BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 07:45 PM

How many times does it need to be said for it get through some people's heads?

Being anonymous doesn't require posting without a name. It just means you post without a name that tells people who you are, but with one thta just tells people you are the same person as the last time you made a post. Posting without a name has

But there's another current thread where this kind of discussion would better be carried on, rather than diverting this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 07:33 PM

M.Ted---Has he/she really?   Check my last note. I now leave the field---since that is what it has become== with my armor intact.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: M.Ted
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 07:08 PM

If you are curious about the Masked Marvel, BillH, why not initiate speculation as to who it might be? My guess is that it is a regular member who is tired of getting jumped on personally for his/her Pro-Nader position.

I find it very interesting that, though completely anonymous, GUEST has scrupulously avoid flaming, and has bent over backwards to respond to all questions and criticisms in a reasoned and logical fashion. A one-time drop-in GUEST would be unlikely to take such care--In fact, I can only think of a few regular members who could carry on at such length without dropping a few barbs--

I have my suspicions--

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 12:59 PM

On balance I do think it'd be better if Nader pulls out before November, and I suspect it'll happen.

Although, as I've pointed out, where people vote intelligently, there is no reason whatsoever why his standing should serve to help Bush in any way, in practice there are an lot of people who don't understnad their votiong system well enough to risk giving them an opportunity to mess things up.   

For example, Nader sympathisers, in places like Florida last time, evidently didn't understand that in their case tactical voting was needed, because it was going to be a knife edge contest.

Mind, I wouldn't go expecting too much from Kerry if he wins. I'd envisage him waging war more intelligently, rather than introducing the kinds of changes that would reduce the need to wage it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 06:33 PM

Gee---Guest---you surely have your "facts" right there. Some people voice opinion---you know things for "fact"   My comments re: your being the "masked marvel" surely were not the gist of my posting---merely a comment on your pride in showing ---openly--your opinions (though you post them as fact).

Ah--but you do remind me of a great old radio show---who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?---The Shadow does---perhaps that is who you think you are---but, trust me, you are not.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 05:57 PM

McGrath, it is no use. These people are not going to change their minds about Nader being a spoiler, no matter how many times they are presented with the facts.

They just can't stand the fact that Gore isn't president, because he couldn't get enough votes to put him there decisively. In other words, he wasn't "electable" (for want of another word).

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 05:54 PM

How could a vote for Nader help Bush, if it wouldn't have made any difference to the result if it had been switched to Kerry anyway , because the margin in a particular state between Bush and Kerry was always going to be much bigger than any conceivable Nader vote.

I suppose it's possible to argue that anything can happen in an election, and it might turn out that it was Florida-close in what had been assumed to be a safe state. But Florida was always expected to be a close race.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 05:42 PM

Take away your rants about my anonymity Bill, and there isn't much of substance to that last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 05:23 PM

Well, powerful words from one who remains anonymous for some reason. Usually when you believe in what you say you are not afraid to identify yourself.

My statements were honest ones--re: totally arbitrary conclusions and amateur and un-scientific poll. Surely not "demogoguery". Merely my opinion.

You---dear un-named guest --made quite a few assumptions that, very frankly, escalated to "demogoguery" (your word). How you got from misinterpreting my thoughts about Nader's running (I did not say he could not---I felt he SHOULD not) to fascism is quite a leap of alleged "logic". Sort of what many bigots have done historically---and they wore masks---I guess they, too, were anonymous guests.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 11:16 AM

"Great idea, but the problem is that every vote for him is a vote to keep this administration -by forfeit- in office."

I think you keep forgetting a very important fact in this matter Bill Hahn. And that is you are expressing your opinion. Your opinion is not fact. You obviously believe it to be a fact. Based upon your statement about you drawing "a totally arbitrary conclusion...from my own completely amateur polling", I'd say you often make these mistakes in logic.

Because Bush's supporters are enthusiastic, and don't critically evaluate their man's policies, etc doesn't mean that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Not only is that sort of thinking fallacious and illogical, it is also demagoguery.

Nader has a right to run as an independent. Some Democrats like yourself seem to think that because YOU suddenly think the country is going to hell in a handbasket (ie the middle class is finally being impacted by policies that both Democrats and Republicans are promoting), that we should suspend Ralph Nader's constitutional rights so that your guy has a better chance of winning.

That is fascism, and there seems to be a lot of it in the Democratic party these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 06:11 PM

Looks like a new catch phrase is making the rounds --- "shake the trees".   Clark, Rice, and now I see it here in the thread.

Interesting how these phrases come about---I wonder where this got started. Also--"horrific"---whatever happened to "horrible" and "terible"?

But, as to the thread about Nader--our "anonymous Guest" says "...don't vote for him". Great idea, but the problem is that every vote for him is a vote to keep this administration -by forfeit- in office.   

In the past few weeks I have had occasion to visit a few places that can be considered communities with a great lack of interest or knowledge of current events---gung ho headlines seem to turn them on and Bush is their man. A totally arbitrary conclusion on my part from my own completely amateur polling.

That is what frightens me.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:42 PM

I didn't say vote for Nader. I did say I applaud the way he "shakes the tree" and brings real issues to the forefront. The Dems need Nader to shake Kerry into taking a stand on some very important issues. Tell me, how will Nader spoil that? Chances are, those who champion Nader's causes (me, for example) would silently vote for Kerry when push comes to shove. Nobody hates Kerry. He just doesn't have as much guts.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:33 PM

There's apathy and there's disillusion, and they aren't the same things.

In principle the second is quite constructive, because it means you've seen through the illusions that have been thrown before you, and that can mean you are ready to actually do something relevant.

I've quite often gone into the polling booth and spoiled my vote, normally writing why I'm doing for the local candidate to read (they do, actually) - but I'd never just stay home. That's one reason I dislike these modern voting systems that get in the way of that kind of thing.

The apathy that means just not bothering to vote is something very different - and it's deadly. But it's not that different from the apathy that means voting under the influence of adverts, or without making any attempt to understand what its about, or of how the voting system works, when it comes to odd stuff like minority candidates, and that things in quasi-magical ways.

By quasi-magical I mean the kind of idea that somehow, if you vote to increase a massive local winning margin, or to reduce a massive local losing margin, of a candidate you don't much like, that is a strong enough reason for you to abstain from voting for a third candidate you know can't win, but whom you actually prefer.

Given all that, I'd hope Nader will campaign like hell to make sure some issues couldn't get buried, and to help interest a few more people in the idea of actually voting this time. And then at the most effective moment, recognising that there's a pretty naive set of voters out there (as in most countries), he'd be best to pull out of the race, and to urge people to do what they could to make sure Bush is defeated in the vote once again, and that, this time, this is allowed to stand.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:21 PM

Kerry not only won't fix any of the things you are pissing and moaning about needing fixing, he won't even discuss most of the issues you name.

We need political voices and candidate participation from across the spectrum. Silencing one of those voices by shouting down their right to be heard and by attempting to bully candidates out of participating in the politicial process as many Democrats are trying to do to Nader, is dictatorial and leaning towards fascism.

Don't like the fact that Nader is running? Don't vote for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: InOBU
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:03 PM

Geeze Loouuueeeeezzzz, Kev, that is the problem in the US, the majority don't play the game... They should get off their butts and vote in the primary, get involved in local politics and instead of playing the angery spoiled child... they should take back the country and make something of it... but Americans want fast food, spoon fed entertainment rather than participatory culture, live off the fat of everyone else's land... and then instead the hard work of social change to play a spoiler's game. This is a nation which, as in the immage of Billy Bragg's "save the youth of America" has a lot of growing up to do. Our intellectual lazyness is costing lives around the planit, and may cost us the planit. For Americans politics is the half hour sitcom and the news is the fifteen second sound bite. Nader wont fix that... it is just another comodity notion, the proof being he will sell out all the hard work he did in the past to make a fool's point.
All the best... (wish I was there... my love to the family!)
Larry

PS While wishing, wish I had a liver to share a pint with ya, shem!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 03:49 PM

It would seem to me most likely that anybody who votes in November for Nader, in a part of America where that kind of thing might actually make a difference, is probably going to be someone who is pretty sceptical about the Democrats anyway, and who would otherwise be sitting at home, or registering a spoiled vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: InOBU
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 03:10 PM

Yeah go for it... tell the three Japanese now threatened with being burned alive because Bush threatened their nation into going agaisnt their constitutional ban on foriegn wars to send troops to Iraq... tell the Carabou of the Alaska wilderness, tell the rising number of American dead in Iraq and the tens of thousands of innocent civilian dead - the broken eccological conventions... with the ice pack of Greenland melting... that four more years of a mad man in the White house makes a good point worth making.
God help us... some republic
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 02:55 PM

Maybe Nader knows that even if Kerry gets the popular vote, the Bush machine will insure that Bush will still be president. Maybe Nader wants to shake the tree to insure that Kerry will be president or at least that Bush will not be president, no matter what. Nader probably knows that he won't be president but he is definitely telling Bush, loud and clear, that the American public wants change.

Ego? You'd have to have a strong ego to be a politician. Nader is very good at raising important issues and making them public. At least it will expose Congress and the Senate. Isn't that where your vote counts most anyway? Go for it Nader. Expose them all.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: InOBU
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 10:14 PM

Dear Bill: THat is not guts... that is living on another planit. There is an election coming up... one that can be won, whereas there is NO chance of impeachment before the election and with a Republican Congress AND Senate, little chance EVER of such an impeachment. Instead of impeachment I wish he'd deal with the reality of survival... the boddies are piling up from this butcher's war and Nader wants to play ego games.
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 11:39 AM

The reason we need Nadar or someone like him in this race was made evident yesterday in his call for the impeachment of George Bush. Kerry or his handlers don't have the guts or the political freedom perhaps to stand up to Bush and make the case against him.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: InOBU
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 08:55 AM

Ah, Kev... we are all fruits here! Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 07:10 AM

"That apple is a bad apple, so though it's an apple all right, I'd question whether it'd be right to call it a fruit..."

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: InOBU
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 06:22 AM

Ah the wonder of language and definition... Yes Torquemada (thanks, I'd NEVER have been able to spell that!!!!!) was a Catholic, but was he a Christian? This is a great opening for looking at what defines theory and substance. This is what philosophy is about... it draws us up up above the black and white an apple is an apple and into the true nature of things... If Torguemada was NOT Christian where all Catholics not Christian... someone with a good understanding of logic would say, no, one can't draw that conclution... and philosophy is less abstract but still not black and white...
But your closing... who am I? Ah, now it gets interesting... who do you see yourself as?
All the best,
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: toadfrog
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 10:45 PM

Larry:
Actually, I haven't met any Marxist intellectuals, with or without quotation marx, in a long time. There was once a time when most of my best friends were Red Diaper Babies, and some of them ended up as spokespersons for the CPUSA. They never used Marxist rhetoric -- on the contrary, they sounded like militant trade unionists. I did get recruited once into a group that turned out to be a front for the Communist Revolutionary Party ("Maoists"), led by Bob Avakian. You still see those guys, now with gray whiskers, pushing leaflets in the Haight-Ashbury. Now, they did use Marxist rhetoric, as did some of the Trotzkyists I have met. All about "capitalist contradictions," "phases of the revolution," and I believe even "surplus value." It all sounds sort of quaint now.

But I'm afraid I still think Lenin was a Marxist. And even Stalin. Just as I cannot deny that Torquemada was a Catholic. I just don't think of "Marxist"-- or "Christian," for that matter, as titles of honor -- so far as I'm concerned, they are just names given to people who adopt and claim those respective creeds.

But then, who am I?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 09:58 PM

On balance democracy can mean those things, LH. But there's nothing more democratic in one sense than a lynch mob. What happened in Ruanda ten years ago was in one sense a very democratic genocide. There are values which run deeper and are more basic than democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: InOBU
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 09:39 PM

My Dear Toadfrog:
Lenin was much more a product of Russian thinking than Marx. The fact is that Russia has always been drawn to empire and when ever it has a week leader the empire falls, weither it is Nicolas, Krensky or Gorbachiev. Russian "Marxism" was no more Marxist than most US "Marxist intelectuals" are intellectuals (on half of that I assume we both may agree!)
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 07:50 PM

Yeah. I want democracy for its own sake. (at least my understanding of democracy) I believe it is founded on these principles: equality before the law, equal opportunity in all spheres of life (subject to your own performance as to how you make use of said opportunities), freedom from fear, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion/faith/philosophy, mutual contribution/responsibility, economic justice! That last means: everyone starts out in life with enough of the basics: meaning education, a place to live, food and water, other basic necessities, medical care, and employment for those who desire it and apply themselves to it competently.

You cannot secure the above in a system that is run exclusively for profit, nor can you secure it in a system that is dominated by political parties (one or more)...in my opinion. You cannot secure it in a class system or a system full of gross economic inequality.

I have lived in a couple of small democracies. A democracy cannot function for long unless the vast majority of its citizens are well-educated, well-intentioned, share common ideals, and have extremely good and selfless leadership.

In other words...you are not gonna find too many democracies out there in the World these days.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 07:38 PM

McGrath of Harlow---Good point!!!   Thanks.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 07:29 PM

Treat them as background noise, Bill. (And you don't mean "Guest posts", you mean "nameless Guest posts" - that's obvious, but it's as well to say it, because otherwise it gets twisted into a lie about people being against ordinary Guests who use labels, and somebody might believe that if they haven't been around here for long.)

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 07:21 PM

I still would like to know why "GUEST" can post messages without even a screen name. Frankly, anonymity smacks of cowardice to me.

I for one--as said earlier--will not thank the " masked man" for comments---nor respond anymore to such postings. One should respond to a person willing to identify him or her self.

Most "Guest" postings sound more like the diatribes of "anonymous" from the old Daily News in NYC---well spoofed and riduculed by the late Steve Allen in truly funny bits.


Non-Guest Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 03:50 PM

Does anyone actually want democracy for its own sake?

Rather than, as being a way of bringing about a way of running society which is seen as least damaging and most likely to bring about the best life for most people.

And since pure democracy is pretty difficult to operate on a large scale, we get the compromise of various forms of representative democracy, some of which are not very representative, and not very democratic.

The most efficient form of tyranny would be a populist democratic tyranny.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: toadfrog
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 02:27 PM

Larry & McGrath:
At the time of the Communist Manifesto, that is in 1848, Marx's interest in democracy was tactical. If everyone could vote, then theoretically the dictatorship of the proletariat could be brought about quite simply. But Marx did not ever, at any time, talk about the specific form a dictatorship of the proletariat would take. He was a Left-Hegelian, which means what ultimately concerned him was not a change in forms of government, but the realization of the potential of mankind. That is, when the proletariat triumphs, history will be over, heaven will exist on earth, and such trivial concerns as forms of government will just be irrelevant. That is why, despite his many fascinating insights, Marxism is an ideology, not a science. It is closely akin to Christian millenialism. And greatly as I respect the old guy's trenchant mind, it is impossible for me to believe in Marxism.

Needless to say, Marx's thought did not provide Lenin with any guidance about what kind of a system to build in Russia. That's precisely why Marxism appealed to Lenin and others like him. No annoying rules that tie your hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 09:58 AM

Apparently there are some really nasty Democrats out there, who will stoop to the lowest level to attack Nader. I'm on the Nader email list, which apparently has been hacked by loyalist Dems, who are now spamming my email with this message:

----------------------------------------------
Support Mr. Kerry
not
King George II

if you run, you help the war mongers in Washington
----------------------------------------------

Imagine my surprise that it is coming from a yahoo account.

Don't the Republicrats understand that using tactics like this makes THEM look like the party of King George?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: InOBU
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 09:12 AM

Thanks McGrath.... what he said!
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 08:46 AM

It is unlikely that any independent candidate, should they be elected, could accomplish a lot for the reasons you mention Bill. But the system we have now is producing a lot of gridlock and stalemate too, and something will eventually have to give.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 07:40 AM

You don't need to have a copy by the desk, Larry - here's a copy on the net, in a computer in Colorado - Karl Marx and Frederick Engel's
MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

Remember, "Dictatorship" in this context means essentially the same as "Rule". A society where power lies in the hands of wealthy people, where wealth determines what goes in the media, and who is elected to positions of authority is in this sense a dictatorship of the wealthy.

The fact that there are divisions and disagreements between the wealthy as to how to use their power is a secondary matter, and does not alter the fact that they do have this power. That doesn't mean that those divisions and disgreements aren't important, but we shouldn't ever fool ourseleves into thinking that they comprise the whole range of options whuich we have as a society.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: InOBU
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 11:40 PM

Hi Toadfrog:
I am fustrated... I have a wee copy of the C.M. by my desk at all times... and it has gone missing... ( add THAT to my FBI file! ;) )... but here goes from memory, Marx writes that the world has lived under the dictatorship of the minority who own the means of production... but that we need to go to the dictatorship of the prolatariot... the majority, which Marx felt was only possible, as stated in the Manifesto, if there is an unfettered press, as he could not emagine that in a modern world the information would come from a single sourse, TV for the most part, rather than the easy to produce small newspaper and flyer. It was Lenin who redefined dictatorship of the prolatariot as a true dictatorship ruling in the interest of the majoirty, rather than the majority (the prolatariot) ruling in their own interest. It was this type of redefinition that inspired the Bolshivics to kill off the Menshevics.
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: toadfrog
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 03:30 PM

Larry:
1. I have been to Europe. I doubt a real true blue Leftist would regard even European "Socialist" parties as truly pure.
2. I've read the Communist Manifesto with considerable care, and it says nothing whatsoever about democracy as a desirable political system. It was written during the Revolution of 1848, when for a moment it looked as if Germany was going to get some kind of an elected government, possibly even with democratic elections. Marx wrote about a great variety of topics, not including political systems. For the mature Marx, economic structure was all-important and political institutions simply reflect the will of whoever controls the modes of production.
2. I did not mean to suggest that the Democratic Party is Leftist - whatever that means. Everyone is free to define "Leftist" for themselves, so that it is not very useful concept. What I meant is this. On a lot of issues, as they exist in peoples' minds today, there is a "left" side and a "right" side. And to the extent the two parties differ, the Democrats are invariably on "left" side of every issue. The country is increasingly polarized. And Nader agrees with the Democrats whenever they differ from Republicans; he just thinks Democrats are too moderate.

Nader does think both parties go too far in supporting Israel. He has a point there, but for me that's not enough. They say he is likely to get about 30% of the Arab vote, which is heavily concentrated in two swing states, Michigan and Ohio. In 2000, the Arab-American vote went overwhelmingly for Bush. That seems unlikely to happen a second time, so Nader could be crucial in winning, once again, for GWM.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 03:19 PM

voted for Nader in Ohio last time, not likely to again, (though not completely thrilled with Kerry) but would vote for Kucinich in a heartbeat. the point about Nader not beaing able to run the country has nothing to do with his ability, it has to do with our system. Do you really think a congress controlled by either party would pass anything Nader wanted if he won? would Nader sign every stupid bill Congress sent to him? stalemate, gridlock, whatever you call it. that is the system we have, and it makes no sense, nothing will ever change.

I know it's a futile exercise, but change has to start somewhere. I propose direct representation, no electoral college, a parliamentary system that requires coalition but gives every voice and point of view a seat and a vote, let them elect a President or Prime Minister or what have you, who has to stand a vote of confidence every now and then to stay in power. A mulitparty system is the only way to justice and change. and keep corporations and money out of it if possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 02:51 PM

I mean, you are seriously suggesting Nader doesn't have a superior set of skills for acting as the nation's chief executive? He has also acted in the chief executive capacity for how many public interest groups, his law practice...

COME ON!!! How can anyone claim Nader isn't capable enough to run the US? Give me a break.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 02:48 PM

George Bush is capable of running the country, but Ralph Nader, an extremely intelligent attorney, highly capable, supremely informed problem solver, advocate, legislative lobbyist, for some reason isn't capable of running the country?????

Wha?????

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: InOBU
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 09:09 AM

My dear friend Toadfrog:
I agree with most of what you say, however I am mystified by your reflection that the Democratic party is a leftist party! Have you ever been to Europe or Scandinavia? We don't really have a leftist party, with the possible exeption of the Greens, though they tend to be not terribly politically savy, sort of knee-jerk radicals rather than the real sort of labour related party a leftist party as Labour USED to be in Britain, and is in other countries. Let's face it, to have a successful democracy we need successful news reporting, not the surface entertainment media which mascarades as news reporting in this nation. You may, or may not recall that in the Communist Manifesto Marx said that one needs to have a democratic nation in order for the prolatariot to rule, (why the USSR never was a leftist nation according posthumusly to Marx) and in order to have democracy you need free speach freedom of religion and free press. Well, this is likely part of the reason that those who run the ecconomy are wielding interference with matters of morality by the state, limiting free speach through the patriot act, and eviserating the press through comercial information networks who sell a story not the underlieing truth. Speed the day when ANY party that can win is a leftist party because (I take it you are not a plutocrat...) that day YOU fellow worker, will have a voice in government. However, the way to get there, in the past, has been to create partnerships, not to empower the right through deviding the liberals from the left (yes Verginia there IS a difference between Liberal and Left)...
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 06:16 AM

If elected, he could not run the country. Well, obviously that isn't going to happen. Like any minority candidate he isn'r running to win, but for other reasons, good or bad, such as trying to focus attention on particular issues, organising people, ego-tripping...

On balance, it doesn't seem too good an idea. It's true enough that, where people make a minimal effort to understand the system of voting, and use it intelligently, there is no reason at all why his candidature should help Bush. However that is probably too much to expect of most people at this time.

Still, unless Nader decides to pull out at some stage (which seems quite possible), the only sensible thing for you lot is to try to use the voting system intelligently, so that votes for Nader are registered in places where they can't do any harm, rather than get all hot under the collar about it.

As for feeling safe and out of it here in England, 'fraid not. The Blair administration is wrecking the planet, and the relationship that exists between Bush and Blair is profoundly destructive. I'm also aware of the damage it is doing to people over there. Like most people around the planet I'm terrified that the voters over there are going to allow it to survive.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: toadfrog
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 12:55 AM

McGrath: By your definition, I am sure a conservative. I surely don't like Bush, and have very little enthusiasm for any of the Democratic candidates, including Kerry. I don't trust big business or big politics. I strongly suspect that at least 50% of the changes being proposed are for the worst. And I trust Nader less, even than Bush.

1. If elected, he could not run the country.
2. The whole idea of a third party on the Left (or Right) is hooey. A third party makes sense when it takes up a cause both parties have ignored. Ross Perot appealed to lots of people because they worried about the unbalanced budget and trade agreements -- issues where the two parties agreed. Before 1936, neither party could be characterized as "Left" or "Right." Today, more than ever before the Democrats are on the "Left" on every single issue, and the Republicans on the "Right." And polls indicate that the country is divided 50-50. So that the only possible effect of a fringe candidate like Nader is to weaken the cause he/she claims to represent.

The people who are left out are not people on the "Left" or the "Right," but those in the middle, who think both parties are too ideological and squabble too much. Lots of people, sometimes including even me, think we need someone who concentrates on good government and not on ideology. Nader's criticism of the Democrats is not that they support the wrong causes, but that they are not ideological enough, or militant enough. So that his position is exactly the opposite of what would satisfy the really dissatisfied voters who want most of all a practical government that makes things run. Those voters came to like Clinton, precisely for the reason you don't -- because he wasn't ideological and he made things work.

I understand your position. You are sitting over there in England, and could not possibly care less whether the United States is well-governed. That is not a very exciting issue, compared to the bold clash of ideologies. But I care a great deal about that, and it appears to me the present administration is truly horrible and taking us to the brink of disaster, and I think Nader disgraces himself by trying to perpetuate it. But for sure, it creates a lot of excitement for all you spectators out there.   

I don't want to "live in interesting times." They say that is a Chinese curse.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: InOBU
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 10:57 PM

To an extent this is true, and frankly, the need for the Electorial College has passed I think, as we are no longer living in the shaddow of a confederacy of very different political governments in former colonies, but Hell... why take a chance? An important part of politics is winning as much as being right. Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 05:37 PM

Last week the numbers were dead even, 48% to 48% without Nader, with Nader, Bush would win. But it just doesn't matter who gets the most votes across the country, because that doesn't determine the election. Either Bush or Kerry could be millions of votes behind, and still win - it all depends where the votes are.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: InOBU
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 05:12 PM

i, Kev> Trouble is that US voting paterns are weird. The swing votes go to a sort of popularity contest triggered by any kind of October surprise, for example if Bush were to claim to have found weopons of mass distruction the day before the election, the swing votes would go to him, and then the next day he'd simply say, whoops, I was wrong, that was a can of bug repelant. Last week the numbers were dead even, 48% to 48% without Nader, with Nader, Bush would win.
Now for friends of mine, who say there is no difference, look at the supreme court. The next president may be appointing a majority, in which case, fair thee well 1st amendment rights in the forum of Religion, Political speach (lets not forget this is the administration which has refield the exact same charges against Lynne Stewart which the Federal Court through out as being to vague to distingish the "crime" from the expectations of adiquate legal representation by any lawyer...) good by fourth amendment rights and hello to a state where libraians are agents of Big Brother... fair well to Alaska wilderness, clean air, hello to wars of agression with no attempt at creation of a justification other than ... we don't like their government and WE think we can do better... well hell, if that is the kind of America you wish to live in, walk right up to the voting booth this year you have two ways to get it, vote for Bush or Nader.
Cheers
(and to quote the late Chief Moonface Bear of the Golden Hill Paugeesukq tribe, "This ain't the time to get stupid here..."
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 04:55 PM

"...what is it about our voting system works that would keep Nader from helping elect Bush this time

What I said was "in most parts your country there is no real possibility of Nader doing any damage at all to the chances of removing Bush."

And what I meant was, in most States the margin between your Democrats and your Republicans is not so close that a vote of 5% (or even a good bit higher) for Nader would make any difference to the result.

The only places where that kind of thing actually matters is in "swing states" where a vote like that for Nader which would other wise be likely to go to Kerry could make a difference (as happened in Florida last time). Remember, it just doesn't matter who gets most votes across the country when it comes to determine who wins the election. The only thing that matters is the electoral college votes.

I can quite easily imagine that real conservatives, who don't trust unnecessary change and don't trust big business and big politics, could easily prefer someone like Nader to either Kerry or Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 03:01 PM

Perhaps we could start a Dysfunctional Democrats Anonymous thread, for those who feel they need immediate emotional and psychic support whenever the word "Nader" crops up.

No matter how many times you explain it in the most minute detail to them Merritt, they aren't going to get it, because they don't want to get it. Same way they don't want to take the blame for fielding such awful candidates for national public offices.

No, better to deny reality, stick with their dysfunctional group for support, and continue to say Nader did it! Nader did it!

It is so much easier for them to cope that way.

As to those "celebrity liberals" (the Michael Moores, the Susan Sarandons, etc) who have chastised Nader for running, all I can say is what a bunch of duplicitous hypocrits. I'll remember your bait and switch tactics next time you want to primp and pose from the podium for your progressive chic photo ops.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 01:25 PM

It was bad enough that they made "liberal" sound like some sort of social disease.

It was worse when they started calling democrats "demoncrats"

Now their a "virus"?

Nader can't possibly hope to win. He is therefore engaged in a futility which will end with honest but frustrated voters throwing away their votes just to make a point instead of voting for one of the actual potential winners.

We already know that Sharptons campaign is being run by a republican to take some of the african american vote away from the democrats (who take these folk for granted). What more evidence do you need that these people will cost the democrats the election?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Merritt
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 11:28 AM

Here we go again blaming Nader for the FL 2000 debacle and therefore the national 2000 outcome. Apologies for a bit o' copy & paste from another similar thread:

>>>According to Susan MacManus, a political scientist at the University of South Florida, exit polls from the 2000 presidential election in Florida reveal that when Nader voters were asked who they would've voted for if Nader had >not< run and they were in a straight Bush vs. Gore contest, the responses were "split right down the middle." So the number of Nader votes going to Gore and to Bush would've been the same. (These are not the notorious VNS polls that resulted in inaccurate early projections.)

Nader received 96,837 votes in Florida in 2000. So, as an exercise in electoral accuracy, if we shoot one of the Nader voters, we can give 48,418 votes each to the two front-runners. Working from the final recount numbers in the Fla. Race, this would give Bush a total 2,597,594 votes. Gore would claim total votes of 2,955, 869.

So Nader and some Greens may hope to be spoilers, but the actual numbers don't support the constant (and continuing) repetition by Democrats and others that this is what happened in Florida in 2000.

But that's not all. Florida 2000 exit polls also tell us that 256,274 Democrats voted for Bush, and 167,598 Republicans voted for Gore. Letting the two lead candidates keep "their" Nader votes, if we assume for a moment that all Bush's Dem votes go to Gore & all Gore's GOP votes go to George II we can adjust the vote totals:

Gore = 3,212,143
Bush = 3,125,192

In other words, with enough Democrats pulling the lever for him, old Al mighta won the day. But, please, ignore all of this. It's much easier to blame the Nader and (depending on wind direction) the Green Party.

Pre-election voter roll purges, post-election hype and Supreme Court action IMO were the biggest factors involved in rigging the Florida election to produce the guy now in the White House.<<<<

Numbers are interesting. Here in Wisconsin in 2000, 2/3 of Nader voters didn't vote at all in 1996. Self-identified Democrats accounted for only 27% of his WI votes.

I agree with those pushing here for preferential or instant run-off voting. This is a more productive than casting Nader as Vader.

- Merritt

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 08:54 AM

And the propaganda that Nader is who defeated Gore continues. Gore won the popular vote. Bush won the electoral college after intervention from the Supreme Court to stop the vote recount in Florida, where there was a good amount of voter fraud.

The tally of the recount votes in Florida shows that even if Nader had withdrawn from the race, Gore wouldn't have won.

Yet the mainstream Democrats keep blaming Nader for Gore being a shit candidate, and for the Florida recount debacle.

It's a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: RWilhelm
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 11:56 PM

The reason Nader did not elect Bush is that, even in Florida, anyone who voted for Nader or any other third party candidiate did so because they could not stomach the mainstream candidates. Those votes would not have gone to Gore, they would have stayed home. I have voted in six presidential elections and I have never voted for a Republican or a Democrat. I never will.

As the Fugs said, "Was George Washington the lesser of two evils?"

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: toadfrog
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 10:53 PM

I object to you guys' belittling remarks about Gus Hall. Gus Hall was a man of substance. When he debated, he often made more sense than either major party candidate. Nader can't come within a mile of Gus Hall.

Among other things, Gus Hall never said a lot of b... s... about how he was going to take all the Republican votes away from Nixon or Reagan.      If Nader sincerely believes he is going to win the Republicans over he'll stick to campaigning in places like Texas and Utah. Fat chance!

Hey McGrath, what is it about our voting system works that would keep Nader from helping elect Bush this time? I want to hear about that; it's a complete new one on me. Ralph sure did get Bush elected last time!   Ralph Nader is the lovely guy that gave the war in Iraq. Maybe he will get us more of the same. Is that what you want? Is it really worth all that bloodshed, just so Brit intellectuals can take the moral high ground and lecture us Yanks about what yahoos we are?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 08:38 PM

Guest: Is that not similar to the events in Florida (and other places) in 2000?
         Would that Nader would retire with dignity and not create the same problem that he created last time.   My own feeling is that a vote for Nader is a vote for Narcisism. He could leave the stage with dignity and not as, some wag said recently "...stick to look at auto's rear ends and seat belts".
          Personally, I have never felt as strongly about an election as this one. Provided there is no coup I would hope that W is gone after this one---think of how we have rolled back time in his brief tenure---Social Security, Economy, Defense, and world opinion.
          Sadly, after 9-11 we had the moment when all civilized peoples could unite and empathize. Blown away---by W's own doing.
         Now the commission is finally going to interview him--with his VP. Think about that. When ever did a sitting Pres. need his VP to be there---or as some wag said recently---"...when W speaks will Cheney be drinking water"? Or, as I say---will we see Cheney move his lips?
          So--back to Nader. For once he should put his vanity aside for the greater good and those who would vote for him should realize that once again they are wasting a vote that might keep this administration afloat.

Bill Hahn


PS--why do we allow GUEST signatures? Makes one think about asking---who was that masked man---OH he was a guest. Anonymity leads to "crank" notes and notes by people to afraid of ashamed of their comments.   If one believes something---defend it and announce yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 07:58 PM

According to the latest Minnesota Poll just released today, Kerry is 12 points ahead of Bush statewide. The poll, conducted last week, showed Kerry leading Bush, 50 percent to 38 percent. Nader had 2 percent. Kerry led Bush in the seven-county metropolitan region, 54 percent to 35 percent. In the rest of the state, Kerry led 47 percent to 41 percent.

Minnesota is being peddled to the national media as a battleground state, though I'm not really sure why. The national vote here is nearly always Democrat by a healthy margin. There have been exceptions over the years, with Reagan for instance. But for the most part, this state is still Democrat by a pretty good margin. We just haven't had any decent state and national offices filled by decent Democrats, exept Wellstone, since Perpich left office.

There is a real dearth of decent Democrats to run for state and national office here, but I don't think that translates to the state going Republican, despite our recent run of Republican governors (interrupted by Ventura, and independent). That isn't because the state is THAT much more Republican, it is because the Democrats aren't running candidates as strong as the Republican candidates.

That said, I'm not too worried about Kerry being able to carry Minnesota, so I'm voting for Nader to help build and keep alive the progressive populist grassroots movement in this state, regardless of party or political affiliation.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 02:42 PM

What would solve the problem, of course, would be preferential voting. With preferential voting, you rank the candidates in order of your preference. That way, you can rank, say, #1 Nader, #2 Kucinich, #3 Edwards, #4 Kerry. Then if it becomes obvious that Nader isn't getting enough votes, your vote switches to Kucinich. If Kucinich isn't making it, it moves to Edwards, then on to Kerry if Kerry is actually getting the most votes. With this kind of system, you can vote for whoever you really want without fear that your vote will be "wasted" if your candidate's chances are really slim. Under the present system, for all practical purposes you are wasting your vote, no matter how idealistic and superior it may make you feel.   

Preferential voting has the additional advantage that if, say, Kucinich winds up number two behind Kerry, then Kerry had better pay some attention to Kucinich's platform, because he now knows that a lot of people were behind it, and if he wants to be re-elected, he'd better take it seriously. Even if your favorite candidate doesn't win, your real preferences are made known to the one who does.

There are rumblings in a few states to bring preferential voting about. But if the two major parties have their way, it'll be a cold day in Hell before that ever happens. It will probably take a grass roots movement, but it can be done. But obviously not by November, unfortunately.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 01:57 PM

Remember, in most parts your country there is no real possibility of Nader doing any damage at all to the chances of removing Bush. Your voting system just doesn't work that way.

And for people living in the few states where it could make any difference - such as Florida last time - who would like to register a vote for Nader, but are scared that might help Bush to survive, all they need to do is pair up with someone in another part of the country and swap votes.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST,03 Apr 04 - 11:56 AM
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 01:21 PM

A friend of mine was Nader's running mate, Winona LaDuke. She is from Minnesota, knows him very well, and says essentially what Todd Purdum of the NY Times said about Nader on Washington Week on Friday night. That he has a great sense of humor, that he is brilliant, he isn't an egomaniac at all, but is a truly unique individual. She also said he is quite humble for a lawyer. ;-)

Winona has remained mum about Nader's run this year so far, and I haven't spoken with her in over a year (she lives in northern MN and travels a lot). But she has nothing but wonderful things to say about Nader. So I guess I'll go with the opinion of someone who knows him well that I know personally, rather than go by what someone on the internet who may well have an ax to grind, and who doesn't appear to have known Nader at all in recent years, says about him.

I really don't think anyone can say that Nader is irrelevant. The NY Times doesn't interview irrelevant presidential candidates. To try and compare Nader to Gus Hall, is just plain silly, or the person making the comparison is attempting to smear Nader through guilt by association.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 07:44 AM

GO Nader, Your the one Buddy Don't let some sick liberal pig tell you a thing .we're better off 1000 times better off without Kerry .
mindless Kerry Friend of Terror and lie's
There is Nothing Wrong with Bush ...so what if he hasn't had a Whore in the White House so what if he don't mess around on his wife.
when liberal's say Bush lie's The're lieing..Clinton Lies
Please i know and you schould know Liberal's can't tell whats true
or right it has something to do with Hate.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: LadyJean
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 10:25 PM

Why does Nader want to be Gus Hall?

Hall was the Communist party's perrenial candidate for president. I'm sure someone, somewhere took him seriously. But most people saw him as a kind of pathetic joke.

Pat Paulsen, the commedian made a career out of running for president. Nobody took him seriously either.

Nader is kidding himself if he thinks he'll attract disaffected Republicans. They'll go Libertarian. If he attacts enough voters be taken seriously, he'll also hand George w a second term. If he doesn't he'll be a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 09:42 PM

What are his goals, do you think, Dick? It seems to me that if he were serious about wanting to govern this country he would have long since named some people, or at least specified some characteristics of the people, that he wants in his cabinet as well as those he wants working alongside him. Is he one of those people who gets his kicks out of being in the news, being talked about, feared for what impact he may have?

If Ralph Nader again affects the election, as far as I'm concerned he's history. And bad history, at that.

Recently, in Oregon I was in the backseat of a car listening to a man in the front seat bemoaning the status of Christianity in this country. I'm sure it doesn't occur to him that if he got his wishes, the US would be Iran with a different name.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 04:43 PM

Having worked more-or-less closely with Mr. Nader--he was on the board of Consumers Union when I was an engineer then-- I can only say that he's a dedicated, sincere monomaniac, who's willing to destroy anything to further his personal goals, a few of which are praiseworthy and most of which are plain nuts.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 11:59 AM

Sorry, I meant to mention for the non-registered, Nader said:

"He has asked for a meeting with Mr. Kerry next month to make his case that he can offer fresh ideas "field-tested by a second front," and Kerry aides say a session is being arranged."

Subject: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 11:56 AM

I love this man!

There is a great interview in the NY Times with Ralph Nader (I heard about it last night on Washington Week from the writer who interviewed him). It's about damn time somebody did a legitimate interview with Nader like this!

Here is the link, for those of you who are registered:

Reason to Run? Nader Argues He Has Plenty

For those of you who aren't registered, here is quick excerpt of the beginning of the article:

"By TODD S. PURDUM

Published: March 31, 2004


WASHINGTON, March 30 — Ralph Nader knows all the arguments against him. He can recite, word for importuning word, the letters from old friends urging him not to run for president — "all individually written, all stunningly similar" — and he does so with the theatrical relish of a man whose public life has been one long, unyielding argument with the world.

"Here's how it started," he said, his soft voice taking on mock oratorical tones over dinner with a group of aides in Charlotte, N.C., last week: "For years, I've thought of you as one of our heroes." He rolled his eyes. "The achievements you've attained are monumental, in consumer, environmental, etc., etc." He paused for effect. "But this time, I must express my profound disappointment at indications that you are going to run."

"And the more I got of these," Mr. Nader said, "the more I realized that we are confronting a virus, a liberal virus. And the characteristic of a virus is when it takes hold of the individual, it's the same virus, individual letters all written in uncannily the same sequence. Here's another characteristic of the virus: Not one I can recall ever said, 'What are your arguments for running?' "

So ask him already. He is bursting with answers.

No, he says, he is neither a nut nor a narcissist. Yes, he agrees with his sharpest Democratic critics that defeating President Bush is essential. In the end, he believes, out-of-power Democrats will rally around John Kerry, and Mr. Nader will take votes from disaffected Republicans and independents. He is running as an independent, but might accept the endorsement of the Green Party, which nominated him four years ago, though not if doing so means refraining from campaigning in swing states, as some in the party insist."