I urge your readers to look beyond your glib comparison of Senator Mike Gravel’s presidential candidacy to any of Harold Stassen’s.

You know the amazing thing is that I don’t even really know what the hell Harold Stassen ever did in the arena of presidential candidacies. I know he ran a strong campaign for the Republican nomination in 1948 and figured in 1952, and I know he ran an… um… weak one in 1992. The 1948 and 1952 results would put him behind Thomas Dewey for 1948, and for 1952 behind Dwight D Eisenhower and Robert Taft. I have no clue what he did between those points and 1992, when he was somewhere behind the Republican candidacies of the incumbent George Herbert Walker Bush, Pat Buchanan, and David Duke.

The wikipedia article doesn’t deem it important to list Stassen’s contributions to off the radar campaigns.

I could revert to slightly more solid ground, in that I actually know who he was and have a firmer grasp on what his even most quixotic campaigns were about, of Eugene McCarthy.

What makes Mike’s candidacy important is that he is offering to codify the power of the people. Other candidates are not offering a solution to the juggernaut of republicrat/demublican power brokers on the Hill both beholden to the Corporate interests before being responsive to the will of the people…and don’t hold your breath that things will significantly change as a result of the recent election. We’re already seeing the deals being cut as regards the minimum wage bill in the Senate. It won’t be passed without additional sweeteners for the corporatists.
In terms of rhetoric, I can only think, “Sure. I voted for Nader in 2000 too.” In terms of policy, no. Sales Taxes are a pretty regressive form of taxation anyway, though generally a necessary place to tax due to its stability relative to other forms of taxation more apt to swing a bit wildly with the economy, and a national sales tax of, what’s that again? 23 percent? (presumably offset with the elimination of other taxes) doesn’t strike me as much of an incentive to produce anything.

I suppose that will just have to be fought off with “Direct Democracy”, but there we end up in a different ditch again. In the end, all kidding aside, I just don’t believe in Mike Gravel’s policies. At least we’ve moved out of the realm of “real time” and to “four times a year”, which eliminates the undemocratic problem #1: (What? You do it on the Internet and expose us to a technology gap that throws out a vast pool of poor people, and, for the time being older people?), but goes to a new problem #1, in terms of “corportocracy”: who decides the issues passed on for the voters to vote on, anyways, (out of our complicated government apparatus which sways into dark arenas anyways)?

Do your readers a favor and interview Mike Gravel. I think you’ll find a great deal of substance.

A strange sign of political inviability, suggesting a vanity blog of few readers to interview the candidate for national office.

This entry was posted on Friday, January 26th, 2007 at 9:28 am and is filed under Mike Gravel, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.