Once again "if Ralph had not been in the race, Gore would have won"

Why must you continue to assume that Nader voters would hold their noses and vote democratic when the democratic party folds like a house of cards on key progressive issues. Talk about EGO.

Look, I am sick of this pattern of dissing Nader after the perfunctionary bowing--If it wasn't for the likes of Nader and other progressives, like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Morre who have caught more flak for being front and center and made themselves targets for demanding accountability--then there would be NO CAUSE for there to be any differences between the DLC candidates and the Republicans. You all should be thanking them--and the legions of other progressive activists that not only misbehaved by loudly dissenting (ego)-but some actually paid with their lives. How about a little humble gratitude.

Meanwhile, I thank you very much, Ralph Nader, as all courageous people, you ignore the naysayers, and get those issues out there front and center instead of all the focus going to the horserace.

Ah Ed, here's a suggestion: get Obama and Clinton to withdraw and support Ralph instead. I am sure Ralph can get almost all of Obama's votes and most of Hillary's blue collar workers.

Well, since the above is as likely to happen as a mythical hell freezing over, how about helping Ralph pick up the conservatives who would rather stay home instead of voting for either of the two big parties?

"Clinton and Obama want to end the occupation."

This is just plain laughable. Clinton has been supporting this illegal act of aggression for 5 years. Obama has been supporting it a few years less than that and he wants to invade Pakistan. I fail to see how that's "change". I cannot support a candidate who has given even tacit approval to the illegal and aggressive occupation of two countries in the last 5 years. If you vote for anyone has voted to continue this aggression, you are complicit in war crimes.

Nader did not cause Gore to lose in 2000. Gore cost himself the election.

0. You've all seen Fahrenheit 911. Remember the first few scenes? The entire Congressional Black Caucus petitions the final session of the 2000 Senate, with Gore presiding his last act as Vice President. Each member of the CBC asks to be recognized to speak, to contest the results of Florida according to the Voting Rights Act. Any one senator - including Gore himself - could have recognized the CBC and begun an investigation. One senator wanted to - Barbara Boxer - but Gore told her not to. Gore would rather turn away from black voting rights and from his own candidacy rather than challenge the status quo.
Here's the CNN transcript of the session: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/06/se.05.html
Illegal tricks and black voter disenfranchisement by Bush's brother and Choice Point corporation cost Gore thousands of votes in Florida. We have Cynthia McKinney to thank for getting to the bottom of that - not Gore (see American Blackout.)

1. The full recount by AP showed that Gore won. Gore had only asked for a few counties in Florida to be recounted, which would not have made the difference. Gore meekly submitted to the Supreme Courts verdict at any rate.
http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm Scroll down to "Foreground: Gore's Victory"

2. According to Al From of the DLC, from reading poll results, Nader brought more people to the polls because he was in the race and talked about issues people cared about - adding more to Gore's total than he took away.
"The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm

3. More registered Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader.

4. Gore couldn't even win his own state, Tennessee.

Don't repeat the lie that Nader cost Gore the election. That sad tale is told by Democrats that want to keep the progressive vote hostage and never have to work for it. The Democrats want to continue to move to the right and they want you to keep voting for them. Stop falling for it.

This is all part of the 150+ year old boxing-in strategy of the Republicrats.

Roughly analgous to the most ancient of fear-based appeals: believe in god or you're going to hell.

They play off each other as foils. If I'm limited to neocons and crypto-neocons, pro-nuke, anti single-payer, and other scoundrels who don't seem to understand that our nation is pissing away its potential by a grossly over-inflated obsession on military spending and an unsustainable economic system -- then I shan't be bothered to vote in November.

Nader isn't stealing my vote away from the Dims -- they never had it.

Ed Garvey__ At last, someone has some common sense about this coming election and what is the only smart thing to do. You are right, Ed, Nader could do much good and help out greatly if he stayed out of the race and kept working to get his ideas adopted.

These pitiful pipedreams we hear about supporting Nader this year must be the Repugs messaging, as they will benefit from it. If Nader thinks only he has the capability to run the country, he should have thrown his hat in the ring months ago.

If some of you posters want more ruination of our country, go ahead and throw your vote away and see if you can get another Repug elected. Just don`t complain when we end up with a total fascist dictatorship and you do not even have any chance to voice your opinion.

Ed, its never the "right time" for you or democrats in general is it?

Quit crying & pouting and grow a brain.

Pitiful pipedream - Any vote for Obama or Clinton for change

I don't know. I'm torn. I wanted to vote for Kucininch, but he quit. So I switched to Edwards, and he too dropped out(after vowing to continue the fight throughout all fifty state primaries). Now, I'd like to vote for Nader in the PA primary if the Democrats don't successfully conspire to keep him off the ballot here as they did in 2004. But it is rather late to enter the race and I can't help but wonder if his reputed narcissism tipped the balance in his decision. I believe that it might drain votes away from Obama in a close general election, and I believe there is a world of difference between Obama and McCain on the consummation of the police state in America. Obama may put the brakes on when it comes to preemptive strikes, torture, surviellance of citizens, and the suspension of habeas corpus rights. What has happened to this country during the Bush years is terrifying enough to make a corporate centrist with political savvy an appealing prospect.

Ed Garvey says, "Eyes on the prize! No, eyes on the issues that matter for a just and decent society! Ralph Nader is the only honest voice today that raises the important issues. Look at the farce of Clinton, Obama and McCain! (Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran! The sky will open; The light will come down;angels will appear...)

I'm glad that spineless Gore did not win; he and the clown Joe Lieberman would have made a similar mess as Bush has.We should not forget that Bush had made the mess because Democrats have enabled him. Don't blame Nader for Gore's defeat or Bush's theft of the election or the Supreme's gift of the Presidency to Bush. Gore could not even win his own native state. Ed Garvey, please don't write such meaningless counterfactuals as "If Ralph had not been in the race, Gore would have won." Do some honor to your profession of being a lawyer.

Ed raises many very good points, and has given me pause for concern. Still, I can't help but return always to the creeping malaise that is fascism. The democrats just take longer for us to get there, but I'm not sure by how much.

From "They Thought They Were Free":

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn't make people close to their government to be told that this is a people's government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

I'm not going to worry about the Democrats winning this election. I agree with Ralph that: "If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form." If moderates don't feel moved to repudiate the past 7 years of idiocy, and by huge margins, it's time to declare the patient dead. But if y'all don't mind, I am not a moderate. I am a progressive and my candidate is Ralph Nader. President Obama will need to know that there remain a lot of issues over here to the left of things that still need to be addressed. And the puppeteer who holds a donkey puppet in one hand and an elephant puppet in the other needs to know that we see him up there.

If you ask me, the Democrats are just afraid that neither Hillary or Obama can beat McCain and don't want any outside "interference" from Ralph or the Greens. Nader had a poor showing in 2000 - 3% which probably would have been at least 5% had they not said "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." In 2004 the democrats worked hard to keep Nader off the ballot in many states and the Greens didn't run a serious candidate. This year Nader might get 1-2%, all the while taking away some of the steam from the Green Party candidate who has basically the same message.

The reason I don't want Ralph to run has nothing to do with the dems - he should focus his energy in helping an actual MOVEMENT - the green/Green movement. Ralph only runs for president every 4 years and ignores the greens now. If Cynthia McKinney is the green candidate then I have no doubt we will see an unprecedented amount of support, especially in those poor urban areas where blacks and other minorities don't normally vote because they know the regular candidates don't give a shit about homelessness and inner city crime and poverty.

http://www.runcynthiarun.org/

I may or may not vote for Nader, but the important question is, what have the Dems done in th last 7 years to earn my vote?

Almost every damage Bush has done to our country and the world would not have been possible without complicity from the Dems: the Iraq war, domestic spying, torture, war crimes in general, ....

You may bring out the pragmatism card to justify your support for the Dems. But think again. When does pragmatism turns into complicity?

Dems have not earned my vote.

aruca5ive February 26th, 2008 1:04 pm

You almost sound like me.

I hold Nadir personally responsible for all the deaths of all the innocents who have died in Iraq under Chimpy bush. He should be real proud of his time in HELL! What a dumb shitzuh this man has become!

redgeek February 26th, 2008 1:04 pm

I could not have said it better.

http://counterpunch.org/colby02262008.html

"We live in scary times. And no one scares me more than the faux-liberals of today. They are a most intolerant mob that has become so dislodged from logic that they'd rather gaze reverently at the false packaging of hope than seriously contemplate the issues of the day. They love bandwagons and hate activism. They strive for insular popularity while trampling the populace. And, in the true spirit of fundamentalism, they loathe dissent and flog the dissenter with the kind of glee that is seemingly borrowed from Jimmy Swaggart's beating of the ungodly unbeliever.

...Remember, it's these same liberal fundamentalists who have time after time denigrated the anti-war crowd for "going too far," much as they've also wagged their blogging fingers at those who dared to demand real solutions to health care, tax injustice, workers' rights, the Bush debacle (impeachment) and energy policy.

...Sadly, it's a symptom of the fundamentalist liberals that is becoming all too familiar: They don't believe their own rhetoric. How else can you explain their rabid condemnation of Bush AND the condemnation of the impeachment movement? Or their understandable yelps against the current health care crisis but their seeming acceptance of the nonsensical "solution" being rhetorically weaved by Obama/Clinton? Or their preaching of tolerance but their vile invectives toward a man's right to speak and/or seek office? If Nader's right to seek office can be so easily ridiculed, where will they stop? Sorry, but that's not the liberalism I studied.

..Earth to the liberal fundies: Skip the Kool-Aid, try the reality sandwich."

The very idea of this Garvey guy thinks he can pontificate who should or should not run for president of the US is pretty goddamn arrgoant and disgusting.

Ralph Nader is a native born US citizen (Hartford, Conneticut) and over 35 years of age, so he does not need your or any other person's permission to run, OK?

Why is that liberal democrats take progressives for granted? They have failed to do much to combat erosion of everything important in this country. So, why don't they support a progressive candidate for a change, and ask their liberal candidate to drop out, instead of insisting that the progressive candidate should do so?

nothing against ralph, but i agree, he's late. coming into the game at halftime??

Garvey, like most Democrats, is full of malarkey. This is the say whining they do every year. I do wish Nader would accept teh VP sl;ot with Cynthia McKinney.

The Democrats real problem is that they nominate such lame losers that the left value voters, like me, can't hold their nose closed enough to vote for them.

And if you Democrats lose this election, well, you don't deserve to be called a political party.

"What have the Dems done in the last 7 years to deserve my vote?"

Exactly.

Good work. The comments to this article are fantastic.

Hope to see you in the VoteNader2008 Yahoo Group.

Nader is a way out. Whether it will work this year or not is irrelevant. You'd be foolish to continue to support this failed system Nader rightfully calls a "two-party dictatorship."

And don't worry about stealing votes from the Democrats by supporting Nader. Obama or Clinton should win in a landslide. If the Democratic nominee loses, as Nader says, the Democratic Party should just close up and cease to operate.

Certainly, if they lose, I hope the party does. I will say, "Good riddance." And then look forward to the future campaigns of people like Kucinich, Gravel, McKinney, etc. because those campaigns might be successful.

Redneck:
I hold Gore personally responsible for all the deaths of all the innocents who have died in Iraq under Chimpy bush. He should be real proud of his time in HELL! What a dumb shitzuh this man has become!

Ahhhhh, another article advocating a kinder, gentler corporatism.

Ed concluded his article with the phrase "Eyes on the prize!" Well, what exactly is THE PRIZE?

I'd say the prize is the restoration of the US Government to its rightful owners. Will either Obama or Clinton fight that battle with us? It's very, very hard to believe that either one will. "The prize" is taking back our government from the corporations that control it.

To believe in the Democratic Party and its candidates should require clear evidence that they are prepared to engage this great confrontation. What evidence is there that Democrats have struggled against the current system of corporate welfare? Have they called for deep cuts in the absurd $1.1 trillion military budget? Have they called for a closing down of the more than 730 foreign US military bases that clearly is the enforcement arm of American imperialism? The deeply disturbing answers to these questions is a resounding "NO!"

Advertising a laundry list of domestic programs is, by definition, just empty words without deep cuts in military spending. The Treasury is already bankrupt. There will be no "great society" programs because there is no money to pay for them. It really is that simple. Healthcare, education, retirement security, infrastructure, alternative energy, social safety net - forget about it. There will be no money without making deep curs in military spending. It's all too clear the Democrats are not prepared to tackle this issue.

Nader's candidacy, in my view, is neither here nor there. He isn't going to win but he can bring out, given whatever miniscule platform the major parties will permit him, issues that the major parties totally fail to address. Whether he could do that as a non-candidate is really not the issue at all. Suggestions that he should have run along with Kucinich as a Democrat are laughable. The Democrats squeezed Kucinich out of their debates because they wanted to control their pro-corporate agenda. Does anyone really believe Nader would have fared any better? It's a ridiculous assertion.

Nader's candidacy, frankly any third party candidacy, should be used as an opportunity to organize a progressive movement. I've come to believe that the PDA approach of working within the party just can't effect the necessary changes we need. To PDA's credit, they might get a few genuine progressives elected but they will never have a strong voice about the party's direction. Cindy Sheehan, true to her word, has apparently resigned from the PDA board. It's disheartening, to say the least, to see most other PDA board members backing either Clinton or Obama.

It's time to stop "People Magazine-ing" Nader's candidacy. It's time to stop talking about Ralph's "giant ego" and it's time to stop talking about 2000. Such discussions lead nowhere. Our focus should be on the important issues Ralph, and other third party candidates, are raising and not on the electoral politics of their campaigns. Nader is one of the most effective voices in opposing the corporate state. Real progressives should rally behind his message and leave it to others to whine about his candidacy.

We of the "left" actually have a shot this year to fly right under the conservatives' noses and elect a man to the presidency that some have called "the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate" AND WITH A VOTER MANDATE FOR "CHANGE", TO BOOT. Good enough for Ralph? Nope. Will Ralph help? Nope. Does Ralph even know the difference? Maybe. Will he be truthful enough to admit the difference if he does know? Nope.

riverbird -

From the frequency of his articles I'd say Nader has been "in the game" pretty consistently both in and out of election seasons, for a long time. I never heard of Obama before the 2004 convention, and I can't recall Clinton going public on a regular basis with her opinions either. These poppinjays appear when political openings are up for grabs, but Ralph has been plugging his issues for as long as I can remember.

I am recovering after nearly choking with laughter when I read "Clinton and Obama want to end the occupation". Sure. Elvis is still alive too and planing a comeback.
Let's look at the candidates:
McCain - Dances around on the stage singing "Bomb Iran" and wants a 100 year war.
Clinton - Part of the "ruling monarchy" that has plagued the White House for 28 years. Voted the IRG as a terrorist organization (and the US Army isn't?). Supports nuclear weapons.
Obama - Greenhorn. No practical experience for the job. Makes a lot of good speeches but disappears when it's time to vote. All talk, no action.
Nader is clearly a better candidate for president than any of the other 3. It's scary to see so many people that shouted "Vote for Kucinich!" and never once supported Obama all of a sudden jump on the Obama bandwagon.
STOP WATCHING THE PUPPET SHOW AND ANALYZE THE CANDIDATES' QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE OFFICE THEY ARE APPLYING FOR!

Daniel David -

Once again, slowly this time: You of the left have our complete permission to elect Barack Obama. We absolutely expect you to do so. Many of us, however, will be voting for Nader, because we are more progressive than Obama, just as many people will be voting for McCain because they are to the right of Obama. Ralph does not replace progressive issues with slogans. Is this good enough for Obama? Nope. Will Obama help? Nope.

Thank you, Ralph, for giving me a candidate I can vote for, among all the bad candidates I would feel compelled to vote against.

Ralph will not "steal" my vote from the Democrats. If Ralph is not on the ticket in Oregon, and I cannot write him in, I will not be voting.

Nader's overiding message is WE NEED TRUE LEADERSHIP...and that can only come from the vox populi, each of us. We ALL need to step up now! A truly informed body politic is responsible, responsive and integral to a true democratic milieu. Are we up to it?

Kelmer,

Good points.

Here's a dictionary of the code language the liberals and their presidential candidates use...

1. "Middle Class"
- defense of smug white suburbanites and urban gentry from any assaults on their positions of power and privledge, partly from corporate abuse from above, but mostly from the lazy, good for nothing poor black and brown people.

2. "Poor"
- Never, ever use this word!

3. "Affordable Health Care"
- health care that will still use the same bloated, inefficient insurance-hospital industrial complex, and will force, under penalty of fines or imprisonment, that the lazy, freeloading, poor buy insurance - at a cheaper price but no doubt with userous deductables and copays - which will still drive them into homelessness - especially if they ever actually have to use the insurance.

4. "Same insurance I have as a Senator"
- Insurance under the federal employees insurance proggram - it still costs about $250-500 a month employees contribution, or about $1800 per month under a cobra-type plan if you lose your job.

5. "Single Payer", "universal", or "Free" health care -
don't dare use these words - or dismiss them an "not politically feasable".

6. "I will restore Respect for the US in the world"
- a. will demand the same "respect" that a successful Mafia Don earns from the citizens of his precinct, through favors to those who support his racket, a hail of bullets to those that don't.
- b. will continue to support to the hilt the 1 trillion dollar global War-Machine Racket.

7. "Will vigorously pursue Non-Proliferation"
- a. Will bomb Iran.
- b. Will ignore our own obligations under the same treaty to pursue nuclear disarmament.

8. "Will address our energy security issues"
- Will drill the death out of Alaska, send out best robber barons into Alberta, overthrow the government of Venezuela, flatten West Virginia and Kentucky, and build big new coal buning power plants everywhere.

9. "Will address Global Warming"
- Same as above, but will call it "clean coal" and cut the carbon emissions from the tar-sand mining equipment a little bit.

voxclamantis,

Since "we" have your permission to elect Obama over McCain, and your absolute expectation placed on "us" to do so, why are you progressives bewildered when we ask you to help with what you are "expecting" others to do?

DanielDavid,

Nader just called me. He wants to know if you'd like to attend a meeting with him, Karl Rove, the current membership of Skulls and Bones, Joe Lieberman, and the Bilderberg Group all at Bohemian Grove.

If Obama gets nominated he'll win by such a landslide, Nader can't hurt him. If Clinton gets nominated, she'll lose by such a landslide that Nader can't hurt her either. IF, by some chance, Clinton wins, other than her blatant lies, and Southern Democrat Used Car Salesman smile, could we really tell the difference?

I can't get the image out of my mind of Clinton trying to lead a look-alike cheer at the Senior Citizens Center... "YES WE WILL, YES WE WILL... come ON people... YOU SAY IT TOO... YES WE WILL..."

Eight poor old folks, drooling pureed green beans, mildly agitated.

People keep saying she's so "brilliant." I really don't see it.

Besides, I'm going to write in Cynthia McKinney... so there.

:--P

Oh, puh-LEEZ!!!!! Why doesn't somebody just tell Nader to go away and quit spoiling elections and throwing them to the Republicans? Do we really want a President McCain? Do we really want more Bush policies for another four or eight years?

Good God almighty, I'm so sick of these spoiler candidates coming in late in the race and throwing things to the opposition!!! I'm a progressive like the rest of you, but for heaven's sake, I do not want another four years of struggling just to keep my head above water, I do not want another four years of worrying about my friends going to war in Iraq, I do not want another four years of struggling to pay high gas prices with my long commute to and from work....I'm sick of the whole Bush doctrine.

And all Nader's entering the race is going to do is to guarantee another four years of it. Ralph, give it up, for God's sake!!!!!!

In the first presidential election in which I was eligible to vote (1980), I cast my ballot for John Anderson. Then in '92 I thought Ross Perot had a great plan. I voted for Nader in '96, but not in 2000, when I knew it would be too close to call so I voted for Gore, fat lot of good that it did. Here in Ohio, I vote on paperless touch screen machines, and I feel fairly certain that I could have stayed home on election day since Ohio for Bush was a foregone conclusion. Same with 2004, thanks to Ken Blackwell.

Yet I will not vote for Nader this time around. I would feel alot better about him if he had been spending the last 8 or 12 years actually building a viable third party, working to get its members elected to local and state positions, and giving us "protest voters" a real voice.

Nader has every right to run. The fact that Democrats are scared truly reveals their weakness. A strong party that is sure of itself would welcome Nader as an opponent. Not the Democrats, those dumb bunnies would sit back and blame Nader for Gore's "loss". Gore won the election, remember? And the fact that I have been bullied by Democrats on these boards are driving me away from Obama and into the arms of Nader. Way to go Democrats, keep on alienating me at your peril! You deserve what you get!

Some of you posters can continue your useless trashing of the Dem candidates and your idolizing of Nader, Paul, Gravel, and McKinney, but you are wasting your time for nothing.

After we manage to get either Dem in to at least slow down the damage, then would be a great time to consider organizing support for the perfect president for the next election, as it takes more than a few months.

How does anyone think that the media and press would allow someone to be considered at this late date except the two they picked for front runners months ago? I believe half a loaf is better than none, and Nader etc. will be none.

SALLY-sorry to break your bubble about how nader cost gore the election, BUT THAT IS A LIE!! nader running will only make it more difficult for Obama to run to center. GO NADER!

Omigod, Daniel David, you are so obtuse!

Progressives aren't helping you elect Obama because he isn't progressive!

Quit haranguing us to vote for someone we don't approve of.

It is irrelevant to point out that Republican policies will be awful. Everyone knows that. What's dishonest is Ed Garvey's silent hint that complicit Democrats might offer the opposite.

welshTerrier2 at 2:15 p.m. has made a fine critique, especially this:
"To believe in the Democratic Party and its candidates should require clear evidence that they are prepared to engage this great confrontation. What evidence is there that Democrats have struggled against the current system of corporate welfare? Have they called for deep cuts in the absurd $1.1 trillion military budget? Have they called for a closing down of the more than 730 foreign US military bases that clearly is the enforcement arm of American imperialism? The deeply disturbing answers to these questions is a resounding "NO!"

Advertising a laundry list of domestic programs is, by definition, just empty words without deep cuts in military spending. The Treasury is already bankrupt. There will be no "great society" programs because there is no money to pay for them. It really is that simple. Healthcare, education, retirement security, infrastructure, alternative energy, social safety net - forget about it. There will be no money without making deep curs in military spending. It's all too clear the Democrats are not prepared to tackle this issue."

Indeed, evidence matters.

Kernel, is half of a half of a loaf better than none? What about half of a half of a half of a half? Are you a concentration camp survivor? Is anything better than death? How low do you have to go before you're so devalued as a human being that death looks better? How low are you?

Too late to play? It's never too late for the truth.
As per Nader being a spoiler? It was all the votes for Gore/Leibershit that were a waste.

The above article has nudged me a little closer to Nader. Thanks, Mr. Garvey.

If Obama can't compete as a progressive, I see no reason to give my vote to him. And of course I won't be voting for Hillary under any circumstances. If McCain wins, it will be the fault of the Democrats, just as it was in the last two presidential elections.

first off nader did not cost gore the election. man how fast people forget. remember Bev Harris people. Remember Black Box Voting and Hacking Democracy, its a bona fide fact people the 2000 and 2004 elections were fraudulent Christ kathryn harris had half of the florida ballots thrown into the everglades quit arguing about the elections they were phony alright you get it now.

second of all, Nader is an asshole, lets get some legitimate alternate party possibilities. Like Cynthia Mckinney. Dilute the elections with multiple parties with some people that can actually get more than 5 votes.

Interesting postings: USAN, QBALDSMOOVE, & WELSH TERRIER2.

and another thing, is the war all you people base your decisions on? we need domestic policy. we need economic policy. we need health care. we need more money for education and scientific research. and dont forget you have at least 3 supreme court spots coming up in the next few years you have one with cancer, one in his 80's and another nearing 80, do you idiots want McCain to make those picks. All in all its the Supreme court appointees that fuck us all in the long run, long after Bush leaves office his residual effects will be felt by the likes of the votes made by Alito and Scalia. Wake up you dumb jackasses pull your head out of your asses. Either democrat will be better than McCain.

Siouxrose,
I have missed you terribly and havent seen you around lately. Nice to have your wisdom around again. Peace