I must admit that my optimism for pulling out of this proverbial political "nose dive" ebbs and flows.

One day I am hopeful that America will finally wake up and stop buying into the perpetual steaming pile of vacuous nonsense that is spoon fed to them, year after year, after year, after year, after year, after year,.... ad nauseum.

The next day I take a walk through a mall, a supermarket, a computer gaming store, a pharmacy, a gambling casino, a bar, a fast food restaurant, etc. Upon taking a look around at the crowds of empty faces rushing around buying products they don't need, consuming products that will ruin their health, or doing things that have no moral merit, it snaps me out of my foolish thinking.

Most of America is sleep walking.

Most of America has settled into a numbing and very dangerous complacency.

The American populace has pretty much turned into cattle.

Quality of life for most people living in this country is not quite bad enough to inspire most people to step away from their TV sets, football games, baseball games, gambling casinos, bars, cigarettes, video games, and a myriad of other distractions to really inspire them to THINK about things a little bit deeper. And the word, "THINK" is the operative word here. Most people do not want to think. Thinking is WAYYYY too much work for the average American citizen.

For instance, that's one reason why the Health Care System (actually, "Sick Care System) is a shambles. People rely on prescription drugs to fix health problems that could have been easily prevented by a healthier lifestyle if they had THOUGHT about paying attention to it. The majority of the American people depend solely on their doctors to do their THINKING for them. Ruin your health - Get sick - Take a drug - Stay on it for the rest of your life. Assembly line sick care.

Sorry folks, but that's the REALITY I see.

It's like that old story of the frog placed in a pot of water. Place a frog in a pot of very hot water and it will quickly jump out. Put the same frog into a pot of cool water, then very slowly turn up the heat. The frog will often stay in there until you've turned the heat up to a rolling boil.

If Ralph runs for president in 2008, I will certainly vote for him. I did when he ran before, I will do so again, regardless of the fact that other people think he stands no chance of winning. I don't care about that nonsense. I vote my conscience. Always have, always will.

As a true American patriot, the American people can ask for no one better than Ralph. By his 40 + year record, it can clearly be seen that he's on the side of the consumer (us). Who's side are the other candidates on?

I am so sick of this. You Nader, Third Party Hating, corporate lie buying fools are the only ones to blame for the current situation.

Yeah you. Because you aren't helping us push REAL candidates like Nader.

I'm proud to be a spoiler!

See that list above this post. You know who is responsible for that? It's not Nader. It's US. It's the apathetic, whining American populace that talks the talk but won't walk the walk.

It's us. Sitting at home playing video games when we should be out organizing. It's us. Wasting our time waving banners at war protests and pretending it's making a difference. It's us. Pretending that if Obama or Hillary are elected we'll get out of Iraq. (Not to mention all those other countries we are running military operations in besides Iraq.)

What's ruining this country is all of us refusing to stand up for our beliefs. If we woke up in November, and everyone voted their hearts, imagine what would happen. As long as we continue to buy the corporate media spin on third party candidates, we are just as bad as any other corporate hack politician.

Clinton bombed Iraq and starved children to death with sanctions WHILE GORE WAS THE VP. Read a fucking book.

The Iraq War.
The doctrine of pre-emptive war.
8 years of inaction on climate change.
Torture.
John Roberts, Samuel Alito.
Warrantless surveillance.
Loss of habeas corpus rights.
Politicization of the Justice Department.
Huge deficits.
Signing statements.
Response to Katrina.

All your fault, Ralph. Please don't do it again. I'm begging you here.

auspiciousbunny, you're right, we wouldn't be having this discussion; because Gore would have won & this world & our country wouldn't be in tatters.

Before one attacks Nader for Gore's loss consider some states Gore should have taken--states he no way should have lost. I believe Gore lost Tennessee (his home state), Arkansas (home state of the Dem president) and Missouri (a traditionally Dem state). None of these were effected by Nader, but Gore should have taken them and couldn't.

Marx remarks in his "Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte":

"Hegel remarks somewhere that all facts and personages of great importance in world history occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: The first time as tragedy, the second as farce. Caussidiere for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre, the Montagne of 1848 to 1851 for the Motagne of 1793 to 1795, the Nephew for the Uncle."

Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton, but to fall for the DLC machine, the same machine the propped up Bill's disastrous presidency is tantamount to being a participant in recreating this new tragic farce. Why? You say Clinton was not a disaster?! 500,000 Iraqi kid dead not a disaster? Invading Serbia, War on Drugs, gutting Social Security? See everything Nader says above. All part of the glorious regime of Clinton the First? Read Alexander Cockburn's book and article in NLR in 2000. Now, you may say Bush was worse, but then one is already in the lesser of the two evils realm. Good luck!

mglred

Would you please.

If Nader hadn't run for president we would not even be discussing half the stuff that we are talking about now.

If Gore had been elected he would have wasted his time playacting as a middle of the road Democrat under pressure from his party and the Republicans, getting his eyebrows waxed for the camera, instead of doing something useful.

As for Democrats, I voted for two of them..Both my Senators, they ran on a platform "Stop Bush". You shoulda seen it. Big signs, all over the state! STOP BUSH vote Democrat!

After they won, in keeping with mainstream Democrat style, they basically voted yes to every piece of legislation Bush asked for, Military Commissions Act, the war, corporate welfare, etc, etc. In exchange they secured new brick pavers and old-fashioned looking streetlamps for their towns.

"No more welfare tax to pay
The rich will have more room to play
But we're still liberals, it's okay
Let's get dressed and dance away the night.
While they kill, kill, kill, kill, kill the poor..."

nice song for them to use as a theme for this election

NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements that represented the greatest surrender in our history of local, state and national sovereignty to an autocratic, secretive system of transnational governance.

True, true. And as citizens, ironically, of our "indentured service" economy the outcome of these policies, we have much, much less choice today in this country then we once had.

And people are trying to flee the colonial economies the U.S. corporations have created, to find some way of supporting their families, while all our politicians can talk about is should we build a wall or give illegals a driver's license? If we are serious about addressing the issue of immigration and shouldn't we look right at NAFTA and the WTO and start talking about fair trade?

Not that its a new idea that Chiquita Banana can hire militants with machine guns to lord over farms for them. But now, this kind of thing is set as the law of trade.

For some skeletons in Saint Ralph's closet, see http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#luxury.

Look, let's face it -- without Nader in the race in 2000, Gore would have been president. We all know that, so cut the crap. And Al Gore is not a Clinton, and he is not a BuVoldemort.

Nader will take votes away from the Dems and will give us endless war with McCain. McCain is a mean, troubled, violent doormat of a maniac. And lord knows whom he'll pick for his VP who'll run for Pres in eight years (if 72-yr-old McC makes it that far).

And Hilary is not run by Bill. She's brilliant, a woman on her own, a senator with her own mind. Come on Dems, who talked you into this bull? OK, she may think like Bill, but perhaps that's one of the things that has kept them together thru all thir garbage. See whom she chooses as her VP. But don't rule her out. A non-vote or a vote for Nader is a vote for McC. Read about him. We know that he's a bit insane.

Give Clinton or Obama a chance. We can vote them out in four years. But McC will invade Iran immediately, keep Blackwater as his private army, put pro-life, anti-gays on the bench and who-knows-what else.

Nader has some good points to make, but believe me, he's not perfect. He has plenty of skeletons hanging around, and not so deeply buried in, his closet. Just do a little research.

He is a spoiler. Look what he helped do to what used to be OUR country, over the past seven years.

Dems, do not, for the sake of your conscience, switch over to Repubs, and do not waste your vote. Swallow whatever it is that makes you think that McC would be better than Clinton. Our future depends on it.

"Democrats and Republicans are two right wings of the same party, party of property." Gore Vidal

I became a naturalized citizen in 1998 and I happily and proudly voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Some may call it a protest vote or a symbolic vote, I myself thought of it as a vote of conscience. My understanding of representative democracy - putting aside for a minute that the US political system (its modus operandi consisting of coercion when necessary, but most dominantly crushing of the popular will through corporate fascism through a culture of distraction) is possibly the worst possible model that has ever existed - operates when voters vote for a someone they consider to re-present them, that is, stand in for their will, or more accurately, to be "present" when they cannot be. The closest someone came to re-present me was Ralph Nader, a man whose positions satisfied me and whose integrity was beyond question. Cognizant of how economic power operates and diminishes or strengthens access to political decision-making process, Mr. Nader has been and continues to be always on the side of those who have had limited economic means and even less political representation, just the opposite of Republocrats who like dogs with their tongues hanging out are eagerly waiting for a handout from their corporate masters. What Ralph and people with similar politics refreshingly do in our super corrupt political environment is to inject the question of CLASS inequities. Equally unspeakable among Republocrats is the question of Israel. Who amongst the top candidates or the elected officials would ever dare criticize the sacred cow of American politics. Ironically, one may find more critical views in Ha'aretz and the Israeli peace movement than American Politicians and mass media.

I am going to spell this out for the DEMOCRATIC sympathizers who read this page because it appears they have ADD or some other learning disability that prevents them from understanding this very simple fact regarding 2000, 2004, 2008, ad infinitum elections:

I, LIKE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER AMERICANS VOTED FOR RALPH NADER BECAUSE HE REPRESENTED OUR POSITIONS AND VALUES. MOST OF US WOULD HAVE NEVER EVER VOTED FOR A REPUBLOCRATS. A VOTE FOR RALPH NADER WAS A VOTE FOR NADER ONLY. DEMOCRATS LOST THE ELECTIONS SINCE THEY HAD FAILED FOR DECADES TO DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES FROM THE REPUBLICANS. LEARN THIS, ACCEPT IT AND TRY TO LIVE WITH IT.

Nader didn't break the unity needed to beat Bush. I didn't like the Democrat candidates even without Nader. Nader just gave me the option to vote for someone other than the Dems or Reps.

If you don't like democracy, why don't the Democrats and Republicans get together and make other parties illegal? That way you can limit our choices and this might increase your chances of winning, although I doubt it.

By the way, UnionGuy, I happen to know union members who are Greens and voted for Nader, so where do you get off acting as if you represent all union members?

All who are voting for the Clintons should first read the book "Compromised" written over 20 years ago from first-hand experiences of Terry Reed.

The Clintons are corrupt to the core and care not about anything other than personal enrichment and themselves!

And who can ever forget big Bill's heart felt promise to "grab a rifle and jump in a foxhole to defend Israel with my life?"
A bigger promoter and servant of ZOG there never was.

Since we're all making analogies, I want to let folks know how unionists see Nader. It isn't just that we're "Nader-haters," as one writer put it, we DO detest that guy, but there are real reasons.

When working folks in the shop are fighting for their rights, digity, basically their survival, we debate (and I mean yell, cuss, threaten and damn good speeches, too) what is needed to be done to improve things. But then we take votes in order to take some type of action, and then we all stick together and carry it out. The reason for that is because we have learned, through long and difficult struggles, that the only way we can ever win is if we're united against the company. That is because the boss is extremely strong. He has huge sums of money and can call out armed thugs on us. However, if we are together and don't break ranks, keep our unity stong, we can win!

That is just basic. First, we can fight for our postitions, but without unity, it doesn't matter. We just can't win disunited!

It doesn't matter if somebody has tremendous ideas. If he crosses the line, breaks the unity of the workers, then he sides with the enemy and hurts his own people. He becomes a SCAB!

During the Detroit News Strike, there was a scab who was a "progressive," or so he said. He had "differences" with the Union's strategy and he used that as his reason to cross the picket line and go scab for that union-busting company. That guy had a hybrid car, with a "Think Globally, Act Locally" sticker. He said he was a "socialist" and believed that workers should run the newspaper. However, according to him, "This was the wrong strike, the workers can't win and the union leaders are corrupt." So he "couldn't support the strike!"

That guy actually had some really good ideas. He could've helped that union, his former friends, a lot. Actually,I think that the union had made some errors, that in some cases hadn't thought things completely though. However, at the point the workers united and had to fight, they were fighting for their survival. When that guy crossed that line, he just became a STINKING SCAB! All the fine, wonderful ideas (that might've even helped out at another time) did't amount to a bowl of warm spit!

For us, the fight to defeat Bush wasn't a game! It was a struggle for survival! We didn't have illusions that the Democratic Party was our saviors. However, we'd felt the rage of those corporate bosses with Reagan/Bush in power and needed to get them off of all of us! Under Bush, we've seen the entire pension structure destroyed. Five of my co-workers comitted suicide after they'd worked their whole lives and Bush's PBGC helped them steal our pensions. Bush's people helped them steal health care from ouw people. For us, it was (is) a fight for survival!

When Nader broke the unity we needed to beat Bush, it didn't matter anymore what kind of wonderful ideas he had! He helped put Bus in office! He was just another STINKING SCAB!!

Four great candidates that have been or are marginalized by the domination of our political system by democratic and republican parties.

1. Ron Paul
2. Dennis Kucinich
3. Ralph Nader
4. Ross Perot : Is that economic sucking sound loud enough yet?

My goodness, people! With only two "legitimate" parties to choose from, there are LOTS of voters who do not fit the stereotype that Ds sell to describe what the Rs are, and the same is true on the other side. Very few of the Republicans are neo-cons and most do not like Bush.

Also, most Republicans do not like the ascendancy of the Religious Right within their party. Many Republicans are strong supporters of small businesses vs the giant corporations. They are shocked when they see almost all of our industrial base disappearing as those plants are shut down and moved overseas. They know no country can survive for long without an industrial base. They worry about GMO foods and the plight of the small farmer. They also worry about the plight of the whales and the turtle and the disappearance of the timber in our once vast forests and the fish long gone from our fisheries.

So,OF COURSE there are Republicans who genuinely like Nader and would both donate and vote for him. It does not make them traitors or somehow prove that Nader is flying under false colors.

For very visible evidence of this, just look at the army of Ron Paul supporters. They hate Bush as much or more than we do, but they have been mostly registered as either Libertarians or Republicans or Independents. Most Libs and Indys have switched to Republican so they could vote for Paul in the Primaries.

Wise up, don't swallow this 2-party divide that the people at the top of both the Ds and the Rs want you to believe. Believing that feeds right in to the hands of the neo-cons in both parties. Step back and take a hard look.

Seriousprofessor,

That was quite a leap.

First of all, I did not ever dispute the fraud that took place in Florida in 2000 or in OH in 2004 and many other places that never get discussed. I merely suggested that Bush's capacity to manufacture votes was not unlimited. The votes Nader got, eased the burden on Bush to create votes (or disqualify Democratic votes).

Second, I never said a thing about bipartisanship. I don't think there is any way to work with the current crop of radical Republicans. Anything they would agree to is nothing I want enacted. (That's why I think we need to get enough Democrats in there to make the Republicans moot.)

Let's try and be little more responsible with the assumptions going forward, eh?

Imagine: if Gore had taken office following his victory, we would now be witnessing Vice-President Lieberman's presidential run, and does anyone really suppose that Likud/AIPAC/US Senate's extermination plan for the non-Jewish inhabitants of the Middle East would've been any less aggressively pursued by the man who was an anthusiast for Gulf Slaughter I?

Nader will do exactly as he pleases ~Heather~ He always does.

Instead of wasting our time with another column on any topic, Ralph Nader needs to declare whether he's running or not. Cynthia McKinney is running. Ralph's wait-and-see game isn't fair to her. He said he'd announce by December. He endorsed John Edwards. Then he got into an angry exchange with Alexender Cockburn when Cockburn rightly interpreted the endorsement as an announcement that Ralph wasn't running.
Before he writes another column, Ralph needs to figure out what he's doing. It's not fair to front runner Cynthia.

VAGreen---The point that we should consider is WHY those Republicans helped fund Nader's disasterous run for office. They knew, as did the rest of us (really), that Nader would split the vote and help elect Bush.

Again, I'd ask; In our nation's (rigged for the two corporate parties) electoral system, what good thing, what positive program did Nader help enact, what negative horrible thing that Bush did, did Nader's run for office affect in the outcome of the 2000 election. Yeah, he said good stuff, but the FACT is, that he split the vote and all we got was Bush, endless war, priatization of everything, attacks on working folks spying on us and theogracy!

mikepeters, I did some googling. It does appear that Nader has stock in Fidelity, although it's difficult to know exactly how much. It's also difficult to know how his stock is divvied up - weapons of war aren't the only things his holdings are in. But it does appear that he isn't completely pure in this respect. Maybe the only person out there who is completely pure is Kucinich.

But the above doesn't have much to do with the article that started this discussion. Nor does it have much to do with why Gore lost the 2000 election (which was because Bush cheated). But it's very interesting, nonetheless. Thanks for the heads-up.

mikepeters (4:00), I don't know about "calm," but yes to well-reasoned.

The central thesis of the Nader article is that eight more years of one or two Clintons would be damaging. This idea stands or falls on its merits, regardless of whether one finds the messenger tainted (your term).

Let's reason by analogy. In our country's rush to invade Iraq, Robert Byrd was one of the few Senators to speak out against it repeatedly and forcefully. If your model of argument were legitimate, then we could have dismissed Byrd's protests at the time on the basis of his KKK membership as a young man. That is: he was personally tainted, so his argument must not be any good.

I find that approach to be madness. Ask yourself whether you want cancer research to be conducted that way. "Nope, he's a baddie. Discard his findings."

I argue that as progressives we have a particular obligation to proceed from compassion and logic, both of which are anathema to the right-wing extremists.

This is poignant in Nader's case, since he has unleashed a continuous fury from the Democratic Party that they will never, ever direct at their Republican cohorts. This fury is substantially based upon lies and sloppy reasoning. It is the tactical choice of the bully mentality.

I don't find it necessary to respond to your point about Nader's investments and so forth because we don't disagree about the facts there, and it is irrelevant to the article.

mikepeters January 27th, 2008 6:36 pm:
Googling and surfing yield plenty of assertive hearsay, but no conclusive documentation.

ticonderoga, sure. First, Google 'Ralph Nader Investments Fidelity' a few minutes surfing establishes he has extensive holdings with Fidelity (Magellan).

Second, Google 'Fidelity Raytheon General Dynamics'

thanx for your courteous inquiry lemmeknowwhatyouthink

Ralph is absolutely right ---- it's been "eight more years" at a time ever since the Democratic party sold-out to the corporatist Empire behind this facade of 'Vichy' America.

Eight more years of the same, plus eight more years of the same, plus eight more years of the same, plus eight more years of the same is about as long as it took the Roman Republic to turn into the Roman Empire.

The global corporatist Empire that really rules is hiding behind this facade of the 'Vichy American' two-party faux government and being hyped by the 'Vichy' media flaks of the empire.

Nader correctly notes that the destruction of the Glass-Steagall banking regulations painfully learned from the Great Depression was signed into law by that complicit lying traitor Bill Clinton --- and his deceit is now leading us toward the Second Great Depression.

Dems don't sell us out to the corporatist Empire any more than the proto-fascist Repubs do --- they just do it with more emotion.

Yes, Ralph, 'eight more years of the same' keeps adding to the legacy of both these lying and deceitful corporatist parties.

Eight years ago my hometown Boston Globe asked readers to describe what would ultimately be the 'legacy' of Bill Clinton.

My reply was the featured response, and as I read it today it rings even more true as this great deceiver and corporate con-man tries to project his complicit legacy through 'eight more years of the same' projected legacy by his corporatist clone wife.

"The Clinton's legacy?

It will be as the Neville Chamberlain of the Democratic party, and for the same reason: that he caved to fascism ---- not the old personalized, nationalist fascism, but a newer 'friendly fascism' of global corporate empire.

Clinton tried to triangulate corporate fascism with a slightly friendlier version, which could feel our pain while applying it also. He learned too late that you can't co-opt fascists by applying half their programs for them. They will only grouse and continue to do the second half with rougher hands on the controls.

Clinton has left America without the defense of a Democratic party ---- without an opposition party to the rule of global corporate empire.

Clinton and the DLC hijacking of the Democratic party was a 'one trick pony', as proven by Gore's loss.
Christopher Hitchens has summarized better than anyone, "The Democratic party is not so much dead, as actually, visibly, palpably rotting on the slab".

Clinton, like Chamberlain stepping off the plane, is smiling to the crowd, while waving the death certificate of the Democratic party, which he has just negotiated"

God save us from 'eight more years of the same' sell-outs to the corporatist Empire.

In 2000 Gore gave no indication of being any less a corporate enabler than Clinton was. Gore's joke of a campaign actually won the presidential election, though, but he was too timid to claim the presidency the will of the people had won for him.
So far nobody's shown any documentation to support a contention of Nader investments in the tools of warfare or in anything else. Disappointment hurts, I know, but scapegoats don't ease that pain really.

http://archive.salon.com/comics/tomo/2000/12/25/tomo/index.html

mikepeters, you mentioned something in your post that surprised me. Does Ralph Nader really have extensive investments in weapons of war? If so, where can I find this information?

Thanks.

Obama-Nader? Attorney General Nader?

Ralph Nader's presentation of "The Seventeen Traditions" on C-SPAN was one of the most moving, real, honest, down-to-earth (but still idealistic), funny and wise things I have ever seen.

Thank you very much, Mr. Nader. I do not know why C-SPAN shows it so seldom (as it seems to me, compared with other things that are repeated more frequently.) Perhaps a copy on CD is available on their website? Or at least a downloadable podcast?

I just cannot recommend too highly a viewing of this presentation. For one thing, Mr. Nader is much less strident and much more conversational here than we have seen him be in his usual TV appearances. No public figure is more comfortable in his own skin, nor more eloquent than the nostalgic Nader, reflecting on the American boyhood that shaped his values and gave fuel to his decades-long career of fighting for truth, justice and democracy.

National treasure? I second that emotion, or that notion.

seriousprofessor: thank you for your thoughts, calm and well articulated.

First you are correct I (and most in this thread) seem to focus more on the messenger than the message. However "eight more years" ....well the last eight have been marked by war and the upward flow of wealth primarily.

The messenger, Ralph, has extensive investments in weapons manufacturers i.e. war. Also his investments via Fidelity help fund the genocide in Darfur while they enrich him.

Thus, to me, the messenger is tainted by what he decries, war and the biggest corporations, both which he is heavily invested in according to his own FEC filing. (He resisted dislosure of his investments for years, easy for me anyway to see why)

Any thoughts re his investments in weapons or Darfur? I detailed these previously. Got no response then.

Oh yes, I did not equate democratic lack of support for unions to Ralph stepping on his sweatshop phone solicitors who tried to organize. How about Darfur and the investments in weapons manufacturer's though? That is (black) people dying. He's a beltway lawyer, he knows where his money is.

actually nader is a legitimate target for criticism on this subject (presidential politics) b/c he has participated in the presidential contest. i agree that bush stole the election. which is one reason i'm upset with the clintons (subject of article, right?). bill didn't help al in the election (in 2000, the same year hillary was installed in the senate) and he did little to prevent the brownshirts from marching into washington (no bill clinton on the streets of washington, hands raised screaming, crying for justice, speaking the truth - no, no bill clinton). also i agree obama is not a perfect candidate, i support him (as c kennedy did today and as i hope ted kennedy will do before 2/5) because he can win (contrary to subtly racist posts above - suggesting the candidate obama, cannot overcome racial barriers) and he can defeat both clinton and bush in one election.
it is incumbent upon us to make that presidency effective. by marching in the streets against war, participating constructively in community with others who are not of our political persuasion (for myself marxist), writing our congresspeople, speaking to the press, organizing etc.........
i think it's important to have progressive independent voices in congress, why hasn't nader grabbed a seat and sat down at the table and made our lives better, by participating with the others, in congress? Why? it is an honest question?
both starry night and our impressions of that introverted genius van gough are legitimate subjects of discussion...............

Ah, unionguy, but that's not what Starry Night was about, so if I ran my analogy in that direction it wouldn't have been apt at all. Too many "ifs" there.

The point of the analogy was that the article was about the Clintons, but it somehow generated a lot of posts about how rotten Ralph Nader is, which of course he isn't, being an American hero and all. Heck, the way the Nader haters work, he could write an article about the dangers of global warming 20 years from now and they'd yak away about how he "lost" the election for Gore in 2000.

It's Bush that's rotten. He stole the 2000 election, and not Nader. And Bill Clinton did a lot of rotten things, too, many of them far worse than simply lying about an affair (which is what Nader's article was about). Especially the sanctions that killed half-a-million Iraqi children. Oh well.

brissot, your refusal to acknowledge electoral fraud is almost as depressing as the "bipartisanship" that your guys practice with their Republican dance partners.

bottom line (to use your phrase): Electoral politics is a farce when you are compelled to support candidates whose positions and interests are opposite yours.

Have a bipartisan day.

Gee, no wonder the Bushes and the Clintons are so cozy.
Bless you, Ralph, for setting the record straight.
Don't have much hope for the country, but as long as you can generate 143 comments to an article in a day, we might have some. (hope, that is)

Some really interesting rationalizing going on by the Naderites to escape the blame for puttin Bush in office.

"What about all the people who didn't vote?" OK, what about them? There's millions that don't vote every election. So what? BTW, how did that work for you when you were a kid and broke a lamp playin ball in the house? "Well, they were playing, too." Uh, you STILL broke the lamp. Doesn't work now, either.

"Bush would ave stolen it anyway." As if Bush had an unlimited capacity to manufacture votes.

Bottom line: When you went ot vote in November 2000, there were only TWO candidates with any chance of winning and everyone knew it would be close. The Nader voters had a choice to put their narcissistic quest aside and vote Gore or childishly help Bush into the White House.

You made your choice and we've all been living with it since.

mikepeters (10:06), you seem to be saying that it's all right for the Democrats to sell out labor nationally because it wasn't all right for Nader to sell out labor at the company level.

You also seem to be saying that since he received funding from Republicans, that is bad, say, compared to Democratic unity with Republicans to exclude other voices while receiving funding from the same sources as Republicans.

You also seem to be saying that the points you raise, which have no relation to the merits of the article Nader wrote, are a basis for evaluating the article.

Since those constructions are such naked whoppers, I invite your clarification.

i realize it's gauche to recycle posts and refer to realpolitik in these murders (i mean circles)
but i'm always intrigued by 3rd party enthusiasts........

from younges article yesterday at CD.

iowablackbird January 25th, 2008 4:44 pm

"For the past seven years this country has been run on the basis of crude majoritarianism by a President brazen enough to treat 48 percent of the popular vote as an endorsement and 51 percent as an overwhelming mandate."

The dems just gained control of the congress in 2006 (largely b/c of a growing realization that the Iraq war was a mistake), but they didn't gain enough control to do anything substantive. a simple majority is not enough to override a veto. therefore the best the dems could do was stymie bush2. obstruct legislation by keeping it in committee, or tweak it with amendments to irritate the right. the democratic party is not a monolithic institution (as the greens are not a monolithic institution some are focused on economics and others are obsessed -rightfully so- with environmental issues ). in the same vein, there are dems of every stripe, some have to flock to the right to keep their seats in suburban areas and poor rural 'white' areas where many of the voters are wiling (b/c they're brainwashed? b/c they have vested interests in the status quo? of course) to return to the center-right .these seats may have been won by republicans if bush2 didn't put the match beneath the tinderbox (iraq) in 2003. the rules of the congress are arcane and catered to a 2 party system. it forces the 2 parties to discuss/plan etc… The war has dragged out (and war criminals like rumsfeld and bush should be prosecuted in US courts), the economy is teetering on collapse (b/c of systemic problems class; inequality, globalization, deregulation) and our moral sensibilities are questioned increasingly as time goes by to bizarre incidents like the noose in the tree in Jena LA and the murderous actions of blackwater employees in iraq.

an overwhelming majority in the congress - coupled with a president who, from experience knows how to approach people and listen. it's our best hope. it maybe ambiguous and vacuous but if we actually played a greater role in the democratic party . it's all relative, but there's no point in having a stroke, jumping up and down like rumpelstiltskin saying my idea good, my idea good when nobody seems to understand or hear what your saying - remember how attentive the average american is to anything, a person who watches like 4 hours of tv a day, {kill your TV}.

so many at this point are saying, hey man i'm going with the greens - the 3rd party. well how would that work? your saying i'm tripping b/c of the realpolitik, but unless the greens capture 1/2 the congress (50 sen/ 218 hse) the new green president will work with who? repubs, dems? i don't think this is going to happen and i don't see how coalescing around a single figure, in 3rd party realpolitik, will achieve anything. the key is to gradually introduce new prog's in 3rd partys to the congress (go ralph, get a congressional seat, go cindy). then they'll have political clout to convince people who do not even recognize that alberto gonzalez was the attorney general or that cheney is our vp (the uneducated masses). who's dreaming?

an example of how independents work in congress comes from VT, first with jeffords then with sanders.
jeffords, a republican who crossed over to the dem's to prevent a 51/49 majority for the repubs. a hero who stymied bush2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jeffords

"Jeffords made a deal with the Democrats according to which he would vote with them on all procedural matters except with permission of the whip, which would be rarely asked and rarely granted, in exchange for the committee seats that would have been available to Jeffords had he been a Democrat during his entire Senate tenure. He was free to vote as he pleased on policy matters, but more often than not he voted with the Democrats. Even before his party switch, his voting record was moderate-to-liberal, which has long been typical of Republicans from New England. By the time of his switch no Republican Senator had a lower lifetime score from the American Conservative Union."

and the one who succeeded him sanders (socialist ind.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21Sanders.t.html
"While he has generally championed liberal Democratic positions over the years — and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee endorsed his Senate campaign — Sanders has strenuously resisted calling himself a Democrat. And he has clung to a mantle — socialism"
"Sanders calls himself as a "democratic Socialist." When I asked him what this meant, as a practical matter, in capitalist America circa 2007, he did what he often does: he donned his rhetorical Viking's helmet and waxed lovingly about the Socialist governments of Scandinavia. He mentioned that Scandinavian countries have nearly wiped out poverty in children — as opposed to the United States, where 18 to 20 percent of kids live in poverty. The Finnish government provides free day care to all children; Norwegian workers get 42 weeks of maternity leave at full pay. But would Americans ever accept the kinds of taxes that finance the Scandinavian welfare state? And would Sanders himself trade in the United States government for the Finnish one? He is curiously, frustratingly non-responsive to questions like this. "I think there is a great deal we can learn from Scandinavia," he said after a long pause. And then he returns to railing about economic justice and the rising gap between rich and poor, things he speaks of with a sense of outrage that always seems freshly summoned."

it's a legitimate strategy, introducing independents (greens/socialists) into congress so leftist ideas could have a format. it seems more effective than having a green president trying to oversee a dem/reb congress (who will be uncooperative). Oh right this has never happened in this country — {last legitimate 3rd party candidate, finished 2nd in 1912}.

i'm donating to both the sheehan and kucinich congressional campaigns...........

LOL Kem, I'm in Florida so my vote doesn't count anyway. I did like Edwards but I think he's through. Now it's a matter of not voting for Hillary. I just can't stomach the idea of the Clinton's back in the White House.

Lobo Gris:

You're right about a lot of things. The current top Democratic leadership is too oriented towards big business and globalization, and sometimes I suspect they believe Dubya did them a favor snatching Iraq's oil on his watch.

I just believe the neocons are organized evil and totally rule the Republican party right now. Every one of the top Republican candidates would fall right into Dubya's slot and maintain the chaos. Its an emergency. We have to be united enough to turn these guys out.

It would be great if Sheehan upsets Pelosi, and other conressional seats go to third parties. A third party with substantial seats would form coalitions with progressive democrats and even some republicans. That's the way to go. Repubs out, a Demo Prez, and growing presence in the congress of a third party.

Did you hear Caroline has a crush on Obama, and Bill implied the "N" word on him? The best thing for this election would be to get Obama nominated and elected, and hope the establishment doesn't slam dunk his administration the way they did Jimmy Carter's.

The Republican Party isn't going to return to the party of Lincoln, or even Eisenhower for a long time. Its a big money lobbyists machine. Even Nixon was honest and liberal compared to the neocons.

The Democrats have always had mixed agendas. Southern whites who never forgave the Republicans, urban blacks believing in welfare and other entitlements, unions, progressives, the very rich wanting to pay back some of great grand daddy's scalp money, pork, pork and more pork, and the LBJ/Clinton power junky types who excel at getting away with murder while they are getting stroked by the rank and file.

Maybe Obama can transform the democratic leadership away from the Clinton "everything is for sale" back towards its roots. He is a breath of fresh air after Clinton, Clinton, Gore and Kerry. He will need every vote, because we are still a racist society. If he fails, then bring on the third party. Get organized for 2012 and 2016.

ticonderoga---

I think your analogy stopped too soon. If Van Gogh's "Starry Night" was about a picture of a bright night, that was bright because Van Gogh had committed arson and burned out the entire city, and then "Starry Night" was titled; "How to Avoid Burning Down Your City," the analogy wold be closer to the fact!

Funny, but although this article is about the Clintons, a very large portion of the responses are about the man who wrote the article. This is kind of similar to looking at a painting of "Starry Night" and going on and on about how much Van Gogh drank and why did he cut off his ear, anyway?

So, I might as well join 'em: What is it with you Nader bashers, anyway? Sure, we've got a rigged two-party system and it's going to stay that way until someone does something about it. And Nader has tried to do something about it, as did Ross Perot and as does the Green Party and so on. To blame anyone for trying to shake up our sorry system in any way they can is reprehensible. Someone has to do it, or else there's no chance it will ever get done. What? You think the Repubs and Dems are going to vote in a fairer system? Proportional representation? Instant run-off voting? Sure. No, we need people like Ralph to shake up the system, but the last thing we need is people who yak at him about how it's his fault. It's Bush's fault that Gore lost because his team cheated. It's that simple.

And guess what? Bush's team would have found a way to win, no matter what. Nader could have gotten fewer votes and Gore more and the Bush gang would have just cheated more. If Nader never ran at all, the Bush gang would have just cheated yet more. And so on.

Oh, and the best chance this country ever had to shake up this unfair two-party system has come and gone, thanks to Al Gore. Al Gore was the one guy, what with his rock star status and his movie and all, that maybe could have finally beaten the system, had he decided to run for President with THE GREEN PARTY, instead of as a Democrat.

Yeah, he might have done it, if he ran. But he didn't.

"The latter so-called "financial modernization law" sowed the permissive seeds for taking vast financial risks with other peoples' money (ie. pensioners and investors) that is now shaking the economy to recession."

WTO, NAFTA, REPEAL OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT: The downfall for the average person in this country while the wealth trickled upward and continues to do so as taxpayer money is used to bailout the banks and hedgefunds.

Now that Kucinich is out of the picture, none of these issues will be talked about by the front-runners because they don't plan on fixing them. It will be "business as usual".

liberal with an attitude January 27th, 2008 10:48 am

"That being said why hasnt Nader, the God of the alternatives taken the action to roll up his sleeves and create something."

Nader participated in dozens of Green Party fundraisers from 2001 to 2003. He has encouraged the Greens to run many more local candidates than they are currently. I'm trying to recruit them in my state right now.

mikepeters January 27th, 2008 10:06 am

"And money from Republicans? Don't tell me he does not get it, tell the press, it is well documented and reported."

As I previously stated, Nader got only 4% of his money from Republicans in 2004. So, 96% of his money did NOT come from Republicans. Some of the Republicans donating to his campaign may have genuinely suppported him. Exit polls in 2000 showed that between 20% and 25% of Nader voters would have supported Bush in a two-way race.

John Kerry got more money from Republicans than Nader got from Democrats, Republicans, other parties, and independents put together.

In any event, getting 4% of your donations from Republicans is a much smaller offense than what the Democratic Party did to keep Nader off the ballot in 2004. They tied Nader up in court with lawsuits that they admitted were frivolous, harassed and intimidated Nader's petitioners, sabotaged his attempt to get on the ballot in Oregon, used state employees to challenge his petitions on the taxpayers' dime. They gladly took the support of a pro-Republican law firm to help them get Nader off the ballot in Pennsylvania.

While they were engaged in all of these unethical and possibly illegal tactics to keep Nader OFF the ballot, the Democratic Party was helping to change the law in nine states so that Bush could get ON the ballot. Shows you who their real enemy is.

Ralph Nader, all talk, no action.
Bottom line, in order to create a true alternative it will take a serious movement and many years. you would first need to create a base. by getting alt. parties elected at the lowest levels, freeholders, council memebers, mayors etc. then congress and then the senate. if no base is created then the same argument that has been made for years will continue to cancel out 3rd party candidates, that they have no constituency and no one to vote with them and noone to caucus with.

That being said why hasnt Nader, the God of the alternatives taken the action to roll up his sleeves and create something. Maybe I am speaking out of ignorance, I don't follow the guys vapors and don't know what work he has done but I would think that if he rolled up his sleeves like Howard Dean did when he took his current post then maybe we would have options.

I dont disagree with Nader, and I like the guy, but talk is cheap.

Disappointed to read so many Nader bashers here. Keeping things in perspective doesn't rate very high in some minds. Nothing like trying to tarnish a good man's name. We had a real chance for change with Ralph Nader. I voted for him in 2000 and 2004 and I'd do the same again.

seriousprofessor: Ralph's underpaid phone staffers tried to organize, form a union and he wiped them out.

"so much for supporting labor"

And what about his money in defense contractor's, and in Darfur: anyone, anyone please, want to try and defend or deny that?

And money from Republicans? Don't tell me he does not get it, tell the press, it is well documented and reported.

I see we can expect the same intelligent voters going to the polls this year!!! They honestly believe a dinosaur like Nader is going to make a big difference? Grow up people! You can vote for him all you want but you are putting another Republican into office! So you can pat yourselves on the back and say job well done!

Yes, Ralph. RUN!!! (So we can put another Republican monster in the White House.)

It is nice to see Ralph Nader reviewing the obvious.

It is not nice to see the recycled lies and reflexive Nader-bashing by discussants who will apparently accept Republican policies as long at they're followed by a capital D.

Some of us remember what happened with the legislation that would have banned the permanent replacement of strikers. I think it was SB5/HB55. So much for supporting labor.

We progressives are such nice people.

We ought to be hot-wiring Diebold voting machines so that on election day we can exclaim:

"Well I'll be..... Ralph Nader Won 90% of the popular vote!"

Al Gore and John Kerry did a huge disservice to America by not withdrawing from the presidential race and throwing all their support behind the only true Liberal that ran. Ralph Nader is one of the few politicians I know that wouldn't have allowed the U.S. public to get hoodwinked into invading Iraq. The mere fact that Gore, Clinton, Kerry and Obama all supported the illegal and imperialistic venture in the Middle East speaks volumes about their true agendas... PLEASING THEIR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS!!!

Ditto - I too voted for Ralph in the previous elections. voting for someone rather than against someone just seems like the better action to take. So what is it going to be for this round - Nader/Kucinich ticket, Nader/Edwards ticket Can Obama and Nader work together? That seems like a strong ticket Obama/Nader, How can we get Nader in office - somewhere to inform decisions that are being made?
I hope Nader runs - I wish the democractic party would wake up and take a stance against global corporations and the downfall of possible peace in our life time - and put Nader on the ticket!

bbr-001 January 26th, 2008 3:13 pm

"The Dubya/neocon scorecard is, however, all bad. We broke Iraq and are now paying for it, and a "stagflation" recession is about the best we can hope for at this point. Vote the Republicans out and THEN raise hell with the Democrats."

And just what do you suggest everyone do to raise hell with the Democrats, threaten to vote for them again in 2012 if they don't straighten up?

A citizen's vote is the only power they have over the politicians that are supposed to represent them. If he or she refuses to wield that power negatively as well as positively then he/she can expect to be ignored.

Lobo Gris

One huge thing all of the Nader bashers forget is that if Gore had been able to win his own home state he would have been president without Florida. That is really why he isn't President.

Lobo Gris

I will vote for Ralph Nader as I have in the past because to me,he is the the finest president we can ever hope to have.
I never have to hold my nose when I vote. He is my choice. I feel he is the winner. his ideals are so patrotic and heart warming. It is with complete satisfaction that I vote for him. I look forward to doing it again.
Just saying....

So far everyone left out how extremely anti-union Clinton was. With his progressive social image he practically destroyed the union movement. Now the union movement is coming back. Though Bush Jr. could be more incompetent than less anti-union, but maybe his focus is elsewhere.

Clinton also, as people already mentioned, was almost as hard on the poor as Reagan and the elder Bush, but with his folksy casual dress, and horn playing, the poor liked him rather than continuing to organize for their rights.

We began losing our rights with the Cold War. Though actually during World War II, the war was won because we broke the German and Japanese code and was slow to react to Pearl Harbor and other German and Japanese atrocities to keep it secret that their code was broken. And scapegoated Japanese-Americans to woo Nazi types like Charles Lindbergh, who tried to join the Air Force on the condition that he'd to assigned to the Japanese front instead of Europe. Interning Japanese-American children was to prevent US Nazis from slashing tires during a severe ruber shortage for fear their children would be attacked.

The Socialist Workers Party dominated Teamsters Union was going to have a strike so the Teamsters Union was turned over to the Mafia to stop it. Then after the war the Entertainment Union was turned over to the Mafia to kick the Commies out. During the war, Communists were the best fighters and organizers against Hitler and thus were encouraged to take leadership positions.

Things got slightly better especially under Eisenhower and Carter, but Reagan had the October surprise and massive illegal donations from Marcus of the Philippines. Finally the country got some breathing space under Bush Jr., probably more due to incompetence then intent and many suddenly decide he's responsible for all the counties and world's woos and demand Impeachment to restore democracy. Especially Rep Robert Wexler, the neocon who once called Bush a fair weather friend of Israel, and pushed though Congress a resolution to praise Israel for attacking Syria. But I don't want to go the rout of blaming the Israeli Alliance for our woos, because bin Laden isn't stupid he knew Bush would attack Afghanistan, but hopes the US will withdraw into Isolationism as it kicked all the Jews and Muslims out of the country "to fight their wars in their part of the world not ours." Which would turn 9/11 into a total success from bin Laden's point of view. Which is why Moussaoui spent his entire trial as the alleged mastermind for 9/11 condemning his Jewish lawyer and urging America to blame the Jews.

Somehow most, who know what's going on, get fixated on Israel, but why give al Qaeda the world it wants?

RichardKanePA@aol.com,

80% of democratic voters would be satisfied with Obama or Clinton. Let's stop pretending the candidates are not responsive to the people or that the people have no real choices. The people and Clintobama are as one. Let's have a drink.

mikepeters January 27th, 2008 2:07 am

"Thank You Dr. Zen. I know Ralph is heavily invested with defense contractors, his money helps kill people in Darfur, but Halliburton was news.

In Darfur his investments help the genocide.

Why do the Republicans throw money at him? They know where their interests lie."

Liberal Democrat LIE: The Republicans throw money at Nader.

The Truth: Only 4% of Nader's money came from Republicans in 2004.

Liberal Democrat LIE: Nader is responsible for everything that has happened under Bush.

The Truth: It was Congressional Democrats who helped the Republicans enact the Bush agenda into law. They could have filibustered many of Bush's worst initiatives, but they chose not to. Nader encouraged them to stick up to Bush.

Liberal Democrat LIE: Nader SINGLEHANDEDLY threw the election to Bush.

The Truth: Gore himself took responsibility for losing the election. He ran a lackluster campaign, and was also hurt by Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. Liberal Democrats say that the Supreme Court stole the election when it's time to bash Bush, and they parrot Karl Rove's talking points that Bush won fair and square when it's time to bash Nader.

If you are rigging an election to win, how does it matter if Ralph runs or how many votes a third party gets? You just rig according to the trend on the voting day. I guess the above readers have forgotten the incredible summary article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the various techniques used to rig our elections. Here is a link: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/print

Also check out gorewonflorida.org

As for the Clintons, check out an in depth series of articles entitled "The Financial Tsunami" by F. William Engdahl. In part III, Engdahl discloses that our current housing boom and bust was orchestrated by Greenspan with the help of Bill Clinton repealing the Glass Steagall Act in 1999 that created conflicts of interest against good lending behavior. These articles appear on financialsense.com

Electing Hillary Clinton will only mean eight more years of Bush's same policies and probably war with Iran too.

I'll definitely be voting for the Green Party's candidate for president. Hopefully Ralph Nader will support whoever the Green Party selects this year. Although I voted for him when he ran as an independent in 2004, I think that we need a single progressive ticket this year: Cynthia McKinney for president!

http://www.runcynthiarun.org/
http://www.gp.org/

Thank You Dr. Zen. I know Ralph is heavily invested with defense contractors, his money helps kill people in Darfur, but Halliburton was news.

In Darfur his investments help the genocide.

Why do the Republicans throw money at him? They know where their interests lie.

Looks like you will have a choice between McCain and Hillary/Obama. Naders entry into the 2008 race would make it more possible for the neocons to stay in power via McCain (or Bloomberg if he runs as an independent). Hillary/Obama are the condidates for soft fascism, McCain/Bloomberg for hard fascism. Not great choices there, but one may be better than the other

A vote for Nader is simply a vote for the neo-cons and hard fascism.

Nader has pointed out many reasons not to vote for Hillary because he thinks Bill was such a disaster accomplished little of value. He overlooked the fact that we had a budget deficit when Clinton took office and it improved for eight years in a row so that we had enough budget surplus there was talk of paying off the national debt, which Bush has doubled in his term thanks to war and tax cuts for the rich. We have better things to do than pretend we are Republicans and dig up all sorts of crap to pin on Clintons. Edwards is a better bet, but if Hillary gets the nod, we better support her for four years.

KC look into McCain's father and the USS Liberty incident then look into who John McCain's wife is and her background and you'll have your answer. Look also at Pelosi's husband and then you'll know why impeachment over Iraq is off the table. These people want war with Iran.

Fuck off. How's your Halliburton holding, Ralph?

conscience: We need a national movement to a third party — And we need leaders who will stop supporting the Democrats and move us there

So a shepherd is needed to lead the flock? So the magical hierarchy should somehow form itself, keep itself purged of corruption, and dutifully serve the better interests of a population that has no idea what, why or how to take responsibility for itself?

Americans really need to individually take the bull by the horns and become mavericks with independent minds following principles and formulating policies that serve the individual/society's better interests. Then, people naturally gravitate toward the most progressive candidates for max benefit to the world. Failing this, we'll have to brace ourselves for lots more imperial blowback, police state, world war, nuclear holocaust, genocide, starvation, flooding, mass extinction, civilizational collapse, etc.

Don't forget that the key to successful societies is "elite" fear of the rabble. Some of the enjoyable and amusing things we can do is take the kids on field trips to disrupt and annoy the bureaucrats/plutocrats in their "planning" meetings, and tell the "boss" you're taking election day off - with pay - to mingle with the crowd.

Try writing in Ralph Nader and similar progressive independent/third party candidates in the elections and likewise vote your principles in general civic/economic spheres by permanently shifting your general exchange/association to your local community of small scale enterprises/associations. Failing this, expect for you, your children and grandchildren to be enslaved by the corporatocracy until the collapse, and then find yourself unable to deal with it, and dependent on food handouts.

There is a lot of uninformed, self-sabotaging comments on this board. All this tripe about "ego" and "Gore's loss" is straight out of the Nation Magazine and DLC smear-the-progressives (so as to protect corporate America) playbook. Nader is a hero of the people, pure and simple. Nader is one of the few people standing up for the public interest against the CORPORATE BEAST that has eviscerated the American middle class, brought on a US police state under the pretext of a false flag attack, murdered 2 mllion Iraqis over the past 20 years (and counting), and caused the greatest gap between rich and poor the US has ever seen. Nader is one of the few public intellectuals speaking on behalf of Palestinians against their Zionist slavemasters. Gore, Bush, Clinton, McCain, and in my mind even Edwards are all shills. They don't sound, look, or feel convincing. Nor are their policies. That people think Edwards all of a sudden is a populist now is a joke. Look for people with lives dedicated to service and the reduction of human suffering -- as opposed to self-aggrandizement and catering to the rich and powerful. Nader is one of the few who fit these criteria.

I am going to be watching Nader and McKinney closely in the coming months. I've donated $200 to the Greens -- I suggest you do what you can to help them (until we can enact mandatory public funding for these elections).

I am also watching Ron Paul very closely, and have given to him as well. The most important goal right now is a big government/corporate PUSH BACK. We're on the verge of martial law and major loss of civil liberties, with detentions for intellectual dissidents. I am not joking. This is what the corporate elite want. So what if Paul doesn't like Social Security, Single Payer, or Abortion. I believe there are workarounds on those matters, and we are all toast if multinationals continue to charge up our treasury debt to over $10 trillion and consolidate power in Washington so that their bought congress can continue to vacuum up anything not riveted to this nation's floor and hand it over to them.

Paul wants all the troops home (that are now stationed in over 130 countries). He wants to overturn the Patriot Act, dissolve Homeland Security, dissolve the Rockefeller cartel that prints our money out of thin air (ie the Federal Reserve) and put the dollar back on the gold standard. Read up on him. He's up there with Nader as a man of virtue and principle. He MAY have a shot at the nomination. He's the only true conservative Republican in a field of fascists. They all squirm when he's around. Like Ralph, he speaks truth. Listen to him.

I've been watching and listening a lot at Alex Jones' Prison Planet. Try some of his movies at You Tube, like Terror Storm and End Game. I really believe that too often, big centralized government becomes the enemy of freedom, especially when it is overrun by corporate interests. After seeing Jones' treatments of Hitler and Bush parallels, I am very concerned. We don't have much time. Paul would be chemotherapy to a government gone cancerous. Maybe later, after we've gotten WallStreet off the government gravy train, and when there are not so many financial conflicts of interest in Congress, we can start to do more at the national level. But for the present, the situation is totally out of hand, and we need to cede a lot of authority back to the states and the local communities. That's my opinion at least.

******

peaceman: you posted a wonderful response to me a few days ago in that Iran War thread. I will try to post a response by tomorrow morning, and will let you know when I do. BTW, I am right there with you in encouraging Nader to make a 2008 run (either with McKinney, Paul, or MAYBE Edwards). Kucinich got screwed, that's for sure. There should be RULES governing debates that would ensure that a voice like his be heard. As for Paul, he has a libertarian, Christian, militia base that is a real witches' brew for Wall Street. I think Paul can get 30-40% of the electorate no problem, provided there is no Diebold or Republican/Democrat tampering of eligibility lists or other malfeasance.

I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004, and I have the utmost respect for him. I hesitate to question his analysis -- for fear he might respond and crush me like a bug -- but it appears that in making the point that Bill Clinton was a disappointment as president Ralph may have left out a few things.

Clinton took office after corporate money had taken control of our national elections and turned the media into a propaganda arm for Republicans (witness the media's pass on Bush #1's extra-marital affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald, but their feeding frenzy on Bill's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky), and after twelve years of toxic Reagan/Bush rhetoric and it's corrosive effect on public opinion.

Yes, the Cold War was over and we expected a "peace dividend," but as I recall Clinton did indeed cut the military budget and tried to apply the savings to universal healthcare. But, corporate interests, with help from their congressional lackeys and media minions, were too powerful. They not only stopped universal healthcare, they generated a public opinion backlash that swept the Democrats from power in both the House and Senate, and for the next six years Bill Clinton was stymied by a Republican Congress.

Yes, Clinton was "devoid of modest political courage, a blurrer of differences with the Republican opposition party and anything but the decisive transforming leader he promised to be . . ." as Nader reminds us, but it's also true there were powerful forces aligned against him.

Nader is famous for saying there's "not a dime's worth of difference" between the Republicans and the Democrats, but I think there may be a little more difference than that. In my opinion, it's dangerous to conflate Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter with the likes of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Imagine, for example, a scale with George W. Bush rating zero on one end and Ralph Nader rating 100 on the other end. Where would Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton rate on that scale? I suggest (off the top of my head) Reagan may rate a 20 and Bill Clinton may rate a 40. In other words, there is twenty cents difference between Reagan and Clinton, but Clinton is still sixty cents short of a dollar.

KIM and Varda---Please, explain to me what postive program, what good thing, what bad thing was stopped, by Nader running for office in our (rigged for the 2 corporate parties) system. What our nation's people ended up with was Bush, endless war, massive organized union busting, destruction of our entire pension structure, privatization of everything possible, theocracy, attacks on women's rights, homophobia, endless war and the most massive redistribution of wealth, upwards, in our nation's history. Oh yeah, and now we've got the biggest economic bust since the Great Depression! What Nader did, in fact, is break the unity that was needed to block the most vicious attacks of the corporations on our people! Yeah, he said good stuff, but the FACT is that is only concrete result of his run for office (besides totally isolating Nader) was that it helped elect Bush!

I do actually agree that a new political party, based on working people, middle classes, African Americans and Latinos, women, GLBT folks, with strong progressive values is needed. However, the building of that new party needs those main forces for it to have any effectiveness. The conditions are growing for a new party, but the indispensable first step that MUST be accomplished first is to DEFEAT THE ULTRA-RIGHT! Absolutely no positive change is possible with the extreme ultra-right wing Republicans in power! They must be defeated!

A new poltical party of substance will be born out of the struggles of our people. Right now the main, mass forces are all working their asses off to defeat the GOP/ultra-right in the upcoming elections. Those main forces, unions, others, are fighting for universal health care, to end the war, housing, jobs, envirnmental changes, pension rights and the right of workers to organize. A new Democratic administration will be faced with a huge economic crisis and a massive people's movement demanding changes. AT THAT TIME they will have to respond and bring those changes about, or conditions would be ripe for those strong peole's forces to form some sort of new People's Party.

The problem is not Ralph Nader, it is our dysfunctional system which has been taken over by the corporations. Ralph has been warning us about this for many years, but has been ignored. We have a clueless electorate that votes for the candidate with the most money. The ratio between the number of votes a candidate gets and the amount of money spent is direct.

The Democrats will destroy the middle class as surely as the Republicans. Clinton certainly did his share, but the public is so uninformed, they don't know what hit them. I do, and as long as we have a Democrat or Republican running the country, we will have the corporations picking our bones. I had hopes for Edwards, but it looks like he's toast.

kathyodat

Bravo to the comment that FRAUD is what cost Gore the presidency.
Bush Jr.'s election was due to fraud and upheld by the Supreme Court packed with republican political appointees. I must agree that Clinton should have used the VETO to whip his then-Republican congress into shape. Clinton should have insisted on progressive legislation along with any republicans "reforms." Take Welfare reform--it has been successful in helping people return to work when it started, during a good economy, but it should have had a much stronger safety net when the economy got worse. Free trade may have benefited big business and those who work for them, but he should have insisted on reforming abuses of labor before signing free trade agreements. Why not demand healthcare for all before continuing free trade? Why not demand a living minimum wage before allowing further illegal immigration. We need a strong progressive President to return us to the values that make our country strong--freedom, truth, equality.

Minor candidates and third parties have been marginalized by the MSM. It does no good for these people to run unless they can force media attention or buy their own.

One bright spot is that the Clintons are political animals. If they see a gain to doing something progressive they will do it and claim the idea for their own. The neocons will fight to the death for the most insignificant increase in fascism with no regard for the public will. You have to pry power from their cold dead fingers.

KEM PATRICK January 26th, 2008 10:14 pm

"Do you mean Bush won becuse Bill had a BJ?

You know what, I do believe you are right. It sure did get the evangilicals steamed up"

I don't think it was the only reason, but Gore could have done better without it.

.

I'll say it again...

http://www.ontheissues.org/ Ralph...Ralph_Nader.htm

We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now.

.

You folks who are crying - saying that Nader caused Gore to lose are out of touch with reality.

Three facts you're overlooking:

1)Most of the Nader supporters would not have voted in that election at all - without Mr. Nader. They would have stayed at home had he not run.

2)The Bush regime cheated - Gore got more votes and Bush got fewer than told the public. The "election" was fixed.

3) Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court who halted the recount.

The damage you caused to our nation by aiding the Bush team theft of the 2000 election-- which led to the unprecedented destruction caused by this reckless, unfit, & arrogant president-- eclipses any positive accomplishments you might have ever made.

Perhaps after 8 years of Hillary we'll get 8 years of Laura Bush.

Given outward appearances, we seem to be a monarchical/republic hybrid.

For the Nader bashing progressives here - how about a different & more pragmatic strategy this time? Let us give a republicans a win in '08, instead of prolonging the republican-democratic-republican 8-year cycles for ever.

That way, the Reps would obliterate the Dems in another 8 years (instead of of a "pragmatic" compromise voting for Demms putting them on oxygen), with the Reps' true colors releaved more flagrantly among the masses. At that point, the independents & greens would have a very favorable political environment to work with & win.

to gerix and her ilk !
I have two words for you JOE LIEBERMAN
In 2000 Liberman was the VP of choice of Al Gore ( bore or whore as you would have it ),If you recall it was Gore who won the election but he walked away without a fight!!! could it be that he understood that his time in office would have been limited as the Zionists would have been shall we say glad to have their pal Joe in place to start all the wars that this monster to the right of GW would have instigated for the sake of another country !!!!!
Now it might be beneficial for some of you to remember this history as it seems to be repeating itself.
Isn't it funny that McCain was thought to have become a non contender in the 08 race until a certain Joe Lieberman threw his support behind said McCain and suddenly lots of money came his way .

Do you mean Bush won becuse Bill had a BJ?

You know what, I do believe you are right. It sure did get the evangilicals steamed up.

unionguy January 26th, 2008 7:42 pm

"To hell with Nader! All he is is the left wing of the Republican party. While he talks about the D's, he, as always, offers NO solutions.
All Nader, and his MASSIVE EGO, has given us is Bush!"

Yeah, and the Democrats and Republicans run for office purely out of their love for America. Sure.

Why don't all the anti-Nader whiners complain about Bill Clinton? It was Slick Willie's sleazy affair with Monica Lewinsky that gave Bush an opening for his "honor and integrity" schtick. Without that, Bush would have had nothing to campaign on.

Why don't they complain about the lackluster campaign that Al Gore ran? The election wouldn't have been close if Gore campaigned like he actually wanted to be President.

Whey don't they complain about the Congressional Democrats who have handed the country lock, stock, and barrel over to Bush since 2000?

Answer: Clinton, Gore, and their pals in Congress have that letter "D" after their name. Ralph Nader doesn't.

"Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep pocketed republicans an analysis of federal records show.
Those writing checks to the Bush Cheney campaign have also "bundled' contributions, gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader, a practice he has criticized in the past."

And I have posted proof that this was either A. False, or B. Done purposely by Republicans to discredit him and as an election calculation against Gore.

Quit flogging a dead horse and maybe people would respond to you.

Why do you all keep wringing your hands. America is terminal. It's over we lost this country some time ago. We wont be getting it back. Sorry,take up a hobby. Stay in touch with your family. Forget politics it's over!

yes, Ralph. Good point. We should re-elect the republicans instead of those awful democrats. Great idea. You did it last time, good to see you're on the campaign trail again.

The Republican candidates have all promised to keep the war going indefinitely, so we don't need to worry about having years of no war like we had under Clinton. And you know the Republicans won't reinstate the "roadless rules" to protect wilderness that Clinton put through, so we won't have to worry about that. We you on their side, Ralph, Republicans are almost insured victory. KUGW.

Madeline Albright the star of the Clinton Adminstration,
like Billary, she has investments in the Middle East, try google with her name and the middle east.
What Ralph is not telling us is Bill Clinton's connections with Dubai Ports where Billy was a consultant for the take over of our Eastern Ports by Dubai Ports for a $1,000,000 Fee, the Story that Edwards and Obama are scared to talk about..
The story about how Billary is owed some $20,000,000
for his investment in Dubai Ports, the company that is helping the Arabs along with the Bush family Corporation, the "Carlyle Group", in the purchase of our defense plants. Are they all scared of the Clintons?
Edwards and Obama should quit the race as incompetents.

I voted for Nader in '96 and campaigned and voted for Nader in 2000.

I was a 3rd grade teacher in an inner city school when the Clintons' welfare reform bill was signed into law and I knew what that was going to do to the kids I loved, so there was no way I could in good conscience vote for the man after that.

Joe Lieberman a heartbeat from the Presidency? Vote Nader.

The relationship between the Democrats and the Republicans is very well explained by a story my friend Peter Camejo used to tell on the stump in 2004.

"The Republicans want to cut wages by 10%. They call for a 20% wage cut. Then the Democrats come out and say, 'We are the friend of the worker. We only want to cut wages by 10%.'

"Then the Republicans say, 'You've got a deal!' And wages are cut by 10%."