Yeah, Nader's a never-ending twat, but ultimately, Gore ran a lousy campaign.........
And given history, some 40% won't vote this November. That really is the key.
and so we need to work on that 40%
WOW the irony! Nader is now the only hope for America. And while you're at it....BRING BACK THE PINTO (hybrid of course)! God save us from the mass media Obama hype machine.
GWC- he can't win, and all he can do is hurt the party he is closest to.
Let it end indeed. I don't like Nader, never really had.
That said, its pretty weak to bash him for running. It makes no sense to peg him as a spoiler, when what % of people didn't even vote? Ah, right. Penalize the people who actually participate in the system.
And we see how hard the dems worked to assure votes get heard, and everything is on the up and up.
Pff. Stop using 3rd parties as a whipping post.
I am a democrat, and I work hard every day to try to make the process better. It is flawed yes. And I am not bashing the voters. They can vote for Nader-- that is their right. I question his motivation for running... Wouldn't it make more sense to work from within the party to get your legislation and ideas heard. From the bottom up?
and so we need to work on that 40%
Exactamundo! The number has been pretty consistent for lo these many years.
It's a hefty figure. How to reach them? Dunno! Obviously, standard presidential campaigns don't meet the mark. Then again, perhaps that's the point. If the voting electorate is reduced to just one, and said one votes Republican.... Game over.
Two weeks ago, I would have said the same:
"Ralph; put a sock in it1"
Now that Obama is talking about using his trip to Iraq to "refine" his earlier statement that would have the troops out within 16 months of his taking office, and with all of his other oozes, I'm not so sure.
I think he and we are in trouble.
The saddest thing is that he just doesn't seem to understand that moving to the right is the kiss of death in this election of all elections.
Not to mention that it's just the wrong fucking direction.
Work from within what party?
I agree about the motivation, but I think the same can be applied to most any candidate. I don't think Obama or McCain are exactly sporting a streak of altruism.
And well met. I should have said dem leadership instead of dems when speaking about the voting debacles.
I work with the Greens, who are still suffering mad from the backlash of "you voted wrong". (Though, we certainly are helping ourselves at all, I can tell you that!) I was very happy he didn't get adopted as our candidate, as he tends to be there for the party only when he gets a whim. So, I agree he needs to go away. I was just trying to contest the perception that 3rd parties are the problem.
You say you aren't bashing those voters, but explicitly mention them and never call out the bigger problem of the non-voters. The quote is about likely misinformed people rather than Nader himself doing it.
All signature campaigns have such whackiness happen. You shoot for a % over b/c of duplicates, and other junk. Its like the lady who freaked at people about Obama v. Clinton. Tragic? Sure. Do we blame that on Clinton?
what I mean is, a 3 party or more system might be better, but it is not what we have right now... we have essentially a 2 party system, everything is geared toward that... And so 3rd party candidates cannot really thrive in that environment. We need systemic changes that cannot happen mid-election. So let's win this one, and work toward changes from locally on up before the next one...
What qualifications does Nader have to be President? He hasn't been in the government, has he?
In order to make politics work with more than two parties, the system needs to be different: winner take all systems only work with two parties, if we want more, we need to have proportional representation.
TB,
Agreed. I've been away for some 3 weeks......... come back and find that Obama is doing some strange/(predictable?) DLC dance!!
Faith based programmes!...... FISA! What.a.load.of.crap.
The 40% that never vote won't vote........... and the 60% that do will just do the predictable lizard-brain roll.
Come November, I am going to vote for the candidate who most closely matches my ideal. I don't give a damn if it is a frontrunner or a third party. I am going to vote for the best man/woman.
For 40 years of voting, I have been given this same crap about vote for 'who can win' rather than who is the best. This year, that ends. From this point onward, I vote for the one I think is the best for me and the country, and let the chips fall where they may. Whether it is a Democrat, a Republican, Libertarian, Green, Constitution Party, whatever; my vote goes to one I think is best. Wasn't that the way it was SUPPOSED to be when we were given the right to vote?
Ralph Nader is a once-great crusader who has become an egotistic, megalomaniac whoremonger.
He f*cked Gore in Florida when he had absolutely no chance of winning. Therefore, he f*cked America.
Sorry, Ralph, suck the big weenie, you total dipshit!
P.S. I'm glad you caught the Corsair, but wasn't that, like, a million years ago, dude?
I think Nader has always been the foil that some people have used because they don't want to use the argument that Gore lost in Florida because Bush and the Republicans stole the election by making sure a lot of black people couldn't vote. Yeah, who could imagine the last 8 years being like this with that act of treason being the very first thing that Bush and the Republicans did.
Nader's not a Democrat. Democrats aren't entitled to his votes. No one is. You want to silence Nader, don't go talking about how the FISA bill is shit, how the establishment clause means something, and how you are fully committed to an expedient withdrawal from Iraq. There is no runoff in the American system, but that doesn't meant that the candidates of the 2 major parties can just start posturing for Joe Schmo who pays attention to politics for five minutes every four years.
I said this before during the Clinton v. Obama wars that were going on all over the blogosphere: I don't fucking care about personalities, do what you fucking promised to do or go to hell. Remember when Kerry's proposal for Iraq in 2004 was to escalate? That was the great strategy to energize the progressive base. Then Bush destroyed an entire Iraqi city to celebrate his election victory.
I am tired of this dance with the establishment. This is a shit or get off the pot election. If Obama plays it safe and becomes the face of the new corporate party, then it is time to upturn the system. I find it strange that people want to stifle debate every election time to between two people when we have real issues that need to be resolved. Nader will force Obama to at least pay lip service to issues I care about.
"don't go talking" should be "do go talking" *sigh*
Ensley,
I came to the same conclusion in 1996, when I realized that Bill Clinton was a Global Corporatist, which was actually the only party present - the whole "Republican/Democrat" thing was more like entertainment-based crowd control. That year, I voted Natural Law Party, whose candidate was a student of Transcendental Meditation.
In 2000 I saw that Gore was going to lose because he could not dance the Global Corporatist dance as fetchingly as Bill could -- and then he pulled that "Me too! I'm like that! That's me!" crap every time GWB stated his neocon position. Nader's campaign was largely a chance for progressives to find each other and say "WTF? You smell the weirdness too? WTF!"
And now, after Nader and his supporters were demonized in 2000 for suggesting that there might not be much difference between Democrats and Republicans, and after 7.5 years of Democrats proving just how! much! difference! there! is! *cough*choke*, I, too, roll my eyes in exasperated sadness at Ralph.
He went into the 2000 race as an advocate, a teacher and a gadfly, not a politician. We his supporters imagined that into being, because there were these things called votes we could contribute in support of his arguments.
But he was not then and never has been a politician. I, too, wish he would stop trying to make that magic happen again.
>>I find it strange that people want to stifle debate every election time to between two people when we have real issues that need to be resolved.
bummer... haloscan just ate a great rant...
From this post:
"Ralph, Stop Running For President. You are not helping."
From the Darcy Burner post down below:
"GNB doesn't endorse candidates."
From David Mamet:
"What's more fun than human nature?"
being critical of Nader is not an endorsement of anyone else.
Even though I am not happy about what he said recently it is not Nader's fault that Gore could not carry his own state, or that he played cynical games with the recount that led to him not being able to fight Harris' machinations effectively or that he agreed with GWB on so many things.
Its' also not Nader's fault that Kerry did not campaign well in 2004. There was a great deal of truth to what Nader said in the past and there still is.
And to all the people who are wondering why Nader might be running the answer is simple, like all the other presidential candidates he thinks that he will make an excellent president.
And if the democrats don't want to be a left wing party or represent people they should join another group. LG don't you think that Obama, Clinton, McCain were all ego driven also? Why is it that third party candidates are seen in such a negative light? Its' up to Obama and the democrats to convince people to vote for them. Bullying or poopooing other folks choices is a bad way to convince them to vote for your candidate. If by now the democrats don't know that they deserve to loose. Much as I want Obama to win him and the democrats should know that talking trash about Nader is as bad as the stupid, and demeaning things that Ralph said about the O-man
oi.
maybe somebody should send Sir Ralph a copy of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
he may need a reminder.
... because we don't have a multi party system... it is a 2 party system. I am not saying that is a GOOD thing, but it is the reality.
Obama always was a corporate guy. The only one who wasn't was Edwards, and you see what happened to him: the media (corporate owned) killed his candidacy. Nader has sold out to the corporations too. The world is a corporatocracy. What are we going to do about it?
Enough already... Nader did NOT spoil the election in 2000 or 2004.
More Democrats in Florida voted for Buchanan than for Nader, so look: it wasn't Nader-- it was electioneering, pure and simple. 2004 bears this out more evidently.
If Dems like you (and Kerry and Gore) accept this corrupt election system and let it do its job, hoping to one day become its master, we'll never escape from this unholy corporatizing of Amerikkka.
You do know that it was Clinton who began the warrantless wiretapping, NAFTA, and plenty of other deals antithetical to progressive ideals, don't you?
All this after 12 years of Reagan and Bush.
If you aren't organizing a third party to speak your own voice in each of your burroughs there in NYC, in each of your neighborhoods across this nation, then what are you doing but muttering into the approaching storm?
Who are you to throw stones at the man who gave you a fucking seatbelt and safe cheap hotdogs? Let's do something ourselves and create the better world that is possible.
Ralph Nader, Godblesshim, is still a total, irredeemable asshole. I love his spirit, but I despise his egocentric interference in the body politic. Even if you give the righteous asshole his proper dues, in the end, he's still an asshole.
Yo,
Third parties in NY can be very effective. Back in my early voting days, NY State consisted of a Democratic Party on the left, the Rockefeller Republicans in the middle, and an empty space on the right. So they created a third party, the Conservative Party, and managed to win and send James Buckley (William F.'s brother) to the US Senate.
Big cities are great places to start third parties to try to wean this country away from a de facto if not de jure two-party system. Other countries have several 'major' parties, and I don't see why America can't do the same. We need to throw the corporate, two-party professional politicians out. Back when this country was founded, there was no such career animal as a 'politican.'
This really isn't about Nader; it's about seeing Obama tap-dancing around as he "reaches out" to the republicans, and in return, they shit in his face, as they've been doing to all of us, for lo, these many years, and he comes back for more.
We've been like starving, pissing, mongrels:
We whine, and the repubs beat us.
Now, in this election, there's a chance, a great chance, to run these bastards into the political wilderness for a decade or more, and instead of doing that, Obama is laying off them like he was an NBA team shaving points in the playoffs.
I had been thinking that it was a strategic decison; as in, he didn't want to wear the edges off the issue rocks of which we have so many to throw at them, but now, I think his willingness to allow the political vacuum that the asshats are using to hammer him, WITH effect, is just political stupidity, or maybe, like Gore in 2000, he's just running out of fire in the belly.
Whatever the reason, he's evidently learned nothing from watching Hillary jumpstart HIS campaign by throwing progressives under the bus, and that's the scariest thing of all.
Every time he "reaches out" to the right, he's taking a step that can't be reversed; if he takes a few more, we're done for.
Wow, have we lost two hours of posts? Wonder why.
Now they have reappeared. I just love haloscan
"Maybe...[Obama]'s just running out of fire in the belly."--Tanbark
If that be true, maybe Senator Obama has begun to suspect the same thing I do--that this country has so many bills, literal and metaphorical, coming due in the next four years that the next president, whoever he is, will be the next Jimmy Carter, doomed by the Fates, and the errors of his predecessors, to one term.
I don't think Carter was a bad president. I think he picked the wrong time to run for the office. In the late '70s, this country had so many bills, literal and metaphorical, coming due that no one could have handled them all well enough to be re-elected in 1980. I think if Reagan had won the GOP nomination and the general election in 1976, HE'D have been a one-term president.
I said this 4 years ago but it bears repeating: Nader is an example of someone who did such great good--we would have NO consumer protection laws without him--who fell so hard, collapsed so brilliantly, left such a smoldering black hole of vacuum spewing fecal matter out of its other side--that it is unprecedented.
"I also believe that Nader is forever flawed and can no longer be the 3rd party standard barer. Not after his behavior in '04."
Sigh. I agree, and I was a big supporter of Nader back before 2000...in spirit, at least. Not being an American citizen, I wasn't able to actually cast a vote for the man, and now I'm rather glad I couldn't do so, as I would surely have come to regret voting for him. When he joined the Christers in their "support" of Terri Schiavo, I was appalled. It was the most impolitic thing I'd ever seen, and I don't mean that in a good way. It was almost childishly naive and simple-minded, and it struck me as being a particularly arrogant slap in the face to the people who had voted for him in the last election. Stupid, Ralph. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
The problem is, as several of you have pointed out: Nader wasn't responsible for the Rethugs stealing 2000, and the Democrats have done nothing but openly march ever further and further to the right since then. They don't even try to disguise it anymore. Obama's recent behavior points to nothing but disappointment in the years to come. At best.
I no longer think the Democratic Party can be taken back to its roots, away from the DLC/corporate crowd. (Not that that was ever anything but a long shot, anyway.) It's just not going to happen. Building a new political party is likely the only way out of this mess, and I think people are going to have to start discussing that prospect soon. But Nader isn't someone to hang our hopes on, not anymore. Gator's right: He's damaged goods by this point, whatever his past accomplishments.
Whether it really is due to Ego, or - as I suspect - that he's simply now incapable of working with other people as equals - Nader's increasingly kooky behavior makes him someone to avoid.
Our candidate may not always be what we want, we may often not agree. But on their worst days our candidates are so far above the republicans as to not even be comparible. when we perpetuate the meme that there is not much of a difference between the parties we are doing such a tremendous disservice to our political leaders and do our fellow americans.
If you think it is just the lesser of two evils... ask yourself these questions...
1. Do you think that Obama, Kerry OR Gore would have had the same response, run up to war, lying to take us to war, no plan for the peace plan in Iraq as George Bush.
2. Do you think that Obama , Kerry OR Gore would have reacted to Katrina the same was as George Bush?
3. Do you think that Obama, Kerry, OR Gore would treat the poor, minorities, women, or gays the same was as George Bush OR John McCain?
4. Do you think that John McCain will choose better judges for the supreme court than would Obama, Kerry OR Gore?
if you can answer these questions honestly, then it is clear that while we may be disappointed in our candidates, while they may do things that make us angry, frustrated, and even nervous--- it is NOT the choice of a lesser of two evils. There is a REAL difference between the two parties.
One believes at the core, if we all work so that we can all do at least a Little bit better- the Nation will be better.
The other believes that the rich get richer, and the rest can go fend for themselves. Period.
I am angry about FISA, nervous about faith based initiatives. BUT I will have NO PROBLEM voting for our candidate and I do not feel like I am compromising and voting for the lesser of two evils.
And then on NOV. 5th, AFTER we win--- I will be the first one in line to hold people's feet to the fire, to reverse the centrist trend, to push as hard as I can for a progressive future. BUT make NO MISTAKE about the fact that if we do not win.... none of what we care about will come to pass, and everyone except the richest 2% of our nation will be worse off.
How long does Nader get a free pass because of the Corvair?
Would someone please tell me what Nader actually does when he isn't trying to help Republicans win presidential elections? Does he do anything to help good Democrats like Donna Edwards and Darcy Burner get elected? Does he actually DO anything to effect change? Or does he just suck up the money made from sending a bunch of college kids door-to-door to collect money for his PIRGs?
I understand what you're saying, Little Gator, but at this point, it's not so much what we want to come to pass; it's what we don't want to come to pass.
If Obama sells us out on Iraq, and on the other issues he's been futzing around with, then the corporate 4th Reich that bush has empowered past their wildest dreams, will hardly be slowed an inch.
Iraq is going to be THE issue when americans go to the polls in November. Not Katrina; not Fisa; not faith-based bullshit.
Our economic problems did not descend on us from heaven, they derive directly from Iraq. If Obama is either unwilling or unable to do something to stop our bleeding there, there will be no improvement in our, or the world's economy.
Worse; if he gets on board the "let's do Iran" insanity-train (ANOTHER idea that he keeps farting around with) the effects from that on us, and the world, will be no different than if BUSH had doubled down on the loon crusade.
Lastly, he obviously doesn't understand how sick of bullshit, are the american people. When he's trying to find some "price-point" that will satisfy the progressives who helped propel him to the brink of the nomination, but (he hopes!) will still let him pull disaffected conservative votes, he's making the same brick-dumb mistake that Hillary made. The republicans are good at finding that price point, where they keep their nutcases, and pick up just enough middle-of-the-road votes, to either steal it via the courts, or sneak in outright. But that isn't going to work for them in this election; too many fuckups; too many meat-eating chickens coming back to roost at the white house and the RNC. And if Obama tries a democratic version of it, it won't work for him either, and he will be turning our tsunami into another coinflip, and we don't win coinflips.
He needs to just speak the simple truth:
That staying in Iraq will just prolong the agony and the cost to us, in blood and treasure. That the people of what used to be Iraq need to decide what their future will be, and that they won't make those decisions, as long as we are occupying their country and trying to get cheap access to their oil and to get permanent bases there from which to jawbone the rest of the middle east.
Not only is Obama not speaking the truth, he's juust starting to hold out his version of the "hold on; we MIGHT be winning." nonsense. He's going to have to eat that, and when he does, there will be political hell to pay. If he won't keep to that 16 month timetable that he talked about, IF he gets elected, he's going to be a one-term president.
And the should be.
I don't know... these seems pretty clear to me;
He said Thursday that on his first day in office he would summon the Joint Chiefs of Staff and "give them a new mission and that is to end this war, responsibly and deliberately, but decisively.
Little Gator, "responsibly and deliberately" leaves as much room for ANYTHING, as george bush has. It could mean years, if not decades.
It's also the kind of thing that Hillary Clinton was parroting.
His 16 month timetable was a lot better. And, it would have gotten him more votes.
When he starts talking about possibly "altering" it as a result of his upcoming trip to Iraq, the little alarm bells start going off, and well they should.
"Responsibly and deliberately" is the kind of bullshit it what the republicans have been LIVING on, for the past few years.
Obviously, he's aware that when he started hedging his statement about 16 months, he created a problem for himself.
http://apnews.myway.com//article.../
D91NSAV00.html
He says:
"I am absolutely committed to ending the war."
So was Hillary Clinton.
So is george bush.
So is John McCain.
But, on what terms, is the question?
Is he willing to let the Iraqis decide what to do with their oil?
Because, if he is, it sure as hell won't be to sell it to Big Petro at bargain rates.
-------------------------------------
Is he willing to give up the idea of permanent american bases in what used to be Iraq? Because if he isn't, he's going to have to leave a hell of a lot more troops there than he's been talking about previously.
-------------------------------------
Is he willing to see the Kurds continue moving toward an independent state? More specifically, is he willing to have them hold that referendum to determine the future of Kirkuk, which has already been postponed once, and which was supposed to have been held at the end of June?
Because, if he isn't, the only way to prevent that, is, again, with the presence of a hell of a lot of american boots STILL on the ground.
-------------------------------------
Is he willing to see Al Sadr make political gains in the provincial elections? Because the Iraqi government has just banned the use of images of religious figures on any political posters.
------------------------------------
Is he willing to pull most of our troops out and risk the factional fighting AND the inevitable increase in Iran's influence in the region that will follow?
The fighting may, or may not, happen, but Iran's stock is going to take a BIG jump when we leave.
Can he handle the pressure from Isreal for pulling out, for example? Is he willing to try?
-------------------------------------
I'm not blaming him for these things. They are, obviously, not on his moral bartab. They're on bush and the GOP's ledger. But IF he is serious about getting us out then he had better start speaking some truth to the american people. We've had all of the talking-goody-two-shoes generalities we can swallow, for the past five years. That's part of the reasong we're in the trouble we're in, now. At this point, patrio-koolaid tastes like shit. If that's all he's got to offer, then that's so close to Bush and McCain that he's in political trouble, and someone on his staff needs to have the honesty and courage to remind him of it.
I believe the voters will respect him a hell of a lot more if he starts speaking some truth to them, even if it's unpleasant truth, than if he sounds like bush-lite.
Hell, most of them already know there's not going to be a happy ending for america from bush's loon crusade. Why should there be? Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died from it.
What I love about Group News is that it's a short read. I can skip through serious a-holes such as Jesse Wendel, boring people like Evan Robinson, and read only Lower Manhattanite, Hubris Sonic, and Sara Robinson.(Lower Manhattanite should have his own blog by the way).
I shall add Littlest Gator to the skip through list.
Democrats are like the guy who gets shat upon by his boss all day at work and goes home and beats the crap out of his wife and kids due to the frustration. He is too fearful and intimidated of his boss and accepts the abuse at work. Pretty much like typical Democrats to me. With Ralph Nader and other unhappy progressives playing the part of the wife and kids.
Well, here he is, upfront.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/
Ac...pport_0703.html
He'll vote for the FISA whitewash no matter what's in it.
and, he tells us, in effect:
"Fuck you. You've got nowhere else to go but me."
And I suspect that his believing that is driving his entire shift to the right.
Memo to Obama:
You keep up with THIS shit, and "nowhere" is going to start looking pretty damn good.
(No angryface...too bad....
)
Shorter TB:
"Hey, asshole! WE need some red meat protein; not the fucking republicans and the telcoms!"
Kos thinks it is not a drive to the right, but a fear of repub. campaigning... which is worse in some ways...
tchap81, sorry you feel that way. I write to discuss with you all and learn a lot and am willing to reconsider my opinions... But I AM a fighter, I have been working my ass off just about every day for 6 years -- before that I wasn't a dem. I was an issues gal. I am not happy about where we are, but I am still going to fight like hell to make it better. And though it sucks... I am doing what I can.
Politicians are trying to play to the public who is largely unaware of the empire building side of our government and foreign policy, and would be appalled by it if they knew, and also to those who are involved in the nasty dirty industry of empire building, who have a completely different agenda from most of us. It's hard to appeal to both groups when they are largely unaware of each other: the public doesn't know about empire building corporatocracy and the corporatocracy doesn't care about what the rest of us think and so aren't aware of it.
I'm glad Ralph Nader is running as a former Hillary supporter I will ne voting for McCain since Obama has done a 360 flip flop on guns, Iraq and other issues. Hopefully Nader will run so it will split the democratic vote and McCain gets elected!!
a 360 ahhh yes, your intelligence is so breathtakingly apparent. A McCain supporter hoping we don't win. How novel. I don't believe you were ever a Clinton supporter. They were smart people who could construct a valuable argument. 360 flip... heh.
Not into nuances, eh, "Go Nader"?
He didn't flip-flop, it's McCain that flip-flops. and Nader's homophobia is offensive.
360 other wise know as full circle
oops other was KNOWN as... (sheepish)
RALPH NADER LIVES AT 2112 BANCROFT PLACE NW WASHINGTON DC WITH HIS SISTER IN A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR HOME. HIS BACK YARD IS INFESTED WITH RATS THAT BURROUGH INTO HIS UNKEPT BACK YARD. HERE IS A GUY WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AND IS NOT EVEN CONCERNED ABOUT A HEALTH HAZARD WITH ALL THE RATS. COME CHECK IT OUT.
Commenting by HaloScan
