Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The 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?
144 Comments so far
Show AllYesterday, the polls said Stephen Colbert was pulling ahead of Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. I see a Republican in the White House again because the progressives, as usual, are scattered to the four winds.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/10/the_colbert_effect.html
"Mr. Nader IS NOT to blame, however, for the actions of George Bush. But bringing out his editorial blowhorn now (again) 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 in this country."
Nader spent more than half of this piece attacking Bush, and he should be criticizing Democrats. It's the actions of the Democrats that are a slap in the face to every liberal in this country, not the critism of their behavior.
"We're debating Nader only really because Nader is busy meddling again."
"Meddling"? There is no entitlement for the Democrats and Republicans to be the only voices heard.
"C_n_C told the simple truth in the first sentence of the first post of this thread. 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."
Gore won, Exit polls showed Perot's supporters splitting almost evenly between Bush and Clinton in a two-way race.
Impeach this SOB
stargazer's the closest to getting things right here. while you all throw insults back and forth about how great nader and gore are or how useless they are, the situation remains: we've got a dumbshit and the devil, both in office at the same time, who need to be removed. in any manner necessary.
. . . and now we hear Congressman Stark has apologized for rightfully blasting Bush . . . telling the truth . . .
Are the lives of democrats being threatened with extinction if they speak the truth? 'Something' is silencing them!
Every time a democrat or republican caves in it just causes me to even more suspicious of the 9/11 narrative.
But who is on the side of truth? Whom can we trust anymore?
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.
Ralph Nader did not vote for the war in Iraq but Hillary Clinton sure did and remember that Al Gore had Joe LIEberman as vice president.
commander_n_chimp:
Historically unfounded and an assault on one of the real patriots. Please, come into the present moment. Living in the past with your angry baggage helps nothing.
countess, nice try but don't even acknowledge the idiot poster before you, best to ignore it.
I think Putin is drawing a line in the sand, and Bush/Cheney may be insane enough to cross it. Y'know, bring it on, Vlady! You just bought a six-pack of Texas-style kick-ass!" I just hope we make it to January of 2009.
C 'n' C,
Lay off Ralph. The responsibility of this country's doom lays squarely on its ignorant populous. We continue to let others lead where we could easily do a better job. We need to get rid of the executive branch. No more kings.
C n C - and any anyone else who cares:
You can't blame Ralph for Dubya's reign.
Ralph is no choirboy, buy he is right on with this essay.
If the American people stand by and let him in the White House TWICE, (I won't use the word, "elected"), - well then, they get what they deserve.
How bad does it have to get before men and women of good conscience in America rise up and DO SOMETHING instead of sitting at their PC's tapping out random liberal responses, sipping Diet Pepsi and munching on Cheetos while our evil government wipes it's collective asses with the US Constitution?
As usual, Ralph makes a strong argument illustrating the unbelievable incompetence of the Democratic majority and the bewildering indeifference of the general public in the USA. This two party system is a F*****G joke and a devastating travesty foisted upon the citizenry of our beloved country.
Ralph was just trying to offer an alternative to the two party system.
Which, incidently, is long overdue for retirement.
I am sure that Nader knows as well as anyone that Bush's rhetoric never does and never is intended to match reality. Bush's handlers, the most important of whom is Darth, put ideas and words in his mind to transmit to the important parties, in code, what they intend to communicate, and it probably does not matter whether the talking monkey knows what he is really saying or not. Cheney is sending messages in code-speak through his monkey, and Nader is obviously trying to wake up the public to the possible meanings and implications of Cheney's code-speak.
Don't blame Nader for Bush becoming The Great Decider. Blame everyone who refused to listen to what Nader was saying as well those running for office refusing to address his cautions.
It's about time everybody comes to terms with the FACT that Bush and others in his regime have broken the law . . . or laws (of an infinite variety). They have trashed The US Constitution, The Bill Of Rights, The Geneva Convention, Started a war on lies which has seen the destruction of an entire country, caused the deaths of over a million, mostly innocent people (dwarfing Sadam by comparison); destroying the lives of American citizens, refusing to provide any health care for children, terrorizing congress and uneducated citizens . . . You name it; they're guilty!
It's time for congressional democrats and republicans to "remove the rot" NOW before they destroy another life, and America itself.
In other words, hold them accountable in a court of law; that's not just my opinion, but that of everybody I know and have come in contact with, including Republicans. America cannot survive under any form of fascism, black shirts running amok and forever placing our military in potential peril.
Listen to Nader and Kucinich, Gore, Dodd, and Gravel; spread their words; and beg, if necessary, for Hilliary and the other 'lesser of two evils' to listen and act for the benefit and security of The United States and the world.
There he goes, making sense again!
Think how different things would be if enough people had voted for Nader instead of "the lesser of evils." He would not have caved to a stolen election and the world would be a much better place.
C and C is just a troll.
Nader rules.
Democrats suck and deserve to lose again(by not protesting the 2000 vote they are losers).
It has to be a generational thing. It was horrifying during the blood lust revenge period post 9/11 to see news conferences that would celebrate killing people. The same type of Ramboesque bellicose epiphany wouldn't have been televised some years before. so it was a cathartic breakthrough of sorts, chilling with the evidence of historical precedent. Chimp at the podium hurling threats isn't new.
Ralph, I voted for you in 2000 and would vote for you again. The decrepitude of the camp followers who blame those who believe in democracy, and not in the horse trading and point-shaving involved in establishment faux-democracy has been laid bare in the last seven years.
Rep. Rangel's acceptance of yet another drop in corporate tax rates again puts the lie to the idea that the Vichycrats would be free to be truly progressive once they possessed unassailable majorities.
Posters like RichM live on Cloud Coocooland, in a schizophrenic world of delusion where Al Gore and Jesse Helms walk hand in hand. A world where Henry Waxman and Strom Thurmond are kissing cousins! You can't get any more contemptible than that!
Then RichM merely assumes that I am a Democratic party loyalist without knowing anything about me other than my dislike for Ralph Nader and his self-suiciding, political lemming followers, who handed over the country to a maniac, namely George W. Bush, and enabled the murder of one million people in Iraq!
RichM and others like him on Cloud Coocooland have never faced the reality that sometimes you have to choose between bad and badder. In 2000, the choice was between Al Gore and George W. Bush. In the years since, my opinion that Al Gore was a man of character worthy of our respect and support has been justified. RichM's position that Al Gore is a clone of the murderer George W. Bush has been shot to pieces. All that remains of that schizophrenic opinion are tattered shreds flapping in the wind!
Now Ralph Nader did not entirely sink Al Gore's candidacy, and I never stated so. But had it not been for the Ralph Nader lunatic asylum escapees in Florida throwing their votes away, it would have been that much harder for the Republican black bag operatives to steal the election. So don't even dare think you can slide by on that point.
RichM goes on to make some other points assuming that I put my imprimatur on each decision by the Democrats in congress since September 11. This is not only wrong, it is slander of the worst order. The Unpatriotic PATRIOT ACT, the Military Commissions Act, and the other undemocratic actions by this administration and congress are truly beneath the contempt of any citizen in the land. But RichM misses the point: had Al Gore been our president on September 11th, 2001, the entire country would have been sent on a different direction. I seriously doubt that Al Gore would have had someone as contemptible, inept, and morally bankrupt as Alberto Gonzales as his attorney general. But RichM wants us to believe exactly that. The drugs must be good.
I will never say that the Democratic party is an ideal, but I will defend until my last breath the idea that it is better than the Republican party. The Republican party would never in a thousand years have voted for the American Disabilities Act or the Family Leave Act. The Republican party will never initiate the call for higher minimum wages or pass SCHIP. But Ralph Nader, RichM, and the other schizophrenics of American political reality want us to believe that the Democratic party never does a single act of good for the American people and always acts in favor of corporate greed. This is sinister piffle and truly beneath everyone's contempt.
So RichM, put that in your pipe and choke on it.
I first voted for Ralph WAY before it was cool, but I don't know if I would vote for him again. I last voted for him in 2000.
And let me add, if I may, how very nice it is to, once again, see Ralph Nader getting openly pissed off, ranting, venting his spleen (in print) and just 'going off' in general lately.
This venomous diatribe is just the kind of thing we need to stir up the pot a bit and make a few people wake the F**K up.
Thanks Ralph, keep the spirit! While I don't agree with all of his idealistic rhetoric or everything he espouses, we sure need more like him!
"This is sinister piffle"
'Sinister piffle' is another bit of verbiage out of the R. Emmett Tyrrell/George F. Will bag.
Not that commander n chimp is a right-winger, just another Democrat-for-Nixonite.
Gore not only supported Gulf Slaughter I, c-n-c, but in "The Assault on Reason", he again affirms it as a just war, as he does the 'humanitarian intervention' in Bosnia. Nor has Gore ever had a negative word to say about the brutality of the sanctions in Iraq during the '90s, or any complaints about the anti-terrorism bill passed after the OK bombing, nor about the infamous war on drugs which had already started the shredding of the Constitution.
So, yes, we who live in Cloud Cuckooland look at the Clinton-Gore years as the overture to the Smirk years; corporate military imperialism with a human face is as insidious as its unapologetic brutal twin, even if it tosses a few bones to the citizenry.
Gore made very little protest when he was being swindled out of the presidency, Kerry couldn't wait to concede, after waging a campaign that appeared designed to lose.
And now it seems that they will put up another candidate that will never be elected, Hillary.
Makes one think there is a conspiracy afoot to keep the fascist reps. in power so they can finish the job of destroying the constitution.
Don't blame Nader for the democrats ability to lose elections, and what's the difference anyhow, look at what they do when they win, NOTHING
If Gore hadn't stolen all those votes from Nader in 2000, we wouldn't be in this mess.
This is the Democrats' war now, pure and simple. They can stop it any time they wish. But they don't wish it, of course. And the idiots who keep voting for these white collar criminals posing as Democrats are the ones who have blood on their hands.
Yes, RichM, you are right --- and Ralph Nader, not the consumer advocate, but 'the democracy advocate' is right --- that the Democratic Party in some important corporate imperialist sense is worse than the Republican Party.
Everyone with a brain seems to understand that the Republican Party (particularly under Bush/Cheney) is the more overt, nasty, proto-fascist, war party and the party most obviously supportive of corporate imperialist rule. But this was also true of the ruling party in Germany during (and after) the thirties. With that awful twentieth century horror and war of a single-party, fascist, corporate planned party now in our collective history, it would be tough to maintain the charade of a republic on such a consistent pro-war and rightward imperialist tract not being viewed by some large number of American voters as being a dangerous trend.
However, the phony 'relief value' of a second and alternative ruling-party, even if controlled by the same moneyed ruling-elite, was not present in the overt single-party rule of the Nazi EMPIRE.
By today's somewhat more liberal and peaceful standards in polite western society it would be very difficult to run a global imperialist war-machine anywhere nearly as effective as the Nazi EMPIRE with only a single, and obviously harsh, ruling party -- year after war-launching year, and election after war-accepting election.
Thus, the Democratic Party has the obvious benefit to any unitive global corporate EMPIRE that might be hiding behind the facade of this 'Vichy America' of being a propaganda ploy the likes of which Goebbels could never dream of.
If one envisions the ideal 21st century ploy of a unitive global corporate EMPIRE which has taken over the political, media, financial and most importantly military resources of the most powerful former 20th century nation-state, one could hardly imagine a better PR ploy than to superficially maintaining the image of a two-party democratic republic, rather than to publicly declare itself as an EMPIRE ---- and to use the 'Vichy-like facade of a mildly good cop vs. bad cop political structure to best hide and facilitate the global hegemonic goals of a very small and highly hierarchical ruling-elite of money and power which might easily control the funding, media coverage, and selection processes of both phony parties.
One can almost hear Goebbels crying from the grave, "Mien Fuhrer, I failed you -- I should have envisioned and formed a second party."
Likewise, if we Americans merely remembered and learned anything from our Sunday comics, we might think back to the obvious humor in Schultz's perennial Peanuts strip in which Lucy promise (again) to hold the football for Charlie Brown, and remember how dull we thought Charlie to believe the promises of that very same Lucy year after year after year. In fact, we may have felt somewhat superior in understanding the joke that the very same person continued to lie to Charlie and that we would never be so easily taken in and fooled.
But where's the joke in that comic strip if TWO different girls, Lucy and Demi (lets just call her), switched-off in alternate years, promising Charlie to 'hold that football'??
Well, the joke of that comic my friends precisely the joke of our two-party scam in 'Vichy America' --- with the never-ending lie really coming from the ruling-elite EMPIRE's 'player' calling the trick play for both Lucy and Demi to pull away the ball year after year ----and election after election!
With respect to Nader's title of this article --- what's the surprise in an "Imperial Presidency" if you live in an EMPIRE?
Answer: The only surprise is if you don't even realize that you live in an EMPIRE that's hiding behind the facade of "Vichy America"
Although it's an exaggeration to say Mr. Nader was "responsible" for the election of George W. Bush, it's certainly true that he contributed to it. Mr. Nader must have known that a famous third-party candidate on the left would weaken the Democrats, just as James Dobson knows that a well-financed third-party candidacy on the right would weaken the Republicans.
I also blame Mr. Gore for running a weak campaign in 2000, but Mr. Nader was even more inept. Has everyone given Nader a free pass for his ludicrous presentation because his heart is pure? Has everyone forgotten him slouching onto the stage in a rumpled suit, with a bad haircut, looking and talking like a second-rate accountant from Hoboken? Was it really good enough for him to mumble negative slogans and technicalities and then shamble off the stage?
If it was beneath Mr. Nader to make a decent presentation, why wasn't it also beneath FDR to look and talk like a President when he campaigned?
I think Nader is right on most of the issues he discusses in this article, but I also think it's hypocritical for his supporters to criticize Al Gore for running a a messy campaign and give Mr. Nader a free pass for campaigning like a resentful hoodoo that only a tiny fringe of the far left could imagine in the Oval Office.
To say that I would have supported Nixon is perhaps the second worst insult you could ever hurl at me. Only saying I would support George W. Bush would have been worse.
Anyway, I can't say that I am hurt by that insult, untrue as it is, being hurled by a supporter of the Arkan Tigers. I am gratified that Al Gore opposed the genocide of people in Bosnia. Good for him! I am amazed I even have to state this, such is the delusion of the Naderites that they cannot see this point.
Well, kids, I'm sure you have the entire day to waste playing on the Internet, but this is about all the time I can spare. Have fun stimulating whatever organs you stimulate when you talk about King Nader and his kingdom of apperceptions.
Hey, commander 'n chimp, you need to get a grip on some of the facts regarding the 2000 U.S. presidential election. For one, a third party candidate is permitted to run for the office of president of the United States. On another point, you need to review the facts regarding the Supreme Court stopping the counting of the votes. Get it? The Supreme Court stopped the counting. And as several investigative journalists have uncovered, thousands upon thousands of votes were not counted in Florida in that year. Check Greg Palast's reporting. Since 2000 a myriad of facts have surfaced regarding election fraud in many states. You should learn to read before you have someone type for you false information in a forum like this. Back off & get educated. The reason the U.S. is in this fucking mess is partially because of ignorant idiots like you spewing unfounded statements on various forums.
GO
GET
EDUCATED!
C_n_C: The US needs to find an alternative to the same oligarchic interests that control it regardless of whether the Repugs win or the Democraps. The sad point is that Nader got so few votes when he ran. Don't give me that age old shit about Nader losing the election for the Dems. The election was marginal because of Gore's feckless campaign and he finally lost to the scheming Bushies because of a rogue Supreme Court and a premature toss of the towel after Florida.
Gore won the presidency, but political triagulation, the decision only to ask for recounts in four counties, muddied the victory. Had he taken office, there would have been no September 11 attacks -- whether because they were tracking actual plots fairly well, or because the inside conspirators wouldn't have had the details necessary to stage the attacks in concert with war exercises.
Nonetheless, there probably would've been a US-led war in Afghanistan, with continuations of the murderous sanctions in Iraq.
Would Joe Lieberman as VP have been any less bellicose, vicious or fiendish than Cheney?
Voters like commander-n-chimp are the reason there's still bloodshed in Iraq. They're idiotic enough to believe there's a dime's worth of difference between Dems and Repugs.
I bet (s)he's ready to vote for Hillary, the favorite candidate of the military-industrial complex and corporate America. Hillary, Bush in drag.
Voters like commander-n-chimp are despicable, anti American and eternally beneath contempt.
we were assigned an authoritarian maniac to take control of the we the population, living in our ignorant medicated and televised bliss. someone soulless enough to stand up there, repeat the idiotic mantra signifying nothing but greed and more greed, and pave the way for will of the ruling classes in this country regardless of elections.
world without end or world with it, there wasn't much of a choice. For us, intelligent people like Nader don't have a chance of being elected. Perhaps it's fortunate for Nader that he wasn't. It's an awful role and a terrible situation to burden one's self with, if one is a sentient being.
If you are insentient, then no problem!
If Lieberman had displayed his true colours back in 2000 Gore wouldn't have stood a chance becoming President.
Ralph, you were advocating for alternative energy, high speed trains, blowing the whistle on corporate malfeasance and almost every other issue that has come to pass long before anyone else did. Thank you for your service to We the People even when it's not appreciated. I would love to see a Gore/Nader Green Party ticket on 2008.
c-n-c,
"To say that I would have supported Nixon is perhaps the second worst insult you could ever hurl at me"
The Democratic Leadership Council morphed from Democrats for Nixon. Gore was one of those who came in early in its re-baptism during the '80s.
", I can't say that I am hurt by that insult, untrue as it is, being hurled by a supporter of the Arkan Tigers. I am gratified that Al Gore opposed the genocide of people in Bosnia. Good for him! I am amazed I even have to state this, such is the delusion of the Naderites that they cannot see this point."
What blinds the humanitarian interventionists is that imperialism is imperialism; RAWA opposes the Taliban but did not support the American invasion, but had 9/11 happened, Gore would have justified an attack on Afghanistan with the same imperialist logic. An empire only replaces one oppression with another, usually one genocide with another. Herewith a link from 2001 from the author of "Blackwater":
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0131-05.htm
As has been well documented by Greg Palast and others, Nader was not the deciding factor in Florida in 2000. The illegitimate purging of almost 80,000 voters from the rolls by Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris of minority Democratic voters as ex-felons, who were not notified of their purging until they showed up to vote, when it was too late for them to correct the "error", was the real cause of the "close vote" in Florida. Gore was also his own worst enemy in calling for a recount in only selected counties, instead of the entire state. When it was too late, a press sponsored recount of the entire state showed Gore actually won the state by several thousand votes.
I had a chance to hear Ralph speak at the DC Greenfestival earlier this month. That the entire World would be better off if Ralph were finishing his second term as President now should not be in dispute. He still has the fire-in-the-belly to carry on the good fight after all these years.
commander_n_chimp; You haven't any facts to back up your assertion about Ralph Nader in the first post. About eight million Democrats voted for Bush, mainly the anti-Christ Christian fools, but pro-corporate Dems as well. The most absurd statement of yours is that Nader has Iraqi blood on his hands. I proudly voted for Nader in 2000 and do not regret it at all. So, by your logic , I must have Iraqi blood on my hands as well.
Attacking RichM who is bright and astute, and others, myself included, that are Nader supporters, hints at your over zealous allegiance and excuse making of the corruption and deceit within the Democratic Party. With few exceptions, the Democrats have helped Bush for almost seven years.
Staying with a party of hypocrites is not a virtue. Ignorance is not bliss...it is unforgivable, because when you bury your head in the sand and say "all is well", we wind up with this administration and this Congress whom have abdicated their responsibilities to their constituants and to the country as a whole.
Please...no more platitudes about the Dems. Go Green Party!
I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, He was the only reasonable candidate that I could justify voting for. I don't believe in voting for the lesser of two evils. Why be a hypocrite . We should be encouraging a 3rd party. Get rid of the all those old cronies in the system. The two party system, whose become very smug .They are simply out of touch with the average working class. They have far to many privileges. I don't know what happened to the democrats. They have either been corrupted or are being blackmailed. I have to agree with h buchman, "Listen to Nader and Kucinich, Gore, Dodd, and Gravel; spread their words; and beg, if necessary, for Hilliary and the other 'lesser of two evils' to listen and act for the benefit and security of The United States and the world".
Looks like Commander and his ilk are grinding their self rightous axe while ignoring that Kerry handed the 2004 election to Bush and his cronies without a wimper. Talk about intellectual dishonesty these nut cases eager to hand the white house over to Bush in a Skirt, i.e., Hillary and Bubba rolling in corporate & defense industry cash all to keep the Iraq war and its interminable consequences alive a contemporary national nightmare. When is Hillary's little darling go to Iraq or for that matter Mr. Chimp? All the DLC nut cases make me want to puke all over their candidate.
After 7 years of King George and the go-along Democrats, it is abvious that we need a 3rd and perhaps a forth party as Ralph Nader said more than 7 years ago.
Get the corporations out of politics and true democracy will take care of the rest! There is no other way.
Don't waste any more time on this C and C character...sounds like a troll to me. Said it before and will say it again, R. Nader is a man of HIGH integrity. Not ONE of the present candidates could shine his shoes. Mr. Nader has dedicated his life to help the average American citizen...many times at his own peril. This is a man that cannot be bought by any corporation or interest group and he's proved it time and time again. Do you know any politician who can say that? 2000 was a coup d etat and we all know that. Mr. Nader was not responsible for bush being appointed. If you want the ONE MAN that can change the two party dictatorship under which we exist, this is the guy to trust. If we have any sense about us, we'll beg Mr. Nader to get us out of this quagmire. Do you know of a more honorable man in the political field?
C_n_C told the simple truth in the first sentence of the first post of this thread. 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. Ralph had every RIGHT to run. 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 historians, even though a generation of Nader supporters will deny it to their graves in the near term.
Mr. Nader IS NOT to blame, however, for the actions of George Bush. But bringing out his editorial blowhorn now (again) 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 in this country.
Nobody, it seems, is good enough for Ralph, except Ralph. That was his real opinion in 2000, and appears to remain so even in 2007.
"over zealous allegiance and excuse making of the corruption and deceit within the Democratic Party."
The documentary "One Bright Shining Moment" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468528/ tells the story of how non-establishment Democrats got George McGovern the party nomination in 1972, which horrified the old machine loyalists; the subsequent story of the ascendancy of right-wing, military-interventionist Democrats, has yet to be told.
With Watergate, the near-impeachment & resignation of Nixon, the complicity of the Democratic leadership in torpedoing McGovern's campaign was flushed down the memory hole & all the Democrats who had assailed McGovern suddenly were re-converted post-Nixon. That is, it's always the 'centrist' Democrats who attack & abandon the left -- as the Clinton/Emmanuel Democrats did in recent congressional elections, especially in the re-election of Joe Lieberman (he didn't get in with just Republican votes!) -- and then attribute their own malfeasances to us.
Demerara said:
"Get the corporations out of politics and true democracy will take care of the rest! There is no other way."
Here is a way: Become a private corporation ourselves. Incorporate We the People!
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. Why stoop to the level of a 3 year olds mentality?
Katherine Harris, Jebb Bush, Roberts (the future chief of SCOTUS) and SCOTUS put bush in power in 2000. End of conversation. AND, I think Ralph Nader has every right to believe that no one else is as good as Ralph Nader. What's wrong with that kind of confidence?
commander_n_chimp: You live up to the last word in your screenname.
Nader did not give us George W. Bush; the neo-con GOP establishment did, and the closeness of the race was due to the Nausea Factor from eight years of "Bubba, Where Art Thou?"
If Clinton had been a more statesmanlike figure and less of a public disgrace, Bush would have never had a chance of winning.
Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program and poses no threat to any nation, least of all the United States. - Vladimir Putin 10/17/07
Putin made this statement the same day as Bush's call for WWIII.
WW3 would provide the perfect distraction.
The mafia (I mean administration) could then easily escape from accountability and prosecution.
Seriously.
I agree with almost all of the posts here, but Ralph Nader, at the 11th hour, could have made his point by withdrawing, showing that he was more interested in the country than in himself. He didn't and it is hard to look at this and not see the fact that without him, this nightmare of bush/cheney would never have happened.
c-n-c,
Perhaps your argument would be better received if you phrased it in terms of psychology. Personally, I think Ralph Nader realizes (perhaps deep inside) that his 2000 campaign based on "tweedledum and tweedledumber" helped enable the Bush regime to grab the reigns of our country. I think he feels terribly guilty about this and his guilt manifests in his attacks on the Democrats without equal or greater attacks on the Republicans.
Although his stories about the cowardly Democrats are true and need to be reported, coming from him they are unseemly and distasteful because it appears he is putting his own personal agenda to assuage his own sense of guilt (the Dems are just as bad as the Repubs) ahead of what is best for our nation and the world (no Bush regime).
He would be much more effective speaking out against Bush than speaking out against the Democrats.
But the question facing us now is that if the military industrial complex funding of Hillary Clinton wins her the Democratic nomination in 2008, who the heck do we vote for in the general election? Should we vote for the lesser of two war mongers?