Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

daimoni · Feb 23, 2004, 02:16 PM

The following pretty much sums up how I feel on the subject:

http://www.rall.com/rants.html

Run, Ralph, Run

I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000, and he certainly has every right to run this year. "This country has more problems and injustices than it deserves," he says, and it's nice to have someone of Nader's intellect, integrity and prominence to make that point.

That said, I suspect I'm not alone when I say that I'll be pulling the Kerry lever this November. Yes, there's too little difference between the two parties. Yes, corporations are running roughshod over Washington. But George W. Bush is an evil, vicious fascist who must be removed from office at once, ideally via impeachment and jailing. If anything, November is too long to wait, but if that's what's necessary, so be it. John Kerry, while far from an ideal candidate, would return the United States government to the hands of sane, rational, garden-variety tools of corporate corruption--a massive improvement over the concentration camp goons occupying Washington now.

Nader's campaign is to be commended for bringing up issues that were in danger of falling by the wayside after Howard Dean's demise. But voting for it? Maybe in 2008.

- Ted Rall

Lerkfish · Feb 23, 2004, 02:20 PM

nice rant.

lil'babykitten · Feb 23, 2004, 02:25 PM

I'm afraid Nader might mess this up for the Democrats by splitting the votes. If he really wants the corporates out he should stay out of the race....

Turias · Feb 23, 2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:

I'm afraid Nader might mess this up for the Democrats by splitting the votes. If he really wants the corporates out he should stay out of the race....

I don't think Nader is going to have any effect on the 2004 election. Not as an independent, and not after the 2000 race. I think that anyone who votes for him this November wouldn't vote for a Democrat or Republican at the election, anyway.

thunderous_funker · Feb 23, 2004, 02:34 PM

All this talk of voters conforming to the pathetic choice of candidates rather than candidates conforming to the will of the electorate is precisely what's wrong with the system. Nader's campaign is all about not letting us forget that.

I supported Dean because I felt a vote for Dean was a vote for both stopping a radical and fundamental reform at the same time. Looks like I won't have that option after all.

That's why I'll be making the pragmatic argument for the Democratic nominee at the next Green meeting I attend. If I can't have both, I'll settle for stopping the radical first and worrying about reform later.

But I'm also proud of Nader for running, with or without the support of the Greens.

lil'babykitten · Feb 23, 2004, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Turias:
I don't think Nader is going to have any effect on the 2004 election. Not as an independent, and not after the 2000 race. I think that anyone who votes for him this November wouldn't vote for a Democrat or Republican at the election, anyway.

Maybe, tbh I don't know what sort of support he has amongst Americans. I've read that the Democrats are quite worried though...

Millennium · Feb 23, 2004, 02:37 PM

That said, I suspect I'm not alone when I say that I'll be pulling the Kerry lever this November. Yes, there's too little difference between the two parties. Yes, corporations are running roughshod over Washington. But George W. Bush is an evil, vicious fascist who must be removed from office at once, ideally via impeachment and jailing. If anything, November is too long to wait, but if that's what's necessary, so be it. John Kerry, while far from an ideal candidate, would return the United States government to the hands of sane, rational, garden-variety tools of corporate corruption--a massive improvement over the concentration camp goons occupying Washington now.

I wish only to point out that this is more or less exactly the same thing that was being said four years ago; just switch the party affiliations around.

Blind vilification will get you nowhere. There are plenty of reasons to hate Bush, but calling him an "evil, viscious fascist" is nothing more than stooping to his level. Fight him with arguments, not insults.

Turias · Feb 23, 2004, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Maybe, tbh I don't know what sort of support he has amongst Americans. I've read that the Democrats are quite worried though...

Eh, we'll get our panties in a bunch over anything concerning the presidential election, these days.

daimoni · Feb 23, 2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Blind vilification will get you nowhere. There are plenty of reasons to hate Bush, but calling him an "evil, viscious fascist" is nothing more than stooping to his level. Fight him with arguments, not insults.

Well, I don't think Rall is blind... though I wouldn't exactly go as far as calling Bush a fascist per se.

Because aren't fascists usually better dressed?

daimoni · Feb 23, 2004, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:

I'm afraid Nader might mess this up for the Democrats by splitting the votes. If he really wants the corporates out he should stay out of the race....

Don't be afraid, kitten.

I know we can be a bit stupid over on this side of the pond, but your argument for keeping him out of the race all together isn't exactly very bright, either.

Nader isn't the big bad wolf. He's actually helping herd the Democrat sheep to the polls in support for Kerry.

So throw the canine a frickin' bone. (Dr. Evil voice)

Lerkfish · Feb 23, 2004, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by daimoni:
Well, I don't think Rall is blind... though I wouldn't exactly go as far as calling Bush a fascist per se.

Because aren't fascists usually better dressed?

but they DO get the trains running on time....I think.

lil'babykitten · Feb 23, 2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by daimoni:
Nader isn't the big bad wolf. He's actually helping herd the Democrat sheep to the polls in support for Kerry.

You sure he's not actually just confusing the lil'sillyamericans even more?

daimoni · Feb 23, 2004, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
You sure he's not actually just confusing the lil'sillyamericans even more?

You mean the villagers with dim torches? Nah, the donkey cart won't get knocked over.

finboy · Feb 23, 2004, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:

I'm afraid Nader might mess this up for the Democrats by splitting the votes. If he really wants the corporates out he should stay out of the race....

Yep, he'll have another "Perot effect." Plus, all those morons down in Florida may lock up when voting (again) because of too many choices.

So, in this case, the Democrat position is "choice is bad" and limiting the political process is the thought of the day. Great.

Lerkfish · Feb 23, 2004, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by finboy:
Yep, he'll have another "Perot effect." Plus, all those morons down in Florida may lock up when voting (again) because of too many choices.

So, in this case, the Democrat position is "choice is bad" and limiting the political process is the thought of the day. Great.

yeah, when the possibility of splitting the democratic vote comes up, republicans are all misty eyed altruists.

finboy · Feb 23, 2004, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
yeah, when the possibility of splitting the democratic vote comes up, republicans are all misty eyed altruists.

That's us.

I noticed, too, that Ralphie-boy referred to a "Democrat" party during his MTP appearance. I guess he must be part of a Right Wing conspiracy to rename the party now.

vmpaul · Feb 23, 2004, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Turias:
I don't think Nader is going to have any effect on the 2004 election. Not as an independent, and not after the 2000 race. I think that anyone who votes for him this November wouldn't vote for a Democrat or Republican at the election, anyway.

I agree with the conclusion but not for the same reasons.

If you were a moderate Independent and looking to make a protest vote, 2000 seemed to be a perfect year... at the time. Gore was hardly the radical lefty and Bush ran as a moderate Republican (compassionate conservative, remember?). There was hardly any difference between the two. Being a Gore supporter, I wasn't even that upset that Bush won because he seemed so middle-of-the-road and harmless.

In hindsight however we were obviously mistaken. Who thought Bush would govern so recklessly and almost exclusively from the far-right that way he's done? I believe he's the most divisive president since Nixon and another term could be dangerous especially without the prospect of the electorate hanging over his head. It would be irresponsible to take him so lightly again. I don't think the people who voted for Nader in 2000 will make that mistake.

Millennium · Feb 23, 2004, 05:43 PM

Nader is unlikely to have much of an effect this time out, because the Anyone But Bush crowd only cares about who might be able to beat him, regardless of that person's ideology. They hate the man more than what he does, since anyone else is deemed more acceptable.

Lerkfish · Feb 23, 2004, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
They hate the man more than what he does...

how many times do we have to explain that we actually hate what he does?
?Do you intentionally block that out when we explain it, or does it simply make it more palatable for you to ignore valid criticism of administration policy if you can just relegate it to "bush-hating" and therefore summarily dismiss it as having no merit?

Spheric Harlot · Feb 24, 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Nader is unlikely to have much of an effect this time out, because the Anyone But Bush crowd only cares about who might be able to beat him, regardless of that person's ideology. They hate the man more than what he does, since anyone else is deemed more acceptable.

Bull.

I'm sure that if Ashcroft ran for office, the non-far-right would be railing against him just as much.

You forget that Bush has murdered ten thousand innocent people, is openly supportive of an unconstitutional practice, has successfully begun the eradication of civil liberties in the US, is rapidly bankrupting the country by passing money he never had to rich tax-payers, and has probably done more to antagonize the international community than can be listed here.

Those things, AFAICS, are things he has *DONE*, not aspects of his character.

But hey, it's all just irrational, frenzied hate of a character.

Sure.

-s*

NYCFarmboy · Feb 24, 2004, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Bull.

I'm sure that if Ashcroft ran for office, the non-far-right would be railing against him just as much.

You forget that Bush has murdered ten thousand innocent people, is openly supportive of an unconstitutional practice, has successfully begun the eradication of civil liberties in the US, is rapidly bankrupting the country by passing money he never had to rich tax-payers, and has probably done more to antagonize the international community than can be listed here.

Those things, AFAICS, are things he has *DONE*, not aspects of his character.

But hey, it's all just irrational, frenzied hate of a character.

Sure.

-s*

John Kerry voted for this..thats why I am supporting Ralph Nader.