First off, a warning/disclaimer. This is the first of what's likely to be many political threads as the U.S. goes into this "tragically early" election season. Political discussion tends to bring out the worst in people, and as such, isn't usually conducive to community welfare. This being, above all, an internet community, I don't want to see people get divided or hurt by political debates. With that said however, I think most of the regulars here are fairly sane and rational people, capable of separating political discourse and disagreement from the other aspects of life. Keeping that in mind, I'm going to allow political topics and discussion here, even if it gets heated, so long as the participants remain at least somewhat civil, and do NOT carry grudges or issues over into non-political threads, or other anything else they might be involved with here on xepher.net
Now, onto my own thoughts about this actual topic. I think Gravel came off as a hardline myopic. That is, he's so focused on his single point, that he's oblivious to larger reality. He may be frank about his personal views, and that's somewhat refreshing, but he danced completely around several of the direct questions that were asked of him. He took quotes of other candidates so far out of context so as to accuse them of of literally supporting the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. When someone says "nothing's off the table" it means "I'll be polite and at least listen to your argument before I say no" not "I want to nuke them." By the exact same language, he could accuse them of kicking puppies, eating babies, or setting kittens on fire. As such, his tactics earn him very low marks in my book. As for his actual stance... That he wants out of Iraq and not act imperialist... A majority (or near majority) of the entire nation has that stance, so there's nothing unique there.
As for universal healthcare... I personally think it's the wrong way to go about it. Rather than spend even more money giving overpriced medicine to everyone, we should spend that money furthering research (in OPEN ways, not subsidizing huge companies owned by people with political connections) and breaking up the current biotech/pharmaceutical monopolies. We'd accomplish much more in the long term if the actual price is lowered, and that also benefits the rest of the world as well... especially developing nations.
On the federal ballot... Didn't hear him talk about it, just what you mention above, but I think it's a good idea in principal. A better idea would be reforming the ENTIRE electoral system, moving towards a more direct democracy. We have computers now, and all sorts of technological wonders our founding fathers couldn't have dreamed of when they devised our current system. Vote counting was DIFFICULT in the old days, which is why our ancestors wisely choose a representative democracy. However, if we could ever get off our bums and get a real, nationwide electronic voting system, that WASN'T built by some party shill... Well, imagine the idea of direct democracy. Don't vote for a candidate, just because you agree with more of his ideas than the next candidate. Vote for actual issues! Vote directly on the things you care about, so your vote actually count each time, and every time. With our current system, we all vote, and one with 51% majority wins. And if you only agreed with 51% of his policy when you voted for him, well, that leaves EVERYONE unhappy nearly half the time. It's one-size-fits-all democracy, and god help you if you're not right smack in the middle of that bell curve. I say we should all get to vote directly on issues. If it's stuff no one cares about, then only the people who care about it will be involved in the voting. If it's something everyone's divided over, then we'll get a very accurate vote of what America wants, not what some lobbyist-flirting politician gets persuaded to "want."
So as for Gravel... he's too loud and radical, without actually being radical enough to matter. In other words, he's just like the rest of them, but he's just making more noise to get attention. See where he is in another year. I'm betting John McCain is a good predictor. Two or three years ago, I thought I'd really like to see John McCain as president, because he spoke up about real issues, wasn't afraid to say what he thought or criticize people, and genuinely seemed to have some good/novel ideas. Now that's he's up there at the head of the race with an actual chance, he's towing the party line so hard it hurts. Washington Eats Souls! :-)
