking vegetables, fruits etc. that need to be truck farmed and marking up the price on those goods up the wazoo.

In other words, quality of reasonably priced products would drop through the floor but the price would remain the same in order to cover the tax burden.

Luxury items are luxury items and generally already make sickening profits (just look at diamonds). If the price on only luxury items is raised while essentials remain unchanged, guess what? No one is going to buy luxuries and they'll move on with their lives (probably with positive effects).

And as for cigarettes and alcohol... taxing those items is just by the vast majority of councils and legislatures. YOU cost the system billions in treating lung cancer and liver disease by consuming these goods, it serves you right to be taxed to high heaven on them!

This fair tax thing looks like a full spread of torpedoes or a shotgun blast at red tape that will cause more problems then it will resolve.

For the United States, ultimately, I would speculate -- state level government needs to be consolidated in a major way into larger, regional zones of taxation (using the IRS's current configuration as a skeleton). The fact that between Deleware and Massachusetts there are half a dozen bureaucracies dealing with distinct state taxes is just absolutely mind boggling. Was it necessary when all we had were post roads and horses? Sure. But not these days, methinks... This would be incredibly, ridiculously difficult to implement of course, but hey, one can dream.

If you look at governance there are many layers and geographical patterns of thought that are as diverse as piling on layers of geographical maps. If you take a map of an aquifer, moutain ranges, wind patterns, etc. for a region you see some unity, but you also see a great deal of overlap and disunity that doesn't fit the pattern. The same principle works in government. Buffalo and New York City are polar opposites culturally (which has subdivisions of its own regarding religion, ethnicity, etc.), but are economically symbiont where as Buffalo and Cleveland are culturally similar but have few economic ties.

My point is that the IRS, by its very existance, fills a niche. Do any of us even know where the IRS's regional officers are or why they are where they are? The tax system can be daunting and unfair to an individual, but I would speculate that in the great scheme of things that it works (since we're sitting here right now) and that any dramatic change would be disastrous. ALL change in any situation NEEDS to be gradual in order to be healthy. It took the United States YEARS to heal from the American Revolution, and it took the south decades and decades to recover from the Civil War (they didn't even have finished interstate highways in the 70s!)
- DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The system, for one thing, equalizes the tax burden on all citizens. Responsibility should be proportionate as our current system suggests. If you make $100,000 and you pay 25% more on all consumer goods and services you are not being as responsible a citizen as one who makes $20,000. Why? Because the poorer citizen is taking on a higher burden per cent. Flat taxation is not "equality" (as advocates for a flat tax believe), it is sucking the poor dry."
  
  Uhh, if a poor person buys something for $10 and pays $2.50 in tax, they are taking the same burden as a rich person who buys something for $1000 and pays $250 in taxes. The poor citizen is in no way taking on a higher burden. Never mind the fact that Gravel's plan calls for sending checks to poor people to offset tax costs at the start of every month. Flat tax is equality in the strictest sense of the word. You don't want equality. You want to use the government to take more money by force from the rich to make yourself feel better for helping the poor. This is robbery by proxy, but you could at least be honest about it.
  
  "Your faith in capitalism and the free market mistakenly believes that businesses will pass the savings onto the general public and make up the lost revenue on luxury goods that only the rich would buy."
  
  Food would not be taxed according the Gravel plan. The government would still need to act as a refree in capitalism, but your fruit example makes little sense. I don't think you've ever had a college level economics class or worked in the real world.
  
  "Luxury items are luxury items and generally already make sickening profits (just look at diamonds)."
  
  Why do profits sicken you? Is it immoral for a man to seek profits on what he sells?
  
  " If the price on only luxury items is raised while essentials remain unchanged, guess what? No one is going to buy luxuries and they'll move on with their lives (probably with positive effects). "
  
  Essentials wouldn't be taxed. Less people would buy products under a flat tax, and they would save more.
  
  "And as for cigarettes and alcohol... taxing those items is just by the vast majority of councils and legislatures. YOU cost the system billions in treating lung cancer and liver disease by consuming these goods, it serves you right to be taxed to high heaven on them!"
  
  If the government isn't paying for health care, then that is your own business. This is the true evil of big government. Once they have their nose in something economically, they will attempt to control your behavior. First it will be smoking, then drinking, then eating. Eventually euthanasia will become legal and even reccomended in some situations. The government will want to control it all to keep costs down. Is health care really free if it leads to the government telling you how you may and may not act, with the backing of armchair fascists ilke duffydirect who think it's ok for the government to tell you how to behave?
  
  "The tax system can be daunting and unfair to an individual, but I would speculate that in the great scheme of things that it works (since we're sitting here right now) and that any dramatic change would be disastrous."
  
  You do realise, we've only had an income tax for about 75 years. For the 125 years before that there was no income tax. America was quite successful back then. We aren't sitting here right now because of the IRS (lol). Read some American history.
- im469, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0First you say If a loaf of bread is $2 then it is taxed the same for both the rich and the poor. But then you say the plan will send prebate checks to offset the cost of needed items like food. Then you say needed items like food will not be taxed. If needed items are not taxed what is the need for a prebate? If you are giving the poor a prebate how is that equality. It is once again theft by proxy just with a different mask.
  
  Also where will the IRS go? Perhaps their name will be changed and they will reorganized (for millions of dollars no doubt) to oversee these monthly prebate checks. Moving from an annual tax review to a monhtly one; How is that simplifing the system?
petesy71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Mr Gravel makes the most sense that I have ever heard from a politician ever. He doesnt seem to bother with the cloaked speech that tends to typify most other canditates....I hope Mr Gravel makes it all the way to the White House, because the USA is in sore need of the type of sweeping changes that this man offers

Gravel 2008
katasuka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Gravel is a very rational person, hard to find people like this, much less find a member of government!

I fully support him and his presidential race.
Read more about his stances:
http://www.gravel2008.us/issues
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Mike Gravel's YouTube account

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Our Presidents’ First 100 Days in Office [Infographic]thumb

Login or register to add a comment

Mike Gravel's YouTube account

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Our Presidents’ First 100 Days in Office [Infographic]thumb

Related by Keyword

Lexus to roll out system that lets its cars talk to drivers

Mike Rowe on Discovery, Realization & Lamb Castration thumb

Mike Vallely Vs Mall Security Guard On Segway thumb

Login or register to add a comment