George W. Bush’s sentence-by-sentence speaking skills are deteriorating. Apparently, this may be due to a mental illness called “presenile dementia.” Bush may or may not be secretly still drinking heavily. Bush lied, and thousands of people died. Bush suffers from narcissism and megalomania. Moreover, Bush has been arrested three times. Bush was arrested for disorderly conduct. Bush was arrested for stealing. Bush was also arrested for a serious crime—driving under the influence of alcohol. There are reasons to believe that Bush suffers from a learning disability. Bush’s learning disability would explain a lot of things. All in all, Bush is a severely mentally ill individual. Bush is not fit to be the president of the United States.

Bush should be locked up.

Cheney attended Yale University, but he flunked out. Cheney was twice prosecuted for and convicted of drunk driving. Cheney lied to former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey about the grounds for going to war in Iraq. Cheney is a pathological liar. Cheney is incompetent. Cheney would like to think that he is above the law. However, Cheney must pay for crimes against the United States and the world.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA

I owe jozef an apology. I thought he said "sucking up to" as opposed to "sucking up the," in an earlier post. There is a world of difference in the two and I misread him. I then told him what he could do and it wasn't nice at all. My apologies to you, jozef. I hope you can forgive me for my mistake … the second I made on this particular thread.

Impeach Bush/Cheney08!

This article will be disappearing into the archives soon, and off the front page of CD. So before it does I just want to say, thank you, to Ralph, for all that you have done. I support you all the way.

I can understand the dispare eloquently stated above. Still I am glad that there are a some people who are too stupid to know that things are impossible and, because they care about the world as we do they are probing for solutions and for understanding of what is and what might be possible and are trying to find ways out of this mess. They are our hope for the future and if mankind is fortunate they will find some possibilities and potentials that might work and will motivate us to once more try to organize in building a better future despite what we know and our awareness of the odds.

I rarely use people's names in these blogs, having said that, peaceman, offers some valuable observations and of course Nannie always offers good information, without taking as assault disagreements offered by others. Some here use foul mouth insults, misquotes, continuous anger and hot air constantly emitted who think they have the handle of knowledge offered from those who live in rarified atmosphere causing confusion.

This plutocracy, oligarchy as been in the making since the Brits sent their kind to colonize the new world. "Divine Kingship dies slowly, FDR learned his lessons well from Winston Churchill too well. While the sun did set on the British Empire, the American Empire, went forward with the hubris and its belief in technology and hydrocarbons seasoned with the Atomic Bomb, to out-do the Queen. To make certain that her belief in a means of government, not peppered with too much choice - as in the Parliamentary systems - might offer a better cover for so-called democracy,

Fast-forward to the Hollywood cutting room floor of American starstruck politics in the new millennium. Three so-called candidates and a spoiler, running for the coveted power spot of figurehead for the "American Dream" future leader of its cultures with: two chickens in every pot and four Hummers in every six car garage, three new cancer causing HDV-TV"s in all of the rooms of one's little six thousand square foot shack in suburbia. All this for American children to become more alienated, more violent and less motivated to explore intellectual pursuits and Human Purpose, thanks largely to their video game education, as a result of the America's technological prowess . . .True progress!

What is the average American . . . err, citizen to do? We have seen what the new American empire has accomplished in the hands of imperial and imperious leadership represented by the slow-witted, in-bred modern Nero who occupies the "Oval Office" in the USA, with the large draws of the King's desk able to hold a Gideon's bible, and pint of Scotch, as well as the unread briefing papers sent by underlings and lesser mortals before the latest crisis developed.

We have seen, those of us - who believe in right-thinking, humanism and love, as well as responsible environmental behavior in the face of a growing threat to human survival - throw up their hands in disgust at the machinations of the American election theater process funded by the American corporate-power establishment who has created a means to keep the public conditioned and resigned to the power club's choice of candidates, that are chosen for their ability to take orders and able to be controlled for the purposes of, continuing American world domination and hegemony.

However, it was determined this time the selected candidates would have to be more intelligent, humanely bred, with the clear understanding that less gold can be siphoned off for personal treasuries held in far off lands, since the risk of human extinction has gone too far. It was determined by the power club that the previous club members have been too greedy and stupid in the face of the global impending catastrophe to continue to be trusted. It had become abundantly clear that the excesses of the ruling classes had stripped too much wealth from the working slaves. It was determined; the best hope for the country and the world, was to select a new president, who was sufficiently intelligent, one known for hard work in the areas where the wealth had been stripped from the slaves and working classes, who had a family history of slavery.

Enter Bema stage "left", a person who ostensibly is anti-war but who supports the will of the ruling classes. A person who has a good heart and knows there are limits to continued greed although; it cannot be eliminated amongst his colleagues, since it composes the fundamental basis of their personalities and reason for existence. One final reason for the choice of a black man, he represents the rising percentage of people of color in the USA, and presents a face that world cultures might respect for the USA to continue its rise to unequivocal, unprecedented, empire, based on its technological prowess unsurpassed amongst nations.

Hence, the Mars landing as proof that America cannot be surpassed in the technology needed to save humanity from the environmental meltdown, in part from the disaster the western world has caused by its use of hydrocarbons led by America. Imagine my friends the USA is able to put a man on the polar regions of Mars, looking for water, but cannot retrofit vehicles that were designed for 30 mpg to be able to achieve at least 60 mpg before being sold for bargain prices, thus continuing the madness of global melt-down?

The USA a young culture - a mere two hundred and fifty years in the development of humanity over ten thousand years of recorded history and a million years of human development- America has been able to produce the best and the worst in the modern era, we have brought ourselves to the brink of extinction.

Many think my support of Obama is without thought or understanding of the reality of American politics or its so-called democracy - but after careful consideration for what is at stake in this woebegone culture called America and the perils facing humanity. We must understand that the USA is a great illusion, pandering to the baser elements of human survival.

We need only look at the beer drinking, shot swigging, caricature of the female candidate Clinton, running to be president of the USA, to know the levels of farce - a theater in the absurd punctuated by "Saturday Night Live"- to know that that the dignity of public office in the most powerful nation on earth, that the political system in the USA is a farce; and the political star struck nature of the American culture is a dying comedic tragedy.

The problem with all of this is that laughing is good for the soul and very healthy. Reading what is written here could be very funny, to read many of these cyborg buffoons and fall off the chair laughing. But for the tragic nature of the political choices that vow that change will take place if elected. We all know that changing this system of privilege given to multinational kingship is all but impossible to change.

One need only watch and hear the testimony before congress, of the CEO of Exxon Mobile to know that there is no hope. These men are ruthless, hardened, con-men and phonies, who could not care less about anything that has other motives other than profit and the continuation of killer capitalism to continue on their ways to get as much gold in the counting houses as possible.

Thee above are the new Rumple Stilkin, of the new millennium. I say to those who write and believe change, who believe in the beauty and truth of women's devotion to power, as seen in one candidate, the dedication to war, suffering and the continuation of Wall street and greed seen in the political agenda of another, and the visage of slavery and racism in the face of another elevated to dedication to public service in a third, regardless of his handler's agenda.

Those who are still able to think recognize the sham that this election in the heart of Plutocracy, powerless to make any changes in a system that can undo the popular vote, where fifty-percent of the people vote. I shake my head and smile and think this is the system for which I once fought and was brainwashed to believe.

For those who write their heartfelt prose about genuine change and bettering man's lot, to keep from hooting and jeering at those people who love humanity, like David Korten and others, I hold my tongue and pick the best of the least offered and hope their might be a change for the better before the end. I smile to myself and laugh the belly laugh of Kafka, hoping I will see the end as the environmental disaster takes place. I hope I can sit on a rock thinking of those blogs laughing about them as my eyes go blurred from tears waiting for that one hundred foot wave to sweep me away.

Little Brother,

Forgive me for not thanking you before. I do appreciate the compliment. As long as she stays in the race, Cynthia McKinney will get my vote. She fought against the Bush/Cheney regime when she was in Congress, and she'll fight for us as a President. I don't write on Common Dreams to impress anybody. There is too much at stake to trust the Bush Democrats and I will not be part of it. Thanks again, Little Brother.

My thoughts exactly Cappadonna.
Nader doesn't even try. He just shows up when it's convenient for him, and was happy to let the Republican Party help him out with signatures.

Quote:
"#
Thom Whaley May 24th, 2008 4:11 pm

What a hero Ralph is. Thats why when he had the chance to actually win an election, instead of standing to the side and pointing at the flaws, He chose not to run, in his own state, against Joey-the-jokester-Lieberman. In his silence, Ralphie refused to fight where he might have made a difference. What a shame that he didn't have the courage to wage a real fight with honor.

--
Now he simply wants, once again, to be in some kind of desperate spotlight and piss into the wind.
"

Though not a widely shared sentiment at CD is one that is the most salient -- too many progressive leaders (Nader, Kuicinich, McKinney) let their egos and ideological rigidity get in the way of real progress. Real progress means putting your ego aside and doing what needs to be done for the sake of the movement. It means taking the crappy city clerk and councilmen job and building a grassroots movement at the local level. It means making compromises and working with people you don't agree with to get things done.

Simply put, Nader wouldn't run for senate because a) it would bring out the nationwide admiration and media circus and b) he would actually have to get into a political knife fight with an experienced pol like Lieberman. Nader isn't going to run for a congressional seat because he could actually lose the race on the merits of his campaign and not because of statistically unlikelihood.

Like him or loathe him, Holy Joe has been in the game longer than I've been alive. If he make a fairly moderate anti-war telecom millionaire like Lamont look like an irrational hippie wimp, he would make minced meat out of Nader. And with most political activists like Nader, the easiest way to silence him forever is to take him out of his comfort zone. (See Sharpton, Pat Robertson, etc.)

Nader would have to go out and work for the streets, speaking to people other than the usual over-educated, anti-WTO types that clamour in tiny college towns like New Haven, Middleton and New London. He'd have to get his hands dirty, and address real meat and potato issues to real people. If you think Obama sometimes comes off as a thesaurus eating stuffed shirt, you haven't been to a Nader speaking event. I've worked with the man and admire him, but speaking to average working class Americans who may not think like him isn't his strong suit.

Nader would have to defend progressive ideas against an opponent who has been polishing his sales pitch since the 80's and not merely offer well crafted political diatribes. He would actually be scrutinized and not simply ignored because all of the CT media would be bullseyed on him. His policies would actually be analyzed on their merits for cohesion and through thinking.

He'd have worry about things like image, likeability. His personal business would be exposed -- shading business dealings (if any), romantic liasons and other tawdry things. Nader couldn't get away with some the typical liberal hyperboles I've seen on many blogs and have heard many activists make, since people would actually be paying attention. And, Nader would have to argue against a track record that many people in CT actually admire (Lord only knows why)

No, better to throw spitballs at an elephant and claim moral high ground than put yourself out there in a local race you could win. Better to pontificate the moral decay of the process in a position where you don't have to touch the carcass.

Jim Glover,

I would like very much to see more progressive Democrats. As I understand it Roosevelt moved left and pushed the New Deal in part because the party was to the left of him.

To me Obama does not look very progressive. I do not see any advantage to weakening the progressive movement by supporting Obama as a means of supporting the progressive Democrats because I do not see how that supports the progressive Democrats. I see weakening the progressive movement as making it more difficult for the progressive Democrats. Supporting Obama is supporting the Democrats. If you could explain to me how supporting Obama helps progressive Democrats then you are at least offering a thin carrot in addition to the McCain stick.

"Why even expect tokens or carrots when we work for a better world?" you ask. err, what exactly do you think I refer to by tokens or carrots but some cooperation from the Democrats in moving towards a better world.

Hi ~Nannie~ I read the link you offered also, a real eye opener. Noticed it states that if any of the factors had been different, Gore would have won in Florida and he would have been our president.

It failed to state however, if Nader had been absent in Florida, one of the several factors, Gore would have won that state. Any "assumption" that the majority of 97,000 plus votes Nader did recieve would have gone to Bush, or the voters would not have bothered to vote is illogical. Gore would have recieved the large majority of those of the 97,000+ voters who would have voted, had Nader not been there. Nader was a very important factor in the Florida vote totals and no one can deny that with any sensible reasoning.

Well peaceman,

Your union thinks you are the stupid one and I can't help you on that.

I think we have answered enough questions anyway... gotta go on.

Jim,

Actually, I had a 100 questions but narrowed it down to 8. No problem. I wouldn't dare guess how each individual will vote, Jim. They sure did like Cynthia McKinney and Cindy Sheehan, two of the speakers at the rally. I go to my union hall, and they blast me for not supporting the Dems and I blast them right back for supporting Obama or Clinton and then they pull a Jim Glover on me about, "what if McCain only wins by one vote?" and it was you (me) who voted for McKinney instead of the DEM?" To which I reply, "If the people are that ignorant and/or stupid to vote for McWar and the Repulsivecans again"...well Jim, you know what I told them.

Jim Glover,

If the majority of the voters want to continue on with four more years of the Republican (and their Democratic collaborators) agenda and vote for McCain, then our nation will pay the penalty. This country may just have to look like Germany and Japan, circa, mid-August, 1945, before the survivors realize they should have been paying attention. I'm not laughing at the people, Jim. If anything, my frustration is with the wilfully ignorant, so, everyday, I talk to somebody, somewhere in simple terms, making sure they understand and able to discern what I describe. I encourage people to read, listen and most important of all, to THINK! And I always end my "method of instruction" with the caveat of not to believe anything I have said, but to prove it or disprove it for themselves.

It does take more than an election to change the system. I agree with you there, partner. It starts with ME: my personal conduct and contribution to the status quo. And YOU:the same thing, and everyone else, as INDIVIDUALS, contributing to the whole.

The 2000 Florida election and the 2004 Ohio election shenanagians were enough for me and other liberal/progressive citizens to leave the Democratic Party in disgust. What real issues have your "dream team" of Obama and Clinton talked about in these insulting "debates" besides a bigger military budget and tepid talk of reviewing trade agreements?

Rupert Murdoch and Allan Greenspan are not selecting my candidates for me. Reid and Pelosi are "just following orders" and could care less about the feelings of any peace and justice Democrat. So continue being entertained by the magician's bag of tricks in Washington, D.C. I'll vote for the candidates who share my views on things.This is my final comment on this one, Jim, otherwise it's a merry-go-round ride without an end.

peaceman,
Oh I see you had 8 questions, not 10.

I agree with you that "The Longshoreman's union did more in 8 hours than the Democrats did in 5 years."

Who will they vote for do ya know?

peaceman,

I think Ike kay answered it best and that is giving you the miracle that Nader is even elected.

Now I will try to rationally answer your 10 questions .

Question 1.
I did not say you said Obama was evil, the cliché is what so many of the Nader and Green party people use and I will always point out what that cliché is implying as it disguises itself as reason.
I never said you don't have the right to vote for whoever you please..I was answering your first question which I took a long time to answer in detail. Your question was "With "leaders" like Pelosi and Reid, how can Democrats criticize anybody for voting for Nader or other candidates from various parties?"

The reason is because if you want peace, Your vote when war and peace and the supreme Court picks are at stake, a wasted vote does not help life on this planet.
So when I point out how Democrats (in general) can criticize anyone for a vote that hurts all the good causes we want, you take it personally You ask for it and then you are offended by reality... Don't ever ask me a question if you are afraid my answer will personally offend you because your question was about anybody and I am talking about anybody including You and me.
I never said you didn't have the right to vote for Mickey Mouse if you want, but when you ask for criticism of your choice, take it like a man, OK?

Question 2. You say you admire Dennis and it is a mystery to you that he stays in the Democratic party and then dismiss him as maybe he is pollyanna or such nonsense.
You are the one who is polyanna peaceman. Dennis K. stays in the party because he has contributed more than all the living third party hopefuls put together and wants to work within reality and make the Dems as progressive as possible... Are You?

Question 3.
You can stand by your comment about Reid and Pelosi. You asked me about them as if the Dems are not worth supporting because these two leaders of the party are lacking in courage.... they are lacking in courage, afraid they don't have enough progressive Dems to back them up or afraid impeachment would lose and make them look weak because the Dems need more progressives so that they could override a veto and anti war bills will have the votes... around half the Dems are not even progressive that is why we need to make reality the 2 party system better.
Enter the Green Democrats to help save the cause of peace.

Question 4.
Talk show hosts do not speak for the Dems and any talk about ending the Bush/Cheney Crime family did not come from the Dems... that was show biz hype and what many were hoping for and you are holding the Dems responsible for falling for wishful thinking. I wished they would Impeach too, but again there are not enough progressive Dems... that is what you seem to refuse to help change (reality again).

Question 5.
I am not protecting Democrats, I am working to get more progressive democrats elected! it is the Blue Dog Dems that need to be thrown out... I don't think that the fear of being against the troops by not funding the War will be the road block in the coming years because the public is linking the War and the cost of the war with the coming Depression.
These things take more than one or two elections, with the Dems having a one vote majority when we need to help get more anti War Dems elected. I would vote again for an independent or 3rd party candidate if they were for peace and showed that they had what it takes to win.

Question 6.
You say "The politicians are laughing at the naivete of the American people. (I'm being polite.)"

No it is you who seems to be laughing at the people. You think you know more about what is good for the people than the people do... We accept the reality of our system and do our best to make it better and it seems it is you that believes you are above us because you think that a wasted vote will help us.... Now you make me laugh. It takes more than an election to change a system and voting third party at this crucial time when we need improvements in government will not change the system or change anything. It is more likely that the politicians who want to keep things as they are will be laughing at you for wasting your vote.

Question 7.
I never said you hated all the Dems... I was referring to some of the comments of Nader supporters here.
Your question to me was not about you, it was a general question about 3rd parties and Nader...about what this discussion is about.

Question 8.
I am glad you are not a keyboard rebel, and regardless of any "one-party duopoly", I hope that McCain loses in a landslide and more Dems win in Congress and I am sure if McCain does win by a few votes, you will be back on Common Dreams telling the world that your vote had nothing to do with it.

---------------
RandB,

If you want something in return for your support of more progressive Dems, don't ask what Dems can do for you but how you can help elect more progressive Dems. Green Dems can do it too!

Why even expect tokens or carrots when we work for a better world? Just try to make the struggle count.

"It is wrong to expect a reward for your struggles. The reward is the act of struggle itself, not what you win."
Phil Ochs

peaceman May 27th, 2008 1:59 am
_____________________________________

Wow, just "wow". I wish I had the patience and compassion to write such gentle and lucid responses rebutting the tired, bankrupt tenets of lesser-evilism. I tend to become irritated and waspish in response to militant and self-satisfied lesser-evilists, the more so when they deny or glorify the lesser-evil calculations upon which their perspective is based, and project their primitive stereotypes about "purists" and "haters" and such.

Yet I remain impressed with peaceman, and a commenter by the name of "aquietman" who's been appearing lately. Good work, "...mans"!

Keep it up, and don't mind my fits of barking; I'm like an old dog yapping at squirrels in the yard. 8)

Nannie: I just read the link you provided. Thank you.

.

http://cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

Dispelling the Myth of Election 2000

.... The Green Party's explanation of the Florida vote-interesting

Jim Glover,

My thanks for a long reply, but clarification is necessary.

#1. The term "lesser of two evils" is a cliche' from as far back as when I started voting in 1968. Never have you heard me say Obama was "evil" or Clinton or even McCain. I didn't say it on my comments above or postings on other articles on CD. In other comments on other articles about the Democratic Party hopefuls, I said Obama is preferable to Clinton but I still won't vote for him because he hasn't risen to my expectations. I am one person, one vote, one citizen voicing an opinion.

#2. As for Kucinich, I admire him and spoke to Dennis twice, in both bids as a presidential candidate. Why he stays in the Democratic Party is a riddle to many of us, and perhaps pollyanna thinking keeps him put. I don't know.

#3. Regarding Reid and Pelosi, I stand by my comment. Even a person with cursory knowledge of current politics should be able to understand the close proximity between the Dems and the Repugnant Party. Jimmy, you blog more than I do and read the disparaging remarks by others about "impeachment's off the table" Pelosi. In the 90's, I admired Nancy and watched her on C-Span fighting for the average American, but she, just like Boxer who I used to adore, "capitulated" if I may use that word.

#4. We know the consistant lying of the "goose-stepping" Republicans, so I don't give them any credibility, but when the Dems "half-step" with the R's, then it's time to change the dance. For me, anyway. I'm sure you remember the jubilation in Nov.06 when the Dems took back the House by a wide margin and the Senate by one member. I listened to the talk shows, and listened to Democrats overjoyed with enthusiastic praise and how Nancy "Joan of Arc" Pelosi was going up against the Bush/Cheney Republican Crime Family and bring "the troops" home and stop them from commiting more crimes against humanity. Shortly after they were sworn in, the coward-in-chief and the five-time cowardly VP told church mouse Reid and "calamity jane" that he was going to escalate the death, destruction, misery, and suffering in Iraq and sent in more cannon fodder. Did the Dems, stop the funding? You know the answer, Jim. The Longshoreman's union did more in 8 hours than the Democrats did in 5 years.

#5. Why do you Democrats continue protecting our politicians who have violated the oath they all take when sworn in? This has baffled me from day one. Just where IS the opposition party? The Common Dreamers have much more integrity, honesty, and concern for our country, Jim, then the so-called representatives.

#6. You tell me "most voters accept the two-party system as reality." Yep. This is the primary reason why conditions have deteriorated. Too many folks are scared to think for themselves, and follow the herd instinct, voting for A or B but never what C has to offer. And expect different results! The politicians are laughing at the naivete of the American people. (I'm being polite.)

#7. No Jim, I don't hate all Democrats. For that matter, I don't hate anybody, And you know I never use those words. I have been saying all along that many of them are collaborators and Bush enablers. Check out their voting records on key issues. How many reactionary Supreme Court justices were sent to the bench when the Dems controlled both houses? I could go on, Jimmy, but what's the use?

#8. I'm a little more than a keyboard rebel. A labor and peace activist most of my life. We don't agree on political parties or candidates, but I respect your right as I most certainly should, to vote for whoever you want. As for me not voting for a Dem, and McCain getting in...you can quote me on this one, Jim. If that many people vote for McCain, the Bush supporter, than the US isn't worth saving and I feel bad for the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airman who lost their lives in WW2. They fought against what we are becoming, thanks to the "one-party duopoly."

It sure don't take much to PROVE a conspiracy. __ LOL

After more pleasantries, Gore scribbled a line in the book: 'For my friend, Ralph Nader. With respect, Al Gore.'

See? Both Gore and Nader were part of the conspiracy to put Bush in the White House!

ike kay,

If Ralph Nader were elected he would be asking the country for support for progressive policies in 2010. Some interesting possibilities and permutations there. Would the Democrats finally move left? Would they suddenly want the progressives in the party? Would the progressive movement suddenly be seriously running candidates for congress and senate? Possibly we might get a reasonable apointment to the Supreme Court. Possibly the country might respect some treaties. Its not all bad and could become interesting.

On the other hand if a progressive candidate split the vote sufficiently that the farthest right corporate candidate was elected then the Democrats would need to either move left in the future or discuss electoral reform if they want that to change. I cannot see the Democrats or the American political system changing as long as progressives are in a weak position, and honestly cannot see how weakening the progressive movement by again supporting the Democrats does the country any good.

A fucking mansion??

I thought that was Hugh Heffner's.

It is Al Gore's supporters, more than Al Gore himself, that have a problem with Ralph Nader. The Washington Post provides a summary of book signing by Al Gore and a meeting with a customer patiently standing in line in June of 2006:

"Next stop on the Turn-Back-Time tour: Olsson's book shop on 7th Street Northwest, where Gore was signing books at noon. 'I'm not supposed to say anything, just sign books,' he announced when he started. But when he got to number 214 in the line, he noticed the lanky figure and stood up. 'Nice to see you! How you doing? . . . I'm really so grateful to you for coming by.'

After more pleasantries, Gore scribbled a line in the book: 'For my friend, Ralph Nader. With respect, Al Gore.' "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061501885_pf.html

Yes, vote for Nader and McCain at the same time. Such is American politics. This so-called Democracy, Rubbish! This is a plutocracy . . .look it up! Nader will be a problem in this election and look for Republican continuation of this American disaster. Those here, whom I like some of the time, have the idea that the good Ralph is good all the time. Ralph is an egomaniac but a good egomaniac.

Ralph is running to show us what true democracy is in a country that does not have a democracy. He knows that but casts this rubbish on the airwaves and blogs and has people believing this nonsense. This is at minimum an oligarchy. The corporate control of media determines what the guy in the street will believe. The average American intelligence is eight grade level at best, is there any wonder that we have people believing in any of the three running for the top spot and this Democratic idealist, Nader, who thinks if he were elected would be able to affect change.

If Nader were elected he would ot be able to enact anything no legislation would become law because he would not have a congress that would give him the right time. It would be a fair day in hell to get anything done. it would be worse than Nancy Pelosi's leadership. Moreover, however bad Obama may be, there are no illusions that he is and must be, in the hands of the Democratic machine, but at least the platform will offer some relief for the masses.

Should Obama lose you have eight more years of the Bush/Cheney nightmare, that is just the facts folks, so lets stop the idealistic nonsense on the star-struck silver screen and get real, this is the USA. There are too many important issues that require change to take chances. But some of you here have so much grand illusion that you feel that these past seven years, thanks to Nader in part and Gore's ineptitude, were worth the experiment?

Lets talk about Al Gore's energy bill: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/02/27/costello.gore.energy.use.wztv

Or Lieberman's switch to the right: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=236481

Seems those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Jim Glover, re: May 26th, 2008 4:07 pm,

Perhaps us "anti war" folk are weakening our influence with the Democrats by not working within the party. However it might also be argued that our efforts will have more influence on the Democratic party if we withhold our support unless we get something in return. Currently the Democrats are not even offering us tokens. What are they offering us for our support Mr Glover?

Further, if McCain should be elected because progressives did not support the Democrats . . . IS that the sole fault of progressives?

OR might the finger of blame be pointed at the Democratic party's inability to represent progressive concerns. We heard it in 2000 - "most important election ever -> support Gore, or else!"; we heard it in 2004 - "most important election ever -> support Kerry, or else!"; and we are hearing it again. I am tired of this shtick. I am tired of the stick. It is time for some carrots.

"If Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form,"

Are you expecting to win in a landslide Mr. Nader or do you just think someone else should find it so easy?

Of course Ralph likes to promote this idea because it exonerates him from his role in 2000.

Why do people support this destructive egomaniac?

It's like a basketball game. You might expect the other team to steal the ball from you and make a basket, but Nader steals the ball from his own teammate and scores the winning basket in the opponents' hoop. Then he blames his own teammates for their lack of athletic ability. And says something like everyone has the right to make a basket.

Jim, I'll get back to you later. Going out for a bit.

Peaceman,

Look for the best of the best all you want but this is still the 2 party system so looking for the best won't change reality.
Here is the worst of the lot you may help.

http://video.google.com/

Obama is Evil? I don't think so and a third party now is a wasted vote because they even know they can't win while the only thing you may do by voting Green is possibly help McCain. Since a Green can not win the presidency in the Big Bad World, you are just playing a lets pretend game of denial and the Neo Cons love you for it because you weaken any chance of progressive Dems gaining any more power with more anti war folks in the Congress like Dennis.

If Dennis agreed with you he would become a Green but he is not living in a fantasy world. He is supporting Obama because he doesn't believe he is "Evil" like your friends are suggesting with the denial of reality "Lesser of two evils" argument.

You have to convince the public that Obama is Evil and then convince the public that Nader will not be both a wasted vote at best and possibly help the worst candidate.

It seems from endless discussion on this issue that you don't want to help the Dems become more progressive because you have given up on the 2 party system (reality) and also seems that you don't realize that you are helping the worst while many of your allies here do admit that they want to hurt the whole country to prove their pointless denial of the consequences of their actions. Voting 3rd party at a crucial time does not diminish the 2 party system, it is a good trick to make you think it Does.

Voting Green for President at this critical time is really helping the two party system keep the balance of power in favor of the Chicken Hawks. So you are not doing any thing to help the cause of peace, really.
You are for peace but you are makeing your vote for peace meaningless and potentially harmful for your goal.

I know you don't see it that way... maybe because you think voting for someone who says the right things but is a terminal loser with no abilities to ever get elected will help the cause of peace.

Most voters accept the two party system as reality. it seems you don't and the 3rd parties are what the War Machine wants you to do because then you can't help get more progressives elected like Dennis K.

Too many Nader supporters here relish in their hate of all Dems because the real world in American Politics is the 2 party system so they don't have to accept reality and instead do what the corporate system wants you to do... help the worst of the two party candidates.

Many years ago I proposed a Green Democrat movement and even Dennis later described himself as a green Democrat.

If you could infiltrate the Dems for the purpose of getting more progressives elected, you could still vote for the Greens when it is benificial at a level where they have a strong organization or like if there was no Choice or difference in the candidates... you could also help greens run as dems and then they could really get elected as Green Democrats. This is a crucial election and we are now at the crossroads of history. You must know that or you would not be a peace activist. Nader, I am glad that he is running and I like his talking points but He cannot win but only help McCain... but I don't expect you to agree and the only thing about this discussion that makes me hopeful is that the vast majority knows how important it is to work within reality to make changes for the better.... many of your friends might admit to you as they have admitted to this forum for about a year now that they would rather see the US in ashes than vote for a Democrat... but the Dems will win anyway!

You ask "With "leaders" like Pelosi and Reid, how can Democrats criticize anybody for voting for Nader or other candidates from various parties?"

The Dems are lead by timidity in this time of war because there aren't enough strong peace candidates means that we need more peace candidates and if you vote for a Green that cannot win you will miss an opportunity to effectively help the cause of peace.

To Hate all Dems because there are two many cowards does not make sense does it? Here is one who is not a coward and he needs our help. http://teamtudor.org/index.asp

So Peaceman, I am only trying to reason with you because you have not expressed hate for all Dems and you work for peace so it is worth my effort to answer your question to me and hopefully see what so many keyboard rebels here may never get.

Let Ralph debate the corporate candidates, and watch the sparks fly...

Of course Mr. Glover doesn't acknowledge the abundance of hateful statements Obama Democrats and Clinton Democrats have made on CommonDreams. I guess the Democrats deserve to be destroyed by McCain too.

God damn America!

Jim Glover,

With respect to your position regarding the Dems, why would I want to continue voting for the "opposition" party who won't even support their own? How many Democrats signed Kucinich's impeachment legislation, for starters?
How many, besides DK, said they would abolish the illegal Patriot Act and get out of the WTO and NAFTA and other corporate/capitalist trade agreements destroying our businesses at home.

With "leaders" like Pelosi and Reid, how can Democrats criticize anybody for voting for Nader or other candidates from various parties?

As long as people accept the "two-party-only" system, very little will change. The Dems understand this very well and sollicit sympathy from their constituents. They have an abundance of excuses for the present situation but a shortage of solutions.

Jim, you're an intelligent man. We all know the art of politics is called compromise. Sometimes you just can't do it!
I'm Green Party, but most of the folks in the various groups I'm involved with are Democrats, and we work out our differences trying to promote peace and justice, but the two Dem candidates do not hold the same values as the anti-fascist, anti-imperialist Democrats in my circle of friends. They are looking for the "lesser of two evils" while myself and others are looking for the "best of the best" and so it goes.

Vote for who you believe in not for what others tell you to vote for.

With all the hateful statements and name calling of all Dems here and the admitting that they would like to see McCain win so that they can "start over from the ashes".... I say Nader is a saint compared with many his hateful supporters who think with a "you are with us or against us mentality" if I ever saw one since Bush.

And here it is so blatantly obvious the amazing thing to me is that you still seem to think you are goin to convince anyone of your special knowledge about anything let alone Nader.

I think what really makes you angry is that you have been down this losers road so long now that you can't even take any votes away from the Dems any longer because you have shown the world how you think and argue in attacks like nasty kids.

I understand the defensiveness of your outbursts and thanks for showing the world your true colors.

So I say Vote for Nader... You can't even hope to be "spoilers" any more but destroyers because you don't care about McCain destroying the country and it will be your ashes too!

Hi ~USAn~ There are likely millions of Americans who would be far better presidents than Bush, McCain, Hillary or Obama. If they ran for the office as Nader is doing, they couldn't win a single state either. Also there has been some very fair criticism of Nader here, some has not been fair.

So, this is what it has come to.

It is sad indeed to see practically the only principled person with integrity in US public life being derided, smeared and slandered (anyone call him a "narcissist" yet?)

Meanwhile, a smarmy, untrustworthy, waffling, Wall-Street certified huckster, who talks out of both sides of his mouth at once, gets starry-eyed adulation.

The United States is in terminal decline - even, or maybe particularly it's "progressives" unable to even think straight and stand by principals.

Better that McCain get elected so the nation can be finally put out of it's misery and an entirely new peoples republic build from the ashes.

Yep, and sadly he cannot win a single state. He could be a spoiler though. We'll see.

Nader is an anti-corporatist Empire candidate and the only real 'democracy advocate' choice.

Mikepeters writes:
reh 4:06 p.m., mentions NADER'S $500,000 investment in Cisco Systems, but reh fails to mention Cisco's active role in the Arms/Space Race. Right Now. Per his FEC 2004 filing. Thank You.

Only a small fraction of Cisco's revenue comes from military contracts, and less than 14% of Nader's 2004 direct holdings were even in Cisco. The end result is less than 2%, and probably even less than 1%, of Nader's FEC listed total financial holdings from 2004 are a result of military contracts.

For example, two of the major Socially Responsible Investment Funds, Pax World & Parnassus, that carry stocks screened to eliminate any companies with significant involvement in military contracts, both carry Cisco stock.

Oh, and "sorry" for being so blunt ~ARDEE~. As to being SLIMY, you should re-read your post. I offerd my opinions in a decent manner. We all have opinions.

Ya know "ASSUMER", if somethng bothers you about what another posts here, why not ask for clarification before you make dumb-ass assumptions and a fool of yourself.

Well You are wrong___ ~ARDEE~ ___ I was born here and have been a US citizen for 72 years. You wrote all of that because you think I was inconsistant. I do not blame Nader for Gore's loss, I believe he was ONE reason. I made that quite clear. It was not all Nader's fault is what I wrote. __ Get a life.

BTW, "ASSUMER", if you care to do so, since you seem to be so concerned about me, go to the archives and write in my name and you will find that I have posted over 2,000 blogs here and most are of concern about our country, our envirioment and humanity in general.

A difficult place for a conversation, to be sure.

Kem pontificates:
I don't blame Nader for Gore's loss. Nader was ONE contributing factor and if it had not been one, Gore would have won. What is disturbing is, Nader didn't help anything and his campaign served no useful purpose, he knew he could not win and he should have been well aware that he might be a spoiler and insure Bush did win. He raised issues, he could do that without being a spoiler. I like Nader personally and appreciate many of the things he has done, but not everything he has done.

Ardee notes:
First you dont blame the man, how gracious of you....then you immediately say he is to blame in part...how inconsistent of you.

I would imagine that you are not from this nation, or are not grounded in the rights of our citizenry to run for public office or to speak out against perceived injustice. Nader does not run for the Presidency, he uses the election mechanism to attempt to publicise and thus right the wrongs he sees and cannot tolerate. Your use of the "spoiler" epithet is suspiciously similar to the right wing propaganda eminating from the DLC led Democratic Party , as it seeks to emulate the neoconservative suppresion of opinions and criticisms.

Every one born in this nation andover the age of 35 can run for the presidency, its called democracy, you should study up on it because its an important point. The two party system has failed this nation abysmally, as it has decended into a contest to see which party can raise the most corporate funding. I applaud and approve of the campaigns of Nader, Paul and anyone else who has something of import to say. What you do is obfuscate and attempt to prove your intellectual worth by rather slimy and pointless diatribe disguised as logic.

Sorry for the blunt response, but MY nation is in peril, MY system of governance has been subverted. So why not run along back to your own place of origin and allow us here to resolve our own problems. I am certain that your own country needs you far more than do we.

Impeachment will cost millions? Yes, but it might stop our crazy leader from spending billions on Iraq and other disasters. Nader deserves the respect of the people. He has only spoken the truth..and exercised his right to run for office. So many people don't like that...they want him to play politics, the game, like most of the others. Right now I'm for Obama but I like the energy Nader brings to the race. I doubt he will be allowed in the debates, but if he is, we might get to the heart of some of our problems and the hypocrisy in america. Now that I think of it, maybe I'm a hypocrite for wanting Obama over Nader. Maybe I should think about who really is the best and vote my conscience.

GORE WON FLORIDA IN 2000.

IMPEACH- YES!!!! Their may not be the votes needed to convict- but the statement is necesssary.

Nader invested $500,000 in Cisco. Does this matter? How much does Obama have invested and in what? Does anyone have this information?

Anyway, I wonder if any of Obama's investments have an "active role in the Arms/Space race". If they do, I guess mike peters would agree that he is equally unworthy of a vote. Am I wrong?

About Ralph locking out workers, I know of one person who claims this. No one else claims this as far as I know. Therfore to call this "extremely well documented" is a little off the mark.

George Carlin for president. He's got my vote.

Nothing fragments the possibility of grounded political reform like instant-gratification thinking.

Too many mouthy youngsters, here, approach the problems we face politically with the same mindlessness they've been wired to pick and choose new shampoos off the supermarket shelf.

This website has largely degenerated over the past year into a swamp for smarmy narcissists. At this point, it would better be called Common Delusions.

Oh yes, please. Let's spend months and millions of dollars on impeachment proceedings. Bush and Cheney deserve to be impeached. But we have much more pressing business to attend to.

One short article about Nader's small impeachment demonstration in DC! and 165 comments about it here on Common Dreams - mostly supportive of Nader! (oh, I know, you're not allowed to actually vote for him, right?) CD articles usually get around 20-50 comments. Pressure should be building here in progressive America? Hope so. GO RALPH NADER! GO PROGRESSIVE AMERICA. GO FREEDOM, JUSTICE, AND DEMOCRACY!

DOWN WITH THE BRUTAL EMPIRE!

Democratic Party's support for Bush's agenda = Support for war crimes, subversion of Democracy, etc.

Therefore: support for Democrats = Support for war crimes, subversion of Democracy, etc.

Whether you want those things or not, your vote is your support, just like Nancy and Harry's votes. Maybe they think they have to "go along" just like you do. How can you complain about them when you're doing the same thing?

"If Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form," he said at the time, arguing that as president he would take on the "bloated military budget," reform labor laws, repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, and target corporate crime."
-
Yes Ralphie I agree, be a Kucinich type, run for a house set, get elected or work with a party all the time, such as Green. But if the Dems blow it this fall, then I'm jumping in on a 3rd party asap, many are tired of being Charlie Brown once again trying to kick the ball that Lucy is propping up.

I say to hell with impeachment, where is john brown when we need him, a true patriot.

Iammyself-

You asked "I'm curious - what about Obama's personal ethics worries you? Not that I think he's as pure as the driven snow, but I do wonder what others know that I don't."

Here's a good article on the subject, I don't believe everything I read, so I still hold out hope, but this is why am I "worried" (cautious) and not angry.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/83890/?page=2

It is too late for impeachment and there woudln't be convictions, anyway. Even if there were convictions, they would just leave office, free to enjoy the money they will receive in payoffs after they leave. What I propose assumes that Bush doesn't use some national security event (e.g., attack on Iran) as an excuse to suspend the elections or the Congress.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz should be sued to repay the U.S. for the cost of the Iraq War, to repay our troops and their families and the Iraqi people damaged by the ill-conceived, immoral, illegal and ill-planned invasion of Iraq. This administration is all about money for corporate America, the oil companies, war-profiteering and, ultimately, themselves.

They should also be tried as private citizens for their violations of U.S. law while in office. They might even be tried as war criminals.

~Tetti_Tatti's post here at 8.41pm is 100% correct and surprisingly no nastiness.

If I had a choice to vote for Nader or Kucinich as a candidate, w/a chance to win, I'd go for it w/out question. Obama presents w/not what we really want, but neither would a call him a lesser of evils. He has inspired an incredible number of young people and African Americans, many of whom who were not previously involved (or, in the case African Americans, are more determined than ever not to be disenfranchised), and me. Every movement that exists will have to unite to hold his feet to the fire/support him, depending on the situation.

If you're in a state where polls show clearly Obama or McCain will win, vote for Nader w/your heart, but otherwise, please vote Obama.

We're gonna end this corporate domination. I hang out in a working class bar. Politics rose its head above the bluesy music. The most redneck guy said, "I'm not votin' for the fuckin' nigger." I said, I'm votin' for the fuckin' nigger!" I was joined roundly by the entire blue collar bar. Later, on the way out, he gave me a friendly tap. I think his wife, a teacher (ok, another white collar) will help bring him around) Even he doesn't like McCain; he said he wasn't going to vote.

He's proudly Scott-Irish; enter Jim Webb (Scotts-Irish himself) has written a book on the history of the Scotts-Irish. As vp i think he'd nail us Pennsyvania, Ohio, & Virginia, and put us in play in Kentucky & West Virginia. My tied for second choices would be Edwards, Mckaskill of Missouri(or the gov of Kansas, Sebilius), & Richardson. I'd also love Maxine Waters or Barbara Boxer.

2/3 aren't needed to impeach in the Senate, in fact the Senate doesn't impeach, the House does and a simple majority is needed there. Then the Senate removes the president if there's a 2/3 majority.

Democrats have more than the simple majority in the House needed to impeach but have refused to even consider it, for that alone they're criminals. Case closed. Even if the votes in the Senate are not there to remove, impeachment alone would at least stop Bush from committing other crimes.

The reason they won't impeach of course is Bush & Cheney having a LOT of dirt on Democrats obtained through illegal wiretapping. That's what happens when you elect criminals to supervise criminals.

Ralph and Everyone Serious;

The Presidency, congress, and the court; the federal government is impeached by the American people.

By definition, impeached is:

1 a: to bring an accusation against

b: to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office

c: to remove from office especially for misconduct

2: to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of

So, We, the people are the only competent tribunal, and will remove these treacherous war criminals from public office to public prisons, until granted amnesty, if ever, by the popular vote of, We, the people.

We can not expect, or accept, the a charade of justice from a congress, court, or corporate control of the media; to be of any constructive help in our paramount responsibility as citizens to correct the problems by ourselves.

A National Referendum on the guilt or innocence, with the people assembled in a mass jury, to check off the findings on the charges and specifications.

I have asked people, if taxes were voluntary, would they them, and they said no. I asked, if you could get all the taxes you have ever paid back, but in doing, were giving up your right to vote, would you. Most said yes, but it was not an easy answer. I asked what percent of the national wealth should the richest 1% be allowed to have. Several told me, "one-percent!" All these questions are serious, they speak to how as a people, we see our nation.

There is no honesty in pretending it is any different than it is. We really, can not forget what we know, how pieces of covert actions and craven wars of aggression, the constant duplicity of political operatives for the plutocracy, and pen much hope on a the at best, one-percent of congress.

What is the definition of insanity?

Are we insane!

Pure Democracy Revolution, we have the Power and Right to do so in the US Constitution, and it has totally devolved back into our hands. There is no party or candidates that are worth further hesitation, procrastination, and self-delusion. We, the People, are the sole solution, and grant our proxy in trust has brought us to this despicable point, a broke and despised nation of crooks and war criminals.

Well ~WillyBill, Titti Tatti, Jozef~ we now know what you scum bags think of Cindy, Dennis and all the rest. Good to hear from ya'll. Glad I'm an independant.

We don't hear anymore about former Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich's effort to impeach VP Cheney. Ralph's call is consistent with that, and impeachment should be every mainstream Democrat's call as well.

The American people have been appealing to their governmental representatives to exercise their authority to inititiate impeachment. You'll find no greater crimes in U.S. history than those committed by the Bush administration.

Can the Democratic Party's refusal to honor the will of the American people really be some sort of strategic calculation for our own good? That's what loyalist Dems seem to believe, but where do they get that idea?

Some sort of game is being played, but Ralph has been straightforward over the years in what he advocates. The Democratic Party has engaged in some ill-advised strategy that may lose them the next election, which should be in the bag for them. I guess for many, the Democratic Party is just a familiar touchstone. It's like a religion, and they don't care about the consequences, even when those beliefs have dissolved into the vile maxims of corporations, feeding the next war. Their mantra: Cling to the party, despite what it does, despite its inaction on upholding the Constitution.

and again 2/3 majority in the Senate to impeach.

please post the names of the 15-16 non-democrats that will vote yea, or you all sound like you know nothing about the constitution.

all other laws are getting vetoed by bush, and anyone convicted of anything before jan 08 will be pardoned.

if you're not going to be realistic about the situation, then you're just as bad as the truth twisters on the right.

it's like the left wing version of the bible thumpers and fox around here these days.

barely human May 25th, 2008 4:33 pm

When I see how much Obama supporters, Clinton supporters, and Nader supporters… progressive Americans… hate each other, I become convinced America is not worth saving.

It is discouraging, isn't it?

I think most people do this because they don't know what to do, or have decided to opt out of doing anything at all, so they sit in their own stew and spread their gloom near and far.

Pity.

When I see how much Obama supporters, Clinton supporters, and Nader supporters... progressive Americans... hate each other, I become convinced America is not worth saving.

Exactly, "Bush cocksuckers" is too good of a name for Democrats and their voters.

I'm sure the families of the 4,000 troops killed so far in the war funded by Pelosi, Reid, Hillary and Obama have worse names for Democrats.

And the families of one million civilians killed in Iraq have names even worse than those.

Mikepeters wrote:
"Ralph the Bag of Puke has gotten RICH off his investments in Fidelity Magellan; Whose extensive holdings include General Dynamics, Lockheed and other AMERICAN MISSILE MANUFACTURERS."

Nader's FEC investment listings from 2004 are shown in the news link below. His major holdings from that link are from the following list:

1)NASDAQ 100 Trust Socially Responsible Investment Index Fund - 1.74 million dollars.
2)Fidelity Spartan Money Market Fund - 1.44 million dollars.
3)Cisco Stock 250,000 to 500,000 dollars.

Total (including minor investments) = about 3.8 million dollars.

I do not have an ethical problem with those 2004 investments. Your previous posts on his mutual fund investments in this thread were from the year 2000. According to the FEC listing, the Fidelity Magellan Mutual Fund was less than 7% of his total assets in the year 2000, so his ownership in any one company or "missile manufacturer" from the Fidelity Magellan holding was probably less than 0.3% of his total assets in that year.

I have not seen his FEC financial listings from 2008. They may not be released yet. Also, Nader does not accept campaign contributions from companies, PACs, and unions.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/05/18/election2004/20_36_195_17_04.txt

In my humble opinion, the only two Democrats I thought worthy of voting for were Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. Obama, by far, the best of the three "major" candidates won't get my vote either.

If we really want progressive change, we have to change our way of thinking and stop supporting the status quo and vote to elect candidates who's positions on the issues are closer to ours, if not the same. Otherwise, we'll all be lamenting over and over about who did what or who didn't do anything which they said they would do in their campaign speeches.

Obama, Clinton and McCain do not represent the majority of Americans. Why should I waste my vote on an agenda reprehensible to me?

We can recount 2000 forever but if there's any hope for America, it lies in a revolution, and if there's any hope for a revolution in America, it lies in getting Ralph Nader to become God.

Only the "brilliant" resort to four-letter expletives. Proves what Democrats deep down inside really are. That's why people are eschewing the Democratic Party, and why the Democratic Party is not winning people like me back. Keep it up, it will serve you party stupendously. And of course, it will be highly successful in getting us to vote for your Saint Obama. Won't it?

Of course ABC news would continue the false history that Nader lost Gore the Florida vote, when in fact it was over 50,000 illegally purged votes by Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, of which well over a quarter were democrats. And lets not forget the Supreme Court, NOT THE POPULAR NOR ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE, that decided on our terrible president.

At least Nader is not arrogantly above everyone else and full of Hate like many of his "voters"!

Candid in my world. The Dems could be called much worse..it's all relative. Personally, I think she cut them some slack. CIAO!

Get a bulldozer and start pushin ~Miftin~.

~Titti Tatti~ calling democrats "cocksuckers" is being candid ~WillyBill~? That's funny anyway. We need a little humor here. Never marry a Republican is the rule of thumb I guess.

I think that we need to start pushing Nader toward the right, so he can be elected.....

Well done, tetti_tatti...Your truth and candidness have shown through. God speed. AND, God speed to Mr. Nader....a true leader and humanitarian!

Keep it up ~Titti Totty~, show your real stuff here.

Congress might possibly empeach Bush and Cheney if they were
caught screwing a goat on the White House lawn in front of a
crowd at high noon. Otherwise forget it, the crooked bastards are safe.

Jaybones what do you mean Nader should've announced earlier? The Dems don't even have a candidate yet, what on EARTH are you talking about?

People start paying attention to the campaign in September anyway, he announced at the perfectly right time.

Whatever failings he might have, Nader's still the ONLY candidate. So what if he took money from Republicans?!!? Good for him, he managed to finally put Republican money to good use.

Nader is still thousands of times better than any Bush cock sucking Democrat, and by that I also mean the voters.

Nader did not cost Gore the election the decision to run with Lieberman did! Some of us already knew Lieberman was a neocon back then and hey we've been proven right in recent years. Gore should have picked a better running mate. And one thing I can say about Nader is he tells it like it is.

.

I'll say it again…

We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.

Never before as we do now

http://www.votenader.org/index.html

.

.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/
Nader Issues:
Adopt single payer national health insurance.
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget.
No to nuclear power, solar energy first.
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime
and corporate welfare.
Open up the Presidential debates .
Adopt a carbon pollution tax .
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East .
Impeach Bush/Cheney.
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law.
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax .
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism .
Work to end corporate personhood.

.

I foresee a movement of large groups of people forming smaller self sufficient communities, energy independent, producing adequate food, sharing resources and talents, and protectiong each other, with trade between these city groups. This will go against corporate and government entities presently in control, and the fights will be major concerning land use, water supplies, taxes, and control of proprietary food products.

I foresee (or wish to) a similar scenario, earthbound. Hopefully peak oil will force our hand in the direction of small-ness, or human scale.

As far as corporate entities: The best thing we can do now is to need them as little as possible. It is impossible not to be impacted by the corporate world - it is ubiquitous. However, every time individuals do something in the direction of living lighter and more sustainably, we are disconnecting our support for the system that brung us here. Voting for someone who one agrees with is great, but ultimately it's our individual actions that move us in the direction we want to go.

Gandhi was right.

Then the sideshow of race is the big news and the original charge is lost in the media madness mess.

He lies a lot ~Iammyself~ But whenever someone points out that flaw of persoal ethics, they are accused of playing the race card.

I agree with iammyself's comment where we do seem to eat our own young, ?inborn error.
I am not sure what the answer is either but I know we will have to fight for the change we want, not just politically but also in blood, sweat and tears. My thoughts run to the fact that the military/industrial society has grown to such an extent, it has left common sense and most of the peoples, animals, and the earth behind, often in ashes. Either the rich and powerful will prevail, with the common folks as indentured servants/consumers/paid mercenaries, or this system implodes and we return to an more human way of living, in peace with nature. We probably need to return to a simpler way of life, and we need to control world population growth (hopefully not by wars and famine). I foresee a movement of large groups of people forming smaller self sufficient communities, energy independent, producing adequate food, sharing resources and talents, and protectiong each other, with trade between these city groups. This will go against corporate and government entities presently in control, and the fights will be major concerning land use, water supplies, taxes, and control of proprietary food products. Already the corporation are sending in SWAT teams against farmers to keep control of the market and staple grain seeds.
Any other thoughts out there?

scheiber6923 May 25th, 2008 8:56 am

Obama's got just the opposite going on, he seems to be a great leader, but his personal ethics worry me.

I'm curious - what about Obama's personal ethics worries you? Not that I think he's as pure as the driven snow, but I do wonder what others know that I don't.

What I don't get about Nader is with all these progressives ready for change, why can't he lead ? Why does he always wait for the last minute to do anything ? It's almost as if he wants change but doesn't want the responsibility, waiting until the 11th hour ensures that. I can't figure out why else he does things the way he does. This is my biggest concern, he may be a great person, but that doesn't necessarily make him a great leader. A president should be both. Obama's got just the opposite going on, he seems to be a great leader, but his personal ethics worry me.

Nader will not take any votes away from the Dems because every time he runs he gets only a fraction of the votes he got the last time he ran.

He has run for president since 96 but now he only gets vocal support from those who already hate all Dems except Dennis but he sold out too by not becoming a Green just like Ralph.

So if you think you will teach the Dems a lesson by voting for Nader, party on!

He gets ten times the support on this thread then he got at his rally in front of the White House....

It is not that lots of people don't agree with his issues, it is that they know a wasted vote when they have already seen one over and over again.... and the corporate world loves to see important issues look weaker and weaker.
---------
from http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/24/nader.politics/index.html
"Nader, who turns 74 this week, complained about the "paralysis of the government," which he said is under the control of corporate executives and lobbyists.

Obama also criticized Nader earlier this weekend. "My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don't listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you're not substantive," he told reporters when asked about Nader's possible candidacy.

"He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work."

Obama said Nader "is a singular figure in American politics and has done as much as just about anyone for consumers."

"I don't mean to diminish that," he said. "There's a sense now that if someone's not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda, he says they're lacking in some way."

Responding to those remarks, Nader called Obama "a person of substance" and "the first liberal evangelist in a long time" who "has run a good tactical campaign." But he accused Obama of censoring "his better instincts" on divisive issues.
-----------------
So I say,
Yes if the majority of voters agreed with Ralph and voted for him he would have a chance to win, but even The Sheeple know when they are gettin fleeced.

But I am glad that he is running anyway.