BS: The war: Nader's fault?

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 11:05 AM

GUEST of 9:24-I wasn't saying that I agreed with Pawlenty. I think his blind adherence to his "no new taxes pledge" will be disastrous, and while I think he is in fact acting on principle when he opposes abortion rights, I disagree vehemently with those principles and their root in fundamentalist Christianity. Moe never really had a chance after the Wellstone memorial, but he didn't have popular support either. Ventura is partially responsible for the budget crisis; he pushed for rebates just as hard as the Republicans did. I have to disagree with your characterization of Pawlenty as evil; while he is clearly closeminded and simply wrong on many issues, there is no reason I have seen to put him into the same category as our "Fearless Leader."

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 09:24 AM

Forum Lurker, I'm from Minnesota too. I didn't vote for Jesse, and believe he was a poor governor. But to suggest that he is responsible for Minnesota's budget mess, and the new right wing Republican who has replaced him is better, is something I would vociferously disagree with, particularly because the new governor, Pawlenty's right wing extremist wing of the Republican party, were the architects of the surplus that Ventura rubber stamped and tried to take credit for.

Ventura's rule was doomed from the start because he had no allies in the legislature with whom he could do business. The only reason why Pawlenty got into office was the Republican dirty tricks campaign in the wake of Wellstone's death, which resulted in a few too many morons (like the morons who voted for Ventura in 1998) being inspired to kick the Democrats when they were down.

Of course, some would say the status quo Democrats (though not the Wellstone camp) deserved to be kicked for putting Roger Moe, the most hated politician in the state, on the ballot for governor.

I would also disagree with your claim that extremist right wing Republicans have principles. It is precisely that sort of thinking that keeps getting these fascists elected. It is positively frightening that fascist talk show radio propagandists can get their troops marching, literally, by holding "demonstrations" in support of their holy wars, and marching to the polls by exploiting the deep emotions of grief and the memory of the just deceased. Pawlenty was at the front of that pack of dogs. I don't call that principled. Not by a long shot.

Even the suggestion that extremist Republicans sticking to a "no new taxes" promise is, under current budget circumstances, disingenuous. This is a budget crisis of THEIR making. The so-called "tax rebates" were voter bribes, extortionist, and mercenary. How so? Well, the fact that Pawlenty promises to balance the budget without raising taxes by eliminating all after school child care programs (but not the Republican sports sacred cow, of course), and throwing everyone in the state off Medical Assistance, isn't "spreading the pain" fairly, but an out and out attack on the poorest, most vulnerable people of the state. The extremist Republicans, from the state houses to the White House, are hell bent on destroying the social contracts we have developed over the past 50 or so years, to raise the standard of living in the US, and Minnesota in particular, to some of the highest standards of living in the world.

Just like the extremist Republican wing of the Republican party currently in power in many places throughout the US doesn't give a damn about anything but their own "strategic self-interests" be they individual and local, or multinational corporate and global, they also don't care if they lower the standard of living of the majority by acting in their own narrow self-interests at our and the rest of the world's expense.

I agree with whomever it was here who said that the US is evil not because we created the monster Saddam Hussein, but because we created the monster George W. Bush. And the monster Dick Cheney. And the monster Donald Rumsfeld. And the monster Tim Pawlenty. These men are evil. They know they are evil, but also know there is no one with the power to stop them right now. So they will do their damage, until enough decent people stand up not just for themselves, but for the good of society, and truly confront the evil and start beating it back. We never rid ourselves of it totally, of course. But historically, this is a pattern that does repeat.

We are living in an unprecedented era of political and business corruption, graft, and naked exploitation and aggression. There are enough Americans benefiting from it though, and they are the ones who vote to maintain the status quo, by voting for their brand (be it Democratic or Republican) of evil over the other guys' brand of evil. The predictable effect is exactly what Bobert and others have described. The new boss is same as the old boss, only a little more to the right politically. This rightward movement in the US has been going on ever since Kennedy beat Nixon in 1960 in the post-war era, in a blatant, desperate attempt to turn back the clock on the progessive democratic agenda that FDR ushered in. There has been absolutely nothing principled about that fascistic movement to regain power for America's ruling elite. Nothing whatsoever. Unless you think the actions of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, the Ashcroft Justice Department, and the reactionary passage of the US Patriot Act were principled, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 01:21 AM

You're right, Gore didn't have charisma.

Reagan had charisma; Bush Jr. has it; Clinton had it.

Maybe it's time to look for something other than charisma, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: DougR
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 01:15 AM

Hey, Sean, you might be right! And the Iraqi people could still "enjoy" the repressive regime of Saddam! Right? Where is all the compassion you liberals like to trot out when it serves your purpose? No feeling for the people of Iraq? What gives?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:52 PM

Peg-Yes, we're rid of him. Now we have a governor who is willing to stand by his pledge of "no new taxes," even when we're facing record budget shortfalls from Jesse's mishandling of the economy. Pawlenty (our new governor) also supports our House's version of the "Women's Right to Know Act," fittingly amended onto a bill to allow circuses to show during the State Fair. At least the new one has principles, however misguided.

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:43 PM

Don't be so fucking stupid. Gore kisses the ass of the oil industry too.

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Peg
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:43 PM

sorry to hear that! you're rid of him now, yes?
we have an asshole for governor now in Massachusetts, too...

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:42 PM

Peg-I do live in Minnesota, and I can assure you that his fair and intelligent appearance is rather infrequent. He is extremely given to petty behavior, and does not care who he affects. He is theoretically capable of being a strong leader, but I doubt he could ever overcome his short temper and shorter attentions span.

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Peg
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:35 PM

Lurker;
I don't live in Minnesota, but whenever I have heard him speak I have been impressed with is fairness and intelligence (not saying I agree with his views on everything)...

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:32 PM

Peg-Please don't say that. He's a horrible leader, and a bad person to boot. He would not only have gone to war, but would have one-upped Kruschev by actually uprooting the podium when addressing the UN and threatening France's ambassador with it. He would then have completely ignored the war, except when it helped him promote his book on how he single-handedly ended terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Peg
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:16 PM

Sinsull, fair point, I watch TV and drink beer, too...

I suppose I should have been more specific and said, the majority of the pro-war protesters I have seen and heard look like a buncha morons...and I say that based on what I heard them say, saw them do and by the signs i saw them carrying, not based on any speculation about how they spend their leisure time...
wrestling is not so bad. I'd give a king's ransom to have Jesse V. in the White House right now...

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 09:52 PM

JudyR:

I must admit, and I have said it here on another thread or two, that I respect both Dennis and Howard. My first thread here at Mudcat was entitled "Department of Peace" and it was about Dennis Kucinick's legislation.

Now as for Dean, I am very interested in him. I don't see a downside to the man. I know what he stands for. I posted several months here about him. He sure talks like a Greenie. Like I say, I have been keeping up with him and have his website bookmarked. I would be very happy to have him as my President. It would be a major step forward for America and the world.

Susan in Califonria:

Yeah, that's the list of things that Democrats *used* to stand up for. What happened to them?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: JudyR
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 09:21 PM

And you don't respect Dean or Kucinich, Bobert? It's just that Nader had no chance of winning. I respect you Green party members, I really do. If it were Germany, where they hold seats, I could see it. I remember when my generation, and probably yours, decided to opt out of "the system" and stop voting back in 1968. I went along with it for a good long time, and then some of us -- Tom Hayden comes to mind -- decided that it was better to work "within the system." So, perhaps I became one of the wishy-washy liberals.

It's true what's happened to the Democrats. But I am wondering if, instead of feeling that the system has to be destroyed from the bottom up -- we could see it as, the Democratic party had to fragment and hit bottom, before it could see its way up. If it hasn't learned its lesson yet, it will have to.

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 09:08 PM

What if ....

What if....

I voted for Gore and was very upset by Florida's p-awful attempt to run a legitimate show. BUT....

1) Some of the voters in Florida were rather stupid.
2) Blaming people who took the trouble to vote is worse than blaming people who didn't vote at all.
3) And the final kicker for me...Gore didn't carry his own state.

Meanwhile, don't be so sure that we wouldn't be taking out the trash in Iraq if Gore had become President. Democrats have not been slouches when it comes to military action. Just ask Serbia.

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Susan from California
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 09:02 PM

What do Democrats stand for? I can tell you what this "yellow dog" Democrat stands for

A living wage
Universal health care
Environmental safeguards
Free higher education for those who cannot otherwise afford it
Support for the troops by not cutting veteran's benefits
Equality for people of all ethnicities, genders, and,orientations
Choice
The Bill of Rights
Supreme Court nominees who support these things

I'm sure I've left some stuff out, but it's been a very long day.

BTW, my husband (who is a pacifist due to religious conviction) has attended several anti-war protests tells me that of those who are of age, most voted in 2000.

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 06:19 PM

I agree that Gore was not exactly the most charismatic candidate imaginable; that same lack of charisma would have made it difficult for him to achieve much in the realm of diplomacy. At least he wasn't the pawn of neo-conservative imperialists.

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: SINSULL
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 06:01 PM

Geez Peg. I stay home, drink beer and watch wrestling - Bubba Dudley is my man.

Nader did what Nader had to do. And in doing it he exercised his rights as an American citizen. Spoiler? No. Presidential candidate. I place more blame on Gore and his lackluster campaigning. He threw away the presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 05:31 PM

I gotta agree with you, GUEST, LCDR. And there is also the possibility that Gore would have done something *more* stupid than Bush. Not a strong possibility, mind you, but neither of these guys had very much to offer in the way of the world leadership that the world needs and whose time has come....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: GUEST,Liberal Conservative Democrat Republican
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 05:06 PM

Talk like this is all so useless. Gore would have done something else incredibly stupid. That is what politicians do. Gore, Bush, whoever, just variations on a theme.

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 05:03 PM

Actually, F.L., the Florida election was so rigged that should have never been close enough for Bush's daddy's Supreme Court to get it's chance to stick its dagger in democracy. Katherine "Crook" Harris and Jeb "Crook" Bush had it rigged every which way to Sunday. They hired Chice "Crook" Point to purge the voter roles who went merrily about purging 57,700 voters from the roles, 80% of whom were blacik, who voted 90% for Gore in Florida.

No matter how the math is done, Bush was gonna loose and should have lost. One day the truth will be told and this period of American history will not be looked upon too kindly...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:59 PM

Nader didn't spoil a thing. Neither did Pat Buchanan. The folks that stayed home should take some responsiblity, but we can't live in a world of "what if's". Losers play that game.

The problem is that the Green Party or any party other than the big two have serious issues with getting their message across. It is more than just the media not taking them seriously, it is the fact that they don't know how to play the game.   Ralph Nader, as noble as his causes were, will never be taken seriously as presidental candidate. (Did he ever show his tax returns? What is the real story there? Methinks he is hiding something!) His votes in the last rejection were more of a protest than a vote for a serious candidate.

I seriously wonder if "2/3" (seems to be the magic number here) of the people that voted for Nader could name 5 positions that Ralph held. I'm sure some of you Mudcatters could do it in a heartbeat - but I'm talking about the people that pulled the lever in the voting booth.

I'm all for the Green Party. We need more than just the big two.   However, for an alternative party to be taken seriously, they need to know how to reach people and play the same games. This isn't fantasyland - people need to find a comfort level before the masses create change.

America still has democracy, but we also have a bigger problem with apathy.   "Let the other guy do it" seems to be our motto, but we sure can whine when we don't like something.

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:55 PM

A vote for Nader was only and exactly that: a vote for Nader. With barely half of the eligible population voting, it makes far more sense to blame those whi didn't vote at all. They could easily have made the difference between Gore and Bush; in fact, if barely half of them had decided on a write-in candidate, he would have won. The responsibility for Bush's presidency lies on the Supreme Court, the people who didn't vote, and on the people beguiled into voting for the least capable president in our history, not on a handful of ideologues who considered principle more important than the negligible impact of their votes.

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:40 PM

Elections have become not much more than entertainment. Boss Hog wins either way. Democracy is dead in America. Don't think that becasue you get to vote for One or another corporate guy that you have been given a choice. Corportations run the deal.

Want proof? Look at the Democatic party today! Like can anyone really tell me what they stand for? Anyopne? Didn't think so!

Oh, yeah, there are few mavericks but when the party is taken collectively, their just the rival fraternity that just lost the last touch football game behind the frat house.

Still Green until the American people take back democracy, thank you.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: JudyR
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:36 PM

I find myself thinking about the Nader spoiler, too. I have friends who still won't admit that their votes for Nader ruined it for Gore, and yet they're the most vocal against Bush now. At the time, they absolutely insisted that "there is no difference in the candidates." Please. They were still ragging about Clinton's not being progressive enough and how once we got the system out of the way, a third-party candidate could usher in the way to the real democracy!

Anybody (as someone here said), who lived through Vietnam could see the difference -- it doesn't matter what earthtones Gore wore, or how bad a candidate he was. His heart has always been in the right place. And it's not just the war that has ruined this country for generations. It's the ebbing away of our freedoms, and everything else.

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 03:57 PM

Stephen L. Rich said:

What CAN be said for a certainty is that this war was the reason that Dubbya wanted to be president in the first place. He and his people were planning it during the campaign (while he was telling us that the United States should not be in the buisness of nation building).

Huh?   "CAN be said for a certainty"??? Where do you get that? It might seem a good speculation to some, but "certainty"? Even "likelihood"?   Awwwww, come on!

You state it as a fact, presumably calling on everyone to agree; that gives you the burden of proof of what you say.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Peg
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 03:48 PM

hmm...I wonder what percentage of people marching IN FAVOR OF the war in recent months voted in the last presidential election...two-thirds?

Most of the ones I saw looked like the types who like to stay at home, drink beer and watch wrestling on TV...

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 03:47 PM

It isn't just the last presidential election Stephen... it goes back much further. I'm convinced we didn't learn a damn thing from Vietnam or Watergate. With all the protest that went on back then, we grew fat and stupid and continue to elect officials that have hidden agendas.   People do not participate in elections, but they are the first to complain.

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 03:41 PM

Ron has made a valid point. there is no gaurantee that we would not be at war with someone else in office.

What CAN be said for a certainty is that this war was the reason that Dubbya wanted to be president in the first place. He and his people were planning it during the campaign (while he was telling us that the United States should not be in the buisness of nation building).

If we are to assign blame anywhere it should go to the lazy idiots who didn't bother to vote in the last presidential election. If all of the people in America who were marching against the war in recent months had voted (I'd be willing to bet that about two thirds of them didn't), that alone would have put another candidate far enough over the top to have made the Florida race unimportant.

Stephen L. Rich

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 03:18 PM

... and there is no way of guaranteeing that this war could have been avoided with Nader or Gore in office.

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 03:16 PM

Oh, sure: blame the Arab candidate for the war. :)

Sean, Nader didn't "take" any of Gore's votes. Those votes didn't belong to Gore, they belonged to me and the rest of the Nader voters. Your argument was lame two years ago.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Peg
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 02:59 PM

oh, for Christ's sake!

Sure, let's blame Ralph Nader.
Let's blame everyone who wanted to vote for the candidate they believed in, instead of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Let's blame the voters who actually bothered to turn up at the polls, and not the ones who sat at home...

While we're at it, let's abolish this whole democracy thing and have a military dictatorship!

Wait minute...that's what we have now...

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: kendall
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 01:15 PM

He didn't look good to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: GUEST,Jennie
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:34 AM

Sadly, you're probably right. It means though, that the only time people SHOULD register a protest vote, is when one of the 'bad guys' is 'not so bad'.

It's a real problem though isn't it? Gore was an atrociously bad candidate. Would anyone seriously disagree? Stiff as a board, changing images constantly, refusing to rightly condemn some of his predecessor's behaviour, and even getting caught doing some of the same things we criticized in Bush (fundraising irregularities)

Bush and his people are/were simply neo-fascists, who'd proven themselves to be completely unworthy of a thinking person's vote.

Believe me, Nader looked awfully good. But you're right, we'll pay for this current folly for generations.

Jennie

Subject: BS: The war: Nader's fault?
From: Sean Waltman
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:18 AM

I was thinking of what if scenarios.

In the 2000 election, Ralph Nader took enough votes away from Al Gore to allow Bush to take the disputed election. If Nader's vote had gone to Gore, then Florida would not have mattered.

At the time of the election, and in the months afterward, Nader and his supporters insisted that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. I think that recent events, from the erosion of civil rights, to the war in Iraq, have proven Nader and such supporters as Pete Segger, etc., to be very wrong.


In my opinion, if Gore was in the White House, we would not now be at war.

formatting fixed by Mudelf