Where does Lyndon LaRouche get off claiming that his Trotskyite name “Lyn Marcus” was a riff of of the nickname “Marco Polo”?

It’s such questions that animate my mind in shuffling through old LaRouche debris.  I need to compartmentalize these things a bit better.  I was preparing to take a long gander at Mike Gravel, and I was sucked back into de-constructing Lyndon goddamned Larouche.

I realized that the only two politicians I have, unless I still have George Bush and John Kerry categorized (the Skull and the Bones of the actual namesake for my blog) keyed up, are that aforementioned political cult leader and the rather generic Republican congressman with the nickname “Doc” and the actual name of Richard Hastings.  Which is why I can’t just create a “Mike Gravel” category whole-slotted without at the same time finesing it by creating a category for the presidential candidate I’ve tentatively endorsed — Bill Richardson.  I may as well make the creation of a category something other than suggestive of a Hall of Shame.

What fascinates me about Mike Gravel is that his political place screws up the boundary line that the mainstream media (and the Democratic National Committee, for that matter) places on these things.  Nobody is going to actually going to cover the Mike Gravel campaign, but is he mentioned or is he not mentioned when you list the candidates?  The answer varies.  (Actually it seems Ron Paul is in much the same position, which I find a bit amusing as — he is a current Republican Congressman.)

I do believe and I will state again and again from the mountaintop that I do not believe Mike Gravel’s campaign is about anything other than promoting his two pet issues, which at least strikes me as a better use of a presidential campaign that whatever Carol Mosley Braun and her phantom 2004 campaign appartus was trying to accomplish (refurnishing a tattered image of a politician that was booted out of office in an ethical cloud, I suppose).

I was basically dared by a Mike Gravel supporter to interview him.  Upon reflection, I don’t know that that’s not a bad idea — on my part, at least, if not his.  He, so far as I can tell, gains nothing from any interaction with this blog — which has about as small an audience as a blog that is kept regularly updated can have.  If Mike Gravel ever gets an opportunity to be interviewed by dailykos, he should jump at the chance.

Within a week, I will psot “Ten Questions for Mike Gravel”.  It will then float in cyberspace, either answered or unanswered.  Should they be answered, I will then have a most peculiar choice.  5 Follow Up Questions for Mike Gravel?  Move on to other candidates and have “10 Questions for Ron Paul” or “10 Questions for Dennis Kucinich” and march on to the point where I demand Hillary Clinton answer my questions, lest she show herself to be scared, I say, SCARED of the awesome might of the hard hitting Skull / Bones blog?

Okay.  Coming soon: “10 Questions for Mike Gravel”.  If anyone has any questions they’ve always itched to ask Mike Gravel, feel free to either post them in the comments, or post on your own blog so that Mike Gravel may have the opportunity to make this an innovative part of his presidential campaign routine.

I have half a mind to interview Mike Gravel.  My other half says “no”, and it wins out.  This is as per George Ripley and the comment Do your readers a favor and interview Mike Gravel..  One of George Ripley’s job duties apparently appears to be to surf the Internet and find blogs that mention Mike Gravel and post a response, most interesting reoccuring sentence being Thank you for pointing out that Senator Mike Gravel is indeed in the race.

I do not believe Mike Gravel has any personal longing or desire or hope to become president of the United States.  He simply has that as a platform to advocate a couple of pretty radical changes.  Ladies and Gentlemen: The Next Evolutionary Change in American Democracy: The National Initiative.

The state wide initiatives are mixed enough already, in terms of corporate control.  A good rule of thumb: never sign any measure from a signature gatherer peddling more than one (or maybe two, at the most) ballot measures — the norm seems to be about seven.  The first one s/he’ll read off tends to fit “Progressive Portland”, and then it’ll get into some murky areas, and then hit the bottom with some retrograde measure — always with the selling point “Just trying to get it on the ballot.  Let the Voter decide!”

I imagine the Congressional Authorization for military action in Iraq would have been the Citizen’s Authorization for military action in Iraq, under the new changes in the law advocated by Mike Gravel.  And it would have passed.  The good news for the politicians, such as John Kerry, is that this would allow him the wiggle room that having to publically vote for the war resolution didn’t allow him — a vote he over-rationalized to himself in casting and then could never explain.  We still would have had the invasion — ironically the resolution might have been broader for the President who could easily stamp out public opinion at that time to suit that misbegotten policy.
Hm.

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.

One of the things worth watching is the number of media reports listing the presidential wannabes who include the name “Mike Gravel” and the number who do not.  I have no particular bias one way or the other — inclusive to the point of including Mike Freaking Gravel versus the desire  to limit the list to candidates who have a actual backing and constituency.  My internal debate goes like this: “Why not?” “Why?” and circuit back to “Why not?”.

There is no rhyme or reason on when a media source chooses to mention Gravel in a list of names and when they don’t.  Note this recent CBS News broadcast.:

Senators Clinton and Brownback are just the latest to join a crowded campaign 2008 field. Already in the running or with an exploratory committee are Democrats Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, Tom Vilsack and Joe Biden, with Bill Richardson expected to announce his plans tomorrow.On the Republican side are Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson, with Chuck Hagel possibly considering a bid as well.

Did a memo go out stating CBS News mentions Gravel, or is it arbitrary and in another mention they’ll skip over him?  It’s hard for me to say.
On the right side of the screen I have my presidential preference list. 
1. Bill Richardson. 2. John Edwards.  3. Barack Obama.  4.  Ron Paul. 
Why Ron Paul?  Because indications are Chuck Hagel isn’t running.

Now, with John Edwards and Barack Obama I could easily flip around, and today would be inclined to do so.  I parse through the problems of the two.

The politician I am most generally in tune with ideologically who was making passes at the White House, Russ Feingold, opted to not run.  His reasoning makes stunning sense.  He is now in the majority and in a position of power which he wishes to use.  Had he remained in the minority, his state of lack of power would have been worth giving up to run a long-shot bid at the White House.

Feingold out, what we’re left with — right up to the point you get to Dennis Kucinich — is a group of politicians who have made various pretensions to the liberal base while attempting to sweep to a center base of support.  Their ideological differences can really only be over-stated, as with the effect on what they are actually going to have to do in the coming political environment and what they can do.  For example:  trade agreements are going to be reworked around the edges no matter what candidates’ past predilictions on them are –and with the group of Democrats who have come into power, that pressure will be forced upon some of the more “Free Traders”.  Amongst the trio of front-runners, Hillary Clinton is the most tedious.

On Hillary Clinton, I am inclined to agree with a a letter to the Atlantic.  She has made herself into an effective Senator, a Good Old Boy in a Good Old Boy’s network, with all the drawbacks and pluses that entails, able to navigate through that institution.  She lacks the vision for the Presidency — I have a hunch her presidency would be Clintonism writ small.  Hence, good Senator, not a particularly striking president.

Barack Obama actually has a fuller record to draw out than John Edwards.  Understand, John Edwards had one term in the Senate.  You can break this term into two parts: the first four years, where he was legislating in terms of what he thought would get him re-election in North Carolina, and under the auspices of a “centrist” Democrat.  And a rocky two year bid for national office — which saw him cling to full support of Bush’s Iraq War policies longer than Kerry did, and ended with him embracing the cause of “Populism” which has taken him on an anti-poverty tour (hence his campaign opener in New Orleans) as his reason for being.  Edwards
then shines the best possible light on his pre-electoral career by positing his trial-lawyer career as “fighting for the little guy” against, for example, corporate negligence.  I’ve always found Edwards a little empty, but he appears to have decided  on a direction and a series of problems to tackle.

Barack Obama has had his two years in the Senate, and a state legislative career.  Reading a few things about Obama — most importantly the recent Harpers cover article, and what Obama has said in defense to critics to the liberal spectrum, is that his approach is a replication of about what it was in the Illinois Senate, though if he had his way we would not find out if he makes a pattern of his transition from legislator in the minority to legislator in the majority on the national stage.  There is something to be said for someone who can, however mildly, win over — after actually following up on a relatively negative article — the cranky Counterpunch.  Understand Obama at bottom as having Hillary Clinton’s perchance to work the system, while having a stronger conviction for Reform.

Maybe.

Obama saw his insurrection primary campaign had him give blistering attacks on foreign policy.  (Indeed, the first time I ever heard a reference to Obama was a person saying that there was an “interesting primary battle” in Illinois with an establishment Democrat up against this sort of “Howard Dean-like” figure, a black politician who was exciting a lot of
people.)  He unceremoniously removed such speeches from his website, “trimming his sails”, so to speak.  While they are currently in the same position, Edwards has moved in the other direction, and gone from his early 2004 presidential campaign of tyring to innoculate his lack of foreign policy experience with a tough stand, to a mea culpa of “I was wrong”. 
That’s probably the rubric that slides Edwards slightly ahead of Obama (remember — they both don’t really have a whole heck of a lot of experience) when otherwise it would be the other way around.

Now, an explanation on Bill Richardson, and why I posit him as #1 of the bunch.  I understand he’s not going to be the Democratic nominee, and indeed after a while I suspect a fairly powerful and used vice-presidency or Secretary of State position will do him equally as well.  The two most important policy areas that need attention in our nation’s immediate future are foreign policy and Energy (most importantly moving us to alternative and renewable sources, but in the meantime…)  Simply put, Bill Richardson has worked in those two areas.  Currently, as governor of New Mexico, he dabbles on the side in the arena of diplomacy — a strange combination that saw him work a cease-fire in Darfur.  Hence, Bill Richardson.

But I’m like a Republican supporting Arlen Specter’s or Dick Lugar’s presidential bids.  Beyond which, I haven’t much say in this whole affair, and it’s early as Hell.  (Heck.  Would somebody please announce the formation of an exploratory committee for 2012?)  It could be worse.  I could be deciding Mike Gravel is the best person for the job… which
would put in line with the Harold Stassen supporters of 1992.  At any rate, Bill Richardon may have funny relationships with female underlings.  “Clinton-esque”?

Former Alaska US Senator Mike Gravel (D-VA) said Thursday he will run for President in 2008. Gravel, 75, has not faced voters since he lost for reelection in 1980. His three main issues: opposition to the Iraq War, passage of a direct democracy constitutional amendment establishing national referendums on legislation (much like state ballot initiatives), and adoption of a “Fair Tax” plan that would replace all federal individual and corporate taxes with a 23% national sales tax on all new goods and services. “The American people are frustrated with the level of dysfunction of government,? Gravel said. ?The thought of getting out there early, right now, is really the big tactic for me. Once I?m out there and people see the issues I?m raising, it will resonate with people,” he explained. Gravel’s anger over the Iraq War and government secrecy — which he views as very similar to the Vietnam War issues he dealt with in the Senate — prompted him to run. Gravel, who was almost solely responsible for both ending the military draft and for getting the secret “Pentagon Papers” into the press in 1971, actively ran for Vice President in 1972 (and won a few hundred convention delegates).
…………

An overview of an interview with Mike Gravel by Ron at politics1.com is found here (though clicking it it seems to bounce to Tuesday’s entry. This is for Monday’s entry.)

For me at least, this raises a curious question. What gives a political candidate legitimacy? — and by legitimacy I mean enough to get the each member of the news media to have someone on his beat, and for the candidate to make appearances at those debates. Each Presidential Nomination election brings with it this assortment of fringe candidates that get a quick airtime on the “Human Interests” last section of local news outlets, ie: “Ain’t this guy wacky?” They don’t deserve any mind. Beyond them, we have Lyndon LaRouche, who the Democratic Party doesn’t touch with a ten-foot pole, even while he technically raises more money for his campaigns than the majority of the Legitimate opponents. He… has a dedicated following of cult-members.

Mike Gravel falls somewhere just beyond these guys on the “fringe” category, and somewhere just short of the “Legitimate” Guys on the “Granted Respectability” category. In the last election cycle for the Democratic Party these were: Carol Mosley Braun, Wesley Clarke, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Joseph Lieberman, and Al Sharpton. Ted Koppel became a bit testy with Sharpton and Kucinich for continuing to campaign past a few primaries — “Their time was up”, supposedly, and truth be told the whole lot of them were probably found these candidates a bit tedious. But they were still there… depending on what criteria you put to mark them they were legitimate and not legitimate. Truth be told, the party itself probably would have liked Al Sharpton to go away (way too much baggage for any candidate, black or white), but could not really offend his base of support. Which was the purpose of Carol Mosley Braun’s campaign, a bit puzzling in that there reportedly was no real campaign apparatus under her — to stop any potential fall-out from Sharpton.

Mike Gravel has a platform (though, that itself may actually take him away from the “Granted Respect” category — which is, the Legitimate Guys (and, hi Hillary, Gal) need Wriggle Room. He has a record, indeed I have to admire placing the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Records and thus releasing them to the public. He probably has as much money at hand as… say… Braun (though not as much as LaRouche, who nobody wants anything to do with).

And he’s not going to come near the debates or, except for a brief blip at this very moment, the media. Maybe he’s like Eugene McCarthy for the 1992 presidential election cycle?