BS: Nader To Run For President

Subject: BS: Nadar To Run For President
From: Cruiser
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 10:17 AM

Ralph Nadar announced on Meet The Press that he will run for President. Will he be a "spoiler" again, as in 2000? Are you Democrates concerned?

Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: Nadar To Run For President
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 10:36 AM

Your "you Democrats" sounds a lot like Perot's "you people" when he spoke to a black audience in Dallas right before he tanked in his run for the presidency. Sounds like you're not one of "us."

At this point one can presume that Nader's ego has trumped his common sense. In the sentence sound-bite I just heard on the news he said he would run as an independent because it is necessary to retire the current president. His candidacy will not be seen as an attempt to retire Bush, far from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nadar To Run For President
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 10:42 AM

Yo Cruiser,

Ahhhhh, I'm watchin' "Meet the Press" as we speak (EST) and right now Arnold Swartzeneggar is explaining why he is supporting a $15B bond referendum which is a sneaky way of raising taxes *down the road* (Noraml Republican trick.... Spend now and let the Dems clean it up later...). But that's a different story. I'm waitin' on Nadar's spot to come on. When did you hear "Meet the Press"? Does it come on earlier some other places?

Either way, Nadar is not going to have the Green Party's support like he did in 2000. I, along with many of my Green friends, are going to hold our noses and vote fir what looks like an "establishment" (yuk) Dem this time around. Some of us are also commited to actually working for an *establishment* (yuk) Dem.

Yuk....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nadar To Run For President
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 10:45 AM

"Asked if he would withdraw if he concluded his candidacy would merely ensure President Bush's re-election, Nader told interviewer Tim Russert, 'When and if that eventuality occurs, you can invite me back on the program and I'll give you the answer.'"

I'd read that as a coded way of saying "Yes" to that question. In which case the idea would be to use a candidacy as a way of injecting some issues into the campaign, and of motivating some people, who might otherwise be inclined to sit on their hands, to get involved, and ultimnately vote to get rid of Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Nadar To Run For President
From: Peter T.
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 11:07 AM

The man's name is Nader, and he is a necessary person, but he has become his own worst enemy.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nadar To Run For President
From: Art Thieme
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 11:20 AM

If he chooses to stay in, it could be a disaster.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Nadar To Run For President
From: Cruiser
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 11:26 AM

Nader it is!

Subject: RE: BS: Nadar To Run For President
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 11:33 AM

I don't see him making a wave this time around -- unless he materializes a party all of sudden, which is unlikely.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Nadar To Run For President
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 11:39 AM

Note to Democratic Party:

Buy him off. He'd make a really good Secretary of the Interior.

Subject: RE: BS: Nadar To Run For President
From: Cruiser
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 11:47 AM

Bobert:

I saw "Meet the Press" on satellite TV at 7AM.

Subject: RE: BS: Nadar To Run For President
From: Charley Noble
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 11:56 AM

Probably want do much harm this time around but Nadar may provide some comfort to Bush supporters. I voted for Nadar last time around but only after determining that Gore was likely to take Maine by more than 10%. I thought it was important to help provide the Green Party in this state their 5% of the vote to stay on the ballot and they did get more than that.

This time around I'm not aware of anyone who will risk voting for Nadar. However, if he makes it onto the ballot, I encourage Bush supporters to jump on his bandwagon.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Nadar To Run For President
From: Gern
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 11:57 AM

Funny it's an ego trip if Ralph runs, but not so for anyone else. I'll vote for him again, and continue to do so until one of the major party candidates comes around to the issues that matter. Bush has to go, but at what price? I compromised myself once and voted for Clinton, against my better judgement, and quickly regretted it on several fronts. From now on, I choose my candidates for their stances on the issues rather than their electability. If Kucinich can only rally 1% of the Democrat's votes, then their party is just as misguided as the Republicans. Let Ralph take his stand. Let Kerry (like Gore before him) worry about the 60% of the voters that don't choose him, rather than the 3-5 who go for Ralph. Get Green, Democrats, or face irrelevance.

Subject: RE: BS: Nadar To Run For President
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 12:06 PM

*Bingo*

Actually, Nader is ten times the candidate of Dean, and way more informed than Kucinich... He knows the ins and outs of 'the hill' down to the minutest degree, and he could actually carry on a lengthy, intelligent and issue filled debate with Carl Rove... or Greenspan for that matter... Nader knows why we're here, and where we could go with forsight and planning... in our communities, across America, and around the world.

But because he strikes at the core of the problems... and casts a critical and unsympathetic gaze towards the 'business as usual'... marketing, manufacturing, and accounting ploys... not to mention the environmental realities that industry ignores for 'bottom line of profits and jobs', the American public is quite simply, afraid of econonic trouble ensuing...

I won't vote for him this time around... because the American public won't vote for him in gigantic numbers... and I want Bush to suffer the landslide defeat he deserves. I just want someone sensible at this point... who is aware of the big picture, and of the the efficacy of hard work and determination for making this world 'just a little bit better than it was when we got it'

Yet... 'business as usual' is marching us down the road to rapid and unanimous extinction... and Bush's 'handlers' are holding the baton.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Nadar To Run For President
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 12:13 PM

Assuming that Nader's purpose is to get his viewpoint out there and not actually win the presidency (if he thinks he actually has a chance, he's about three feet short of a wall-to-wall carpet), there are ways he could do that without becoming a candidate. The Republicans must be squealing with delight this morning.

I hope McGrath is right.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nadar To Run For President
From: Cruiser
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 12:27 PM

Would anyone in the Democratic Party offer Mr. Nader cabinet position such as Bee-dubya-ell suggested? He seems an intelligent man and sides with many of the "right" positions Democrats espouse.

He stated on "Meet The Press" he would support gay marriage, which I am strongly against. I would probably support civil unions (no thread drift intended or any disrespect to others) as I previously stated. I agree with many of his other positions, although I am a Republican.

Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 12:39 PM

I am not one of "us" either and find that concept here somehwat repulsive. I am not one of "them" either as my politics are not drawn against party lines or so called liberal or conservative points of view. I draw my opinions on what I feel makes common sense. The "us" here seem to be radical just for the purpose of being radical. The few brave "thems" here who do voice their conservative opinions do so it seems to rile up the "us."

I believe just like last time, a vote for Nader is like a vote for Bush. One less vote for those who want him out. Go ahead and vote for Nader if you want Bush for president.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST,Guest - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 12:43 PM

He is a magnificent consumer advocate, but a lousy choice for a president. Yes, this is his ego because that besides the fact that he doesn't have a chance to win, even if he were to make it, he has no connections or concept on how the U.S. government works. At best he would be another Jimmy Carter.

We need changes and the two party system does not work, but Nader is not the answer.   Kucinich's sad showing is a telling sign of what this country really wants.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: michaelr
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 01:16 PM

Ralph Nader must have lost his mind. This could be very dangerous to our hopes of ousting Bush.

Last time, progressives didn't see Bush coming. No one predicted the magnitude of disaster that his residency has become.

This time, no one has that excuse. A vote for Nader really would be a vote for Bush.

As for the point about Nader articulating issues important to the left -- Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton and Moseley-Braun have done that and are doing it, and we see where it's getting them.

I'm no fan of Kerry, but if he becomes the Democratic nominee, anyone not voting for Bush MUST vote for Kerry. To vote for Nader would be idiocy of the worst degree.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Cruiser
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 01:41 PM

Thanks to Joe Offer for changing my Subject misspelling of Nadar to Nader.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 01:47 PM

The very magnitude of damage of the Bush II residency should shock Nader into taking a different stance this time. I felt that Dean's position, for as long as he was a candidate, was enough to make the party recognize that they can't ignore the environment and consumer issues. When Dean started duking it out with Gephardt he lost his focus and momentum. His position, if allowed to persist longer through the primary season, might have kept Nader out. But where Dean could probably steer his supporters toward the nominee, Nader won't do that, he'll hold onto all of those votes, regardless of the small numbers he attracts. To make his point he'll risk letting Dubya stick around. Ergo, ego.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 01:53 PM

C'mon, folks... Nader has a platform to 'wake up' the the voting electorate, and he is able expose the pathetic situation we are in for what it is. I am glad he is running, and describing to the American public what the coup d'e tat actually is... actually impeachable offences, and probably 'High Treason'... The media needs his counterpoint, in order to remain honest...

Go Nader Go!

I won't vote for him, but I'll fight to the death for his responsibility to speak up... and he owes it to us to run for the office of president... and keep Bush's can of worms wide open... with facts, and analysis.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 01:56 PM

My hope is that Nadar will, at least, nail Kerry on some of the big issues and force the dems to take a very clear stand. I also hope he will drop out sooner than later. Bush needs a very clear message, hopefully a landslide, that the American people are not as stupid as he thinks they are.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 02:03 PM

I heard the head of the Democratic National Committee explaining the other day that he had spoken to Nader several times recently, and had tried to convince him that by running, he could cause damage to his own cause by making it harder to elect someone OTHER than Bush.

Nader has been an good advocate for various causes, but there is NO reason he should be president! There are other ways to bang the drum than as a presidential candidate. (Same goes for Kucinich)

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Cruiser
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 02:21 PM

Ralph Nader "Meet The Press" transcript

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Cruiser
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 02:50 PM

The following is from the MTP Nader interview:

{Quote}
"Somehow it's OK to have a two-party duopoly that is converging more and more, where the towering similarities dwarf the dwindling real differences that the Democrats are willing to fight over. Democrats better look at themselves. They'd better brag a little bit more, which they hardly do, about bringing Social Security and Medicare and environmental laws to the country before 20, 25 years ago they turned into a corporate paymaster minion"
{End Quote}

Mr. Nader has a valid point. I would say it: "a duopoly merging into a monopoly of power". Corporate America has a hold on both of the major parties and Mr Nader can be part of the needed impetus for change. I don't think it is all about ego, although he could never be President. He would make a good Cabinet member though and could make change within the system.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Peg
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 03:10 PM

Hearing Nader speak this morning reminded me of what an articulate and passionate and level-headed man he is. I proudly voted for him in 2000...but this time, and I hate to have to say this because I fully agree with what Ralph says when he calls it an affront and an offense to suggest people should not vote for the candidate of their choice, and that the third party system is a joke in this country because the other two corporste-run parties are afraid to lose their stranglehold...
this time, it is different...
this time we have a ticking time bomb in the White House...

I want Ralph in, as I think he'd shake up the status quo BUT GOOD, but more than that, I want Bush OUT.
I will do what a lot of liberals did 'last time.' I will vote 'strategically.'
may the gods forgive us for not having the courage to vote with our consciences...

By the way, I really liked his take on same-sex marriage...asked if he was in favor of it he said unhesitatingly, "Of course."...Further, that love and commitment are in shoprt supply in this country, and divorce is what undermines the institution of marriage in this country...

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 03:21 PM

Nader is running strategically, not egotistically. He waited until Dean pulled out (in case none of you noticed the timing of his announcement). If Nader was truly running as a spoiler, he would have sought the Green Party nomination in December.

What Nader is doing is incredibly smart. He is going to keep up the pressure on the Democratic Party to move left, and not just pay lipservice to the progressives like Gore did last time. With Dean out of the race, and Edwards so far behind Kerry, the only hope to keep up the pressure on Kerry to not completely sell out the progressive left and their issues, is for Nader to run as an independent. He has no official organization to get him on the ballot, though I'm sure there will be Greens, Dems, CP, Libertarians and such who will work to get him on the ballot in their states.

It will also likely galvanize more progressives to show up at the polls, rather than stay home. Nader will pull out of the race and throw his support to Kerry just in time for it to make a real difference in the fall. This is going to be A Very Good Thing for the Democratic Party and for the defeat of Bush/Cheney.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Peter Woodruff
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 05:28 PM

I voted for Nader last time. However, he made no difference as a spoiler in Maine. I WILL NOT vote for him this time...too much at stake and he doesn,t have a chance in Hell.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 05:46 PM

I'm no Nader supporter, but I do not buy the theory that he lost the Whitehouse for Gore.I base my thought on this fact; if Gore had won his own state and either WV or KY, FL wouuld have been a moot point. Nader took not even 1/100 of the vote in those states.

Whether kerry or whover gets the nod, there is still the Congress and Senate to be considered. The mid-term elections will be just as important.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST, Claymore
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 05:52 PM

Well you know from my sympathies that when he made it official, I was in my front yard, embarrassing my neighbors. O Frabjous Day, Kaloo Kalay (sp?). I have little or no respect for the man since he took away my Corvair (alright the 63-64s were a problem, but the 65 Turbo Corsairs were sweet). I actually met him a number of years ago at GWU in DC and he is/was as warm as a fish, and without a clue on foreign policy. But whatever votes he takes form Kerry are welcome!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 05:52 PM

That's the problem with first past the post voting. In Oz we have preferential voting - which means that if your first choice runs in last place - unless the leading one has over 50 percent - then the 2nd choice votes of the last cnadidate are distributed - until a result is known, or only two candidates exist - that's why it;'s called '2 party preferred'.

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 06:30 PM

Guest, you have a point--as I noted, if Dean hadn't messed up by squabbling with Gephardt in Iowa he might still be in the race now, and it would have been better to have this discussion happening within the party. I think Nader did come in exactly for the reason you said, because Dean was out. I'm afraid Nader will just set people's backs up and they'll dismiss him to their own detriment. Those who don't like his dismissal will sympathetically vote for him, and you'll have the same mess as last time--George Bush losing and taking the White House anyway. . . I hope you're right about his leaving before the election. Call me a skeptic, but I've never been one to believe a guy will really pull out at the last moment just because he said he would. [wink!]

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 06:41 PM

Well, Nadar will help the Dems more than hurt them.

First, he will be a voice left of the Dems that make a lot of folks think that the Dems are more mainstream.

Second, as others have noted, he will keep certain issues in the forefront and not allow the Dem to pull their collective heads back into their shells.

Third, he will energize a number of folks who weren't going to vote for wither party who, as the election nears, will cast votes against Bush.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 07:10 PM

Makes a feller wonder if some of Dubya's $140,000,000 campaign chest is going that direction. Just kidding!! However, I am personally entirely confident that President Gore would have done the appropriate thing with Al-Quaida and Afganistan and would not have invaded Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 08:21 PM

And, artbrooks, I believe that if President Gore had been in the White House, where the American people elected him, then 9/11 would have been just another late summer day....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 09:35 PM

"I believe that if President Gore had been in the White House ... then 9/11 would have been just another late summer day....

That is a scenario I often wondered about, and which would beg the next speculation; that if we dwelt less on kicking others' ass, they mightn't hate us to the degree that they would want to try to annhiliate us at every turn?

It is probably a discussion that might be better in a thread of its' own; it may well have been done to death here already (and then some), but Bobert's contention, almost word for word, has always made me wonder about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 09:35 PM

When I vote for a man to be president, I visualize him actually sitting in the White House, making daily decisions on dozens of issues and giving news conferences and attending state dinners and being briefed on the latest security matters of the world by the CIA.....I do NOT vote for a general, but narrow set of good ideas!

I cannot imagine 'ol Ralph at the helm of the govt.....sorry. Dean, yes, Edwards, yes, Kerry, yes, Gebhart, yeah...even, lord preserve us, Lieberman (though I didn't LIKE his basic platform). But Nader? Nope. Like Kucinich, Nader should stick to being a well-thought of gadfly.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 09:35 PM

Peg says "may the gods forgive us for not having the courage to vote with our consciences..." I definitely agree. But unfortunately we find ourselves in a position of having to vote expediently instead of voting for a candidate who really reflects our beliefs in what we would like to see the world become. As I keep saying, what is needed right now is damage control, and this means taking the opportunity the coming presidential election gives us for getting the Bush League out of their current positions of power. The current list of surviving Democratic candidates are far from ideal (with the possible exception, in my mind at least, to Dennis Kucinich, who has a great program, but an unfortunate charisma deficit), but any one of them is preferable to another four years of Bush. This is one of those "non-ideal world" situations where principles have to give way to compromise. Sometimes you have to sidestep a bit before you can go forward. But that's [P'TUI!!!] politics!

Did Nader lose the 2000 election for Gore? Well, Gore needed only one more state to cinch the electoral votes. In Florida alone, the number of votes that Nader got was far more than enough to have nailed it solidly for Gore. The same holds true for a large number of states. One could argue that there is no guarantee that those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore had Nader not been running, but since they did vote for Nader, it hardly seem likely that they would have voted for Bush instead. Now, does it!?

Thom Hartmann wrote an article sometime back that makes a lot of sense to me. He explains why third parties work in other countries, but in the United States they succeed only in being "spoilers." And if you don't like either of the two parties, he tells you what to do about it. That's what's motivated me this time around. Give it a read if you haven't already.

A note of hope: early this afternoon I talked for a few minutes with Glen Gersmehl, the National Coordinator for the Lutheran Peace Fellowship. He has met Nader, worked with him from time to time, and knows him fairly well. He says that Nader is highly intelligent—much too intelligent to be doing what he appears to be doing. He thinks that that Nader is up to something other than actually trying to run for the presidency.

Glen himself is sharp as a tack. I sure hope he's right.

Don Firth

P.S.:   If Glen is wrong and Nader actually intends to try for the presidency, I think that from that point on, his name will be spelled Nadir.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 10:05 PM

Well, Don, when it comes to Florida, Jeb and Kate "promised" to bring home the bacon and they did. Gore could have taken 60% of Florida (which he might have done) and it wouldn't have changed a thing. A good read is Greg Palist's "Best Democracy Money Can Buy" to give one just a perspective on just how corrupt the voting was in Florida in favor of the Republicans...

As for 9/11.... Another Arab unfriendly Bush in the White House coupled with an official policy to let the Isrealis and Palistinians jsut fight it out set the stage for 9/11...

That's my take on it.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 10:43 PM

Bobert, there's a bit of a reality problem with your contention. The Arabs who piloted the planes had the plan during the last two years of the Clinton Administration and spend the last year of his presidentcy, and the first eight months of Bushes, learning to fly the planes. And considering Gore penchant for making himself irrelevant at virtually every opportunity (witness his endorsement of Dean without informing his former running mate, just before Dean blew up on the runway) I still hold we would have been far worse under Gore.

When Patrick Roy of Shepherdstown and 16 others were killed in the Cole attack, Gore and his buddies had their chance. Instead they blew up a baby food factory, and Osama started plotting against the inept Americans...

Off the subject; when are you going to play the Mec again? I didn't get the date last time and missed you.. But you still need to do a Thursday at O'Hurleys...

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Feb 04 - 10:48 PM

Yeah, Claymore, but they *choose* to do under a Bush administration. I think that says something.....

BTW, how ya doing? I've been thinkin' of playin' the Meckinburg Inn some time. Wanta hook up?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 01:27 AM

Uh, Claymore, you TOO have a reality problem. Gore did not endorse Dean "just before he blew up on the runway," but months before, when Dean was building momentum but needed some national names as endorsers. It was the exact moment Gore SHOULD have endorsed a candidate. What pisses me off is the cowards who wait until now and endorse Kerry; that's just jumping on a gravy train. Gore made his endorsement so it could mean something, not to ensure that he'd come out of it with a reputation for relevance. If that's your reason to endorse, then you really are irrelevant.

As for Nader, I agree that he does not expect or want to win the presidency. I think that was true last time too. I am less convinced that he's doing this to help get rid of Bush. Nader's goal has always been systemic reform, not regime change. It would be consistent with his actions in the past to go ahead and act as a spoiler. Not because he's a bad guy or because he wants Bush in office, but for two reasons: one, to show the Democrats that they have to take progressive candidates seriously, as they have not in this primary season, going as always with the safe-seeming, coporate-sponsored types; two, to show the nation that a two-party, winner-take all system is really dumb. Both of these points will be made much more effectively if Bush wins than if Kerry or Edwards does.

On the other hand, he could make the point pretty well by scaring the Dems shitless, then let us off the hook and support the Democratic nominee. In some ways, that would be less personally courageous, but better for the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: kendall
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 04:21 AM

Does anyone else suspect that Nader is a shill for the Bushites?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 05:51 AM

Didn't the original elections in the United States go something like-the person with the most votes became President,and the person with the second-most votes became Vice President?
Perhaps we're missing a bet here, since Ralph as VP would certainly change the status quo in all kinds of interesting ways...Just kidding, but I do think there is a point in Nader staying around to raise the questions that need to be raised...but my concern is that there is a good chance that Kerry, for one, won't have the answers, which will leave us exactly where?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 08:52 AM

While running, Nader gets media attention for some of the issues important to the progressive left. Not a lot of attention, but he would get zero attention if he didn't.

Because of our "less than ideal" political climate in the US, this is truly the only way the issues of importance to the progressive left are going to be heard. And they MUST be heard. What the progressive left thinks and does, matters to the country, particularly the activist left.

The pendulum is beginning to swing back away from the extreme right, and we need to be part of the national debate and the political infrastructure that will replace the right wing goons.

We have the same situation we had with Reagan/Bush--except this time we have a real chance at beating the bastards without becoming them, as happened with Clinton.

Keep Nader in the race--it is good for America that he run, even if it means there won't be a coronation of Kerry and the centrist Democrats. Keep the heat on the Democrats!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 08:55 AM

Good idea, GUEST! That way we can keep Bush right where he is. No need to find common ground among the factions loosely known as Democrats. That would be pursuing the common good, and lord knows we don't want to do that.

Mick
with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Frankham
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 09:06 AM

Nader is running on a platform that is essentially faulty. He
says there is no difference between the Republicans and the
Democrats. This is fundamentally flawed.

The differences are obvious.

He has a messianic streak. He would be better served as
a consumer activist rather than trying to be a president.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 09:08 AM

You are presuming (just as arrogantly as all the Democrats do) that everyone on the progressive left is a Democrat. We aren't. The majority of the progressive left is made up of Greens and independents, not Democrats. For good reason. The Democrats are a bunch of sell outs.

I'm voting for the candidate that will unseat Bush. That means that in this election, I will strategically vote for the Dem. But don't presume that means I support the Democratic party, because I don't.

The factionalism in the Democratic party is of no concern to me as an independent.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 09:18 AM

I will ignore your baiting comment about arrogance, as I know quite a lot about your ivory tower activism.

Perhaps you could give some cites as to the source of your contention that the "majority of the progressive left is made up of Greens and independents". I would be interested in knowing how that was arrived.

As to the factionalism not being a concern to you, I would contend that is exactly why the folks you describe never win and consequently end up having their agenda thwarted again and again. As an example: Labor and the Enviros, for years, were at odds and fought each other. This precluded them from finding common ground and advancing a great deal of what both were after.

When ivory tower activists like yourself insist on this whole purity of thought attitude, the only folks that get hurt are the average working folks. But, of course, that doesn't concern you either.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 11:37 AM

Ralph Nader: "The problem is that the corporate government remains in Washington, whether it's Democrats or Republicans."

Everything Nader says is absolutely correct. The Democrats and Republicans are a Duopoly masquerading as two independent parties. They differ in style, but not in substance. To vote for either one of them is to vote for the giant corporations that fund and control them.

However, no 3rd Party has the ghost of a chance of changing that situation in America, in my opinion. Therefore, although Mr Nader is right on the mark, and has great courage in saying what he says and doing what he does, I don't think it will make any real difference to the result.

It's tragic.

Looking at the USA at this stage in history is like looking at Rome under the Caesars. I see no way...absolutely no way at all...that ordinary Americans are going to vote their way out of the media and financial dictatorship they live under.

I think it is more likely that the corporate monster will slowly bring about its own destruction through its own corruption...as Rome once did.

To vote for either Democrats or Republicans is to vote for the monster. To vote for a third party or an independent is to vote for a dream that will never happen.

Americans, you have been disempowered utterly, from the top down.

And it was all for a fistful of dollars.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 11:49 AM

LH, that seems rather smug, but you are entitled to your opinion. Perhaps we should use as a model what is going on in Canada at the moment? My Canadian friends tell me you have a choice between a recently deceased Conservative party and a corrupt group of Liberals. So maybe this isn't about America but about the state of the world in general. Maybe if we working class, average folks around the world would start thinking in terms of what we have in common, instead of making smug comments about "you" or "America" we could get things done. Personally I am in favor of starting a cross border political party. For what it is worth, LH, I agree with you that the monied interests are in control of far too much, and that the media has centralized in a very dangerous way. But the answer is not to be found in sniping at the USA, and using tired old diatribe like the analogy to Rome. The answer will be found in average folks, no matter where they live, finding what they have in common with their neighbors and acting on those things, and celebrating the things which make us all unique.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 12:03 PM

Your summary of the Canadian situation is entirely accurate, Mick. We are essentially in a pretty similar spot to that of Americans, but are protected somewhat by the fact that our social system has a more moderate and less aggressive tradition behind it, that's all. The monied few control politics in Canada too.

You see, what worries me so much about the USA is that it is a huge power which imperils the World. Canada isn't in that position. We don't imperil anybody but ourselves.

I do indeed despair of the political situation in both Canada and the USA. Our elections are fraudulent. They are a rubber stamp on a ruling system.

What is my solution? I look upon my life as a unique adventure, and my own life is under my jurisdiction regardless of the political system. I find satisfaction in controlling and changing what I am empowered to...in my own life...which is the one thing I have jurisdiction over. I accept the fact that I probably can do nothing about the political monster that runs my society, but I can still live a very interesting and fulfilling life anyway. This is the same situation I would have been in in ancient Rome under the Caesars.

You could live a fine life in ancient Rome...but you couldn't change the corrupt system around you. People tried, and they died.

If you feel that you CAN change the system, Mick, my advice is...go for it! Because that is your unique way of living your unique life, and that's your business. What you find fulfilling is clearly good for you to do.

I still vote...not because I think it'll change anything, but just to shut up people who seem to think I haven't the right to express political opinions if I don't vote. And I have political opinions, just as I have opinions on art or anything else interesting. That's normal.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 12:36 PM

Little Hawk's take on this strikes me as pretty close to the way things really are.

I yell and scream and talk and argue, and I attended my precinct caucus, and I write letters to the editor, and I zing all over the internet and (as a woman I met at the meeting where Jim McDermott spoke a few weeks back said) vacuum up URLs to good web sites and recommend them to people I think should read them. But—will it really do any good in the face of the Corporate Juggernaut? I don't know.   

But (are you reading this, Doug?) when Chicken Little and the rest of the critters went running around crying "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" a little sparrow flipped over on his back and stuck his feet in the air. Turkey Lurkey looked at him and said, "What are you doing?" The little sparrow said, "I'm going to try to hold up the sky with my feet." Turkey Lurkey scoffed and said, "You don't seriously think you can hold up the sky with those skinny little legs of yours, do you?" "Probably not," answered the sparrow, "but one must do what one can."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 12:40 PM

And you express them very well, LH. That was a wonderful response, and I wish others would take a look at what a reasonable person who thinks his way through things responds to tough issues.

Quite frankly, I don't believe either country (USA or Canada) is in as tough a place as it currently appears. I have such faith in average folks, of honest intent, that I believe what we are really seeing is the demise of the reign of the demigogues. Folks just aren't buying into that like they used to. It finally hits them that the Rush Limbaugh's of the world have been shilling for a very greedy bunch that has been saying one thing and doing another. You can fool 'em for a while, and this bunch has been, but eventually it comes home to roost.

I sure as hell wouldn't worry about Canada. Every time I visit this wonderful place, I fall more in love with it, .... yes, even in spite of the few blemishes I see. It isn't the sod it occupies, it is the people and there wonderful mosaic inspired culture. Perhaps it is easier to see from the perspective of an outsider.

And why in hell haven't we sung together????

Now ... I have to go and grab my lance .... heard that a windmill was making an incursion into the area ...... PANCHO, .. HEY ... PANCHO!! .. Oh, there ya are, buddy .... Saddle up the Hummer willya?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 12:42 PM

Frank is essentially right about the main flaw in Nader's platform. It was the reason I lost some respect for him last time out. To claim that the Democrats and the Republicans are the same, or that living with a Gore presidency would be the same as life under bush, was his own version of the sell-out or the "Big Lie." An obviously untrue statement used to garner fear and get voters to throw their lot in with him. However, I don't think anyone really fell for it. Most of the Nader voters I know were in it to change the system, which was also Nader's goal.

It was like me: I voted for Gore because I knew that at heart and in his previous actions he was far more progressive than he was claiming. He had moved to the right for the election, but I was pretty confident he would govern from further left.

Nader's lie was different, and it was in some ways a worse and a bigger lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 02:29 PM

The problem in getting electoral reform anywhere is that the Goernment is always made up of people who have won under the existing system.

I imagine that if your Democrats were to lose a couple of times more, with it being apparent that a different system of voting would have given them the election, some pressure for reform would build up. But the example of what has happened in the UK suggests that, as soon as they won an election, they'd forget all about that kind of thing, and stick with the system that had given them victory.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 02:43 PM

Social and political change isn't made through electoral politics.

I can list many social and political changes that have been made in the course of my life time due to PRESSURE BEING BROUGHT TO BEAR BY GRASSROOTS ACTIVISTS UNALIGNED TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY.

1. No nukes - no new nuclear power plants have been started since Three Mile Island. Plants already in the planning stages have been the only nuclear power plants brought online since 1979. No electoral politics were involved.

2. Passage of all kinds of civil rights legislation, including the Voting Rights Act, desegration opinions being issued, etc.

3. Abortion rights upheld through social activism which resulted in new law being created by those activists who brought Roe v Wade to court.

3. Women's rights have been created and upheld, including changes in pension laws, property laws, employment laws, etc as a result of social and political activism of the women's movement.

4. Consumer rights have been passed - Nader's Raiders, for example.

I wouldn't call any of the above (and I can cite plenty more examples) being examples of "the folks you describe never win and consequently end up having their agenda thwarted again and again" I'd say the progressive agenda has done pretty damn well bringing about social and political change in the last 50 years or so.

Sometimes that change has been brought about with the support of the Democratic party, but mostly, the Democratic party fought those changes every bit as hard as the Republicans did, until they realized they would lose their voting base if they didn't get on board.

The electoral process is the least effective process for bringing about social and political change. The electoral process exists to protect the status quo. The Democratic and Republican parties represent the status quo.

Ralph Nader doesn't need one particular party to further his political and social change agenda, which is why he ran as a Green party candidate last time, and will run as an independent this time. Progressives use party politics when it is tactically smart to do so, which isn't very often.

Nader wants his political and social change agenda to be part of the national debate, now that the pendulum is swinging away from the Republicans. Running for president will make him and his issues part of the national debate. In a democracy, it is incredibly important that issues are debated from many political perspectives. It is what keeps a democracy healthy. Our democracy is very sick. Nader has some good medicine, and he is a patriot for running again, and doing what he is doing for this country.

Funny isn't it, how Democrats and Republicans both accuse people who aren't a party member, of being bad guys? Nobody is more afraid of democratic traditions and processes than the entrenched party players in DC. The minute someone exercises a constitutional right to run for the highest office in the land, like Abe Lincoln did, the party players scream and shout and try and drown them out.

Not very democratic of them, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 02:46 PM

Not having seen the offending post I'm willing enough to accept that it deserved to be scrubbed. I gather it was some kind of racist parody of the Ten Commadments.

Here's a non racist parody The Workingman's Ten Commandments Dates from 1877, but a lot of it still seems relevant enough:

First Commandment.—I am thy lord and master, who has brought thee off and out of British bondage into a land where there are free institutions and equal rights given to all—black, red and white men.

Second Commandment.—Thou shalt have no other master besides myself, and do as I bid you do; for I am rich, and give you as much wages as I please.

Third Commandment.—Thou shalt not bow down to any other master, and not belong to trades' unions, or lecture on the principles of the working party, or do anything contrary to my wish or command, for, if you do, I will call on the military.

Fourth Commandment.—Thou shalt not serve any other master, or work for any more pay than I give: for I am jealous master. I will have you discharged on the least provocation, and half starve your wife and children, and have you punished as a communist, and not treat you as an American citizen, but as a tramp and a vagabond.

Fifth Commandment.—Thou shalt not call me any other name but sir and master: for I am a rich man and have piles of money, and therefore you are my slave, for I own your body and soul. Six days you must labor and do all I bid, or I will give you another reduction. If you murmur or growl I will make you work also part of the night: for I am all-powerful, and I can use the law to suit myself.

Sixth Commandment.—Thou shalt honor my money-bags, and also my high social standing in society. Then thy days shall be long on earth and in my employment, which I give thee with my usual blessing of long hours and small pay. So says thy master.

Seventh Commandment.—Thou shall not incite riots with intent to kill. If you do, I will have you arrested and make you give bonds for three thousand dollars and promise of good behavior in the future.

Eighth Commandment.—Thou shalt not strike for any higher wages, so as to be able to make an honest living, and keep your children from begging, and make you eat bread and water three times a day—that's good enough for a greasy and ignorant mechanic, or a dirty, black miner.

Ninth Commandment.—Thou shalt not steal or commit any other nuisance, for I will find you guilty and have you punished; for I am mighty and my name is Capital, Capital.

Tenth Commandment.—Thou shalt not covet my money, or own a house or lot, for if you do I will have it sold by the sheriff and own it myself and shall say "hands off;" and I will say to the Government, you must protect me in all my undertakings, for I am mighty, and my name is Capital—0! Capital.

Source: Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen's Monthly Magazine II (December 1877): 15–16.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 02:50 PM

I would also disagree that life under Gore would be much different than it has been under Bush. The FCC would still be allowing media conglomeration. The Patriot Act still would have passed and been signed into law. We still would have gone into Afghanistan. Maybe not Iraq, but we may well have gone into Iraq with Gore as president too. Corporate interests would still be writing all our laws.

I do agree that in general, the labor movement has become as much a part of the problem with governance in the US as the corporate globalisation movement has been. Generally the unions are anti-environment, racist, and sexist. Not to mention they've been a whole lot less effective than the corporate globalisation movement.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 02:56 PM

That last post of mine is more relevant posted in the thread I meant to post it in - here.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Art Thieme
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 03:03 PM

The DOLLAR unifies the Republicans in a way nothing ever could or can for the Democrats seemingly. That was rarely the case before. We Democrats tempered their greed with a New Deal humanism they were only able to begin to destroy when they connived to steal the election.   But now the Repubs. have felt their power and can see that a strong togetherness can make them rich and powerful enough to be able to steal billions of dollars from the national coffers. They are saying, "GO FOR IT."

Friends, if Democrats cannot see that compromise and unity behind one person who can WIN decisively enough to quiet the greedy others is the only way under our system to take some of it back, we will deserve all the Enrons that come down on us----and we will get, even if we don't deserve being used as cannon fodder in their wars.

Art Thieme















GO FOR IT. The sky is the limit. To hell with the human underclass infrastructure of the Earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 03:35 PM

Lest we forget--it was a Democratic president--Bill Clinton, who was the architect of the repeal of New Deal welfare reform, by co-opting traditionally Republican agenda items. The Bush Republicans are now using an identical tactic with compassionate conversatism.

But to claim that Democrats don't have their hand in the till and in the pockets of their corporate funders, is sheer lunacy, IMO.

Follow the money, Art. Follow the money.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 04:13 PM

Lotta good posts here! Hey Mick, I sure hope we get to play music together one of these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 05:27 PM

I've been listening to Nader today. He's still a very smart man--I might retract my remark about his ego--but he still may have taken a move that will miss its mark. He's trying to nudge the Democrats forward, apparently--he spoke again and again about the Democrats needing to win this election, and that is what he's working for.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 05:39 PM

I look at it this way. There is no longer a viable presidential candidate that didn't vote for the war in Iraq, that didn't vote for the Patriot Act, NAFTA and GATT, etc. That effectively locks out the progressive left from the Democratic platform and convention power brokering.

Does anyone really think that John Kerry is going to suddenly step up to the plate and change all his positions that are clearly not progressive by anyone's definition? We have Kerry's voting record. While he has voted for some progressive causes, he is really the empty suit everyone feels they have to support to beat Bush.

But if beating Bush means we still live with the mess in Iraq, media consolidation, the Patriot Act, NAFTA and GATT, and numerous government agencies that have been gutted by tax cuts and rebates (ie HUD, EPA, etc), what the hell do you expect will change with Kerry in the White House?

In my estimation, not much.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 07:04 PM

What McGrath said above about the Democrats, that "as soon as they won an election, they'd forget all about that kind of thing, and stick
with the system that had given them victory," is perceptive, and it's exactly what worries me about the coming election. As a Democrat who wants the hands out of the tills, I'm not sure how good it would be for Kerry or Edwards to win. The only thing that convinces me to vote for the Dem no matter what is how awful Bush has been to the economy and the environment. The damage he is causing may literally come to be irreversible if has four more years in office. Hence, it is an emergency.

But this is also what worries me about Nader. He is smart enough to know what McGrath points out, which is that the only way he remains relevant is if he does keep the Democrats from winning. Eventually, the party will have to make some serious changes if they keep losing. If Kerry wins, Nader and the progressive agenda will be ignored and marginalized until (as GUEST 23 Feb 04 - 02:43 PM points out) the grassroots can restore the pressure. So why he would run and then throw support to Kerry I just don't know....

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 07:18 PM

Well, danged! I'm wavering a little here. Yeah, I know I've siad I would work for whomever the Dems nomintated in an effort to get Bush out but I'm just having problems with Kerry... I want him to sound like Nadar but he doesn't. Heck, I'd be happy if he sounded just a little bit like Nadar but he doesn't... I am in total agreement with Ralph Nadar on every danged issue.

You know what? Maybe the US needs another 4 years of neocon *rule* (not govern) so that it won't be tempted to ever again to allow such radicals to run the show... Maybe that's the only way that progressive ideas will seam fresh, logical and moral.

Anyway, I'm wavering. Yeah I still have my "Dean" sticker on the back of the Toyota but just haven't been able to square putting a Kerry sicker over it.... Nadar? Oh, I'm wavering.....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 07:57 PM

Nader can be relevant, and do it without defeating the Democratic candidate.

Nader will throw his support to Kerry only if it becomes clear that Kerry needs the Nader voters to win. With Bush plummeting in the polls among his own constituency, as he is right now, Nader may never need to drop out of the race, though. It is obvious Bush is screwed on the economy. Jobs can't be created fast enough or soon enough to reverse the slide on his watch. Taxes are going up all over the place to compensate for the Bush tax cuts and budget priorities. Things are not going well in Iraq, and when you combine those two things with all the WMD/CIA/Energy Task Force sorts of scandals they are trying to quash, well. It all adds up.

So this presumption that Kerry can't beat Bush decisively seems pretty ludicrous to me right now. But even if he can't, that is no reason why Nader shouldn't run as a third party candidate. I just listened to him on the news, and his message is better honed now than it was in 2000. He is a very committed independent candidate, who believes strongly in the importance of a highly visible credible candidate to run to the left of the Democratic party.

Last time I checked the Democratic platform, universal health care was not included in it. Nader is going to talk about the 18,000 people who die every year because they have no health care. Count on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 08:05 PM

Thanks, GUEST, fir bringing into focus what this is all about... Hey, I don't like Kerry or what he has supported... He's like BushLite...

I'm sorry folks 'cause I've said all along I'd pound doors for whomever the Dems nomanated. I just don't think I can square that with what I believe when it comes to Kerry... Should Edwards emerge, maybe...

I'm leaning to Nadar who I agree with...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 08:13 PM

I won't be voting in the U.S. election but I follow the campaign and I'm very interested. I've read your posts and realize what a tough decisions this will be. I agree that both the dems and the republicans are run by big money and their interests. It doesn't seem that anyone truly represents the people anymore. What would I do?

Mainly I'd vote dem. but if I were in doubt, I'd vote for the man. I couldn't live with myself any other way. You all say Nader doesn't have a hope in hell but...he probably knows that or...

Funny thing about U.S. elections. It often gets down to a battle between the North and the South. Maybe, just maybe what is needed is for people to have a little faith in their own gut feelings. Vote for the man who truly represents your own best interests.

At least it will send a strong message to the ruling elite and if Bush wins again... let him figure out how to get himself out of the mess he has created. Why should he be able to walk away now and leave it for the dems to clean up. Oh - I almost forgot. They usually leave that for the Canadian to do.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 08:39 PM

oh yeah - Kerry is worth about 650 million dollars. Do you really think he represents your best interests? Kinda like Paul Martin in Canada represents mine:>)

Vote the way you want to vote (without pressure) and then go on living your life the best way you can. Seems thats all anybody can really do.

d
P.S. I'm not a "spoiler" and neither is Nader. How can anyone spoil something that is rotten to the core?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 08:50 PM

does having money automatically make you completely untrustworthy? Kerry married most of his, and he doesn't NEED the political life to live comfortably...I'm not that worried about the money. (In some ways, it makes him a bit independant.)

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 08:51 PM

dianavan

I am glad I live in this country and glad I have a choice. I might not like both choices but I would vote for the man, and maybe one day the woman who I could trust the most.

I really don't think the North and South has much to do with it. The majority of the urban areas with the most population is in the north. Yet we have had both Bushes, Jimmy Carter, and even Lyndon Johnson in the last 40 years.

America is far from rotten to the core. It's not perfect, but I think we have a lot of people who deeply love it. All that, and women shave their legs and armpits, also.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 09:27 PM

You know what? Maybe the US needs another 4 years of neocon *rule* (not govern) so that it won't be tempted to ever again to allow such radicals to run the show... Maybe that's the only way that progressive ideas will seam fresh, logical and moral.

Bite your tongue, Bobert! The country wouldn't survive that kind of lesson!

If Kerry wins, there will be some superb appointments in the offing. I've heard about the networking already from a friend in a high place. It should be interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 09:28 PM

Politically, rotten to the core. I know the people are generally good, hard working, fun loving folks.

Re: Kerry's money

I'm just saying that anyone with that much money can hardly relate to the struggle of the working poor or anyone except those that travel in a very tight, upper class social circle. The fact that he married his money doesn't impress me either. Independent? Yes! Trustworthy? He's a politician isn't he? Just what does he stand for, anyway? Seems to me he is another Kennedy front man. Am I wrong?

d

Marty - Today I braided my underarm hair while having fantasies of you :>)

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 09:41 PM

dianavan

Hope you got good and moist, if that's still possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 09:50 PM

Its possible but not probable.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 09:55 PM

dianavan, you have to step out of that loop. Politicians are by nature "policial" and that's why they're in politics. Just some are a lot more greed-and-power-driven than others (think Reagan and Shrub). And Kennedys are okay. The ability to function without having to worry about living on one's income has its advantages. Ask Bush now, compared with the struggles the Clintons had when he was in office and dealing with the whole bogus Whitewater affair, stage managed from behind the scenes by Arkanasas billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, aided and abetted by Kenneth Starr.)

Kerry married money, and fairly recently at that. The senate has a good retirement plan, so he would always have been comfortable. Now he's more than that. What you're describing sounds more than vaguely reminiscent of a plot for the old Columbo mystery series. :)

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 11:21 PM

I liked John F. and Bobby too but.... Is Kerry just another part of the Kennedy machine that has over-used the legacy? Thats an honest question. What has he done so far except look the part, draw his big paycheck and woo wealthy women? I'm not being argumentative. I want to know.

I think Nader has done more real good than any other politician.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: LadyJean
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 11:39 PM

BOSS TWEED WOULD BE BETTER THAN GEORGE W. BUSH!!!

I heard Ralph Nader speak when I was at O.U. He went on four five hours, covering his entire career. When, after three hours, people began leaving, he made nasty cracks as they walked up the aisle. The man is pure ego.

From something he said, I am betting that if the Democratic nominee offers him a cabinet position, or a say in the platform, Nader will step out of the race.

There were several former Naderites on Pittsburgh Dean team, including one major loon. I'm hoping she's going to join the Nader team now. Serves him right if she does.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Sam L
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 12:08 AM

Nader was a childhood hero of mine but I can't vote for him. He's had greater effect as a citizen than most presidents, and has been seriously mistaken, also. It belongs on the worst president thread, but our greatest presidents are in other ways also our most terrible. George W. Bush is neither, although it may seem so in the present tension.

As I said last time, Nader as president for me would be like Robert Duvall on a sitcom. I just don't want to see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 01:43 AM

Thanks for filling me in. I take your word for it because I'm looking at this from the outside in.

So why is Edwards completely out of the discussion? Whats he about?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 01:53 AM

Hmmmmm,... very thought provoking...

Nader is often in the middle of controversy, and he doesn't seem to care much about what people think of him... He freely discusses the *big picture*, and he motivates those who 'get his drift'... He researches incredible amounts of material, and retains an awesome arsenal of information...

I believe in him, because he seems to be looking out for the freedom that US citezens are reputed to have. He keeps trying, and his persistance is legendary... In other words, he's not much of a team player, even though he fights for people in general.

He's not real chummy... really kind of abrasive... but he cares. Plain and simple.

Ego? OK... call it what you will... Sheer determination and pasionate desire to make a positive difference don't always come in a gracefully demeanored social butterfly...

When no one else has the guts to call a spade a spade, Nader stands up and bids 'no Trump'.

America is evocative in it's single minded worship of State Capitalism. If a candidate's rhetoric veers too close, and questions our economic status quo, the electorate begins to subconsciously block them out... because our lives are so entrenched in the 'market economy'... and we all know, on some deep inner level, that our collective lifestyle is just not sustainable... or compatable with the planet we live on. The competitive ethos is just not competant as the cohesive agent of an advanced society.

However... Bush, on the other hand...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 04:24 AM

I hope it's alright, but I received this today in the mail from a friend and I'm passing on the gist of it here (see below)...the reason being that I think this is prophetic of what the future months hold in store for us. Bush knows that his ultra right conservative constituents are angry with him for not being more radical on certain promised policies. So while we're busy talking and arguing over whether Nader should be throwing his hat into the ring, this is what we need to remember about Mr Bush and his cronies; they are not going to stop. And though Kerry, (who is not my first-nor my second, third, nor fourth choice)...is more likely than ever to be the Democratic nominee, he is closer to the line that needs to be drawn as soon as possible. I respect everything Ralph Nader has said, and I supported him last election time...but now, we need to think about anyone who can stop, or at least slow down, the current regeme. Kerry will certainly not be able to change much, but he can stop certain things from beginning. Nader can bring up important points, and perhaps that will always be his job...but the reality of NOW, and not the fall of a decadent empire which may come down the road...is that the Bush Administration is very very dangerous.


President Bush bypassed the Senate and confirmed
a staunch anti-choice advocate William Pryor to the courts. The Senate has been filibustering Pryor for several months based on his controversial, out-of-the-mainstream record. Pryor has stated that "abortion is murder" and does not believe that the Constitution protects a woman's right to choose.

Please take a minute to send a message to your Senators and help show that the public will not stand for this.

http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/pryor_recessappt_0204?rk=VpaR0R61IBfpW

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 07:09 AM

Thomas the Rhymer, you nailed it quite succinctly. Thanks for that.

Everyone knows Nader isn't going to be president, including Nader. But he isn't running to be the president. He is running to get the progressive agenda into the public debate, if possible. It may not be possible. We are set to be inundated with a barrage of irrelevant television messages, known as campaign ads, in a war for the White House. In other years, we've just had campaigns. Not this time. More money will be spent on this campaign than any other in history (same as the last election, and the one before that...).

We are in this mess because we live in an era of unprecedented greed, avarice, and corruption. Nader is uncorruptable. John Kerry, weeelll...not so much. Bush/Cheney defines the word.

I think people should be grateful to Nader for running. He will be putting his own personal fortune on the line to do it, as last time. He has only this race, before he is utterly dismissed as a perennial third party candidate. But because of the success of his run in 2000, which mostly saw him help the Greens here and there, and sometimes get the progressive agenda into the public debate.

Now, in the mainstream media, there really is no such animal as public debate anymore. But there are other ways to influence people, and one is by being able to get to the places where issues are being discussed--public policy forums, book events, C-SPAN type stuff, debates. Nader is truly the only hope for the progressive agenda at this point. The only hope in this election year.

I donated $25 to his campaign last night at voteNader.org. I'm still donating to Kerry. We can support more than one candidate. There is no law that says we must pick one, and never change our minds, and never sway from the party line. This is supposed to be a democracy. People need to act like we actually live in one, and dare to stray beyond conventional status quo politics. Now, more than ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 11:00 AM

Ellenpoly, that's a good point you made. This is a way that presidents have used to get their appointees in when the House and Senate won't confirm them, but this particular guy has a double whammy against him--he is outspokenly against women's rights and he has some pretty obvious campaign fund-raising violations that need to be addressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 02:03 PM

Bobert, my good West Virginia confrère, I hear where you're coming from. But considering the machinations of people such as Tom Delay (locking the door so Dems can't get in when a vote is being taken, and redistricting Texas on an off-census year to assure a Republican victory there) and Karl Rove with his talent for undercutting people he doesn't like through effective character assassination and other dirty tricks (outing CIA agents, for example), we have a pretty good idea of how they regard the democratic process. It is conceivable that if we have another four years of neo-con rule, there may not be any more elections. Certainly none that will have any meaning (see any banana republic for examples).

I would much prefer four years of Democratic machine politics to another four years of the Bush League. Damage control first. Then, when the election is over and (hopefully) Kerry or one of the other Dems is in, don't just sit back. Lean on them. Lean very heavily! Tell them the kind of government you want and don't let them off the hook! Become a gadfly! Insist! Nag! Bitch! Complain!

That's the way it's supposed to work.

Don Firth

P.S.: Hey, how's this for a bumper-sticker? "Regime Change without Delay!"

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 02:26 PM

John Kerry isn't running against the Republican Congressional leadership. He is running against George Bush. It doesn't help to muddy the waters, and confuse congressional electoral politics with presidential electoral politics. Kicking Bush out of the White House will not get rid of the Republican Congressional leadership.

Which is why we can't afford to wait to put the pressure on the Democrats until 2008. If you don't want Nader, support Kucinich. But those are the only progressive candidates running in this election.

And we've already seen what the Democratic Leadership Council, along with their corporate media buddies, did to Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich. Any one who thinks the democratic wing of the Democratic party is being included in the party, is seriously delusional.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 03:33 PM

Helloooooo...... is there anyone hoooooome?

Yep! The current regime is bad. Rotten to the core. No doubt,... Nader has the analysis... What else is new? A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either delusional, or a Bush supporter (or both). Duh...

Do not vote for Nader. Period.

Sad to say, but there are enough people in this country who are just not very well informed, to give Bush lots of votes. Face it. We must work together, and provide a candidate that gently moves 'from where we are', back in the general direction of social wellbeing. Please... Take your PC superiority and put it in a shoebox... you know, the one that's got the lava lamp in it that you just can't let go of... and face the facts.

A vote for Nader could only be accompanied by "Somewhere Over the Rainbow"...

Kerry is our man... like it or not.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 04:39 PM

Everyone whines about the need for a third party, but if you look at the structure of our system, it is nearly impossible for a third party to develop strong roots. The system of the electoral college AND the system of the person receiving the most vote winning in local elections establishes major roadblocks for a third party to be anything more than a spoiler. The only major party to be established in the U.S. since 1850 was the Republican party. The Republican party was established by those supporting the anti-slavery movement. Before the Republican's, the Democrats and Whigs were the two parties - and the Whigs were only around since the 1830's after being formed as an alternative to Andrew Jackson's poltics. The Democratic party was founded by Thomas Jefferson (as the Democrat-Republican party), and then they were faced with the Federalists which was a party that wanted to establish this nation building upon the needs of the industrialists, bankers and other capitalists of the day.   

The one thing all of these major parties was the backing of big money. These were not Green Parties that were built on grass root efforts. While we don't wish to admit it, the economy controls the majority of voters in this country. Always has, always will.

Third parties tend to develop based on one issue and historically in Presidential elections, they serve as spoilers.   Teddy Roosevelt ran on a third party in 1912 and split the Republican vote that enabled Woodrow Wilson to become President. In 1948 Strom Thurmond certainly captured a number of popular votes,but even if you threw those votes to Dewey, Truman would still have won the electoral college. In 1992 a case could be made that Ross Perot captured enough Republican votes and attention to allow Bill Clinton to be elected. Of course we all remember 2000.

The point in all this? It is doubtful that a third party will ever make significant inroads in this country. I would love to see it happen, but realistically the odds are stacked against it. I read an article that shows that only 1/3 of the registered voters in this country consider themselves "independent", but of that 1/3, 75% have strong leanings to one party or another. (I realize it may sound like I'm making up figures, but I will find that article).

The issues that a third party bring to the table are usually significant. But I do find it hard to believe that anyone who is sincere in their reasons for running for president would hurt the chance of the one candidate that might be sympathetic to their cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Frankham
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 04:51 PM

Nader is an ideologue. His ideas are basically sound. He is
an important Public Citizen. But, he wouldn't make a good
president. His focus is too narrow.

The problem is that he decides now that Dean has dropped out
of the race, he wants to fill that vacuum.

A vote for Nader will be a vote for Bush. It's too close.

Although I agree with many of his conclusions, I question his
motivation for wanting to enter the race at this time.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 05:54 PM

We have no idea if the upcoming election will be close or not, as it is over 8 months off. A lot can happen in 8 months in presidential politics.

I'm sure the citizens who voted for these 3rd party candidates were told their votes were being thrown away or going to the other guy too:

Martin Van Buren (Free Soil 1848) President of US from 1837-41.

Millard Fillmore (American/Know Nothing 1856) President of US from 1850-53.

Teddy Roosevelt (Progressive Party 1912) President of US from 1901-09.

Ralph Nader is running in the grand tradition of other progressive third party candidates like Debs and La Follette. To say that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush is a pathetic attempt by Democratics to fear monger and guilt trip those who voted for Nader in 2000, or are thinking of voting for him in 2004.

If your own candidates are so pathetic they can't win on their own merits, then maybe you need to run somebody decent, eh?

Or as the bumper sticker says:

If God had meant us to vote, he would have given us candidates.

Have a nice day! :)

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 06:37 PM

Teddy Roosevelt was Vice-President under William McKinley and assumed the presidency when McKinley was assassinated in 1901. As a Republican, he ran against Democrat Alton B. Parker in 1904 and won. He was succeeded by Republican William Howard Taft in 1908. He re-entered the race in 1912, but was defeated for the nomination by Taft, then split from the Republican Party and formed the Progressive ("Bullmoose") party and ran anyway. He lost, but he took enough votes away from Taft that Woodrow Wilson won.

Spoiled it for the Republicans.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 06:54 PM

By the way, Martin Van Buren won as a Democrat and Millard Fillmore won as a Whig. Neither of them won when they ran as third party candidates. Just to keep the record straight.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Nerd
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 06:56 PM

In fact, in all of GUEST's cases, the candidates formed a third party after being president on a major party. Fillmore was a Whig president when that was a major party, Van Buren was a Democratic president, and Teddy Rooseveldt a Republican. They thought their record and/or reputation could overcome the lack of clout their new parties had, but they were wrong.

Free Soil was a split-off from the Democratic party, and the Whigs won that election, so you could argue that Van Buren was a spoiler.

Fillmore carried only one state as a Know-Nothing, Maryland.

So arguably, those who voted for them as third party candidates DID throw their votes away.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Nerd
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 06:58 PM

Sorry, Don, crossed you in posting that! Good work spotting GUEST'S errors (or intentional distortions)!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Nerd
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 07:05 PM

BTW, Fillmore was never elected President. He was elected Vice-President as a Whig, and ascended to the presidency when Zachary Taylor died.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 07:07 PM

The point is, the current attempts to paint Nader as "messianic" and dismiss third party candidacies as a phenomenon of the lunatic fringe contradicts the history of third party candidacies in this country.

Am I really supposed to believe that Nader is as evil as Bush? Give me a break. Just where the hell do Democrats get off, thinking they can dictate to me, an independent, who I have to vote for?

A vote for Nader is a vote Nader, just like it was in 2000.

I don't give a damn how pissed off Democrats are at Nader. If they don't stop bashing the guy, it will alienate me to the point where I won't vote Democratic this year, just like 2000. I was so fed up with the Democrats pulling this shit in 2000 over Nader, I refused to support the Democratic party.

I vote for the candidate I feel best represents my interests, not a party. That is why I am a registered INDEPENDENT voter.

Keep up the Nader bashing and alienation of independent voters, there Dems, and see what happens to your man come November.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 07:10 PM

Good going, Nerd. Facts! I love facts!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 07:13 PM

So, GUEST, in a snit-fit, you would prefer to let Bush win! Full marks for idealistic bull-headedness, but politically unrealistic. And self-defeating.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 07:21 PM

Thank you Guest at 05:54 PM for those examples. You proved EXACTLY why voting for a third party is indeed throwing a vote away. ALL the examples that he gave were of ex-presidents who ran on a nomination other than that of the major party, and the results are that they lost.


Martin Van Buren served one full term, lost, could not get his Democratic party nomination in the next election and then in the subsequent election he ran on the Free-Soil ticket. The votes he received enabled Zachary Taylor to be elected in 1848.   He lost, but he later re-joined the Democratic party and continued to oppose their views and he worked to change the party platform.

Fillmore refused to join the then new Republican Party after the Whig party dissovled, so he joined the American Party, also known as the Know Nothing Party. He lost. Their view was to curtail immigration and to stop Catholic influence in the country. The Democrats also used the campaign trick that the Republican candidate was a Catholic. Together it insured the victory of James Buchanan.

Debs had little influence on the outcome of 1912, but Teddy Roosevelt effectively split the Democratic vote to enable Woodrow Wilson to get elected. In reality, Taft was not very popular so it it doubtful he would have been elected in a two person race anyway.

I do agree with guest though, you never really "throw" a vote away. Each vote is a statement. There are always fringe candidates on the ballot, I have a friend who is in a quandry since he can no longer vote for Gus Hall.

Perhaps instead of trying a third party bid, maybe the answer is to work from within one of the major parties and create change. If you can't change the way a party thinks, how do you expect to change the way a nation votes?

Why is it that Dennis Kucinich is not getting through to voters?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 07:26 PM

"The point is, the current attempts to paint Nader as "messianic" and dismiss third party candidacies as a phenomenon of the lunatic fringe contradicts the history of third party candidacies in this country."

Read the history. The only effect a third party has is to be a spoiler. I agree with you, that can be very effective. In 2004, I doubt it.

"I vote for the candidate I feel best represents my interests, not a party. That is why I am a registered INDEPENDENT voter."

You should do what you feel is right. You are in a minority as an independent, and if you are really a free-thinking independent, you are even in a smaller minority. There is nothing wrong with that. Every revolution starts out small. The only problem is, you can take your battle to the wrong stage and then your voice is never heard.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 07:29 PM

I'm not distorting anything, BTW. I posted the examples I did, to show that three US presidents also felt compelled to run as third party candidates, which hardly makes it a lunatic fringe phenomenon. It most certainly isn't, and this is one of the many ways we have of putting pressure on the political parties.

A similar sort of rift occurred in 1968, when Senator McCarthy, an anti-war Senator, decided to run against the incumbent, President Johnson. McCarthy handily defeated Johnson in the primaries, and to avoid utter disgrace, Johnson announced at the end of the primaries that he would not run. So--did the Democrats nominate the candidate who had won the popular vote in the primary? HELL NO! They nominated Hubert Humphrey, Johnson's vice president.

Not all of us suffer from political amnesia at election time, you know. In 1968, Democrats thumbed their noses at the popular vote in order to get their establishment candidate nominated. In 2000, they howl because they won the popular vote, but the electoral went against them.

The Dems would ignore the popular vote tomorrow if it was to their advantage to do so, because we have a political monopoly of Republicrats in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 07:48 PM

Guest, but you left out a few facts about 1968. McCarthy did NOT "handily" defeat Johnson in the primaries. McCarthy had a very strong showing in the New Hampshire primary, although Johnson did win it. McCarthy's strong showing in that primary showed that LBJ was vulnerable, and then Robert Kennedy joined the race. LBJ decided not to run as he realized he couldn't win. Hubert Humphrey did not enter any of the primaries but campaigned in the non-primary states to get delegates for the convention. The primaries were close, but it appeared that RFK would receive the nomination based on his wins in the primaries. We all know what happened to RFK. The nomination was thrown into the convention with no clear candidate. McCarthy was already weakened by the point and Humphrey managed to win the nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 09:34 PM

The rift in the party caused by the 1968 Democratic party establishment resulted in a complete reconfiguration of the party's nominating rules--we should remember that too.

The Democratic establishment was stunned when McCarthy took 42% of the vote in New Hampshire to Johnson's 49%. When the polls for the April 2 Wisconsin primary showed Johnson was poised to lose badly, he pulled the plug on his campaign on March 31st, in a desparate effort to save Humphrey's chances of getting the nomination. Wisconsin voters gave McCarthy 56% of the vote to Johnson's 34%. Write-ins gave Kennedy 6%.

Kennedy was the big opportunist that year. Early on in the campaign, he had chosen NOT to run against Johnson. However, once it was clear the anti-war faction of the party would likely win, Kennedy jumped into the race. But he announced his candidacy only AFTER Johnson announced he would not run.

Kennedy was only marginally successful in the 1968 primaries. McCarthy defeated Kennedy in the Oregon primary, and Kennedy won California by a narrow margin. Humphrey didn't run in any of the primaries, but campaigned for delegates in non-primary states. It isn't uncommon nowadays for people to claim Kennedy would have won the nomination had he not been assassinated, but the race was far from over after the California primary, and while Kennedy did win that one, Humphrey and McCarthy were still definitely in the running.


From About.com's "Why Third Parties?" webpage:

They rarely win, but 3rd party candidates are essential
While their presidential candidates stand little chance of being elected, members of America's third parties have historically promoted concepts and policies that have been incorporated as important parts of our social and political lives. Here are some major examples:

Women's Right to Vote
Both the Prohibition and Socialist Parties promoted women's suffrage during the late 1800's. By 1916, both Republicans and Democrats supported it and by 1920, the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote had been ratified.

Child Labor Laws
The Socialist Party first advocated laws establishing minimum ages and limiting hours of work for American children in 1904. The Keating-Owen Act established such laws in 1916.

Immigration Restrictions
The Immigration Act of 1924 came about as a result of support by the Populist Party starting as early as the early 1890's.

Reduction of Working Hours
You can thank the Populist and Socialist Parties for the 40-hour work week. Their support for reduced working hours during the 1890's led to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Income Tax
In the 1890's, the Populist and Socialist Parties supported a "progressive" tax system that would base a person's tax liability on their amount of income. The idea led to ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913.

Social Security
The Socialist Party also supported a fund to provide temporary compensation for the unemployed in the late 1920's. The idea led to the creation of laws establishing unemployment insurance and the Social Security Act of 1935.

"Tough on Crime"
In 1968, the American Independent Party and its presidential candidate George Wallace advocated "getting tough on crime." The Republican Party adopted the idea in its platform and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was the result. (George Wallace won 46 electoral votes in the 1968 election. This was the highest number of electoral votes collected by a third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt, running for the Progressive Party in 1912, won 88 votes.)

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 10:47 PM

To say that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush is a pathetic attempt by Democratics to fear monger and guilt trip those who voted for Nader in 2000, or are thinking of voting for him in 2004.

Democrats aren't the ones known for fear-mongering. And if you've heard any reports of Bush's first speech of his reelection bid, he's already starting the fear-mongering. I read reviews of his speeches every so often--I can rarely ever bring myself to listen to him speak--he has such a poorly-concealed smirk that it's painful to have to listen, so I don't. This isn't to say I can't listen to conservatives; there are some I could listen to all day long. William F. Buckley, for example. I may not agree with him, but I'm fascinated with how he expresses himself. Bush could never approach or even effectively fake the intellectual articulation of someone like Buckley. But I digress. . .

Nader the consumer advocate is second to none. Nader the political strategist has to play his cards very close to his vest. But the problem arises in that his cards are so well shielded that a lot of people aren't going to understand just what game of poker he is playing (they can't count the cards!).

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 11:51 PM

Guest, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I don't think any of us are saying that third parties are ineffectual, but the examples that have been given show how they are usually created for one issue. As important as these issues are, none of them have adversely effected presidential campaigns. I seriously doubt that most Americans voted for George Wallace because he was "tough on crime". Actually if he weren't in the 1968 race, Nixon would have probably won by a much wider margain.

I don't think anyone said that Kenndy would have been assured the nomination, but the signs were pointing that way. It should be remembered that in 1968 the primaries were not as important as they are now. Back then there were only 16 states that held primaries, compared to 33 in 2004. Winning California, even by a small margin, could have tipped the momentum. Back then, power brokers in the Democratic Party lobbied delegates from all 50 states and the candidates received all the delegates from the particular state if they received the most votes. Kennedy certainly was an opportunist, but he had support in the party. Democrats were not comfortable with Humphrey because his position on Vietnam wasn't very clear. Kennedy was the golden boy and many people believe he would have received the nomination based on the system that was in place at the time.   You are right guest, Humphrey and McCarthy were still in it - and don't forget that McGovern also threw his hat in the ring in August just before the convention.

It should also be remembered that McCarthy was pushed into the race by Allard Lowenstein as the anti-war movement was gaining momentum in 1967. Lowenstein approached Bobby Kennedy, Frank Church and a number of other potential candidates before McCarthy agreed to run on a platform opposing LBJ's policies in Vietnam.   At the time, none of the other Democrats were willing to stick their neck out and oppose the party leader.

Getting back to third parties, yes, it is wonderful that they bring these issues to the public, but it has relied on a major party to be elected to champion those causes. Third parties have historically backed out of presidential elections if their cause could be hurt by the results of a divided election. There were and are other ways of getting the message out.   Strategy is important, but with Nader I don't think many people see a clear strategy or even a one-issue message. Most people are seeing someone who is doing this for his own ego. Why now? Why did he not accept the Green Party this time? Something is wrong here.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 08:02 AM

Nader has one central theme to his candidacy, and it is the theme of his life's work as well--to draw attention to the takeover of the US government by corporate interests, and talk about the horrendous human suffering that is occurring as a result of it.

Now, as a Nader supporter, if I can roll that theme off without giving it a second thought, that is a good thing. I understand many people don't know that is the central theme in his 2004 campaign, just as it was his 2000 campaign. But I also understand that if you aren't paying any attention to Nader, except to react to what you are seeing and hearing and reading in the mainstream media and Democrat leaning publications, you aren't going to know what Nader stands for, and what his focus is. You have to do extra legwork to really find out about third party candidates.

Based upon what I'm reading here, I'm guessing a majority of those who are so vehemently opposed to Nader, probably have spent a whole lot more time and energy listening to what the Democrats are saying about Nader, than to what Nader is saying.

I use the example of 1968 Democratic primaries and convention, because I believe the Democratic party has again reached the crossroads, by circling back and trying to woo back it's most conservative and reactionary southern base, to the detriment of the progressive wing of the party. It fractured the party in 1968, and it could well end up fracturing the party in 2004. The Democratic Leadership Council, and their candidate John Kerry, are now circling the wagons to keep the progressives out. Which is another reason why Nader chose to run.

He had said he wouldn't run if Kucinich received the nomination. It is blatantly obvious that the DLC was behind the media demonization of Dean, and the marginalization and haughty dismissiveness of Kucinich. So it is quite clear that they either learned nothing from the 2000 election debacle (though Gore certainly did), and that they have no intention of risking offending their corporate masters, just to keep their progressive base on board.

Anyone who thinks that the Democratic party is going to be a champion of progressive causes may have drunk a bit too much spiked koolaid, IMO. They are deeply enmeshed with corporate interests, some of the same ones as the Republicans, but some different ones. Both parties have happily supported media conglomeration, because media interests have been big donors and controlled the Dems access to the airwaves.

The only difference between the two parties is the Democrats don't share the regressive, repressive Republican right idealogical worldview. But hell, most the power mongers in the Republican ranks aren't Christian soldiers either--they just know how to masterfully manipulate those soldiers to their political advantage. The same way the Democrats have learned to manipulate their moderate Democratic progressive ranks to their political advantage. But both sides only pay lipservice to their committed voter bases, while taking their marching orders from their corporate masters.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 09:35 AM

"They are deeply enmeshed with corporate interests, some of the same ones as the Republicans, but some different ones. Both parties have happily supported media conglomeration, because media interests have been big donors and controlled the Dems access to the airwaves."

This is news???

Since the founding of this country corporate interests have determined policy. Find a pauper among the "founding fathers". Every movement for social change has found a way to utilize and capture public attention. Even Ghandi used the press to gain attention. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a tool.

Nader is NOT getting his message out, and it is silly to assume that the majority of people will sit down and try to listen. You can't whine about the human nature, you can only try to work with the reality and use it to strategize.

Guest, even your statement - "Nader has one central theme to his candidacy, and it is the theme of his life's work as well--to draw attention to the takeover of the US government by corporate interests, and talk about the horrendous human suffering that is occurring as a result of it" - has little relevance to most voters. It is too broad a statement for most Americans to grasp and understand. Poltics deals with specifics, and Naders fault is that he can't focus on these issues and come up with coherent answers. Look at his webpage - www.votenader.org. The homepage deals almost exclusively with his fight to get on the ballot and the need for a third party. This isn't the overwhelming issue with most Americans. The only place (that I could find) that dealt with "issues" was a small link at the very bottom of the page. That doesn't sound like a candidate who is confident in his platform.

Guest, I would love to see a candidate that speaks to the issues that concern me.   Kerry is not my ideal candidate, nor is Edwards. I would have loved to see Kucinch do better and challenge Bush, but it isn't just the media and the Democratic party that kept voters away. Some of that blame has to fall on the candidate for not putting it all together. If Kucinch had a better showing, the press would have given him amazing coverage as it would have been a huge story.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Nerd
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 12:36 PM

GUEST's statements

1) I'm not distorting anything, BTW.

2)McCarthy handily defeated Johnson in the primaries.

3)(when challenged...)McCarthy took 42% of the vote in New Hampshire to Johnson's 49% [then]pulled the plug on his campaign on March 31st.

What was #2 if not a distortion? Johnson won the only primary he really competed in, and he won as a write-in, not having bothered to get on the ballot. He didn't lose a primary until after he announced he wasn't running, and even then he got 35% of the vote. You can accuse Johnson of rank stupidity for not getting on the ballot in NH, or of lack of resolve for not toughing it out, but not of being "defeated handily" in the primaries by McCarthy.

The real issue, as Ron pointed out, was Kennedy, who was seen by many as heir apparent to his brother; since Johnson was seen as the accidental replacement for JFK, only one of them could run.   I believe a lot of pressure was put on LBJ to drop out so that Kennedy could run, just as everyone put a lot of pressure on Dean this year to drop out.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Nerd
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 12:38 PM

Oops, I meant # 3 above to read:

3)(when challenged...)McCarthy took 42% of the vote in New Hampshire to Johnson's 49% [then] Johnson pulled the plug on his campaign on March 31st.

Sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 01:05 PM

Some folks still don't get it. I've posted links to articles by this guy so many times that I guess I should have a rubber-stamp made.

". . . being a Green doesn't mean you can't also be a Democrat. But you have to realize we can have only two electable parties in this country.

This is not a popular truth."

Read and learn.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 04:09 PM

Nerd, from my perspective I didn't distort anything. McCarthy's 42% showing was considered a victory by the anti-war wing of the party, big time.

Not every Democrat in 1968 wanted RFK, and from my perspective, that seems to be what you are saying. Once RFK turned down the anti-war wing of the party (regarding being the standard bearer for the party's anti-war wing in the election) the anti-war wing of the party backed the man who actually had the guts to stand up to LBJ and the party establishment--McCarthy. RFK was a rank opportunist to jump in after LBJ's announcement, and he did not have the support of the true anti-war wing of the party because of his duplicitousness regarding them and their anti-war platform, and because it was his brother who had started the war to begin with.

And Don, while agree with much of what yer man says, I really don't need another lecture from someone telling me that we don't have a proportional representation system here. So what? I also resent being told that we should all just work within the two party system, to cure all the ills that ail us. To that I say, pure and simple, bullshit. Progressives have been doing just that for the better part of the last 30 years, and look where it has gotten us. Here and now.

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with this guy's conclusions. We more or less agree on what the problems are, but I really disagree strongly with the solution he offers, which is:

"Thus, the best immediate solution to advance the progressive agenda is for progressives to join and take back the Democratic Party, in the same way conservatives seized control of the Republican Party."

I disagree fundamentally that this is the best idea. I am simply not that shortsighted. I think our country is strong enough to endure another 4 years of Bush/Cheney, and that what we really need to focus on is the crisis in governance being caused by the Democratic Party's failure to thrive. In the past, this has meant a whole new party has been formed out of the ashes of the old one.

I also believe that electoral reform in many areas is in our future too. Reforms like instant run-off voting, changing the way redistricting is done (ie let a computer do it, not politicians), throwing out the current electoral college system and starting from scratch on a way to make some hybrid of our current system and the proportional representation system work for those citizens who would otherwise become disenfranchised due to population loss/change (like rural states, crumbling inner cities, etc). There is a lot we can do to change the nation for the better. But having all progressives join the Democratic party is not on my list of solutions. I want to see the party die, and be reborn as a new party. That, I believe, is the best hope for the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 05:20 PM

Thanks for your opinion Guest. I personally don't see it happening, and if history tells us anything, the only change will come from within.

The country is strong enough to accept 4 years of any candidate. There are enough checks and balances built in to preserve it.

What I disagree with is the impression that McCarthy "had the guts". He was hesitant about running and admited that he didn't think he had a chance, but he entered the race to voice the growing anti-war movement, at the urging of a group (with money) in the Democratic party. This wasn't a grass-roots effort. McCarthy had supported LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin resolution, but soon became disillusioned by the events of the war. You make it seem that Kennedy's anti-war stance was part of his being an opportunist, and many people would disagree with that. Kennedy played the game and did not want to unseat a sitting president from his party, something his brother Teddy would later try in 1980. Kennedy also was promoting a "workable peace" and trying to honor the efforts of our forces that were sent to Vietnam.   A "rank opportunist"? Perhaps. Show me a candidate who isn't.

I still feel that reform will come from within the party. The Republicans did it after their horrible experience with Goldwater. The Democratic Party can reform, but it will happen from within - not from candidates like Nader. Dean should have been able to build upon what he started and work for change in the party.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 06:22 PM

Well, GUEST, the method Hartmann outlines and recommends worked marvelously well for the neo-cons. They were willing to work patiently over a period of time, and they now control the Republican party. And the government.

Although I regard myself as progressive, the main fault I find with most progressives is impatience. They want what they want right now, and if they don't get it, they give up, sulk, and claim that the system doesn't work.

Never get anyplace that way.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 06:30 PM

Like I said in my last post, I think the solution is for progressives to split from the Democratic party once and for all, and let the party collapse. That is how a new party in the US comes into being, if we are to let history be our guide. Not recent history--go back to the last time we had a political party die and a new one rise in it's place, and look at the events that triggered those changes.

If the Democrats lock the progressives out in this election, as they have been doing forever, then I truly believe the left needs to galvanize itself, and pull out of the party. As good citizens, we have to look beyond what is best for the Democratic party, and start looking at what is best for the nation. The Republicans and Democrats simply aren't doing that--they are driven purely by short term gratification. We need to take the long view on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 07:21 PM

You are certainly entitled to your opinion guest. I'm sorry that you are in the minority.   I don't think we will see the Democratic party "split" or "collapse". IF there were really enough progressives in the party in the first place, the race would be different.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 07:38 PM

The problem is that the Democratic Party wouldn't collapse. It would still be one of the two major electable parties. Starting a new party is reinventing the wheel and trying to become viable at the same time. It's far easier to take over an existing party from inside. The mechanisms and the viability are already established. It's not easy, but it's a whole lot easier than starting from scratch--or trying to revitalize a minor party that has tried repeatedly and failed.

I'm not trying to preserve or defend the Democratic Party here. A pox on both their houses! What I'm advocating is moving in, taking over, and steering the party in a more progressive direction. The neo-cons tried the third party thing back then and found out that it wasn't very productive, so they moved into the Republican party, took it over, and turned it into the reactionary party that it is now. Since the Democrats at least give lip-service to some progressive ideas, it would be a whole lot more productive to move in and keep pushing them in the direction you want them to go.   

Of course, one could always try to take over the Republican Party and try to swing it back . . . now there's and interesting thought! A two-pronged attack! Move into both parties and start steering!

Anyway, it's much more effective to persuade, argue, and cajole from within than it is to bitch from without.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Midchuck
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 10:23 PM

I'm over 60, and have voted in every Presidential election that I could. In almost all of those elections, I voted for the candidate that I thought was the lesser evil.

Bush is just a puppet on the strings of the large corporations and the military, supported by the fundamentalist Christians who look to him to free them from the burden of having to respect other peoples' religious freedoms.

I've never trusted Nadar since he said that nobody should drive a Volkswagen because he, personally, couldn't handle a car with final oversteer.

Kerry...I don't know much about him, except:

1) He's rich. That may be good, if it gives him independance, or bad if it causes him to identify with Corporate America rather than with America, same as Bush does.

2) He's a professional politician from Massachusetts. That creates a nearly irrebutable presumption of his being hopelessly corrupt.

Maybe I'll just stay home and drink on election day.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 10:45 PM

Peter - any possibility that a progressive democrat could collect votes from both democrats AND moderate Republicans?

I agree, its always the lesser of two evils.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Art Thieme
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 12:54 AM

I was in Oregon back in 67 and 68. McCarthy was the man who challenged LBJ and we were ready to back him and love him for that. RFK let Gene McCarthy test the waters and then he leaped in like the sneak-thief opportunist bastard he was. I went to a RFK rally in Newport, Oregon wearing my McCarthy buttons and got taken aside by a guy named Whittaker (I think it was). He berated and yelled at me because he thought that RFK was the only one who could actually win. (This Whittaker (or whatever) was the mountain climber guy who led Bobby up the side of what became Mount Kennedy---named after Jack.) I told this guy where he could go. I'm still pissed at Bobby for jumping in ala Ralph Nader.

And when Bobby Kennedy lost in Wayne Morse's Oregon's primary I couldn't've been more pleased. Oregon knocked Kennedy right on his butt. Bobby then said that if he didn't win in California he'd pull out probably.

Well, Robert K. won in California. And then Sirhan wiped out that big win as surely as Bush did that to Al Gore's victory.

What does all this prove??? Only that what happens, what actually goes down, is the only thing that really matters.

And not always then.

May you live in interesting times !! (That old curse again.)------What tangled webs we weave. If it wasn't so tragic, it'd almost be funny.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Nerd
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 02:49 AM

GUEST,

I wasn't suggesting every Dem wanted RFK, I was suggesting that there were some rich and powerful interests that wanted him.

So losing 49-42 is considered "handily defeating" your opponent? That's not distorted? I give up, then.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 08:18 AM

Nerd, McCarthy handily defeated Johnson in Wisconsin. As I said earlier, his showing in New Hampshire was considered a stunning victory for him (same as John Edwards strong 2nd place finish in Iowa was for him) and the anti-war wing of the party. He won Oregon. He was leading in delegates going into the California primary.

I don't understand why you can't agree that a reasonable person couldn't consider those facts as being consistent with the words 'handily defeated'. When you look at the big picture of 1968 from where we are sitting now, I don't think I overstated the case. But I also think it is a bit silly to keep arguing such a fine point that isn't really going to matter in the overall discussion.

But this thread has gotten too long for me anyway. Not much new gets said after 100 posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 08:30 AM

BTW, as a progressive, I'll be voting for whomever the Democratic nominee is, presumably Kerry. But I'm also going to do all I can to support Nader's candidacy to keep the pressure on the party.

I don't see why others can't accept the fact that we can work for and with more than just one political interest or party.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: Nerd
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 09:00 AM

GUEST, I'll accept now that we have a genuine difference of opinion and that no distorition was intended.

But here's my point: Johnson had already withdrawn before Wisconsin, and he still got 35% of the vote there. You can't have it both ways. Either 42-49 is a defeat for McCarthy, or 35% for a candidate who is not in the race (Johnson) is a stunning victory.

John Edwards' second place in Iowa was a better than expected showing. It was not a victory. If anyone achieved a victory in Iowa this year it was Kerry.

Johnson withdrew very early from a race that was to be hotly contended by two other candidates. You might as well say that Howard Dean handily defeated Dick Gephardt in the primaries. In fact, that would be more accurate since Dean came in ahead of Gephardt in the only caucus they were both competing in.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 10:01 AM

"McCarthy handily defeated Johnson in Wisconsin"

"I don't understand why you can't agree that a reasonable person couldn't consider those facts as being consistent with the words 'handily defeated'."

Because Johnson had already pulled out of the race. Using your logic you could also say that McCarthy "handily defeated" Thomas Dewey and Millard Fillmore in the Wisconsin primary.

Guest, the reason some of us are taking exception to these "fine points" is because you are playing spin doctor with the facts to fit your case.   If I were to play spin doctor, I could use the fact that the out-of-the running LBJ managed to get 35% of the votes in Wisconsin, which shows that not everyone was comfortable with McCarthy as a candidate.

Also, I think most of us agree with your statement of 08:30am. Many of us have been saying that it is important to work for other interests and to keep the ideals alive. However, many of us although think that Nader is not being productive in this race since his own webpage doesn't even paint a clear picture of why he is running. Having a third party is not a compelling reason to vote for a presidential candidate in the minds of most Americans. There are more important issues to fight for.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 12:33 PM

I am not playing spin doctor more or less than anyone else contributing to the conversation. There is one of me on the pro-Nader side, and several to many (depending upon your personal definition of 'several' and 'many') of you on the anti-Nader side.

Common sense tells us that means my posts are getting more of a fine point scouring, semantically, than the anti-Nader posts are getting.

Personally, I think this conversation has degraded (as I mentioned before--anything over 100 posts has already become pretty pointless to continue with in most cases) to the point of utter nitpicking. So, have at it gentleman, but don't expect me to keep up with it. Too tiresome for me at this point. Anyone else says something of interest to me and I might jump back in. But I rarely keep going with threads after 100. And I've reached my limit with this one.

Nice chatting with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 01:20 PM

Sorry you find it nitpicking. I don't think of us consider it "degraded", but when someone makes a point that appears to be wrong, we have an obligation to speak up. Isn't that what Nader built his reputation on? Any important discussion cannot have limits of length placed on it.

I think your giving up really points out the problems with politics. People do not question authority the way they should. When someone is actually called to task, the person in question tends to blame everyone but themselves. Rush Limbaugh is a great example of that. Can't fix the Democrats? Let's leave and start our own party. No wonder we are screwed up.

I'm not sure why Nader supporters always are "hands off" when their man is called on something. It's always someone elses fault or the "other" side simply doesn't have the mental capacity to understand.   Heaven forbid anyone admits that Nader has short comings.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader To Run For President
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 27 Feb 04 - 12:25 PM

I have a question...what has Nader been doing between the last election and this one? I can't remember hearing much about his speaking out on issues between then and now, and maybe it's just that I missed them. Can anyone enlighten me on this?...Thanks.