Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNo Debate
It was billed as the great debate that, in the words of moderator Wolf Blitzer, "could change the course of this presidential race and the nation."
Situated at the packed historic Kodak Theatre-site of the Hollywood Oscar awards, thousands of people, including anti-war protestors, were outside, where tickets were being scalped for $1,000.
The burgeoning excitement swept up Mr. Blitzer into an introduction reminiscent of a heavyweight boxing title fight. Referring to the "glamour on this stage...one of the great stages of all time," he declared that "this will be the first time that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be debating face to face, just the two of them, one-on-one." The crowd ROARED!
When it was over two hours later, here is how the reporters, not the columnists, of the New York Times described the showdown: "Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama sat side by side here Thursday, sharing a night of smiles, friendly eye-catching and gentle banter...It was almost as if the battle was to see which of them could outnice the other."
Since neither scored a knockout, a knockdown, and neither stumbled, the audience left without many feeling the pain of their champion being bested. Even the Times' critic, Alessandra Stanley, she of the usual barbed pen, could only marvel at the smooth harmony ideology both candidates decided to adopt. She wrote: "They let their eyes make nice...As they stood in front of the audience before the debate, Mr. Obama leaned down to Mrs. Clinton and whispered a few words in her ear, as if continuing the fun chat they had just shared backstage."
The two candidates were unperturbed by any questions from the reporters that they had not answered before or they were soft balls they could hit out of the ball park.
As in all debates involving presidential candidates, the reporters were unwilling or incapable of asking the unconvential questions reflecting situations and conditions widely reported or investigated by their own colleagues.
This phenomenon of invincible reluctance should be studied by anthropologists or psychologists. Examples follow:
I called up Chris Hedges, former New York Times Middle East bureau chief and author for a question he would have asked. He offered this one. "The Israeli government is imposing severe and continual collective punishment on the 1.5 million people of tiny Gaza, which includes restricting or cutting off food, fuel, electricity, medicines and other necessities. Malnutrition rates among many children resemble the worst of sub-Saharan Africa. Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz, has reporters and columnists describing these horrific conditions and concluding that the ferocity of the blockade is detrimental to Israel as well as the Palestinians.
"Collective punishment is clearly a violation of established international law. Prominent, former military, security and political leaders in Israel are speaking out against this punishment and calling for negotiations with Hamas. Do you, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, agree with these Israelis or do you continue to support the policy of collective punishment against innocent men, women and children in Gaza?"
The Nation magazine's columnist, Alex Cockburn suggested this question:
"Senator Clinton, in all your previous debates, you have not criticized the bloated military budget so often documented by the media, Pentagon audits and GAO reports for Congress to be replete with waste fraud and abuse. The Soviet Union is gone. Yet military spending now consumes half of the federal government's operating expenditures.
"Specifically, what would you do to significantly reduce the tens of billions of wasted dollars and eliminate redundant weapons systems?
"And, further, would you abolish the missile defense project, deemed by the American Physical Society and other leading physicists to be technically unworkable? It costs about $10 billion a year with a total expenditure of over $150 billion since its inception under Ronald Reagan, without any indication that it can fulfill the function for which it was designed? Please be specific."
***
Here are a few questions of my own. "Senator Obama, you have taught Constitutional law. Has President Bush violated the Constitution, federal statutes and international treaties during his two terms of office? If so, please elaborate and tell the American people what you think should be done about holding the self-described "responsibility" President accountable under the impeachment authority of Congress and other laws of the land?"
"Senator Clinton, you represent New York, which includes the large banking, brokerage and investment firms colloquially called Wall Street. Eliot Spitzer, became Governor of your state largely on his widely reported reputation for prosecuting corporate crooks who fleeced investors, pensioners and workers of hundreds of billions of dollars. He often remarked that the federal criminal laws were too weak and the Securities and Exchange Commission was too lenient.
"As the Senator from New York, what specifically have you done to advance a strong crackdown on corporate crime with tougher laws and larger enforcement budgets? And, specifically, what do you intend to do as President?"
"Senator Obama, you have often spoken about your health insurance plan as a way to reduce costs. Yet you do not discuss three major cost reduction opportunities. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, estimates that ten percent of the entire health expenditures in this country go down the drain due to computerized billing fraud and abuse. This year, that amounts to $220 billion.
"Under a single payer plan, administrative expenses would be cut by about two-thirds. That would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a year in savings. And the Harvard School of Public Health study estimates about 80,000 people die every year from medical malpractice in hospitals, estimating costs years ago of $60 billion a year. These are large savings in a $2.2 trillion a year health care industry.
"Do you agree and, if so, why have you ignored proposing practical actions in these areas?"
"Senator Clinton, you have long urged more money for children's programs. One way to make this possible is to end or diminish the complex system of corporate welfare-subsidies, handouts, giveaways and bailouts of business corporations. These amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a year, directly and through tax loopholes. Why have you not moved against such spending so that some of the money may go to help needy children? And specifically, what would you do as President to develop standards curtailing runaway corporate welfare programs pushed by corporate lobbyists?"
Is reportorial self-censorship limiting the questions presented to the Presidential candidates? You decide.
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.
183 Comments so far
Show AllTo the first poster of this thread: If my conscience is off the table so is my vote. If Nader does not get in, I will provide a write in. Either way, the corporate candidates Hillary and Obama will NEVER GET MY VOTE!
Understand?
You're right David! As long as you and the masses think in limited choices, there will be no change. Unfortunately, unless something is done about the contingent in the House and Senate there is no incentive for cooperation either. Until all Americans are affected deeply enough or can truly empathize with the problems that most of our populace face, nothing will happen. But I have voted independent before and felt no regret because I followed my conscious. The idea you will be taking away votes is theory at best. You can say that they took them from the major party as well.
I have questions for you. What is your solution? Do you have a better alternative than voting the two party system? I realize we're up against great (if not impossible) odds as voters but if you vote Democrat or Republican and you don't like the result (no matter what it is), you got what you deserve because you are truly the sheep being lead by the dog keeping you in line.
To Paladin and KI (Feb 5th)
I have a "clue" that the only "change" you or anyone else is going to get is that provided by either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton --and even that is far, far from a foregone conclusion. Obama or Clinton can give you some seats for your side on the Supreme Court. McCain or Huckabee can and will give you clones of Alito. Ralph Nader can give you NOTHING whatsoever except a likely tilt of the election towards McCain and Huckabee (who probably will now team up and run together). The "clue" for the middle-schoolish smart-alecks who think we need "clues" is that Nader is chump-bait for perennial self-foot-shooters. Big talk. No possibility for anything but regret and then ridicule from Republicans that you fell for it (again).
zookini: so you're admitting that your main point in this thread is that we're no longer citizens in the United States?
Barry
I, for one, am long sick and tired of the DLC-type Dems blaming Nader. If they can't even field a candidate (when the incumbent is an obscene, drooling howler monkey)with genuinely opposed positions, or having the guts (not to mention loyalty to the concept of democracy) to mount a fight when an election victory has been stolen, then I say who needs them? If Dems were even saying(much less doing)half the things that Ralph does (you know...DIFFERENT things from Republicans), Nader would have no effect at all. But hey, let's by all means blame the guy who's pointing out just how cowardly, corrupt, and utterly undeserving of power Democrats are. That's so much easier than growing a spine or a conscious.
Not too long ago I attended an event sponsored by MoveOn.org (an organization, I've come to realize, dedicated solely to electing Democrats, regardless of their political views). The evening's appointed handler declared that, "a candidate's first job is to get elected". One may certainly think that statement right or wrong, though I do find it telling that there was never any mention given to a candidate's second or third job.
Having said that, I am with a great deal of internal conflict and regret, prepared to give my vote (and ONE more chance),to Dems, or at least Obama. Not at all happy with his waffling on Iraq, alternative imperialist ambitions, sucking up to the Israeli hardliners, etc., though. And the only way I could stomach voting for a blatant corporate hack such as Clinton would be if she were running against that delusional, psychotic nut-job McCain (a man seemingly thoroughly pissed off that Bush has proven too incompetent to succeed in unleashing all-out global armageddon.
Thanks, Dems. Eight years to prepare, and THIS is the best you could come up with. Yeah, that's somehow Ralph's fault too, I'm sure.
barryr: Still in denial, eh?
zookini, I did see your reply, and I appreciate your making it. And I applaud your efforts to distance yourself from the big corporations, although I'm not quite as fatalistic as you are. The reason why is that if the rest of us Americans did what you yourself do, we'd be well on our way to breaking our serfdom.
And please don't let anyone who's ragging on you get to you. After all, you're doing far more than most are. Most of us simply talk about this stuff, but you're walking the walk.
You know, you're something of an inspiration to me. Hope that doesn't annoy you.
Peace
Yeah, David, I guess in your mind a vote for an independent is stupid. Well why don't you just vote Democrat or Republican like the majority of the clones in this country. If you and the rest of the people want to GIVE UP and limit your choices to what the powers that be want, then go ahead pally. If you don't try to change things, then you get exactly what you deserve. In fact, you saying that voting for Nader is stupid is like saying that no one but George W. could solve the terrorist problem because he's in office and has experience. B.S.!
David, I used to vote for the Democratic Party myself. I can understand where you're coming from. But they've sold us out. Nancy Pelosi and the rest of them doing NOTHING about getting Bush impeached, Clinton signing the NAFTA agreement, neither party giving a damn about our soldiers who come home disabled and can't get a job, etc. It's business as usual.
David, I know it's hard but unless you try to initiate change, you'll be right, nothing will happen. If you don't try to do something about it, then you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
Remember, in Minnesota a while ago, the people were so fed up with their choices for Governor that they voted in the independent. If you and all the people would get up and get there heads out of the sand, there could be a chance for real change. We must show some guts as people and not let unions,the media or corporations dictate to who we vote for.
The only spewing I see is what's coming out of your typewriter keyboard, Daniel. Get a clue.
Good thing I took a few days off from checking back to this one. So many enemies. So few friends. Tsk. Tsk.
Poor me. But a vote for Nader is still both stupid and cavalier to the real problems of the United States. None of the mad spewing above changes that fact.
I'm sick of this ongoing, twelve-year, Ralph Nader argument. If you can't vote for a candidate who best represents your position then you aren't living in a democracy anyway so what's the difference?
zookini: I only assumed that you were MORE comfortable with your serfdom, not that you were comfortable with it. In any event, my assumption is based purely on what you've written in this thread, which seems primarily an effort to convince us that we are already owned. Buying from corporations does not make you their property.
As to what I'm dong about mine: I'm not a serf. I'm still a citizen.
Barry
vox,
I agree. Lacking an informed populace, most any system is possibly even worse than a lottery -- since a lottery at least is random. A misinformed populace might be inclined to skew in non-random (and self-destructive) ways.
This goes back to the concept of meritocracy, government by the most qualified. The problem is that it has historically descended to a caste aristocratic system, since it is the wealthy who get the best education and political connections, regardless of their intrinsic merits. The "test" for qualification is not well-rounded, balancing world perspective, practical skills, knowledge, wisdom (whatever that means these days), etc. In the case of Bush, it was pure caste -- he got to the White House by inheritance, aristocracy with no meritocracy.
It seems that any voting system's success is predicated on at least 2-3 generations of Americans who've had world-class education and a high degree of information literacy, etc.
I too, would like the answers to Mr. Nader's questions.
ticonderoga: You probably won't see this, but thanks for your reply. I still believe that corporations own us and have for centuries. I live a very frugal life for an American, but I'm still one of the entrapped. I'm sorry if this rankles, but I think we're all entrapped. I actually try to do the things you suggest and more, including growing some of my own food during growing season (can't afford to build or buy a greenhouse or cold frames yet), buying much of our food locally at farmers market, avoiding most packaged, prepared foods, avoiding most nonorganic foods, avoiding toxic cleaning supplies, rarely driving my 14-year-old Subaru (I'm self-employed via the Internet), buying used clothing (I do draw the line at used underwear and socks, but I buy what I can at the local coop), never eating at a restaurant chain, never watching TV, avoiding useless trappings like makeup and jewelry, etc., etc., but I have to work to pay for my house, and I have to have a computer to work at home, and I have to have electricity to use my computer (can't afford to go off the grid for a while yet), and I'm basically not self-sufficient. I find that to exist and make a living and have a place to live in my little corner of the United States, I have rely on big corporations to a certain extent, just as you say. You buy your prescriptions at WalMart, and I buy coq10 capsules and vitamins that are machine made and trucked in and carbon based. So, yeah, your point about striving toward perfection without ever achieving it is well taken, and I totally agree. At the same time, I think a lot of us--especially people who live in large urban areas--are close to being 100% dependent on big corporations. When you're dependent on something for your life or your livelihood, that something owns you in a very real way is all I'm saying (in a thousand words or less).
By the way, barryr, why do you assume I'm comfortable with my state of serfdom, and what are you doing about yours except denying it?
Gotta get back to work now . . .
I proudly voted for Nader in 2000 and would gladly do it again.
mikepeters: IF it were possible to know for certain that Nader running would guarantee a McCain win (and it isn't), then Nader supporters would vote in a variety of ways as they felt was best. Some would succumb to your Logic of the Lesser of Two Evils. Some would stand on principle and vote their beliefs and not their fears.
Now let me ask you: if the Democratic Party knew for certain that Nader running would guarantee a McCain win, would they be willing to make any concessions to liberals in order to win the votes back from Nader?
Barry
Paul - Maybe we have two questions here. One would be which voting system gives us the most representative democracy, and the other whether democracy gives us better governance - that thing that Jefferson and Hamilton used to argue about. Problems with the fairness of our elections seem to have been rendered moot by the up and coming science of public relations which is getting very good at placing specific opinions in the minds of a tv-addled electorate, which are then freely and predictably expressed in the voting booth. But whether those opinions (fears and animosities normally) are placed there by conniving pols or just run through the population like brush fires, democracy lacking an educated electorate is still an irrational process, arguably no better than a lottery.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared." - Cicero, 42 B.C.
.
Didn't we suppose that a great "liberal" website such as this one would have imposters and moles from the right, maybe even CIA agents posing as "progressives" to muddy our crystal clear critical thoughts?
DD and others like him may be the moles!
conscience,
To hell with IRV. That's like so-called advocates for the poor asking for affordable rent (rather than demanding cheap LAND TO OWN).
I suggest the Range Vote. We should have all candidates laid out, and the ability to score each of them, independently, 0-10. Ties and 0's allowed.
It would be a lot easier, also. Imagine a ballot with 10 names. If you allowed people to rank all 10, you'd better issue an eraser to each person, make sure they didn't rank anyone twice, skip a number, etc.
Range is a better scientific/sampling instrument, and easier to administer. Also, Australia has gone IRV and I don't see any evidence that it's led to widespread improvement of democracy down under -- on the contrary, it tends to descend into a 3-party system.
The Machine Sheeples who feed at the Political Trough will be attacking Nader on a constant basis, as he is a threat to the existing corrupt structure. Nader simple needs to re-construct his message so that the Working Classes that have been dumped by the Democratic Party will more clearly understand the message. Joe-Six-Pack has a tendency to believe the Corporate Press as the Bible. If Ralph explained more clearly how the Clintons and The Bush families have gained financially from the Iraq War and their wheeling and Dealing with Saudi Arabia and other countries in Asia, and let's not forget the Sell-out of our industrial base to China where the Clintons have recieved so much money from the Red-Chinese. The sell-out of some of our Defense Plants to the Arabs with the help of the Bush Corporation known as "The Carlyle Group", should be fully exposed and explained in simple understandable language so that the average voter could understand the complications of the
sell out of our country that would have been considered Treason during the WWII,,,
I don't know if anyone has yet posted the numbers from the 2000 election, as I haven't had time to read all the posts.
Below are some links to articles that I've found so far that clarify the election results. And here are a few highlights from Jim Hightower's article (he uses numbers from Tim Wise), including the results from Florida that show 308,000 DEMOCRATS and 191,000 LIBERALS voted for Bush.
From Jim Hightower's Article
"52 percent of eligible voters either did not vote or voted for third-party candidates.

Among the 48 percent of Americans who cast ballots for Bush or Gore, there was an even split, giving each roughly 24 percent of eligible voters.
[In Florida] Gore was the problem, not Nader. Start with two constituent groups that Democratic nominees usually win in the Sunshine State:
1) Seniors. By a 51-47 percent margin, Gore lost the over-65 vote in Florida. Bush got 67,000 more senior votes than Gore did, even after all the Democratic scare talk about vanishing Social Security benefits. Had Gore simply broken even with this constituency, he would have won.
2) White Women. This group typically votes Democratic in Florida, or splits evenly. Gore lost them to Bush by 53-44 percent. Had he gotten 50 percent of these votes, he'd have added 65,000 votes to his total -- plenty enough to have put the state in his column election night.
Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader's votes wouldn't have mattered. Second, liberals. Sheesh. Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader."
Articles and Links
Tim Wise (http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/609)
Dr. Manning Marable, Columbia University (http://www.greens.org/s-r/25/25-03.html)
James Ridgeway—who also uses Wise's numbers (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0046,ridgeway,19838,1.html)
Jim Hightower (full article at http://www.commondreams.org/views/112800-108.htm)
If you don't agree with Nader's stances on the issues, then vote for the person who best represents you and leave it at that; Nader as "spoiler" doesn't hold water. If you have differing numbers that are backed up with sources, please post them. I'm still researching because I want the truth—truth based on fact.
For now, I believe that voting for Ralph Nader is about change—essential, far-reaching change, and it's about democracy.
Fellow Threaders, a question please.
If it was black and white, just a cold fact, that a vote for Nader, because of the dynamics of the electoral process, would put Mccain in the white house, would you vote for RN?
Given the likelihood that Mccain would start world war three, it makes for an interesting coming together of principle and realpolitik.
*****
(Note: in today's NYT's Kristol's column just gushes over mccain...the race is on...and if Kristol is for it-I am dead set against it every time.)
QUOTE: kelmer February 2nd, 2008 3:24 pm
Notice Daniel David doesnt say that Republicans stole the election or wiped black voters off the rolls?
No–he blames Nader.
He likes Republicans better than Nader.
Now that's twisted.UNQUOTE
EXACTLY --- !!!
Meanwhile, the computer steals probably go all the way back to the mid-1960's . . . when the computers were first brough in. Everything pretty much looks like political violence and stolen elections since then.
David Daniel --
Let me suggest that it would be helpful if you put on your thinking cap re 2000 ---
Did the Supremes have anything to do with Bush's "win"?
Did any other third parties have anything to do with Bush's "win"?
Do you know how many other third party candidates ran?
Do you know that GORE WON in 2000?
And, in the meantime, what have the Democrats done to fix our voting problems?
Either the farce of computer voting with no verifiable paper trail?
Or --- IRV voting?
They worked on none of this -- therefore, I think you're concerned about the "scapegoat" they gave you, while they're ignoring it all ---
Why? Because they don't want you to have any options --
You are only to have corporate candidates to vote for ---
Jerry1208, the idea of Obama and Nader running together is a fascinating one. If Obama keeps on playing it smooth like he has been and then, after winning the democratic nomination, asked Nader to run with him, it could rock the country.
If Obama had the guts, that is. And if he didn't somehow end up dying in a mysterious plane crash.
zookini, I understand your point, but it is, IMO, more of an extremist and impractical one than is voting for Nader or the Greens or Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney. Yes, we can't avoid buying from the big corporations completely, but we can buy less from them. We can't not drive, but we can drive less (some of us can drive a lot less), we can't not buy food, but we can try to buy as little food from the big corporations as possible (not eating meat is a start, and that's not hard to do), we can't avoid shopping at WalMart completely (maybe some of us can), but we can avoid shopping there as much as possible (I buy prescription drugs there because, even though I'm employed fulltime, I don't have any health insurance - but I've bought nothing else from them in 15 years), and we could, if we wanted to, avoid watching TV and get all our news from the internet (TV is far from a necessity, and it's also how they manipulate us).
It's kind of like being a vegetarian: even if you avoid eating any animal products whatsoever, you still probably wear shoes that are at least partly made from leather, so you're not perfect. Nothing's perfect in this world, but just because you can't have a perfect anything doesn't mean you can't have a better something.
Perhaps a better analogy would be that of course it's impossible to have total world peace but, if we tried, maybe we could have MORE peace.
It's amazing how many people do not have the guts to vote for what they believe in! You are not throwing your vote away or getting a Republican or Democrat elected if you vote independent. With the tunnel vision type of thinking, it is no wonder this country is stuck with these abysmal choices! If there wasn't this idea that you have to pick the lesser of two evils so prevalent in our national thinking, maybe this country wouldn't be in the shape it's in!
Well, have some BALLS! Don't give your money to either of the two major political parties! They won't listen to you anyway! They'll only sell you out to special interest groups and use it to line their own pockets while you continue to hope.
Remember one thing, if you remember nothing else: These people you elect are supposed to SERVE YOU! Don't let it be the other way around!
zookini: not all of us are as comfortable as you with giving up our citizenship for serfdom.
Barry
Ralph, other than at election time, where are you? Where is your backing to make a legitimate run? On what evidence do you believe that you could win a presidential election? Where is the grassroots support to take you to the top? Nowhere, which is exactly why your running will be such a hypocritical, egotistical sham.
Look folks, there is no 100% liberal progressive candidate out there who is electable in 2008 America. That's just reality. The closest you're going to get is Obama. So cut out the gloom and doom self pity, and go support someone who is a whole lot better than Hill-Bill or any Republican.
Ralph here is a question for you....Are you an Anti-Semite, or do you just hate Israel????????
Could someone please tell me how, if Nader were elected, he would get anything accomplished? Not a lot of Greens sprouting in Congress these days. Sorry, but it's going to take more than a Green president to fix the calamitous mess we're in now. Solutions, anyone?
AdeleTheCzech, David Daniel, and others of like minds. In choosing between Democrats and Republicans, it's as if we are in a plane headed towards the ground, and we are choosing between the pilot and the copilot. The pilot wants to dive straight into the ground, and the co-pilot wants us to adjust our trajectory by 20 degrees. It will take us slightly longer to hit the ground if we adjust our trajectory by 20 degrees, but we will all be just as dead. When it comes to global warming, preserving the middle class, and destruction of the world through militarism, voting for the Democrats is still voting for your own death. Those are the consequences of NAFTA, the WTO, 'all options on the table', Obama 'we must get into Pakistan', Clinton voting for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, etc.
It is people of your minds who must grow up, become adults, and take a look at American history. Real change only comes when the people up take are scared of the people below, from the uprisings in the Great Depression to the Civil Rights Movement to the Vietnam War Protests.
The rest of us on this board need you to become adults and join us in the fight.
Ralph Nader has spent a lifetime fighting corporate corruption. He has written books, formed activist organizations, protested, petitioned, and testified before Congress against consumer fraud and corporate corruption.
Obama is for change? So Obama should recruit Ralph Nader as his running mate. Ralph Nader as the Vice Presidential running mate of Obama that would create a powerful progressive ticket!
For Obama/Nader in 2008!
The Wolf Blitzer's and other media commentators self-censor themselves because they know they would be out of a job pretty damn quick if their corporate bosses were made unhappy. As Ed Murrow said, television can be a source of information useful to the American people, or it will be just "wires and lights in a box." Wonder what he would have thought about 24-hour cable television where any nut with deep pockets can create an Fox News, MSNBC or CNN (formerly ridiculed as the "Communist News Network" by the Right)where you can now watch the likes of Glenn Beck spew the most vile and ridiculous lies and nonsense.
Nader should not run, but continue to critique the system and its candidates. If he were to run and the Democrats lose in 2008, they would just claim that he caused their defeat.
ticonderoga: I agree that big business owns the major Republican and Democratic candidates, but it owns us too (and I daresay Ralph Nader). Where would we be--especially us city dwellers--if we didn't support the corporations when we gas up, use the Internet, or do almost anything that modern life requires? We're pretty much forced at this point to buy from big corporations, so they own us in my view. We've gradually traded our freedom for convenience, so guess what? It's all over, baby, and it's been over for a long time. Soon the fat lady will cry, and she won't be the only one.
It was a love fest because Super Tuesday is soon upon us. There is little real debate can do at this time, except feed the neocon pundits with material to spin.
.
For more than four decades, Ralph Nader has saved lives, opened minds, implemented solutions, and inspired citizens everywhere to participate in building a better, more democratic world. He founded Democracy Rising in 2000, one of more than 100 civic organizations he has helped to found or organize, authored countless books and publications, and perhaps more than any other person has defined our modern understanding of the American ideals of democracy, civic duty, and participation for the public good, rather than dominance by the corporate powers. Known for his ethics, integrity and independence, Ralph Nader is recognized world-wide for putting democracy to work.
The New York Times said, "What sets Nader apart is that he has moved beyond social criticism to effective political action." Part of his mammoth legacy is the effective national network of citizen reform groups that labor to preserve the safety and quality of life of every American. His groups have made an imprint on many areas including civic skills, tax reform, pensions, aviation, regulation of atomic power, renewable energy, clean air and water, clean elections, food, medicine and auto safety, safety in the workplace, access to healthcare, civil rights, civil justice, Congressional ethics, campaign finance, discriminatory lending, the tobacco industry, corporate crime and reform, investor protection, corporate globalization, agribusiness and small farms, intellectual property, medicine prices abroad, freedom of information, and government procurement. The list goes on and on.
[Copied from democracyrising.us ]
.
Nader-haters, generally frustrated Democratic partisans, despise Ralph exactly as the Big Bad Wolf despised the Woodman in one version of "Little Red Riding Hood".
The party takes great pains to convince Ms. Hood that it is a kindly old grandmother offering rescue and hospitality to a poor little benighted wanderer-- and just as the scarlet-clad moppet begins to cross the threshold, up pops Ralph to point out that Granny is actually a Big Bad Wolf.
This drives the wolf-pack nuts! It forces them to their fallback position-- even if Granny is a tad feral, she's all we've got between us and the far more rapacious and homicidal Ogres and Giants inhabiting the hateful and predatory Republic Kingdom.
And the occupational psychosis, or at least blindered myopia, of today's strategy and process-obsessed conventional political belief guarantees that Ralph is simply going way over the collective heads of his scornful detractors, who insist on reductionistically shoehorning him into their metaphysical simplex.
For the Democratic Party, Stupor Tuesday is like a political Good Friday-- except that Jesus Christ is nowhere to be found, and the coveted title of King of the Jews is a tug-of-war between the Good Thief and the Bad Thief.
Where is the Green Party? This attitude of Nader and the Greens that they will not start campaigning until after the Democratic Party decides which hack will be their candidate has been a sure-fire recipe for not growing any counter movment to the corporate RP/DP folk. The entire liberal community is simply not doing the work necessary to really 'take back America' and not just talk about it.
In Canada, we have an expression, "To Vote Against". Say the Conservatives might win in your riding, and you'd like to vote for the NDP candidate, but are scared a Conservative might get your riding - so you vote for the Liberal candidate, should they have a better chance at keeping the Conservative home. Strategic voting, they also call it.
Everyone has the right to vote for or against whomsoever they shall please, but to quote voxclamantis quoting ticonderoga, if you never vote for what you want you'll never get it.
Fortunately, I live in a riding where the Conservative will never win, so I can vote how I please without the bother of strategic considerations. The NDP gets seats in this town. It's gotta start somewhere.
Rico -
You have my complete permission to vote for Obama. If it comes down to him vs McCain then certainly we would prefer him to win the election. Hopefully he will have enough votes to do it without my help. There is no Nader "bandwagon" to jump on. He represents a conceptual shift from American elections being about picking from a menu of canned alternatives to them being about the people saying what they want. No way to assert that without doing violence to the system and possibly to the course of the country. Nader will lose, and we do hope we don't cause Obama to lose. But perpetuating a world in which human lives are defined physically and mentally by corporate overlords is a greater evil than a few years of John McCain chasing imaginary Islamofascists around Pakistan. Politicians must discover that our opinions are not formed by their simplistic slogans, and that our votes are not automatic. If the DNC can't speak the truth, they can't win elections. That's a good message. And as ticonderoga said back there someplace, if you never vote for what you want you'll never get it.
O.K. Ralph. So you want to be a 5 time loser.
Why don't you try running for a congressional seat and make the change from within.
This route we've already seen and quite frankly, 8 more years of republicans and we'll all be losing our homes.
THIS HASN'T WORKED THE FIRST 4 TIMES. IT'S TIME FOR A NEW APPROACH.
Signed
Hope you get a clue!
Ralph, we have to be astute and read between the lines in this Presidential contest. Clinton is the DLC establishment candidate who is incapable of admitting she was wrong on her votes for the War in Iraq and the potential use of force against Iran. She was comfortable in her role as establishment candidate until Obama rocked her world.
Obama, I believe, sees the necessity of a paradigm shift in American foreign policy, the necessity of the end of empire if we are to survive as a Nation. Domestically, I believe he better understands the suffering and sustained hardships of far too many American people and will act to correct that imbalance greatly relieving the suffering. Obama's world view seems more balanced to me as opposed to Hillary's more hawkish and feminist world view. Hillary worries me not because she is a woman but precisely because she seems to lack the positive virtues of women, particularly in the realm of peacemaker. Her military world view seems locked into power and conflict.
CNN, TODAY, 11 A.M. EASTERN!
For those who would like to hear Ralph Nader speak for himself, he appears today, Sunday February 3, on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. EST (along with a few other guests.)
Of course, Blitzer will ask Nader (at least three times, ala Amy Goodman) how he responds to those who say he's a "spoiler," but at least Ralph will be allowed to speak on national television.
(If it were me, I'd ask Blitzer how he responds to those who say he's a corporate-media whore, and give him a taste of his own medicine.)
There are MILLIONS of citizens in the USA who are not Republicans who WILL NOT and CANNOT vote for the Democratic Party candidate for president no matter who that is. Democrats, with the exception of a very few, are those that have enabled the Republican nightmare. Those Democrats and liberals who excoriate Ralph Nader are those who prefer the back side of the same old counterfeit coin. The Democratic and Republican parties are the flip sides of the same neo-liberal agenda that plagues the planet exploiting and killing its people. Liberals insist on, once again, joining their Conservative bed fellows in perpetrating the fraud we call elections. And as Ralph says, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Go for it Ralph! And perhaps, as U.S. history has shown over and over again, your 3rd party or independent effort will make another significant contribution to what is possible in creating a more just and peaceful nation. Voting for either of the major party candidate will not.
Slagfish: Bull's eye!
Hm, this is the poll on CNN at the moment...
"What are you more excited about? Super Bowl or Super Tuesday?"
There's the MSM, framing politics like football again. My team against your team, the one winner will have it all and the one loser will be shown for the loser they are. You better get on a winning team - don't let the wrong lizard win!
Shakes, thanks for the link to the article about Kucinich. Yeah, it is a tragedy, a tragedy that's the fault of both the MSM and the American voters.
(seriousprofessor)Douglas Adams: Cheers!
A rEVOLution passed through
but it wasn't blue
or green
Until then
the world could end
I propose a toast
To lemons
First I want to respond to V Horn, who said, "the people, damn them, have spoken." Meaning that the early voters have eliminated Kucinich and Gravel and Edwards, so it's their fault we're left with pro-war, pro-corporate candidates and prowar, pro-corporate candidates who say they would do something about global warming.
It's true enough that most people can't be bothered to do their own research or think for themselves. Nonetheless, I think you need to take into account the carefully orchestrated campaign to marginalize any non-corporate candidates. We have a system these days in which the parts of the corporate-government-media complex can no longer be separated. The media wing's function is to be sure that the people never get the information they need to use their votes to make change. This is accomplished not so much by suppressing information as by deluging the public with propaganda intended to limit their perspective. And it works.
Some ways back on this thread, someone asked that posters use more light and less heat--I agree with that--but then talked about Alternet's policy of "don't respond to trolls--report them." Another poster pointed out that this can lead to groupthink, to orthodoxy and attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with the general tide of opinion. I think this is important, as I don't think anyone on this thread has been a clear "troll" in the sense of posting to a thread on a website they fundamentally oppose, just to scuttle discussion. Ignore trolls and DON'T report them, and continue the conversation around them like you do with that weird uncle who shows up at family reunions in a bathrobe and talks incessantly about farts.
Ralph Nader runs to point out the corporate ownership of the two political parties and give voice to the concerns of the middle class and working poor. All the democrats would have to do is address these issues and a Nader run would not not be necessary. Seems they had rather go down in defeat than champion these causes, thus proving Nader's point.
At this point, it might be instructive to recall the late Douglas Adams.
(excerpt begins)
[A spaceship landed on Earth, and a 100 foot tall robot walked out.]
"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
"But that's terrible," said Arthur.
"Listen, bud," said Ford, "If I had one Altarian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say "That's terrible" I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin. But I haven't and I am."
(excerpt ends)
Adams, Douglas So long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Hey Daniel David, and anyone else who blames Nader for W's presidency:
You are all ASSes! Adjectives start with big, and dumb, and get progressively more vitriolic from there. Since you probably only know TV references, here's one: See if Jack Sajak will let you buy a clue!
"For at least a more liberal, progressive president, vote for the lesser of evils, vote Democratic. Anything else, and it will be like casting your vote for the anti-liberal, anti-progressive, downright evil Republican."
This mistaken notion fails to take not that the Dimascrap candidates are running on an evil republican platform. Were they running a better candidate, even a slightly better candidate like Edwards, or Richardson, the "lesser evil" dogma might apply but that is not the case. This dogma of "lesser evils" got us where we are today.
OK so maybe Pinochet isn't as bad as Idi Amin but I refuse to make that choice.
It's time we had alternative candidates with alternative visions on the ballot. With out the possibility of alternatives we the people have absolutely NO representation. Even a political dunce should be able to recognize that.
It is my belief that by voting for the candidates who best represents your values, the country will go in the direction it needs to, even if that means taking a turn for the worse. Our government is supposedly a "representative" democracy, not a horserace to bet on who is the most likely candidate to win. It is precisely this misconception about democracy that has created our current system, where people like Kucinich and Paul and forced of debates, and where third party candidates are lucky to appear on CSPAN.
If the majority of the citizens of the United States are too irresponsible and apathetic to take their civic duties seriously by betting on this horserace, and if they can not hold their government in check, our nation deserves to fail. The rest of us cannot compromise our principles and vote for the "lesser of evils," as it is precisely this type of mentality which has allowed the establishment to own the majority of candidates in both parties.
The information is out there. The uninformed and apathetic have made their choice not to seek it. If they choose establishment candidates like McCain and Hillary that will continue to rape the American public, then so be it. I am not going to waste my vote on Obama to counter somebody else's Hillary vote. He doesn't represent me. I'd rather vote for somebody who does represent my values, and if Hillary is elected, I will know that my nation failed through its own poor choices, but that I voted with my conscience. If everybody voted with their conscience instead of betting on the horserace, we'd have real democracy in the United States instead of the fake and corrupt system we have now where dynasties of Bushes and Clintons are coronated by the corporate and media elite.
Those of you who blame Nader for Bush's win in 2000, and claim that he will be "stealing" votes from the Dems...GROW UP. Nobody own our votes. Candidates must earn them. The Democratic majority, which was elected in 2004 to stop the war has done absolutely nothing, aside from a handful of honest troopers. And these honest Democrats were not rendered impotent by Republicans, but by establishment candidates of their own party. And you advocate that we vote for more of these establishment candidates who will thrwart all efforts for any progressive change?
I would be thrilled if Nader ran. Perhaps another 4 years of a destructive Republican President driving our country into the dirt would be enough to wake Americans up, since the majority are still sleepwalking their country off the side of a cliff.
In the words of an old-time corrupt politician, "the people, goddamn them, have spoken." There were different choices, Ron Paul on the Republican side, and Kucinich and Gravel and Dodd and Richardson and Edwards on the Democratic side were all anti-war choices, better choices. And Nader and McKinney, too, in the fringe parties. Why couldn't they get any traction with the great unwashed? And don't say it was just money, though that plays a part. But the McCain campaign was broke last August. Now look where he is.
How come we are left with the ones we got now? And don't tell me corruption, unless you mean everyone in the whole damned country is corrupt. If so, why care anymore? Let the whole damned thing slide into the shitter. Vote for McCain or Romney, or whomever you think is WORST, to speed things along. Or don't vote at all and again ensure the worst gets in, or same thing as not voting, vote for someone who takes your vote away from the worst's opponent, helping said worst to win in the process.
In a democracy, that is the way things go. The proles and pinheads get to vote. Some progressives seem to favor a directorship of the intelligent elites. This is also called, 'a dictatorship.' So, unlike Bush (who in his dealings with Congress or the UN or other nations or, well, anyone and anything), we should be willing to compromise with others to get at least halfway to where we want to be - instead of getting yet another idiot blockhead or actual corporate criminal (with Bush we had a two-fer) as our president, pushing the nation even farther down the road to ruin in the wrong direction, towards the abyss.
For at least a more liberal, progressive president, vote for the lesser of evils, vote Democratic. Anything else, and it will be like casting your vote for the anti-liberal, anti-progressive, downright evil Republican. Because, for whatever the freakin' reasons, the people have spoken, goddamn them.
"Is reportorial self-censorship limiting the questions presented to the Presidential candidates?"
No. Illuminati masters (the world banking cartel), via Zionist-controlled media conglomerates (their wholly-owned surrogates), impose topical constraints on news and limit political debate. It is by design.
And if you think that's all tin-foil-hat conspiracy nonsense, you really ought to do the research to find out, because those guys are not playing games.
I love to hear the Democrats lie and whine abt why they can't get a presidential candidate elected. I would feel a great deal more sorry for having voted for Nader three times, given him money three times and campaign for him once, if after Nov 2006, once the Democrats returned to a position of power in Congress, they had managed to get a spine and act like an opposition party. I will give them hounding Gonzalez out, that was sweet, but other than that, they shown no reason anyone who should really believe anything either of them says.
All that said, I would hope Nader would be not so stupid and not run again. Or, him as McKinney's VP (I know, I know, everyone says he has too much ego and macho to do that).
Obama has out triangulated The Great Triangulator's wife. He can give a convincing sounding speech abt some populist or progressive theme, or recount some episode from the history of popular struggles, and in the same speech assure us he cares not for the things fro the 60s that divide us, he is abt the things that will unite us for the future ("Change we can believe in.")
That's why the Clintons hate Obama, he has out Clintoned them in ways they can never even begin to approach.
great questions ralph. i long for those questions to be asked! i voted for you twice and am not this time. i know you are right. but thats not what a presidential election is about in our land i realize. it is about which person comes closest to your beliefs. Yes we should have a multiparty system! yes we should have this and that ad infinitum! but we don't. that is not reality. reality is pretty bleak for progressives! we have been demonized, made fun of, marginalized and ostracized for decades! we have been shut out of the mainstream dialogue even though we are so much a part of the fabric of our land and we care so much about its future and have real answers! we are a genuine threat to the status quo. i like being threatening in that way.
Reality is, we will have a choice between a far right winger and a centrist democrat (maybe leaning a little left). I'll vote obama. i'm voting for the candidate who is closest to my ideals. the one who resonates closest with my social democratic leanings. obama and hillary are my only choices in this flawed imperfect world. politics is the art of the compromise. i will vote obama. at least with him, progressive voices will be listened to, instead of scorned ignored and demonized. I'm tired of the dark age of Bush and clinton. obama gives me hope. call me sucker or sellout if you wish but I'd like to see him in the white house. he's my best hope given the real world choices.
Power tends to stink; Absolute power stinks absolutely.
DD once more proves himself a right-wing troll with the term "ultra-liberal".
The whole "you're throwing your vote away" shows how little conscience counts in the US, where everything, especially courage, is sacrificed to what William James called the American divinity, "the bitch-goddess of Success". And who on the planet isn't nauseated by our fearful expedience in America? the expedience of Off-the-Table Pelosi, or I-Have-to-Sound-Tough-to-Be-Electable Hillary or any of this utter putrifying rubbish that dwarfs the rubble of the twin towers -- we're drowning in this sewage.
The message is clear: Avoid, at all costs, principle and substance, you won't be allowed within ten miles of the shithouse of Power.
The democratic party motto, 'Stay the Course.'
http://www.wordsareimportant.com/democraticparty.htm
Can't wait until Nader jumps into the race. Certainly will make it more interesting than the yawn-fest we now have.
The Democrats have a lot of explaining to do. Why can't they unite and impeach the obvious war criminals that now are in power?
The fact that they can't do this and won't do this is more than enought reason to never support that pathetic party again.
People.
Its time for a frickin revolution.
No more typin.
Fight the power. Take to the streets.
Get mad. Get angry.
Stop paying for war.
Stop paying for other peoples suffering and agony.
Time for a change.
Time for a goddamn REVOLUTION!
People.
Its time for a frickin revolution.
No more typin. Time for change.
Fight the power. Take to the streets.
Get mad. Get angry.
Stop paying for war.
Stop paying for other peoples suffering and agony.
Time for a change.
Time for a goddamn REVOLUTION!
Ralph Nader is like no other commentator here at Commondreams.
I am beyond thankful that this man comes out and just starts pounding
away at the top two. 3-1, 2-1,3-2
3 to the body, 1 to the head, 2 to the body, 1 to the head....
Keep pounding Nader! I'm in your corner, chief. Bring that
man some water, I got the grease for his brow! Dodge,
weave, pound. 3-1, 2-1, 3-2!
-------
... this comments thread inspired by Nader's words restores my spirits....
But, you know, over the last couple of weeks on CD, I've felt like I've had to counter all the pro-Obama prattle
CD puts out. Anyone else out there feel the same? From the "okay, he's not the best candidate, but he
inspires" crowd, to the "he's gonna bring peace in the ME, because he talks about dialogue".
Just the other day, somebody calls me a Clinton fan. It's like someone fired a bullet at me.
I must've got shot because I'm beyond pissed.
I'm thankful for CD, but at the same time, if Commondreams, and other "progressive portals", brought more
diversity in the discussion of the presidential debate, just maybe there might one day be a different group
in the last stages of presidential debate. Instead, what we get is the pandering about action group after
action group. Candidate Obama wins endorsement from a bunch of political operatives so desperate
that they back this Brzezinski/Soros enterprise. What I just love about Brzezinski is his front face v his
practicum. He talks about democracy must happen from within and not by outsiders, but he has no
problem funneling weapons and money and intel and tech support and training to the 'within groups" --
if his "chess game" didn't benefit Wall Street and Hedge funds, he'd never be a hero of the "West". and
his key technique, playing into nationalistic fervor, wouldn't be tolerated.... I keep wonderig what Obama
has in store for Central America or Central Asia....
But, no! The label Clinton supporter because I call out the painful reality of having action groups act as
mob's for a $100 million dollar campaign -- excuse me for discussing the anti-democratic approach
of the flower/color revolutions and their striking characteristics to Obama's campaign. Everything from
the Obama and Samantha Power front company... (I swear, the "heavy weight match" in LA could have
been titled, "CIA vs Old Money, hold hands")
later
Thanks Paul. That's what I thought.
We're technically not a democracy, according to the CIA:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
"Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition"
If we wish to think of ourselves as a democracy, we'll need another revolution.
I'm not so sure. I thought the Supreme Court ruled when they selected bush (2000) and put him in office that we do not have a right to vote. If we have anybody out there knowledgeable please weigh in. Thanks.
p.s. I thought democracy meant that the will of the people counted for something. Well seeing as the majority of the people are against the war and want to end it and it matters nothing to the Repugs and the Bend-over-crats I'm not so sure we are living in a democracy.
What is a democracy? How can an election for president be stolen twice and still be called a democracy.
ticonderoga,
Exactly. Nader can't spoil something that's been spoiled long ago.
If Obama or Hillary can point to the track record that I need, they've got my vote. If not, they haven't got it.
Had to add this:
People like Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Cynthia McKinney aren't spoilers at all. Instead they give us an opportunity that we should be grateful for, an opportunity to have someone to vote FOR, instead of vote AGAINST. Maybe prior to the internet an outside-the-two-parties candidate might have been justifiably called a "spoiler," as Ralph Nader so often is, but now with the advent of the internet, if we don't vote for the candidate(s) who truly give us a chance to vote for someone who's on our side, it's our own damned fault, and no one else's.
We still have a democracy because we still have the legal right to vote, it's just that we're too lazy to do the work necessary to figure out who to vote for. And expecting the MSM and the republicans/democrats to make it easy for us by changing the voting system is just plain naive.
So instead of bashing Nader (or whoever) for "spoiling" things for us, we should be honoring him for giving us an opportunity. It's not his fault that we keep on squandering that opportunity - it's ours.
iowablackbird
Thanks for your response. I'm about to drop off here and go to dinner...
I certainly don't believe that all Democrats are the same, but I do believe that they are "all" (the vast majority) in thrall of the Logic of the Lesser of Two Evils. So they disconnect their voting behavior from their natures...
As to why the Presidency -- I have a theory, but I doubt you'll like it. Will probably re-ignite the egomania debate. At one time Ralph Nader was a force to be reckoned with. Just by bringing people's attention to issues, he was able to get US policies changed. He was asked to be on TV, he was asked to testify before Congress. Laws got passed, etc. The major corporations tried to find dirt on him, but they failed. Eventually, they figured out how to neutralize him. They simply stopped giving him a platform to speak. This has worked so well, that they now routinely keep virtually all liberals off the air. When Nader was running for president, it was a little hard to keep him off the air, and he was able once again to say what he has to say. In addition, he gave people like me an opportunity to demonstrate to the Democratic Party that they can't take my vote for granted. (Here's where you come back with the "now is not the time to use your vote to send a message" argument).
I doubt Nader for Congress would have hit the news outside of whatever state he would run in. I doubt it would have made the Democratic Party sit up and pay attention.
Here is why MY reasoning fell down (I don't know about Nader's). The Democratic Party did not say, "Uh oh, we're losing our left flank. We need to offer them some concessions to make Nader less attractive!" They responded with fury. Kos can get a beautiful Two Minute Hate going whenever it tickles his fancy just by saying "Nader!", so I'm not talking about the Democratic Party leaders. I'm talking about most all of my friends.
So the boot to the face thing didn't sway me back to the Democratic Party, even though it shook my faith in my own reasoning about what kind of force I as a voter can exert to pull the country in the direction I feel is best. I'm left with questions about my reasoning and absolute certainty that the Democratic Party's prevailing reasoning is flat out wrong. These days my main objective is to demonstrate that the classic anti-Nader arguments don't make sense. Maybe some day I'll get to arguments that voting for Nader does make sense, but maybe not.
Thanks everyone for the dialog. Dinner calls.
Barry
Wow, I skip out of CD for a mere 8 hours or so, and there's 100+ responses.
The situation is even worse than the dynamic Ralph presents here. Half the equation is the softball questions, the framing and filtering, etc. the corporate media performs on behalf of the candidates.
If our problems stopped there, we'd see Barak or Hillary bring up the issues mentioned here, on their own during the Q&A sessions. Since when does a politician ever limit him/herself to the direct question posed in front of him/her? The only reason to avoid answering bigger, larger, more looming and more important issues is that they've got no acceptable answer.
I think that everyone should vote for who they believe in, whether or not that candidate has a chance of winning. The reason why I think this is because both the republicans and democrats, and their owners, the Big Corporations, know full well that what they're doing is going to be the ruination of us all, including themselves, so they will eventually do something to stop what's going on, not because they're good guys but because they want to save their own skins. And when they do something about it, it will change the political climate, making it more and more possible to elect someone who really is a good guy.
So we keep on voting for the good guy until the good guy finally wins. If we do anything else, we're destined to do that forever.
Maybe it's better to vote for what you want, instead of voting for what you think you can get, because if you keep on doing that, someday maybe you will get what you want. But if you never vote for what you want, you'll never get it. And you'll always feel bad about yourself for not having the courage of your convictions.
Thank you very much, CD'ers, for helping me out here. I was thinking of voting for Barack Obama, as the lesser of two evils, but thanks to you I've changed my mind.
RichM -- thank you, sorry about that didn't mean to send everyone to DN
barryr February 2nd, 2008 9:32 pm
Barry - i'm whole heartedly suggesting you should vote your conscience. i don't know what i'll do if clinton wins the democratic nomination, i'll probably puke, then spend the next few days on a bender. however that day isn't here for me yet.
is it fair to characterize all democrats as the same? there are compassionate dems whose views are often published here at CD (fiengold, leahy, kucinich etc..) their views are backed with meaning b/c they represent people (not just rhetorical ideas), that's why they have more legitimacy.
why the presidency?, when he CAN WIN in a congressional seat and WOULD RECIEVE more attention (in congress) the the scanty attention he recieves (outside of progressive circles) every 4 years during a presidential election.
if an oncologist said i had cancer i would seek other opinions before i agreed to be treated.
about the masses -- maybe i phrased it poorly, it's ok to disagree with the public (in fact i think i mentioned the importance of 1st amendment)but if you speak to them in a foreign language (3rd party candidates they're unfamiliar with) they will not get it. It will not seep in to the brain cases.
i read the greider book about the federal reserve (monetary policy), i think it reinforces the notion outside parties influence the discussion of the 2 primary
parties in the US, not that 3rd parties have a chance of running the country(i actually conceded the point above, 3rd parties influence primary parties)
if jesus christ dropped from the sky, i doubt i would vote for him/her if he didn't effectively demonstrate an ability to lead and represent people (these skills are crucial especially when the congress will continue to be fragmented as the social system continues to disintegrate).
i do see hero-worshiping here, and do you want a clone of yourself to run the government, no viable candidate for president will represent all of our interests,
if our candidate wanted to use 'our' political clout he/she would push the mainstream parties to the left by participating in the process.
also i love discussion and it is educational, good luck, trying to win me back.
again vote your conscience....
please donate to sheehan and kucinich.....
It seems to me that CD has become more about Democrats and Republicans than about progressives and their ideas.
I think that it's about time that the people here look at the reality of what the two parties are about.
Republicans stand by their two core constituents, the ultra rich greedocrats and the terminal brain dead ( like Terry Schrivo ) and those who want not to know or think about anything.
Democrats on the other hand have demonstrated nothing but the utmost contempt for their core supporters, you know the people who put them in controle of both houses of congress so as to end the criminal ,moraly repugnent war that is draining all our finances for the social agenda that they pretend to espouse !
As to the two front Dem runners Hillory ( pillory ) and Obama ( O-BOMB-EM ) have shown us that no matter what they say will do whatever their corporate sponcers tell them to do . Both of them are in the senate and what sort of leadership have they shown? Did they lead the fught against Maurkasy- NO, Did they fillerbuster Alito- NO,did they even strongly support Fiengold in his modest attempt to sensure Bush for his abuse of power-NO Have they ever strongly defended the constitution or used their leadership powers to push Polosi to begin an impeachment investigation of GW-NO NO NO NO !!!!!!
Teses two have the power and are in the leadership but it seems they refused to use their power,what does that tell you of what they will do if elected President?
Talking about perfect candidates these two don't even begin to represent anything that a progressive could support.If you want a candidate that is not perfect but at least has a human side,and can be counted on to at least respond to Ralph questions in a way that would more to the liking of most progressives
you would have to vote for Ron Paul !!!!!!!!
Milagro!
It is the Bend-over-crats that are stealing votes away from progressives like Kucinich, and Nader etc. The Bend-over-crats need to be honest with themselves for a change and admit that they are really in agreement with Repugs in 99.5% of the issues. The rest is just window dressing.
They belong in the same party, together, birds of a feather. They are just the left and the right wing of the same pro-war, pro-big business, pro-status quo party. They only differ in whether we need 130,000 troops in Iraq or 70,000 in Iraq and move 60,000 to Afghanistan.
It's the perennial Dweedle-Dee-istic debate. We need to dump the Dims and go Green or 3rd party.
Bend-over-crats: stop stealing votes from progressives!
Please, Common Dreams, stop giving Nader a forum for his twisted evil. He gets paid by Republicans to write this stuff and he hates Democrats because they won't recognize his sick agenda. Nader now wants to make his name as political spoiler. Only you can prevent another electoral disaster caused by Nader's egomania.
Good question's Ralph. Even those questions are a little more tame than should be asked. It's obvious the governement had involvement in 9/11 how about throwing some of them in?
The whole thing is just a farce. The elite have their ducks lined up. They have the candidates they want. Now the artistry of trying to make it look compelling come to hand. Voter fraud machines primed and ready.
It's now a contest of which candidate can now form their mouths into the most seductive sucking shape that will asure the blessing of the oligarchy.
JConrad - bravo. For years I have thought that the only questions to lead the 'news' is 'How many dead in Iraq today?' and 'What are their names, who are they?'. (Now include Afghanistan, Gaza.) It is never asked of Bush. It is rarely uttered. (Rachel Maddow does ask, thank you Rachel).
I don't want Mr. Nader to run. But we all know that he was, he is, right.
Our democracy is over. I wish the 'hope' would be for re-doing it from the beginning.
What really bothers me is that both Obama and Clinton are to the right of most conservative parties in Europe.
They both put their tails between their leg whenever any program is labeled the slightist bit socialist. And the MSM calls "Socialist" any program that doesn't let our darling billionaires pillage our society (and anything with progressive financing).
Have some balls and vote green, vote socialist, vote libertarian, vote Nader - voting republicrat signifies you are fine with being abused.
iowablackbird
It's funny how easily so many people can partition the structural problems of US politics away from "practical considerations." "Yes, yes, the two party system is a problem, but first we have to beat the other party." "Yes, yes, we'll end the war on terror just as soon as we defeat the extremists."
Isn't it possible that running for office can make a difference even if there is little chance that one will win? No, I'm not talking about Nader supposedly getting Bush elected. I'm talking about the impact of populist insurgencies on US policy in the past. I recommend Secrets of the Temple by Greider.
The whole "it's insulting to disagree with the majority" argument is exceedingly weak. Logically and historically. What if an oncologist said you had cancer, but 93% of your friends and family said you were fine? And why did the Founding Fathers go on so about the tyranny of the majority? And since Bush was elected, isn't it pretentious of us to say that's a bad thing?
And who's to say that a debate like this isn't educating people about important issues, and helping them hone their critical thinking? So don't tell me I'm not doing my job to educate people.
Then you just sort of settle into some very tired straw-man lynching. Yes, Nader is egotistical enough to believe he can make a difference. Clinton and Obama are egotistical enough to believe that they can be the first female/black president. I'm egotistical enough to believe I can get people to abandon failed anti-Nader arguments and try out some new ones. Nader has spent his entire adult live representing the people. Oh, I bet you meant he doesn't have experience holding an elected office. That may be true, but it isn't a fact that has any weight in MY voting decisions.
The hero-worship attack is weak too. I don't worship Nader. I believe in the importance of voting for candidates who I believe would best represent my interests. AND I believe in not voting for people who flatly refuse to represent my interests.
Barry
www.runcynthiarun.org
Remember, the Democrats hate Democracy. And they certainly hate anyone who might actually think this is a democracy and challenge their number 2 position in the realm of corporate power.
They hate the idea of people talking in their own debates. Note how they've spent the last four years trying to keep you from hearing people like Sharpton, Kucinich and any others who don't support corporate power.
The Democrats hate primaries in their races. In Senate and Congressional districts you'll always here them scream that any challenge to their supporters of corporate power is divisive and should not occur.
The Democrats rig their own convention such that 20% of the delegates are unelected 'super-delegates' to block any democratic efforts inside their party to challenge the supporters of corporate power.
I've lived in states where the Democrats control the political machinery, and they'll do any think to block other parties from the ballot and prevent free and fair elections that challenge corporate power.
And of course, they hate the Greens and Ralph Nader. All you have to do is mention Ralph Nader's name and the hatred comes spewing out. Its a magic spell that reveals the dark and twisted internals of what has become a disgusting political party.
Please stop supporting these foul and hateful people who hate our democracy and who are working to support corporate rule in what used to be the land of the free. DON'T VOTE DEMOCRAT!
Cool. It all goes to Democracy Now and a story about Ralph Nader launching an exploratory committee to run. Two fine places to go to.
And any mouse click in this part of the page takes a Democrat there. Hah! Since they hate the truth and those that speak the truth, they won't like it there. :) /a>
What the F%*^! Everything people blog is now a link!
Ralph, this article kinda sucked, buddy. You are capable of much better stuff. What I really wanted to hear is that you are running so that perhaps some important issues can be raised. What do you say Ralph?
(/a)