BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,pdc
Date: 06 Jul 03 - 09:05 PM

No cookie for you, Bob.

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,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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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