Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Imperial Presidency
Mired in the disastrous Iraq quagmire, opposed by a majority of Americans, George W. Bush has reached new depths of reckless, belligerent bellowing. At a recent news conference, he volunteered that he told our allies that if they're "interested in avoiding World War III," Iran must be prevented from both developing a nuclear weapon or having "the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
To what level of political insanity has this Washington Caesar descended? Only two countries can start World War III-Russia and the United States. Is Bush saying that if Russia, presently opposed to military action against Iran, persists with its position, Bush may risk World War III? If not, why is this law-breaking warmonger, looking for another war for American GIs to fight, while his military-age daughters bask in the celebrity lime light?
Why is he using such catastrophic language?
Surely he does not think Iran could start World War III. His own intelligence agencies say that, even assuming that the international inspectors are wrong and Iran is moving toward developing the "knowledge" of such weapons, it can't build its first such weapon before 3 to 5 years at the earliest.
Why would a regime ruling an impoverished country risk suicide, surrounded as it is by countries armed to the nuclear teeth, such as Israel and the United States? This nation of nearly 80 million people hardly needs to be reminded that the U.S. overthrew its popular premier in 1953, installing for the next 27 years the brutal regime of the Shah.
They recall that President Reagan and his Vice President, George Herbert Walker Bush urged, funded and equipped Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran-a nation that has not invaded any country in over 250 years-which took around 700,000 Iranian lives.
Moreover, the undeniable historical record shows that U.S. companies received licenses from the Department of Commerce, under Reagan, to ship Saddam the raw materials necessary to make chemical and biological weapons. Saddam used such lethal chemical weapons, with the tolerance of Reagan and Rumsfeld, on Iranians to devastating effect in terms of lives lost.
Then George W. Bush labels Iran a member of the "axis of evil" along with Iraq, ignoring a serious proposal by Iran in 2003 for negotiations, and shows what his language means by invading Iraq.
The authoritarian Iranian government is frightened enough to hurl some defiant rhetoric back at Washington and widen its perimeter defense. Seymour Hersh, the topflight investigative reporter for the New Yorker magazine has written numerous articles on how the crowding of Iran, including infiltrating its interior, has become an obsession of the messianic militarist in the White House.
The Pentagon is more cautious, worrying about our already drained Army and the absence of any military strategy and readiness for many consequences that would follow Bush's "bombs away" mentality.
Then there is the matter of the Democrats in Congress. After their costly fumble on Iraq, the opposition Party should make it very constitutionally clear, as recommended by former New York Governor, Mario Cuomo in a recent op-ed, that there can be no funded attacks on any country without a Congressional declaration of war, as explicitly required by the framers of our Constitution.
But the Democrats are too busy surrendering to other Bush demands, whether unconstitutional, above the law or just plain marinated in corporate greed. Some of this obeisance was all too clear in the Democrats questioning of Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Michael B. Mukasey.
After the two days of hearings, no Democrat has yet announced a vote against Mukasey, even after he evaded questions on torture and argued for the inherent power of the President to act contrary to the laws of the land if he unilaterally believes he has the inherent constitutional authority to do so.
This position aligns Mukasey with the imperial views of Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Gonzales on the "unitary Executive." In short, reminiscent of the divine right of Kings, the forthcoming Attorney General believes Bush can say that 'he is the law' regardless of Congress and the judiciary.
After two recent lead editorials demonstrating its specific exasperation over the Democrats' kowtowing to the White House, the New York Times added a third on October 20, 2007 titled "With Democrats Like These..." The editorial recounted the ways Democrats, especially in the Senate, have caved on critical constitutional and statutory safeguards regarding the Bush-Cheney policies and practices of spying on Americans without judicial approval and accountability.
Accusing the Democrats of "the politics of fear," the Times concluded: "It was bad enough having a one-party government when the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues."
There is more grist coming for the Times' editorial mill. Last week, the first African-American chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel (D-NY), declared that Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, Jr., fresh from Wall Street, had persuaded him, during a decade of increasing record profits, to lower the porous corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25%.
"We can live with that," Chairman Rangel declared.
Would the working families in his District, who would be paying a higher tax rate on their modest income, agree?
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.
144 Comments so far
Show AllAnd to think that these assassins got re-elected. Crime does pay, right?
commander_n_chimp October 23rd, 2007 11:38 am
Ralph Nader, you directly enabled George W. Bush's presidency. The blood of Iraqi civilians is on your hands. The blood of over 1 million civilians is on your hands. Shame on you and damn all your words and works.
Clearly, the commander has the brain of a chimp as well, though it's probably insulting to a chimpanzee to say so ...
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000522/silverstein
posted May 3, 2000 (May 22, 2000 issue)
Gore's Oil Money
Ken Silverstein
... read that, chimp! That's a piece in The Nation about how Gore was willing to sit back while the U'Wa tribe was run off their land by Occidental Oil--something Gore has a LOT of stock in. Grasp this concept, inbred: In an alternate reality (see Pottersville from It's a Wonderful Life) in which Gore had won, we'd be protesting Occidental's presence in Iraq instead of Halliburton. Nader, in contrast, is an enemy of Big Oil, and him winning would've been the beginning of a whole new era. Get this through your head: Gore is NOT the chosen one!
http://archive.coanews.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=2034
Hi Peaceman,
I wish I could get my ideas to Ralph Nader about the value of building a network of arcologies as a way to solve our global crisis. If only one presidental candidate or peace movement leader would take on the role architecture plays in building peace, maybe the message could get to the public.
I have a powerpoint slide show about the new cities that is both visionary and practical. It could be used to spark debate. We could set up town meetings throughout the country to show and get people's opinions about the design lovolution.
But it seems impossible to strike up dialogue with most famous people as Ralph Nader.
Common Dreamer,
Doctress Neutopia
peaceman October 25th, 2007 1:17 am
About the intimidation:
Often wild speculations are off the mark. But, when you see things like Pete Stark's "apology" you can't help but see it as motivated purely by "stark" (sorry for the pun, but it was unintentional and just came to mind) fear. That makes you think of organized mafia-style intimidation.
And, you know, the recent Gonzales scandals, in which leading state justice officials were shaken down and intimidated, actually threatened by Republican party officials, including senators, is just such an operation.
Just how far into actual physical aggression and/or other criminal type aggression this type of thing goes is a matter of wild speculation, but certainly worth considering.
Manipulating Americans' desire for an third party is just part of a larger political strategy to keep the status quo. I've voted third party many times out of principle and a desire to change the political quotient. When was the last time a third party won anything major in this country? I remain ... cynical.
einstein; I like your last two posts. Good point about Stark. Pete is a fighter, an honest politician, votes progressive, and has been anti-'legalized murder', aka 'war' ever since our bloody military aggression in Vietnam. I'm as disapointed as you when Pete 'apologized' for making a statement about the worse president in US history, but you may be on to something about the intimidation.
I know exactly what you mean about typos and such. Never learning to type, I use one finger on this keyboard, so my comments, for whatever they are worth, are shorter than most bloggers.
Your 504pm post about Bush's Iraq catastrophe is significantt. Keep up the good work.
Doctress Neutropia; Wise advice indeed! If we don't alter the course, we may not see the 21st century. I agree with what you say, but very few of us ever headed Dr. Paul Erhlich's warning about overpopulation. Birth control is imperative if the planet is to be saved. The arcology concept is terrific and it would be nice to see the blessed Ralph Nader working with you.
LeeAnnG; Well stated, as others have said.
MaskedMan; You have unmasked the two partners in crime who share the same disguise and they are called Republicans and Democrats. But, the truth be told, there are some Democrats that deserve our votes and support. But no republicans at all!
How To Measure Bush's Iraq Catastrophe:
1. Take this headline:
Calif. Wildfire Losses Top $1 Billion
2. Imagine the damage and loss in terms of houses, lives, land as you've seen it on television. Think about the fact that all of this is estimated to be replaceable at the time of this headline by 1 billion dollars. (Probably it will cast more in the end).
3. Take this headline:
Bush receives $169 Billion to continue funding war in Iraq.
4. Think about the fact that Bush has routinely spent sums such as the above for just a few months of warfare in Iraq.
This money once spent produces no growth, kills life, and turns a civilization into rubble, increases the cost of fuel in the US and worldwide.
5. Calculate that Bush's destruction is powered by $169 billion dollars worth of collective US tax effort.
6. Calculate that the one of the worst disasters in California history since the San Francisco Earthquake and Fire will cost perhaps $1 Billion of US tax and insurance effort.
7. Then you can very roughly reason or estimate that Bush's action has a financial power that is roughly 169 times greater than the damaging energy of the California Fires.
8. And since the war is proven to be both unneccessary and unproductive of anything but destruction, death and economic dislocation (rising prices and failing treasury), you can roughly reason that Bush and his war are doing damage and definitely not anything positive and that the damage is 169 times greater than the fires in Southern California.
9. And in fact, the effects of constant bombing, military pollution, and destruction of infrastructure is definitely easily comparable to the effects of a natural catastrophe such as an earthquake or fire.
The natural catastrophe is estimated in dollars by insurance companies. The catastrophe of war is measurable directly by dollars allocated by an irresponible congress to an administration prosecuting a war of aggression, which is not legal by international law.
I ask you this. Who would know better about other peoples weapons of mass destruction? wasnt He right about getting osama very quickly or Iraqs weapons or our weapons or your weapons. Think Bush has studied to many weapons,sssssshhhh its what his mommy told him to call those parts of other mentaly challenged boy children.
Opin:
I don't know I looked at the Colbert poll and it's a little suspicious to me that a Republican polling firm did the polling :)
peaceman October 23rd, 2007 11:59 pm
Yes, sorry, my memory played tricks on me: Yes, it was Pete Stark. And what a shame to hear that "apology" for virtue!
Beyond that, I made another error. The poet and prose author who wrote I Claudius was Robert Graves, not "Peter Grave's" as I have written in my earlier post.
You know, when you write online, it's more like conversation, and there is a tendency towards sloppiness.
It might be convenient to have spell and grammar check for these blogs, directly in the blog boxes.
Why didn't Stark dig in and counter attack? He's totally in the right. As mentioned, he's guilty only of understatement, and he did that in order to be "polite," I suppose. To me it looks like public officials are being physically intimidated.
Right now, most of the stuff that is going down in Iraq and in the war funding can be characterized accurately by words such as "murder," "extortion," "fraud," "conspiracy to murder," "treason," and similar simplified terms, which should replace the many euphemisms upon which this scheme of alienation from real government is built.
Here's another phrase that would suit the government's stance on the Iraq war:
"The Public Administration of a Crime"
It's a contradiction in terms.
Thanks, JohnR for your thoughtful comments.
Suggesting that Nader enabled Bush to steal the office of president from Gore overlooks the complicity of Gore himself. If anyone "allowed" Bush to become president it was Gore. Gore planned and executed the crime by being a weak and ineffective candidate. He did not appeal to enough voters to gain a "victory" especially given the sad nature of our electoral process. In fact the anti-democratic attitude of Gore supporters, who argue that they would have won if we had limited the number of candidates also overlooks the fact that they lost in 2004, despite a substantially reduced vote for 3rd party candidates. The continued whining about limiting the efforts of the Green party and Nader, instead of concentrating on producing quality candidates who can win elections led to the loss in 2004 and is likely to lead to a loss in 2008.
I will not be voting for the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination if she does get nominated. I will not vote for her because she is one of long line of unacceptable candidates nominated by the Democrats. The Democrats have learned nothing since 2000 and actually driven me farther away from the party instead of bringing me back. If you feel better about blaming your own failed candidates on Nader, then so be it. But if you think that this is somehow going to increase your chances of winning in the future, you are mistaken. The reality is that you lost because you put up bad candidates who ran bad campaigns. It may be true that your candidates are better than Bush, but this is simply the perfect example of the low bar you have set for yourself. It is time that you did something worth admiring, such as impeaching Bush.
Stop whining and get back to work trying to elect good leaders. Otherwise, get out of the way because you are not convincing me or my fellow Greens that you are deserving of our votes.
Cars are Unsafe at Any Speed
by Doctress Neutopia
Green industries are promoting the use of alternative fuels to energize cars such as ethanol and biodiesel fuels. Well-meaning celebrities and conscious citizens drive around in such alternative fuel vehicles. A popular documentary What Happened to the Electric Car tells the story of the virtues of electric cars and how the petroleum corporations killed plans for its mass production because of fear of loosing the competitive edge. I've even read an article recently about a newly designed car that runs on air.
Converting cars to alternative fuels doesn't make less traffic congestion or end car related deaths. It doesn't address the issue of 60% of urban landscape gobbled up for car use. It doesn't solve the problem that arises under a class system of "car have" and "car have-nots." Alternative fuel cars don't liberate people from the slavery of needing a car because of poorly run or non-existent public transportation networks within urban sprawl environments.
When Ralph Nader published, Unsafe at Any Speed, it changed the consciousness of the American people and demanded that the auto industry build safer vehicles. But his activism didn't solve the problem of automobiles because it didn't go to the root cause of the problem. Cars are unsafe at any speed. Thus, cars are the wrong concept for our collective transportation needs. Not only does our addiction to fossil fuel cause wars abroad, but a war against nature at home. The private automobile has made it possible to destroy acres upon acres of land to build single-family developments that are totally dependent on the car economy.
To evolve out of the traffic-jam, obese lifestyle of fast-foods and corporate greed, we need to embrace the idea of the sacred arcology and build a car-free urban environment. Environmentalists united with this Great Cause could move the world's resource into building cities designed with evolutionary architecture in which transportation hubs are integral parts of overall ecocity plan. Arcological, holistic city designs incorporates transportation into the city like veins in our bodies are used to circuit blood.
The good life is the car-free life of transportation networks within solar-powered arcologies. I challenge Mr. Ralph Nader to work with me and others to bring arcology to the American public. This radical vision is the way I see we can defeat the "imperial presidency" both of the Bushs and the Clintons.
For the illustration to this essay please go to:
http://www.lovolution.net/MainPages/arcology/NaderArcoCar/Book_Front-cover_Nader.html
There's a poll that you can vote for Kucinich, others or even write in Ralph's name.
Democracy for America is holding a national online presidential straw poll. We are working hard to win this poll and we need your help. Please cast your vote for Dennis by following the simple instructions below. Then forward this e-mail to all of your friends and family asking them to vote for Dennis. If you are a member of any groups or clubs, please encourage them to vote for Dennis Kucinich as well.
If all of our supporters ask everyone they know to vote for Dennis and spread the e-mails, we will be successful in winning this poll. If we win this Democracy for America poll, then DFA will ask all of their members to volunteer for our campaign.
Three Easy Steps required to vote in this Poll.
1) Please go to the following link: http://DemocracyforAmerica.com/VoteKucinich
2) Dennis Kucinich's picture will be added to box #1 automatically for you. Follow the Instructions and vote for 2 additional candidates by dragging and dropping the other candidates pictures into box #2 and #3. If you do not wish to vote for anyone other than Dennis Kucinich simply drag and drop the picture labeled "Other ?" into box #2 and #3 and type in "Dennis Kucinich" in both boxes.
3) Once you have filled in all three of your choices a Registration box will appear below the 3 boxes. You will need to enter your Email Address, Zip Code, First and Last Name and then click on the submit button in order for your vote to be counted. That's it!
We really need your help in telling others to vote for Dennis in this very important Poll. So please share the above link with as many people as you can.
Please vote today and promote this poll strongly. The poll closes November 5th. If you have any questions, please e-mail us at dfa@kucinich.us
Sincerely,
Vin Gopal
National Field Director
Kucinich for President
Interesting insights shared here. I can appreciate the Nader supporters and the rage against the machine kind of position. Who can say it is not valid.
The issues are so broad and complicated (okay, maybe only for me at times) that it now seems like there are too many split loyalties. We sabotage ourselves with our good intentions.
And to try to assign blame for Bush is so silly. I know I earlier cast a shadow over Ralph's credibility (for me) because he could have saved us from Bush. That said, it is not just one thing or two things that gave us Bush. It is a thousand things. One of the thousand is Ralph and what he could have done and didn't as he assessed the difference between Bush and Gore. Did he really say there is "no difference"? Anyway, Ralph did what he did, and he has to own his little portion of responsibility.
Here we have the even the Times stating the obvious, "It was bad enough having a one-party government when the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues." and we still have fools harping on with "Anyone by Bush" foolishness, advocated by even the likes of Chomsky (if there's anyone who ought to have know better please inform me), that did nothing but reinfore the Two-Party-My-Ass Status Quo
I only wish that Dennis would be the nominee, BUT:
I agree that the Dems haven't done all they can. And it is true they can't break a filibuster. We need to elect enough, probably 9 and 10 for sure next election. And for sure a Dem Prez no matter who. The Supreme court is on the verge and one more conservative on it can undo everything that is still intact. And that will last for another 20 years. I don't contend this is more important than lives being lost isn't the most pressing issue, but it is important to realize that one more wingnut judge and they will overturn not just Roe v. Wade, but Social security, medicare, most large social programs. Remember Social Security only survived by a 5 to 4 vote in the 30s despite a court that at that time was liberal. Think of the damage that could be done, millions of seniors in poverty, no healthcare for them. Medicaid, Schip. If you don't think that the right wingers won't push for all of this as they become more and more emboldened, you are wrong. If you listen to right wing talk, their overall objective is to totally overturn the new deal of FDR, the new society of the 60s and 70s of the war on poverty, medicare, etc.
The electorate in the last 7 years has made the Dems extremely gun shy and the constant lies from prez and repugnets do echo across the land and it is unfortunate that this still resonates in the red states. I live in Georgia and hear the wingnuts exicited that this can occur in our lifetime; Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia are licking their chops for just one more wingnut Supreme court judge and we can begin. Justice Breyer, liberal is 87, Ginsberg, Stevens, and Souter in their 70s DANGER! DANGER! DANGER! Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, just licking their chops for one more wingnut
We must support the Dems and nurse them along no matter what!!! Don't vote for any 3rd party candidates, don't sign any petitions to get other candidates on the ballot in any state. THIS COMING ELECTION IS THAT IMPORTANT.
REMEMBER DIVIDE US AND THEY WIN!!!!!!.
LeeAnnG,
Amen! Amen! Amen!
As my hero Howard Zinn points out, in the 1830s, America had two pro-slavery parties. If everyone had chosen the lesser-of-two-evils approach, we'd still have the evil of slavery( Jerry Garcia, "if you choose the lesser of two evils, you're still choosing evil"). Abolitionists were the radical outsiders of the day.
Any successful social movement starts with outsiders and common people. Elites are always reactionary no matter the political stripe they wear.
I too will vote for Dennis Kucininch. His is the sanest voice projecting from the stage. I trust that he is for the common people.
CnC (poster #1 and subsequent) is simply wrong. Facts beat reflexive bile every time.
If Nader is responsible for 8 years of Bush, then Perot is responsible for 8 years of Clinton. The 2 party system just doesn't work. Its hard to imagine 300 M. persons well represented by 2 parties both dominated by corporate millions of $.
that's the bottom line ralphie - no matter how similar dems and repukes might be -- if gore was president we would NOT be in this war, would not have obliterated civil liberties, would not have been lied to.... of course the repukes would all still be thugs, liars, and hypocrites... but maybe fewer americans would be affected. No, ralphie you were as complicit in this debacle as the media who failed to expose an incompetent and lying faker, and allowed him to become president. add the supremes, and you have the recipe for disaster. but none of it would have happened ralphie if you hadnt divided the progressives. because of your arrogance that the dems and pukes were similar - you overlooked a few points. sorry ralphie. we cant afford it now, so STFU.
Kudos to all who have contradicted the comments of C_n_C concerning Nader's run for the presidency. If anyone believes that Bush's appointment by the supreme court could have been stopped with the additon of Nader's paltry votes need only look at the 2004 "election." The relatively few votes that went to Nader were quite insignificant in view of the concerted efforts by the Republicans in power in Florida to strip voters of their rights and other affronts to the electoral process.
In 2004, Ohio was targeted (it's harder to hit the same place twice and get away with it) rather than Florida, and unbelievable voter fraud took place. Much of this has been thoroughly documented, but few in the Democratic party had the courage or initiative to investigate, and those who did had too little influence on the real powers-that-be.
But because of the huge outcry against Nader in 2000, and because of my antipathy toward another Bush "presidency," I voted for Kerry against my better judgement. I believe many other voters did the same. It obviously made no difference.
My mantra has become "I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want and get it." I finally looked it up and found that this was a quote from Eugene Debs as reported here in CommonDreams last November.
It was a great article and can be found at this address:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1116-32.htm
I will never again vote for someone I don't think is the right candidate, and will write in the one I want, Dennis Kucinich, no matter who is on the ticket. If that means the Republicans spend another 4 or 8 years in the White House, so be it. So far, they have screwed things up so badly the party may never recover, and the Democrats continue to enable them.
I know people who don't vote at all because they believe there's not enough difference in the parties to matter. I used to argue with them, but since the "takeover" of the Democrats in 2006 and their dismal record of standing up to Bush and his minions, I see their point.
The difference between Hillary Clinton and the Bushies is that Hillary Clinton is in bed with big business and the Bushies ARE big business.
Once again: "I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want and get it." I definitely don't want Hillary Clinton.
If one assumes that WW III is inevitable, and many feel that a war over resources (oil) with China in 30 years time will be the trigger for such a war, then perhaps the time for such a war is now.
Consider that any such war would pit a Russia-China-Iran alliance against US and Nato allies. Consider also what our world might look like in 30 years time.
1. China will be the largest economic power with the largest industrial base, and a military if not quite our equal would have closed the gap to a much greater degree than today.
2. Russia will have developed militarily and economically as a result of its oil and gas resources and, gulp, free trade.
3. Iran will still have a good chunk of the worlds remaining oil resources and in a position to restrict the rest of the ME oil flows. They would also be likely to try and seize Saudi, Kuwaut, and Iraq oil fields in the event of a war. Even if they fail, the US and our Nato allies will not be getting much oil from the region once the war starts.
4. The US will still be a great military power, yet we will have an inadequate industrial base, and our work force that will be conscripted would be better at serving up French Fries and Bed Pans than fighting.
Keep in mind the army and navy with which one starts a war needs to be replenished quickly once the war starts and materials and equipment are consumed or destroyed. Without the industrial and HR base to replenish our weapons and manpower, well, remember Nazi Germany.
A War with the SCO (China/Russia/Iran) will be a 2 front war, if not a 3 front war. Unlike WW II, we will not have an ally of the Soviets size taking the brunt of the attack and a decisive role in the fight as they did against the Nazi's. In China, we have an enemy of 1.3 billion people who can easily occupy land in Asia giving them resources and manpower to fight a long war, something which was beyond the Japanese in WW II.
Also, unlike WW II, we will have inadequate domestic oil to fuel the war and would have to rely on Middle Eastern oil 6000 miles away, which as outlined earlier will probably not be accessible once the war starts.
Of course, we have nukes, but.......
Looking at what is happening in Iraq and Iran today in this context, one may wonder if we are positioning ourselves to win the next big war. If the thinking is that sooner is better than later, well........
As has been pointed out before, Clinton/Gore could be characterized as a moderate Republican administration. Would Gore/Liebermann or Kerry/Edwards really satisfied any true progressive? The right-wing authoritarians(the fuckin' crazies in Colin Powell's terms) are so scary it's easy to understand the Nader blamers. But we need Ralph Nader to be uncompromising, just like we need Howard Zinn to speak the plain truth. The lesser-of-two-evils method won't save the human race
Gore will run with Nader as Greens —- and win.
The phony two-party corporate Empire's political machine in "Vichy America" is done — you can stick a fork in it. And the only segment that doesn't understand the deceit of this contrived facade of the corporate Empire's scripted election plans for '08 is the MSM.
If the French could throw out the "Vichy France" phony government that the Nazi Empire had installed, we Americans can certainly throw out the more sophisticated facade of the "Vichy American" phony two-party government that the global corporate Empire has installed over our democracy.
How can commander_n_chimp put this on Ralph Nader's shoulders?
So you have to vote for the establishment or not at all I take it? I don't think so. Hillary the war criminal will not get my vote. Appently she will get yours.
She will be little better then George, she'll just do without us noticing so much.
"...interested in avoiding World War III, Iran must be prevented from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
I really hate to rain on your parade George but you might want to check with your intel boys; my reading says that Iran has had that knowledge for some time now.
Ralph Nader:
Who are you voting for [for Prez] in 2008 and why?
[elaborate, please.]
Where do these morons come from?
"Ralph Nader did not vote for the war in Iraq"
No, he didn't, but he enabled Bush & company to steal the presidency and is directly responsible for every disastrous thing Bush has done to our country and the Iraq war.
If Gore had been president do you really think we would be involved in this debacle now?
One thing that all of the citizens of the U.S. should realize now is that votes mean nothing when the system is corrupted. No doubt, Cheney and Rumsfeld and all of the Bushes and their ilk should be stretched out on a cold ground and tortured to death. But that would demean the people assigned to such a redeeming task and would be a waste of valuable time. So that scum should be taken to the edge of a deep, dry ravine of the Grand Canyon and thrown over so that they pile up in a great confluence of rotten scumbags, but that would make the people throwing them over feel bad for having to participate in such a horrific task. But, legally, something has to be done to those criminals who have sinned against humanity. So, what?
Progress Report
Al Gore = grade 'C-' - mediocre spokesperson for Global Warming (where was he when it counts, but I still appreciate everything he is doing now)
Kerry = grade 'F' - Did he try to deliberately lose? That is the only way he could have lost. And that includes quickly folding in Ohio.
Kucinich = Would be an 'A' if he hadn't caved in and put democratic party loyalty ahead of peace and justice in the 2004 election (when he withdrew from the race days before the democratic convention, he effectly silenced the peace movement's voice that had supported him up to that moment). His grade has to drop to a 'C-' though he does have potential.
Mike Gravel = 'A-' - This guy is also a contender for the 2008 Democratic race. He helped release the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war, helping to bring the end of that war in a courageous act. And he still says many of the right words. Kucinich supporters should start paying attention to him.
Bush = '0' (even lower than a 'f') How can someone in a leadership role cause so much harm, injustice, greed and suffering to society? Oh wait, Ivan the Terrible, Papa Doc, Idi Amin, Kadaffi, Saddam, the list goes on, and now it includes Bush.
Nader = 'A' - You have to appreciate well thought out ideas, critical thinking, solution based plans, and perserverance to appreciate Nader. If only the democratic party could have listened to him, but I don't think they want to because they are in the same room as the repubicans, looking to share the same bed.
American People = 'D' - At this point it is the American People who have to wake up or risk being asleep for the rest of history. There is so much at risk- a war president who wasn't elected (twice), unsustainable economy, global warming and other environmental disasters, dependence upon war economy, torture, GMO etc.
Wake Up before it is too late.
www.NotOneMore.US
Gore/Nader, Greens in '08 would be sweet irony with a good chance of winning. The question is, do we want more progressive leaders murdered? The best and easiest solution could be We the People Inc. How about it Ralph?
There is enough blame to go around. First is Bill Clinton, who could not control his urges, and gave Bush the opportunity to say that he would restore honor and respect to the White House. Naturally all of the Bible-Beaters fell for that along with others who were disgusted with Bill. Second was Gore picking Lieberman, who was no asset. Third was the suppression of votes in Fla and the Supremes stopping recount, which Gore and Dims did not fight.Fourth was Nader splitting the vote and giving Repubs the advantage of that. Fifth was the insane system of electoral votes,which disenfranchises many voters. Sixth is why would anyone vote for someone with a record of irresponsibility like Bush, with an arrogant attitude and a smirk for president?
"If we're going to blame people for Gore's defeat in 2000, let's not forget our 'liberal' media, who completely ignored W's drug use and National Guard AWOL history, while playing up stories that made Gore look bad, like the "I invented the internet" misquote."
Bush continued to be given a free ride through 2004. And what famous bill --or Bill -- in the 1990s gave the right-wing media green light for consolidation? hmmm . . .
Of course the Democrats would never ever continue to support media consolidation under the next president, no, well, hardly ever . . .
Thank you Mr. Nader, as always you are well informed and generous. I trust your opinion.
I don't think the record of the dems speaks to a better past or future under their power.
It was under the Clinton/Gore administration that the Iraqi's suffered horendous sanctions and bombings for 8 years; we were at war in Yugoslavia; That administration turned away from Ruwanda's genocide and it went on unhindered, and ignored; We got no universal healthcare; and harder times were in store for the poor under the new welfare and crime acts that Clinton passed. And while all these serious things were happening Mr. Clinton gets caught with his pants down and Gore has his eyes on the prize of 2000 and is considered an environmentalist.
Part of the tragedy for alot of the democratic voters is that they hold onto the illusion that the Clinton years were "Good" and the Gore years would have been even "Better".
Does anyone really believe, if they stop and look at his record as Vice President, that Gore with his running mate was a ticket of PEACE to the world? Does anyone seriously belive that if 911 happened with Gore/Leiberman we wouldn't have bombed a country? Do you think the bombing of Iraq would have stopped? How about the sanctions that killed half million or more Iraqi children?
To undo some of what the Bush/Cheney administration has done the peopled voted for change in the congress in 2006.
Pelosi won...and the dems are the majority in both houses. But a year later and we still have war; wire tapping is now legal; waterboarding hasn't yet been determined as torture by any of our three branches of government; and Impeachment is off the table so that the fragile dems can keep us focused on the prize of 2009.
Does anyone really believe, if they stop and look at the record that the Democratic ticket is for PEACE to the world? Does anyone seriously belive that if the dems win we won't bomb anywhere no more? Do you think the permanent US bases in Afganistan and Iraq will be handed over to Iraq? How about the oil? Do you think the minimum wage increase, (what a triumph!) when it goes into effect was enough of an increase to pay for more than you get now without it? The dems aren't the party of the progressives, the progresives have no party. I voted for Nader in 2000 to help start a party for the progressives.
When we the people realize that we are not part of the game played by the rulers and for the rulers, and that we are actually being used then we need to stop kicking eachother around, and stop looking for a savior. Let's start by not being afraid to act and vote our concience, and if we can't, then stop blaming those who do.
People who don't like Nader are threatened by how fearless he is.
Yeah! Gore/Nader! Nice combination. Except Gore needs to publicly reject NAFTA. How can he call himself an environmentalist with NAFTA on his record?
Divide and conquer. Also, I think Charlie Rangel is a WOD fighting, bribe taking demagogue. Gore/Nader Green Party 2008!
All the outrage and misdirection in the world is not going to ameliorate the fact that the election process in the U.S.A. is a total sham. Pretending that the U.S. could have gotten a different government by electing any particular individual is nothing more than a worthless talking point. The only decent president that the U.S. ever had was Jimmy Carter and the only reason he was allowed to be elected for a season was to erase the stigma of the abdication of that crook Nixon and his sick accomplice Kissing-ER. What the U.S. really needs is a real one party system whereby the people propose the candidates from among the citizens that they know to be good people from among their own communities. As long as the corporations choose all the candidates only the rotten scum will ever get in power. For a role model, study Cuba's election process. In their elections just completed on Sunday they had a turnout of over 95% and voting there is not mandatory. The difference there is that the people nominate all of the candidates based on their merits so that the best people society can produce are the ones which run government. In Cuba, democracy is real. In the U.S., democracy is just hollow epithet.
einstein; It was Pete Stark, one of the best Democrats in the House, who apologized. Charlie Rangel defended the president when Hugo Chavez criticised Bush last year at the UN.
Is it possible that the Dem Party loyalists do not see the irony in their bitterness towards Nader for supposedly helping Bush to become president? Not only did their party roll over for the stolen election; not only has their party failed to oppose a single significant element of Bush's agenda for the last 7 years -- but their party is actively protecting Bush & Cheney today, by "taking impeachment off the table."
What right do the Democrats -- the party of Bush collaboration -- have, to complain that someone else "helped" Bush? No one has helped Bush more than the Democrats themselves. No one has opposed Bush less than the Democrats. They could have filibustered his appointees -- but didn't. They could have exposed his lies -- but didn't. They could have run decent campaigns against him -- but didn't. When they took back the majority they could have stopped the war funding -- but chose not to. If any Dem Party loyalist is unhappy with how things are going, the first thing he should do is look in the mirror.
The president is not *supposed* to be capable of declaring war, torturing people, using the state apparatus to punish political enemies, spying on us, etc. All this jabbering about past presidential elections misses the point that there are 3 branches of government. The presidential elections of 2000 and 2004-- sort of-- decided who was to control *one* of these branches.
Putting a maniac in the White House should not be enough to destroy our country. The fact that an executive cabal of greed-driven war-crazed christo-fascists *can* destroy our country is the primary problem. Our freedoms and our democratic republic is supposed to rest on the constitution, not on the person of the president!
That's the primary issue, and its worth repeating: our freedoms and our democracy are not supposed to rest in the hands of one person, whether or not that person is elected freely and fairly.
The secondary problem is that our system of campaigning and elections and media coverage is so deeply flawed that it made George Bush, a cowardly poser riding on his family name, seem like a war hero, while Kerry, a decorated vet, was presented as an effete snob; it gave gravitas to Bush, a boy-man with no talents and no apparent purpose in life, and disparaged Nader, a man who has devoted his entire life to serving the public interest, with such great effect that as a private citizen he has done more for the average American than any elected politician. If you want to complain about the election, complain about the fact that the best man did not win!
The cure for this secondary problem is election reform-- publicly financed elections, mandatory broadcasting of debates and information by those broadcasters who are using *our* airwaves, and electoral college reform.
But we should get back to discussing the primary issue-- restoring constitutional checks and balances.
Al Gore, George W Bush, Hilary Clinton, Democratic Party, Republican Party; this is what we are being offered.
If you were a multi-national corporation trying to survive in the most highly competitive global economy in the history of humankind, and you controlled the military, the MSM, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, Justice Department, CIA, FBI, State Department, etc. Would you offer up any party, or person, that would fundamentally challenge your ability to compete in the global economy?
Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not much bigger then what we are being offered.
They want us to believe it is about tactics and really it is about strategy.
That is why it is not about the lesser of two evils. It is about fundamental change. It has gone way beyond the quick fix.
Look around, join with people building for the future, not just the next election. This is going to be a long struggle and it will take real professionals to lead it.
Those who blame Nader for Bush's election are simply passing the blame. They themselves are the ones at fault because they failed to vote for Nader. If every one of those who had illusions about the Democratic Party were as wise as they are today, they would have voted for Nader, and he would have won.
Gene De October 23rd, 2007 9:54 pm
"Nader is correct in what he says,but never forget, if it wasn't for Nader's ego, we never would have had Bush in the White House. "As ye sow, so shall you reap.""
Nader's "ego". That's right, only Democrats and Republicans run with motives that are as pure as the driven snow. Washington DC was a town that was legendary for its small egos until that mean old Mr. Nader came along. Anyone who oppposes the two-party system that God handed down to Moses along with the Ten Commandments must be evil and stupid.
I hope that your sarcasm meters have exploded by now.
Bush is now an injured animal. His legacy is death, destruction, and failure, the failures that was associated with his personal business undertakings before he became the Liar-in-Chief and then the Decider. He's got nothing to lose now, but his pack of lies. He's personification of Nightmare. Better impeach and remove this child-man before he hurts himself and others.
Ralph Nader should not complain about GWB whom he helped elect. Ask even Pat Buchanan, who at that time as commentator on CNN, gleefully thanked Nader for electing Bush.
There's a difference between intellectual analysis -- which sometimes can mask a desire for showiness -- and practical confrontation of social issues. Nader did the latter when he was consumer advocate. When praise went into his head and puffed him up, he became a showman, an empty exhibitionist. His remarks about this administration are empty as far as I am concerned.
commander_n_chimp October 23rd, 2007 11:38 am
====================================
Nonsense! Ralph Nader has/had every right to run for presidency. It's Gore's inability to stand up to Bush, including his capitulation even after it was clear that Bush had stolen the election, that needs to be blamed.
Go, Nader go!
Thank You Ralph Nader for getting the facts straight.
You United Staters now have one party rule and a n Imperial Presidency. Why do you bother with worrying who will get elected in 2008?
GWB will bomb Iran, Russia and China will start a war and Dubya will cancel elections ("It is war""). Afew nuclear weapons will be deployed on all sides ,military spending will go through the roof, rationing etc.In 2012 GWB will declare himself President for LIFE of the USA Imperium.
Arent we lucky to have a cocaine addict and alcoholic as the most powrful MAN.
But then he is Born Again so that's alright.
Let's all sign Handel's Alleluia Chorus. Please stand.
I always assume the people lobbying to split the progressive vote are Republican shills. Maybe they're not. Maybe some are just not practical but it sure works to the GOP advantage when their opponents are scattered to the four winds.
Nader is correct in what he says,but never forget, if it wasn't for Nader's ego, we never would have had Bush in the White House. "As ye sow, so shall you reap."
lino (8:50 pm) -- No, you're overlooking something. It's not primarily a fight between Nader fans and Gore fans at all. Rather, it's a fight between those who are astute enough to recognize that the 2-party system is corrupt to the core, and must be abandoned; and those who are still so brainwashed that they continue to think in terms of "lesser evilism."
The problem is not exactly the "dumbshit and the devil" who are pres & VP. The problem is that the so-called "opposition party" refuses to take the slightest action against those two. Bush & Cheney could have been stopped long ago, if the Democrats had been serious about stopping them.
What makes today's situation so dangerous is that the dumbshit, the devil, AND the Democrats are really all on the same side -- so far as the interests of most of the US (& world) populations are concerned.
Lets not fight among our progressive selves but rather figure out how to get a progressive movement rolling along. Its time to unite and decide on what course of action is necessary now. Strikes, massive protests,a strong message that outlines the dangers of fascist Bush and Cheney. Hillary is plainly not the answer. She might give back some of the powers Bush has stolen? Throw the bums out.
Just listen to the Democrats and their hatred. Then ask yourself if this is really the political party you want to be a part of.
We can do better.
Good points: AMACD, KIVALS, GEOFF 29, PAUL from TEXAS.
RICH M: I think some people need to believe in the democrats the way children cling to the belief in Santa Claus.
BECKY CAT said, "I'm gonna clone Ralph." I already did--in fiction that is. My book (originally a script Hollywood passed on) is entitled "The Caretakers" and will be out soon. It's in a self-publishing venue right now.
The next election will be a rigged as the last two.
Enjoy your dillusions.
Ralph Nader contributed to the election of George W. Bush.
No, Nader wasn't "responsible" for electing Bush, but he helped. And it didn't require hindsight to see it. Dozens of Nader's former friends and associates begged him to withdraw in the weeks before the election of 2000, after it became obvious that the vote would be very close.
Hypocritical Naderites love to knock down the straw man of "responsibility," so they can ignore Nader's real contribution to electing Bush.
Apparently Nader thought that running a third-party campaign from the left would force the Democrats to embrace more of the progressive agenda in subsequent campaigns.
How is that working out, Ralphie? Did you move the Democrats to the left? Did you move the electorate to the left? Not a millimeter!
Maybe it's enough for you and your bitter-end supporters that you vented your frustration. You told 'em, Ralphie! What do you care if millions of people had to pay for your gratifying self-expression?
Maybe if the Dims didn't put up candidates that make us Ralph, we wouldn't.
Better to have a choice of candidates. The myth of the "spoiler" comes from the back rooms of the Corporate Party and those who buy it dis-empower themselves.
With 6 million Democrats voting for Bush and 1.65 million voting for Nader in 2000 it seems like it was the conservatives of the Democratic Party that elected Bush not liberals voting for Green!
In Jacksonville Florida there were over 27,000 cast votes that were thrown out...80% coming from the 4 top Democratic voting districts.. the racially majority of all four districts being black! The two boxes of all the "bad ballots" were lost/misplaced for two days following the election. The two boxes were found by a reporter siting on the front counter of the Supervisor of Election's office! The ballots were never recounted because Bush had won in Duval County by 46,000 votes and the 27,000 votes thrown out votes wouldn't have made a difference in the county wide Presidential election. The state of Florida allows the supervisor of election in each counties to make the recount call. The supervisor in Jacksonville/Duval Co. was a Republican.
HBO, right now, is making a movie here in Jacksonville called "Recount"!
Go ahead " commander_n_chimp" ...keep blaming Ralph...see what it gets you. Your man Gore lost and then (just like your other spineless coward, Kerry) didn't have the guts to challenge the outcome. Now, as your murderous, spineless democratic congress shows -- crystally clear -- that your beloved democratic party is nothing but a whore to GWB and Wall Street. Please, shut the h-ll up.
I WAS going to add something before I waded through a veritable TSUNAMI of liberal/progressive blood and Gore (sorry) on the way to doing so. What a catfight! I wonder if it isn't this kind of behaviour that renders the Left in Congress so flaccid in the smirking face of privilege and tyranny.
The once-proud ship of state is foundering, our lifeboats are packed and awash to the gunwales, and here are the Good Guys, cutting each other's throats with true zeal. How productive.
Small wonder the scavengers feast so well on the body politic. They, at least, act in unison.
I would vote for Nader again except I'm planning on leaving the country before the next elections and settle back in my country of origin (after 30 years here). I voted for him in 2000 and want to let the Nader bashers know that if I hadn't voted for him, I would have voted for the Socialist candidate, so I guess he "stole" my vote from the Socialists... NO!!! He EARNED my vote! Stop pretending that the two branches of the corporate party are significantly different from each other! And stop bashing possibly the most decent citizen in all the US!
Yes, the Democrats are better than the Republicans around the edges, a few programs to help the poor and middle class survive. That's what sucks us in. But looking at the bigger picture, foreign policy, gigantic military budgets, civil liberties, the Democrats, particularly their leadership, their Lieberman right-wing, are a giant calamity. Slowly we sink into fascism, with the Democrats in power it happens a little more slowly. If the opposition party doesn't make the case publicly for an alternative to the current national drift, then what alternative does the populace hear? That is all that Nader was trying to do in 2004. And he is still doing it, for which I thank him. If a real progressive were to ever get the Democratic party nomination for president, you would find the Lieberman wing of the party sitting out the election. They would rather lose the white house than give up their own power base within the Democratic Party. That is what happened when George McGovern won the nomination. Right wing Democrats deserted the party in droves. John Connelly switched parties and became a Republican. So long as we are saddled with half a trillion dollar military budgets, Democratic legislation, even if passed, will never be funded sufficiently to make a real difference. Gore did win the election even with Nader running but in thrall to the conservative leadership of the party, he failed to make a progressive case. That is what lost the election. If we deserted the party and got behind a Nader candidacy, it would push the Democrats to the left. That is what happened in 1948 when Henry Wallace ran on a third party ticket. Harry Truman then stole his platform.
The comment section for the Kucinich impeachment article appears to be blocked so I'm going to put my two cents in here.
If so-called progressives cannot get behind Dennis Kucinich, we might as well hang it up.
p.s. I wish Nader and Kucinich would join forces.
War Hater,
Yes! lol
If we're going to blame people for Gore's defeat in 2000, let's not forget our 'liberal' media, who completely ignored W's drug use and National Guard AWOL history, while playing up stories that made Gore look bad, like the "I invented the internet" misquote.
I wonder what category I would fall into according to the Nader bashers? The only reason I registered to vote was so that I could vote for Nader(many I know did the same).
Since the democrapic apologists think Ralph is going to hell for the sins of Bush, I will follow him there, gladly. At least the conversations will be enlightening.
Bush invades or attacks Iran>Russia and China come to Irans aid. Sound silly? Not really since they have a military defense alliance.
Russia and China have been selling Iran advanced missile systems (the TOR-M1 and Sunburn missile systems are examples)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/sa-15.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2007/iran-070123-rianovosti01.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/moskit.htm
and Bush recently has been pushing to get the anti-missile defense shield operational as soon as possible. So obvious to be a defense against Russian missiles.
So when this nutcase says WWIII we better all be afraid.
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."
Abraham Lincoln
While I agree that we should put the 2000 election to rest and look to the future, I would like to add one last comment to chimp and his fellow donkey-party lickspittles:
"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush" -San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000
Maybe that deserves to be repeated:
"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush" -San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000
If anyone tipped the election to Bush it was the right wing of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
What these donkey-party Stalinists are saying is that if you aren't a Democrat or a Republican (or you can't be bullied or pressured into voting for either wing of the corporate duopoly) you deserve to be disenfranchised--or at least blamed and persecuted for the behavior of the candidates you did not vote for! Talk about political repression! What country are we living in?
Finally:
NO presidential candidate OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY would EVER BETRAY his or her party, millions of supporters, and campaign workers and contributors by DROPPING OUT BEFORE THE VOTES ARE CAST! Nader chose not to betray US—his millions of supporters, both inside and outside of the Green Party. That was the ONLY honorable decision he could have made. Would Gore have dropped out, leaving his party and all his billionaire buddies, the PACs and his corporate contributors in the lurch? NO WAY!
Enough ancient history. Thanks for the insightful and articulate article, Ralph. If you decide to run, I hope you will be the Green Party candidate in 2008. But even if you run as an independent--you'll get my vote again. And Chimpy, THERE IS NOTHING YOU OR YOUR DUOPOLIST GOONS CAN DO ABOUT IT!
I LOVE LOVE LOVE it when Ralphie writes a piece for CD! I wait to see how soon some whining, sniveling Nader Basher will empty his/her dirty diaper onto the screen for me. Sometimes it takes whole SECONDS! Like today when commender-n-putz was the FIRST ONE up there, probably with some dirty diatribes already written out for the next Nader occasion. First one up, the chimp was, then he was the FIRST to badmouth other CD posters and claim he/she/it has no more time to "play" on CD. Probably has to go play w/ itself there. More important to stroke the ol' ego, i guess.
Well I voted for Ralph. I'll do it again if given the chance. I'd do it today, right now. Just to piss off the Nader Bashers, I'm gonna clone Ralph and have him run for every office from POTUSA to dog catcher in podunk. Then I'm gonna vote for him every time. HA HA HA!
Thank you Ralph - A True American. Thank you Ralph Voters and Defenders! All you trolls just go back to your Fox "News" or your democrats or whatever the hell you fill up your heads with.
I don't get it. Your country has two parties, both of which are far to the right of the parties in most other democratic countries. Yet here some people are, blaming *gasp* a third party for their woes. Wake up America! This man who is your president is a threat to the world. You all need to stop thinking about yourselves, and concentrate on what your president is doing to the world outside your borders. You need more than two corporate, ass kissing parties, because what you have now - The Democrats and the Rethuglicans - is a horrible mess. It is not "choice" when both parties represent essentially the same thing.
Kivals is right. You need a viable third party that speaks for the people. Not at them. I fear your country is too far gone for that to ever happen.
I know simple answers to complex questions hold great allure. Though reality is of unbounded complexity, our models of it, because of the limitations on the number of clear connections and patterns in our brains, must remain finite. And of course the simpler the model of a process, the less energy it takes to maintain and use, and so the more attractive it is, until one considers the costs of its inaccuracy.
The Democrats are clearly different from the Republicans though they have many similar interests and behaviors. All Republican representatives and virtually all Democrats are slaves to the military-industrial complex, are pro-empire, pro-corporate and pro-capitalist, and generally claim to be pro-free market (whatever the hell that means). However, virtually all Democrats, though few Republicans, believe in environmental protections, transparency in government, choice in abortion and sexual preferences, a minimum wage, worker safety, health care insurance for all, providing the opportunity to go to college for almost anyone who wants to, the right to sue, the right to a lawyer and to a fair trial, Social Security, Medicare, etc...
As far as I can make it out, Democrats generally believe in a form of corporate capitalism that they think will serve the interests of the great majority, in the US and abroad, acknowledging that it serves some much better than others. Republicans believe in a vicious, rapacious corporate capitalism, supported by a secretive and authoritarian government, usually called "fascism," that is intended to serve the few at the expense of the many, in this country and elsewhere.
Since leftists, including myself, do not believe in corporate capitalism and despise the military-industrial complex, and since the Democrats are more risk-averse, i.e. craven and feckless (risk-aversion helps explain their entire approach as they, unlike Republicans, do not want to risk revolution), and thus can be dominated by Republicans, it is tempting to lump the Republicans together with the Democrats. But succumbing to the temptation to oversimplify can lead to dangerous and self-defeating choices.
The corporate media and the rest of the corporate oligarchy have the power to prevent any truly progressive or leftist candidate from getting anywhere near the White House until fundamental shifts in the political and cultural environment take place in the US, so progressives and other leftists should constantly reconsider and reevaluate all their options.
Commander in chimp..... you are such a dumbass you should be embarrassed to make political comments when you have shit for brains! Ralph didn't cost Gore the election (only the millionth time this statement has been made) Gore conceded to King George, Jeb Bush & Katherine Harris sabotaged the Fla. election and the Supreme Court threw out my and millions of other Floridian's votes in 2000.
Commander in Chimp why don't you pull your head out of your ass and get educated and then you can join in intelligent discussion.
Geezz!!!
yeah, these events we are living right now really aren't as bad as they seem because what happened yesterday could have been different, and provided what's about to happen tomorrow doesn't, then whatever happens a few days or years from now could be different too. that makes sense, right?
"on a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero" someone keeps sending me that on the bottom of their e mails.
"How effective is hindsight?"
The saying has it that we all have 20/20 hindsight; but it's clear that a lot of people don't have 20/20 hindsight, but have stigmatisms or rose-tinted spectacles. When someone is historically myopic & their vision is distorted in favor of Party interests, then they're going to have the same myopia, the same distortion affecting their foresight.
Nader said there are a lot of great people in the US who would be great leaders. He's right, too bad they aren't in office.
Perhaps a deep recession or outright economic depression would knock America out of its slumber that the current crop of politicians should be pitched to the garbage can as the totally rotted fruit of a corrupted 2 party system ... but then again that is probably mission accomplished for the so-called 'free trade' freaks.
How effective is hindsight? Someone refresh my memory. let's debate what would have happened had the US not invaded Iraq instead.
Let's all vote for another idiot, democrat or republican is of no consequence provided that idiot is just a jot better than most idiotic person we could possibly elect. That way, we can continue with our mediocrity for ever and ever and not have this discussion on the merits of what might be had what been been otherwise than what it was!
Maybe we needed to get firsthand experience in living with a disastrous totally conservative government instead of a less malignant partially conservative one in order wake up, realize that the lesser of two corporate evils is still evil and make some radical progressive adjustments. Even conservative friends are saying Bush is a disaster. Yes, we might have had Gore, but we would have also had Lieberman. Thank you Ralph. We've learned a lot from you.
RichM,
We all know Gore was defeated by Nader, by his own overspeaking to red states on gun control, by a backlash against Clinton antics, by the Florida mess and the Supreme Court, and maybe by a poor campaign. A difference in ANY of those factors might have produced a Gore victory, including, of course the Nader thing--whether you deny it or not.
We're debating Nader only really because Nader is busy meddling again. As a columnist, he can say anything he wants, but citizens who want something other than a Republican country will need to consider supporting someone else. As for what's intellectual or honest, you telling the readers what you don't like in others' posts is very effective in helping them sort that out, I'm sure.
Paul from Texas,
"Bush has approval ratings as low as those of Nixon during the height of the Watergate scandal. If the Democrats would stand up to him instead of enabling him, he'd be finished, politically, and the GOP would be vanquished."
Paul Krugman was warning that the regime was right-wing radical one, not a merely conservative one, very early on; and what we've seen is that criminality can succeed as long as the criminals are audacious. If someone unambiguously standing for true civic principles were to be only half as audacious, it would stimulate civic courage all along the line. The Vichycrats believe in sitting at a table rather than standing up & getting in their face.
WTF,
"1) We are all on the same side against the 1-party system."
Most of us are, but not ALL.
"2) Nader in 2000 is ancient history. "
The re-writing of history to suit a hegemonic regime is never acceptable. History is never irrelevant to present action. Democrats might have assembled a group of toughs to start punching out the finks who stopped the recount outside the offices or the SOBs who stood screaming outside the VP mansion during the month before the Supreme Court anointed the Smirk, but had been drinking ClintonAid for too long.
Dear Ralph:
Any thoughts on what to do in the event of a total dictatorship in the USA, as is now apparently becoming the defacto, yet still unannounced state of affairs, or affair of state?
I just watched Rangel's apology. It was appalling. Clearly, the man has been threatened, and is backing down from making candid remarks in a free society, remarks he is entitled to make. "Amusement" is a word that describes emotional reactions and physical actions which have no basis in real need. Such was Rangel's description of the war in Iraq, an adventure which beyond doubt serves no useful purpose to the nation and its people, nor to the world, but is being conducted at the behest and only to satisfy the desires of two men and their narrow base of supporters. Cheney and Bush give the "thumbs up" or the "thumbs down" at will in the arena of death that they have created in order to satisfy their own concept of an historical pageant. Rangel characterized this lust for power and war as "amusement."
If anything, Rangel is guilty of understatement. He should have apologized for that.
His apology makes me think of the fictionalized yet accurately depicted Rome of Peter Grave's Claudius.
Incidentally, the "imperial presidency" is definitely got something royal about it. That is it has become a royal pain for the nation and for the world.
PFT
I gotta' agree with you.
GREGG R
I just hate it when good politicians are dissed for something they didn't do. We've got plenty of other current candidate stuff to focus on. And Nader is certainly pointing out the Democratic shortcomings that bother me!
Folks, please settle down.
1) We are all on the same side against the 1-party system.
2) Nader in 2000 is ancient history. Let's focus on the present and how to shape the future.
3) The fact that y'all are having this argument is PRECISELY how status quo will be maintained from here on until George or his evil sister Hillary resume the reins of power in 2009.
Stand united. Stay focussed. Hit the streets.
I find it interesting that Democratic party flacks can blame Nader for Bush--when Nancy Pelosi holds the power in her hands right now to end the Bush Administration's reign of terror, by impeaching both Cheney and Bush.
And I don't want to even hear the "they don't have the votes" nonsense. Bush has approval ratings as low as those of Nixon during the height of the Watergate scandal. If the Democrats would stand up to him instead of enabling him, he'd be finished, politically, and the GOP would be vanquished.
Anney,
Perhaps you are right, the right number of votes may have been stolen anyway..
Still though, Ralph would have been more credible, maybe even heroic, if he would have stepped down and done what was right. We didn't know at the time how disastrous this would all turn out to be, but we did know Bush would be dangerous (see megalomaniac).
I guess the thing is for me is that Ralph could have looked down the list at what he says is important and seen in every area, it would be worse under Bush than Gore....albeit not perfect.
think of the credibility he would have today if he had taken this high road. If Bush would have won anyway, then Ralph might be well positioned to become the guy who begins to dig us out of this hole.
I liked Ralph, and we need someone like him, just not him. It must be torture for him to know his role in what is happening now.
Let's be honest about this; The problem was not Ralph Nader "stealing" votes from Gore/Lieberman, but rather the inability of so many registered "Democrats" to support a real candidate instead of their comfortable and silly poster children. Keep in mind too, that there were others who also ran but were essentially eliminated from candidacy by a Party machine that had already declared it would back Gore and Lieberman. Nader tried, however vainly, to do the right thing by being FOR the people not for the PARTY.
As it has turned out, Ralph Nader would have and should have been the right choice. As we can see, the Quisling-crats are only capitulating to on a regualr basis, to Das Furher, and our mistake was not backing the right person for the job. The current problems are our fault, not Nader's.
Ralph my vote for you in 2000 proves time and time again to have been the right moral decision. Thanks for your real leadership!
Daniel David (2:00 pm) keeps waving the pom-poms for Democrats: "Ralph Nader's third party in 2000 put Mr. Bush in office just as surely as Ross Perot's candidacy put Mr. Clinton in office in 1992."
- A nice example of the standard intellectual dishonesty of Dem Party pom-pom wavers. The statement simply ignores all the other important factors that jointly decided matters in 2000. The terrible quality of Gore's campaign is not acknowledged; nor is the choice for VP of the Republican-in-Dem's-clothing Lieberman; nor is the failure of the Dems to fight for Florida; nor is the defection of hundreds of thousands of registered Democratic voters. Just Nader -- as though the whole process had one & only one cause.
"But bringing out his (Nader's) editorial blowhorn now ...to continually belittle the only party that can actually defeat the Republican successors of Bush should be seen as a personal slap in the face to every beat down and struggling liberal ..."
- Again, note the typical intellectual dishonesty. Democrats are the "only party" that can defeat Republicans only because both parties criminally collude with one another in denying the public any other choices. Daniel David overlooks this -- in fact, he would have you think it's a "positive" for Democrats. // And nowhere is it mentioned, in Daniel's post, that Democrats never challenge Bush's policies; rather, they quietly support virtually all of them. What good does it do to have Democrats "defeat" Republicans, when Republican policies prevail, anyhow?
Nobody, it seems, is good enough for Ralph, except Ralph.."
- Again, an outright lie. In 2004, early in the campaign, Nader said he'd stay out of the race if the Kucinich campaign caught on. He only entered the race after it was clear that Kucinich was not polling past low single digits in most states.
rebelnow,
"To continue to respond to, or to even acknowledge, comments about Nader being responsible for all the horrors Bush is perpetrating serves the Nader bashers purpose of creating a distraction. commander_in_shit must be chuckling over his ability to get everyone rilled up. It's a waste of time to even respond."
It may be a waste in terms of persuading the authors of the posts, but it's important to be repetitive, to meet the challenge at any point where it's raised, because it's part of the strategy of the DLC to raise it. If the Democratic Party can be in any way redeemed from its current managers & moneymen, they have to be constantly refuted. Dull work, but necessary.
"He ran, drew some progressive vote off of Al Gore, and Bush was enabled as a direct result. This will be understood a century from now by historian"
The progressive vote was not going to go to Gore in any case; Nader gave Greens visibility.
And the "this will be understood a century from now" gambit is pure rightwing bollocks.