On Sunday, I listened to Mike Gravel being interviewed by — well, after This American Life ends at 11:00 am that godawful Car Duo comes on NPR, and a quick flick of the “am/fm” switch brings me to the local Air America affiliate, which has on… what’s it called?  Politically Direct.  With David Bender.  David Bender.  A weekend run-through of what is nationally a weekday hour long program.

A decent fellow, this Mike Gravel.  He gave what would, for good or bad, amount to his answers to some of my “10 Questions for Mike Gravel”, which probably isn’t even the 10 Questions I would post today anyway.

My not-particularly heartfelt propaganda of with preposterously lound angry titles has afflicted me.  I found myself grating my teeth when Mike Gravel reiterated that “nobody who voted for the Iraq War Resolution is qualified for the Presidency.”  Firstly, he listed Chris Dodd as one of those “fundamentally good people” he feels “heartbroken” for saying such a thing against, never mind he did vote no.  Secondly, his 1968 campaign against Ernest Gruening — one of two votes against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, was that of a professed hawk taking down a dove.  George McGovern even helped organize the campus – centered anti-war movement in Alaska to carry on with a write-in campaign for Gruening.  Had he been able to vote, Mike Gravel would have voted to escalate the Vietnam War on — probably up to when the Democratic Johnson made way for the Republican Nixon.  All I know for sure is it wasn’t the Pentagon Papers which shook Mike Gravel into opposing the Vietnam War, since Daniel Ellsburg already fingered him as one of the politicians to shop them to.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander: anyone who all evidence points to as being a vote for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution is unqualified for the Presidency, never mind what political changes they make thereafter.  Or so should Mike Gravel’s logic work.
He has clearly heard the problems people have with his 22 percent national sales tax replacing the current income tax, as he expressly said “some liberals and progressives balk at it saying it’s a regressive tax”.  And he went on to argure that it’s an improvement over the current model because the rich can’t just plow through the codes and write their own tax code.  Again, this elicited in me a smirk:  Just like Ross Perot, huh?

Mike Gravel’s argument on behalf of the National Initiative, his pet cause and reason for being, seems to hinge on the denial that corporate interests really have taken over at state level initiatives, and the belief that the populace have shown themselves better stewards of the tax dollars than pandering elected officials.  The answer somehow just failed to connect with the question, and I’m left thinking that that something that may not be a bad idea is ultimately not the defintion of something that is a good idea.

When I tuned in, a few minutes into the program, I did not know who I was listening to and I couldn’t make him out.  His soliloquays about repairing our educational system for better connectedness and civic engagement, his comments on how no president has dared mention the Military Industrial Complex since Eisenhower left and his general dispensation to the period of political history from the New Deal to Kennedy struck me as a somewhat more nostalgic version of this type of wise elder statesman of the Left like Howard Zinn and (a bit more aristocratically) Gore Vidal and Lewis Lapham.  He clearly wasn’t any of them — nor was he Bill Moyers — his speech wasn’t as garbled.  Tending to tie strands of history into a bit of a knot, standing on a higher plane than the electoral politics that gets bogged down in temporal and passing fits of pettiness.  I don’t know  if this is a compliment or not, but it is what it is.

For what it’s worth, I don’t see any reason for those entities that chart those somewhat inane Horse Race “Power rankings” of which presidential candidate is up, or down, or sideways to stick Gravel — speaker at that recent DNC winter meeting of some words that at least reverberated to a few points out there — lower than some other candidates who aren’t about to be elected either.  Mike Gravel has to be higher than Joseph Biden or Tom Vilsack, right?

Coming soon: another preposterously angrily titled Mike Gravel entry, this one about his stances on the Environment.  He was an Alaskan politician, what do you think he did on that one?

“Quarterback Rex Grossman is one of the least-accomplished quarterbacks to make the Super Bowl, and played down to his reputation by concluding every comeback attempt with an incompletion or interception.”

……………..

“But conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh had his own incendiary take. “The media, the sports media, has got social concerns that they are first and foremost interested in,” Limbaugh said during his show Monday. “They are dumping on this guy, Rex Grossman, for one reason and that’s because he’s a white quarterback.”
No, we’re first and foremost interested in sports. We’re dumping on Grossman because he fumbled two snaps and threw two interceptions, the way we would have dumped on Martian Manhunter J’onn J’onzz (who is green) if he had fumbled two snaps and thrown two interceptions. And we’re dumping on Limbaugh for being a hateful, boring blowhard.” — NORM COHEN
[…]

It’s time for Sports!  Why?  Because Friday greeted me with two comments relating to sports.  One appears to be a job request to Paul Allen.  That, all I can do is scratch my head at.  The other one I didn’t want to involve myself in at that time, so I responded with what amounted to a punt, the response “I agree that Aaron Brooks sucks.”

Apparently there is a sentiment out there that black quarterbacks are being over-hyped and given the benefit of the doubt whereas White Quarterbacks are being unfairly burdened with criticism.  Rush Limbaugh is the most visible proponent of this.  This commenter has followed this one opinion up, and has brought Aaron Brooks into the equation.

But looking at the comment, I’m left with the complication that even Aaron Brooks brings to this equation.  His case against Aaron Brooks is that the New Orleans Saints became better this season once the team dumped him, exiled him to the Oakland Raiders, whose offense is probably the worst unit in professional football.  Not to celebrate the career of  Aaron Brooks, but the season before he became the starting quarterback, the team was 2-14.  The year he became the starting quarterback, the team was 10-6, and then winner of their first playoff game in franchise history — the details of this season’s comment about this being just the second playoff victory in New Orleans team history.

For me, what defines Aaron Brooks’s career is two seasons that eerily mirrored each other — one being an anomolie, two being a pattern.  12  games saw the Saints rolling along, play-off contenders, to records of  about 8-4.  Then, the bottom fell out completely, and he lead the team  to four straight blow-out losses.  Hence, Aaron Brooks sucks.  And nobody ever said he was terribly great.

But he was legitimately thought of as good, the savior for the Saints for a spell.  The nature of the NFL is that pretty much every quarterback shows enough flashes so that they’re considered potentially the answer to a teams’ prayers.  When they fall out of favour, they will more than likely get a second chance to redeem themselves.

Take Jeff Garcia.  If I extend the logic of this reasoning to Donvan  McNabb, the latest example of the “Patrick Ewing Rule”, the superstar falling to injury and the team improving — here under the tutelege of quarterback Jeff Garcia.  In a previous life, such as at the beginning of the season and the past couple of seasons with the Cleveland Browns and his final season or so with the San Francisco 49ers, he was considered a not particularly good quarterback.  His pro-bowl seasons with the 49ers, extending the reign of the 49ers if not to the level of Montana and Young then at least coating over a hollowed out franchise, were long forgotten by a fickle public. 

Rush Limbaugh had to have been the world’s biggest Jeff Garcia fan.  He probably hoped that Garcia would lead the Eagles to the Superbowl, thus feeling a degree of vindication — undeserved though it would have been — about his comments about McNabb being overhyped for the sake of political correctness.

I don’t feel inclined to track us back to the careers of Randall
Cunningham and Warren Moon.  Warren Moon at least breaks us away from the sterotypical black quarterback, the “athletic running quarterback” whose running makes up for some relative defeciencies with passing.  Listing this type of quarterback — and the inherent problems of this quarterback
— injury proned and tending to hit a wall where they either need to adapt to more conventional quarterback play or not advance in terms of the career, you stop in the middle of the list, realize you’re listing black quarterbacks, and so toss in “Jake Plummer”.

Michael Vick, mentioned here as someone who’s done nothing but is still hyped up, and thus I guess another example of the Black Quarterback who we want to believe in, is an extreme example of the problem.  Supposedly he’s “Redefining the position of quarterback”, somebody as easily shuntering the traditional role of quarterback to become a defacto running back.  And in doing so, shows the limitations of this”changing the role”, a style of play that devolves into a gimmick — and one that doesn’t age well.  He was a legitimate pro-bowl selection a couple of years ago, as good as any with his selection last year, and justifiably passed over this year — not that anyone cares about the pro-bowl.  His career high-lights remain largely single-handedly winning a playoff game at Lambeu Field — the only visitor to do so — and any number of spectacular Sports Center highlights.  Do Not Pass Go.

Steve McNair?  After a highly productive career with the Tennesse Titans (and Oilers) — with a Superbowl appearance and an MVP selection in hand — he has been hopped over to the Baltimore Ravens.  And it is difficult to find a better quarterback who can give that team as good a chance at the Superbowl as McNair, giving the defense enough breathing room as the brilliant minimalist quarterback Trent Dilfer did a few years’ ago (passed over for Elvis Grbac, who had just had a season with healthy stats for a 6-10 team, and was thus mistakenly thought of as an upgrade).  The game of inches did him in, and the call of him “choking” would be as moot as the criticism levelled at Rex Grossman if a single touchdown had been pulled through.  In Rex Grossman’s case, he would not be “the least accomplished quarterback to appear in a Superbowl” but would instead fall into line behind luminaries such as Jeff Hostetler and the aforementioned brillaint minimalist Trent Dilfer as — not exactly Hall of Fame contending quarterbacks who managed their offense well in the Superbowl to a victory.  And McNair would have probably had the Ravens in the Superbowl, defeating the Bears, and thus not “a choke artist”.

The argument proferred about Grossman is that “this is his first full year”.  Which only suggests he may be better in the future, and doesn’t take into account that … he had a few games where he was beyond awful.  The Superbowl wasn’t one of them — in that game, he fell short of those depths and was just bad.  Come back next season, I guess.

There.  I’m done with this topic.  I think.

It almost seems like it was simply part of the book promotion, in part of a larger Congressional Sex Scandal, for the fictionalized and overly sensationalized book The Washington Fringe Benefit — the type of fiction that slices about by naming actual people named “Joe Smith” “Zoe Bith”, and on like that.

That is, the allegation that her sexual services were exchanged to Mike Gravel in exchange for a vote.  From The Associated Press, June 14, 1976:

Former Representative Kenneth J Gray said today he was meeting with Justice Department investigators to prove he could not have influenced support for the National Visitors Center by telling Elizabeth Ray to have sexual relations with Senator Mike Gravel, Democrat of Alaska.

Miss Ray has told Federal investigators she had sexual relations with Senator Gravel during a small party on Mr. Gray’s houseboat on the Potmac River on the night of August 10, 1972, after Mr. Gravel told her to do so.

At any rate, the strange footnote in American political history, time forgets for good reason, and…

Washington Fringe Benefit?  Really?

We are now treated to the stories about Hillary Clinton’s Inevitable nomination.  Perhaps it is a mix of Republican anti-Clinton fear and loathing that posits that they are running around closed doors with the dread that there’s nothing to can do to stop the presidency of Hillary Clinton.

I posited that the best way to stop this was in 2004, by electing John Kerry.  The Republicans didn’t listen to me.  Now Hillary Clinton is believed to be inevitable.

Her nomination strategy is said to be about creating an aura of inevitibility.  It is the Politics of Mass Dread, of Mass Mental Disenfranchisement.  She is the Inevitable because she has the connections and the money and it is an anti-Republican mood.  There is nothing the American people, who all seem to universally dislike her, can do to stop her from assuming the Presidency.  It’s a strange world that finds Jonah Goldberg contemplating Democratic (or maybe liberal — I don’t know) antipathy toward Clinton as though it is a new occurence — and noting the same goddamned things Molly Ivins has.

I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh (in bits and pieces as I’ve done in the past) and hearing him do a bit on behalf of Ralph Nader, a parody ad which missed all and any mark.  “Don’t Worry About Electing George Bush.  Because is 4 Years You’ll Have the Candidate You want.  Hillary Rodham.”  (And it was “Rodham”.)

Ralph Nader says he’s running if Hillary is running, more or less.  Makes perfect sense to me.  It was Clinton he was running against in 2000 (and kind of in 1996.)

Don’t worry. I think I only have two more of these in the offing.

There are two things worth considering from this paragraph from Nicholas Lemann’s Washington Post article “The Great Alaska Feud”, published 9/30/1979:

In 1968 both Gravel and Stevens ran for Gruening’s Senate seat. Gruening was the grand old man of Alaska — the territorial governor for 14 years before statehood, a medical doctor, a newspaper editor, and the author of a fine history, “The State of Alaska” — but he was also 81 years old and politically vulnerable. Gravel went after him aggressively, using their age difference (he was 38) and the Vietnam war (he was then a hawk, Gruening a prominent dove) as his issues. Gravel waged Alaska’s first sophisticated media campaign. He trekked all over the state showing a high-quality, half-hour film that probably won the election for him. “Mike Gravel,” the film said, “is on the sunshine side of 40.”

In reference to the DNC meeting words of “Given the extreme importance of any decision to go to war, and I am anguished to say this, it’s my opinion that anyone who voted for the war on October 11––based on what President Bush represented––is not qualified to hold the office of President.”, which is a broadside against Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and — do I have to mention him? — Joseph Biden. In a sense, we can almost narrow it down to Edwards, because he has gone the furthest in repudiating his vote for the war and thus fits Mike Gravel’s profile a bit better in relation to:

(he was then a hawk, Gruening a prominent dove).

If Mike Gravel can change his opinion based on new evidence (and poll numbers), why can not John Edwards? (The other possibility is that Gravel’s hawkishness in the 1968 election was political calculation, and once in office, he changed his mind to where his mind was really at. Who knows?)
Consider too this statement from Mike Gravel.:

“But the fear of opposing a popular warrior President on the eve of a mid-term election prevailed. Political calculations trumped morality, and the Middle East was set ablaze. The Democrats lost in the election anyway, but the American people lost even more. It was politics as usual.”

Now, on the eve of his primary contest in 1980, with Mike Gravel considered the most vulnerable Senator in the entire chamber, the man who “Single-handedly stopped the draft” … from the Associated Press, June, 11, 1980, on the creation of the Selective Service — which is, in effect, a Draft in Waiting.:

Registration foes accused liberals of abandoning the fight.

“It’s too bad Senators Frank Church (D-Idaho), Charles Mathias (R-Md.), Edward Kennedy and Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) didn’t consider this important enough to show up for today’s debate,” said Barry Lynn, chairman of the Committee Against Registration and the Draft. None of them voted yesterday.

Political. Expediency. Trumps. Morality. Unless Gravel distinguishes his strongly stated chest beating on ending the draft with allowing for the Selective Service to commence, which if someone were less chest boisterous about it could be done.
Then there’s the strange facet of politicing that makes a virtue or vice out of either age or youth. Every politician worth his salt would do so, based on the circumstances. He trekked all over the state showing a high-quality, half-hour film that probably won the election for him. “Mike Gravel,” the film said, “is on the sunshine side of 40.” versus Gruening — the territorial governor for 14 years before statehood, a medical doctor, a newspaper editor, and the author of a fine history, “The State of Alaska” — but he was also 81 years old...

I hear that Condelleza Rice and George W Bush have a sexual fling going on.  It pops up in — probably not the National Enquirer, but one of the tabloids that is more spurious than that one — from time to time, with Luara Bush apparently sidled off into separate corners.  The radio program the Stephanie Miller Show has turned this into a a running gag of “Shh.. You can’t mention those spurious rumors!”

That recent spurious book about Hillary Clinton — Ed Klein’s The Truth About Hillary, posits that Hillary Clinton had a number of Lesbian relationships in her college years, or more precisely strongly implied.  The source for these spurious rumours are pretty much trogldytes with a serious culture clash.  Basically this statement found here sums it up.  But also we have The National Review mulling it over with Joe Klein, without coming across terribly well.:

NRO: How many times do you use the word “lesbian” in your book? Why point out she had friends who were lesbians? Do we need to go there?Klein: Hillary’s politics were shaped by the culture of radical feminism and lesbianism at Wellesley College in the 1960s. This is paramount in exploring the political life of Hillary Clinton.

So.  Whatever.  “The Visitor Center: Bungling and Deception” by Blaine Harden, from November 17, 1980 in the Washington Post on what brought to pass the dream of … the dream of…

The plan that Gray promised on Nov. 27, 1967, to turn Union Station into the National Visitor Center was neither perspicacious nor farseeing.  The plan was a hodgepodge of wishful thinking, outright deception and bad judgment.  It has unfolded as an almost unparalleled example of congressional bungling.  For what was supposed to save Union Station without costing “one cent of taxpayers’ money,” Congress has spent or committed itself to spend more than $117 million.  Those millions have been spent on one of the world’s most expensive uncompleted parking garages and on a restoration project that’s actually helped destroy the monumental train station.  Up to $90 million more may have to be spent to fix it.

What is it a Gray?

In Washington, Gray was a flashy dresser, favoring wine-colored velvet suits, multicolored slacks, bow ties and his trademark: high gloss patent leather shoes.  He used country expressions such as “that stuff won’t wash” and “that calf won’t suck.” His constituents bought him a $100,000 jet helicopter, which he used to fly between Washington and his district.  He had what was then known as an eye for the ladies; his staff consisted of some of the most attractive young women on Capitol Hill and he personally hired a blond named Elizabeth Ray in 1972.

And Jimmy Crack Corn and Why Should we care, within the purviews of blogging about irrelevant presidential contenders?

According to Elizabeth Ray, the major source in the congressional sex-scandal revelations in 1976, a condition of her employment was that she have sex with Gray’s friends.  Ray claimed that Gray ordered her to have sex with Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) on the evening of Aug. 10, 1972, to ensure his support for the visitor center.  Colleen Gardner, another major figure in the sex-scandal revelations, told a grand jury that she saw Ray and Gravel having sex that night on a houseboat that Gray owned and kept in a Washington marina.  Both Gray and Gravel have denied the allegations.

I don’t have easy access to any media from that time-frame, but I suppose it would be mildly entertaining, but ultimately pointless.