 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 30 Jun 03 - 10:02 PM It seems Nader is refusing to count himself out of the race, much to the dismay of the Democrats. Depending upon who the Dems run, I'd certainly vote for him again. Nader article |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bobert Date: 30 Jun 03 - 10:05 PM Anyone from Texas who wants to broker their vote? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 30 Jun 03 - 10:58 PM If the Dems had offered Nader a cabinet-level position like Secretary of Interior in 2000 he would have probably taken it and Dubya would be a dim memory. If they lose another squeeker for the same reason, mass suicide on the part of all members of the Democratic National Congress would be the only appropriate response. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: katlaughing Date: 30 Jun 03 - 10:59 PM Gawd, I hope he does NOT! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 30 Jun 03 - 11:04 PM I said "Democratic National Congress". I, of course meant "Democratic National Committee". The other's in South Africa, isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 30 Jun 03 - 11:07 PM I tell you what, if the choice is between Bush and Gephardt, I won't waste my vote on either. Sooner or later Democrats have to wake up and realize that the choice between two evils is not a choice at all, but a death sentence for democracy. Just like the Do Nothing Democratic strategy is not a strategy for governance, which truly IS destroying our democracy. When we wake up tomorrow morning to Democrat controlled California's default on it's debts--the 5th largest economy in the world--what will the DNC say to the grassroots then? You should still vote for us anyway, because we aren't Republicans? I don't think so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: LadyJean Date: 30 Jun 03 - 11:49 PM Politics is about compromise, which isn't necessarily, a bad thing. Ralph Nader doesn't know HOW to compromise. He would make a great dictator, but a lousy president. I'm not sure I'm up for a dictator. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,amergin Date: 01 Jul 03 - 12:14 AM I voted for him twice....but I sincerely hope he does not run this year...I just want that piece of shit out of the white house... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: MarkS Date: 01 Jul 03 - 10:48 PM Wonder if a comment is worth the effort. Every time I make an argument why supporting him is the BEST thing we can do to improve the political environment in total, seems I upset those who prefer their particular Republicrat. I will support him again if he runs, but I'm just afraid it will be another exercise in futility. Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 01 Jul 03 - 11:49 PM Politics isn't about compromise, it is about governance by the people, for the people, and for the good of all. It is about meeting our civic and social responsibilities to one another with all the integrity one can muster. Political sleeze, political corruption, political graft, greed, and political extortion--those are all about compromise and the art of the deal. What we should be demanding is the former. Tolerating sell outs in the name of compromise is what has given us the later. As to dictatorships, I think Cheney/Bush have nearly succeeded in imposing one here in the US, in Iraq, and Afghanistan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: LadyJean Date: 02 Jul 03 - 12:37 AM The emancipation proclamation was a compromise. The holocaust wasn't. Did you know Ralph Nader doesn't belong to the Green Party? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bobert Date: 02 Jul 03 - 08:29 AM Like I said, "Anyone want to broker their vote?" If the Republicans hadn't sent their lawyers out to shut down the vote brokering between Greens and Democrats, Bush wouldn't have been close enough to have these same lawyers stop the Florida recount. Yeah, sure, the Bush administration has proven to be very damaging, but if weren't for Ralph Nader and the Green Party their would be virtually no other voice but that of the Repubocratic Party. It is important not to allow the ruling class minimalize or trivialize the true voice of the working class. (With that said, I still could see a scenerio in next election working for Dean, if it looks as if he has any chance of beating Bush.) But, still Green. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jul 03 - 08:34 AM Now a fair voting system would have you putting the candidates in order of preference. Who is it decides people you have this weird first-past-the-post system? I know how it works (or doesn't work) here in England, but in the USA you sometimes seem to be a bit quicker at changing things, but evidently not this thing. I mean, in the US, is the current system laid down at national level, or determined more locally? And is there any prospect of it ever changing? (After all, in successive elections the present system has probably unfairly damaged candidates from both major parties.) The thing is, if you screw it your politics, it screws it up for everyone else as well, in a way that doesn't apply the other way round. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 02 Jul 03 - 09:18 AM Lady Jean, I believe most people who voted for Nader in 2000 are fully aware that he isn't a member of the Green Party. That is just one more EXCELLENT reason for voting for him and for supporting the only party that doesn't demand an blind loyalty to party appartchiks in order to participate in the political process. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,Ron Olesko Date: 02 Jul 03 - 09:30 AM I am all for a viable third party candidate, but Nader is not it. He carries the same baggage that the Democrats and Republicans carry. He is a manufactured image that has no qualifications for the job. You can't run a country on principles alone. You need someone that will compromise, give inspiration, mend fences and emote confidence. Nader has none of those qualities for a job like the Presidency. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Wolfgang Date: 02 Jul 03 - 11:28 AM Now a fair voting system would have you putting the candidates in order of preference. (McGrath) We had that argument already in the thread about the last Presidential elections in France. What I have posted there applies also here: What you think, McGrath, only works if you make the unrealistic and uncontrollable assumption that there is no tactical voting by voters in the ranking of preferences. But if there is, you can have anything, for instance: Let us assume that there are only three candidates next time: Bush, Dem, Nader. Then a Bush preferer could rank against his personal wishes: Bush, Nader, Dem. Not because he prefers Nader to Dem, but because he never believes Nader could make it. He ranks Nader higher than he truly believes to damage Dem, the only one he fears. It has been analysed from all angles by people who know a lot more about mathematics than you and I. The bottom line: There is no voting system that is inherently better than others and has no disadvantages. It can be shown that in the voting system you propose the least preferred can win under certain circumstances. In the present American system it can happen that the most preferred does not, but it cannot happen that the least preferred wins. Like in presidentail elections (grin), your only choice is between different disadvantages (and advantages). Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Beccy Date: 02 Jul 03 - 12:57 PM Oh yes!!!! Please, please, pretty please let Nader run again. He made it so amusing last time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: CarolC Date: 02 Jul 03 - 01:19 PM Please, please, pretty please let Nader run again. He made it so amusing last time. How so, Beccy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 02 Jul 03 - 01:24 PM What is amusing to me is the silly way the right wingers carry on about how much they want Nader to run--as if that somehow validates their own and their Bushie Boy's fanatical, dictatorial misrule of the nation. Wolfgang is dead on. The only reason for both conservative and liberal reactionaries to delight/abhor the thought of Nader running, is because they so fear that the Democrat that will eventually be crowned, will inevitably be a sacrificial lamb for the fascists. And it is easy to foresee Republicans and Libertarians drinking the blood of their sworn enemy--their fellow citizens with different beliefs and values than their King's--come November 3, 2004. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Mark Clark Date: 02 Jul 03 - 01:27 PM This just in from the Kucinich campaign: RALPH NADER, on last night's CNN Crossfire, said: "If Dennis Kucinich - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bill D Date: 02 Jul 03 - 01:31 PM Nader, like Al Sharpton, is not an administrator...he is a gadfly. Let him continue at what he does well and not muddy the waters of an already murky pond. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jul 03 - 02:17 PM In the present American system it can happen that the most preferred does not, but it cannot happen that the least preferred wins. Well, it wasn't far short of that - the "first past the post" system produced a result in whch the winner came past the post second on the popular vote. No system is perfect. To produce the kind of result Wolfgang suggests would require some very sophisticated tactical voting, it seems to me, with people voting for people they actually wish to see defeated, as opposed to the sort of tactical voting where you vote for your second choice, because you don't think your first choice would win. On the other hand a skewed result under first past the post system - by which I mean a result where more people vote against the winner than for him or her - is built in. All it needs is for people to vote for the candidate they would like to see win. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 02 Jul 03 - 02:44 PM I also find it odd that so many people swallow the right wing propaganda lines about Nader, making him out to be just a little less distasteful than Saddam Hussein. It also shows they don't know any of the facts of Nader's life and work, which has been tremendously successful over the years. I was just channel surfing during my lunch break, and saw a Fox report on how evil the BBC is--they are a monopoly! The Blair government DEMANDS an apology! The Israeli government has banned the BBC for Nazi like reporting! The sky is falling on Fox! The sky is falling on Fox! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 02 Jul 03 - 03:07 PM Guest, I beg your pardon. I am far from right wing but that doesn't mean I have to think that Nader is a qualified candidate for the presidency. I do admire his work and the sucess he has, but that doesn't mean he can lead a country. Don't start feeding us the B.S. that the right wing tried to do with the war - you are either with us or against us. You've managed to bring up separate issues concerning Israel and the BBC. Sounds like you are the troll that is claiming the sky is falling. Ron |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 02 Jul 03 - 03:34 PM Ron Olesko, you sound like a very thin skinned liberal Democrat, harboring a lot of anger against Nader for refusing to back down in 2000. In the 2000 election, both Democratic liberals and Democratic conservatives attacked Nader the person, in order to avoid engaging in discussion and debate on the issues he raised. Just like you attacked me in your above post. Rather than engaging in a discussion on the issues, you chose to make an ad hominem attack instead, using the lamest of lame Mudcat chickenshit strategies: invoking the troll flame. Next I suppose you will be claiming that there isn't a well oiled Democratic Party propaganda machine that continues to attack Nader in the mainstream media whether he shows any sign of making a run in 2004 or not. BTW, I also make the fearless prediciton that that same Democratic Party propaganda machine will be ripping Kucinich to shreds everywhere in the mainstream media, very soon. The attacks against him will be brutal and very, very personal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: catspaw49 Date: 02 Jul 03 - 03:52 PM Nader is now qnd has always been a bit of an ass and a boring fuckin' ass to boot. He is less qualified to run the country than even Bush or Carter or even Dan Quayle. I'd love to see a third party but find a realistic candidate. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 02 Jul 03 - 04:05 PM Guest - sounds like you are wearing the thin skinned liberal mantle very well. I guess you also think that you are something of a mindreader. Where did I say I blamed Ralph Nader? Please point this out. You must have read it somewhere if you can make such a statement. Or perhaps you are doing a Rush Limbaugh and inserting your own words to try to make a case. Don't make such an ass out of yourself. You don't have a clue yet you can make suggestions about the way other people think. Shame on you. I have no problems with a third party candidate running, I just don't think that Nader is much of a candidate. Nader was not the problem in 2000, the problem was with Al Gore and George Bush. You are a troll plain and simple. If you want to engage in a discussion, use your name. Don't be so paranoid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 02 Jul 03 - 04:20 PM catspaw and Ron Olesko are, of course, entitled to their opinions that Nader wouldn't make a good president. Just as those who feel Nader would make an excellent president are entitled to their opinions. At least, that is the way the democracy was supposed to work. We were supposed to be able to at least tolerate the opinions of those we disagreed with, and refrain from attacking them personally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 02 Jul 03 - 04:31 PM I agree with you guest, and I hope you will take note of your last sentence because you missed your own point. If you will notice, you attacked me first. I gave my opinion on why I did not think Nader was a good candidate and then you accused me (and others who don't like Nader) as "swallowing right-wing propaganda". When I defend my position you accuse me of attacking you. How ridiculous is that? I have no clue who you are since you where an electronic cowl over your head because you don't want people to identify you for your views. Please learn tolerance guest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 02 Jul 03 - 04:46 PM I didn't name you by name in the 1:24 post, did I? When I said right wing, I was actually referring to Beccy. I think you need to chill, Ron. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 02 Jul 03 - 04:48 PM No you did not call me by name. But you did say "so many people swallow the right wing propaganda lines about Nader, making him out to be just a little less distasteful than Saddam Hussein. It also shows they don't know any of the facts of Nader's life and work, which has been tremendously successful over the years." Sorry guest, I did not try to make this personal. Also, please do not tell people to "chill" when they aren't agreeing with you. It really kills any meaningful discussion. Ron |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Ebbie Date: 02 Jul 03 - 05:06 PM BTW, I also make the fearless prediciton Yep. You're really fearless, oh, Nameless One. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Walking Eagle Date: 02 Jul 03 - 05:09 PM On a different tack, I wonder why third parties don't work harder to build a local base instead of trying to reach too far, too fast? Work for the bottom up, instead of the top down. It seems as the Greens in Europe are trying this approach. What's wrong with working hard to help local candidates of a party get elected and supporing national candidates of a major party who have similar views? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Beccy Date: 02 Jul 03 - 05:50 PM Oh, I get it... because I tend to side with the conservatives on most things I'm not entitled to an opinion about Ralph Nader? I seriously got a laugh out of him last time 'round. I didn't think he was viable and I think he muddied up the discussions, but it was always interesting. And just FYI, I'm not a big Bush booster. My guy didn't win, and wouldn't, 'cause he wasn't viable either, but I'm not crying and getting defensive every time someone bad-mouths Alan Keyes. Beccy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: CarolC Date: 02 Jul 03 - 05:55 PM I'm not sure, Beccy, whether or not you're addressing me, the anonymous guest, or both of us. For my part, I was just asking in what way you found Nader's candidacy amusing. I asked because I was curious. That's all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bobert Date: 02 Jul 03 - 06:39 PM Well, I'm not gettin' into the catfight but GUEST does make an all important observation that the Democratic Party has done a purdy good hatchet job on Ralph Nader and the DNC ain't too wild about either Kucinck or Dean either as they try to shape a party that looks and sounds more Republican. Now, as fir Nader. How many folks out there in Catdom really think we Greens were expecting to win the '02 election? Hold your paws up high. Didn't think so. 2000 was about getting the 5% needed to get an alternative voice heard in '04. It was not about Ralph Nader, other than he is one citizen of the US whop has a voice that is pro working class, pro envinment. So those of you who are arguing Nader missed the goals of the 2000 election. We Greens certainly knew and know what victory is: it's 5%. And, yeah, Nader is a little long winded but if you listen to what he has to say, its pro working class, pro earth and pro human. More than you'll get from the Repubocrats. And if Ralph runs again and is chosen to represent the Green Party, keep the goal in mind and give the man a break. We'd take anyone who has some name recognition, a life of service and the right thinking... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 02 Jul 03 - 09:42 PM With Nader, the Green Party got 5% in Minnesota, and several local Greens into office in the Twin Cities. Without Nader or any other name candidate, the Greens didn't poll 5% in 2002 in Minnesota, so not only was the campaign finance money lost, but so was a lot of good momentum. Victory is most definitely 5% in the elections for any statewide and nationwide Green candidate. You can't build viable alternative parties without campaign finance dollars. Which is why it is so crucial for any national candidate to have national name recognition. He was also the only candidate coming from a public interest advocacy position, and who talked about issues that matter to the public interest. Republicrats, on the other hand, are unsafe at any speed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 02 Jul 03 - 10:06 PM Oh BTW, I saw a DNC party hack on Fox this evening too. He was totally inept, inarticulate, and defensive when talking about why the Dem candidates, platforms, and party should not make what the Fox screaming head was referring to as a "hard left" by supporting Kucinich and Dean. But once he started to attack Nader, his message was focused, concise, and "on message". And these long summer days a year out from the party conventions isn't even dress rehearsal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Janie Date: 02 Jul 03 - 11:06 PM Bill D, you hit the nail on the head. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 02 Jul 03 - 11:36 PM This is a very interesting conversation. Before I continue, I do think the Green Party is important, and I do realize that their goal was to get 5%. However, if they or any other group wish to become a viable party, isn't it important that they offer a candidate that will speak to more than 5% of the voters? Across the nation, Nader in 2000 received 2.7% of the popular vote. For comparision, George Wallace received over 13% of the vote in 1968, John Anderson over 6% in 1980, and Ross Perot gained 8% in 1996. Going back further, Strom Thurmond received 2.4% of the vote in 1948 and in that same election Henry Wallace received 2.38%. Obviously there have been independent candidates and attempts at viable third parties. We can all play spin doctor but there are a few facts. No candidate or party has been able to present a viable and reasonable alternative to the Democrats & Republicans. I'm not saying this is the way it should be, but it is obvious that there are deep reasons why it is the truth. It appears that after several of us questioned Ralph Nader's viablility as a candidate, we were quickly set upon. We were not challenged on our opinions of the man, but rather on the fact that we challenged him at all. One of the gripes against Nader is that he is authoritarian and cannot accept challenges. Whenever he was challenged by the media he would blame the media as being biased. Sounds like his supporters do the same. If a candidate is going to enter the public arena and be taken seriously, they are going to have to stand on their own merits and ideas. Drawing votes based on sympathy for their "plight" will not create a viable and respected third party. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: NicoleC Date: 03 Jul 03 - 12:06 AM >If a candidate is going to enter the public arena and be taken seriously, they are going to have to stand on their own merits and ideas. I agree that this SHOULD be the case, but unfortunately, I don't this is the whole picture. 3rd party candidates are systematically shut out of campaign debates and ignored by the media. Even in CA, where the population tends to be mostly moderate to liberal, the only comments about Nader I ever heard on the local news were negative, and generally all of about 3 seconds long. When Nader sold out a local arena for a campaign speech, it wasn't even mentioned -- but other candidates who were 300 miles away were given full coverage. We can't make a real judgement on whether Nader -- or any of the other 3rd party candidates in 2000 -- spoke to a significant percentage of the people, because most of the people had no idea what the message was. Nader has enough notoriety to stick in people's heads and get a little attention, but let's see a show of hands for people who knew what political platform Hagelin ran on in 2000. Anyone? Sadly, in almost all cases the candidate who spends the most money wins, regardless of what party or platform they are running on. Concepts like equal access to media resources have become a joke when those resources are merely for sale to the highest bidder. Perot pulled in the percentage he did because had vast amounts of his personal fortune to spend on his pet project. I think most of us of any politcal stripe believe that candidates should have equal access to get their message to the people, the central idea of democracy being that the populace makes an informed decision. I think that's a pipe dream for now -- money has corrupted the system too deeply. Kuninich has the potential to be the goad to the Democratic party this year to bring up a progressive opinion on issues. If he stays viable up to the convention, we don't need Nader. But if Kuninich slides into obscurity, I'd like to see Nader run again to play that role... and then withdraw from the race shortly before the election :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 03 Jul 03 - 12:20 AM "3rd party candidates are systematically shut out of campaign debates and ignored by the media." That is not all together true. Perot and Anderson were part of the debates. Yes, it took some fighting to prove that they were viable candidates. If I declare myself a candidate for president, should I automatically be part of a debate and have the media show up at my door? Nader had some good opinions, but then again so do a lot of people. Because he declares himself a candidate, should people be FORCED to listen? This isn't Pee Wee League baseball where everyone gets a chance to play. We are in the majors and those with the skills and apptitude will step up to the plate. You have to earn a seat at the table. IF Kuninich does well, the media will have a story and they will cover it. Jimmy Carter did not have a big media following until he started winning primaries. When the field is crowded, only those with interest will be heard. In my lifetime, George Wallace, John Andersen and Ross Perot made waves. Ralph Nader has a following, but the numbers aren't there. I always think of someone like Abbie Hoffman. Totally against the establishment of the day, but he had a presence and knew how to attract attention. Ralph Nader is no Abbie Hoffman. Ralph Nader is not even Al Gore. Believe it or not, there are some of us who have heard his words and think that while he is a nice guy and a fighter, he doesn't belong in the presidency. I was all for letting Perot and Andersen into the debates because they had the potential to make a difference. Sorry to say, Nader does not. Nor do a number of candidates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Wolfgang Date: 03 Jul 03 - 04:05 AM To produce the kind of result Wolfgang suggests would require some very sophisticated tactical voting Yes, but someone would do that thinking for the voters. Candidates would tell their voters the most preferred ranking pattern of all candidates in order to be maximally helpful to the most preferred candidate. Two politicians who are trailing behind one who seems to be stronger than each of them would combine their advices on ranking pattern to damage selectively the one they believe to be stronger. In the thread about the French elections linked above I have posted some examples of silly results in a ranking voting system. Such a system seems attractive only at the first glance. Why has it not been introduced in many countries? It has been analysed thoroughly and found wanting. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bobert Date: 03 Jul 03 - 09:05 AM I agree with Nicole on this one. Access is everything these days. This is a very busy nation and folks tend to form opnions around sound bites wwith very little knowledge of the issues. (Disclaimer: I am not speaking of most on this forum but the general population...). And sad to say, George Wallace's campaign was based on *hate* and he got lots of news coverage because hate is negative and the networks eat up negative stuff because it sells more soap powders. laxitives and beer. These days, if you're a progressive, the media will avoid you like you're contaminated with radioactive SARS virus. Nader sold out one arena after another during the campaign and lots but, like Nicole said, it didn't get reported by the Repubocrtaic media. Same happened when half a million folks showed for an anti-war demonstartion in DC in October. Page A-8... "A few thousand...". And guess what? Now Michael Powell, the son of Colin Powell, who heads up the FCC, is giving in to the pressures of Big Four (ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox) to strip away the last remaining restraints on media ownership. This will make it even harder for third parties and progressives to get their voices heard. I don't think Tom Jefferson saw this coming or the Bill of Rights would have had 11 ammendments instead of 10... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 03 Jul 03 - 09:26 AM Bobert - I agree with most of your points but I have two "ammendments" of my opinion. Michael Powell is not the problem with the FCC. He is the easy target because of his father, but this issue has been building for years. I agree with you that it will make it harder for third parties and progressives to get their voice heard, but the problem is that corporations like Clear Channel and the networks you mentioned have gained their market share BECAUSE the smaller third parties have sold out because the business just isn't there. The American people have, as a majority, always gone with the bland. Even our beer is marketed to a taste that will please the most people. The same with radio. Our music and news is programmed to reach the most ears, and the public as a whole (or is that hole) does not want anything different. The same with candidates like Nader. Yes, you are right, Wallace was a voice of hate and the media jumped on it - because that is what the public wanted to hear. Nader is a voice from another generation, and he is not the slick media image that appeals to the general public. Trust me, the media jumps on charismatic voices no matter what their point of view. The problem with the progressive movement is they do not have their version of Rush Limbaugh. Nader does not sell soap powder or beer, and that is the lifeblood of the media. While it may sound that is lining the pockets of some executives, it is much deeper than that. Having worked at a network for 12 years I can tell you that many people make their living through selling those commercials. The media always covers stories when layoffs occur in the auto or airline industry, but is anybody protesting when respectively equivelant numbers lose their jobs in the media? Sorry to rant and ramble and deviate from the path of this discussion. Ron |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 03 Jul 03 - 12:47 PM Most the Greens I know are willing to back Kucinich instead of Nader, but only if the DNC gives the progressives true and genuine access, representation, backing, AND seats at the table. Most progressives are now former Democrats, who have been voting for third party candidates since the 1960s, or they have stopped voting in the presidential races, or stopped voting altogether. If those who oppose Bush so vehemently would simply admit the problem isn't with Bush, but with the Democratic Party selling it's soul to the highest bidder to maintain the status quo they benefit from, then maybe we could get somewhere in the this country. Nothing changed in the Democratic Party after the 2000 election. Even after the disastrous loss of control of the Senate, governorships, and House seats in 2002, nothing has changed in the Democratic Party. The same incompetent and inept leadership is in control of the party, with the exception of Pelosi replacing Gephardt, which only happened because Gephardt was running for president. As long as the Democratic Party refuses to change, and insists upon selling out it's grassroots base to appease the media whores and money men, their Chicken Little claims that the sky is falling because of Ralph Nader and the Green Party not obeying orders from the DNC, their claims will continue to make them a laughing stock in the progressive community. The Dems love to blame everyone but themselves for losing election after election. Sure things are really bad under Bush, but you know what? The Democratic Party isn't doing anything about it, so why encourage them to continue on with the Do Nothing strategy by voting for their boy? I don't throw my vote away like that. I'm not that cynical of a voter. I vote for the candidate that best represents me and my values, and who best expresses a vision of where they intend to lead the nation that I support. I don't throw away my vote on lame ass Republicrats election after election, in a losing battle to keep the fascists out. I actually believe in the democratic principles that give me the right to vote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bill D Date: 03 Jul 03 - 01:17 PM " Bill D, you hit the nail on the head. Janie" ..why, thank you, Janie--but short, simple answers on threads like this are 'boring', I suppose. In order to be part of the discussion, ya' gotta ramble a LOT more...*grin*. (sometimes I do, when I'm ready for hours of composing LONG replies) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Beccy Date: 03 Jul 03 - 01:31 PM Not aimed at you, CarolC... I went against my own best advice and baited an anon GUEST... Beccy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bobert Date: 03 Jul 03 - 07:12 PM Ron: I beg to differ with your assessment that there are no charimatic voices within the progressive movement. As Nicole, GUEST and I have eluded to: like who would know other than those of us in the progressive movement. No one, that's who, becuase these folks are either ignored or should they bubble to the surface thae are demonized, marginalized or trivialized. But mostly just ignored. Same goes for the muscians: Ani Defranco, Jim Page, etc. But lets get back to some folks who fall into the Repubocratic/corporate media demonized or ignored. These are a few folks who the general public know nothing or negative PR stuff about: Jim McDermott (D-Wa0, Reverand James Lawson, former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney who was assasinated for asking some hard questions, Al Sharpton who scares the Hell out of the Repubocrtas, Rev, Jessie Jackson, Rep. John Conyers (Mich.), writer Greg Palast, Professor Howard Zinn, Bernadette Devlin Mcaliskey, Leslie Cagan, etc, etc. And this is just the tip of the iceburg. Had these folks a little microphone time then I think you would be of a different opinion... See, it's real easy to dismiss that which we know very little. Like how many military experts were hired by the major media during the months when the American people were being prepared for war, when the Bush folks said openly that no decision had been made? I've heard 153... most former generals. How many clergy? None... I rest my case... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 03 Jul 03 - 08:05 PM Bobert, I will meet you half way. I do think that some of the names you mentioned are charismatic BUT I happen to think they are getting mic time. Rev. Al Sharpton especially. Are they as charismatic as a Rush Limbaugh? No. If they were, they would be turning heads, just as the left did during the 60's. At the start of the war in Iran, Phil Donohue had a show on MSNBC. People chose Bill Reilly and FOX instead and MSNBC pulled the plug. Your point about the war coverage and the hiring of military personnel is well taken. However, once we were at war, the so called experts role was to explain what the forces were doing. A priest is not going to be able to fill the same roll. I do understand your point though and I tend to agree with you. Unfortunately it is not what the public wants. The bottom line is eyeballs to the TV sets. The media is not out to change minds (with the exception of FOX) and frankly I do think that many of them covered the anti-war movement. The media is out to give people what they want to hear, not what they should be hearing. They spit out what their research is showing them the public wants. Television played an enormous role in the the Vietnam war. The anti-war movement received extensive coverage and I believe converted the American public to realize that the war was wrong. Face it. Television is a business. America has gotten fat, dumb and happy watching their Rush Limbaughs. If the left could match the ratings numbers, they would be heard. |
