Nader for President

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:09 AM

Actually, my LeeJ, I agree with you and I think the people who started www.moveon.org made a good start, people from all walks of life, all sides of the issues, getting together in a grassroots way during the impeachment hearings and now moving on to other issues.

katlikingherbedfellowsjustfine!

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: JamesJim
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 01:08 AM

Aaargg! Lonesome EJ, I've been uncovered... er...discovered... Uh, NAILED! You got me my friend! Vote Nader - Elect Bush. YES!!!

Jim

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:59 AM

I think much of the pro-Nader sympathy arises from the "none-of-the-above" mentality...in other words,a protest vote. I noticed that the most recent Gallup Poll had Bush at 47%,Gore at 44%,Nader at 3%,and I couldn't help but appreciate the fact that Nader's support was the margin of Bush's lead.I also can't help but notice that the strongest supporters of Nader on the Mudcat Forum are Peg,Katlaughing,JamesJim,and Doug.Now there's a quartet of strange bedfellows!grin.

Said it before...a viable Third Party,if it is to succeed,will arise from a centrist philosophy at the grassroots level,and will not be the product of some imagined Righteous Political Savior.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:36 AM

Control of the debates needs to be returned to the League of Women Voters who have an exemplary record of fairness and evenhandedness in dealing with all candidates.

Now, DougeR, darlin', I know you are sincere and mean what you've written and I commend you, but I also know there lurks within you a Republican who is rooting for our Ralph in the hopes he will undermine votes for Gore. It's all a GOP plot, admit it!!**BG** Sorry, sweetie, just couldn't let that slide.:-)

I heard a really interesting discussion on NPR about people pledging to vote for Nader in states that will definitely not go with Gore, i.e. Wyoming, N & S Dakota and others, IF a friend or relative in an important swing state who wants to vote for Nader, but doesn't want Bush in, will pledge to vote for Gore in that important state. You can read all about it at NaderTrader.com. There was another website, too, but I cannot remember the name of it.

Anyway, I've proposed a swap with my neice in CA. I think we are going to see an end of the two party only system, and I have one friend who has studied politics forever, who believes we will see an end to the electoral college within the next few years and wind up with popular vote.

kat

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: JamesJim
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:23 AM

Thyme, neither have 15% of the electorate in the polls. What we have is a catch 22. Neither Buchanan or Nader can reach that level without more exposure. The debates would no doubt have elevated both, with probably more voters going for Nader. As I understand it, the debate commission is controlled by the Democrats and Republicans. They obviously would not want these guys in front of 40 to 70 million voters(DougR can probably shed more light on this). Serious issues might actually have been discussed.

I think the whole debate thing stinks. They weren't really debates. No serious discussion or challenge from either candidate. With Nader and Buchanan on board, that would not have been the case.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: Thyme2dream
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:03 AM

I think that the two party 'monopoly' needs to be thwarted...it's because of nonsense like this that we such a poor selection to choose from in this presidential race this time around! Im sure I missed it, but could someone fill me in on WHY the other candidates for president (I'm thinking at least Nadar and Buchanan) were not included in the debates? Sorry if that's a dumb question, I barely have time to keep up with this as it is, but I'm interested.

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: JamesJim
Date: 01 Nov 00 - 12:01 AM

Doug, I saw the programs and I certainly agree that Nader should have been included in the debates. In fact, I agree with everything you say regarding this issue. Funny, we didn't hear all of this uproar from our democrat friends when Perot was running. Of course, he had a larger percentage of the vote, but in fact, had he not entered the campaign, Bush would have won. Still, he was legitimate --- so is Nader.

With regard to Donohue, man I didn't realize how wild that guy is. I understand he and Marlo disagree politically. Can you imagine the conversations around their house? I don't think she or any of their friends would even have a chance to speak. Anyway, I am quite pleased that Mr. Nader is hanging tough.

Got to go -- our favorite Vice President is on the Tonite show. I've got to go see what he invented this week.

Jim

Subject: RE: Nader for President
From: thosp
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 11:59 PM

well DougR -- i know that you know what i think!

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: Nader for President
From: DougR
Date: 31 Oct 00 - 11:49 PM

Phil Donohue was on Chris Matthew's show, "Hardball," tonight. I have never been sympathetic with Donohue's views, but the purpose for his appearance on "Hardball" was to present the case for the Green Party. Those who know me from previous postings know that I am not an advocate for the Green Party, but I am an advocate for the right of the Green Party to field a candidate for President. Ralph Nader, and any other legitimate candidate for the presidency should have been included in the debates, (in my opinion) and the current effort of the Democrats to appeal to Nader to withdraw in favor of Gore, again in my opinion, is ridiculous. Donohue presented a very compelling case against capitulation by Nader and I agree with him. "Are they implying, he said, that if we are good guys, and Ralph withdraws, they will be more accepting of our running in 2004?" That might not be an exact quote, but that essentially was what he said. I think any reasonable person would agree that in 2004, the Green Party would face the same pressure not to run that they are feeling in 2000. The Green Party wants to establish itself as a viable party elibible for federal campaign funds, and for the first time ever, I agree with Donohue.

What do you think?

DougR