Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on So Long, Mike



Posted by Giffy | March 26, 2008 3:37 PM

You know, if you play this video with the Twin Peaks theme song over it (turn the volume down on the Mike Gravel video) IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!

Posted by JC | March 26, 2008 3:38 PM

Gravel would be better than Hillary any day of the week.

Posted by Andrew | March 26, 2008 3:40 PM

A man driven to bankruptcy by health care costs joining up with a party perfectly happy to see them remain unaffordable. How sad.

Posted by tsm | March 26, 2008 3:42 PM

a libertarian who is for climate change legislation, for universal healthcare, and against NAFTA? i support mr. gravel's views, i'm just not sure that he understands what libertarianism is.

Posted by jon c | March 26, 2008 3:48 PM

@4, WORD.

Posted by arduous | March 26, 2008 3:50 PM

@5: Yeah... ummm... why isn't he joining the Greens?

Posted by bma | March 26, 2008 3:50 PM

Um, Libertarians ... are those like that party that's going to be crushed in our Top Two Primary system this year?

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 26, 2008 3:52 PM

@8, thankfully, yes.

Posted by Giffy | March 26, 2008 3:56 PM

Good for him. The world needs more Libertarians, and it's good to see that at least one politician has finally come to his senses.

Posted by Seattle Crime Blogger | March 26, 2008 3:56 PM

@4 & @5 people don't seem to understand the libertarian's views. this could very be because they are not articulated well.

i consider myself closer to the libertarian view than the democratic view or the republican view. i'm in favor of things like public education, climate legislation and what not.

the idea is just to have the least amount of government "interference" as possible. as possible, meaning, as will work and is acceptable; it does not mean the least that can be imagined. that system already has a name, and it is anarchy.

Posted by infrequent | March 26, 2008 3:58 PM

Good riddance...

Posted by fluteprof | March 26, 2008 4:14 PM

@11 - so how much money are you guys going to steal from us while you pretend to be "minimizing" government?

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 26, 2008 4:31 PM

infrequent, i'm sure your views are completely reasonable, but the official Libertarian party platform is a little too close to "anarchy" not "the least government 'interference' as possible" for my taste.
p.s. by being opposed to anarchy, i'm not opposed to, you know, cool "anarchy in the uk anarchy," where we would all shoot up heroin and listen to punk rock.

Posted by jon c | March 26, 2008 4:33 PM


"Stealing" implies that it was rightfully yours to begin with, friend.

Posted by Seattle Crime Blogger | March 26, 2008 4:37 PM

@14 that goes without saying. god save the queen.

Posted by infrequent | March 26, 2008 4:45 PM

if anarchy means we can all shut the fuck up about the Superdelegates, then I'm all in.

Posted by Lee | March 26, 2008 4:51 PM

@13. what? okay...

@14. yeah, they need to get their act together a little bit to make the message palatable. i think it will take people like gavel to start this. almost by definition, if you are a viable candidate you are not a libertarian. that will probably change over time.

but read the wiki article's on the democratic party and the libertarian party. the dem is described as "the left" -- but gives no solid examples as the lib party does, including strong civil liberties, minimally regulated migration across borders, and non-interventionism in foreign policy that respects freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries etc...

wiki's not the end-all of political knowledge. it's just an example of how an average person might sum up a party in a few words. having but two parties is quite limited in many ways...

Posted by infrequent | March 26, 2008 4:56 PM

Who talks of such things like gay marriage and ending war?

certainly silly

Posted by Bald Face Lie | March 26, 2008 5:59 PM

Infrequent wrote:

wiki's not the end-all of political knowledge

You meant Wikipedia, which is one of many thousands of wikis, many of which predate Wikipedia.

Posted by Phil M | March 26, 2008 6:12 PM

The big two parties, of course, evolve over the years. Those with a libertarian bent generally have tended toward the Republicans (a la Ron Paul) since they have been historically pro-free market and anti-big government. But the Bushies and religious right whack-jobs, of course, have made the GOP into the party that supports preemptive war, huge budget deficits and invasion of personal privacy. Eisenhower, and even Gerald Ford, would hardly recognize the party today. Similarly, the Democrats have been caught for forty years in a battle between centrists and progessives that is being played out (strangely enough since the two candidates are similar on most issues) in the Obama/Hillary split today.

The election of Obama as the first post-Boomer president (God, I hope) will definitely shake up the traditional left/right, red/blue debate. Libertarians could easily decide, depending on how the general election plays out, that there is a place at either party's table for them.

Posted by RainMan | March 26, 2008 7:41 PM

gravel's not a libertarian- he's a performance artist in the tradition of 60s/70s artists like bruce nauman. in fact, his insertion of the boulder into the water is a direct response/inversion of carolee schneemann's interior scroll... all he needs is some nea funding

Posted by bjank | March 26, 2008 8:00 PM

Stay ahead of the curve. Join the Libertarian Party if you care about America.

Posted by Joe Liberty | March 27, 2008 2:40 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).