Mike Gravel is a bit crazy

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/us/politics/27scene.html


ORANGEBURG, S.C., April 26 — Every field of candidates needs, for lack of a better term, comic relief — for the sake of keeping things interesting and, if everybody is lucky, for making the other smoothies on stage a little uncomfortable.

And at Thursday night’s Democratic debate, that role was played to all its glory by former Senator Mike Gravel, an Alaskan and onetime New York City cabdriver who embraced the role of scolding elder statesman to the ambitious, but more guarded, youngsters by his side.

Mr. Gravel was the first candidate to wander on stage, by himself, a little before 7 p.m. “Who’s that?” an audience member asked aloud. He largely eschewed the postdebate handshake, moped around for a few minutes and then headed off. “I’m not into those little niceties,” he said later.

In between, if Mr. Gravel, 77, did not steal the show, he certainly stole some of the limited sound-bite pie.

¶He proposed not just that the United States leave Iraq, but also that Congress enact a law that would make it a felony to stay there.

¶He said that some of his fellow Democratic candidates “frighten me” and that Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. had “a certain arrogance.”

¶He declared, at one point, that the United States had “no important enemies” and turned the questions back to the moderator, Brian Williams of NBC. “Who are we afraid of?” he asked. “Who are you afraid of, Brian?”

¶He said Osama bin Laden was so happy that the United States invaded Iraq “he must have been rolling in his blankets.”

It is not clear exactly what the Osama-in-blankets line meant, but like most things that rambled from the busy lips of Mr. Gravel, it left many audience members rolling in the aisles. He served as a kind of cranky uncle in the solemn field of well-barbered, sound-bite practitioners with whom he shared the stage, joining the other long shot, Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, in berating the others as being too cautious in trying to get troops out of Iraq.

While most of his fellow candidates were content to chuckle at Mr. Gravel’s meanderings and not engage him, he could be relentless to a point where his stagemates could not resist. For instance, what was the poor Senator Barack Obama to do when Mr. Gravel keep poking at him, saying, “Tell me, Barack. Who — Barack, who’s — who do you want to nuke?”

“I’m not planning to nuke anyone right now, Mike; I promise you,” Mr. Obama reassured him.

“Good, good,” Mr. Gravel replied, satisfied, for now. “We’re safe then for a while.”

As with any such long-shot candidate, Mr. Gravel faces recurring questions about why he is here, and whether he is serious about winning the Democratic presidential nomination nearly a quarter-century after Alaskans voted him out of the Senate . Mr. Williams asked him as much, recalling that Mr. Gravel recently said it did not matter if he was elected president or not.

Mr. Gravel said he had made that statement before he had the chance to stand with the other candidates a few times. “It’s like going into the Senate,” he said. “You know the first time you get there you’re all excited — ‘My God, how did I ever get here?’ And then, about six months later, you say, ‘How the hell did the rest of them get here?’ ”

After the debate, Mr. Gravel did his own spinning in the spin room, delivering an entire interview in French with a Canadian television reporter. He poked his finger into the chest of a local reporter while saying he thought he had not had enough time to speak. He adjusted his hearing aid, fidgeted with a bright red tie emblazoned with “We the people.”

Darting across the room for another interview, Mr. Gravel said: “I get too angry. I have to work on that.”
 
He's 77? Poor guy. Once you hit 55 you automatically become irrelevant, but 77? Jesus.
 
He's 77? Poor guy. Once you hit 55 you automatically become irrelevant, but 77? Jesus.


Damn I only have dfive years left I better hurry.

Gravel doesnt think hes going to be president hes just staying in to prod them into being real.

Gravel is a minor hero to me. I hope he does the talk show cercuit after the nominee is picked. We need the Mike Gravels of this world to keep speaking out.

There is a freedom in age guys and someday you will embrace it.
 
Damn I only have dfive years left I better hurry.

Gravel doesnt think hes going to be president hes just staying in to prod them into being real.

Gravel is a minor hero to me. I hope he does the talk show cercuit after the nominee is picked. We need the Mike Gravels of this world to keep speaking out.

There is a freedom in age guys and someday you will embrace it.
But he gets even less than Ron Paul in votes. It's pretty funny.
 
¶He proposed not just that the United States leave Iraq, but also that Congress enact a law that would make it a felony to stay there.

¶He said that some of his fellow Democratic candidates “frighten me” and that Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. had “a certain arrogance.”

¶He declared, at one point, that the United States had “no important enemies” and turned the questions back to the moderator, Brian Williams of NBC. “Who are we afraid of?” he asked. “Who are you afraid of, Brian?”

¶He said Osama bin Laden was so happy that the United States invaded Iraq “he must have been rolling in his blankets.”


Doesn't sound crazy to me. Sound 100% spot on. I don't think the guy is crazy at all.
 
Make the Iraq war a felony. He clearly doesn't even know what he's talking about there. That doesn't even make sense. How can a war be a felony?


That's not what his proposal is. He's not saying the iraq war is a felony.

His bill says that keeping american forces in iraq, after a certain time line for withdrawl is enacted, would be a felony.

Which would be entirely constitutional and legal. And in fact, may be the only way to actually make Bush pull the troops out. Even if congress cut off funding, bush could leave them there by monkeying around with the pentagon budget, and shifting money around to sustain them there.

With a president who is oblivious to human suffering and the rule of law, making it a felony to keep troops there would actually force bush to withdraw, or face impeachment charges.

Its a pipe dream, it'll never happen. But, it's the surest way to force bush to withdraw from iraq.
 
Last edited:
Watermark: I've never understood why allegedly socially-liberal libertarians chose to worship rightwing-leaning libertarian Ron Paul, instead of left-libertarian Mike Gravel. Gravel has virtually all the same admirable libertarian positions as Paul on Iraq, war, domestic spying, the drug war, and the IRS, without the disgusting and alarming rightwing kookiness that Ron Paul exhibits on gay rights, abortion, science (i.e., global warming and evolution), and civil liberties for african-americans and women.

If I was a socially progressive libertarian, I would have thrown my lot in with Gravel. Not with Paul-- who has some unpalatable rightwing views and positions, and is a true radical on things like the Civil Rights Act and other things. And I guarantee you that Stormfront, David Duke and NeoConfederates aren't cheering for Gravel to win. Heck, there was even a time I thought I might vote for Gravel in the primaries, as a protest vote.
 
That's not what his proposal is. He's not saying the iraq war is a felony.

His bill says that keeping american forces in iraq, after a certain time line for withdrawl is enacted, would be a felony.

Which would be entirely constitutional and legal. And in fact, may be the only way to actually make Bush pull the troops out. Even if congress cut off funding, bush could leave them there by monkeying around with the pentagon budget, and shifting money around to sustain them there.

With a president who is oblivious to human suffering and the rule of law, making it a felony to keep troops there would actually force bush to withdraw, or face impeachment charges.

Its a pipe dream, it'll never happen. But, it's the surest way to force bush to withdraw from iraq.

That would be an encroachment on executive authority. You can't make it a felony for Bush to do what is his constitutionally given right to. The law would be struck down. Otherwise, the congress could just make pass a law saying that its a felony to do anything other than what the speaker of the house tells them to, or something like that, and the point of the presidential system would be destroyed.
 
Watermark: I've never understood why allegedly socially-liberal libertarians chose to worship rightwing-leaning libertarian Ron Paul, instead of left-libertarian Mike Gravel. Gravel has virtually all the same admirable libertarian positions as Paul on Iraq, war, domestic spying, the drug war, and the IRS, without the disgusting and alarming rightwing kookiness that Ron Paul exhibits on gay rights, abortion, science (i.e., global warming and evolution), and civil liberties for african-americans and women.

If I was a socially progressive libertarian, I would have thrown my lot in with Gravel. Not with Paul-- who has some unpalatable rightwing views and positions, and is a true radical on things like the Civil Rights Act and other things. And I guarantee you that Stormfront, David Duke and NeoConfederates aren't cheering for Gravel to win. Heck, there was even a time I thought I might vote for Gravel in the primaries, as a protest vote.

On my facebook page, I'm shown as supporting Paul, Gravel, and Kucinich.
 
Gravel missed his calling. He should get himself a comedy show and go into entertainment. He certainly had me laughing at some of his statements, and he is better than most comedians.
 
That would be an encroachment on executive authority. You can't make it a felony for Bush to do what is his constitutionally given right to. The law would be struck down. Otherwise, the congress could just make pass a law saying that its a felony to do anything other than what the speaker of the house tells them to, or something like that, and the point of the presidential system would be destroyed.

I disagree.

The president only has the right to execute laws duly enacted by congress. Congress makes the laws. Gravel knows what he's talking about. He was instrumental in ending the vietnam war. Congress most certainly does have the authority to not only appropriate money for the armed forces, but to codify how many troops - if any - are allowed to be stationed in any theatre or region. Congress has repeatedly placed conditions on the extent to which american forces can be deployed, in any region.

December 1970. P.L. 91-652 — Supplemental Foreign Assistance Law. The Church-Cooper amendment prohibited the use of any funds for the introduction of U.S. troops to Cambodia or provide military advisors to Cambodian forces.

December 1974. P.L. 93-559 — Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. The Congress established a personnel ceiling of 4000 Americans in Vietnam within six months of enactment and 3000 Americans within one year.

June 1984. P.L. 98-525 — The Defense Authorization Act. The Congress capped the end strength level of United States forces assigned to permanent duty in European NATO countries at 324,400.
 
I disagree.

The president only has the right to execute laws duly enacted by congress. Congress makes the laws. Gravel knows what he's talking about. He was instrumental in ending the vietnam war. Congress most certainly does have the authority to not only appropriate money for the armed forces, but to codify how many troops - if any - are allowed to be stationed in any theatre or region. Congress has repeatedly placed conditions on the extent to which american forces can be deployed, in any region.

The reality is that the difference between legislating and executing is often overblown. The legislation is usually like a blueprint, and the execution usually just deals with the details (like if a state wants to print ballots for people, the executive would choose the type of paper). However, I see no reason the legislature couldn't specifically demand something nitpicky that would usually be in the realm of the executive. The state could tell the executive which kind of paper to use. So, why doesn't congress just tell Bush to get out of Iran?
 
I don't think what congress did in vietnam, somalia, and cambodia was really that nitpicky. They appropriated money for the armed forces in those regions, and specified conditions as to how the money could be spent. Namely, for a drawdown of forces, and a limitation on the amount of forces that could remain.

It could be done with Iraq too, if congress could get the votes, get some balls, and over ride a veto.
 
Damn I only have dfive years left I better hurry.

Gravel doesnt think hes going to be president hes just staying in to prod them into being real.

Gravel is a minor hero to me. I hope he does the talk show cercuit after the nominee is picked. We need the Mike Gravels of this world to keep speaking out.

There is a freedom in age guys and someday you will embrace it.

No, age is EVIL!!! This sentiment is a 43-year-old American tradition, and I see no reason to change it, at least until the generation that produced it is dead and buried and we have all smoked a few joints in its honor...
:cool:
 
Back
Top