I must say that I enjoy the give and take of hyperbole shown in the discussion of this Reason topic about Bill Richardson’s (my choice for President out of the bunch that has been shoved before us) new — and politically motivated – stance against cock fighting.

To say I don’t particularly care one way or the other is beside the point.

A google search shows that a search for “Mike Gravel” lists this blog on page one of searches. The stats page has been nonfunctional ever since the struat.com arena of blogs and webpages was moved to a different server, so I don’t know for sure, but I am fairly confident that a decent swab of traffic comes with the fact that I’m so high up on an obscure topic that has wide but not deep news mentions.

I should run with it. In the interest of picking apart a presidential campaign that is permanently affixed to “#10” in the horse race, where the candidate smiles and nods when asked if this is about providing a platform to advocate the National Initiative, I will proceed.

April 19, 1992. The Seattle Times. “‘Outsider Perot Knows Politics From the Inside”. Marc Gunther and Barbara Demick.
I think I figured out Mike Gravel’s motivation in advocating a 22 percent sales tax.

In 1975, Perot hired a silk-stocking Washington lobbyist to place a seemingly innocuous amendment in a tax bill that, before its defeat, would have given him the biggest personal tax break in history.

As the Wall Street Journal later reported in a front-page expose, the amendment would have provided “what may be the most gigantic tax break in history for one person. That person is H. Ross Perot . . .”

Had it become law, the amendment would have resulted in the Treasury writing a check for at least $15 million to Perot. Others would have benefited, too, but not to the same extent.

The amendment was drafted on Perot’s behalf by Sheldon Cohen, a prominent Washington lobbyist who learned the inside moves of tax-law politics as commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service under Lyndon Johnson.

Rep. Phil Landrum, D-Ga., who sponsored the amendment, received a $1,000 campaign contribution from Perot the previous October. On the Senate side, a similar amendment was sponsored by Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska, who had received a $5,000 campaign contribution from Perot in 1974.

So, Mike Gravel wants to replace the current tax code with a high sales tax to stop Mike Gravel from taking a campaign donation from Ross Perot in exchange for advocating a bill written by Perot’s lawyer for the express purpose of lining Ross Perot’s pocket with more money.

That makes some sort of sense.

I.  Ted Haggard?  That Evangelical Church Leader — huge in his sphere of influence –  I had never heard of until last October?  Completely Heterosexual now!  He has been cured of his Homosexuality in his three week intensive treatment program.

The Rev. Tim Ralph, senior pastor for New Covenant Fellowship in Larkspur, told The Denver Post on Monday that Haggard’s homosexual activity appears to be limited to Denver male escort Mike Jones, who said he and Haggard had a threeyear sexual relationship.

See?  The Homosexuality was limited to that one prostitute… over a period of three years… with a healthy dose of Meth.

Of course, I’d think if he had been convorting much beyond Mike Jones, the news would have gotten out a lot faster, but never mind.

“He (Haggard) is completely heterosexual,” Ralph told the Post. “That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn’t a constant thing.”

He said Haggard discovered his heterosexuality during an intensive three-week spiritual restoration process in Phoenix.

He discovered his heterosexuality?  I tend to think of heterosexuality as sort of the Default setting.  Huh.  It took a three week program for him to realize that, no, no, no, that three year relation to that male prostitute notwithstanding… he is ALL MAN!
Which is good, because now he can get back to his Christian marriage, and, according to him in that documentary filmed by Nancy Pelosi’s daughter with Ted Haggard as a tour guide through the world of Evangelical Christianity, enjoy the healthy sex life that comes with married bliss.  (Which in the previous life when he spoke those words was apparently fortified with the meth induced gay prostitute sex, but never mind.)

SIGH.

II.   Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance acknowledged on its Web site that the initiative was “absurd” but hoped the idea prompts “discussion about the many misguided assumptions” underlying a state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage.

Sure.  Why not?

On whether he would be encouraged to run if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, Nader said, “It would make it more important that that be the case.”Democratic candidates he likes include former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, he said.

Nader, of course, is electorally irrelevant.  It’s curious to note his travels in 2004: reportedly, as seen on the “Jerry Springer for Ohio” blog — your veracity may vary, Nader showed up at Dean headquarters when Dean either became the presumptive nominee or presumptive front-runner and offered himself up to Howard Dean as a running mate, which shows a certain political “wha-?” mindset on Nader’s part.  He also had a meeting with John Kerry, the details of which never have been made public.

As it is, I guess the Democratic Party had better nominate either Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel, to fend off the .01 percent that Nader is sure to draw in this — what would be his fifth run at the White House.  (Including a bemused Democratic Primary run in 1992 and a on-the-ballot everywhere but refusing to campaign run in 1996).  So, Democrats: your choice is either Kucinich or Gravel.

So, apparently Rush Limbaugh came up with this, relating to Rex Grossman’s poor performance in the Superbowl.

“The reason that the media has been kicking Rex Grossman so hard and pointing out his mistakes is because he’s a white quarterback.”

Going into this Superbowl, I was under the distinct impression that Rex Grossman may just possibly be the worst starting quarterback ever to appear in the Superbowl.  Sometimes he played well — which the Bears generally won, and other times he played beyond horribly — and as often as not the Bears won off of special teams and defense.  There was this game during the season where he had a QB rating of 3, which the Bears won with some turnovers returned for a touchdown and a kick-off returned for a touchdown.

The game started with the Bears returning the opening kick-off for a touch-down.  The Colts promptly adjusted and kicked short, forcing the game to be won by Grossman and not off of great kick-off returns.  Grossman promptly fumbled the ball, threw interceptions, and was generally inept.  The Bears played their way into the fourth quarter — where a big play might have allowed the team to “steal the game”, still in the game largely because of that seven cheap points given up at the beginning of the game — but Grossman never proved himself up for that one big play, or multiple small plays.

Peyton Manning, the winning quarterback, is white.  I’m a bit disappointed that the Colts won, because I always liked the neat and tidy comparison between Manning and Marino — quarterbacks who have all the records, but never won the Big One, and those two facets of their career seem intricably tied.  But I wanted the Colts to win simply because I find good offenses more entertaining than good defenses, and I’d rather have an offensive model of a football team as the team to emulate for future success, and I don’t want NFL teams to get it into their head that they might be able to get away with a quarterback like Rex Grossman.

The last black quarterback to lose a superbowl, Donavan McNabb, did not play as horribly as Rex Grossman did, but nonetheless his fairly weak performance was picked apart.  McNabb is where Limbaugh was initially hunkered down when he said that McNabb was over-rated, and over-rated because the Media wanted a Black Quarterback to succeed.  When he’s played well, McNabb has been hailed, when he’s played poorly — or more succiently become a injury hazard–  he’s been pillored a bit.  When he was drafted, the Eagles fans booed McNabb, and if you go back you’ll see he was far from rated highly.

Limbaugh is an idiot.

Hm.

Democrats – Lieberman + Collins + Coleman

Oh, and minus Reid, for procedural reasons so he can bring the milquetoast Resolution back up for debate.

So, that’s Collins and Coleman, up for re-election in 2008 in what look now more than ever like Blue States.  The other interesting votes are of John Warner, Chuck Hagel, and Gordon Smith — who you must admit the Republican op-ed writer in the Oregonian spotted as still being true to the spirit of Supporting the War despite what everyone in the nation saw as a speech showing a change of heart — slippery, slipper little Gordon Smith.  As for Chuck Hagel, I’ve been a defender and quasi-admirer of Chuck Hagel.  At the moment, I can’t quite figure out why I would be such.

And then there’s Lieberman, who announced that to debate this issue right now would be to send a “No Confidence” vote to the troops at a time when we are preparing for a “Decisive Battle”.  Regretably, he is in the right in one sense: this bill does not actually do anything, and won’t stop the “Surge” — so weakened has Congressional Perogatives become.

I bring up Lieberman, whose vote is hardly surprising, to remind everyone of something to consider for the purpose of the 2008 Democratic Primary.  In the run up the Connecticut primary race, the word came out that Lieberman was set to run as an Independent should he come within single points of Ned Lamont.  Lieberman came within four points — 52 to 48.

The entire Democratic Party powerhouses came out in defense of Joseph Lieberman, acting as the Incumbent Protection Racket that political parties tend to act as.   There is a man by the name of Barack Obama, who served as Lieberman’s understudy in a Senate program that grooms Senate Freshmen (and apparently selected Lieberman for this task).  He came out strongly on behalf of Lieberman.

So the question is this:  Was Barack Obama worth six points for Lieberman?  And isn’t it grating that Bush feels himself able to use Lieberman as a bi-partisan prop for his military purposes?

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

If you say so. Here. I float these questions into cyberspace.

I. The primary issue that you are pushing is the National Initiative Process. Thinking about it, I don’t see how it will particularly affect American governance, quite frankly, and I’m imagining it evolving much as the State Initiative works, which you yourself have said, is dominated by corporate interests. How will this be set up so that it is not state-controlled or apt to be purchased whole-scale by corporate interests so that it really does represent that “paradigm shift” you say it is going to?

2. In any National Initiative measure I have seen laid out, the power to declare war will be moved from the Congress to the Public. We’ve already passed this point where Congress has ceased declaring wars and simply passes Congressional Authorizations for the Use of Military Force — and, quite frankly, even the Congressional Authorization seems to be fading away — I worry about future presidents using Bush as a precedent in his general demenor of what he believes “Commander in Chief” means. Unless you can explain how this particular attitude may change, I picture the Congressional Authorizations simply being transferred to Public Authorizations, and — because the President has a bullhorn and the channels for information and propaganda, the public will be reticient in letting military adventures proceed — when Congress passed the Congressional Authorization to use force in Iraq they pretty closely matched public opinion. This means that I once again don’t picture the Initiative Process having much of a real-world impact on another major issue that you are pushing — War and Peace. Using our situation in Iraq as a case study (though Vietnam probably serves as well, but I don’t believe in Vietnam the Congressional reaction was to pass pointless non-binding resolutions), I can not come to a formation as to whether the American public would be any more or less reticient to remove ourselves from an unpopular war.

3. I see your “Maverick” label coming up in your plans to change the tax structure to rely heavily on a 22 percent national sales tax. What I keep seeing other Democrats thinking, and what I thought when I first saw your campaign, was “Regressive” and “Steve Forbes like”. So, are you going to (a) convince them that this is a good idea and is in league with the traditional prinipals or (b) convince them that the rest of your candidacy is so compelling that they should overlook this?

4. The 1972 Democratic Convention. You played a part with a strange speech where you offered yourself up for McGovern’s running mate (Alaska’s 3 electoral votes would serve the party well, I suppose), then almost immediately withdrew yourself that slot. Was this simply grand-standing, a flight of whimsy admist what was considered a historically open convention (the polar opposite of 1968 — though about as unsettling to the television audience), or what?

5. Is The Gravel Administration moving toward Energy Independence? (Why we are in Iraq, right?) My eternal cynicism on the matter has an Alaskan politician heavily promoting drilling in ANWR, and any politican trying to navigate our national politicspandering in the Corn Belt (re: Iowa) by pushing, pointlessly, Ethanol.

6. Just what do you envision a World Government Organization, stronger than the United Nations as you’ve said, doing? And when will this World Government convene? How is it going to enforce the minimal and universal standards that its set up to, I suppose, enforce?

7. Is there anyone in American politics you particularly admire? Is there anyone in office today you can picture Daniel Ellsburg trying to float the Pentagon Papers to, or are they all boneless wonders?

8. As noted by wonkette.com, National Journal ranked the candidates and didn’t bother to include a photograph of you. ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16710815/ ) Has your campaign sent them a photograph? Also, a bit more seriously, I’ve wondered about the state of your campaign from the beginning. Your appearance at that leadership conference suggests that you will at least be appearing in the debates. How do you imagine your campaign getting some traction into the national consciousness? Are you just going to have to come up with some clever sound bytes to use in the opportunities the media is forced to cover you, and convince people like me that this campaign is not simply a platform to advance your pet issue of the National Initiative?

9. Are you on Richard Nixon’s fabled Enemies List? Are you allowed a facsimilie copy to frame and hang on the wall?

10. The War on Terror. There is a man, presumably in Pakistan, named Usama Bin Laden leading what he considers a “Holy War”. He struck the US on 9/11, one of several attacks on the soil of the “Free World”, and the Quasi-Free World. The War in Iraq has demonstrate the limitations of American military power, in case anybody had forgotten, as well as has limited the power of American military power. Bush, for whatever reason, decided to open up a Front in Iraq and make it the Central Front. I presume that your plans in Iraq include disengaging and engaging the regional powers, who have as much an interest in not allowing Iraq descend into chaos as we do. This should change the scene, though not necessarily make it better. So, the question is simply: “The War on Terror” and the problem of Islamic Extremists: what will we do short-term, mid-term, and long-term and how do we reconcile whatever contradictions therein?

There. 10 Questions. It will now float in cyberspace, doint what I do not know.
I suppose just for kicks I should come up with roughly 10 questions for every one of the candidates. And I may just well do so.

GIBSON: This is THE BIG STORY, I’m John Gibson, you decide 2008. If Hillary Clinton makes it back to the White House, will the New York Senator be the worst president we’ve ever seen? My next guest insists not only will she make it to the White House, she’ll definitely be the absolute worst American leader. Former Bill Clinton advisor Dick Morris, clearly not a Hillary fan, which is no big secret. He’s already working hard on a new documentary film that he says will expose the real Hillary. With me now Dick Morris, of course you can sign up to get his free column on the web at dickmorris.com. So Dick, Hillary, do you think she’ll win?

DICK MORRIS, FORMER CLINTON ADVISOR: Yes.

GIBSON: And do you think she’ll be the worst. Let’s start with the win.

MORRIS: Warren G. Harding would give her a run, but yeah, she would be pretty bad. If you read the John Dean biography of Warren Harding, it rehabilitates him a little bit. Comment:  Um.  Has a mass of America read Dean’s Warren Harding biography? I don’t see that happening with Hillary.

Will she win? She will win because the central reality in politics today is increasing turnout. More and more of these voting age Americans that don’t vote are coming out to vote and they up to now have been evenly Democrat-Republican. A little more Republican than Democrat. But the white men have maxed out. There aren’t more to vote. Unless you live in Chicago, they can’t vote twice. So I think that — you know, in `96, 49 percent of voting age people voted. In 2000, 51 and in `04, 55. If Hillary runs, it will be up to 60. And those will overwhelmingly be single women who vote overwhelmingly Democrat. They are 27 percent of the population, but they’re only 23 percent of the vote in `04, 19 percent in 2000. Hillary runs, they can be 27 percent and that’s 10 million new votes. There aren’t a lot of white men that would vote Republican that didn’t come out.

GIBSON: So McCain just gets rolled over?

MORRIS: McCain does. I think that Giuliani is the only Republican candidate that could really defeat her.

GIBSON: Now, what will she do as president leads you to conclude she would be the worst?

MORRIS: The first three things that I think Hillary will do as president are raise taxes, and by that I mean repeal the income tax cuts and the Bush package, certainly for the top and maybe for the middle bracket. It’s going to go back up to 39 or 40 percent that her husband put it at. I think she repeals the capital gains tax cut. I think that she cancels the attempts to take down the estate tax. And she will have a Democratic majority with her that will make it possible for her to pass it.

Secondly, I think she changes welfare reform so she makes things like job training and going to school and answering a matchbook ad for a truck driver school acceptable alternatives to employment to get welfare benefits, ruining the program. And thirdly, I think she reintroduces her health care plan that she has never repudiated. But this time it passes because the Fortune 500 companies will get behind it because they want to get rid of the health care burden. So… while we were sleeping, the Democratic Party has become the Party of Big Business?

GIBSON: All right, so how does that make her the worst ever except for Warren G. Harding?

MORRIS: If you agree with those three things, she’s the best ever.

She is the closest thing we have to a European socialist in the U.S. Um… How about Senator Bernie Sanders, who self identifies himself as a Socialist in the European Democratic Socialist sense of the term?  Idiot. She believes that instead of 32 or 33 percent of our economy going to government, it should be in the high 40’s. And it should include free higher ed., free day care, free health care, and so on. And I think that’s a — can be a disaster if that happened in the United States. And I think she has a Nixonian sense of ethics. I think that I do not want this woman this woman? controlling the FBI and the IRS and the CIA and the DEA and the NSA.

GIBSON: Dick, this is going to be the subject of your documentary about Hillary, all of these things?

MORRIS: Yeah, but Hillary will be the star. We’re going to have her in all of her different hairdos and disguises saying all the things that are not true, and then we’ll context them and explain what the truth is.

……..