|
30 Jun 03 - 10:02 PM (#974821) Subject: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST It seems Nader is refusing to count himself out of the race, much to the dismay of the Democrats. Depending upon who the Dems run, I'd certainly vote for him again. Nader article |
|
30 Jun 03 - 10:05 PM (#974823) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bobert Anyone from Texas who wants to broker their vote? Bobert |
|
30 Jun 03 - 10:58 PM (#974844) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bee-dubya-ell If the Dems had offered Nader a cabinet-level position like Secretary of Interior in 2000 he would have probably taken it and Dubya would be a dim memory. If they lose another squeeker for the same reason, mass suicide on the part of all members of the Democratic National Congress would be the only appropriate response. |
|
30 Jun 03 - 10:59 PM (#974845) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: katlaughing Gawd, I hope he does NOT! |
|
30 Jun 03 - 11:04 PM (#974847) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bee-dubya-ell I said "Democratic National Congress". I, of course meant "Democratic National Committee". The other's in South Africa, isn't it? |
|
30 Jun 03 - 11:07 PM (#974849) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST I tell you what, if the choice is between Bush and Gephardt, I won't waste my vote on either. Sooner or later Democrats have to wake up and realize that the choice between two evils is not a choice at all, but a death sentence for democracy. Just like the Do Nothing Democratic strategy is not a strategy for governance, which truly IS destroying our democracy. When we wake up tomorrow morning to Democrat controlled California's default on it's debts--the 5th largest economy in the world--what will the DNC say to the grassroots then? You should still vote for us anyway, because we aren't Republicans? I don't think so. |
|
30 Jun 03 - 11:49 PM (#974861) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: LadyJean Politics is about compromise, which isn't necessarily, a bad thing. Ralph Nader doesn't know HOW to compromise. He would make a great dictator, but a lousy president. I'm not sure I'm up for a dictator. |
|
01 Jul 03 - 12:14 AM (#974869) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,amergin I voted for him twice....but I sincerely hope he does not run this year...I just want that piece of shit out of the white house... |
|
01 Jul 03 - 10:48 PM (#974907) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: MarkS Wonder if a comment is worth the effort. Every time I make an argument why supporting him is the BEST thing we can do to improve the political environment in total, seems I upset those who prefer their particular Republicrat. I will support him again if he runs, but I'm just afraid it will be another exercise in futility. Mark |
|
01 Jul 03 - 11:49 PM (#974925) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Politics isn't about compromise, it is about governance by the people, for the people, and for the good of all. It is about meeting our civic and social responsibilities to one another with all the integrity one can muster. Political sleeze, political corruption, political graft, greed, and political extortion--those are all about compromise and the art of the deal. What we should be demanding is the former. Tolerating sell outs in the name of compromise is what has given us the later. As to dictatorships, I think Cheney/Bush have nearly succeeded in imposing one here in the US, in Iraq, and Afghanistan. |
|
02 Jul 03 - 12:37 AM (#974932) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: LadyJean The emancipation proclamation was a compromise. The holocaust wasn't. Did you know Ralph Nader doesn't belong to the Green Party? |
|
02 Jul 03 - 08:29 AM (#975083) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bobert Like I said, "Anyone want to broker their vote?" If the Republicans hadn't sent their lawyers out to shut down the vote brokering between Greens and Democrats, Bush wouldn't have been close enough to have these same lawyers stop the Florida recount. Yeah, sure, the Bush administration has proven to be very damaging, but if weren't for Ralph Nader and the Green Party their would be virtually no other voice but that of the Repubocratic Party. It is important not to allow the ruling class minimalize or trivialize the true voice of the working class. (With that said, I still could see a scenerio in next election working for Dean, if it looks as if he has any chance of beating Bush.) But, still Green. Bobert |
|
02 Jul 03 - 08:34 AM (#975087) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: McGrath of Harlow Now a fair voting system would have you putting the candidates in order of preference. Who is it decides people you have this weird first-past-the-post system? I know how it works (or doesn't work) here in England, but in the USA you sometimes seem to be a bit quicker at changing things, but evidently not this thing. I mean, in the US, is the current system laid down at national level, or determined more locally? And is there any prospect of it ever changing? (After all, in successive elections the present system has probably unfairly damaged candidates from both major parties.) The thing is, if you screw it your politics, it screws it up for everyone else as well, in a way that doesn't apply the other way round. |
|
02 Jul 03 - 09:18 AM (#975117) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Lady Jean, I believe most people who voted for Nader in 2000 are fully aware that he isn't a member of the Green Party. That is just one more EXCELLENT reason for voting for him and for supporting the only party that doesn't demand an blind loyalty to party appartchiks in order to participate in the political process. |
|
02 Jul 03 - 09:30 AM (#975123) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,Ron Olesko I am all for a viable third party candidate, but Nader is not it. He carries the same baggage that the Democrats and Republicans carry. He is a manufactured image that has no qualifications for the job. You can't run a country on principles alone. You need someone that will compromise, give inspiration, mend fences and emote confidence. Nader has none of those qualities for a job like the Presidency. |
|
02 Jul 03 - 11:28 AM (#975190) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Wolfgang Now a fair voting system would have you putting the candidates in order of preference. (McGrath) We had that argument already in the thread about the last Presidential elections in France. What I have posted there applies also here: What you think, McGrath, only works if you make the unrealistic and uncontrollable assumption that there is no tactical voting by voters in the ranking of preferences. But if there is, you can have anything, for instance: Let us assume that there are only three candidates next time: Bush, Dem, Nader. Then a Bush preferer could rank against his personal wishes: Bush, Nader, Dem. Not because he prefers Nader to Dem, but because he never believes Nader could make it. He ranks Nader higher than he truly believes to damage Dem, the only one he fears. It has been analysed from all angles by people who know a lot more about mathematics than you and I. The bottom line: There is no voting system that is inherently better than others and has no disadvantages. It can be shown that in the voting system you propose the least preferred can win under certain circumstances. In the present American system it can happen that the most preferred does not, but it cannot happen that the least preferred wins. Like in presidentail elections (grin), your only choice is between different disadvantages (and advantages). Wolfgang |
|
02 Jul 03 - 12:57 PM (#975251) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Beccy Oh yes!!!! Please, please, pretty please let Nader run again. He made it so amusing last time. |
|
02 Jul 03 - 01:19 PM (#975274) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: CarolC Please, please, pretty please let Nader run again. He made it so amusing last time. How so, Beccy? |
|
02 Jul 03 - 01:24 PM (#975281) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST What is amusing to me is the silly way the right wingers carry on about how much they want Nader to run--as if that somehow validates their own and their Bushie Boy's fanatical, dictatorial misrule of the nation. Wolfgang is dead on. The only reason for both conservative and liberal reactionaries to delight/abhor the thought of Nader running, is because they so fear that the Democrat that will eventually be crowned, will inevitably be a sacrificial lamb for the fascists. And it is easy to foresee Republicans and Libertarians drinking the blood of their sworn enemy--their fellow citizens with different beliefs and values than their King's--come November 3, 2004. |
|
02 Jul 03 - 01:27 PM (#975286) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Mark Clark This just in from the Kucinich campaign: RALPH NADER, on last night's CNN Crossfire, said: "If Dennis Kucinich - Mark |
|
02 Jul 03 - 01:31 PM (#975289) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bill D Nader, like Al Sharpton, is not an administrator...he is a gadfly. Let him continue at what he does well and not muddy the waters of an already murky pond. |
|
02 Jul 03 - 02:17 PM (#975336) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: McGrath of Harlow In the present American system it can happen that the most preferred does not, but it cannot happen that the least preferred wins. Well, it wasn't far short of that - the "first past the post" system produced a result in whch the winner came past the post second on the popular vote. No system is perfect. To produce the kind of result Wolfgang suggests would require some very sophisticated tactical voting, it seems to me, with people voting for people they actually wish to see defeated, as opposed to the sort of tactical voting where you vote for your second choice, because you don't think your first choice would win. On the other hand a skewed result under first past the post system - by which I mean a result where more people vote against the winner than for him or her - is built in. All it needs is for people to vote for the candidate they would like to see win. |
|
02 Jul 03 - 02:44 PM (#975359) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST I also find it odd that so many people swallow the right wing propaganda lines about Nader, making him out to be just a little less distasteful than Saddam Hussein. It also shows they don't know any of the facts of Nader's life and work, which has been tremendously successful over the years. I was just channel surfing during my lunch break, and saw a Fox report on how evil the BBC is--they are a monopoly! The Blair government DEMANDS an apology! The Israeli government has banned the BBC for Nazi like reporting! The sky is falling on Fox! The sky is falling on Fox! |
|
02 Jul 03 - 03:07 PM (#975377) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Guest, I beg your pardon. I am far from right wing but that doesn't mean I have to think that Nader is a qualified candidate for the presidency. I do admire his work and the sucess he has, but that doesn't mean he can lead a country. Don't start feeding us the B.S. that the right wing tried to do with the war - you are either with us or against us. You've managed to bring up separate issues concerning Israel and the BBC. Sounds like you are the troll that is claiming the sky is falling. Ron |
|
02 Jul 03 - 03:34 PM (#975402) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Ron Olesko, you sound like a very thin skinned liberal Democrat, harboring a lot of anger against Nader for refusing to back down in 2000. In the 2000 election, both Democratic liberals and Democratic conservatives attacked Nader the person, in order to avoid engaging in discussion and debate on the issues he raised. Just like you attacked me in your above post. Rather than engaging in a discussion on the issues, you chose to make an ad hominem attack instead, using the lamest of lame Mudcat chickenshit strategies: invoking the troll flame. Next I suppose you will be claiming that there isn't a well oiled Democratic Party propaganda machine that continues to attack Nader in the mainstream media whether he shows any sign of making a run in 2004 or not. BTW, I also make the fearless prediciton that that same Democratic Party propaganda machine will be ripping Kucinich to shreds everywhere in the mainstream media, very soon. The attacks against him will be brutal and very, very personal. |
|
02 Jul 03 - 03:52 PM (#975417) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: catspaw49 Nader is now qnd has always been a bit of an ass and a boring fuckin' ass to boot. He is less qualified to run the country than even Bush or Carter or even Dan Quayle. I'd love to see a third party but find a realistic candidate. Spaw |
|
02 Jul 03 - 04:05 PM (#975427) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Guest - sounds like you are wearing the thin skinned liberal mantle very well. I guess you also think that you are something of a mindreader. Where did I say I blamed Ralph Nader? Please point this out. You must have read it somewhere if you can make such a statement. Or perhaps you are doing a Rush Limbaugh and inserting your own words to try to make a case. Don't make such an ass out of yourself. You don't have a clue yet you can make suggestions about the way other people think. Shame on you. I have no problems with a third party candidate running, I just don't think that Nader is much of a candidate. Nader was not the problem in 2000, the problem was with Al Gore and George Bush. You are a troll plain and simple. If you want to engage in a discussion, use your name. Don't be so paranoid. |
|
02 Jul 03 - 04:20 PM (#975437) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST catspaw and Ron Olesko are, of course, entitled to their opinions that Nader wouldn't make a good president. Just as those who feel Nader would make an excellent president are entitled to their opinions. At least, that is the way the democracy was supposed to work. We were supposed to be able to at least tolerate the opinions of those we disagreed with, and refrain from attacking them personally. |
|
02 Jul 03 - 04:31 PM (#975448) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I agree with you guest, and I hope you will take note of your last sentence because you missed your own point. If you will notice, you attacked me first. I gave my opinion on why I did not think Nader was a good candidate and then you accused me (and others who don't like Nader) as "swallowing right-wing propaganda". When I defend my position you accuse me of attacking you. How ridiculous is that? I have no clue who you are since you where an electronic cowl over your head because you don't want people to identify you for your views. Please learn tolerance guest. |
|
02 Jul 03 - 04:46 PM (#975459) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST I didn't name you by name in the 1:24 post, did I? When I said right wing, I was actually referring to Beccy. I think you need to chill, Ron. |
|
02 Jul 03 - 04:48 PM (#975461) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko No you did not call me by name. But you did say "so many people swallow the right wing propaganda lines about Nader, making him out to be just a little less distasteful than Saddam Hussein. It also shows they don't know any of the facts of Nader's life and work, which has been tremendously successful over the years." Sorry guest, I did not try to make this personal. Also, please do not tell people to "chill" when they aren't agreeing with you. It really kills any meaningful discussion. Ron |
|
02 Jul 03 - 05:06 PM (#975480) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Ebbie BTW, I also make the fearless prediciton Yep. You're really fearless, oh, Nameless One. |
|
02 Jul 03 - 05:09 PM (#975484) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Walking Eagle On a different tack, I wonder why third parties don't work harder to build a local base instead of trying to reach too far, too fast? Work for the bottom up, instead of the top down. It seems as the Greens in Europe are trying this approach. What's wrong with working hard to help local candidates of a party get elected and supporing national candidates of a major party who have similar views? |
|
02 Jul 03 - 05:50 PM (#975513) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Beccy Oh, I get it... because I tend to side with the conservatives on most things I'm not entitled to an opinion about Ralph Nader? I seriously got a laugh out of him last time 'round. I didn't think he was viable and I think he muddied up the discussions, but it was always interesting. And just FYI, I'm not a big Bush booster. My guy didn't win, and wouldn't, 'cause he wasn't viable either, but I'm not crying and getting defensive every time someone bad-mouths Alan Keyes. Beccy |
|
02 Jul 03 - 05:55 PM (#975516) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: CarolC I'm not sure, Beccy, whether or not you're addressing me, the anonymous guest, or both of us. For my part, I was just asking in what way you found Nader's candidacy amusing. I asked because I was curious. That's all. |
|
02 Jul 03 - 06:39 PM (#975530) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bobert Well, I'm not gettin' into the catfight but GUEST does make an all important observation that the Democratic Party has done a purdy good hatchet job on Ralph Nader and the DNC ain't too wild about either Kucinck or Dean either as they try to shape a party that looks and sounds more Republican. Now, as fir Nader. How many folks out there in Catdom really think we Greens were expecting to win the '02 election? Hold your paws up high. Didn't think so. 2000 was about getting the 5% needed to get an alternative voice heard in '04. It was not about Ralph Nader, other than he is one citizen of the US whop has a voice that is pro working class, pro envinment. So those of you who are arguing Nader missed the goals of the 2000 election. We Greens certainly knew and know what victory is: it's 5%. And, yeah, Nader is a little long winded but if you listen to what he has to say, its pro working class, pro earth and pro human. More than you'll get from the Repubocrats. And if Ralph runs again and is chosen to represent the Green Party, keep the goal in mind and give the man a break. We'd take anyone who has some name recognition, a life of service and the right thinking... Bobert |
|
02 Jul 03 - 09:42 PM (#975632) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST With Nader, the Green Party got 5% in Minnesota, and several local Greens into office in the Twin Cities. Without Nader or any other name candidate, the Greens didn't poll 5% in 2002 in Minnesota, so not only was the campaign finance money lost, but so was a lot of good momentum. Victory is most definitely 5% in the elections for any statewide and nationwide Green candidate. You can't build viable alternative parties without campaign finance dollars. Which is why it is so crucial for any national candidate to have national name recognition. He was also the only candidate coming from a public interest advocacy position, and who talked about issues that matter to the public interest. Republicrats, on the other hand, are unsafe at any speed. |
|
02 Jul 03 - 10:06 PM (#975656) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Oh BTW, I saw a DNC party hack on Fox this evening too. He was totally inept, inarticulate, and defensive when talking about why the Dem candidates, platforms, and party should not make what the Fox screaming head was referring to as a "hard left" by supporting Kucinich and Dean. But once he started to attack Nader, his message was focused, concise, and "on message". And these long summer days a year out from the party conventions isn't even dress rehearsal. |
|
02 Jul 03 - 11:06 PM (#975693) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Janie Bill D, you hit the nail on the head. Janie |
|
02 Jul 03 - 11:36 PM (#975699) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko This is a very interesting conversation. Before I continue, I do think the Green Party is important, and I do realize that their goal was to get 5%. However, if they or any other group wish to become a viable party, isn't it important that they offer a candidate that will speak to more than 5% of the voters? Across the nation, Nader in 2000 received 2.7% of the popular vote. For comparision, George Wallace received over 13% of the vote in 1968, John Anderson over 6% in 1980, and Ross Perot gained 8% in 1996. Going back further, Strom Thurmond received 2.4% of the vote in 1948 and in that same election Henry Wallace received 2.38%. Obviously there have been independent candidates and attempts at viable third parties. We can all play spin doctor but there are a few facts. No candidate or party has been able to present a viable and reasonable alternative to the Democrats & Republicans. I'm not saying this is the way it should be, but it is obvious that there are deep reasons why it is the truth. It appears that after several of us questioned Ralph Nader's viablility as a candidate, we were quickly set upon. We were not challenged on our opinions of the man, but rather on the fact that we challenged him at all. One of the gripes against Nader is that he is authoritarian and cannot accept challenges. Whenever he was challenged by the media he would blame the media as being biased. Sounds like his supporters do the same. If a candidate is going to enter the public arena and be taken seriously, they are going to have to stand on their own merits and ideas. Drawing votes based on sympathy for their "plight" will not create a viable and respected third party. |
|
03 Jul 03 - 12:06 AM (#975707) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: NicoleC >If a candidate is going to enter the public arena and be taken seriously, they are going to have to stand on their own merits and ideas. I agree that this SHOULD be the case, but unfortunately, I don't this is the whole picture. 3rd party candidates are systematically shut out of campaign debates and ignored by the media. Even in CA, where the population tends to be mostly moderate to liberal, the only comments about Nader I ever heard on the local news were negative, and generally all of about 3 seconds long. When Nader sold out a local arena for a campaign speech, it wasn't even mentioned -- but other candidates who were 300 miles away were given full coverage. We can't make a real judgement on whether Nader -- or any of the other 3rd party candidates in 2000 -- spoke to a significant percentage of the people, because most of the people had no idea what the message was. Nader has enough notoriety to stick in people's heads and get a little attention, but let's see a show of hands for people who knew what political platform Hagelin ran on in 2000. Anyone? Sadly, in almost all cases the candidate who spends the most money wins, regardless of what party or platform they are running on. Concepts like equal access to media resources have become a joke when those resources are merely for sale to the highest bidder. Perot pulled in the percentage he did because had vast amounts of his personal fortune to spend on his pet project. I think most of us of any politcal stripe believe that candidates should have equal access to get their message to the people, the central idea of democracy being that the populace makes an informed decision. I think that's a pipe dream for now -- money has corrupted the system too deeply. Kuninich has the potential to be the goad to the Democratic party this year to bring up a progressive opinion on issues. If he stays viable up to the convention, we don't need Nader. But if Kuninich slides into obscurity, I'd like to see Nader run again to play that role... and then withdraw from the race shortly before the election :) |
|
03 Jul 03 - 12:20 AM (#975711) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "3rd party candidates are systematically shut out of campaign debates and ignored by the media." That is not all together true. Perot and Anderson were part of the debates. Yes, it took some fighting to prove that they were viable candidates. If I declare myself a candidate for president, should I automatically be part of a debate and have the media show up at my door? Nader had some good opinions, but then again so do a lot of people. Because he declares himself a candidate, should people be FORCED to listen? This isn't Pee Wee League baseball where everyone gets a chance to play. We are in the majors and those with the skills and apptitude will step up to the plate. You have to earn a seat at the table. IF Kuninich does well, the media will have a story and they will cover it. Jimmy Carter did not have a big media following until he started winning primaries. When the field is crowded, only those with interest will be heard. In my lifetime, George Wallace, John Andersen and Ross Perot made waves. Ralph Nader has a following, but the numbers aren't there. I always think of someone like Abbie Hoffman. Totally against the establishment of the day, but he had a presence and knew how to attract attention. Ralph Nader is no Abbie Hoffman. Ralph Nader is not even Al Gore. Believe it or not, there are some of us who have heard his words and think that while he is a nice guy and a fighter, he doesn't belong in the presidency. I was all for letting Perot and Andersen into the debates because they had the potential to make a difference. Sorry to say, Nader does not. Nor do a number of candidates. |
|
03 Jul 03 - 04:05 AM (#975750) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Wolfgang To produce the kind of result Wolfgang suggests would require some very sophisticated tactical voting Yes, but someone would do that thinking for the voters. Candidates would tell their voters the most preferred ranking pattern of all candidates in order to be maximally helpful to the most preferred candidate. Two politicians who are trailing behind one who seems to be stronger than each of them would combine their advices on ranking pattern to damage selectively the one they believe to be stronger. In the thread about the French elections linked above I have posted some examples of silly results in a ranking voting system. Such a system seems attractive only at the first glance. Why has it not been introduced in many countries? It has been analysed thoroughly and found wanting. Wolfgang |
|
03 Jul 03 - 09:05 AM (#975887) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bobert I agree with Nicole on this one. Access is everything these days. This is a very busy nation and folks tend to form opnions around sound bites wwith very little knowledge of the issues. (Disclaimer: I am not speaking of most on this forum but the general population...). And sad to say, George Wallace's campaign was based on *hate* and he got lots of news coverage because hate is negative and the networks eat up negative stuff because it sells more soap powders. laxitives and beer. These days, if you're a progressive, the media will avoid you like you're contaminated with radioactive SARS virus. Nader sold out one arena after another during the campaign and lots but, like Nicole said, it didn't get reported by the Repubocrtaic media. Same happened when half a million folks showed for an anti-war demonstartion in DC in October. Page A-8... "A few thousand...". And guess what? Now Michael Powell, the son of Colin Powell, who heads up the FCC, is giving in to the pressures of Big Four (ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox) to strip away the last remaining restraints on media ownership. This will make it even harder for third parties and progressives to get their voices heard. I don't think Tom Jefferson saw this coming or the Bill of Rights would have had 11 ammendments instead of 10... Bobert |
|
03 Jul 03 - 09:26 AM (#975905) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Bobert - I agree with most of your points but I have two "ammendments" of my opinion. Michael Powell is not the problem with the FCC. He is the easy target because of his father, but this issue has been building for years. I agree with you that it will make it harder for third parties and progressives to get their voice heard, but the problem is that corporations like Clear Channel and the networks you mentioned have gained their market share BECAUSE the smaller third parties have sold out because the business just isn't there. The American people have, as a majority, always gone with the bland. Even our beer is marketed to a taste that will please the most people. The same with radio. Our music and news is programmed to reach the most ears, and the public as a whole (or is that hole) does not want anything different. The same with candidates like Nader. Yes, you are right, Wallace was a voice of hate and the media jumped on it - because that is what the public wanted to hear. Nader is a voice from another generation, and he is not the slick media image that appeals to the general public. Trust me, the media jumps on charismatic voices no matter what their point of view. The problem with the progressive movement is they do not have their version of Rush Limbaugh. Nader does not sell soap powder or beer, and that is the lifeblood of the media. While it may sound that is lining the pockets of some executives, it is much deeper than that. Having worked at a network for 12 years I can tell you that many people make their living through selling those commercials. The media always covers stories when layoffs occur in the auto or airline industry, but is anybody protesting when respectively equivelant numbers lose their jobs in the media? Sorry to rant and ramble and deviate from the path of this discussion. Ron |
|
03 Jul 03 - 12:47 PM (#976036) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Most the Greens I know are willing to back Kucinich instead of Nader, but only if the DNC gives the progressives true and genuine access, representation, backing, AND seats at the table. Most progressives are now former Democrats, who have been voting for third party candidates since the 1960s, or they have stopped voting in the presidential races, or stopped voting altogether. If those who oppose Bush so vehemently would simply admit the problem isn't with Bush, but with the Democratic Party selling it's soul to the highest bidder to maintain the status quo they benefit from, then maybe we could get somewhere in the this country. Nothing changed in the Democratic Party after the 2000 election. Even after the disastrous loss of control of the Senate, governorships, and House seats in 2002, nothing has changed in the Democratic Party. The same incompetent and inept leadership is in control of the party, with the exception of Pelosi replacing Gephardt, which only happened because Gephardt was running for president. As long as the Democratic Party refuses to change, and insists upon selling out it's grassroots base to appease the media whores and money men, their Chicken Little claims that the sky is falling because of Ralph Nader and the Green Party not obeying orders from the DNC, their claims will continue to make them a laughing stock in the progressive community. The Dems love to blame everyone but themselves for losing election after election. Sure things are really bad under Bush, but you know what? The Democratic Party isn't doing anything about it, so why encourage them to continue on with the Do Nothing strategy by voting for their boy? I don't throw my vote away like that. I'm not that cynical of a voter. I vote for the candidate that best represents me and my values, and who best expresses a vision of where they intend to lead the nation that I support. I don't throw away my vote on lame ass Republicrats election after election, in a losing battle to keep the fascists out. I actually believe in the democratic principles that give me the right to vote. |
|
03 Jul 03 - 01:17 PM (#976063) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bill D " Bill D, you hit the nail on the head. Janie" ..why, thank you, Janie--but short, simple answers on threads like this are 'boring', I suppose. In order to be part of the discussion, ya' gotta ramble a LOT more...*grin*. (sometimes I do, when I'm ready for hours of composing LONG replies) |
|
03 Jul 03 - 01:31 PM (#976076) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Beccy Not aimed at you, CarolC... I went against my own best advice and baited an anon GUEST... Beccy |
|
03 Jul 03 - 07:12 PM (#976269) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bobert Ron: I beg to differ with your assessment that there are no charimatic voices within the progressive movement. As Nicole, GUEST and I have eluded to: like who would know other than those of us in the progressive movement. No one, that's who, becuase these folks are either ignored or should they bubble to the surface thae are demonized, marginalized or trivialized. But mostly just ignored. Same goes for the muscians: Ani Defranco, Jim Page, etc. But lets get back to some folks who fall into the Repubocratic/corporate media demonized or ignored. These are a few folks who the general public know nothing or negative PR stuff about: Jim McDermott (D-Wa0, Reverand James Lawson, former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney who was assasinated for asking some hard questions, Al Sharpton who scares the Hell out of the Repubocrtas, Rev, Jessie Jackson, Rep. John Conyers (Mich.), writer Greg Palast, Professor Howard Zinn, Bernadette Devlin Mcaliskey, Leslie Cagan, etc, etc. And this is just the tip of the iceburg. Had these folks a little microphone time then I think you would be of a different opinion... See, it's real easy to dismiss that which we know very little. Like how many military experts were hired by the major media during the months when the American people were being prepared for war, when the Bush folks said openly that no decision had been made? I've heard 153... most former generals. How many clergy? None... I rest my case... Bobert |
|
03 Jul 03 - 08:05 PM (#976299) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Bobert, I will meet you half way. I do think that some of the names you mentioned are charismatic BUT I happen to think they are getting mic time. Rev. Al Sharpton especially. Are they as charismatic as a Rush Limbaugh? No. If they were, they would be turning heads, just as the left did during the 60's. At the start of the war in Iran, Phil Donohue had a show on MSNBC. People chose Bill Reilly and FOX instead and MSNBC pulled the plug. Your point about the war coverage and the hiring of military personnel is well taken. However, once we were at war, the so called experts role was to explain what the forces were doing. A priest is not going to be able to fill the same roll. I do understand your point though and I tend to agree with you. Unfortunately it is not what the public wants. The bottom line is eyeballs to the TV sets. The media is not out to change minds (with the exception of FOX) and frankly I do think that many of them covered the anti-war movement. The media is out to give people what they want to hear, not what they should be hearing. They spit out what their research is showing them the public wants. Television played an enormous role in the the Vietnam war. The anti-war movement received extensive coverage and I believe converted the American public to realize that the war was wrong. Face it. Television is a business. America has gotten fat, dumb and happy watching their Rush Limbaughs. If the left could match the ratings numbers, they would be heard. |
|
03 Jul 03 - 08:26 PM (#976310) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Who bankrolls Rush Limbaugh for his media time? Who bankrolled Ross Perot's campaign and paid for his air time? Now--who bankrolls/ed... Al Sharpton? Daniel Berrigan? Angela Davis? Winona LaDuke? Rigoberta Menchu? You are absolutely Ron. The progressive and radical left doesn't worship at the altar of celebrity. That is the job of media whores in the mainstream media. They make arguments like yours all the time, saying that the reason why we don't cover Nader is because he isn't charismatic enough. Which is THE WHOLE FUCKING PROBLEM WITH THE SYSTEM. But being as deeply entrenched and in denial about it as you are, you just don't get that piece of it. The progressive and radical left has a long history of being very suspicious of charismatic leaders, for very good reason. They are always damaging to the cause. |
|
03 Jul 03 - 09:08 PM (#976326) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: NicoleC What the general public wants for entertainment is not the issue. This isn't the latest American Idol contest we're talking about. TV and radio corporations in the country have basically free use of a public resource -- namely the airwaves -- because we, as a people, want communication. Communication is essential to a democracy. I don't think it's too much to ask that in exchange for the billions of dollars made from profitting from this public resource, that said corporations be required to equally represent the views of competing political platforms on programs which claim to present factual news. That doesn't happen, despite so called equal access laws, which don't enforce anything of the type. Nor do I think -- and this is a radical concept -- that candidates which meet the criteria to mount a national campaign (on the ballot in enough states to win the election -- no easy task) should get an equal amount of time on those public airwaves in publicity and representation. This idea that whoever can cough up the most money for TV ads is the best candidate is ridiculous. The skill set required to fundraise money for your party is not the same skill set we need in our leaders. |
|
03 Jul 03 - 09:45 PM (#976338) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST And Bush is the best fundraiser in history. |
|
03 Jul 03 - 10:15 PM (#976352) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Guest - Believe it or not, I agree with you. The bankroll comes from big business, usually Republican big business. I worked for one of those networks for 12 years, so I'm not in denial. The problem is THAT IS THE SYSTEM. Ralph Nader could walk on water, but he won't be elected president. You can say that isn't the point, but if it isn't, then perhaps Ralph is in the wrong forum. So who bankrolls Angela Davis, Al Sharpton and the others you mentioned? I would love to hear YOUR answer. The progressives do not have to "worship at the altar of celebrity", but you will remain a small niche. Hopefully an effective niche, but a small one none the less. The good thing is the system needs extremists on both ends for change to occur. I'm sorry you are in denial that people have issues with Ralphie. I'm sorry you can't accept that everyone doesn't see him in the same light you do. Perhaps that is the problem with the "progressives". Nicole, you make some very valid points. The question is, how do you change it? A lethargic American public isn't paying attention. How do you get it to wake up? |
|
03 Jul 03 - 10:19 PM (#976354) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bobert And Al Sharpton would take Rush Lumbaugh to the cleaners, Ron. 99 times out of... ahhh, 99. Give Rev. Al equal mic time fir one week with Rush and Rush would have to wear a bag over his head in embarressment. No brag, just fact. But the Repubocratin media ain't gonna let that happen with out armed revolution. No sir! Don't want no nigga preacha showing up our boy.... No sir. (I mean no disrespect to you, Ron, but I just don't think you have any idea of just how disenfranchished and marginalized a lot of us feel... Really...) We need a change... Peace Bobert |
|
03 Jul 03 - 10:43 PM (#976370) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: NicoleC Damifino, Ron. I agree that that's the way the system works now, but the system isn't going to change by cowtowing to it. I'm encouraged by the fact that many Republicans in Congress are as dismayed by the recent FCC ruling as progressives -- anything which reduces the diversity of opinions and ideas that reaches the voters is bad, Bad, BAD for democracy. I WANT to see thoughtful, intelligent debate between differing political philosophies and positions from candidates. I may think most far-right Republicans are pretty loony, but they do occasionaly make a good point. Same for Libertarians, Socialists, or any other stripe. I think I can put into words what has many progressives bracing for the worst. Progressives and "classic" Republicans (often called "moderates") and Libertarians may disagree on their interpretation, but they all share a fundamental set of political values -- those enshrined in our Constitution, like personal and civic freedoms and balancing the good of the individual with the good of society. The latest generation of Neo-Democrats doesn't seem to have a political philosophy at all. They're lemmings, or maybe just flotsam on the tide. And the current ruling Neo-Republicans and their mouthpieces like Rush DO have a political philosophy, but despite their lip service to those shared ideals, they consistently fail to support them, and instead pursue a political philosophy that more closely resembles a medieval dictatorship that would deprive basic rights from all except the wealthy gentry. You can't compromise with someone who's views are the antithesis of the concept of America. You have to fight them. So who do we have to fight the Neo-Republicans who have a political philosophy, but one they lie about? The Lemmings. Blech. |
|
04 Jul 03 - 02:12 AM (#976434) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Bobert - I think I understand how disenfranchised many people feel, particulary after the 2000 election. I tend to agree with you about Sharpton, although we will never know because Limbaugh is too scared to sit in with anybody who could actually challenge him. Again, I do think Sharpton gets plenty of airtime for someone who doesn't have his own program. The problem with being disenfranchised is that those who feel that way tend to wallow in their frustration and do little to make it change. I'm sorry, but extremists on the far side of the right and left will never cut it. They tend to expand the gap and often tilt the balance to one side or the other. Nicole - I agree, you have to fight. But still you need to compromise in some aspects. History has shown, you won't win. I'm not saying give up the ideas, just find a better way to "sell" them if you will. There is strength in numbers, and the anti-war movement of the 60's and the civil rights movement succeded in many instances because America was finally able to get the message. I just don't think todays messengers that have been mentioned can have the same impact. We have to keep looking for the right path and not give up. Ron |
|
04 Jul 03 - 02:27 AM (#976441) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: CarolC I think the internet will have a profound effect on all future elections. What sort of effect remains to be seen, but I think the world of politics has entered a whole new era. Hopefully the internet will have more of a democratizing influence than a dumbing down influence. And because we have (in my opinion) entered a whole new political paradigm because of the internet, I think that it's no longer possible to use the old methods of making predictions about what might or will happen. I think it's a whole new ballgame now. |
|
04 Jul 03 - 07:24 AM (#976555) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST The US had a whole country full of Ron Oleskos in the 1960s, who stubbornly stood in the way of social change. It isn't the compromisers, who are defenders of the status quo they benefit tremendously from above all else, who bring about necessary change, particularly radical change of the sorts we have seen since the 1950s. It is the radicals who bring about change. There was nothing to compromise about when it came to the Voting Rights Act. People who insist that compromise MUST be the goal, are people who are heavily invested in preventing change, especially radical change, from taking place, in order to protect their status quo. It really is that simple. I'm sure people with radical views disturb your world Ron, because you are a status quo man. |
|
04 Jul 03 - 08:41 AM (#976586) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bobert Ron: In a pefect world where the playing field was level abd everyone was informed and empowered, compromise would indeed be a viable means of governance. But thast is not the case. The neocons have used attorneys and money to wedge themselves into power and now are buzily going about wrecking social programs that they *hate*, scaring the crap out of everyone in order to get 'em all goosestepping and controling the very information upon which people decide issues. There ain't no compromise to be had here. We're either going the have a government for and of the people or we're not... I think what CarolC had brought up is a valid observation. The internet may be the last weapon against a governemnt that looks very much like one in other countries where dictators are elected. Boss Hog's media empires certainly isn't going to provide much, if any, alternative voice and when he does it will be cleverly positioned to demonize or marginalize those voices. Bobert |
|
04 Jul 03 - 09:09 AM (#976598) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Or do what the Republicrats have mastered--coopt the voices of reason and social change. Spin, demonize, marginalize. Spin, demonize, marginalize. Repeat as often as necessary, until the polls turn your way, and no authentic news that serves the genuine public interest gets through to the masses. |
|
04 Jul 03 - 11:55 AM (#976694) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Guest - can you share your crystal ball? How dare you make such accusations and then hide behind your electronic hood! What the hell do you know about my life and views? Obviously not a damn thing. You are nothing but another Rush Limbaugh rushing to judgement and letting your words spill out untruths. You wonder why we call guests trolls? I have nothing but respect for radical thinking and you have no clue on how I vote. Why is it that when somebody pokes a hole at Ralph Nader all the name calling comes out? You can't accept that someone doesn't agree with you? It is people like you that prevent social change from being made. If you really understood the Voting Rights Act you would realize that compromise was part of getting it passed. Yes, thank God it was the radicials who forced the issues but it was the politicians who ultimately passed the act. If you will remember there were also several amendments made to act (1970, 1975 and 1982) to correct and strengthen articles that were not addressed in the original act. All it takes is one person to make change. I respect and believe that. It is a real tragedy that someone like you cannot accept that people do not accept Ralph Nader as a politician. How dare you deny me might right to choose. Ron |
|
04 Jul 03 - 12:14 PM (#976708) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Bobert - I do agree with you, we need to turn the government back to where it represents the people. Perhaps we have different definitions of "compromise". I do not mean to give up or compromise on the issue that you are fighting for. I have been trying to say that a leader needs to understand and respect both sides of the issue, not agree with or change sides. I keep referring to someone like Abbie Hoffman, who I feel was a genius. He knew how to work the system, particularly the media. He could also get people thinking, particularly young people. He didn't compromise his ideals and ultimately helped change the way America thinks. So what went wrong since the 60's? My point is that Ralph Nader does not know how to use the media nor does he know how to turn on the masses. Al Sharpton does. I know how the media works. I've been there. I know corporations and lawyers have corrupted the process and have helped turn the majority of Americans into, well, zombies. People need to question and we need people to continue the fight. Again, my only point in all this is that I feel Ralph Nader is not the person to do this. I am shocked that I've ben personally attacked for my feeling this. I'm not knocking progessives,radicals or the Green Party. I just don't think Nader is the voice that will bring the needed change. We need change. There is still a fight for civil rights and personal liberty that needs to be fought. We need to abolish the WTO. We need change. Maybe Kucinich will be the one to bring it. I hope so. Ron |
|
04 Jul 03 - 12:21 PM (#976711) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: NicoleC FWIW, Ron, I sort of agree with you. Nader had his shot, and although he made a good try he busted -- now Nader is old hat and carrying around too much baggage from 2000 to be a good candidate. BUT -- he's still probably the most electable candidate the Greens could forward at this point. There are certainly folks who might make better leaders, but they don't have the celebrity status that's required in today's elections. |
|
04 Jul 03 - 03:18 PM (#976851) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bobert Maybe Dennis Kucinich will bolt the Rebuocratic Party and let it be known that he would accept the nomination of the Green Party but that is doubtful, and if that doesn't happen, Well, Ralpf Nadar certainly has walked the walk all of his life and has a solid grasp of the issues so I can't think of anyone else that would be universally accepted by the majority of the Party. We'll just have to see how it shakes out and be prepared better to broker our votes with some of our less conservative Democratic friends and get the 5% and then look toward '08. As for Ralph Nadars ability to lead the country, like his style or not, but he'd bring pro-worker, pro-human and pro-earth folks in who would certainly turn around the train-wreck-a-day direction the country has taken sincde Bush's lawyer shoplifted the country... Ya, Ron, we agree on much but I would kinda like to split hairs with you on the "compromise" issue. It ain't compromise when you're negotiating with folks who are taking back stuff that you have earned. All most Americans are trying to do is just keep what they have and not go backwards but that's not the object of the neocons. They want to rewrite history and steel from the working class. We're no longer compromising about how to go into the future but trying to hold the ground we thought we had. These folks got the country cramed into reverse and wnat us to compromise. Ahhhh, Mr. Thief, ya, take the TV and the stereo but leave the electric fry pan and bed, will ya? Maybe we're looking at compromise from differing perspectives... Bobert |
|
05 Jul 03 - 07:22 AM (#977214) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST "My point is that Ralph Nader does not know how to use the media nor does he know how to turn on the masses." Then how is it he has been so successful with his consumer campaigns? How is it that he is such a terrible politician, that he has been able to build and lead the most powerful public interest lobby in the nation? And as to my "denying" you your rights, all I can say is, will you please stop with your whining? I am basing my opinions of you on what you write in this forum. My having a negative opinion of your opinions isn't denying you a thing. Stop acting like a victim, fer chrissake. |
|
05 Jul 03 - 09:10 AM (#977245) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Sorry guest, I'm just pointing out what a hypocrite you are. That isn't whining. When someone doesn't have the guts to use their own name and then starts making accusations about me, I respond and defend my position. You aren't having a discussion, you are making attacks. Typical troll. I also notice how you consistently fail to respond to my points(in this case the fact that you made up lies about my beliefs)and instead choose to make personal attacks. Coming from somebody who is too much of a coward to even use a name, it really doesn't mean much. If you really read my posts, you would see that I'm not denying that Nader has made an impact in his CONSUMER campaigns. That does not make him a politician as you suggested. There are people who do great jobs affecting change, but that doesn't qualify them to run a country. His focus has been on very specific issues, I do not see where he is qualified on matters of foreign policy, he has not shown the qualificiations that he can work with groups like the Senate & Congress, and he has not shown how he will implement his ideas to my satisfaction. I also say the same thing about George Bush and many of the other candidates. Ron |
|
06 Jul 03 - 09:45 AM (#977757) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST I think if the Dems nominated Kucinich, there is an outside chance that the Greens would throw their support to the Dems next year, just to be rid of Bush. But I doubt that. I don't see Kucinich party switching, as he is pretty grounded in the Congressional Political Caucus, and was already elected on a party ticket. Some men are so ambitious to run for the presidency, like John Anderson and Pat Buchanan (who had been Republicans, as I recall), or Strom Thurmond (a Democrat at the time of his leap) that they make a leap to a third party ticket. |
|
06 Jul 03 - 02:06 PM (#977860) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,2 You have to love the Dems. When it was clear that Nader would pull enough votes to give Bush a clean, indisputable victory in Florida unless he were destroyed, they ran adds pointing out that he is Palestinian, not Jewish as most Liberals assumed. The DNC also had it's newspaper allies imply that he is queer, mostly by stressing that he has never been married. The Jewish population of Florida is the power base of the Dems. Liberal in some ways, but not ready for a Palestinian homosexual as president! |
|
06 Jul 03 - 06:10 PM (#977958) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: CarolC I think it would be very interesting if Nader was Palestinian. However, he is actually the son of Christian Lebanese immigrants. The Hall of Public Service Wikipedia Who's Who of Lebanese Immigrants |
|
06 Jul 03 - 07:20 PM (#977985) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,2 The Truth is never going to get in the way of a good lynching by the Democrats! Look at how quickly the destroyed Bob Kerry when he was no longer useful. |
|
06 Jul 03 - 08:24 PM (#978007) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Deckman CONFESSION COMMING! I am the voter that elected President bush (I refuse to capalize his name). I know I am as I voted for Nader. And for my voting for Nader, I threw my vote away. If I hadn't thrown my vote away, by voting for Nader, Gore would have won. I will NOT throw my vote away again. BAD BOB! ... BAD BOB! ... BAD BOB! |
|
06 Jul 03 - 09:05 PM (#978027) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,pdc No cookie for you, Bob. |
|
06 Jul 03 - 10:52 PM (#978060) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: toadfrog Well, if Nader is ever going to get his 5%, this should be his chance. Look at the vast sums of money Bush is raising. If I recall correctly, Nixon raised enormous sums in 1972, and used some of that money to finance the Peace and Freedom Party. Surely Bush can spare $10 million or so to finance an accommodating sap like Nader! |
|
06 Jul 03 - 11:26 PM (#978071) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: toadfrog Well, Deckman, as you live in Washington, I guess it wouldn't have made any difference how you voted, individually. But as shown in this Atlas: (1) Gore carried New Mexico by a .06% margin. Nader got 3.55%. (2) Gore carried Oregon by .44%. Nader got 5.04%. (3) Bush carried Florida by .01% of the total vote. Nader got 1.63% Without Nader, no Bush. Without Nader, no war in Iraq. Without Nader, no Cheney and no Ashcroft. Without Nader, no permanent Right Wing lock on the Supreme Court. Without Nader, no Energy Policy. And Nader knew what he was doing. He wished all this on us in cold blood. And if he achieves his 5% and his permanent Third Party, it means Republican control, by people even worse than Bush, for the rest of our lifetimes. |
|
07 Jul 03 - 12:56 AM (#978093) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: NicoleC Yeah, it really sucks when democracy gets in the way of your candidate from getting elected. |
|
07 Jul 03 - 01:32 AM (#978097) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Deckman Yes Toadfrog, I'm afraid that you are quite correct. Bob |
|
07 Jul 03 - 08:57 AM (#978215) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,2 The sane people of this country know NicoleC has seen through the BS. 5% toadfrog? That is about the average handicap Repubs are given nationwide. Its called voter fraud. Systematic, organized fraud. New York, New Jersey, the New Orleans area, and Chicago have elections worse than the average Third World dictatorship. In 2000 St. Louis had one precinct with 300% turnout! Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Arkansas, maybe others. Arizona just made it illegal to ask for ID from someone who is registering to vote. 5%, hell! Arizona will have 50% voter fraud unless that law is reversed. |
|
07 Jul 03 - 02:12 PM (#978438) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Don Firth Thom Hartmann has written an excellent article that should be read by anyone who is not especially happy about the current administration. It can be found HERE. On the matter of third parties, Hartmann says the following: ". . . Harry Truman said, "When voters are given a choice between voting for a Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time." (And, history shows, voters are equally uninterested in Republicans who act like Democrats.)But, for heaven's sake, read to whole article. It's very informative. Don Firth |
|
07 Jul 03 - 11:05 PM (#978749) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: NicoleC Uh... so let me get this straight. 3rd parties are great, as long as they don't do any politics? If a political party doesn't run candidates, aren't they a PAC instead? |
|
08 Jul 03 - 07:11 AM (#978910) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST For me, the most negative manifestation of the tyranny of two party rule is exactly what we have now: a polarized nation that can't agree on anything. That leads to voter apathy, which leads to the most manipulative, corrupt, and greedy winning elections to maintain their own status quo. So strong campaigns by third parties are the only true corrective we have in this debased political system in the US. And as we saw in the 2000 election, when the corrupt political system controls the media (that FCC thing we all heard so much about in June), as is the case now, third party candidates can't even mount a strong campaign, because they don't receive media coverage without having to buy it. Whereas the Democrat and Republican candidates get free media coverage 24/7, year in and year out. The US political system is, without doubt, the most corrupt in the world at this time. Billions of dollars have been spent on graft in the form of "campaign donations" in the post-Vietnam era. Billions. The US business community has spent more bribing elected government officials than many countries have for a national budget for a year. So if Ralph Nader has the guts to address that by running for president in ANY party, as he did in 2000, he has my vote. |
|
08 Jul 03 - 08:32 AM (#978942) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar Don't know if the Cattery is going to solve the democratic conundrum of reconciling representativeness with effective government, but it's an important debate. Electoral systems sometimes outlive their usefulness, but they have profound symbolic value which makes it difficult to change them. The US collegial system belonged to an earlier era when the public could not be expected to know the individual candidates, but is now an artifice which simply distorts the results of what in fact is a single-constituency electorate trying in vain to elect a president directly. Any thoughts from UK Catters on the proposition that the UK now has a presidential régime with the House of Commons functioning as an electoral college? For parliamentary elections, the first-past-the-post system is brutally unfair and produces results which make a mockery of democracy. On the other hand, pure proportionality leads to a situation where splinter groups hold the balance of power and wield disproportionate power. The UK and Israel spring to mind as exemplars of the defects of both systems. I still have a strong attachment to the form of PR which I grew up with (STV, the single transferable vote, with multi-seat constituencies for parliamentary elections). It's not perfect, but if engineered with the public interest in mind (OK, that's a big "if") it can introduce enough viscosity into the system to reconcile the representativeness/effectiveness dilemma and help to ensure that minorities are represented. It also works effectively in presidential elections where the whole country becomes a single constituency and the president who scores highest on the combined scales of most favoured/least disfavoured wins. |
|
08 Jul 03 - 09:11 AM (#978962) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Let's see. A third party is only righteous is it does not run a candidate? The U.S. should have numerous parties to fight and snipe at each other, making shure nothing gets done? Voter fraud is just fine as long as your side does it? Whoa Dude!!!!!!! What a country! |
|
08 Jul 03 - 02:11 PM (#979157) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Don Firth The problem right now, and the problem with the Democratic Party within recent elections, is not that the nation is polarized, but that it is not polarized enough. The Democratic Party has been oozing to the right for years, and it has finally reached that point that Harry Truman was warning about when he said (quoted above, but I'll repeat it here), "When voters are given a choice between voting for a Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time." The Republican Party pretty much knows what it wants, and we're seeing the results of that now. If the Democrats don't like it, standing around with their thumbs in various parts of their anatomy and saying, "Well, gee whiz, me too, only maybe not quite so--uh--you know--like--so much." What the Democratic Party has to do if they want to have any chance of winning at all is to offer a genuine alternative to the Republican Party, and not be wishy-washy about it. In short, polarize the nation. And to clarify the matter of the two-party, winner-take-all system that we have: I wasn't saying that I like it or recommend it (nor is Thom Hartmann in the article I linked to), I'm merely pointing out the reality of the situation. When have you ever known a third party to win a national election? When did a third party not draw votes away from the party it's most closely allied to? That's just the way it is, and if we want a regime change in this country in 2004, we're just going to have to deal with it. Don Firth |
|
08 Jul 03 - 03:07 PM (#979191) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: NicoleC Unfortunately, Mr. Hartmann's solution (and he's written on this subject many times over the years) is for nobody to vote the way they want to. In other words, he proposes that you vote for a Democrat even if you don't agree with them or their politics, no matter how bad it gets, because after all, it's the "other" party. Poppycock, sez I. First of all, reality shows we have one party with a slightly more liberal but basically useless wing called the "Democrats." There ARE exceptions of particular individuals, but as a political force the Democratic Party is dead in the water. Second, even if one accepts the hypothesis that the US exclusively a 2 party system (which I don't entirely), no one says those two parties get to be the "Democrats" and the "Republicans." History bears this out -- political parties come and go and their philosophies change over time. We could be witnessing the death of one party and the rise of another to take it's place. Nobody hold your breath; it won't happen overnight. The Democrats aren't dead yet, but if they don't start acting like ANYTHING they will be dead. I'd rather they act like a real party again -- otherwise it'd be an ugly ride. Mr. Hartmann's periodic insistance that one should blindly vote for a party instead of candidate only accelerates the downward spiral of lackluster, lame, corrupt candidates on "both" sides of the aisle. |
|
08 Jul 03 - 09:11 PM (#979414) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Don Firth Harmann is not advising you to vote blindly for the Democratic Party no matter what, he's advising you to get in there yourself and stir the soup. Don't just sit back and complain, jump in, join forces with other like-minded people and do everything you can to steer the party in the direction you think it should go. This is the way the Neo-Cons took over the Republican Party. He's just saying "What's sauce for the goose, etc. . . ." Don Firth |
|
08 Jul 03 - 10:38 PM (#979450) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Mr. Firth: Your statements do show a "Democrat, right or wrong" attitude by assuming that any reasonable person wants the current administration changed. WE DO NOT. Changed a little, maybe. Pick a left or right adjustment. That is democracy. I have asked many a liberal what he stands FOR. They usually answer with a statement of who they are AGAINST. Not the same thing. Calling people Neo-whatever is childish. We have a decent, honest man in the White House now. You may not think so but you are surely wrong about other thing too. Give him the benefit of the doubt and the country has a chance to unite. The true, honest, liberal Democrats are gone. The people you see now are "pods". Remember the movie? If the Dems hope to save themselves, the few (any?) true beleivers must purge the freaks, crooks, the Hil-Billary wannabes and perverts and start over. There is nothing attractive about people who must destroy honest and decent people as their only way to get elected. |
|
08 Jul 03 - 11:00 PM (#979457) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Sure we have a decent honest man in the White House right now. But the chef doesn't make national policy. Guest, you talk about there being noight "attractive about people who must destroy honest and decent people" after you write a sentence where you blame the Democrats for having "freaks, crooks" and "perverts" in their ranks. What kind of hypocrite are you? I'm not denying the Democratic party is screwed up, but for you to sit there and pass judgement and then hide under your electronic hood really speaks volumes about your character. |
|
09 Jul 03 - 12:20 AM (#979501) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST The only thing to apologise for is the guest status. Guest statements come from at least four different people here. This is confusing. I came in after others and did not use A, B, 1 or any such distinguishing marker. My fault. Typical lefty, you jumped on the divisive words only and ignored the truth. The Democrats are in trouble because they represent the marginal left-overs of society. A child-molester is much more comfortable with Demos. Organized crime is not flocking to Repubs. Maxine Waters is a hideous joke yet Demos embrace her, at least in public. Read what I said. I stand by it. We do have a decent, Christian man in the White House now, and we both wish him the best. No fights. No Bile. God bless, and let us all get back to music or anything that is fun and positive. |
|
09 Jul 03 - 01:09 AM (#979521) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Don Firth Okay, GUEST. Got you pegged. Don Firth |
|
09 Jul 03 - 01:15 AM (#979522) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,pdc Hail to the Thief! |
|
09 Jul 03 - 09:28 AM (#979709) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Ron Olesko Yes guest, thank you so much for proving my point. I guess we understand where you are coming from. I enjoy my status as a lefty and I'm glad you were able to pick up on that. If you feel that organized crime has not flocked to the Republican Party then you are blind. Child molester? Who are you referring to? |
|
09 Jul 03 - 12:06 PM (#979854) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,The first The state of political graft and corruption is equal opportunity. No party has a lock on it. The polarization in this country is not Dem vs Rep or even liberal vs conservative. It has to with corrupt vs. not corrupt. I believe the latest guest, who's politics I disagree with, is right about one thing. The conservative elements of this society (whom are also quite splintered, but can agree to vote as a bloc) have displaced the liberal elements of this society in politics and business. The liberals have been effectively marginalized and are very much dead in the water. They don't have a prayer for beating Bush in 2004. The true polarization in this society is between forward looking progressives, and backward looking conservatives. Liberals are irrelevant, and they are represented politically by the Democrats, despite the occassional conservatives (like that young, black House member from Tennessee the right wing of the Dem party is grooming for greatness, whose name escapes me right now) here and there. The progressives in this party will eventually do battle directly with the conservatives, and they will win. That is the nature of human progress. Conservatives can't hold us back forever, only for a short time in the big scheme of things. I do take that sort of long view. The current turn to the right is millenial inspired fear mongering by people terrified of what the world will look like when it is ruled by more enlightened egalitarians from all over the globe, and when this nasty capitalist virus runs it's course, and we have a whole new economic model. |
|
09 Jul 03 - 12:22 PM (#979864) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Sorry Ron and Don. The gentleman who just made his point is more likely to side with you two than with me. How do you spell albatross? God Bless all. (end of my stay here, honest!) |
|
09 Jul 03 - 12:43 PM (#979889) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST "When voters are given a choice between voting for a Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time." Ain't necessarily so. Tony Blair managed to get not only elected but reelected as a Labour (cf Democrat) politician advocating Conservative (cf Republican) policies. Now the Conservatives reckon that their only way back to power is to posture as saviours of the public services that they themselves wrecked, which is as close as you can get to a reversal of polarity by both parties. |
|
09 Jul 03 - 01:37 PM (#979966) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Ron Olesko Guest 12:22 PM - You did a find job spelling albatross. |
|
09 Jul 03 - 01:38 PM (#979968) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Ron Olesko oops... your spelling is better than mine. You did a FINE job spelling albatross. |
|
09 Jul 03 - 02:14 PM (#980002) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Don Firth GUEST accuses me (us) of only being AGAINST Bush and not FOR anything. But there is plenty that I stand FOR. There is no political party extant in this country that consistently reflects my beliefs about the direction this country should go. I hold no brief for either of the two major parties, but of the list of candidates currently lining up for the 2004 elections, there are three who stand for a number of things that I find I can pretty much agree with. They just happen to be Democrats. About they're not having a prayer of beating Bush in 2004, I would not be so hasty or defeatist. Whether or not they have a real chance remains to be seen. The election is not for sixteen months yet, and a lot can happen in that time. We may be the richest, most powerful country in the world, but there are countries that are far more civilized than the United States. With far less resources and wealth, they are much more advanced in terms of social programs and safety nets, and they have no desire to go to war with or otherwise dominate other countries. Their citizens are healthy, happy, and free, they have universal health care, excellent educational systems, no poverty, no homelessness, they take care of the elderly and disabled, and they have labor laws that provide for fair wages and allow for leisure time in which they can enjoy the fruits of their labors, not just live to work as many do in this country. These countries seem to care for the welfare—not just a monthly check that many Americans seem to find so hateful, but the overall general welfare—of their citizens in a way that seems to be alien to the thinking in the United States. Americans turn pale, scream "socialist," and refuse to examine what they do and how they manage it. Am I a socialist? No. But I am interested in the "healthy, happy, and free" part of it. And many of these countries have not gone to war for generations, and whenever they did, they were not the aggressors. They are more interested in cooperation and trade, and maintain military forces or memberships in organizations such as NATO, not out of any militarism or fear of their neighbors, but out of apprehension about what some bellicose Superpower might do. The Republican Party under George W. Bush and the neo-Conservative cabal that is pulling his strings is leading this country in the exact opposite direction from the one I believe it should go. In not many months, the Bush administration squandered the biggest budget surplus this country has ever had and it has lead us into an unnecessary war of aggression (that had been planned since 1992), in the process lying to the American public to garner support. It has also squandered the outpouring of good will that the peoples of the world felt toward us in the wake of 9/11 and turned it into justifiable suspicion and apprehension about our motives and intentions. When questioned on certain sensitive points such as "in what way was Iraq connected with 9/11?" or "where are these WMDs?" they change the subject or stonewall. Domestically, corporate corruption and blatant cronyism has reached heights hitherto undreamed of, and when caught, if any action is taken at all, it is "justified," excused, or given a token slap on the wrist, generally accompanied by a wink. Bush has made many promises during speeches (e.g. education, and local level homeland security), but consistently the funding needed to implement these programs is not forthcoming. In fact, the Bush administration is in the process of tearing the guts out of social programs and safety nets that have taken almost a century to build (including education, Social Security, and Medicare), and—worst of all—when it finds the Constitution and Bill of Rights inconvenient, it ignores them—then accuses those who object of being "unpatriotic" (!!). These are the symptoms of authoritarianism and tyranny in the making. Any student of history can see this. This country has the potential of being a shining example to the rest of the world. But the Bush administration is following a domestic policy of Social Darwinism and a foreign policy of geopolitical domination and empire building. Much of the world now regards the United States as a rogue nation, and with good cause. Am I AGAINST Bush and the neo-Conservative administration? You bet I am! I'd campaign for SpongeBob SquarePants if I thought he had a chance of getting the Bush administration out of there. But in any case, I will work FOR someone who, I believe, has a real chance of, if not turning this country around, at least stopping its current plunge toward the Abyss. Don Firth |
|
10 Jul 03 - 12:05 AM (#980294) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: DougR Right on, I say. Go Nader! DougR |
|
10 Jul 03 - 10:38 AM (#980557) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,The First Said DougR, as he took the leap into the abyss. |
|
11 Jul 03 - 12:36 AM (#981050) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,pdc To Don Firth: I applaud your last post -- the position you take is the sanest I have seen posted anywhere. Good for you. May I have your permission to copy and quote you on another forum to which I belong? It is a political forum, and it needs your words like a breath of fresh air. If you would prefer that I not use your post, I won't, nor will I adapt it to my own purpose and claim it as mine. If you do grant permission, I will not use your name unless you say so. I will not state from where it came. Even if I don't repost it elsewhere, I cannot congratulate you strongly enough for your stance -- would that there were many more like you. You give me hope. |
|
11 Jul 03 - 10:32 AM (#981251) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,pdq Spending on social programs has increased so much that we would have 3/4 of the current deficit even without liberating Iraq. The rest of the Firth rant sounds like he is reading from an old copy of Democrat talking points. Stale air is what it is. Go Nader! |
|
11 Jul 03 - 04:31 PM (#981475) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Don Firth GUEST,pdc, thank you, and feel free. GUEST,pdq, not stale at all. If you took the trouble to read all of my "rant," you'd see what I'm really advocating. There are many old f**ts in the Democratic Party who would not like what I said at all! Don Firth |
|
11 Jul 03 - 04:38 PM (#981477) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Don Firth And GUEST,pdc, yes, you may use my name, or not, as you wish. I'm not proprietary about what I wrote. I am eager to get the ideas out there to as many people as possible, so have at it! Thanks again! Don Firth |
|
12 Jul 03 - 12:03 AM (#981639) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,pdc pdq, what Don Firth was advocating is sanity, which you may not recognize or understand. |
|
12 Jul 03 - 12:58 PM (#981884) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,pdq Don Firth: Thanks for point about f**ts in Demos. Hate to think you're one-sided. Guest pdc: Is this for a class in our public schools? AFT member? Salary paid from taxes on working people? |
|
12 Jul 03 - 02:37 PM (#981919) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Don Firth GUEST,pdq, you don't understand what I'm saying at all. Perhaps it's because you don't want to. Don Firth |
|
12 Jul 03 - 03:15 PM (#981931) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,B Don Firth: "Spending on social programs has increased so much that we would have 3/4 of the current deficit even without liberating Iraq." (ex me) "In not many months, the Bush administration squandered the biggest budget surplus this country has ever had..." (ex you) You did not explain well here. The budget deficit is from social programs advanced, for the most part, by non-conservative types. If I do not understand, it is not because I don't want to. |
|
12 Jul 03 - 03:40 PM (#981940) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Alice GO HOWARD DEAN. Dean is the only one I would vote for and the only one wtih a chance of beating Bush. Alice, an Independent |
|
12 Jul 03 - 03:49 PM (#981945) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Don Firth Social programs did not increase all that much during the Clinton administration. In fact, a number of social programs were reduced or cut (remember Clinton's "welfare reform?"). There was a substantial budget surplus that, unless messed with, would have stayed in the black indefinitely and, in fact, would have continued to increase, leaving room for a whole menu of possible programs. Then Bush took office it was Bush's massive tax cuts along with equally massive increases in "defense" spending that is primarily responsible for the abrupt nosedive. Part of the Bush administration's plan is to increase and maintain a high level of military spending while, at the same time, deepening budget deficits sufficiently that the country will not be able to afford social programs for the forseeable future. Bush never saw a social program that he didn't want to cut. For example, don't be snowed by Bush's Medicare prescription drug program. Sounds good, but read the details and see how it (doesn't) work. "Compassionate conservative" indeed!! Don Firth |
|
12 Jul 03 - 04:30 PM (#981958) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,B Don Firth: Thanks, I feel better now. Still want poeple to look at a graph of the national debt and note that it has never gone down, not even in Bill's adm. Someone (don't take that personally) has a definition of "surplus" that comes from Madison avenue, not from Main Street and not from an economics book. |
|
12 Jul 03 - 09:00 PM (#982078) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Janie Don, You say it so well. May any of us reproduce it to share with others? Janie |
|
12 Jul 03 - 10:28 PM (#982108) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,pdq Hey Firth: You're still counting hanging chads. Know the cords to "Time to Move On"? |
|
12 Jul 03 - 10:45 PM (#982115) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bobert Ahhh, what am I missin' here on the deficits. They are less about spending than ill-timed tax cuts. This ain't rocket science, folks. Ahhh, like if I have monthly bills of X$'s and I'm making X$'s then things are fine buit if I decide I don't want to work as much and satrt making less than X$'s, then I have a problem. Like I say, it ain't rocket science... Bobert |
|
12 Jul 03 - 11:21 PM (#982129) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,B Clinton gets 100 grand a nite for Bush-bashing, you folks do if for free! Can someone be a whore who does it for free? |
|
13 Jul 03 - 02:58 PM (#982453) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,pdc Guest B: Can someone be a whore who does it for free? I guess you have your social levels, and others have theirs. |
|
13 Jul 03 - 03:42 PM (#982470) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: sloop Bush,Nadir,Captain America,what difference does the face of the puppet make?The controlling parties at the top of the pyramid will continue to rape the world in the name of a fast buck,without a moments thought for the human race. |
|
13 Jul 03 - 05:08 PM (#982502) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Don Firth Yes, Janie, you may indeed. Feel free to use it as you wish--and thank you! And, GUEST,pdq, that's the current cry of the Bush administration about a lot of things: hanging chads, WMDs, promises to rebuild Afghanistan (remember Afghanistan?). A whole batch of promised make and lies told that they hope the voters will forget about. But I'm a tenacious curmudgeon, and I'm not going to quit just because some folks find it embarrassing to be reminded. Don Firth |
|
13 Jul 03 - 05:28 PM (#982507) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,pdc Let's hear it for tenacious curmudgeonry! I'll join you, as long as you don't call me a curmudgeonette. |
|
13 Jul 03 - 08:38 PM (#982608) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bobert sloop: Whereas there is a part of me that says "Screw it. It's out of our hands" there is another part that says "Fight the bastards." Fortunately the "Fight the bastards" prevails about 90% of the time. When we throw up our arms in defeat we will learn exactly what Boss hog has in mind for us, and it ain't purdy. Hey, there are a lot of folks still razed over the abolition of slavery. So they passed 14-B of the Taft-Hartley Act which reintroduce slavery. Don't think so. Drive through the Confederate states and check it out. Slavery is alive and well.... Only problem is that there are way too many folks living just above the poverty line that need someone to step on their knuckles. And Bush and Co. are doing the best they can to make those greedy folks happy..... Bobert |
|
13 Jul 03 - 11:50 PM (#982689) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,pdq For those who went to public schools and were taught by members of the AFT, the term "tenacious curmudgeon" means the same as "stubborn ass". Mr Firth would probably agree. Little Hawk: Your statements elsewhere are clear and well-composed. Shure you won't try to explain "society building" where "nation-building" seems to fit? My feeling is that we could not impose this society on anyone else if we wanted to, and we should be flogged if we tried! |
|
14 Jul 03 - 10:26 AM (#982925) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Nerd Okay, here's what bugs me...I do agree that there are some blinded by right wing propoganda stating that Nader is evil, etc. But not many. Because, you know what? People interested in right wing propaganda wouldn't have voted for him anyway. But what burns me up is the left-wing propoganda that claims we have "republicrats" or "repubrocats" or that "reality shows we have one party with a slightly more liberal but basically useless wing called the "Democrats." "Reality shows?" Nice you've cited your evidence there, buddy! I, too am a lefty, and anyone who thinks there is no difference between the Democrat and Republicans is fooling him/herself. This is where Nader lost my respect: claiming that there would be no difference between Gore and Bush, and that he therefore represented the only viable alternative. You know what? We have gone to war with Iraq and killed hundreds of innocent people along with the guilty ones. We have enacted legislation harmful to the environment and to our rights to free speech and information. We have curtailed civil liberties to an alarming extent. And none of this would have happened under Gore. So Nader was lying, and he knew he was lying when he said it, and most Americans knew he was lying too. Does it make it better that he wasn't trying to win but to get 5% of the vote? No, it makes it worse. He sacrificed human lives and human rights in a low-stakes gamble. Do I think he's evil or a demon? No. But I think he screwed up big-time, lied as badly as any other candidate, compromised his much-touted integrity, and, as Ron points out, hasn't the skills to run a country anyway. Why would anyone vote for him? |
|
14 Jul 03 - 11:39 AM (#982989) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,pdq Well said, Mr. Nerd. Let's see, Nader gets 5%, Sharpton 12%. Wow! Most of us blue-collar working people will have the man WE want for the next five years easy! Think I'll pop a beer, maybe wash my SUV, check out the ballgame, maybe get my special sauce ready for the bar-b-que tonite. |
|
14 Jul 03 - 12:57 PM (#983049) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Nerd Bobert, I may have disagreed with some of what you said up there, but you're exactly right in your math. It ain't rocket science, indeed! |
|
14 Jul 03 - 01:36 PM (#983086) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Don Firth GUEST,pdq, I don't agree with much of anything that you say. And I take it from your remarks that you are anti-union? Don't care diddly-squat about teachers? Well, at least you're consistant. Don Firth |
|
14 Jul 03 - 01:42 PM (#983093) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Don Firth By the way, Nerd, I do agree with what you (14 Jul 03 - 10:26 AM). Don Firth |
|
14 Jul 03 - 04:55 PM (#983233) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: sloop History will be written by the victor,regardless of which mask captain america decides to wear,and it's got bugger all to do with us commoners . |
|
14 Jul 03 - 05:00 PM (#983240) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST With all the electronic touch screen voting booths run by a Texas Republican firm, no one need worry about the outcome of the election. |
|
14 Jul 03 - 06:26 PM (#983318) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,pdq Thanks Don, we agree more often than you probably would like. Note that my big, bad SUV is union made, so is the beer, and the bar-b-que. The ballplayers are even union, making more money than you or I can imagine. Peace. PS:(go Sharpton!) |
|
16 Jul 03 - 02:15 PM (#984583) Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Don Firth Excerpted from something I just posted on the "Quagmire" thread. It occured to me after posting it, that it really belongs in this thread:-- Last night, having fried my eyes by sitting in front of my computer monitor all day, I naturally turned on the television set. Nothing but summer re-runs. The most likely candidate for watching was a re-run of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, but I had already seen that episode at least eight times, and it wasn't one of my favorites anyway. So I channel-surfed. When I hit CSPAN-2, John Kerry was speaking, so I watched. It turned out that it was a presentation for a large audience made up of gay/lesbian groups and individuals who were there to hear what the Democratic presidential candidates had to say about the civil rights of gays and lesbians re: civil domestic partnerships, same sex marriage, place in the military, etc., along with a number of other issues. I came in late, so, at the time, I didn't know who all it included, but I did hear John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Carol Mosley-Braun, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman, Al Sharpton, and Dick Gephardt. Each candidate had a two minute opening statement. Then Sam Donaldson plied them with questions about a number of issues. Then each one made a two minute closing statement. Here is the New York Times story about the forum (PLINK!!). Being a flaming, out-of-the-closet heterosexual, the subject under discussion was not an issue for me personally, but it is for a number of friends and acquaintances, and it is a civil rights issue, so I was interested in what they all had to say. Also, it was an opportunity to hear at least seven of the nine all in a row and make some comparisons. I have no particular ax to grind here (other than getting the Bush administration the hell out of there!), and what I am really looking for now is a candidate that I can support whole-heartedly and who will even get me enthusiastic enough to get up off my butt and go to work for. Impressions:— The candidates I found the most interesting were Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton. Next in line was John Kerry. These three had real "fire in the belly." Their remarks were solid, clear, and unequivocal. No waffling here. And all three were very dynamic speakers, particularly Kucinich and Sharpton. I have heard that some people, including Democrats, regard these two as something of a joke, with no chance of ever winning, but to my mind, they were the ones who offered the most clear-cut, least ambiguous ideas and intentions, and who also offered an unmistakable alternative to the current administration. Kerry was very good also. Pretty much up there with the other two. So far, that would be my short list: Kucinich, Sharpton, and Kerry. Carol Mosley Braun was impressive, as was Dick Gephardt. Regarding Howard Dean, having heard him before and learning something about his background, he was the one I preferred as the Democratic candidate (and I may still, depending), but after last night, I'm back to pondering again. He was very good, but he was not as clear-cut and dynamic as those on my "short list." If Joe Lieberman turns out to be the Democratic candidate after the convention, I will work for him and vote for him in preference to letting the current administration stay in, but only with reservations. He said some good things, but I was not as impressed by him as I was with the others. Two WOWs!! When Sam Donaldson asked Kucinich if he would appoint an openly gay or lesbian person to the Supreme Court, he responded, "Certainly! Provided they support Roe v. Wade!" (Audience explodes in cheers and applause). Al Sharpton, while talking about political activism and participation in civil rights marches and peace marches, said, "Anyone who has reached the age of fifty and has not been thrown in jail for supporting an important cause has no reason to brag!" (Another powerful audience response). I, personally, am not endorsing anyone at this point. I'm still watching, reading, and thinking, and I will continue to do so for many months to come. But after seeing these Democratic candidates in this forum, believe me, any reports that the Democratic Party is dead or no longer relevant is just wishful thinking on the part of the Republican Party. Hang in there, people! It ain't over 'til it's over! Don Firth |