[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by pooka:
You see, kids? One man can make a difference.

[lloyd1981]

Originally posted by Millennium:

Well, so much for Kerry's chances, then.

Frankly, though, I find this to be rather revealing. If the Democrats really wanted to shake things up, Dean would endorse Nader. It would cost Dems the election for sure -though with Nader appearing in the election, it's doubtful they could have won anyway- but the Greens would be virtually guaranteed the 5% of the vote required to get matching federal funds in elections through the next cycle (and the Democrats would certainly maintain the votes needed to keep their own funds going).

Pretty good speculations. Nader, however, is not running on the Green ticket. He is not on the ballot in any State. His long-time supporter, The Nation, cautioned him long ago not to make this run.

Quoting Nader from the Miami Herald of this day

"This will enhance the Democrats," argued Nader, who said that his 2000 voters broke down to 38 percent Democrat...and 25 percent Republican...

Huh?

Just getting used to MacNN. Our discussions are closed over at another Forum/Site.

Later

[lloyd1981]

Duplicate. Tried to delete. Was advised I didn't have permission. Why can't I delete my own post?

[lloyd1981]

Originally posted by Sven G:

Obviously, as has been said before, both the Republicans and the Democrats seem to care much more about preserving their current "power", rather than engaging in some new politics driven by ideals.

Possibly.

But I don't think at this point many of the spouses, parents and children of those killed in Iraq because GWB wanted to get rid of a "bad man" will agree. Too much is at stake. Add the thousands blinded, burned, limbs amputated, some waiting months to see a physician for follow-up treatment, earlier having to pay for their own meals while in the hospital, and it is still playing it's way out, and then consider the alternatives.

Of course, some filled with patriotic fervor of the moment will not agree and they must be allowed their opinions. But when policy questions turn into accusations of unpatriotic conduct, things are terribly wrong.

I think serious discourse on third-party politics can be put off for a while.

Hey! Just my opinion.

[PookJP]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I'll vote for Nader again, as I did in 2000. He wont win my state (massachusetts) but I like him and shares many of my views.

But you understand it's ultimately a wasted vote because he's not going to win, right? I'm assuming you don't support Bush, given that you and Nader share many views, so why wouldn't you vote for the candidate who is most likely to defeat Bush? I find it highly unlikely you would rather see Bush in the White House for another four years instead of someone new, so why not vote for someone new instead of just casting your vote aside?

[daimoni]

Originally posted by lloyd1981:
Possibly.

But I don't think at this point many of the spouses, parents and children of those killed in Iraq because GWB wanted to get rid of a "bad man" will agree. Too much is at stake. Add the thousands blinded, burned, limbs amputated, some waiting months to see a physician for follow-up treatment, earlier having to pay for their own meals while in the hospital, and it is still playing it's way out, and then consider the alternatives.

Yes, that's right folks... a vote for Nader is a vote for barbecuing innocent children.

[PookJP]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Yes, that's right folks... a vote for Nader is a vote for barbecuing innocent children.

It's funny because you're really not that far off.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by PookJP:
But you understand it's ultimately a wasted vote because he's not going to win, right? I'm assuming you don't support Bush, given that you and Nader share many views, so why wouldn't you vote for the candidate who is most likely to defeat Bush? I find it highly unlikely you would rather see Bush in the White House for another four years instead of someone new, so why not vote for someone new instead of just casting your vote aside?

But you need to understand that sometimes a vote is not merely a vote for a candidate who you think will win, but a vote for a change in the status quo.

If he voted for Kerry and then Kerry beat Bush... that would be a marvelous thing for sure - but the Republicrat status quo would remain the same.

I think the problem with some of my fellow liberal friends is that they're afraid of being liberals. They've become sheepish about it. They've even begun to refer to themselves as 'progressives' now. Blech!

I don't intend to vote for Nader this election (assuming he even gets on the ballot), but I'm very happy that he's running, and here's why:

Hopefully, Fear of Nader� will make these so-called 'progressives' rally around their second-choice Brahmin. And that's what I'd call being a true Public Citizen.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by daimoni:
But you need to understand that sometimes a vote is not merely a vote for a candidate who you think will win, but a vote for a change in the status quo.

If he voted for Kerry and then Kerry beat Bush... that would be a marvelous thing for sure - but the Republicrat status quo would remain the same.

I think the problem with some of my fellow liberal friends is that they're afraid of being liberals. They've become sheepish about it. They've even begun to refer to themselves as 'progressives' now. Blech!

I don't intend to vote for Nader this election (assuming he even gets on the ballot), but I'm very happy that he's running, and here's why:

Hopefully, Fear of Nader� will make these so-called 'progressives' rally around their second-choice Brahmin. And that's what I'd call being a true Public Citizen.

I think a great disservice has been done to make "liberal" a bad label, tantamount to child-killing. Its a monument to how well organized the conservative groupthink works, but it also makes it SEEM like political suicide for a politician to even APPEAR liberal... as if being liberal were a bad or evil thing.
The conservatives do not suffer under the same malicious stigma. They can claim to be a conservative without suffering backlash from liberals for the crime of merely being conservative. It's made liberal politicians gunshy.

its' a travesty, IMHO.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by lloyd1981:
But when policy questions turn into accusations of unpatriotic conduct, things are terribly wrong.

Exactly! Things are terribly, terribly wrong (did I say "terribly"?): why? Mainly because of the reduction of politics to a matter of power games, etc. etc.: no ideals in politics, no civil society - and, thus, no positive, empowering values in life...

[Sven G]

Oops: double post.

[vmpaul]

I wish Ralph would run for Congress or for the Senate. He doesn't have a chance to be President right off the bat. I know it, you know it and he knows it.

He might actually get elected to those positions and he could affect some REAL change, gain some credibility and move up if it seems appropriate. This way is doing nothing.

[thunderous_funker]

I still don't get what the fuss is about.

Are people outraged that Sharpton is running even though we all know he can't win? Mosley-Braun?

Where's the thread about Lyndon Larouche?

Nader is running for president because it happens to be his right as a citizen to run for president. Hundreds of "can't wins" do it every 4 years.

He won't get matching funds. He won't be allowed in the debates. He won't get much coverage.

So what's the problem?

He runs so he can bring attention to his pet issues. He runs so he can put his time/money where his mouth is when it comes to criticizing the status quo of American politics.

And people are free to vote their conscience. Why is it Nader's fault if someone votes for him? Is he too hynpotically persuasive? To fabulously handsome and charismatic that poor defensely, helpless voters just can't help themselves?

Stop blaming Nader for why Gore wasn't worth voting for for millions of Americans. Nader won't "steal" any votes, but he'll probably earn quite a few.

Maybe candidates should try figuring how Nader is earning votes that they aren't instead oi constantly villifying him for challenging the oligopolistic 2 party system.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I still don't get what the fuss is about.

Are people outraged that Sharpton is running even though we all know he can't win? Mosley-Braun?

Where's the thread about Lyndon Larouche?

Nader is running for president because it happens to be his right as a citizen to run for president. Hundreds of "can't wins" do it every 4 years.

He won't get matching funds. He won't be allowed in the debates. He won't get much coverage.

So what's the problem?

He runs so he can bring attention to his pet issues. He runs so he can put his time/money where his mouth is when it comes to criticizing the status quo of American politics.

And people are free to vote their conscience. Why is it Nader's fault if someone votes for him? Is he too hynpotically persuasive? To fabulously handsome and charismatic that poor defensely, helpless voters just can't help themselves?

Stop blaming Nader for why Gore wasn't worth voting for for millions of Americans. Nader won't "steal" any votes, but he'll probably earn quite a few.

Maybe candidates should try figuring how Nader is earning votes that they aren't instead oi constantly villifying him for challenging the oligopolistic 2 party system.

you make some valid points.

[NYCFarmboy]

I think the left is way to upset about Nader and the Right is way to jubiliant. Nader 'took' votes from both Republicans and Democrats evenly in 2000.

And in my opinion those who voted for Nader would not have voted at all had he not been running.

This is still a democracy. Choice is a good thing. I think the recent Iran election would validate this point.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I still don't get what the fuss is about.

Are people outraged that Sharpton is running even though we all know he can't win? Mosley-Braun?

Where's the thread about Lyndon Larouche?

Nader is running for president because it happens to be his right as a citizen to run for president. Hundreds of "can't wins" do it every 4 years.

He won't get matching funds. He won't be allowed in the debates. He won't get much coverage.

So what's the problem?

He runs so he can bring attention to his pet issues. He runs so he can put his time/money where his mouth is when it comes to criticizing the status quo of American politics.

And people are free to vote their conscience. Why is it Nader's fault if someone votes for him? Is he too hynpotically persuasive? To fabulously handsome and charismatic that poor defensely, helpless voters just can't help themselves?

Stop blaming Nader for why Gore wasn't worth voting for for millions of Americans. Nader won't "steal" any votes, but he'll probably earn quite a few.

Maybe candidates should try figuring how Nader is earning votes that they aren't instead oi constantly villifying him for challenging the oligopolistic 2 party system.

Excellent, excellent post. Thank you very much.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

He won't get matching funds. He won't be allowed in the debates. He won't get much coverage.

So what's the problem?

So what's the point?

Listen I don't think it's anyone's opinion that he doesn't have the right to run. Of course he does. Everyone does.

The thing with Ralph is that he does have supporters and he does make good points. He's built up 40+ years of credibility for his positions. I just think he's squandering that with these useless Presidential runs. I think he could easily get elected to Congress at some level and be more effective in implementing change. He's a national figure with broad national support and a voice that gets national attention.

I don't think anybody can prove it but I'm sure he was the tipping point in the last election. Now, I don't blame Ralph for that, others do, but that's Monday-morning QB'ing and more blame should go to Gore and the Supreme Court than Nader.

I guess I'm reacting to the comments I heard this weekend form friends and relatives. I've heard too many comments about their perception that he's on an ego trip now. I don't see it but it seems to be a growing perception (even Tin Russert brought it up on MTP).

I don't know. I think he'd do more if he was IN the system rather than ranting from outside it. Then he might have a chance for the big chair. Or maybe he'd always be viewed as an eccentric like Kucinich is now. Who really knows?

[vmpaul]

dp

[thunderous_funker]

What's the point for Sharpton running? Mosley-Braun? Kucinich? Perot? LaRouche?

They run on their own platform. Whether or not voters support them is an entirely different issue.

Running for the Greens was an effort at building a legitimate 3rd party--to reach the important 5% mark for matching funds and to break open the debates and media lockout.

I respect the hell out of that. Nothing could be better for American politics than to break the 2-party oligopoly.

I'm curious why Nader and the Greens haven't teamed up again, but that is probably an issue with the Greens (lack of unity) rather than a problem with Nader. Sounds to me like he is determined to do his part with or without the Greens. For that, I applaud him.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
What's the point for Sharpton running? Mosley-Braun? Kucinich? Perot? LaRouche?

They run on their own platform. Whether or not voters support them is an entirely different issue.

Running for the Greens was an effort at building a legitimate 3rd party--to reach the important 5% mark for matching funds and to break open the debates and media lockout.

I respect the hell out of that. Nothing could be better for American politics than to break the 2-party oligopoly.

I'm curious why Nader and the Greens haven't teamed up again, but that is probably an issue with the Greens (lack of unity) rather than a problem with Nader. Sounds to me like he is determined to do his part with or without the Greens. For that, I applaud him.

Well, it's not easy for me to argue against choice. I'm the one who wanted the chance to vote for any of 9 candidates in the Democratic primary, remember?

I respect Ralph. I think he has integrity. I agree with many of his positions. I think it's been a long time coming and taken him a lifetime to achieve. I'd just rather him use his political clout to more advantage than with these runs. How many has it been now?

I DO believe he's losing much of the support he's gained because of his perceived effect on the 2000 election. However misplaced that blame is, and I think we both think it is, there are many who are tuning him out for that very reason. I think that's a shame, that's all. He could've used that support to secure a Senate seat, or Congressional district, and then had a much larger platform then the marginalized one he'll have now.

It's a question of political strategy, I guess. I'm not an expert at it. I'm not that emotional about it either. I'm just thinking out loud. I don't think he'll have the same effect on the 2000 election for the reasons I'll post in the other thread.

(Congrats on the Portland move, BTW. Sounds fantastic. Better watch out though, you're making it sound so good we all might move up there. Then you've got trouble. )

[lloyd1981]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you make some valid points.

I think the points are weak.

Sharpton is running as a Democrat and will not affect the outcome one whit.

Nader has the capacity to bleed votes from the idealists who believe that tossing their vote away on one who will never win but wish to make some symbolic gesture make about as much sense as those who committed sepuku for improperly referring to the Emperor.

If you want to live the way you see things now, plus loading the courts with the Christian Conservative judges � and that includes the Supreme Court � the values so stated may hold one in good stead in private company, but when the knock on the door comes late one night and the door belongs to you or one you love, remember: It was your decision.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by lloyd1981:
I think the points are weak.

Sharpton is running as a Democrat and will not affect the outcome one whit.

Nader has the capacity to bleed votes from the idealists who believe that tossing their vote away on one who will never win but wish to make some symbolic gesture make about as much sense as those who committed sepuku for improperly referring to the Emperor.

If you want to live the way you see things now, plus loading the courts with the Christian Conservative judges � and that includes the Supreme Court � the values so stated may hold one in good stead in private company, but when the knock on the door comes late one night and the door belongs to you or one you love, remember: It was your decision.

I think Nader will make vastly superior court appointments than Kerry.
Kerry is part of the problem..he is bought and paid for with special interest money.
8 months to the election..I'm sure we will have time to express all of these thoughts in great detail, but please..this is America.. we still have options on who we want to vote for.

Its going to be an exciting election and Nader's participation will allow a point of view to be expressed that would not otherwise be heard. It is called FREEDOM...its a wonderful thing! Rejoice and be glad that Nader is running!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by lloyd1981:
I think the points are weak.

Sharpton is running as a Democrat and will not affect the outcome one whit.

Nader has the capacity to bleed votes from the idealists who believe that tossing their vote away on one who will never win but wish to make some symbolic gesture make about as much sense as those who committed sepuku for improperly referring to the Emperor.

If you want to live the way you see things now, plus loading the courts with the Christian Conservative judges � and that includes the Supreme Court � the values so stated may hold one in good stead in private company, but when the knock on the door comes late one night and the door belongs to you or one you love, remember: It was your decision.

I"d say you don't know me very well if that's aimed at me....

[docbud]

I'm definitely with lloyd on this one.

Nader (at least so far as I'm concerned, doesn't stand a chance of winning anything; and it's nothing more than an ego trip for him).
doc

[malvolio]

Cheer up, Dems. Historically, 3rd-party candidates who have run more than once have gotten significantly fewer votes the 2nd time around.
And four years of Dubya have made a lot former Nader voters think twice.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
The conservatives do not suffer under the same malicious stigma. They can claim to be a conservative without suffering backlash from liberals for the crime of merely being conservative.

Really? You wouldn't be able to tell that from any political discussions I've ever heard. It always boils to the usual 'Conservatives are evil, liberals are dumb' most of the time.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Really? You wouldn't be able to tell that from any political discussions I've ever heard. It always boils to the usual 'Conservatives are evil, liberals are dumb' most of the time.

I meant the actual word "conservative" as an invective is not that common. Using "liberal" as an invective IS common.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I think Nader will make vastly superior court appointments than Kerry.
Kerry is part of the problem..he is bought and paid for with special interest money.
8 months to the election..I'm sure we will have time to express all of these thoughts in great detail, but please..this is America.. we still have options on who we want to vote for.

Its going to be an exciting election and Nader's participation will allow a point of view to be expressed that would not otherwise be heard. It is called FREEDOM...its a wonderful thing! Rejoice and be glad that Nader is running!

Farmboy, the "Vote Nader" fanboy bull is even less convincing than your usual right-wing cheerleading.

Knock it off, mmkay?

It *was* amusing for the first two posts or so, though.

-s*

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Farmboy, the "Vote Nader" fanboy bull is even less convincing than your usual right-wing cheerleading.

Knock it off, mmkay?

It *was* amusing for the first two posts or so, though.

-s*

If anyone cares to join me at the Stonewall Democratic Club (New York City Gay Democrats) at the Manhattan Gay & Lesbian Community Center in Manhattan (New York City) at 8 p.m. this Wednesday come and meet me in person!

This issue of who to endorse for the upcoming New York State Democratic primary is going to be hotly debated this Wednesday night. Please come... ALL viewpoints are welcome. Yes I know Nader is not running in the Democratic Primary, but I wish he had! I am a former Dean supporter and am now supporting Nader.

The issue of Gay Marriage is important.



From a email circulating:

Why GAYS Should NOT MARRY


12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed
to get married:
_
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like
eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
_
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they
produce children. Infertile couples and old
people can't legally get married because the
world needs more children.
_
3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay
children, since straight parents only raise
straight children.
_
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if
Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-
hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
_
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long
time and hasn't changed at all; women are
property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce
is illegal.
_
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not
the courts, because the majority-elected
legislatures, not courts, have historically
protected the rights of the minorities.
_
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In
a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion
are imposed on the entire country. That's why we
have only one religion in America.
_
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay,
in the same way that hanging around tall people
will make you tall.
_
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to
all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish
to marry their pets because a dog has legal
standing and can sign a marriage contract.
_
10. Children can never succeed without a male and
a female role model at home. That's why single
parents are forbidden to raise children.
_
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of
society. Heterosexual marriage has been around
for a long time, and we could never adapt to new
social norms because we haven't adapted to things
like cars or a longer lifespan.
_
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same
benefits as marriage with a different name are
better, because a "separate but equal"
institution is always constitutional. Separate
schools for African-Americans worked just as well
as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.


_

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Oh, for crying out loud. YOu know, time was I had some respect for Nader. A bit, anyway. Screw that. Is he totally DE-ranged? What does he hope to accomplish THIS time?

I suspect he's being employed by the Republican Party (well, no, not really, but he's sure going to save them alot of work)

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by lloyd1981:
I think the points are weak.

Sharpton is running as a Democrat and will not affect the outcome one whit.

Nader has the capacity to bleed votes from the idealists who believe that tossing their vote away on one who will never win but wish to make some symbolic gesture make about as much sense as those who committed sepuku for improperly referring to the Emperor.

If you want to live the way you see things now, plus loading the courts with the Christian Conservative judges � and that includes the Supreme Court � the values so stated may hold one in good stead in private company, but when the knock on the door comes late one night and the door belongs to you or one you love, remember: It was your decision.

All you are arguing is that people shouldn't vote for him. Fine.

But why shouldn't he run?

And better yet, why should he be villified for running?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
All you are arguing is that people shouldn't vote for him. Fine.

But why shouldn't he run?

And better yet, why should he be villified for running?

my objection with him is not that he ran, I think that's a good thing. But in 2000, when it was clear he couldn't become president, he COULD have endorsed Gore and thereby worked out a deal where Green issues made their way into policy when Gore became president (or Bush, for that matter).
However, by not doing so he committed a disservice to the very causes he supposedly held most dear. By allowing Bush to win (or for not coercing concessions from Bush before he won), he helped bring about a situation that completely emasculated the Green movement's power.

I'm all for starting a third party, and in fact I welcome it, but I think Nader shoot himself and the third party movement in general in the foot in 2000.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
my objection with him is not that he ran, I think that's a good thing. But in 2000, when it was clear he couldn't become president, he COULD have endorsed Gore and thereby worked out a deal where Green issues made their way into policy when Gore became president (or Bush, for that matter).
However, by not doing so he committed a disservice to the very causes he supposedly held most dear. By allowing Bush to win (or for not coercing concessions from Bush before he won), he helped bring about a situation that completely emasculated the Green movement's power.

I'm all for starting a third party, and in fact I welcome it, but I think Nader shoot himself and the third party movement in general in the foot in 2000.

I'm sorry, Lerk, but this is getting close to delusional.

First of all, what possible evidence is there that either Democrats or Republicans were willing and ready to make a deal with Greens?

Secondly, what on earth makes you think that Nader announcing "we've struck a thieves bargain" is going to make Greens suddenly forget the reason they weren't supporting Bush or Gore in the first place? Prime Directives from the Seat of Party Power might mean something in the Democratic or Republican party, but I can assure you that any such gesture from Nader would have sent Greens scattering to the winds--not lining up behind Gore or Bush. Hell, Nader isn't even a Green!! And Greens didn't draft him to bring their party to the national spotlight for him to cave to money pressure or strick shady deals in smoked-filled rooms.

Watching Democratic party leaders gnash their teeth and rend their garments over Nader's decisions reinforces my growing suspicion that the Democratic Party has absolutely no freaking clue why they are quickly being relegated to the margins of national politics. Apparently all their failures can be conveniently blamed on "outside aggitators" and have nothing to do with their own distinct lack of conviction, focus, clarity or vision.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
my objection with him is not that he ran, I think that's a good thing. But in 2000, when it was clear he couldn't become president, he COULD have endorsed Gore and thereby worked out a deal where Green issues made their way into policy when Gore became president (or Bush, for that matter).
However, by not doing so he committed a disservice to the very causes he supposedly held most dear. By allowing Bush to win (or for not coercing concessions from Bush before he won), he helped bring about a situation that completely emasculated the Green movement's power.

I'm all for starting a third party, and in fact I welcome it, but I think Nader shoot himself and the third party movement in general in the foot in 2000.

I think you're looking for Parliament. Take a right turn at NY and fly the 4 hours to London. I don't think our duopoly is going to work that way. It'd be nice but I don't see it.

I have to quote the Daily Show on Nader's run: after showing a clip of Nader saying that he was running as an independent candidate for President, Jon Stewart's comment was:

"You know you're campaign is marginalized when even the Green Party thinks you're too 'out there'."

Great line.

[Nonsuch]

Here's the issue that sort of rankles me. Sure, Nader has every right to run. I would not dream of depriving him of that right. But does anyone truly believe he'd make a good president? He has no governing experience. He has no knack for building support among people of divergent backgrounds and viewpoints: his support is almost entirely among well-off, well-educated whites (and a damn small proportion thereof). He shows little willingness to compromise and would have enormous difficulty working with Congress to pass what would certainly be a very radical agenda. He doesn't seem very interested in foreign policy and I would have no confidence in his ability to mediate a potential crisis or respond credibly to a threat.

If I'm wrong, I happily accept correction. But I hear surprisingly little from Nader supporters about what actually qualifies him to be a good president, other than a general admiration for his honesty and integrity (which I would agree with prior to his delusional campaign four years ago and his incipient one now). Most Nader voters seem to support him because it makes them feel good to do so, even (or especially) knowing he hasn't a prayer of winning; this is the issue of the "ideologically pure" vote I bring up now and then. ("Cast a vote you'll be proud of!" �Michael Moore) You can argue, I suppose, that protest votes serve a purpose in a democracy, but a protest vote for a guy like Nader? You may think Nader is a better man than John Kerry and I wouldn't disagree, but does that mean Nader would be a better president than Kerry?

And that leads me to the final issue, one which will probably brand me as an eternal sell-out, but oh well: you can't drop someone with no governing experience or support into the Oval Office and expect them to be effective. There's an enormous entrenched power structure in Washington, and you can rail until the cows come home about how corrupt and anti-democratic its existence is. But the fact is, it's there. It is far beyond the power of one man to sweep away; if you're going to get anything done, you've got to accept that this, at least in the short term, is how to go about it. You need, in short, to work within The System�.

(Pause for thunderous_funker to spit in disgust. )

Nader thinks � or acts as if he thinks � that he can come in and throw the bums out and basically reform the government by sheer act of will. He can't. Presidents aren't kings. If Ralph Nader seriously wanted change, he would work to become a stronger presence in the Democratic party, and encourage those emboldened by his advocacy to do likewise, to gradually instill stronger progressive values and groom candidates who can articulate them. That's how change is made: slowly, methodically, and unglamorously. I can't accept that Nader doesn't understand that. That's why I find him and his campaign so dishonest and fundamentally harmful: he's encouraging some very passionate people to support a foolish grand gesture rather than to do the hard work of bringing about meaningful change. He won't do that, and a lot his supporters wouldn't, because he and they would rather lose outright than risk tainting their principles in the give-and-take of real politics. That is not a quality I admire anymore.

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
And in my opinion those who voted for Nader would not have voted at all had he not been running.

Banking your hopes on the great untapped masses of non-voters is the sure sign of a losing campaign. There's no evidence to suggest that people who don't vote hold widely different beliefs from those who do. There is no great army of progressive voters waiting for some candidate to rouse them from torpor.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Here's the issue that sort of rankles me. Sure, Nader has every right to run. I would not dream of depriving him of that right. But does anyone truly believe he'd make a good president?

I believe he would make a good president. Experience gets ZERO weight in my judgment of a candidate. In fact, I would argue that his lack of experience is EXACTLY why he could possibly enact REAL change if he ever did get to office. Nobody 'owns' Nader. Nader owes special interests nothing.

Jack Ryan for president.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
(Pause for thunderous_funker to spit in disgust. )

Would a disgusted cough suffice? I seem to be coming down with a cold.

Your criticism seems to hinge on the idea that for all of Nader's great ideas, he'd never get them through Congress.

Well, how is that different from any president? Bush is going to use his rhetoric about banning gay marriages to get elected when we all know damn well that amendment has little hope of passing. Kerry and Edwards are sure making hay with all their tough talk about the Lobby culture and special interests. Do you really think either of them is going to convince Congress to outlaw the practice?

You say that you believe Nader's integrity and honesty, but isn't that the entire point? Millions of Americans are going to vote for Kerry, Edwards or Bush when we already know they aren't going to do half of the things they say they are going to do.

So why would a vote for Nader's reform platform mean more than a vote for Kerry or Edwards "reform" platform?

Because he's honest and will work for what he says he'll work for. That we already know because he's done it every waking moment for 40 years. And why won't Kerry or Edwards? Because they work for the Party first and foremost. Their loyalties are clear. They are entirely beholden to the people who get them elected. Parties are practically a corporation at this point.

So a vote for Nader is vote for a man you already know will stick to his word about what his agenda will be.

But he can't get it done, right? Perhaps, but I think you're forgetting something fundamental. If Nader won the election, the Congress would be put in the position of fighting against the platform of a popularly elected president. It would mean that tens of millions of Americans voted for shyt to change and any congressman who wants to keep their job will be faced with that fact.

If we can fire a lying president, we can fire every lying congressman.

The people have the power. Period. Saying "don't vote for someone who can't win" is a meaningless tautology.

Consider recent polls that say 53% of Americans think Bush shouldn't be re-elected but roughly the same number think he will be anyway.

That kind of cognitive dissonance is a much greater obstacle to fundamental reform than any amount of corruption in the system.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm sorry, Lerk, but this is getting close to delusional.

First of all, what possible evidence is there that either Democrats or Republicans were willing and ready to make a deal with Greens?

Secondly, what on earth makes you think that Nader announcing "we've struck a thieves bargain" is going to make Greens suddenly forget the reason they weren't supporting Bush or Gore in the first place? Prime Directives from the Seat of Party Power might mean something in the Democratic or Republican party, but I can assure you that any such gesture from Nader would have sent Greens scattering to the winds--not lining up behind Gore or Bush. Hell, Nader isn't even a Green!! And Greens didn't draft him to bring their party to the national spotlight for him to cave to money pressure or strick shady deals in smoked-filled rooms.

Watching Democratic party leaders gnash their teeth and rend their garments over Nader's decisions reinforces my growing suspicion that the Democratic Party has absolutely no freaking clue why they are quickly being relegated to the margins of national politics. Apparently all their failures can be conveniently blamed on "outside aggitators" and have nothing to do with their own distinct lack of conviction, focus, clarity or vision.

thanks for calling me delusional for offering my opinion: that's the MacNN conservative norm, and the low level to which you have now sunk. Congratulations.

But, delusional or not, the result of what DID happen is the worst environmental pillaging since Reagan. Nothing was accomplished that furthered Green priorities that I can see (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a Green so I'm just going on my impression)

History: Greens screwed completely.
My suggestion: Greens get at least some concessions on core issues.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I think you're looking for Parliament. Take a right turn at NY and fly the 4 hours to London. I don't think our duopoly is going to work that way. It'd be nice but I don't see it.

and what do you think happened with Ross Perot? did I dream that, perchance? Did he not, at the end of his campaign, drop out and urge his voters to support another candidate?

*shrugs*

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
thanks for calling me delusional for offering my opinion: that's the MacNN conservative norm, and the low level to which you have now sunk. Congratulations.

But, delusional or not, the result of what DID happen is the worst environmental pillaging since Reagan. Nothing was accomplished that furthered Green priorities that I can see (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a Green so I'm just going on my impression)

History: Greens screwed completely.
My suggestion: Greens get at least some concessions on core issues.

Its delusional to continue to blame the Democratic party's problems on Greens, Independents or Nader. Deal with it.

No one in the Democratic or Republican parties offered to make a deal to get the Greens' votes in 2000.

Not only that, but the Green party would have dropped Nader like a leper if he had tried to get such a deal.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Would a disgusted cough suffice? I seem to be coming down with a cold.

I'll settle for a spit-take.

Your criticism seems to hinge on the idea that for all of Nader's great ideas, he'd never get them through Congress.

Well, how is that different from any president? Bush is going to use his rhetoric about banning gay marriages to get elected when we all know damn well that amendment has little hope of passing. Kerry and Edwards are sure making hay with all their tough talk about the Lobby culture and special interests. Do you really think either of them is going to convince Congress to outlaw the practice?

Come on, man�have we not been living in the same country? Bush has very successfully set into place the most radical agenda of any president since FDR, and he did so because he has a supremely capable and quite ruthless Republican legislative and media machine at his disposal. From the lowliest House whip to the highest Congressional leaders, the Republicans are united behind the Bush administration to an extent that Democrats can only envy. Nader would have nothing like that; he would quite literally be a voice in the wilderness.

You say that you believe Nader's integrity and honesty, but isn't that the entire point? Millions of Americans are going to vote for Kerry, Edwards or Bush when we already know they aren't going to do half of the things they say they are going to do.

So why would a vote for Nader's reform platform mean more than a vote for Kerry or Edwards "reform" platform?

Basically because I accept as a given that no president will have the opportunity to enact all, or even most, of his agenda. Campaign promises are useful only inasmuch as they illuminate how far a candidate is willing to risk his electoral fortunes for the sake of a given position. Dean, for example, insisted on revoking the entirety of the Bush tax cuts despite polls that suggested most voters didn't want that. But that doesn't mean he would have succeeded in doing so, or even that he could entirely be blamed for failing to do so. Any president entering office, especially against an opposition Congress, is going to immediately hit a wall of entrenched resistance as people protect their fiefdoms or just lash back out of sheer partisan bloodlust, and the promises they campaign on are necessarily going to become diluted if not scrapped altogether. That's a damn shame, sure, but it seems to me that's how politics works.

Again: I have no stake in whether Kerry or Edwards are actually able or even willing to enact every item on their electoral wish-list; their positions are useful only in determining where and to what extent they're willing to risk their popularity, and the general direction their policy initiatives will take.

Because he's honest and will work for what he says he'll work for. That we already know because he's done it every waking moment for 40 years. And why won't Kerry or Edwards? Because they work for the Party first and foremost. Their loyalties are clear. They are entirely beholden to the people who get them elected. Parties are practically a corporation at this point.

You make my point for me. Again, I maintain that Nader's energy is better served by remaking the Democrats into a party genuinely driven by the needs of progressive voters, not by corporate donors. Howard Dean showed how such an effort might begin; in fact, he's made more progress on that front than Nader has.

But he can't get it done, right? Perhaps, but I think you're forgetting something fundamental. If Nader won the election, the Congress would be put in the position of fighting against the platform of a popularly elected president. It would mean that tens of millions of Americans voted for shyt to change and any congressman who wants to keep their job will be faced with that fact.

Clinton ran on a promise to radically reform health care. Once elected, he failed to do so. And the voters didn't care. No Congressman's feet were held to the fire that I can recall.

The people have the power. Period. Saying "don't vote for someone who can't win" is a meaningless tautology.

True. I think my point is that voting for Nader because you genuinely believe he's the better man for the job is at least ethically defensible. I still don't think you can pretend that taking a vote away from Kerry (or whomever) and giving it to Nader has no consequences, or that you're not responsible for contributing to Kerry's possible defeat. Whether you want it to be or not, whether it's just or not, that is a consequence of your decision, and it's one you (not you specifically, a generalized "you") must accept honestly.

Consider recent polls that say 53% of Americans think Bush shouldn't be re-elected but roughly the same number think he will be anyway.

That kind of cognitive dissonance is a much greater obstacle to fundamental reform than any amount of corruption in the system.

True.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and what do you think happened with Ross Perot? did I dream that, perchance? Did he not, at the end of his campaign, drop out and urge his voters to support another candidate?

*shrugs*

IIRC, Perot's pet issues was balancing the budget. I think that was already part of the Republican platform (correct if I'm wrong please) so there wasn't much issue-trading going on. I don't think there was much possibility that a conservative like Perot was going to back the Dem's anyway. But who knows? Ironically, it was Clinton who actually balanced the budget.

I'm not pooh-poohing your suggestion I'd like to see it happen. Anything to break this 2 party stalemate. I just think the Democrats and Republicans have such a stranglehold on our political process that they feel no need to bargain with 3rd parties. IMHO.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
I'll settle for a spit-take.

Ok then.

I'm not arguing against the reality of entrenched corruption and special interest.

What I'm saying is that voting for Democrats or Republicans is a vote for the status quo. I don't care what their campaign promises are, once in power, it will be business as usual.

Now 2004 might be an exception to that generalization because of the unprecedented radicalism of the Bush administration. That is why I'm not voting for the Green candidate or even Nader as an independent this time around.

And I don't believe Dean changed the party. If anything, his campaign just might prove that nothing--not even the will of the people--is enough to wrest the party away from special interests. That's like saying McCain changed the GOP in 2000. He didn't. All he did was change the talking points peddled to the cameras.

[rhansen_x]

I think Ralph knows he is not going to win the office. He's running to get people to realize that the 2 party government we have is basically "Washington is For Sale".

Special interests still have too much influence on what goes on in Washington. Ralph is first and foremost an advocate for the consumer. I don't know about you, but since GWB has been in office, my wallet has not gotten any fatter.

As Ralphie said on Meet The Press, let's get the for sale sign out of Washington.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Its delusional to continue to blame the Democratic party's problems on Greens, Independents or Nader. Deal with it.

Please point out where I have done so in this thread. I was suggesting a way that Nader could have had a chance to leverage Green issues into the platforms of the other candidates, I wasn't blaming the Greens for anything. you may have me confused with someone else, OR you could be just "delusional".

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
No one in the Democratic or Republican parties offered to make a deal to get the Greens' votes in 2000.

I was suggesting a deal coming from the other direction.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Not only that, but the Green party would have dropped Nader like a leper if he had tried to get such a deal.

If Nader was going to lose anyways, what would it matter? Is he running under the Green flag now? So your point is moot.

[thunderous_funker]

Since a majority of Americans think Bush will get re-elected, I suggest that the Democrats take the pragmatic route and negotiate some deals. Maybe Bush will fully fund NCLB in exchange for New Hampshire? EPA enforcement funding for New Mexico?

It would be stupid to stick to your ideological guns and wind up with nothing.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And I don't believe Dean changed the party. If anything, his campaign just might prove that nothing--not even the will of the people--is enough to wrest the party away from special interests.

I thought you were the idealist?

I think it's way too early to declare the Dean (r)evolution over with. Organizations like MoveOn and Dean for America are just beginning to learn how to re-energize the progressive grassroots in this country; the failure of Dean's campaign was�and it pains me to say it, because I was/am a Dean volunteer�first and foremost with the candidate himself, not merely with the DLC/media hatchet jobs. Personally, I think it can be done, and that it's a far more viable strategy than the all-or-nothing gambit of the third-party presidential run.

[djohnson]

Ahh at least Bush will get another term now!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Since a majority of Americans think Bush will get re-elected, I suggest that the Democrats take the pragmatic route and negotiate some deals. Maybe Bush will fully fund NCLB in exchange for New Hampshire? EPA enforcement funding for New Mexico?

It would be stupid to stick to your ideological guns and wind up with nothing.

I can see you care deeply enough about this issue to not really listen to what I'm saying.
fair enough. I'll catch you in some other thread.