Why Mike Gravel Should be the next President

With these elections, it is necesary that people carefully consider all of the candidates, even though the media likes to thin out the field of candidates for us before a single vote is even cast. Do not discount any candidate immediately: it is your duty as a citizen and voter of the United States to evaluate any and all candidates to decide which one best represents you. Dispel any qualms about Gravel’s electibility: the fact of the matter is that if everyone believes that a candidate is electable, then they will be electable, while if everyone believes that a candidate is not electable, then they are not. People should vote for whom they truly agree with in the primaries, so maybe then they won’t be presented with two bad choices in the general election (and then complain about that fact). So, here, in order to inform the population, I’ve written an article detailing the aspects of Former Senator Mike Gravel’s illustrious life and his positions on various policies and issues.

Maurice Robert Gravel was born on May 13th, 1930, in Springfield, Massachusetts. However, his parents, Alphonse Gravel and Marie Bourassa, always called him Mike. Mike’s father and mother were working-class French Canadian immigrants, and they lived in a working-class neighborhood. His father was a painting contractor, and when Mike wasn’t helping with the house painting and construction business (along with his brothers), he volunteered in local Springfield politics. His political involvement as an adolescent initiated a life-long interest in politics and government.

As a young man, Mike studied at the American International College in Springfield for one year, and then, in 1951, he enlisted with the United States Army. In the army, he served in West Germany as both a Special Adjutant in the Communication and Intelligent Services and as a Special Agent in the Counter Intelligence Corps. Mike ended his tenure in the army in 1954. He headed back home to the United States to attend college at Columbia University’s School of General Studies in New York City. To support himself while in college (which much have been much cheaper back in the 50’s), he drove a Taxi Cab, a classic checkered cab. The difficulty of working his way through school was probably added to by the fact that he is dyslexic.
After Mike graduated from Columbia University in 1956 with a Bachelor of Sciences in Economics, his avid interest in politics had evidently endured, for he moved to Alaska, without any money and without any job, seeking to be a candidate for political office. In Alaska, he worked several different jobs while trying to get his big break in Politics: he worked as a brakeman for the Alaska railroad, he tried his hand at the business of real estate sales, and he became a successful property developer on the Kenai Peninsula (a beautiful area on the Southern Coast of Alaska).

On April 29th, 1959, Mike married Rita Jeannette Martin, who had been Miss Fur Rendevous in the 1958 Anchorage Fur Rendevous Festival. They had two children: Martin Anthony Gravel, who was born in 1960, and Lynne Denise Gravel, who was born in 1962. During this time, Mike continued his quest for public office: he ran unsuccessfully for the territorial legislature in 1958, and he ran unsuccessfully for the Anchorage City Council in 1960. He also went on a speaking tour concerning tax reform in 1959, sponsored by the Jaycees (the United States Junior Chamber, which is a leadership training and civic organization for people between the ages of 18 and 40).

Finally, in 1962, Mike was elected to political office, fulfilling the dream that he had no doubt nurtured ever since he was first interested in politics as an adolescent. He ran for the Alaska House of Representatives, representing Anchorage, and won. He served as a Representative from 1962 to 1966, winning reelection in 1964 and becoming the Speaker of the House from 1965-1966. As a Representative, one accomplishment of his was his authorship of legislation that established the structure and budget for a regional high school system for rural Alaska. This action permitted native students to receive their education near their homes rather than travel to the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ schools outside Alaska.

Mike’s time as Anchorage’s representative ended in 1966 because, instead of running for reelection, he challenged incumbent Democrat Ralph Rivers of Alaska for a seat in the United States House of Representatives. Mike lost the election: he had gambled, taken a risk, and he had lost. Although it must have been devastating, he recovered quickly enough and renewed his political ambitions. These ambitions caused him to challenge Incumbent Democrat Ernest Gruening, one of the “Founding Fathers” of Alaska, for a seat in the United States Senate.
The Democratic Senate Primary in 1968 was a very close race. Mike’s youth gave him an advantage against the ancient Gruening, as did Mike’s heavy use of well-produced television advertisements and his deliberately ambiguous position on the issue of Vietnam. Alaska was then a very Democratic State, so, once Mike won the primary, it would be smooth sailing from there. When Election Time rolled around, Mike unexpectedly beat his Democratic opponent in a tight result, and then he went on to defeat the Republican Elmer Rasmuson and Gruening (running as an Independent) in the General Election.

So, Mr. Gravel finally went to Washington. His position on Vietnam was ambiguous no longer: he came out in full opposition to the war. As Senator, he had a fantastic record: he fillibustered (in 1971) an end to the military draft in the United States, he halted nuclear testing in the North Pacific, he used his office to organize citizen opposition to nuclear power, and he was responsible for the creation of the Alaska Pipeline, in addition to many other smaller achievements. But what Gravel is most known for is his role in the 1971 release of the Pentagon Papers.

The Pentagon Papers were a top-secret government report regarding the policies and lies of several presidential administrations in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. Daniel Ellsberg (a former Defense Department Analyst), had possession of the Papers and leaked snippets of them to the New York Times. When some of the content of the Pentagon Papers were published on June 13, lawsuits and controversy ensued, because the U.S. government did not want the Papers to be made public. Daniel Ellsberg asked Mike Gravel to release the Pentagon Papers onto the Senate record, suggesting the Papers’s use in Gravel’s ongoing fillibuster of the draft, so that Gravel’s office as Senator would shield Ellsberg, and others involved, from the government. Ellsberg also hoped that making the contents of the Papers public would bring about an end to the unjust Vietnam War.

Gravel agreed to Ellsberg’s request (despite the risk of prosecution from the U.S. government), and he released the Papers on June 29, 1971, onto the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, declaring that his constituents and the American people had a right to know the truth about Vietnam. When Gravel determined to publish the Pentagon Papers shortly afterwards, a constitutional battle with the U.S. government ensued. The case went to the Supreme Court. Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution states that “for any speech or debate in either House, they [a Senator or Representative] shall not be questioned in any other place.” So, the Senator could not be prosecuted because of anything said on the Senate floor, or, by extension, because of anything released upon the Senate record, as was ruled in the landmark Supreme Court decision in Gravel vs. the United States Government. This Supreme Court decision allowed Gravel to publish the Senator Gravel Edition Pentagon Papers, which has provided invaluable insights into our Southeast Asia policy during the 20th century.

Gravel easily won reelection to the Senate in 1974 (with 58% of the vote), but, by the time of the 1980 Senate election, the conservative “Reagan Revolution” was in full swing. Gravel lost the Democratic primary to Clark Gruening (the grandson of Ernest Gruening), and then Gruening went on to lose the General Election to Republican Frank Murkowski. To date, Gravel is the last Democrat to represent Alaska in the U.S. Congress.

The 1980 defeat completely devastated Gravel. As he said, “I had lost my career. I lost my marriage. I was in the doldrums for ten years after my defeat.” He and his wife divorced in the early 1980s, and she now receives his full Senate pension. Gravel married his second wife, Whitney Stewart Gravel, in 1984. He, after losing his job as Senator, was forced to look for other work: he worked as a real estate developer in Alaska, a consultant, and a stockbroker. One real estate venture, a condominium business, was forced to declare bankruptcy. During the years after his 1981 defeat, he also founded The Democracy Foundation and worked to develop a program of direct democracy which could be applicable to the United States. In 2004, Gravel had a bad health year and was forced to declare personal bankruptcy, and today, he himself has said that he has ‘zero net worth’.

After his defeat in 1980, Gravel disappeared from public life for over twenty years. In 2008, he has returned to the political arena to run for President of the United States. Lee Iacocca asks in his new book, “Where have all the leaders gone?” Well, one leader is back. Back to speak truth to power, just as he did in the 1970’s.

Gravel’s presidential bid is very different from his 1969 Senate bid. Mike Gravel is now 77 years old, although he has hearty French-Canadian health. He hasn’t enough money for flashy television advertisements, and he cannot afford for people not to know about his positions on the issues. However, his campaigns of yesteryear helped to form the very progressive ideas that Gravel promotes today, in his 2008 Presidential campaign. His current campaign is based upon his proven record of leadership, his substantial plans for big change, and his desire to shatter the mold of “politics as usual” in the United States. If you think that electing Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, or Kucinich (who is politics as usual, only from the liberal side of the equation) will cause fundamental structural change to occur in the United States, then you need to reevaluate the candidates. Gravel may be 77 years old, and he may plan to serve only one term, but he certainly doesn’t plan to simply warm the seat.

The centerpiece for Gravel’s current campaign for the presidency is the National Initiative for Democracy, a program which he founded. The National Initiative for Democracy would be a federal ballot initiative which would allow the people to make laws in partnership with their elected officials. But Gravel is not a one-issue candidate. Gravel was one of the few who spoke out against a war with Iraq in 2002, on a major news network (MSNBC), and his opposition has remained steadfast: he supports immediate and complete military and corporate withdraw from Iraq.

Also in his 2008 Presidential bid, the former Senator supports the Fair Tax, an end to the War on Drugs (hear any other candidates saying this?), diplomacy with Iran and all other countries, Universal Healthcare Vouchers, a carbon tax (to combat climate change), full and equal rights for all citizens (homosexual and heterosexual), a woman’s right to choose, and full and unambiguous funding for our Veterans (including Post-Traumatic stress disorder treatment). He would also like to restore our civil liberties to us, greatly lessen government secrecy (which he fought against regarding the Pentagon Papers in 1971), and combat the influence of the military-industrial complex in our government and culture.

Even if you do not agree with this great man on the issues or support his candidacy, you should, at the very least, respect him for all that he has done for our country. He is the very embodiment of what it means to be a patriot and a leader. I like to apply what John Quincy Adams once said about leaders, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.”

But Mike Gravel should be president because he is, above all else, a human being.

gravel2008.us

Corporate Censorship: A Threat to Democracy

You may or may not know that Former Alaskan Senator and current 2008 presidential candidate for the Democratic nomination, Mike Gravel, was been excluded from the October 30th MSNBC Democratic debate, and all presidential debates since then. In the case of the October 30th debate, Gravel met all of the arbitrary requirements, except for one: he has not raised $1 million dollars. This only serves to further the corruption and influence of money in our politics, which is ridiculous considering that most Americans believe that there is already an inordinate emphasis on money in politics. (For example, Chris Dodd had about the same amount of support levels as Mike Gravel, and yet Dodd had raised over $13 million total? How is that possible?)

So, Gravel held an Alternative debate on October 30th, and has held an Alternative debate on many debates since then (all of which were broadcasted on Ustream.tv). But I am not writing here to simply rally support against Gravel's censorship. It is my responsibility as a Citizen of the United States to address the full scope of the problem, so I would also like to note the problem of censorship by the media in general, and its implications for our society.

Gravel is certainly not the first candidate to have been censored by the media, and he won't be the last. Ralph Nader (who I defend against accusations that he is the reason that Al Gore lost in 2000), Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul and countless others who don't quite fit the mainstream media's ideas, or who are not corrupt and don't take money from special interests and corporations, have been censored or are in danger of being censored.

Because, you see, if a candidate is not in the pocket of the corporation that owns the media, then it is against the self-interest of the corporation to allow that candidate to speak out on the media outlets that the corporation controls. This works vice-versa, as well. Candidates who are in the pockets of the corporations that own the media will be allowed to speak on the media outlets that the corporation owns.

This corporate influence in our media only serves to make sure that the candidates that we elect to our highest offices in the land are the most corrupt candidates. It serves to make sure that the candidates with the most integrity are silenced. It's no wonder that we have such a sorry bunch of representatives in Washington. It's no wonder that we have a man like George W. Bush as president. Unfortunately, their lack of integrity is why they win.

It is very dangerous to allow the corporate media to have this kind of power over us, to thin out the field of candidates before a single vote is even cast. It undermines the values which our democracy was founded upon, and it undermines our democratic elections. Are we really such a democracy after all, when the rich and powerful alone decides who runs our government? Our government is not of the people, by the people, and for the people, it is of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.

Our so-called "democracy" is currently in a very unfortunate state. It's time to bring Democracy back. And the only way to bring back Democracy is to lessen ignorance by diffusing knowledge throughout the population.

Manufactured Populism

Let’s play “Guess the candidate!”. I’ll write a few lines about different 2008 presidential candidates (all facts, no opinion, although I am selective about my information), Republican and Democrat, and then you guess who it happens to be. Most of my information comes from whitehouseforsale.org, opensecrets.com, or vote-smart.org (I recommend these websites; you should definitely take a look at them if you would like to know more about the current state of our government).

#1: This first candidate that I will mention has the most money bundlers out of all of the candidates: he or she has 543 money bundlers (or people who funnel large amounts of money to campaigns), one of which is a lobbyist. He or she has raised less than $30 million dollars, but he or she has raised over $8 million of that money from lawyers or law firms.

#2: The second candidate has raised the most from Lobbyists (over $500,000), and he or she has also raised the most from lawyers and law firms as well, at over $9 million dollars. He or she has taken the largest amount from commercial banks ($919,000), the second largest amount from Hedge Funds and Private Equity Firms ($970,000), and the first largest amount from the Pharmaceuticals/Health Products industry ($269,000). He or she has 322 money bundlers, 18 of which are lobbyists.

#3: The third candidate has taken over $70,000 from lobbyists, has taken the second largest amount from the commercial banks ($879,000), has taken the third largest amount from Hedge Funds and Private Equity Firms ($950,000), and has taken the second largest amount from the Pharmaceuticals/Health Products industry ($261,000). He or she has 314 money bundlers, eight of which are lobbyists.

What’s more, none of these three candidates will pledge to have the United States out of the Iraq War by 2013, the end of their first term.

Who are these three candidates? They must be Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain? No, indeed, they are three supposedly “completely different” candidates. They, in order, are John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. Don’t believe my facts? Check them yourself. Although, to be fair, the Republicans are just as bad (you just expect more out of the Democrats), and, notably, Rudy Giuliani took vastly more money from the Oil and Gas Industry than any other candidate.

It is a direct contradiction if you claim to run a political campaign based on populist values but finance that campaign with the money of businesses and special interests. The supposed populism of the Democratic Party is manufactured populism; it does not really exist, we just percieve it to exist because of how the Democratic Party attempts to present itself. If you broadly survey the two political parties, they look very different, but, if you look closely enough, there are few substantial differences between the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to how they operate: they are all Demoblicans.

The reality of the situation is that, if you want a good candidate the truly represents you, you must not vote solely on the basis of which political party they occupy: you must vote by carefully weighing and examining each candidate’s individual aspects, like a good and informed voter should. You should examine which candidates truly represent the people, not the businesses and special interests, and, in my opinion, the only major presidential candidates (that I know of) who even begin to fit that bill are Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul.

You may say that “Well, the Democrats are better than the Republicans though, so I vote Democratic.” Our society presents you with a false choice between either Democrats or Republicans. You do have other choices. Not just the Independent candidates, but the Green Party, Populist Party, and countless others as well. The Democrats and Republicans, however, have made such a good effort to stamp out these smaller parties and the Independent candidates that you really see very little of them. An example of this is Georgia’s very unfair ballot access laws.

In conclusion, the Republicans and the Democrats are not so different after all; the Democrats just present us with a manufactured image of populism, while the Republicans usually don’t attempt to do so. The infighting between the Democrats and the Republicans in our society distracts us from the real fight: the struggle between those who have power and those who have none, the struggle between the people and the politicians.

A Plea for Independence

I am a great believer in the policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who stood up for those who could not stand up for themselves. I wholeheartedly agree with his statement that "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little." That is why I have been a member of the Democratic Party until just recently. But, now, I am afraid that the Democratic party of Franklin D. Roosevelt no longer exists. Changing times have necessitated that it be replaced.

The Democratic Party has traditionally been the "Party of the People", while the Republican Party has traditionally been the "Party of Business". Republican President Calvin Coolidge once said that "The business of America is business". But, it seems, in recent years, the lines between the two parties have been blurred. The focus for the Democratic Party has shifted from standing up for the common man: their main goal today is winning elections, and obtaining and maintaining power, at any cost. This is the main goal of most politicians today. The raising of millions of dollars is absolutely essential in achieving this goal, because, I'm sorry to say, our political elections in the United States are all about money and money alone.

The Republicans usually raise more money than the Democrats during the election season, due in part to the donations that they receive from the business community. In order to compete with the Republicans in elections, the Democrats have found it necessary to become friendlier with businesses and the related special interests, such as the defense industry and the insurance companies. The Democrats have raised much, much more money than the Republicans during this 2008 presidential election season: how, how could they do that with no measure of support from businesses and special interests? The answer is that they could not.

But, honestly, who could blame the Democrats for becoming cozier with the business community? Representing and fighting for the common man does not pay. Average Americans alone cannot provide the millions and millions of dollars that is necessary in order to win an election. However, representing rich businesses and special interests pays very well. The Democrats had to establish an allegiance to those who could fund them best, in order to win the most elections possible in the future.

This is why I say that the Democratic Party is the "Party of the People" no longer. No longer will it stand up for those whom society has forgotten. No longer will it think about what is best for those who are living in fear, poverty, ignorance, and despair when it is making all of its legislative decisions. The Democratic Party will instead stand up for the businesses and special interests. They will think of the businesses and special interests when it comes to making legislative decisions. And, of course, they will think about whether or not the decisions that they make will hurt them in the upcoming election. This is the Democratic Party of today and of the future. This Democratic Party is the one that had to slip a promised minimum wage increase into an Iraq War funding bill. This is not the Democratic Party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

This Democratic Party no longer represents me, and the Republicans represent me even less than the Democrats do. Neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party are truly the "Party of the People". That is why I do not belong to either political party. And that is why I plan to vote for the Independent, or independent-minded, candidate in the future elections. And I suggest that you, my fellow citizens, do the same. Do not allow this corrupt two-party system to continue to control our elections and our government. It will only be to the detriment of our society if we continue to allow them to do so. It is as Theodore Roosevelt once said, "The death-knell of the republic has rung as soon as the active power becomes lodged in the hands of those who seek, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others."

Thank you, and please consider my plea for independence.

WHAT is so different about Iran?

It was recently reported on October 29th that the White House has no objection to the Egyptian nuclear program. Here is one instance of this article: http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_No_objection_to_Egyptian_nuclear_10292007.html.

The White House “said it had little information about Egypt’s plans to relaunch its nuclear power program but declared itself ‘generally supportive’ of civilian atomic power.” White House Spokewoman Dana Perino, speaking shortly after Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced Egypt’s plans to build several nuclear power stations, “I don’t know a lot about it. In general, we are supportive of countries pursuing civil nuclear energy. It’s clean burning. It provides electricity in a clean-burning and affordable way for citizens.”

After decades of Egypt’s nuclear program being frozen, the current Egyptian president is thawing it out, and he SAYS that it will be used for peaceful purposes (which is what the leader of Iran has said). Egypt is an unstable Middle Eastern country. Now, how is this Egyptian nuclear program different from Pakistan’s, also an unstable Middle Eastern country? Evidently, it is not: we are perfectly fine and well with Pakistan having a nuclear program, and, additionally, a nuclear WEAPON. The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that Pakistan has built as many as 48 nuclear warheads, while its chief rival, India, is estimated to have built only 30-35. The United States also seems to have few problems with India’s nuclear program. So, we are okay with Egypt, Pakistan, and India, three unstable Middle Eastern or Near East Countries, having nuclear programs and either having or potentially having a nuclear weapon. The same is the case with Israel and countless other countries. No problem with them having nukes, or in starting up a nuclear program. No difference between those countries.

So, what is so different about Iran? It is also an unstable Middle Eastern Country, and it has been accused of developing a nuclear program. George W. Bush, and many 2008 presidential candidates (Democrats too!), have said that they would do everything to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. “We must stop Iran!”, they resoundingly say. But what is so different about Iran when it is compared to other countries such as Egypt, Pakistan, and India? What is different? And don’t say anything like “Oh, Iran, they are sponsors of terrorism!” because you know just as well as I that the hands of Egypt, Pakistan, India, and others are not clean when it comes to terrorism. Pakistan is where Osama bin Laden is currently supposed to be hiding, and, judging by the fact that he has access to a dialysis machine and abundant black hair dye, he is being well taken care of (and not hiding out in some cave somewhere).

I would like to note that, with Iran, we are just talking about the threat of a nuclear weapon; they are years away from acquiring one, if that is what they truly intend to do (they say, like Egypt, that they are using their nuclear program for peaceful purposes only). And if Iran does indeed develop nuclear weapons eventually, would their nukes even be a threat to us? The United States of America spends the most money on defense out of all of the countries in the world, and we have a HUGE nuclear arsenal. If Iran even hinted that it would hit the United States with a nuke, they could easily be wiped off the face of the map by our extraordinary amount of weapons. Or if a nuke given to a terrorist organization was traced back to Iran, the aforesaid result could also occur. It is just not in Iran’s interest to take any kind of action against the United States, nuclear or otherwise.

And if they do truly intend to get a nuclear weapon, it will probably be used simply as a deterrant, because currently, no doubt, Iran feels threatened by the many countries currently around it that have nuclear weapons and by the various threats from the United States against Iran. For use as a deterrant was the very reason that Pakistan developed nukes: it was afraid of its nuclear neighbor, India.

My conclusion is that these situations with Iran and its fellow unstable Middle Eastern Countries are not different, from the perspective of an unbiased observer. However, from the perspective of a deluded politician who has already lied us into one war and hopes to start another…it may be convieniently different (just like Iraq).

It is my opinion that Iran’s nuclear program is the least of our worries and that this whole pile of rubbish about Iran and its imminent threat to the United States is just a political ploy, by George W. Bush and others, in order to get us into another war with Iran. Or, of course, it could just be another distraction from all of the serious problems (which the politicians just hate HATE to talk about) that are afflicting our country today. Did you notice at the last democratic presidential debate (on Oct. 30, on MSNBC) that there was much less talk about ending the Iraq War and a great deal more talk about Iran?

Please, if you have an explanation for why Iran is different, then absolutely post it here. I am so curious about why on earth Iran is any different from Egypt, Pakistan, or any of the Middle Eastern Countries that have nuclear weapons already or who are threatening to get nuclear weapons in the future. Why is Iran singled out? And why is it assumed that Egypt’s nuclear program is being used for peaceful purposes, while it is assumed that Iran’s nuclear program is being used for malevolent purposes?

Do we truly control our government?

Contemplate this quote, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” It was spoken by Thomas Jefferson. Do you think that, today, the people fear the government or the government fears the people?