BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 08:26 PM

Who bankrolls Rush Limbaugh for his media time?

Who bankrolled Ross Perot's campaign and paid for his air time?

Now--who bankrolls/ed...

Al Sharpton?

Daniel Berrigan?

Angela Davis?

Winona LaDuke?

Rigoberta Menchu?

You are absolutely Ron. The progressive and radical left doesn't worship at the altar of celebrity. That is the job of media whores in the mainstream media. They make arguments like yours all the time, saying that the reason why we don't cover Nader is because he isn't charismatic enough.

Which is THE WHOLE FUCKING PROBLEM WITH THE SYSTEM.

But being as deeply entrenched and in denial about it as you are, you just don't get that piece of it.

The progressive and radical left has a long history of being very suspicious of charismatic leaders, for very good reason. They are always damaging to the cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: NicoleC
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 09:08 PM

What the general public wants for entertainment is not the issue. This isn't the latest American Idol contest we're talking about.

TV and radio corporations in the country have basically free use of a public resource -- namely the airwaves -- because we, as a people, want communication. Communication is essential to a democracy. I don't think it's too much to ask that in exchange for the billions of dollars made from profitting from this public resource, that said corporations be required to equally represent the views of competing political platforms on programs which claim to present factual news. That doesn't happen, despite so called equal access laws, which don't enforce anything of the type.

Nor do I think -- and this is a radical concept -- that candidates which meet the criteria to mount a national campaign (on the ballot in enough states to win the election -- no easy task) should get an equal amount of time on those public airwaves in publicity and representation.

This idea that whoever can cough up the most money for TV ads is the best candidate is ridiculous. The skill set required to fundraise money for your party is not the same skill set we need in our leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 09:45 PM

And Bush is the best fundraiser in history.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 10:15 PM

Guest - Believe it or not, I agree with you. The bankroll comes from big business, usually Republican big business. I worked for one of those networks for 12 years, so I'm not in denial. The problem is THAT IS THE SYSTEM. Ralph Nader could walk on water, but he won't be elected president. You can say that isn't the point, but if it isn't, then perhaps Ralph is in the wrong forum.

So who bankrolls Angela Davis, Al Sharpton and the others you mentioned? I would love to hear YOUR answer.

The progressives do not have to "worship at the altar of celebrity", but you will remain a small niche. Hopefully an effective niche, but a small one none the less.    The good thing is the system needs extremists on both ends for change to occur.

I'm sorry you are in denial that people have issues with Ralphie. I'm sorry you can't accept that everyone doesn't see him in the same light you do. Perhaps that is the problem with the "progressives".

Nicole, you make some very valid points. The question is, how do you change it? A lethargic American public isn't paying attention. How do you get it to wake up?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 10:19 PM

And Al Sharpton would take Rush Lumbaugh to the cleaners, Ron. 99 times out of... ahhh, 99. Give Rev. Al equal mic time fir one week with Rush and Rush would have to wear a bag over his head in embarressment.

No brag, just fact.

But the Repubocratin media ain't gonna let that happen with out armed revolution. No sir!

Don't want no nigga preacha showing up our boy....

No sir.

(I mean no disrespect to you, Ron, but I just don't think you have any idea of just how disenfranchished and marginalized a lot of us feel... Really...)

We need a change...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: NicoleC
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 10:43 PM

Damifino, Ron. I agree that that's the way the system works now, but the system isn't going to change by cowtowing to it.

I'm encouraged by the fact that many Republicans in Congress are as dismayed by the recent FCC ruling as progressives -- anything which reduces the diversity of opinions and ideas that reaches the voters is bad, Bad, BAD for democracy.

I WANT to see thoughtful, intelligent debate between differing political philosophies and positions from candidates. I may think most far-right Republicans are pretty loony, but they do occasionaly make a good point. Same for Libertarians, Socialists, or any other stripe.

I think I can put into words what has many progressives bracing for the worst. Progressives and "classic" Republicans (often called "moderates") and Libertarians may disagree on their interpretation, but they all share a fundamental set of political values -- those enshrined in our Constitution, like personal and civic freedoms and balancing the good of the individual with the good of society.

The latest generation of Neo-Democrats doesn't seem to have a political philosophy at all. They're lemmings, or maybe just flotsam on the tide.

And the current ruling Neo-Republicans and their mouthpieces like Rush DO have a political philosophy, but despite their lip service to those shared ideals, they consistently fail to support them, and instead pursue a political philosophy that more closely resembles a medieval dictatorship that would deprive basic rights from all except the wealthy gentry.

You can't compromise with someone who's views are the antithesis of the concept of America. You have to fight them. So who do we have to fight the Neo-Republicans who have a political philosophy, but one they lie about? The Lemmings.

Blech.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 02:12 AM

Bobert - I think I understand how disenfranchised many people feel, particulary after the 2000 election.

I tend to agree with you about Sharpton, although we will never know because Limbaugh is too scared to sit in with anybody who could actually challenge him.   Again, I do think Sharpton gets plenty of airtime for someone who doesn't have his own program.

The problem with being disenfranchised is that those who feel that way tend to wallow in their frustration and do little to make it change. I'm sorry, but extremists on the far side of the right and left will never cut it. They tend to expand the gap and often tilt the balance to one side or the other.

Nicole - I agree, you have to fight. But still you need to compromise in some aspects. History has shown, you won't win. I'm not saying give up the ideas, just find a better way to "sell" them if you will.       There is strength in numbers, and the anti-war movement of the 60's and the civil rights movement succeded in many instances because America was finally able to get the message.   I just don't think todays messengers that have been mentioned can have the same impact. We have to keep looking for the right path and not give up.

Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 02:27 AM

I think the internet will have a profound effect on all future elections. What sort of effect remains to be seen, but I think the world of politics has entered a whole new era. Hopefully the internet will have more of a democratizing influence than a dumbing down influence.

And because we have (in my opinion) entered a whole new political paradigm because of the internet, I think that it's no longer possible to use the old methods of making predictions about what might or will happen. I think it's a whole new ballgame now.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 07:24 AM

The US had a whole country full of Ron Oleskos in the 1960s, who stubbornly stood in the way of social change.

It isn't the compromisers, who are defenders of the status quo they benefit tremendously from above all else, who bring about necessary change, particularly radical change of the sorts we have seen since the 1950s. It is the radicals who bring about change.

There was nothing to compromise about when it came to the Voting Rights Act.

People who insist that compromise MUST be the goal, are people who are heavily invested in preventing change, especially radical change, from taking place, in order to protect their status quo. It really is that simple.

I'm sure people with radical views disturb your world Ron, because you are a status quo man.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 08:41 AM

Ron:

In a pefect world where the playing field was level abd everyone was informed and empowered, compromise would indeed be a viable means of governance. But thast is not the case. The neocons have used attorneys and money to wedge themselves into power and now are buzily going about wrecking social programs that they *hate*, scaring the crap out of everyone in order to get 'em all goosestepping and controling the very information upon which people decide issues. There ain't no compromise to be had here. We're either going the have a government for and of the people or we're not...

I think what CarolC had brought up is a valid observation. The internet may be the last weapon against a governemnt that looks very much like one in other countries where dictators are elected. Boss Hog's media empires certainly isn't going to provide much, if any, alternative voice and when he does it will be cleverly positioned to demonize or marginalize those voices.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 09:09 AM

Or do what the Republicrats have mastered--coopt the voices of reason and social change.

Spin, demonize, marginalize. Spin, demonize, marginalize. Repeat as often as necessary, until the polls turn your way, and no authentic news that serves the genuine public interest gets through to the masses.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 11:55 AM

Guest - can you share your crystal ball? How dare you make such accusations and then hide behind your electronic hood!   What the hell do you know about my life and views? Obviously not a damn thing. You are nothing but another Rush Limbaugh rushing to judgement and letting your words spill out untruths. You wonder why we call guests trolls?

I have nothing but respect for radical thinking and you have no clue on how I vote.   Why is it that when somebody pokes a hole at Ralph Nader all the name calling comes out?   You can't accept that someone doesn't agree with you? It is people like you that prevent social change from being made.

If you really understood the Voting Rights Act you would realize that compromise was part of getting it passed. Yes, thank God it was the radicials who forced the issues but it was the politicians who ultimately passed the act. If you will remember there were also several amendments made to act (1970, 1975 and 1982) to correct and strengthen articles that were not addressed in the original act.

All it takes is one person to make change.   I respect and believe that. It is a real tragedy that someone like you cannot accept that people do not accept Ralph Nader as a politician. How dare you deny me might right to choose.

Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 12:14 PM

Bobert - I do agree with you, we need to turn the government back to where it represents the people.

Perhaps we have different definitions of "compromise". I do not mean to give up or compromise on the issue that you are fighting for. I have been trying to say that a leader needs to understand and respect both sides of the issue, not agree with or change sides.   I keep referring to someone like Abbie Hoffman, who I feel was a genius.   He knew how to work the system, particularly the media. He could also get people thinking, particularly young people.   He didn't compromise his ideals and ultimately helped change the way America thinks.

So what went wrong since the 60's?   My point is that Ralph Nader does not know how to use the media nor does he know how to turn on the masses.   Al Sharpton does.

I know how the media works. I've been there. I know corporations and lawyers have corrupted the process and have helped turn the majority of Americans into, well, zombies.   People need to question and we need people to continue the fight.   

Again, my only point in all this is that I feel Ralph Nader is not the person to do this. I am shocked that I've ben personally attacked for my feeling this. I'm not knocking progessives,radicals or the Green Party. I just don't think Nader is the voice that will bring the needed change.

We need change. There is still a fight for civil rights and personal liberty that needs to be fought. We need to abolish the WTO. We need change. Maybe Kucinich will be the one to bring it. I hope so.

Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: NicoleC
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 12:21 PM

FWIW, Ron, I sort of agree with you. Nader had his shot, and although he made a good try he busted -- now Nader is old hat and carrying around too much baggage from 2000 to be a good candidate. BUT -- he's still probably the most electable candidate the Greens could forward at this point.

There are certainly folks who might make better leaders, but they don't have the celebrity status that's required in today's elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 03:18 PM

Maybe Dennis Kucinich will bolt the Rebuocratic Party and let it be known that he would accept the nomination of the Green Party but that is doubtful, and if that doesn't happen, Well, Ralpf Nadar certainly has walked the walk all of his life and has a solid grasp of the issues so I can't think of anyone else that would be universally accepted by the majority of the Party.

We'll just have to see how it shakes out and be prepared better to broker our votes with some of our less conservative Democratic friends and get the 5% and then look toward '08.

As for Ralph Nadars ability to lead the country, like his style or not, but he'd bring pro-worker, pro-human and pro-earth folks in who would certainly turn around the train-wreck-a-day direction the country has taken sincde Bush's lawyer shoplifted the country...

Ya, Ron, we agree on much but I would kinda like to split hairs with you on the "compromise" issue. It ain't compromise when you're negotiating with folks who are taking back stuff that you have earned. All most Americans are trying to do is just keep what they have and not go backwards but that's not the object of the neocons. They want to rewrite history and steel from the working class. We're no longer compromising about how to go into the future but trying to hold the ground we thought we had. These folks got the country cramed into reverse and wnat us to compromise. Ahhhh, Mr. Thief, ya, take the TV and the stereo but leave the electric fry pan and bed, will ya? Maybe we're looking at compromise from differing perspectives...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jul 03 - 07:22 AM

"My point is that Ralph Nader does not know how to use the media nor does he know how to turn on the masses."

Then how is it he has been so successful with his consumer campaigns? How is it that he is such a terrible politician, that he has been able to build and lead the most powerful public interest lobby in the nation?

And as to my "denying" you your rights, all I can say is, will you please stop with your whining? I am basing my opinions of you on what you write in this forum. My having a negative opinion of your opinions isn't denying you a thing. Stop acting like a victim, fer chrissake.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Jul 03 - 09:10 AM

Sorry guest, I'm just pointing out what a hypocrite you are. That isn't whining. When someone doesn't have the guts to use their own name and then starts making accusations about me, I respond and defend my position. You aren't having a discussion, you are making attacks. Typical troll.

I also notice how you consistently fail to respond to my points(in this case the fact that you made up lies about my beliefs)and instead choose to make personal attacks. Coming from somebody who is too much of a coward to even use a name, it really doesn't mean much.

If you really read my posts, you would see that I'm not denying that Nader has made an impact in his CONSUMER campaigns. That does not make him a politician as you suggested.   There are people who do great jobs affecting change, but that doesn't qualify them to run a country.   His focus has been on very specific issues, I do not see where he is qualified on matters of foreign policy, he has not shown the qualificiations that he can work with groups like the Senate & Congress, and he has not shown how he will implement his ideas to my satisfaction.    I also say the same thing about George Bush and many of the other candidates.

Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 03 - 09:45 AM

I think if the Dems nominated Kucinich, there is an outside chance that the Greens would throw their support to the Dems next year, just to be rid of Bush. But I doubt that.

I don't see Kucinich party switching, as he is pretty grounded in the Congressional Political Caucus, and was already elected on a party ticket. Some men are so ambitious to run for the presidency, like John Anderson and Pat Buchanan (who had been Republicans, as I recall), or Strom Thurmond (a Democrat at the time of his leap) that they make a leap to a third party ticket.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,2
Date: 06 Jul 03 - 02:06 PM

You have to love the Dems. When it was clear that Nader would pull enough votes to give Bush a clean, indisputable victory in Florida unless he were destroyed, they ran adds pointing out that he is Palestinian, not Jewish as most Liberals assumed. The DNC also had it's newspaper allies imply that he is queer, mostly by stressing that he has never been married. The Jewish population of Florida is the power base of the Dems. Liberal in some ways, but not ready for a Palestinian homosexual as president!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jul 03 - 06:10 PM

I think it would be very interesting if Nader was Palestinian. However, he is actually the son of Christian Lebanese immigrants.

The Hall of Public Service

Wikipedia

Who's Who of Lebanese Immigrants

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,2
Date: 06 Jul 03 - 07:20 PM

The Truth is never going to get in the way of a good lynching by the Democrats! Look at how quickly the destroyed Bob Kerry when he was no longer useful.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Deckman
Date: 06 Jul 03 - 08:24 PM

CONFESSION COMMING! I am the voter that elected President bush (I refuse to capalize his name). I know I am as I voted for Nader. And for my voting for Nader, I threw my vote away. If I hadn't thrown my vote away, by voting for Nader, Gore would have won. I will NOT throw my vote away again. BAD BOB! ... BAD BOB! ... BAD BOB!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 06 Jul 03 - 09:05 PM

No cookie for you, Bob.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: toadfrog
Date: 06 Jul 03 - 10:52 PM

Well, if Nader is ever going to get his 5%, this should be his chance. Look at the vast sums of money Bush is raising. If I recall correctly, Nixon raised enormous sums in 1972, and used some of that money to finance the Peace and Freedom Party. Surely Bush can spare $10 million or so to finance an accommodating sap like Nader!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: toadfrog
Date: 06 Jul 03 - 11:26 PM

Well, Deckman, as you live in Washington, I guess it wouldn't have made any difference how you voted, individually. But as shown in this Atlas:

(1) Gore carried New Mexico by a .06% margin. Nader got 3.55%.
(2) Gore carried Oregon by .44%. Nader got 5.04%.
(3) Bush carried Florida by .01% of the total vote. Nader got 1.63%

Without Nader, no Bush. Without Nader, no war in Iraq. Without Nader, no Cheney and no Ashcroft. Without Nader, no permanent Right Wing lock on the Supreme Court. Without Nader, no Energy Policy. And Nader knew what he was doing. He wished all this on us in cold blood.

And if he achieves his 5% and his permanent Third Party, it means Republican control, by people even worse than Bush, for the rest of our lifetimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 12:56 AM

Yeah, it really sucks when democracy gets in the way of your candidate from getting elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Deckman
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 01:32 AM

Yes Toadfrog, I'm afraid that you are quite correct. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,2
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 08:57 AM

The sane people of this country know NicoleC has seen through the BS.

5% toadfrog? That is about the average handicap Repubs are given nationwide. Its called voter fraud. Systematic, organized fraud. New York, New Jersey, the New Orleans area, and Chicago have elections worse than the average Third World dictatorship. In 2000 St. Louis had one precinct with 300% turnout! Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Arkansas, maybe others. Arizona just made it illegal to ask for ID from someone who is registering to vote. 5%, hell! Arizona will have 50% voter fraud unless that law is reversed.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 02:12 PM

Thom Hartmann has written an excellent article that should be read by anyone who is not especially happy about the current administration. It can be found HERE.

On the matter of third parties, Hartmann says the following:

        ". . . Harry Truman said, "When voters are given a choice between voting for a Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time." (And, history shows, voters are equally uninterested in Republicans who act like Democrats.)
        Alternative parties have an important place in American politics, and those in them should continue to work for their strength and vitality. They're essential as incubators of ideas and nexus points for activism. Those on the right learned this lesson well, as many groups that at times in the past had fielded their own candidates are now still intact but have also become powerful influencers of the Republican Party. Similarly, being a Green doesn't mean you can't also be a Democrat.
        This is not a popular truth.
        There's a long list of people who didn't like it - Teddy Roosevelt, H. Ross Perot, John Anderson, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader - but nonetheless the American constitution was written in a way that only allows for two political parties. Whenever a third party emerges, it's guaranteed to harm the party most closely aligned to it.
        This was the result of a well-intentioned accident that most Americans fail to understand when looking at the thriving third, fourth, and fifth parties of democracies such as Germany, India, or Israel. How do they do it? And why can't we have third parties here?
        The reason is because in America - unlike most other modern democracies - we have regional "winner take all" types of elections, rather than proportional representation where the group with, say, 30 percent of the vote, would end up with 30 percent of the seats in government. It's a critical flaw built into our system. . . ."

But, for heaven's sake, read to whole article. It's very informative.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 11:05 PM

Uh... so let me get this straight. 3rd parties are great, as long as they don't do any politics?

If a political party doesn't run candidates, aren't they a PAC instead?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 07:11 AM

For me, the most negative manifestation of the tyranny of two party rule is exactly what we have now: a polarized nation that can't agree on anything. That leads to voter apathy, which leads to the most manipulative, corrupt, and greedy winning elections to maintain their own status quo.

So strong campaigns by third parties are the only true corrective we have in this debased political system in the US. And as we saw in the 2000 election, when the corrupt political system controls the media (that FCC thing we all heard so much about in June), as is the case now, third party candidates can't even mount a strong campaign, because they don't receive media coverage without having to buy it. Whereas the Democrat and Republican candidates get free media coverage 24/7, year in and year out.

The US political system is, without doubt, the most corrupt in the world at this time. Billions of dollars have been spent on graft in the form of "campaign donations" in the post-Vietnam era. Billions. The US business community has spent more bribing elected government officials than many countries have for a national budget for a year.

So if Ralph Nader has the guts to address that by running for president in ANY party, as he did in 2000, he has my vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 08:32 AM

Don't know if the Cattery is going to solve the democratic conundrum of reconciling representativeness with effective government, but it's an important debate.

Electoral systems sometimes outlive their usefulness, but they have profound symbolic value which makes it difficult to change them. The US collegial system belonged to an earlier era when the public could not be expected to know the individual candidates, but is now an artifice which simply distorts the results of what in fact is a single-constituency electorate trying in vain to elect a president directly.

Any thoughts from UK Catters on the proposition that the UK now has a presidential régime with the House of Commons functioning as an electoral college?

For parliamentary elections, the first-past-the-post system is brutally unfair and produces results which make a mockery of democracy. On the other hand, pure proportionality leads to a situation where splinter groups hold the balance of power and wield disproportionate power. The UK and Israel spring to mind as exemplars of the defects of both systems.

I still have a strong attachment to the form of PR which I grew up with (STV, the single transferable vote, with multi-seat constituencies for parliamentary elections). It's not perfect, but if engineered with the public interest in mind (OK, that's a big "if") it can introduce enough viscosity into the system to reconcile the representativeness/effectiveness dilemma and help to ensure that minorities are represented. It also works effectively in presidential elections where the whole country becomes a single constituency and the president who scores highest on the combined scales of most favoured/least disfavoured wins.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 09:11 AM

Let's see. A third party is only righteous is it does not run a candidate?

The U.S. should have numerous parties to fight and snipe at each other, making shure nothing gets done?

Voter fraud is just fine as long as your side does it?

Whoa Dude!!!!!!! What a country!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 02:11 PM

The problem right now, and the problem with the Democratic Party within recent elections, is not that the nation is polarized, but that it is not polarized enough. The Democratic Party has been oozing to the right for years, and it has finally reached that point that Harry Truman was warning about when he said (quoted above, but I'll repeat it here), "When voters are given a choice between voting for a Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time."

The Republican Party pretty much knows what it wants, and we're seeing the results of that now. If the Democrats don't like it, standing around with their thumbs in various parts of their anatomy and saying, "Well, gee whiz, me too, only maybe not quite so--uh--you know--like--so much." What the Democratic Party has to do if they want to have any chance of winning at all is to offer a genuine alternative to the Republican Party, and not be wishy-washy about it. In short, polarize the nation.

And to clarify the matter of the two-party, winner-take-all system that we have: I wasn't saying that I like it or recommend it (nor is Thom Hartmann in the article I linked to), I'm merely pointing out the reality of the situation. When have you ever known a third party to win a national election? When did a third party not draw votes away from the party it's most closely allied to? That's just the way it is, and if we want a regime change in this country in 2004, we're just going to have to deal with it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 03:07 PM

Unfortunately, Mr. Hartmann's solution (and he's written on this subject many times over the years) is for nobody to vote the way they want to. In other words, he proposes that you vote for a Democrat even if you don't agree with them or their politics, no matter how bad it gets, because after all, it's the "other" party.

Poppycock, sez I.

First of all, reality shows we have one party with a slightly more liberal but basically useless wing called the "Democrats." There ARE exceptions of particular individuals, but as a political force the Democratic Party is dead in the water.

Second, even if one accepts the hypothesis that the US exclusively a 2 party system (which I don't entirely), no one says those two parties get to be the "Democrats" and the "Republicans." History bears this out -- political parties come and go and their philosophies change over time.

We could be witnessing the death of one party and the rise of another to take it's place. Nobody hold your breath; it won't happen overnight. The Democrats aren't dead yet, but if they don't start acting like ANYTHING they will be dead. I'd rather they act like a real party again -- otherwise it'd be an ugly ride.

Mr. Hartmann's periodic insistance that one should blindly vote for a party instead of candidate only accelerates the downward spiral of lackluster, lame, corrupt candidates on "both" sides of the aisle.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 09:11 PM

Harmann is not advising you to vote blindly for the Democratic Party no matter what, he's advising you to get in there yourself and stir the soup. Don't just sit back and complain, jump in, join forces with other like-minded people and do everything you can to steer the party in the direction you think it should go.

This is the way the Neo-Cons took over the Republican Party. He's just saying "What's sauce for the goose, etc. . . ."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 10:38 PM

Mr. Firth: Your statements do show a "Democrat, right or wrong" attitude by assuming that any reasonable person wants the current administration changed. WE DO NOT. Changed a little, maybe. Pick a left or right adjustment. That is democracy.

I have asked many a liberal what he stands FOR. They usually answer with a statement of who they are AGAINST. Not the same thing. Calling people Neo-whatever is childish. We have a decent, honest man in the White House now. You may not think so but you are surely wrong about other thing too. Give him the benefit of the doubt and the country has a chance to unite.

The true, honest, liberal Democrats are gone. The people you see now are "pods". Remember the movie? If the Dems hope to save themselves, the few (any?) true beleivers must purge the freaks, crooks, the Hil-Billary wannabes and perverts and start over. There is nothing attractive about people who must destroy honest and decent people as their only way to get elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 11:00 PM

Sure we have a decent honest man in the White House right now. But the chef doesn't make national policy.

Guest, you talk about there being noight "attractive about people who must destroy honest and decent people" after you write a sentence where you blame the Democrats for having "freaks, crooks" and "perverts" in their ranks.   What kind of hypocrite are you?

I'm not denying the Democratic party is screwed up, but for you to sit there and pass judgement and then hide under your electronic hood really speaks volumes about your character.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 12:20 AM

The only thing to apologise for is the guest status. Guest statements come from at least four different people here. This is confusing. I came in after others and did not use A, B, 1 or any
such distinguishing marker. My fault.

Typical lefty, you jumped on the divisive words only and ignored the truth. The Democrats are in trouble because they represent the marginal left-overs of society. A child-molester is much more comfortable with Demos. Organized crime is not flocking to Repubs. Maxine Waters is a hideous joke yet Demos embrace her, at least in public. Read what I said. I stand by it.

We do have a decent, Christian man in the White House now, and we both wish him the best. No fights. No Bile. God bless, and let us all get back to music or anything that is fun and positive.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 01:09 AM

Okay, GUEST. Got you pegged.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 01:15 AM

Hail to the Thief!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 09:28 AM

Yes guest, thank you so much for proving my point.   I guess we understand where you are coming from.

I enjoy my status as a lefty and I'm glad you were able to pick up on that. If you feel that organized crime has not flocked to the Republican Party then you are blind.   

Child molester?   Who are you referring to?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,The first
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 12:06 PM

The state of political graft and corruption is equal opportunity. No party has a lock on it. The polarization in this country is not Dem vs Rep or even liberal vs conservative. It has to with corrupt vs. not corrupt.

I believe the latest guest, who's politics I disagree with, is right about one thing. The conservative elements of this society (whom are also quite splintered, but can agree to vote as a bloc) have displaced the liberal elements of this society in politics and business. The liberals have been effectively marginalized and are very much dead in the water. They don't have a prayer for beating Bush in 2004.

The true polarization in this society is between forward looking progressives, and backward looking conservatives. Liberals are irrelevant, and they are represented politically by the Democrats, despite the occassional conservatives (like that young, black House member from Tennessee the right wing of the Dem party is grooming for greatness, whose name escapes me right now) here and there.

The progressives in this party will eventually do battle directly with the conservatives, and they will win. That is the nature of human progress. Conservatives can't hold us back forever, only for a short time in the big scheme of things. I do take that sort of long view. The current turn to the right is millenial inspired fear mongering by people terrified of what the world will look like when it is ruled by more enlightened egalitarians from all over the globe, and when this nasty capitalist virus runs it's course, and we have a whole new economic model.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 12:22 PM

Sorry Ron and Don. The gentleman who just made his point is more likely to side with you two than with me. How do you spell albatross? God Bless all. (end of my stay here, honest!)

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 12:43 PM

"When voters are given a choice between voting for a Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time."

Ain't necessarily so. Tony Blair managed to get not only elected but reelected as a Labour (cf Democrat) politician advocating Conservative (cf Republican) policies.

Now the Conservatives reckon that their only way back to power is to posture as saviours of the public services that they themselves wrecked, which is as close as you can get to a reversal of polarity by both parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 01:37 PM

Guest 12:22 PM   - You did a find job spelling albatross.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 01:38 PM

oops... your spelling is better than mine. You did a FINE job spelling albatross.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 02:14 PM

GUEST accuses me (us) of only being AGAINST Bush and not FOR anything. But there is plenty that I stand FOR. There is no political party extant in this country that consistently reflects my beliefs about the direction this country should go. I hold no brief for either of the two major parties, but of the list of candidates currently lining up for the 2004 elections, there are three who stand for a number of things that I find I can pretty much agree with. They just happen to be Democrats. About they're not having a prayer of beating Bush in 2004, I would not be so hasty or defeatist. Whether or not they have a real chance remains to be seen. The election is not for sixteen months yet, and a lot can happen in that time.

We may be the richest, most powerful country in the world, but there are countries that are far more civilized than the United States. With far less resources and wealth, they are much more advanced in terms of social programs and safety nets, and they have no desire to go to war with or otherwise dominate other countries. Their citizens are healthy, happy, and free, they have universal health care, excellent educational systems, no poverty, no homelessness, they take care of the elderly and disabled, and they have labor laws that provide for fair wages and allow for leisure time in which they can enjoy the fruits of their labors, not just live to work as many do in this country. These countries seem to care for the welfare—not just a monthly check that many Americans seem to find so hateful, but the overall general welfare—of their citizens in a way that seems to be alien to the thinking in the United States. Americans turn pale, scream "socialist," and refuse to examine what they do and how they manage it. Am I a socialist? No. But I am interested in the "healthy, happy, and free" part of it. And many of these countries have not gone to war for generations, and whenever they did, they were not the aggressors. They are more interested in cooperation and trade, and maintain military forces or memberships in organizations such as NATO, not out of any militarism or fear of their neighbors, but out of apprehension about what some bellicose Superpower might do.

The Republican Party under George W. Bush and the neo-Conservative cabal that is pulling his strings is leading this country in the exact opposite direction from the one I believe it should go. In not many months, the Bush administration squandered the biggest budget surplus this country has ever had and it has lead us into an unnecessary war of aggression (that had been planned since 1992), in the process lying to the American public to garner support. It has also squandered the outpouring of good will that the peoples of the world felt toward us in the wake of 9/11 and turned it into justifiable suspicion and apprehension about our motives and intentions. When questioned on certain sensitive points such as "in what way was Iraq connected with 9/11?" or "where are these WMDs?" they change the subject or stonewall. Domestically, corporate corruption and blatant cronyism has reached heights hitherto undreamed of, and when caught, if any action is taken at all, it is "justified," excused, or given a token slap on the wrist, generally accompanied by a wink. Bush has made many promises during speeches (e.g. education, and local level homeland security), but consistently the funding needed to implement these programs is not forthcoming. In fact, the Bush administration is in the process of tearing the guts out of social programs and safety nets that have taken almost a century to build (including education, Social Security, and Medicare), and—worst of all—when it finds the Constitution and Bill of Rights inconvenient, it ignores them—then accuses those who object of being "unpatriotic" (!!). These are the symptoms of authoritarianism and tyranny in the making. Any student of history can see this.

This country has the potential of being a shining example to the rest of the world. But the Bush administration is following a domestic policy of Social Darwinism and a foreign policy of geopolitical domination and empire building. Much of the world now regards the United States as a rogue nation, and with good cause.

Am I AGAINST Bush and the neo-Conservative administration? You bet I am! I'd campaign for SpongeBob SquarePants if I thought he had a chance of getting the Bush administration out of there. But in any case, I will work FOR someone who, I believe, has a real chance of, if not turning this country around, at least stopping its current plunge toward the Abyss.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: DougR
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 12:05 AM

Right on, I say. Go Nader!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,The First
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 10:38 AM

Said DougR, as he took the leap into the abyss.