Nader Ponders Run, Calls Clinton 'Coward'
Ralph Nader says he is seriously considering running for president in 2008 because he foresees another Tweedledum-Tweedledee election that offers little real choice to voters.
"You know the two parties are still converging -- they don't even debate the military budget anymore," Nader said in a 30-minute interview. "I really think there needs to be more competition from outside the two parties."
Even the possible entry of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg into the race as an independent might not dissuade Nader.
"He is interesting (but) unpredictable," Nader said of Bloomberg. "I really like the stand he took against smoking, but he goes along with corporate welfare in New York and tax-funded stadiums. So he is unfinished in that way."
Nader would have little or no chance of winning the presidency should he run, but he doesn't need to win to affect the outcome: Many Democrats still blame Nader for draining enough votes away from Al Gore in Florida in 2000 to elect George W. Bush.
And while Nader, 73, realizes he might once again be accused of being a "spoiler" candidate, he says the Democrats could win in 2008, unless they spoil things for themselves.
"Democrats have become, over the years, very good at electing very bad Republicans," Nader said. "Democrats always know how to implode, how to be ambiguous, how to waver, how not to be authentic."
While Nader praised two candidates who have almost no chance of winning their party's nomination -- Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Mike Gravel -- he was severe in his criticism of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
"She is a political coward," Nader said. "She goes around pandering to powerful interest groups on the one hand and flattering general audiences on the other. She doesn't even have the minimal political fortitude of her husband."
Chris Lehane, who worked in Bill Clinton's White House and Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, said of a possible Nader candidacy: "His entry into the race, even to those who voted for him in 2000, would be just another vainglorious effort to promote himself at the expense of the best interests of the public. Ralph Nader is unsafe in any election."
Nader's book "Unsafe at Any Speed," on the deficiencies of American automobiles, catapulted him to national fame in 1965. Since then, he has authored several more books, founded dozens of consumer-interest organizations, run for president three times, hosted "Saturday Night Live," appeared on "Sesame Street" and was a character on "The Simpsons."
He has, in other words, considerable name recognition and is an experienced organizer.
And when I asked him if he saw any major candidate in any party forestalling his own run for president in 2008, he replied, "Very unlikely. Very unlikely. The requirement is almost logistical. It requires tens of thousands of volunteers."
The volunteers are needed, Nader says, to gather signatures to get his name on the ballot in the 50 states, an arduous and expensive proposition. Nader also said he would need a "network of pro-bono lawyers to fight for ballot access."
Nader admits that Mayor Bloomberg's wealth could make it far easier for him to get ballot access. "A multibillionaire like Bloomberg could immediately turn it into a three-cornered race," Nader said.
If Nader runs, he would emphasize the "ever-increasing corporate power in our society" and "the expanding disconnect between the growth of the economy and the distribution to people who work hard but don't get the fruits of it."
Nader also believes the United States should withdraw from Iraq over a six-month period, have the United Nations sponsor new elections and leave no U.S. forces behind.
In Nader's scenario, the "bottom falls out of the insurgency, the U.S. brings the Kurds, Shias and Sunnis together, and all you are left with are criminal gangs, and criminal gangs can be dealt with."
When Nader ran as the Green Party candidate in 2000, he got only 2.74 percent of the popular vote. But in Florida, Nader's votes may have been critical. Gore ended up losing the election to Bush by 537 votes in Florida, a state where Nader got 97,448 votes. Many believe that had Nader not been on the ballot, Gore would have gotten thousands of those votes and become president.
Nader is unrepentant, though he says people still stop him on the street to berate him about it.
When they do, Nader tells them: "Why don't you blame the thieves? Why don't you blame Tallahassee and the Supreme Court? Bush's people stole the election!"
Nader calls the attacks on him "political bigotry."
"What was our crime? We used our constitutional rights to run," he said. "We had proposals that if Gore had picked up on, he would have landslided Bush."
Among the proposals, Nader said, was a "living wage, cracking down on corporate crime against consumers and pensions, not to mention an authentic health insurance agenda."
Nader says, however, that he and Gore have patched things up.
"Yeah, he is very friendly," Nader said. "You wouldn't believe what he wrote when he autographed his book ('An Inconvenient Truth') to me when I stood in line at the bookstore. It was like, 'To my good friend, with great respect.'"
Nader says that if they don't implode, the Democrats are very likely to win the presidency and retain control of Congress in 2008.
So why would he run at all?
"What third parties can do is bring young people in, set standards on how to run a presidential election and keep the progressive agenda in front of the people," he said. "And maybe tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties."
© 2007 Politico.com
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
128 Comments so far
Show AllIt is such a shame that when Nader is stopped and asked about "spoiling" he keeps giving these defensive responses. This is his prime opportunity to point out the faults of the plurality election system that lead to "spoilers" and to promote Instant Runoff Voting and the groups working to implement it around the country.
I've long been upset at Nader for his refusal to make that his standard response, ever since working to pass Instant Runoff Voting in Ferndale, Michigan back in 2004. I also just saw the film An Unreasonable Man and was disappointed at the lack of discussion of this issue in that movie too. I wrote about this omission in my post Instant Runoff Voting Excluded: An Unreasonable Omission from An Unreasonable Man.
Hope you'll check it out and get active on election reform.
gyptian, understanding why people do what they do is not forgiving or condoning. We come from a violent culture. We viciously took this country from the people who were here first and we haven't slowed down. I really believe that the only way we can be stopped is if the rest of the world gangs up on us economically and I desperately wish they would.
I think most people in this country are religious but unaware that they are really just spiritual beings whose every act ripples through the entire universe. And that we draw to ourselves -create - what we think about.
Great ... thats good to hear weve analyzed the problem. I suppose we should now fully condone Grace and his fellow marines, after all they have a 'valid' reason to behave the way they do. Now lets also forgive Osama and Al-Qaeda while we are at it. What do you say ? Im pretty sure they were stressed and grief-stricken and angry too.
The first step towards any kind of redemption is to accept how violent we really are as a culture and NOT condone discrimination of any sort irrespective of any bleeding-heart reason. We are extremely violent as a society and especially towards others. We need to confront that and change it as it permeates at every single level wether we are democrats or republicans.
Racism either fear-based or otherwise is still racism and war crimes ( like raping and burning innocent iraqi girls ) is brutal and inhuman. If those are the guys fighting for us i an definitely ashamed to be american.
Well, gyptian, while it's true that Bush has fired all the generals with common sense, I do believe that while many in the army and marines are ill-informed, they aren't necessarily stupid. I was reading how stress breaks down moral behavior and grief and anger create a blame the victim mentality, from which war crimes follow. Also I sense the racism in Grace_Slick's postings are fear-based. Just as our country changed after the Kennedy assassination, so it did after 9/11. Both times, not in a good way.
Martin Luther King Jr said "An insurgant act is the last desperate effort of a man to control his own environment". So what the Hell are we doing in THEIR environment? Why is it that Americans can't see anything wrong with us running around the world trampling other people's lives? Would we act any differently in their place? What gives us the right to behave like this? We're going to go down in history like Gengis Khan.
GraceSlick ... you dont need to apologize to me as im not muslim and not part of your intended target. I stand by my assertion that your attitude towards Muslims at large is racist. I also think the american army and marines are stupid ignorant trigger-happy pricks and the generals are no better going by the latest news http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/world/middleeast/23iraq.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin !! They announce to the entire world they are gonna flush them out ! Dont they even realize its guerilla warfare ? The Iraqi resistance is clearly running circles around these nitwits.
Whew! It's going to be a hotheaded campaign season. Sad that the Democrats can't get it that they are pushing us in a fascist direction.
"kioyi
Go forward, egomaniacal Nader, go!
You know very well that you cannot win. But what does that matter? Everything should be about you. The prospective winner of the general elections must be made keenly aware of your vital presence. After all, you are a stickler to principles: the principles of egoism and self-love."
I promised myself that I would refrain from insults or name-calling on this forum but this kioyi is liable to make me break my promise. The principles of egoism and self-love as practised by the oligarchy is what got us into the mess Nader understands better than most. Change requires applied pressure. Voting for the corporate parties is voting for the status quo. Worse, it is saying that your vote doesn't count so you may as well give up and let the devil take you. Nader applies that pressure while you sit back and take potshots at him for not espousing fascism. And that really pisses me off!
EZEFLYER ... Thank You, That article was AMAZING! Unfortuneately the American people are just too Apathetic for such an amazing concept as a Constituent Revolt! You would think with so many outraged and frustrated people in this country these days, that such a revolt would be on the horizon. However, Apathy exists! It's a "Not In My Backyard" kind of thing. And Until people wake up and say .. "ENOUGH", every day is only looking bleaker! Everybody keeps talking, yet, Nothing is changing. I guess that ACTION is too hard for people to grasp. At least in the late 60's through the 70's, WE at least had something called "HOPE". We had Woodstock, John Lennon and a Dream for the Future. What do we ALL have today? HOPE? DREAMS of a Brighter Future? Will the President in 2008 Save Mankind From Itself? That's a pretty tall order, don't you think?
"AND" GYPTIAN? If my Opinion marks me as a rascist then "So Be It". I'm NOT a Pig and I won't Grovel to anybody, Especially the likes of you. The Muslims have a Right to be P.O.ed with the USA. AND, WE have a Right to be Leary of what WE can't see coming at us! You can accept my apology or not. Whatever!
If he runs...he has my vote.
If the Dems are worried about losing critical votes to a non-corporate alternative, and think they are a "second-best" for the progressive community, then they'd better hurry up and work on Range or IRV at the national level, ASAP.
Thomas Chacko, my, my, my what a disturbed message.
I'm sure now that Ralph Nader's contemplation of running in 2008 really has the Dems wringing their filty hands. When hardheaded Dems are already attacking with pitbull viciousness on this thread, well, one can only imagine what lies ahead in the months to come. Sure does show their true colors though... in case anyone still had doubts.
Once again I am going to vote my conscience instead of this lesser of two evils approach that is killing our democracracy. If Nader and other true progressives (i.e., those who put people before profits) were such a threat to the democrats, then the democrats should create a plank that includes those things the progressives hold dear. As it is, the Greens etc are just convenient scapegoats for the dems to use in order to avoid looking at themselves in the mirror.
I believe that the existence of third parties is a sign of our nation's political health and should be encouraged rather than demonized. This narrow bifurcated viewpoint resembles W's "you're either with us or with the terrorists" erroneous reasoning. In fact, I'd vote for Nader solely due to the fact that the dems worked equally hard to keep him from participating in the presidential debates last go-around. How can I respect a party that takes such a dim view of participatory democracy and varying viewpoints. It's this narrowness, among other things, that repels me from the principle parties.
PS. Using sexual slurs to criticize Hillary is disrespectful of women. It reflects a dim view of a woman's native capacity for leadership. There are many excellent female leaders. Do the same Limbaugh-inspired "feminazi" bashers blame Bush's failed presidency on his dick size or sexual orientation? No, but they should, if only for balance. :-)
PPS. I may be misinformed, as I haven't followed this closely enough, but I am wondering why Nader isn't building a political movement. It bothers me that he throws his hat in so late in the game. If he wants the Greens to become an effective force, then he needs to begin his candidacy years ahead, and stay involved as a figurehead promoting clean elections and everything else the Greens stand for. it just seems somehow less of a commitment than what is necessary to make his third party candidacy truly viable. If all its about is "ideas" then he can fuel debate from his position as a public intellectual. It pains me to vote for him if he doesn't really care about winning.
Thomas is another perfect example of someone spouting the official DLC line, including the gem about Ralph being financed by Republicans.
Of course, if such people were actually interested in facts and not just spouting progaganda, they'd do a little research and learn that Ralph received money from Republican-leaning donors in the tens of thousands, while Kerry received millions. So, if Ralph's Republican pocket change makes him a tool of the right, what do Kerry's millions make him?
In any case, don't take my word for it. Look it up for yourself at opensecrets.org.
Thomas drank the kool-aid. You don't have to.
Hey, don't light a match! Either somebody cut a nasty one, or there's a leak in the gas line!!!
Oh, sorry, it's Robin Nader and his band of Merry Morons! Open the window!
Once again, Uncle Ralph has nothing else to offer the American public besides taking a shot at the Clintons. No wonder he's so beloved by his corporate masters at Fox News and MSNBC! You all say there's no difference between the two major parties. Among you asslickers, there's no difference between the ventriloquists and the dummies. Are you ventriloquists so naive as to think that your $5, $10, and $20 contributions kept Ralphie's mouth moving? Sorry, it was funding from the Republican National Committee, set aside specifically for the Nader "campaign." He limited his slander to Al Gore and, like Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman, was adopted as a warm & fuzzy pet of Fox News. Old Ralphie-boy supported the Clinton impeachment drive, which makes him as valuable as used toilet tissue. (Now he wants to lecture everybody on democracy?)
The blithering idiocy (and revisionist history) of "Newageartist" is annoying enough (I shudder to think what kind of art that entails), and "Bob K", "Oneguy", and "DCbeltway" occupy fantasy worlds of their own, but "CollidingRivers" -- what are you drinking? Ralph at 73 makes your pulse race? I've seen homeless people here in New York who look better than he does! Rather than contributing to his "presidential" campaigns, chip in your $5, $10, and $20 toward buying Uncle Ralph a new suit. Get him to stand straight, stop dragging his knuckles and someday,he may evolve into a real human being.
His standing in line for Al Gore's autograph was nothing more than a cheap, pathetic publicity stunt, like a spoiled brat craving attention. I'm not surprised that Gore treated Nader with such respect. There's no way Nader could match Gore for dignity, class, or knowledge of the issues. Nader must be seething that that fawning doco on him, "An Unreasonable Man," may not have been seen by the 120 or so who have preceded me on this blog. Lotta empty seats in those cinemas! Yeah, when it comes to worldwide respect, Al Gore and Bill Clinton have got you beat, Ralphie-boy. Live with it!
So Nader thinks that any attack on him is "political bigotry"? So typical of a megalomaniac -I'll insult anyone I want, but don't you dare retaliate! Nader must be neighbours with Clarence Thomas -- one martyr to another!
So, Ralphie-boy, only YOU have the skills to "keep a progressive agenda in front of the people." The article ended with your real motivation: you and your sycophants get aroused by "tweaking a candidate" in the major parties. What you folks actually ACCOMPLISH for the public good wouldn't fill a shot glass!
So, people, enjoy the Iraq war, the veto of stem-cell research, Abu Ghraib, the budget deficit, the Katrina response, John Roberts and Sammy Alito, and the Christian Right, Hallelujah! You airheads helped bring this about!
Have a nice day!
Thomas Chacko.
I just volunteered once again to help get Ralph Nader on the ballot in my state. I hope enough other people do the same and encourage him to get in the race. At least this time, he'll likely be more prepared for the Democratic Party's dirty tricks.
Ralph, we need you now, more than ever. Run, Ralph, Run!
Wolfgang: If you want to know the "most plausible explanation" for Nader's tenacity you should read this thread. I happen to think it's a combination of conscience, intellect and courage. Your "narcissism" smear doesn't pass the smell test.
Grace Slick:
Here's an interesting email I was forwarded. It might show you who is responsible for Muslims wanting to kill us:
Interesting, worth reading.
Paul Findley: High Cost of Subservience to Israel
All U.S. citizens must accept a measure of responsibility for Israel's grip on America. Those of us who knew what was happening did not protest with sufficient force and clarity.
By Paul Findley
U.S. Representative from Illinois 1961-83
Monday June 11, 2007
In the greatest service of his long public life, former President Jimmy Carter warns of the grave consequences of America's phenomenal subservience to Israel. In his latest book and recent lectures, he focuses on how Israel's cruel occupation, made possible by massive and unconditional U.S. support, has subjected the Palestinian people to terrible suffering for forty long years. Beyond that grave human tragedy, candid observers must cite U.S. complicity in Israeli lawlessness as the major factor that prompted the horror of 9/11 and lured America into launching three costly, wrong-headed, and failing wars, —Afghanistan, Iraq and the War on Terror. The linkage is easily identified.
America's support of Israel's brutality was the main motivation for 9/11. It was the ultimate expression of Arab fury over America's double standard that routinely ignores Israeli violations of Arab human rights. Nine-eleven would not have happened if any U.S. president in the last forty years had refused to finance Israel's humiliation and destruction of Palestine. Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst now a consultant to CBS News, recently told a congressional committee that "our unqualified support of Israel" was the main reason for 9/11. Marine General Anthony Zinni, President George W. Bush's first special envoy to the Middle East, has stated that the United States invaded Iraq for Israel and oil. Osama bin Laden repeatedly said it was payback for U.S. support of Israel's brutal treatment of Palestinians and other Arabs and for U.S. complicity in 1982 when Israeli forces used U.S.-donated munitions to massacre over 18,000 innocent Arabs in Lebanon.
The U.S. acts of war in Afghanistan and the War on Terror were President Bush's retaliation for 9/11. Israel—and only Israel—urged the United States to invade Iraq. Israel's lobby in Washington pushed hard and prevailed. To our foreign critics, these wars focus on killing people outraged by our pro-Israel bias. Our government has done nothing to redress the grievances of Israel's victims.
Despite this grim record, U.S. subservience to the wishes of Israel's leaders does not change. Unconditional aid to Israel keeps flowing, as does Israel's savage treatment of Palestinians and other Arabs. Moreover, the Bush administration is fully and openly pledged to do whatever is necessary--even acts of war--to halt Iran's nuclear program even if its projects are lawfully limited to peaceful purposes. Israel is the only nation urging the United States to attack Iran. The lobby is pushing hard again. If the U.S. assaults Iran it will be on Israel's behalf.
Congress, like the rest of America, is totally devoid of debate on the amazing role of this small nation in critical U.S. policy. Members are fulsome in public praise of the Jewish state, but no politician mentions the illegal behavior of Israel or the staggering burden it imposes on our country.
How did Israel gain this influence?
It all started 40 years ago. On June 8, 1967, the U.S. commander-in-chief, President Lyndon B. Johnson, turned his back on the crew of a U.S. navy ship, the USS Liberty, despite the fact that the ship was under deadly assault by Israel's air and sea forces. The Israelis were engaged in an ugly scheme to lure America into their war against Arab states. They tried to destroy the Liberty and its entire crew, then pin the blame on the Arabs. This, they reasoned, would outrage the American people and immediately lead the United States to join Israel's battle against Arabs.
The scheme almost worked. It failed because, despite the carefully-planned multi-pronged assault, the Liberty crew managed to broadcast an SOS over a makeshift antenna. When the appeal reached U.S. aircraft carriers nearby, the commanders immediately launched fighter planes to defend the ship. Informed of the launch, President Johnson ordered the rescue planes to turn back immediately.
For the first time in history, forces of the U.S. Navy were denied the right to defend a Navy ship under attack. Johnson said, "I don't care if the ship sinks, I am not going to embarrass an ally." Those were his exact words, heard by Navy personnel listening to radio relays. The ally Johnson refused to embarrass was Israel. To him, saving Israel from embarrassment was more important than saving the lives of the Liberty crew.
The day yielded infamy, —deceit, lies and cover-up at the highest level. When the SOS reached the top military commanders in Israel, they immediately canceled the assault, claiming it was a case of mistaken identity. At the White House, Johnson accepted Israel's claim, even though he knew it was a lie. Then Johnson magnified the day's infamy by ordering a cover-up of the truth. Liberty survivors were sworn to secrecy. Even those in hospital beds and badly wounded were threatened with court martial if they told anyone what actually happened. The cover-up has been continued by every administration since Johnson's.
It proved to be a fateful turning point in Israel's power over U.S. foreign policy. The Liberty experience convinced Israeli officials that they could get by with literally anything--even the murder of U.S. sailors--in their manipulation of the U.S. government. Financial aid to Israel began to pour like a river, all of it with no strings attached. According to The Christian Science Monitor, this outpouring has now cost U.S. taxpayers over $1.4 trillion. Costs go far beyond money. Thousands of American families are blighted forever, with America's once high moral standing in shambles. Because of its unqualified support of Israel, Washington is hated worldwide as never before.
The principal source of Israel's influence is the fear it seems to instill in every sector of our society. The most effective instrument of intimidation employed by its lobby is the reckless accusation of anti-Semitism, often leveled at anyone criticizing any aspect of Israeli behavior. Several organizations, fundamentalist Christian as well as Jewish, lobby for Israel, but the principal one is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC]. I can personally certify that for many years it has cast a blanket of fear over Capitol Hill and blocked any semblance of unfettered discussion.
I unintentionally contributed to that fear in 1985 when my book, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby, was published. It reports in detail the efficiency of Israel's U.S. lobby, its history and tactics. Most of the text arose from my personal experience as AIPAC's prime target during my last five years as a Member of Congress. It also details the lobby's important role in the defeat of Senators Charles Percy and Adlai Stevenson, and U.S. Rep. Paul "Pete" McCloskey. In a rare burst of public candor about its partisan activities, AIPAC claimed credit for defeating re-election bids by myself in 1982 and Senator Percy in 1984.
My book became a bestseller. I hoped it would inspire public officials and other citizens to revolt against the lobby's influence on U.S. policy, but several of my former colleagues told me it had the opposite effect. One said, "After what AIPAC did to you and Percy, I vote with the lobby every time."
Israel's grip on America seems impervious. Two distinguished political scientists, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, strode resolutely into the Middle East minefield a year ago by co-authoring a paper on Israel's lobby. More recently, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a book written by former President Carter, revered worldwide for his effective work on international conflict resolution, was published.
These brave statements should have produced a groundswell of public protest demanding America's liberation from Israel. Although the professors and Carter have pursued the lecture circuit, no tide of outrage has developed. With few exceptions, America's major editors, producers, commentators, academics and politicians have given these courageous initiatives the silent treatment. Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill simply said, "Carter doesn't not speak for the Democratic Party."
Nationwide, the lobby's influence is pervasive, sustained and deep, a phenomenon unprecedented in U.S. history. Because of that power, the "other" Israel is almost never discussed openly and candidly any place in America, even in private conversation. It is impossible to explain the silence except as a reflection of profound fear.
The situation is highly dangerous. America has already paid a towering price for our subservience to Israel, and great additional burdens seem inevitable. If the United States is involved in acts of war against Iran, anti-American protest will rise to new heights, especially throughout the Islamic world. It will inevitably deepen the widely-held belief among Muslims that America seeks to undermine Islam.
The outlook for reform is grim. Elected officials of both major political parties in Washington seem hopelessly captured by Israel's agents. So does every serious candidate for the presidency in 2008. A senior U.S. Senator told me recently that Israel cannot expect to experience true security until Palestinians are secure in an independent state of their own, but he spoke off the record and has not made that wise declaration in public.
All U.S. citizens must accept a measure of responsibility for Israel's grip on America. Those of us who knew what was happening did not protest with sufficient force and clarity. Those who did not know should have taken their responsibility as citizens more seriously. They should have informed themselves.
The scene is likely to improve only if U.S. elected officials are criticized so forthrightly from home that they fear a constituent revolt more than they fear Israel's lobby. This, of course, will not happen until the countryside benefits from a rigorous and edifying public debate about Israel's role in our national life.
-Paul Findley, a U.S. Representative from Illinois 1961-83, resides in Jacksonville, Illinois. He is the author of five books, including the Washington Post seven-week bestseller, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby, originally published by Lawrence Hill.
No one denies the crucial role that Nader has played in advancing the progressive agenda for decades. But depending on how things go between now and 2008, which of course no one can predict, Nader running in 2008 could be as fatal as in 2000. As Todd Gitlin suggested years ago, the most plausible explanation for this behavior is narcissism. For a development of this argument, see: http://progressive-strategy.blogspot.com/2007/06/nader-narcissist-unsafe-in-any-election.html
dcbeltway:
Great video link. Thank you. Hope everyone here takes time to listen to what Nader is all about.
Teach the Dems a lesson!
NADER / LIEBERMAN '08
Well kathy i hope slick-willie does realize he is racist. Thats a good first step ! Apologizing is useless if you dont mean it. Please dont 'aw shucks' this pig. His apology is similar to all those talk show hosts who talk trash and aplogize to save their jobs !!
Come on, gyption, yes, Grace_Slick made racist remarks, but maybe he doesn't realize he's a racist, and he did apologize for being insulting.
The reference to Vietnam has me wondering if he's a Vietnam vet? Grace_Slick, are you?
It really doesn't matter who votes for whom. The Republicans are set to steal the next election. And the Democrats are set to blame progressives who refuse to vote for them. I'm not a Democrat, why should I vote for them? They haven't earned my vote, don't deserve it, don't represent me in any way. They never look in my direction, they are too busy chasing after corporate money.
I will vote for a candidate who really wants to get out of Iraq, not just pretend to, supports a universal single payer health care plan, such as HR 676, fully funded education through college, the Department of Peace, cancelling the Taft-Hartley Act, cancelling NAFTA, a living minimum wage, reducing CO2 emissions by 90% within 15 years, instant runoff voting, opening the electoral process to multiparty candidates. That precludes every Democrat and Republican except Ron Paul, Kucinich and Mike Gravel. Ron Paul is too Libertarian for me, but at least he's honest and has integrity. The rest of those clowns can't even spell those words.
And you Nader bashers have it all wrong. He's a real American hero. He has spent his whole life seeing what is wrong and trying to make it right. He has been telling us for a decade that the Democratic Party is corrupted and needs a cold bath, and all you cowards have been afraid to give it to them, keep enabling them to go on doing what they're doing, selling us out to the corporations. And look where it has taken us. You think Clinton was a gift to the unions and the working poor? His "welfare reform" hasn't changed the number of children living in poverty, but has drastically increased the number of children living in deep poverty. Do you seriously believe Gore or Kerry (both from privileged families) would have done any better? Look at their track records! Pay attention! Gravel and Kucinich risked their careers for us (Kucinich lost his protecting his constituency) but the rest of those clowns just lie their way into office and then run to the lobbyists with their hands out. So why do people keep electing them? To get more of the same? That's the definition of insanity. No thanks. I'm not going along with that. If the rest of the country refuses to wake up, so be it. However bad it has to get for people to come to their senses, I refuse to be part of this problem. I will continue to vote my conscience.
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
~ John Quincy Adams
And if your venting involves racist remarks i suppose you want us to coddle you. You are ignorant. Read a book. Stop defending the criminal actions of 'our troops'. They are committing atrocities. What next ... are we supposed to feel compassion for the Nazi SS because all they did was follow hitlers orders ? You seem to have a particularly bad itch down your butt crack ...
I don't support war. I don't suport the slaughter of innocents either. A few of you are very misguided as to our American soldiers. They are there following orders. Obviously, you don't understand What that means. For anybody to attack our soldier's reason for being in Iraq is downright illiterate. There is Not 1 American soldier that wants to be there. I know Why BUSH and his cronies went to war, I don't need anybody to tell me. Greed, Oil and a reason to have a foothold in the Middle East, Blah, Blah, Blah. So many of us are against the war and never wanted the USA to get involved in the first place. ALL WARs are stupid! Why the warmongers in Washington thought that this particular war was/is justified goes beyond natural reasoning. BUSH dug us into a huge hole and now nobody in Washington has a clue as to how to get out of it. We need our soldiers here on the homefront not over there fighting a useless mess. It's like Vietnam revisited. If I've insulted anybody, I apologize, that was not my intention. Like most Americans, I'm frustrated and feel a need to Vent.
Go forward, egomaniacal Nader, go!
You know very well that you cannot win. But what does that matter? Everything should be about you. The prospective winner of the general elections must be made keenly aware of your vital presence. After all, you are a stickler to principles: the principles of egoism and self-love.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3531181514894113291&q=ralph+nader&total=267&start=0&num=10&so=...
Ralph Nader on Moral Courage! Run Ralph Run this country needs you!
Mr. Nader gets my vote whether he runs or not. I will right him in. The democratic party must be destroyed or start representing their constituents. Something they have not done in decades. I say down with the Dems! The republican party will soon follow for one cannot exist without the other. They define each other not themselves. It's too bad that Ralph is such a man of integrity. Americans, for the most part, don't get that at all. Vote Green! Vote Nader! Just be sure to vote!
Well, we do need to toss almost every Democrat out of Congress and replace them with Greens at the same time we put Nader in the White House.
One thing that is very certain is that if we leave the Democrats in Congress, then they will ally with the Republicans to block anything Nader will want to do.
We need a clean sweep of almost every politician out of office. You can almost count on your hands the decent ones who should remain. ALL of the rest should go.
If we elect Nader, but Reid and Pelosi stay in charge of Congress, then we are still screwed. Those two have been pushing and protecting the Republican agenda all year long.
There are only a couple of Democrats I could cast my ballot for. Basically Kucinich and Gravel. And to me, the Democratic party is such an undemocratic party that plays a rigged game, neither has a prayer of getting the nomination. I'd like to be wrong on that, but the entire set of rules and structure of the process of getting the Democratic nomination is rigged against them.
Some examples:
-- Campaign finance. The Democratic party can set its own rules for its internal contests. So why don't they use "clean election" type rules like say Vermont and Arizona have used. Nope, they want big money to decide their nominee.
-- Calendar. The calendar is rigged against any grassroots campaign. So many big states so fast means the campaigns are almost all media based. There is no time for a candidate to travel and talk to voters. Its all just ads. This is by design, and its also set to help big money decide the nominee.
-- Super Delegates. There are some 800 unelected delegates to the Dem convention that are certain to back the candidate of big money and the Dem power structure. So someone like Kucinich doesn't need 50% of the vote. He needs more like 60% of the vote. Meanwhile, a party hack like Hillary can win with about 40-45% of the vote.
So, to me its almost a certainty that the Dem nominee in 2008 will be a pro-war, pro-corporate party hack backed by the Dem power structure and big money.
That means I'm not voting Dem in 2008. Its just a question of where else I go with my vote. And Nader seems to be far and away the best choice I've seen. He's a bright, articulate and energetic man who's devoted his entire life to improving the lives of other Americans. To me that makes him much more qualified than any other candidate I see in any major or minor party.
The only caveat is that I think we need to build a long term alternative party that can start to crush the Democrats and return power to the people. In the past, Nader's campaigns haven't been real strong on building a party. And the Green party seems at times to be an incompent bunch a yahoos. If there's a better option in terms of building a political party and movement that will begin to fight for change in this country, I'd choose that over Nader.
Grace_Slick,
I've been reading some of your comments here. You seem to have a bad mouth. Your writings are incoherent, hallucinatory, and irrelevant. As the saying goes: If you don't say anything, people may think you're a fool; but if you open your mouth, you remove all doubt.
Run Ralph, run. While he may not have enough votes to win, if we he can take a significant amount of votes from Hillary (assuming that Hillary is the nominee) the Democrats could no longer dismiss the "progressive vote."...they would actually take us seriously. Hillary is a pro-corporate opportunist and having to choose between her and whoever is the Republican would be like a choice between the gas chamber and electric chair. Go Ralph, so I can actually vote FOR somebody as opposed to the "evil of two lessers"
Grace Slick,
My, do you do this wonderful singer a disservice. To actually defend this illegal war in almost the same way as the demopublicans is sad and shameful. To say that anyone who wants to migrate to the U.S. should be forced to go to Iraq to "Defend our Freedom" is one of the most twisted justifications for this Illegal Neo-Con slaughter and Massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocents on both sides, I have ever heard. Oh, I forgot, the Iraqi's don't count because they're Muslims. What exactly is your position? Even though it was the creation of the MAD DOG bush and his neo-con friends, a creation based on nothing but lies, we should still be there to defend our freedom????
Sorry I don't get it. But I usually don't get why anyone should slaughter anyone for OIL, WATER, MONEY, BANANNAS, MANGOES, NATURAL RESOURCES, ETC. Which is what all war is about anyway, GREED, plain and simple.
Well I can see the demopublicans are already revving up the excuses for losing yet another presidential election. They couldn't possibly have lost it because Al Gore agreed with george bush 39 times in one of the debates, or that both gore and bushit were both taking money from the same corporations, etc. etc. etc. adnauseum. It is Nader's fault that hillary voted for the Iraq war. Nader made the demopublicans do everything that they did wrong, which is just about everything!!! He forced the dems to vote for NAFTA, Nader was in cahoots with lee iacocco when iacocco presented bill (slick willy) clinton with the idea for NAFTA. For those who don't know, it was iacocco who dreamed up NAFTA and knew he had a president who was more of a republican than most republicans. Well, that depends on how you define "was more of a republican".But, I digress.
It is not a two party system anyway, it's a one party system.
To theett and ibrakefortrees, how long have you been in the employ of the DLC? The idiotic and toxic line that "Nader can't win", is because too many people for far too long have bought into this insanity. If everyone who said "I'd love to vote for Ralph, but he can't win", had voted for him, Ralph would have won in a landslide. It's way past due for people to vote for their convictions and principles. Enough of this nonsense of voting for the lesser of two evils, which always leaves you with "EVIL".
Nader is the only presidential candidate who you can actually see walking down the streets of Washington and engage in conversation. I know this because I have done it 5 or 6 different times. I have worked for Nader several times as a volunteer. I set up his 2000 office in WDC by building shelves, wiring, ac mountings etc. etc. He is one of the most honest persons I have ever met. You can actually believe him when he tells you something. How Revolutionary!!!! So to all the demopublican apologists and preemptive excuse makers for why the dems will lose the next election, get out of the closet and admit it, you are Republicans!!!! I am so sick of this tired excuse for your own ineptitude, lack of spine, and just plain cowardice, it turns my stomach! If you weren't so afraid of what people might think of your positions and actually HAD SOME PRINCIPLES, you might get some votes. Enough to even overcome the thievery of the repubs corrupt election practices from caging to outright refusal and denial of people's basic rights as voters. But the demopublicans NEVER EVEN QUESTION the fact that there is no paper trail on these republican owned voting machines, or the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of mostly people of color. You are SHAMEFUL.
So, you better get rolling with the excuses, you're going to need a lot of them to keep the dumbies who haven't figured you out yet this time. The same lame excuse only works a finite amount of times before even the most mentally challenged people catch on to your corrupt ways.
Now get goin!!!!!
GraceSlick you are an ignorant little twit. Unfortunately try as you may you cannot make excuses for your racism and the tyranny being committed by murderous american troops. Yeah my president bush is committing the crime but your american troops are just following orders !!! How stupid you must be to follow such orders !
Defending our freedom indeed ! They are defending cheneys bank account. You need to calm down and read or something, its the best cure for ignorance.
Al Gore only re-discovered his environmental roots and found some long-lost courage when he lost the last election. Does anyone remember his famous "debates" with dictator George? They agreed on almost every point.
Would a Gore-Lieberman team have done us better? I doubt it. Lieberman would be the Cheney counterpart and Gore would be the corporatist cheerleader telling us all why we need to "work" harder while our jobs go overseas and we go bankrupt due to lack of medical care and theft of pensions.
Ralph Nader continues to be the only candidate with a soul and the intelligence to know that bringing real issues to the forefront is not achieved by pledging "loyalty" to a party but by talking about them. If the Democrats can't handle that it shows their robotic loyalty to a system that has failed to govern in a sane way.
Go Nader!
peacemaker:
I had a really good laugh reading your frustrated post. That was good. It's even better when you insert any Democrat's name in place of Nader's throughout your post. I'm still smiling... cause I'm just one of those dumb voters who likes throwing their vote away! n
Oh, and while bashing Nader you may want to check out all the good the man has done for all of us during his career as an activist...you included. Actions speak louder than words. You may want to send that thought along to your Dem candidates who are the ones with empty rhetoric and empty promises!
So, in answer to your question, "What are you proving????" Oh, maybe that we have principles and ideals worth fighting for and voting on without giving up and giving in to the "lesser of two evils". That's all.
I see people on this site saying they will vote for a republican before they vote for Hillary. Why not put your vote to good use and piss off the Democrats?
We have to stand up and tell these people NO MORE! We will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. We will no longer listen to them telling us we have to vote for them or the other guys.
We have a right to vote for who we want. The more of us that do, the more they will have to re-think thier nominations the next election.
Everyone has the right to run for office. You are just listening to the two parties tell you what you can and cannot do.
I will speak with my vote. With the amount of time we have until election day we can come together and be prepared this time around.
Oh and what ever happened to the separtation of Church and State? Who care what one does in his church or his bedroom for that matter.
P.S. Nader is from Lebonese decent. I don't know if that qualifies him as another "White guy."
The claim that voting for a third party candidate would again put a Republican in the White House is not necessarily a valid argument, at least not in my case. Consider the following scenario:
I will definitely not vote for either a Democrat or a Republican presidential candidate if those were the only two choices available because they are two sides of the same coin. The fact that I will not vote for either of the two parties means my vote will not count either for or against either one of them. It's as if I do not exist.
Now, if a third party candidate is available, and I feel and I'm convinced that he's my type of a candidate, I will cast my vote for him, even though I may very well know that he's got only the chance of a snowball in hell. At least I have been true to my beliefs. It doesn't make sense to constantly bitch about both parties, and in the end vote for one of them, does it? The fact that a third party candidate may not win is not a good reason not to vote for him. Instead, if everybody votes for him and thinks he'll win, may be he will.
Americans have had seven years to figure out how perfectly accurate Nader's assessment was, is, and always will be, that Democrats and Republicans are the same pigs swilling in the same trough. This cannot possibly be news to anybody any longer. THEREFORE, to continue to revile Nader for interfering with the presidential plans of Gore and LIEBERMAN, is now, officially a bad joke to all except those who double over in laughter watching Blue Collar Comedy.
Nader should absolutely run and should take this opportunity to say I TOLD YOU SO!. Do you think it makes a bit of difference to the neocons whether the next president is Hillary or Rudy? Will we purchase any fewer bombs? Murder any fewer Palestinians? Produce any fewer jobs for Americans? Ralph will skewer the corporatists and their master plan. This and only this will bring us back from the brink of inevitable catastrophe.
Ralph Nader CAN win. It's possible. Those who claim it's not are just parroting the self-fulfilling prophesy of the corporate media.
It's sad — seventeen months before the election — that some would say a person should not even enter the political arena.
Several years ago in Minnesota the Independents decided to run Jesse Ventura, a former pro wrestler and radio talk show host, for Governor. The party had almost no base in the state. Ventura was elected.
Now, Ventura was no Ralph Nader. He was a high school graduate and an anti-intellectual. He had almost no political experience and little familiarity with the issues. He had written no books (and may not have read any either), and certainly did not have a lifetime of public service on his resume.
But, he was invited to debate, he represented himself as an alternative to politics as usual, he received a large number of small contributions though his web site, he ran a minimal media campaign, and he was elected.
For those who say Nader can't be elected I have just two words: Governor Ventura.
Hey peacemaker- I'm smoking Winston Lights 100's. Want to talk about magic, just imagine what Nader's Administration would look like. Don't be a fool and think the Democrats are any different from the Republicans. Watch how they vote on C-Span. The handful of good Democrats should kiss their party good bye, and that's long over due.
Nader has been the only good choice in the last two elections. Thank you Mr. Nader for all you have done for this country and it's people. I'm glad to hear that you are considering running again. I feel that at this time there are many more people fed up with their parties on both sides of the two party system.
Thanks Ralph; giving you a knowing nod of affirmation: I can hardly wait to cast my "spoiler" vote.
There is no end to the dumb people in this country! Who seem to think Ralph Nadar is magically going to do something about the mess in this country! What kind of crazy weed have you people been smoking???????? All he can do is put another Republican in the White House!!!! Because all of you disgrutled Democrats put Bush there the last time when you voted for Nadar! So you can blame the mess on yourselves because you voted for Snowball in hell Nadar the last two times. That's it! All you people are doing is throwing your vote away on him. Because there is no way he can win! And what are you proving???? Nothing...literally nothing! Except that you possibly haven't voted for what you perceive as another Republican (Democrat)! But, you people are dumb enough you fall for it every time. The chances are if he were to win. You would find he is no better than the rest of the ones running. What they say when they are campaigning and what they do when they get into the White House are two different things. That's why I never listen to all the campaign rhetoric. You can't go by anything they say when they are campaigning. He has a Congress and a Senate that will probably stop most of what he says he is going to do. That is the way our system is set up! Unless he is like the current Mafia Cheif we have in the White House who ignores everyone and does what he feels like. So, you people take your vote and throw it in the nearest street because that's all the good you are going to be doing. I will vote for a Democrat. Like them or not they are the least of the evils out there today!
I am not a Democrat, newageartist. I just recognize the presidential election is not quite the same as American Idol.
I look at what the neocons have done to this nation and what they intend for it in future -- an aggressively-hostile imperial state run by the executive office. For all the whining about the corportatization of the Democrats, they have never done anything even close to the damage we've seen in the last eight years.
For me, the Number One Priority is getting the neocons out of office. And, as I've stated, it is childish to think that when third-parties do not show popular support at the state level (in significant numbers), it's a good idea to move for the highest office in the land. The idea of using Nader for the purpose, when he has already tried and failed miserably, is like cutting of your nose to spite your face.
Sure, vote third-party. Do it in state elections and local elections and, when efforts have resulted in a Congress that shows The People are interested in the same changes you are, THEN move one of those candidates into higher office.
Meanwhile, if you vote for a third-party in the next presidential election, be sure you've paid close attention to the Republican candidates -- because one of them will be ruling us. It could be your last election though, because I doubt the nation will survive it.
opinionated:
Whew! I mean... what can one say after reading your over played Democratic Party anti-democracy propaganda. Really. Get enough with the bashing of anyone who speaks out and runs against your self defeating Dems.
It's the mis-informed thinking(?) of DON'T VOTE THIRD PARTY that keeps this country from breaking the chains of corporate domination of politics and the continued erosion of our democracy. So I assume you are satisfied with the stumbling, bumbling elected idiots that call themselves Democrats? It doesn't matter which corporate party is in office. They continue to do soooo much for the common man. Wow. You must love getting sand kicked in your face every election, not by the beach bully but by your supposed friends!
No. It won't be third parties that bring down this country. It will be thinking like yours that blinds voters to the reality of the corporate duopoly's globalization agenda. Guess what? It doesn't include you. But thanks for your vote. Here's some sand in the face.
To all who feel a third party is a reasonable choice in a presidential election -- count the number of third-party Congressman and Representatives from the state level. Do they have a majority? No? Do they have enough representation to make them credible? No. Is there any indication that they are widely supported in many regional areas? No.
Why on Earth would you then decide to start by attempting to elect a third-party president? They don't have enough clout yet to significantly impact Congress, but you think you can rally people to put a third-party in charge of the executive branch?
Not going to happen. If you want a third-party, which I think would be good, it has to first build from the state level. While that is happening, in places, there is zero indication from results that any third-party yet represents a significant number of the population. It is not time to attempt a third-party president, though it would be nice to see their candidates in the debates.
Americans. We want everything NOW, without wanting to work our way through the steps it takes to get there.
Grace_Slick, I feel you are misguided and have been misinformed in general, especially about muslims. I actually do know a few good muslims who have managed not to kill anybody or blow anybody up. Believe me, it was tough for them, they had to start eating kittens alive to satisfy their natural, muslim bloodlust :) But for real, I think your passion to save the future of the country could be much more effective if you directed your anger to the real enemies of this country. And yes, I have read a book before.
That's a great idea -- Nader running. If you're a neocon. that is. Because this country is so disgusted with Bush and crew, normal circumstances would insure their Constitution-destroying party would be out of office, but if the progressive vote splits and scatters, the neocons will retain control. Yippee! I've always wanted to watch my nation turn into a fascist dictatorship. How exciting it will be to see it happen and know that it occurred because liberals found it impossible to unite on a practical matter.
The ONE thing Nader or any other Independent or Third Party candidate will need to conquer in order to take their message to the people and have ANY chance of attaining the magic 15% threshold let alone winning the popular vote is getting on every state's ballot! The way it is set up by the existing two corporate parties is a very protective and archaic system that is in place to keep either of them in power and dissenting voices silent.
As an example, one of the WORST ballot access systems in the country is found in Pennsylvania, the state where liberty was born! There, any third party or independent who is running for state office or above (congressional or president) had to secure a minimum of 60,000 signatures from registered voters in the last election. Think about that for a moment. If democracy is all about change through elections and open discussion of issues for voters, how can either happen if anyone outside the two parties must jump through impossible hoops to participate. Either corporate party needs only to secure 2,000 signatures which can be done in an afternoon! On top of that, the Democrats challenged EVERY signature collected by the Nader campaign until he was thrown off the ballot during a very lengthy and expensive court battle. In 2006, the Democrtas successfully challenged the strongly supported progressive Green candidate for the Senate again in the courts. After losing his chance to appear on the ballot, he was informed that court costs would be HIS responsibility! That was tens of thousands of dollars!! This happens every election in other states as well. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that national debates are run by... are you ready?.... a private corporation set up by the two corporate parties!!!!
That is what "other-than-two-party political candidates face if they wish to run against the corporate machine! If Nader or the Greens or Libertarians or any other American wants to participate in national elections, the playing field will need to be leveled. I think this election is going to be different than those in the past. Americans are fed up with the status quo. This time, the people will demand that other voices be heard. It's time for a change in this country. 2008 will be that time. Get behind any progressive candidate outside the two corporate parties and push like hell.
Hey GYPTIAN .. Or Is it EGYPTIAN? If anybody is Ignorant, you have shown yours by closing your mind to "What IS REAL" !! Of Course there are Bad Blacks & Bad Whites ... I'm NOT Voting for them Either! You seem to think that a Muslim President in this country will actually Float? You come across like this is some nonchalant issue. The entire fate of America depends on our next election. If you trust a NAIVE UNEXPIERIENCED MUSLIM Presidential Candidate to set us back on track then you are ALOT Dumber than you appear. You want to attack me for what I feel as an American Citizen,Voter and former ARMY Medic. Wake Up and smell the Camel Dung ... Our soldiers are being killed everyday by MUSLIMS ... "NOT" Blacks,IRISH or Black BEARS. Like I said "IT IS" What It Is! As for ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION it has to do with "EVERYTHING", afterall it's 1 of BUSH's Legacies that's being shoved down our throats like everything else he does. IF they want to be Americans ....Then they should have to fight for OUR/Their Freedoms just like the rest of us. If you'd Try getting off of your couch once and awhile ... put down your controller to your Playstation and READ, you just might have a little lightbulb go off in your pointed little head.! You probably voted for BUSH anyway! You sure give the same stupid lip service. So get off my back and look around. Do you really Believe that our American soldiers want to be over there fighting an unwinable war that's been going on for thousands of years? They are over there because they believe in America and were ORDERED there by an Idiot named BUSH . It's BUSH and his "GOOD OLE BOYS" that are fighting for Corporate America, Our soldiers are fighting for US and Our Constitution! We're losing more of our rights every single day. Thanks to YOUR President BUSH ! If the Illegals are unwilling to make the same sacrifices, Then "WHY" should they be allowed to come and stay here and just TAKE from the American taxpayers. Soon they'll be digging into our Social Security aswell. If they want this so-called Amnesty, then they should WANT to fight for the same Freedoms in order to stay here. If NOT .. Well, they shouldn't be here to begin with. HOW DARE YOU REFER TO OUR SOLDIERS THAT ARE RISKING THEIR LIVES IN IRAQ EVERYDAY AS STUPID AMERICANS! YOU ARE WITHOUT DOUBT, 1 OF THE LOWEST "DREGS" THAT I HAVE ENCOUNTERED IN HERE. Now ... Go away and quit wasting my time Egyptian!
Democrats have their work cut out for them. By election day 2008, if the Democrats haven't pulled all the troops and all the military bases out of Iraq, progressives are voting for Ralph Nader.
RUN RUN RUN MR NADER.
I welcome you. Please write something about the war. The war must end.
And yes, we know what all the 'democrats' are going to say. Spoiler.
The only thing that Nader is trying to do is spoil the current system, since it is so rotten.
GraceSlick ... i tell you what ... why dont you help me distinguish between GOOD white people and BAD white people ? Am I a GOOD white guy or BAD white guy ? Are you really that ignorant ?
What does immigration legal or illegal have to do with anything ? Why should immigrants join the military when you have stupid americans doing it instead ?!! We are all fighting for walmart or halliburton anyways.
I should just ignore your rant as it doesnt make sense.
"It's indeed an Orwellian situation when we blame today's ills on those who failed to get elected, rather than on those who did."
It's indeed an Orwellian situation when we blame today's ills on those who failed to get elected, rather than on those who failed to elect him. The blame is on us.
If this was October 2008 the "he has no chance" chorus would have some credibility with their "don't waste your vote" mantra. Not much, but some.
But, this is June 2007, seventeen f-ing months before the election! It's the beginning of the longest political season this country has ever seen. At this point, the "no chance" chorus is just asinine.
In this election the issues are serious and the people are paying attention. Dead soldiers, crippled soldiers, psychologically devastated soldiers — all coming home to small towns and working-class neighborhoods across the country. The depravity and horror of war bubbles to the surface of our collective conscience.
Corporate outsourcing, corporate insourcing, corporate corruption, corporate off-shoring of profits, corporate tax fraud and corporate greed. Lost jobs, slave wages, no benefits, no health care. Businesses are forced to hire illegal migrants or shut their doors. It's an economic and moral death spiral. And it pisses people off.
Bush is a congenital liar or mentally ill, or both. The Republican-Lite Dems jockey to prove who is the toughest war monger and sweetest corporate hiney kisser. "The nuclear option is not off the table," my ass!!!
The truth is, 2008 could be the best chance for a maverick or a third-party candidate ever! You work, you build, you win. You don't moan "no chance" — not in this political climate, not seventeen months before the election.
GYPTIAN ... I wouldn't care if the next president was Green, Purple or an Atheist, but, please correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't it the Muslims that are trying to kill us? Wasn't it MUSLIMS that blew up the World trade center Buildings? If YOU know of a way that you can distinguish the GOOD Muslims from the Hate Mongering Bad Ones, PLEASE let me in on the secret to KNOW the Good Ones from the Bad Ones. This isn't about a job at Wal-Mart, This is for "ALL" of the marbles ... President of The United States. A MUSLIM President "NOW" ? I DON'T THINK SO! Here's another one for you to ponder GYPTIAN. I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT IF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WANT AMNESTY AND WANT TO COME HERE BY THE DROVES ... WHY SHOULDN'T THE ABLED BODIED ONES BE "REQUIRED" TO JOIN "OUR" MILITARY FOR 3-4 YEARS AND BE SENT TO IRAQ THE SAME AS "LEGAL" AMERICAN CITIZENS DO? Or is that a little too sensible for you?
Hey gwazdor, just 'cause you call someone a bitch doesn't mean you don't like women. Hillary is one of the most disgusting examples of a human being regardless of her gender.
oneguy has is dead-on imo- shit sandwich and all.
Americans need to WAKE UP. Public schools do not want to teach people to think critically. They are fed a daily dose of lies (if they watch TV esp) so it's hard to recognize the truth maybe. Who knows, but yeah, Americans are stupid overall and the world has to pay for it.
You are right Grace_Slick ... we should just shut up and vote for another white christian !!!!!
Where do I send my check ?
Where do I sign up to volunteer ?
A candidate who will stand up to our corporate masters...YES
Time for the Fakeocrats to learn how to enunciate "electability" while practicing lesser-evilism
Lance Del Goebel
TheCommonGoodIllinois@yahoo.com
Mr Nadar, I have emailed you but never got an answer so this might be the place I get the answer. Have you sold your stocks in that oil company yet ?
Simple yes or no will do. By the way Mr Nadar, I can see how you can see how a guy with a billion could buy an election. You can think like one because you have a million. But hey guy run but be totally honest and open.
Three little pigs flew UFOs.
Bill
So the progressive position "takes the moral highground." Does that include not fighting back as Kerry did not when the Swift boat vets smeared him? I guess the Democrats are too high class to fight back.
No wonder Governor Schwarzenegger called them "girly men." Personally, I like someone with courage and spunk -- a fighter -- not a coward. I guess in politics "nice guys finish last."
The way I see it ... All that Ralph Nader can do in this election, Is to Split The Vote ... AGAIN ! I'm not saying that he's not a good man, He Is ... But, the Facts Speak For Themselves. Unfortunately the Good Ole USA is a 2 party MESS! I don't like ANY of the candidates. Barack Hussein Obama? HMMmmmmmm! I just read an article in here yesterday that substantiated my Instinct that Obama is a MUSLIM. I'm Not a Rascist, But, Wake Up People ... What Next? Ever hear of Sleeper Cells in our country OR The NEW WORLD ORDER? I Know .... Why Not vote for an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT? As the misinformed BUSH is continually saying ... ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS are doing jobs that Americans Won't OR Don't Want to do! Talk about misinformation. Americans CAN'T do the jobs that the ILLEGAL MEXICANS are doing because we could NEVER live on those wages. The Illegals are only keeping our current wages frozen. Not to mention that "WE" Americans REFUSE to squeeze 15 to 20 people into a one bedroom apartment. I'd vote for AL GORE, "AGAIN" without hesitation. I believe that Ralph's "only" hope in this election is to run as a Vice President on the ticket with somebody that "CAN" win. AL GORE .. Would be a Dream Come True ... If he'd only give it 1 more try. He "WON" in 2000, so there's NO Reason that he wouldn't win AGAIN. Thankfully there isn't a BUSH in the background waiting to Steal the 2008 election exactly like he did in 2000. His Time is Finally Up. Not Soon Enough for me. Other than AL Gore, I could feel comfortable voting again if maybe LOU DOBBS would through his hat in the ring, But, he's as disgusted with this government as we are. I think that just maybe we blinked when "WE THE PEOPLE" went out as Silently as the "UNIONS" did during the REAGAN administration. Here Today, Gone Tomorrow! TRY NOT TO BLINK!
Im just curious but what exactly is Naders position on Iraq and Iran besides the usual 'we should bring the troops home' rhetoric. Also has he actually spelt out where he stands with respect to Israels occupation of Palestine ? What about his position on Pakistans support of the Taliban ? And Afghanistan ? Ah well ...
For all the good reasons above and that we know about, wouldn't it just feel great to thoughtfully vote for this great and thoughtful man, Ralph Nader?
You bet!
I really hate it when people call Hilary Clinton a bitch or some other misogynistic name. Even the swift boat guys weren't that offensive. I'm no fan of her politics, but this nonsesnse makes us all look bad and it perpetuates an idiotic idea. People are attracted to the progressive position because it takes the moral highground - it claims to keep its hands clean of filthy political mudslinging. We aren't going to attract anyone if we play dirty. If you ever get the urge to use this kind of language, take a deep breath and come up with a really biting political critique instead. Next time you see someone use such language, tell them how you feel about it.
Ralph Nader "can't win." Oh "yeah,' thats "right," unless some people come along with say a half billion or a billion dollars to either back him or whack his opposition, which they deserve. Then what the hell, who the hell could damn stop him? You know how that Anglo Saxon, Irish bleeding heart liberal, Communist conspiracy is. What if "they" get behind Nader with big time money? Why, it would "just be terrible."
Newageartist, so let's say Ralph weans the Green Party off its dependence on him, then what? We all know that name recognition counts big in federal elections, and that's a key thing Ralph offers to the Greens. But he is 73 years old, and assuming he retires (i.e. stops running) before he turns 90, where will the Greens or progressives in general be after that? Whether it's the Greens or something else, we need more than a cult of personality, we need to create a vibrant political community with a political vehicle capable of actually getting our members elected and re-elected. In Europe, no one flinches when a socialist, communist, green or any other "left" or "progressive" politician sits down and talks about the issues of the day on television. In American political discourse, "radical" equates with "terrorist" and as a rule, the corporate-dominated media only present progressive views by giving them a negative slant (to the extent we hear them at all). In part it's not our fault; no other country has such an overweening concentration of corporate wealth to contend with (though China is well on its way…). But in part, it is. I've never known the American left to be anything but masters of self-disintegration. We need unity, goals, a plan to reach those goals and a vehicle to execute the plan. Nader is a great educator, but a poor strategist. The stage for this election is getting a little bit crowded already… Seems like while the Republicans are splitting and the Democrats are running half their Senators, there might be an opportunity in this to expand the base for progressives. I know it's impossible, because in America dissenters love to dissent from each other more than anything else, but still, imagine what would happen if we really pulled the progressive community together behind one campaign?
realitychecker and newageartist, I still blame Nader for the Green Party's poor showing in 2004. If he wasn't planning on sticking with the Greens in the long haul, he should not have sold the rest of us on the idea of committing ourselves to building a party. I did my 100 hours, and paid my 100 bucks. What for, Ralph?
BillN:
"The more liberals work with the Dems, the more they will influence Dems towards the progressive point of view."
Liberals have stuck with the Dems for the most part over the past 15 years, and our reward is a Democratic Party that has moved way to the right since 1992.
"Nader may not be able to throw the election this time."
When it's time to bash Bush, Gore won Florida and Bush stole the election. When it's time to bash Nader, Bush won Florida fair and square.
"And BTW, the person that suggested Dem votes in Fl in 04 were worse than Nader votes, I disagree. Those were conservative Dems. South has a history of blue dog dems. We expect them to voter for conservatives."
Sorry, no dice on the blue dogs. If 90% of these Democrats were right-wingers who would have never voted for Gore anyway, and the other 10% had voted for Gore instead of Bush, we would never even gone to a recount. Gore would have won by about 50,000 to 60,000 votes.
"However, the Nader voters, presumably liberals, have no such excuse. They elected Bush by throwing their votes away and they should have known better. But most Americans fail to comprehend the electoral system to our detriment."
Spare me your smug self-righteous superiority. It's people like you who drove me away from the Democratic Party.
Oneguy observes:
Remember when Michael Moore ran a shrub for political office and people copied him and did it all over the country. Maybe there should be a massive no vote initiative. If the vote can truly be hacked then we have no say anyway and the corporations win. If the vote isn't hacked then the electoral college will let the corporations win.
**************
Yikes!--Moore ran a shrub and look what we got for president for the last 7 years--a shrub! :o))
I would rather that Ralph run as hand puppet master--since these guys who get the presidenncy have little real power other than to bow to their handlers.
Wouldn't it be sweet if Ralph took Cheney's perrogatives (above the law, a force unto himself!)and used them to start setting things right with his agenda. Think on that for a while!
Ibrake4trees and Rob Roy have the right idea. We have many candidates, and as in a parliamentary system, the group that builds the largest coalition will win. I doubt Nader will build a large coalition because he starts out by attacking his closest allies.
The more liberals work with the Dems, the more they will influence Dems towards the progressive point of view.
Fortunately, it looks like the conservatives are probably even more split than the liberals, so Nader may not be able to throw the election this time.
And BTW, the person that suggested Dem votes in Fl in 04 were worse than Nader votes, I disagree. Those were conservative Dems. South has a history of blue dog dems. We expect them to voter for conservatives. However, the Nader voters, presumably liberals, have no such excuse. They elected Bush by throwing their votes away and they should have known better. But most Americans fail to comprehend the electoral system to our detriment.
Paulbilly and Theet: THIS IS SUCH OLD NEWS, but you really should do a little homework and find out the truth for yourself instead of regurgitating that old canard put out by the Democratic Party Slander and Scapegoat Machine. The real reasons Gore "lost" the election were: (1) voters who were disenfranchised (think about 90,000 faux felons who were illegitimately denied their right ro vote; (2) voting systems and procedures that failed; (3) the party-line United States Supreme Court vote declaring George W. Bush the winner; and (4) Democrats who voted for Bush or not at all. Al Gore was a lackluster candidate who ran a poor campaign. Even Gore himself doesn't believe that Nader cost him the election--so why do you think you know more about it than HE does? The truth is that Gore WON the election and he would have been installed as president if he had demanded a FULL recount.
Think about this: Ralph Nader has done more for the health and welfare of the American people than any of the candidates in the race so far, and he has been right on the issues all along from 2000 until today. From the time you get into your car in the morning, until you go to work, eat dinner and take a breath of fresh(-er)air, you should be thanking Nader for improving your quality of life and the quality of our government institutions. Think about it. What would your life be like without the: Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Safe Drinking Water Act, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Freedom of Information Act, Mine Health and Safety Act, Wholesome Meat Act, Whistle Blower Protection Act, Consumer Credit, Disclosure Law, Pension Protection Act, food labeling, no-smoking sections and reduced auto insurance rates to mention a few. Without Nader, we would have none of these things.
You have probably also been the beneficiary of the work done by the many public interest groups he has founded, including Public Citizen, Congress Watch, Global Trade Watch, the Critical Mass Energy Project, the Center for Study of Responsive Law, and Democracy Rising, among others.
Now tell me, what have Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards or Joe Biden done to deserve your respect and support (besides sucking up mountains of corporate cash)? Even longtime Congressman Dennis Kucinich, whose political views are very close to Nader's, can't match Nader's record of dedication and achievement. I hope that Nader runs in 2008 and I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat. He would make a better president than anyone now running.
Why won't you give him another chance and check out who he really is and what he stands for instead of beating the dead old horse of 2000?
Spoiler? HA! As Ralph has said, "How can you spoil a system that's already spoiled rotten?" Before we can have runoff elections and/or proportional representation, the Dems will have to feel pain. Only then will the "spoiler" nonsense go away. I voted for Kerry in 2004, but I won't be fooled again.
Rob Roy, you're laying all the blame on Nader? Do you remember the election was stolen? If the Democrats had any backbone whatsoever, they would have fought for us. If the Democrats are so great, Nader won't make a difference as more people would be voting for the Dems. The problem is that they're not that great. I actually don't believe they care that much if they win or not.
It's THEIR fault that people are turning away from them, not Nader's. Hillary is in AIPAC's pocket, so is Lieberman-loving Obama, and so is Edwards. All three are for nuking Iran. There's not much difference between them and the war-loving, fascist Republicans. Two sides of the same coin. That's not good enough for this voter.
does the name Joseph Lieberman mean anything to those hwo think that there would have been a great dral of difference between Gore and Bush ????????????????? - think again !
The Democrats are going to put another Republican in the White House. Because in that pro-war, pro-corporate party, the nomination can only go to someone who is basically yet another Republican.
The last non-Republican president we had in this country was Jimmy Carter.
Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd ... basically the whole damn crew except Kucinich and Gravel are basically Republicans.
If Nader doesn't run, your only choices on election day will be what flavor of Republican do you want. Do you want an open and in your face Republican from the Republican party, or do you want a Republican that hides their true stripes and lies to voters, but still governs as a Republican after election ... the latter come from the Democrats.
Come on, the kool-aid drinking Dems were telling us in 2006 that if the country just elected the Dems to control of Congress, then everything would be magically ok and different. Now, they want you to forget that electing Dems in 2006 didn't make a bit of difference, but hey, if we just elect a Dem as President in 2008, everything will be magically different.
How stupid can people be to keep falling for the same lie over and over? Dem voters remind me of Charlie Brown trying to kick that football that Lucy's holding. And too friggin stupid to figure out how they are being played for fools no matter how many times they fall for the same con.
I'm sick and tired of the argument that says I have to accept complete garbage from the Democrats because only they 'can win'.
Its the argument used to try to torpedo campaigns within that party like Kucinich. And now its put forward to try to torpedo any alternative.
Basically, that argument is the pro-war, pro-corporate forces telling us that we just have to accept the way they are trashing our world.
There is an alternative. And any campaign can win! All it takes is determined people willing to ignore all the naysayers who try to convince us that our only choices are between pro-war, pro-corporate candidates who take slightly different positions on stem-cell research in order to create the illusion that there is a choice between them.
Its time to stop listening to this "can't win" crap.
On the fundamentally important issues, the Democrats and the Republicans are the same. I don't see how anyone can look at how having the Democrats in control of Congress for this year and their complete unwillingness to make ANY change in the direction of this country and conclude differently.
On Irag, the position of the Democratic party is only that they are more competent in running an illegal, imperialist war. And if you look at the numbers, Clinton and Gore managed to murder about the same number of Iraqis as George Bush. Both are in the range of 600,000 to 700,000 Iraqis killed. The only difference is the tools used to do it.
On the economy, the two parties are exactly the same. The last Democrat administration gave us WTO, NAFTA and Welfare Reform. And please take note that not one single economic policy of the Bush admin has been changed or even challenged by this supposedly opposition Congress.
And it was Clinton\Gore that started the cycle of 'anti-terrorism' bills that take away more and more of our civil liberties. That started both after Oklahoma City and the TWA 600 explosion that was blamed on terrorist long enough to pass terrorism bills before they admitted the friggin gas tank blew up.
The two parties are the same. They may talk differently, but you have to watch what they DO, not what they SAY. What they DO is identical, or so close as to be a meaningless difference.
If you keep voting Democrat, things will not change. The Democrats will not make a fundamental change in the direction of this country. The only difference is the new boss has a new face and name. But everything will stay the same.
It's indeed an Orwellian situation when we blame today's ills on those who failed to get elected, rather than on those who did.
Nader going to put another Republican in the White House like he did Bush in 2000? Nader should hide under a rock somewhere considering his responsibility in subjecting the world to the horrors of the past seven years.
Go for it... teach those GOP and DEM corporate suck-ups a lesson that they will never forget. It's time we kicked all of them out of office and took back the government: reduce military spending 5% each year for the next 10 years; abolish the CIA; abolish the Federal Reserve debt-based currency system; abolish the electoral college; cap money that can be spent on, or given to political campaigns and absolutely outlaw corporate financial involvement in the political process; dismantle mega-media conglomerates; keep religion out of government and vice-versa; abolish all taxes on labor; establish a VAT based tax system. Yes, Ralph YOU can do it! from Marblehead, MA
All you posters, hold your horses, and don't get overly excited about the 08 elections with or without Mr Nader. Aren't you forgetting something?
Bush may attack Iran, declare a state of emergency at home to prevent a nationwide uprising, and there won't be an election until King George II, the Decider guy, decides when you can have an election, when you can eat, and when you can go to the toilet, if Cheney approves, that is. Oh, what a day it will be. The chicken are coming home to roost.
Run! Ralph! Run! before Blackwater mercenaries could catch and put you in the new detention center built by Halliburton.
How can people ignore the fact that Ralph Nader helped get George and Dick into the White House? Al Gore would have been a worst choice? I don't think so!!
Gore is older and wiser lets hope. Lieberman was to catch the Jewish, conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans that might shake loose from the party vote. Lieberman was there as a strategy nothing more or less. If Gore were to run now we would need to look at who he might choose as a running mate this time.
I think Nader is one of the brightest and best but has no chance in hell to win a Presidential election or even influence the so called "debate".
Gore and Edwards are not perfect but they have an outside chance of winning and influencing the parities Presidential platform. Nader's only has a chance to syphon votes from other Democratic candidates. As I said above and repeat here, even in the unlikely event Nader won the Presidency he would have no party behind him, no one on either side of the isle would have any reason to be loyal to him-chaos, stagnation.
This guy is DOA so get of the bandwagon and be realistic
Turn that TV off it's worse then CIA imported Heroin......
Watch MSM and you will get the same...
LIES.....LIES.....LIES.....LIES.....LIES.....
The USA is only a two party system because most Americans are too lazy to think beyond, Eenie-Meenie..they like their choices clear, unambigious and in black and white, with no annoying shades of grey.
good or bad
black or white
corporate or labor
muslim or christian
cowboy or indian
communist or capitalist
heads or tails
life or death
BTW, to the Democrats on the list. I think it was 90,000 some odd votes for Nader in Florida in 2000. It was something like hundreds of thousands of registered Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida in 2000. It wasn't Nader that cost Gore the election, it was the Democrats who voted for Bush.
And if Gore wasn't yet another spineless Dem who collapse at the first pressure from the Republicans, he'd still have been President. All he had to do was to take the decent and honest stance from the beginning that all votes in Florida should be recounted to know the will of the voters.
And yes, Gore and Bush are still very similar. Gore implemented the corporate economy that is crushing Americans today as our jobs go overseas. Gore's foreign policy was one of violent and illegal war's around the world (see Yugoslavia) and the support of terrorists (see Colombia). Gore would have attacked Afghanistan. And being the right-wing militarist that Gore's always been as a Rep and a Senator and as a part of the Clinton\Gore admin, I don't think he'd have withstood the right-wing and media pressure to attack Iraq. Yes, I think if Gore was in office we'd still have attacked Iraq.
Gawd, can't people learn? Haven't we just seen all this year that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. We've seen the Democrats do nothing to change Bush tax or trade policy. We've seen the Democrats fully fund and support the Iraq war from its beginnings and up through this year's budget bills. We've seen a Democratic majority in the Congress do nothing to stop or even slow down the Republican agenda. Just one example of many was all the Dems who voted that Americans can't buy cheaper meds from overseas. Just like the Repubs, when big pharma talks, the Dems jump!
Does everyone forget who Gore picked as VP in 2000? He picked Leiberman for christ's sake. And that's not an aberation. Gore was one of the founders of the DLC and his 1988 Presidential run was the first attempt of the DLC to flex its muscles.
Gore wrote a book about the environment once before. Then he didn't do crap for the environment during 8 years of being VP. Yeah, tell me the VP is powerless after 7 years of Cheney. Right!
Quit drinking the Democratic kool-aid. Why do Democrats keep supporting pro-war, pro-corporate candidates and then act surprised when they govern pro-war and pro-corporate. Remember, both NAFTA and WTO are DEMOCRATIC creations. Both only passed because of the support of a DEMOCRATIC president and the Democrats in Congress who voted with their President. And please, you can search for ages and you won't find anything from Gore opposing these acts. He was one of the main pushers for them instead.
Christ .. Gore has been a right-wing, pro-military, pro-corporate political figure his entire time in public office. Why on earth does everyone keep pretending he's anything different. Watch what Democrats do, not what they say. And Gore has a 30 year record of what he does.
Having just attended the conference "Taming the Giant Corporation," held in Washington DC, I have once again had the pleasure of directly witnessing Ralph Nader address the relevant issues of our time, along with his ability to draw the best of talent and commitment from fellow activists joined in the struggle against corporate fascism. I am convinced that we need to take back democracy from the control of the Demicrans and the Republicrats in service to business as usual. I have no problem with Ralph Nader exercising his civic responsibility and choosing to run for President. He stands on principle and exercises the courage of his convictions, even in the face of those who are shamefully compromised and morally corrupt.
Whooo-Hoooo!!!!!
Run Ralph Run!!!!
I'll vote for you. I'll volunteer for your campaign. I'll donate what I can.
I'll do none of the above for ANY candidate that runs as a Democrat. That is a party of liars and con-men and I'm sick and tired of the Democrats. When I see a (D) on the ballot after a candidates name, I'll assume they are a lying scumbag that won't do anything that they've said in the campaign while in office.
Run, Ralph, Run!!!!!
I'll vote for Nader. All of the Democrat front runners are in the pocket of AIPAC--which means that the Iraq war will continue (Hillary as much as said so), the Palestinian conflict will continue, and there will be no peace in the Middle East. Hillary will not be in favor of single-payer health care, and she is horrendous on labor issues. Listen closely to her, and it's clear that we'll be in Iraq for 50 years and never get health care passed with her as president. Go Nader!
I like Nader and would vote for him. I've heard him speak, and he's an intelligent man. I've had it with the Democrats. It's all talk and no action from these politicians -- blah blah blah. They need to get real jobs where they actually earn their pay.