Mike Gravel isn't "Funny" at All

[babylonsister]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/7140

Mike Gravel isn't "Funny" at All
by Timothy Gatto | Apr 29 2007


When Mike Gravel, former Senator from Alaska was on the stage in South Carolina this week, he said some amazing things. What he did, and what he said, was the truth. The truth as I see it and the truth in fact. When he answered the moderator’s question as to why he was on the stage in a debate for the Presidency, he said that it was because the others on the stage scared him. He said that saying nothing is off the table was a code word for nukes. That is true. It’s been true and as he says, true for the last 50 years. He said Joe Biden has a “certain arrogance”... yes he does. He also said that the men in Vietnam died in vain. I had thought that they didn’t die in vain. I had believed that their deaths would stand for needless war without thought and that by their dying we would never again be in a war like Vietnam. But as Mike Gravel said, their lives were lost in vain, and the soldiers in Iraq are also dying in vain.

What does it take for people to understand that Mike Gravel is telling the truth and that he is the ONLY one that is telling the truth! What does it take for the American public to learn to think for themselves and not let people on the television tell them how to think? When will people learn to stand up and say that they liked what Senator Gravel had to say and that he should not be trivialized and laughed at, because he is the only one telling the truth? Do people think he’s funny by saying that the 58,000 soldiers that died in Vietnam died in vain? Do people find it hilarious when he said that the 3,200 men and women who died in Iraq died in vain?

Just what is it that people think is “funny” about Senator Gravel’s quest for the White House? Is it because he hasn’t been “anointed” by the popular press and the television talking heads that spout utter nonsense 75% of the time? Is it because he dares to tell the American public what nobody else has told them because they are afraid to speak the truth? Are you going to ignore this man because he hit the nail right on the head because he dared to talk back to the media and more than that, to talk back to this government? Is he “funny” because he said that everything in this country is being run by the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech when he left office in 1954? Was President Eisenhower “funny” too when he used his last speech as President of The United States of America to warn us about the powers that wanted to take control of our country? Well the fact is my fellow Americans, these powers have control of this country and Mike Gravel was not being “funny”, he was telling us the truth.

He told us the truth last week and it scared America so badly that they had to write it off as “funny”. The truth is that if you think about what he said, and actually look at what has happened to this once good and loving nation, it isn’t funny at all. In fact, it’s enough to make you cry. It’s enough to make you cry and fill you with rage at the same time. This man doesn’t need to be out on the campaign trail in his later years giving speeches and riding on buses. He could be home playing with his grandchildren and taking it easy, but instead he’s on a stage telling us the truth and these witless bastards on television think he’s “funny”. I suppose that the estimates of 600,000 dead in Iraq and over 35,000 badly injured men and women from our armed forces is “funny” too.

All I have to say is that Mike Gravel isn’t “funny” at all. If you listen, really listen to him, you will cry. If you don’t, you don’t realize what is happening to this country. If you think that he’s just a “funny” man, you had better look inside of your heart and take a really good inventory, because something is wrong with you, and that’s not funny.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. agreed, and well put

I sent him some $. not much, but some.

[oldtime dfl_er]

2. I hate that he's being made fun of

He might be the last honest politician around. I can't say if he always was this honest, because I didn't know who he was til now, but he's a great example of how age and experience can really bring a person to the truth.

[Dhalgren]

3. K&R! Excellent read!

This is the truth, flat-out...

[Adelante]

4. It sure is enough to make me cry

Not at all funny.

[Palladin]

5. He could be the Clean Gene

McCarthy of our time. Let's hope he catches fire on the campus like our recently departed friend did 40 years ago. Godspeed.

[DesertRat]

6. He also isn't "crazy" or "senile". He speaks the truth. n/t

[Rydz777]

7. We all know

that Gravel will not get the nomination - and he knows it too - but he is a free man who is free to speak the truth. He needs to have a forum and to be in all the future debates. The MSM is already trying to make him into a clown. He is the opposite of a clown - he is principled, serious, and articulate, and he has the power to make other candidates face issues they would prefer to ignore.

[The Count]

8. I have been fuming about the "comical relief" label NYT (and DUers) hang on him!

Thank you so much for this! Exactly right - anyone not annointed by MSM has to be marginalized - and even DU gets in the game!
The way he responded to the "waste of lives" canard is a classic: "The only thing worse than a killed soldier is another killed soldier" I didn't laugh.

[unpossibles]

9. agreed and I feel the same way about Kucinich

people call him crazy and laugh at him, and yes, some of his points seem a little far-fetched, but I respect both of them for trying to be honest about how they see the world and the things they think need to change.

[pberq]

10. Mike Gravel is called "funny" because the truth is not allowed by MSM and Republicans

[leftchick]

11. Stephanie Miller called him "crazy" this morning

several times. I think I will send this to her so she gets a clue.

[babylonsister]

13. Thank you; why she's dissing any Dem is puzzling. nt

[IronLionZion]

22. media personalities aren't always as partisan or independent as they seem nt

[hootinholler]

24. When you send that tell her about this one time listener.

The first time I listened to her because I can finally hear her, and she's slamming the one guy telling the truth on that stage. Makes me not want to hear more.

-Hoot

[leftchick]

25. I sent her both op-ed articles

and kindly asked her to not disparage the bravest person at that debate.

[loudsue]

39. And Jon Stewart made fun of him tonite (Monday) on his show.

So did Steven Colbert. I don't think he's funny at all, but the media sure is showing their hand when they keep throwing stones.

I was REALLY glad to have Gravel up on that stage. He's old enough to remember when this was a great country, and he's outraged by what has happened since Reagan de-regulated our government, and started turning it over to corporations... corporations such as the media, which is now just part of the republican party.

I think anyone with a liberal bone in their body should send $$ to Gravel & Kucinich. They're the only two who are REAL, down to earth, give-your-heart-and-soul-to-it Democrats of the old school. You know, the ones that actually give a damn about the PEOPLE.

:kick::kick::kick:

[IronLionZion]

12. And when will we get a national sales tax?

He's the only one up there who supports it. Unfortunately his support for the fair tax will be met with violent opposition from liberals and conservatives who don't understand it and don't want to understand it.

Mike Gravel is a very fascinating candidate. It's good to have guys like him and Kucinich in the debates saying things that no one else will say.

[dave_p]

15. Then explain it

How is it fair?

I'm sorry, I don't see a tax that falls equally on middle earners and on the mega-rich as fair, even if its offset at the bottom of the ladder by partial (and they are only partial) transfers.

If we don't understand it, explain it.

To cite tax-evasion at the top is no justification. Plug that loophole, don't ask the middle class to bail out the tax traitors.

I agree entirely with you that it's great to have decent, sane, humane politicians like Mike who aren't afraid to think outside the box. We all need more of them. In fact we need to dismiss the rest as an insult to our intelligence, which is all they are.

[IronLionZion]

19. it's based on consumption

Each person has control over how much to consume, so we each can control how much tax we pay. Wealthy people consume more than middle class people who consume more than poor people. It's progressive. It's harder for the wealthy to evade and they can't say the poor get handouts because everyone who buys anything pays sales tax whether it's a pack of gum or a new car. Secondhand stuff like used cars have no sales tax but mortgage payments on a "used" house does. There are no exceptions to the sales tax on new items, so lobbyists and corrupt politicians can NOT influence them. We can get even less evasion if we make it a VAT, then it would be built into the cost of everything but it would be hidden and we wouldn't know about it. The sales tax would tax the underground cash-only economy of vice and illegal immigrants.

What really excites me is the tremendous decrease in overhead and administration costs for the IRS and companies because they won't have to deal with income tax. I'm 100% certain that this will create new jobs, attract more investment + savings, raise wages, lower retail prices, and give a major boost to the US manufacturers at the expense of our foreign competitors. Hopefully this will slightly tilt the US towards producing and away from consuming, but that's largely cultural so it's unlikely. There is a "pre-bate" which everyone gets and that covers the taxes up to the poverty line. So,...the poorest people get a net gain and everyone will eventually come close to breaking even. The cost of everything will decrease because the cost of producing it will decrease. It's transparent. You can easily understand the sales tax. No one on God's green earth understands the US tax code, NO ONE!!! Accountants and tax attorneys don't even understand it.

I did the math and I will personally make out like a bandit with the national sales tax because I live a very simple life and consume very little other than rent, food, and the necessities of life yet I pay significant income taxes since I'm single and my investments have been kicking ass. The only thing that scares me is the cost of education + sales tax will mean more student loans and more debt initially but in the long run it still wouldn't be much more prohibitively expensive than it is now...all things considered.

More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_tax
http://www.fairtax.org

There are liberals and conservatives for it. There are liberals and conservatives against it. Mike Gravel and John Linder are for it. George W. Bush and Nancy Pelosi are against it. It crosses ideologies, backgrounds, income levels, etc.

[eridani]

28. A major fuckover for the urban poor

It would BIG TIME screw the urban poor, while the poor in rural areas will get a slight boost. The transfers are based on a totally bogus calculation of poverty level, to wit, a calculation of a minimal food basket multiplied times three. What kind of idiot do you have to be to not know that rent and utilities are the real budget busters for the poor (and everyone else, for that matter)?

WA state has only sales tax, and is one of the most regressive states in the nation.

[IronLionZion]

29. So how are the urban poor doing now?

I'm just curious.

[Donnachaidh]

32. so I take it you advocate making it WORSE for the poor?

Because that national sales tax would most certainly do that.

[IronLionZion]

49. all things considered

our economy would greatly improve and many jobs will be created, not to mention the cost of producing goods would be lower so prices will be lower. There are other factors involved in rent and utility markets.

Renters do appear to get the short end of stick at first but it's ridiculous to use tunnel vision on the sales tax and ignore all the other factors out there.

[eridani]

52. Why would lower prices follow lower production costs?

I'd bet that higher profits and not lower prices would be the result. Renters get the short end of the stick FOREVER.

[IronLionZion]

60. Free market forces at work

and basic economic principles of supply and demand. The demand for buying will rise therefore the demand for renting will fall.

All the rental housing landlords would have to agree to keep prices high, and that's illegal. As soon as one lowers his rent, the others will follow suit. And why in the world are you ignoring the improved economy? More jobs, higher wages, more savings and investment are going to help everyone with everything, even housing. Many people will be able to purchase their first house/condo instead of renting!

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why so many liberal countries have a national sales tax or a VAT. Are those guys all wealthy limousine liberals and corporate conservatives? Do they hate their poor people? Then why is the standard of living in northern europe so damn good? Why do liberals in America dream of moving to northern europe?

Liberals loathe wal-mart with the fire of a thousand suns. Wal-mart opposes the national sales tax. They are also one of the biggest supporters of increasing the minimum wage. Perhaps increasing the minimum wage is bad since wealthy wal-mart supports it? Maybe the sales tax is good since wal-mart is against it? :think:

[eridani]

62. We don't have a free market economy

We have one directed in the interests of corporations. Landlords don't have to agree to keep prices high--it's a low vacancy rate that does that. I don't believe that the economy will improve with a regressive tax--that's just bullshit. Our economy grew at its fastest when our tax rates were the most steeply progressive--THAT'S what puts money in people's hands.

Liberal countries that have national sales taxes also have strongly redistributive social policies. Without those policies, a national sales tax is an attack on the urban poor.

[loudsue]

40. Gravel addresses that: He would rebate to the poor...they'd get part of the money.

I think he is a reasonable man. And if he can be shown where such a tax would hurt the people he wants to help, he would tailor his policies so as not to do that.

I don't think anything has been inscribed on stone tablets for him, except that nukes ARE NOT an option. He's a good man, and he's sick to death of corporatist America.

:kick::kick::kick:

[eridani]

44. He waged a slanderous campaign against Gruening in 1972

Accusing him of undermining President Nixon and not supporting the troops. I don't trust him any farther than I could throw him. Gruening was one of two to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, and was consistently antiwar from the beginning. Ask Smilin' Mike about his behavior back then.

The rebate thing is a bunch of horseshit, as it is based on a poverty level calculated by pricing a minimal food basket and multiplying that number by three. How idiotic do you have to be to not know that rent and utilities are the big budget busters for the poor? This will seriously fuck over people in expensive areas (which are expensive precisely because they are where all the job opportunities are) in order to provide minimal help to people living in areas where the cost of living is much cheaper (because there are no jobs there).

[IronLionZion]

51. Washington is a blue Dem state with only a sales tax

Oregon is a blue Dem state with no sales tax whatsoever. Do Washingtonians go to Oregon to shop?

Two of the largest economies in the US (Texas and Florida) have only a sales tax. Florida especially makes out like a bandit from the tourists. These are two of the most right-wing states in the union.

My state (PA) has a sales tax (exempting food and clothing) and an income tax. It seems fair but I'm not really sure how I feel about it. I do know we have NYers coming here to buy clothes but they also go to NJ to buy gas because of the taxes. A buddy of mine who lives in Queens went to New Hampshire to buy his car.

NY is a dark blue left-wing state with a sales tax and income tax.

Canada is a liberal country with a sales tax. The EU, which includes some of the most left-wing nations in the world, requires member nations to have a VAT. You think so many intelligent liberals would do this if it were bad? This reminds me of the Massachusetts healthcare plan. Some of the most radical left-wing legislators in the entire United States voted for the plan and liberal DUers think it's conservative because Romney signed it into law. Let me laugh.

My point is the sales tax really does cross ideologies. It's neither liberal nor conservative, but it is revolutionary. If it really did benefit the rich like some DUers keep repeating like a broken record, then why don't we have it? Everything we have benefits the rich. The rich have the money to make it happen and if they felt it would help them then they would throw their money and power into it and it would become law. Which as sure as you're alive, they will do. If it benefits the rich, then it wouldn't matter how you or I feel about it because the rich don't care and don't need our permission to screw us time and again.

So maybe it doesn't benefit them as much as you think. Maybe it really is fair if you consider all the factors and not just use tunnel vision on the tax and ignore the positive economic consequences like more jobs and lower prices. The rich do consume a ridiculous amount of stuff. Everybody consumes stuff, even criminals and illegal immigrants and tourists. No one escapes.

[eridani]

55. As a PERCENTAGE of total income, the rich consume very little

As a percentage of wealth, their consumption is even less. And rich people ARE backing flat tax schemes--Forbes is rich, no?

[IronLionZion]

59. This is NOT the bloody flat tax!!! I strongly oppose the flat tax!

Steve Forbes has nothing to do with the national sales tax! Mike Gravel is for the national sales tax!

George W. Bush and most of the wealthy Republicans in Congress oppose the national sales tax!

The fair tax and the flat tax are two radically different proposals. Saying they are one and the same is not only dishonest, it's insulting our intelligence. It is a disservice to all those liberals in Europe, other nations, and in our own liberal states who use sales tax to fairly tax everyone's consumption and use the money to help their communities. And that's just sick.

[eridani]

63. As long as it screws urban renters, screw it

European countries with national sales taxes have massive redistribution and subsidy programs as well. Enact those, and I'll consider Gravel's plan.

Of course Gravel's for it--just another chance for his thinly populated state with 20 times the congressional representation of California to fuck over the major population centers.

[Desert Liberal]

34. OK, but let me make this point

And this is the major problem I have with the 'fair tax' plan.
As a relatively poor person, I spend 100% of my income just to survive. A rich person might only use 50% of their income on consumables.
Why is it fair that I get taxed on 100% of my income (because I cannot afford to live if I don't) and some rich guy only gets taxed on 50% of his? I understand the 'pre-bate' idea, but it still seems as though I'm getting hosed.
And what about those people who make just barely enough not to qualify for the pre-bate thing?
I was devastated when I got a new job and no longer qualified for child care assistance because of $4.00 per month. Because of that four bucks, I ended paying $85 a week for daycare instead of the $25 I had been paying previously. Even with the boost in my pay, I was still farther behind than I would have been with the lower paying job. The fair tax seems like it might cause some problems of that nature.

Just my two cents...

[eridani]

36. It will. Count on it.

The prebate is calculated with poverty level estimates which are absolute bullshit. they price a minimal food basket and multiply by three, totally ignoring the obvious fact that the budget breakers for poor people (and everybody else), are rent, utilities and transportation. The higher the rent in your area (and yes indeedy, rents are higher in areas where most of the jobs are), the more you get screwed.

[IronLionZion]

50. because everything will be cheaper and there will be more jobs

and there will be positive changes in our national economy as we produce more and invest more as a nation. What percentage are you paying in income tax now? Everyone should work out the math: calculate your sales tax on all your consumed goods (using today's prices) factor in your prebate, and compare that to how much you are currently paying in income taxes. You might be pleasantly surprised. Keep in mind that it won't include the changes in prices, or your income, or the possibility of getting a better job.

In your example that rich guy getting taxed on 50% consumption of his income is paying about 30% of his income on tax. Do you seriously believe a rich person would pay that much in income tax? These bastards have ways of making themselves look poor on paper.

Keep in mind that there are so many other factors in play. It sounds like there is a serious flaw in the childcare assistance program if you end up losing money when you get a pay raise.

Everyone gets the prebate, everyone pays the tax, every new item is taxed, no exceptions. The minute you start putting in exceptions for this or that, wealthy bastards will screw the system like they do now simply because they have the money to influence these things.

It's good to discuss these things. You are asking the right questions. Everyone should think about how it affects each one of us personally. Personally I will do better in the short and long run under the sales tax.

[eridani]

54. I know how sales taxes affect poor people

I live in a state with no income tax, and it has one of the most regressive tax systems of any state, bar none. Extending this to the national level is just bullshit. One of my state legislators has a bill for income tax which will result in LOWER overall tax rates for FOUR OUT OF FIVE Washington state residents. (Actually, with comparatively low expenses and high income, I'm that fifth person, so I'd wind up paying more. His proposal to exempt the first $75K-$100K of property from property taxes will soften the hit quite a bit, so I'm in favor of something that won't hurt too much while benefitting 80% of the population.)

Lowering taxes on the wealthy has not resulted in more productive investment--just the opposite. Producers will pocket the results of lower production as profit, not pass it on to consumers.

[Desert Liberal]

57. Thank you.

Yes, they will pocket it, just like they've pocketed their wonderful Chimpy tax 'breaks'. And I don't believe the answer is to institute a 'fair' tax. How 'bout cutting out those loopholes and MAKING the bastards (corporations, too) actually PAY WHAT THEY OWE? No more offshore havens, no more Swiss bank accounts, no more bullshit. Reinstate the estate tax, make tax evasion a FELONY punishable by more than just a slap on the wrist, and about a million other things...
And while we're chattin' about taxes, is everyone aware that the is NO LAW saying that one MUST pay income tax? In and of itself, income tax is unconstitutional. Not allowed by the Constitution...hmmm, how 'bout we just all stop paying it instead?
I know that taxes make the community possible, so please don't throw that at me, but why exactly does the government get to take ANY of my money, that I EARNED, without my permission?

[Desert Liberal]

58. Actually, I'm so poor that, after all is said and done,

I pay NO income taxes (except Medicare/SocSec, which I'll NEVER see). I'm just going to say this: I've done my homework, and the 'fair tax' just doesn't live up to its name. Kind of like the 'Clear Skies' thing, I suppose. Total misnomer. It just doesn't make sense. Why don't we close those damn loopholes and let the rich and corporations pay what they owe for a change? Why don't we try that before we throw the baby out with the bathwater?

[IronLionZion]

61. Rich people are so rich, that they play the system all the time.

That's exactly why we have the damn loopholes! Those rich bastards have the money to influence it but you and I don't! They don't pay their damn taxes now. It's just not fair. Those wealthy assholes are laughing at us right now! The system is not working and educated accountants and tax attorneys are expensive to hire but they still don't really understand our US tax code.

I know an accountant who makes some 100K a year and pays less in taxes than someone making half as much (like me), because he writes off just about everything as a business expense for his newspaper route. He delivers newspapers in the mornings...in a new leased BMW! I'm jealous and angry at the same time!

Here's our US tax code next to John Linder's fair tax bill.

[The Count]

17. I believe it was a "progressive" tax - according to income. Is that the derision reason?

Do you really think that the reason he is put down by the MSM is the sales tax? I'd wager you most of them are unaware of it.
Point is, he is addressing the hot burning issues of war, and doing it in an uncompromising manner - re-framing the debate.
The sales tax is a red herring - considering the chances of it actually happening. You are disingenuous.

[IronLionZion]

20. His opposition to the war gets him the support of DUers and liberals

the sales tax will get him very aggressive, passionate opposition from DUers and liberals. Either way, I'm glad he's in the race. These ideas need to be discussed openly and respectfully. It's important.

[IronLionZion]

21. The MSM will always put down any independent thinker

because we don't have an independent media and we as a country do not tolerate independent thoughts of any kind.

Being put down by the MSM is something that candidates should be proud of. Being a "rock star" with the MSM is something that candidates should be ashamed of.

[eridani]

56. Exactly. I like everything about Gravel EXCEPT his sales tax proposal. n/t

[dave_p]

14. Crimethink

It's Orwell's old vision, isn't it? But the right's media stranglehold is such that they don't need to round up inconvenient candidates, they just declare them beyond the pale of sensible discourse.

It's interesting, isn't it, how "Mission accomplished" doesn't get you dismissed by the media as a joke, but "We have no important enemies. Who are we afraid of? I'm not" is denounced as nuts by the peddlars of demented paranoia.

Who is America afraid of? Like Mike, I'm not.

[The Count]

16. here's a Gravel joke that kills me:

"YOU KNOW WHAT'S WORSE THAN A SOLDIER DYING IN VAIN? IT'S MORE SOLDIERS DYING IN VAIN!"

[tavalon]

18. I sent him a $100 donation after listening to his part in the debate

He's too truthful to not have him holding those other pols feet to the fire.

[Rhiannon12866]

23. K&R. Great post and well stated.

I absolutely agree with you. We need more politicians with the views and the courage to express them, like Mike Gravel. Thank you.:hi:

[On the Road]

26. To be Fair, Gravel's "What am i Doing Here" Comment

reminded me a little of Perot's running mate. He didn't help himself with that remark.

On the other hand, he expanded on that remark to question the judgment of the three front runners in refusing to take any military options off the table. Which was very refreshing.

I would be much more inclined to support Gravel if his tax plan weren't so regressive.

[pokercat999]

30. I'm not so sure it's regressive. One ultra rich person

will spend more on a plane or yacht than I will EARN in my entire life even if I live to be 100.

My question is how are corporations taxed?

[On the Road]

31. You and I Spend a Far Greater Proportion of Our Income

than owners of yachts. That's why it's not just flat, it's regressive.

Replacing the moderately progressive income tax with a national sales tax is a recipe for allowing more wealth to accumulate in the hands of the rich. The immediate decrease in spending is also likely to slow down the economy.

[Greyhound]

42. It just doesn't work. What you say is true as far as it goes, but the problem is that

there are millions of you for each one of them, their purchases are insignificant in the whole scheme.

Add this to the inescapable fact that any consumption tax amounts to the lower classes being taxed on 100% of their meager income while the farther up the socio-economic you go the less of their income is taxed. Warren Buffet or Lee Raymond, for example, are only able to spend a tiny fraction of 1% of their income, and therefore it is a huge tax cut for them.

In every plan I've seen, corporations are taxed in the same way, on their consumption, with the same results, the new start-up, or small business pays taxes on 100% of its income while a micro$oft or Exxon is only taxed on a tiny fraction of theirs.

[Moochy]

41. I thought it was because he was being ignored...

I thought when he said that he was referring to how few questions he had been asked. He later said he felt like a potted plant. Since Brian Williams was skipping him during the Double Jeopardy lighting rounds.

[Uncle Joe]

27. Thanks for the thread babylonsister

Kicked and recommended

[Seabiscuit]

33. Ike left office in January, 1961 when JFK was sworn in.

Beyond that minor correction, I agree with your OP. I love Mike Gravel. I'm donating $$ to him so that he can stay in the race - I want to see him onstage at all the debates this year.

[northofdenali]

35. He was a fantastic senator for our state when we had major

major, major problems. He was the ONLY legislator who bucked Big Oil and got us a decent deal.

I got to meet him in 1971 at Bill Eagan's Governor's Ball (mom & dad got me in). He took everything all of us at the table - a 20-something Viet Nam vet, his girlfriend (my best friend) who had just turned 17, my current husband and me - seriously, listened to everything we had to say.

He's Alaskan through-and-through. Which means, if he's on the ticket, he's got my vote. He kicks ass, takes names, and follows through.

Check him out on Wiki - click on all the links, read the background. The guy is incorruptible.

[babylonsister]

37. "Incorruptible"! Now there's a word I haven't seen/heard in a very

long time. Refreshing!

[northofdenali]

38. I think he may be the only Senator ever

who came out of office more broke than when he went in.

[cooolandrew]

43. Yeah Gravel would give the American people truth and it's what is needed.

[Justyce]

45. The media won't allow

him to be taken seriously... just like Dean last election, Perot, Gore, etc. They ridicule anyone with ideas they don't like or anyone telling the truth. Yet they seem to love McCain and his so-called 'straight talk express', which is anything but...

[The Wizard]

46. Funny thing is

When someone speaks the truth they're marginalized by our propagandist media. Can't have the dupes taking the truth as real information. I'm tired of the the anointed media jerk offs selecting the person they believe to be electable. If Hillary Clinton can't admit she was wrong in giving Bush unmitigated authority to wage an immoral war that has left us vulnerable she should be summarily disregarded as a candidate. She was afraid to challenge the Rove machine that wanted Bush to be a "war president" in time for the 04 campaign.
We don't need leaders who cave in to media and political thugs. We need leaders to challenge the bastards and give them a stiff kick in the groin when warranted.

[bonito]

47. Great post

Too late to rec. damn

[Eric J in MN]

48. K & R (NT)

NT

[Joanne98]

53. Catherine Austin Fitts, "Mike Gravel has me eating crow"

I have said all along that reading or watching anything to do with Presidential politics is not an effective use of time.

Senator Mike Gravel’s performance during the recent Democratic Candidate Debate has me eating crow. Gravel said something important and useful. And YouTube has once again proved the benefits of waiting for all the yah-yah to be filtered out so that we can enjoy the pearls, without the swine. Check it out:

Senator Mike Gravel at SC Debates, 4/26/07
Watch it on YouTube
http://www.solari.com/blog/