I have some starter answers from Gravel’s campaign, if you’re interested. You can email me directly at abel.reply@gmail.com. We were going to do Gravel’s profile (along with the others) this fall, and I have asked the campaign to consider longer answers or more detail/sources (ala what Paul’s campaign did). In meantime, happy to share what I have so far.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul284.html

Today, it is possible once again to bring about a dramatic fall in the price of oil – indeed, one even larger than occurred in the 1980s. And it could begin right away. All that is necessary is to abolish the U.S. government’s restrictions on domestic energy production inspired by the environmentalist movement.”

Your post is exactly the type of blogging I hope to see on TMV during the next 18 months of the 2008 presidential campaign.

1) It draws attention to a little known candidate who offers bold (if not controversial) ideas that defy the traditional left-versus-right political spectrum and who the mainstream media ignores.

2) It takes a comprehensive look at a candidate’s views, provides direct quotes, and sources its information so that readers can conduct further research on their own.

3) It separates commentary from sourced material so that readers can easily see what is fact and what is opinion.

I sincerely hope that fellow bloggers at TMV take a cue from your post. TMV should be all about bring all points of view to the table. This doesn’t necessarily mean that one is advocating the positions that a particular candidate takes but that we are willing to accept that politics is so much more than just a one-dimensional debate between Democrats and Republicans.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all debate the merits of a candidates position on the basis on their political views rather than what party they come from or whether their positions are perceived as being “left-wing” or “right-wing” or “evil” or “dangerous”?

Sadly, the 2008 presidential election will be unduly influenced by partisans and pundits in the mainstream media who resort to sensationalism, ad hominem attacks, fallacious reasoning, and outright distortions of each others’ views.

The good news is that TMV doesn’t have to fall into the trap the mainstream media and so many other blogs have fallen into. Witty remarks, thoughtful analysis, and heartfelt commentary are all necessary ingredients for a good blog. But at the foundation of any political blog should be an earnest attempt to be informed about the issues.

During the next 18 months, the mainstream media will devote countless stories covering “top tier” candidates such as Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Edwards, and Mitt Romney as well as superficial coverage of the same old wedge issues while ignoring “second tier” and “third tier” candidates as well as issues that establisment politicians and pundits don’t want to talk about.

We’re all bound to disagree on political issues. But by focusing on substance over style and principles over party, we have to opportunity to allow all views to be heard and to correct common misperceptions that continue to persist no only in the mainstream media but in the partisan corners of the blogosphere.

Foreign Policy, Election/Campaign Reform, Education, Energy/Environment, Healthcare…these aren’t my top five issues (I would have liked to hear about civil liberties and fiscal responsibility), but they’re important topics and were covered fairly comprehensively. Using Pete’s post as a model, perhaps we could compile information with regards to the views of the remainder of the candidates–first tier, second tier, and third tier alike.

He also gives the same old answer about refining capacity where he blames it on the environmentalists and the government, completely ignoring that the oil companies reduced their refining capacity on purpose to improve their profit margins a while back. In addition there is nothing about the environment.

Sorry, color me extremely unimpressed.

We pulled the top issues from a survey of TMV readers earlier this year. Immigration was raised by several, but not enough to make the cut of five we wanted to hold the exercise to. Net: we tried to be as democratic as possible in the process of chiming in on top issues, but also tried to control the total number of policy questions, in the interest of time (both ours and the campaigns we are reaching out to).

Hope that makes sense.

Thanks for commenting.