Gravel, a 75-year-old self-described maverick, established himself during two terms in the Senate as a critic of the Vietnam War and government secrecy. His campaign will use those themes and a plan to give voters power to make laws.Imagine that...letting the people vote on the direction of our country and how our money gets spent. This is a concept whose time has come. Gravel is a long shot, but I think his idea deserves some press coverage - and definitely some blog coverage.
"Our three branches of government have become like an unstable chair, a three-legged chair,'' said Gravel, who left the Senate in 1981 after losing the 1980 Democratic primary. "The founders could not have envisioned how much money and special interests would corrupt the political process. Giving us Americans legislative power will put forth the fourth leg of our stool and make it stable.''
He hitched his campaign to an effort that would give all policy decisions to the people through a direct vote, including health care reform, social security investments and declarations of war. [Emphasis mine.]
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Ex-Alaska Sen. Gravel Runs for President
Ex-Senator Mike Gravel (D) is short on cash, which makes him a definite underdog, but he's thrown his hat in the ring for the presidency. I like the man already simply because he has a novel idea - let Americans vote on policy decisions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
But Kathy, that would be...democracy. We can't have that.
I agree that at least some policy decisions should be made by direct vote. Heath care reform would be a great place to start.
Interesting. Thanks for the tip. I think his age will go against him as a practical matter but it couldn't hurt to inject his meme into the dialogue.
Sounds like a new plank for the Libbytarians...
Health care reform would be near the top on my list too, Abi.
How old was Reagan when he ran for president, Libby? I thought he was in his 70's? Of course, he had the financial backing of the GOP. I don't see that happening for Gravel, but I sure do like his idea of letting us vote directly on some policy decisions.
I should clarify my last comment to Libby, I don't see Gravel getting the backing of the Democrats. I didn't mean the GOP!
I don't know if I really want a president making all of his decisions based on plebecite. Sometimes he needs to do what is right in spite of popular opinion. Sure, that philosophy isn't working particularly well lately, but I still don't believe most of the nation has the information necessary to make some of these decisions. I don't want our government to be run like "American Idol".
"For 'Universal Health Care' dial 1-900-0002, or 'FreeMeds' on your Cingular wireless phone".
Then again, I'm a bit of a snob. It's the NPR listener in me.
It's a great idea if we don't use Diebold to count!
And the honorable mayor makes a valid point...
The age thing might be a problem, I don't know. And it does have that old fashioned smell of something that has been stored away in the trunk in the attic, democracy. :)
Exile, thanks for the "age" information. I actually headed over to Wikipedia earlier to check for myself and you were close (if I'm remembering correctly - I'm getting old!). I think it said Reagan turned 70 shortly after taking office, and McCain is turning 70 this year. He looks good for his age, especially considering he wasn't a "Hollywood" star!
I have to agree with some of the concerns from you, the Mayor, and Poetry Man about turning voting into American Idol, but it's worth considering, at least for social issues.
For instance, consider this editorial: Friday, April 14, 2006
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
In the context of a $2.8 trillion federal budget, it's not much money. But the Bush administration's proposed $40 million cut in funding for the National Cancer Institute is ill-timed and ill-considered. [...]
Congress can, and should, take action to at least preserve NCI funding, currently at $4.79 billion. The administration is proposing $4.75 billion. According to the Baltimore Sun, the cut would interrupt an almost unbroken upward trend in funding for the institute dating to the early 1980s.
Spurred by development of effective treatment measures, the death rates for the most common types of cancer -- breast, prostate, lung and colorectal -- are declining.
But the institute points out that the incidence -- the rate at which people are diagnosed -- is rising for breast cancer in women, prostate and testicular cancer in men, leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, myeloma, melanoma and cancers of the thyroid, kidney and esophagus. In addition, more research is needed to determine why certain groups, including blacks and people of lower socioeconomic status, suffer the highest rates of new cancer and cancer deaths.
The ostensible reason for the cut is that the government must sink more money into preparation for the possibility of bioterrorism and a bird flu pandemic. The real reason, though, is the Bush double-whammy of deep tax cuts for the wealthy and the war in Iraq, which now costs the United States at least $6 billion each month.
Put another way, the proposed cancer institute cutback is equivalent to the amount expended in roughly 4.8 hours of the war.
Unless Congress has its priorities totally confused, it will find a way to fully fund the National Cancer Institute.
I don't trust Congress to fully fund this, but I suspect most Americans think fighting cancer is just as important as funding the war in Iraq. In fact, I'm more afraid of getting cancer than I am of being attacked by terrorists!
Anyway, this is just one example, but I agree that we shouldn't be turning votes on going to war and Supreme Court Justices into American Idol.
Post a Comment