Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful
- As Predicted, Austerity Policies Send US Economy Downward
- It’s All About Israel
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
- As Hurricane Victims Freeze, Billionaire Mayor Gives Away $1 Billion to Wealthy Med School
Popular content
Today's Top News
Will Nader Challenge Dodd?
Could Ralph Nader reprise his spoiler role at the expense of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)?
The consumer crusader, perennial presidential aspirant and Winsted, Connecticut native says lots of people are asking him to run for the Senate against Dodd in 2010 -- and he isn't saying no just yet. The consumer crusader, perennial presidential aspirant and Winsted,
Connecticut native says lots of people are asking him to run for the
Senate against Dodd in 2010 -- and he isn't saying no just yet.
"You can't believe the number of people of asking me [to run]... Right now I'd say I'm agnostic," Nader told me earlier today, asked about rumors he'd run an independent, siphoning off liberal votes Dodd needs.
"I'm totally neutral, but I'm hearing the same things you are hearing."
The 75-year-old Nader is still registered as a voter in the state, making him eligible to run, according to the elections division of the Connecticut Secretary of State's office.
Nader says he first heard the idea back in April, when Manchester (Conn.) Journal Inquirer editor Keith Burris penned a column urging "Run, Ralph, run," and blasting Dodd for his role in the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
Nader's entry as a third party candidate would be terrible news for Dodd, who is hoping to energize his liberal base in possible match-ups against GOP challengers Rob Simmons and Linda McMahon, who lead him in public polls.
Nader says he personally likes Dodd and met with him more than six months ago for an hour in hopes of getting the Senate banking chairman to sign off on Nader's plan to create an independent Financial Consumer Assocation, which Nader thinks is needed to keep mutual fund managers and pension executives honest.
Dodd was sympathetic and said he would look into it -- but the commission wasn't part of the legislative package Dodd introduced earlier this week. Nader, whom many Dems blame for delivering the '00 election to George W. Bush, says Dodd's bill was a good start, but lacks teeth on regulating derivatives and other financial products.
"Nothing in the bill would put the screws to the heads of the pension or the mutual funds," Nader said. "I'm trying to get Dodd to do the right thing... Right now, they are not serious" about tightening regulations, he said of Senate Democrats.
He said his focus, at the moment, was on bolstering the reforms, not electoral politics.
Nader also faulted Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), who first introduced the financial consumer association idea as a House member 24 years ago, but has been silent on the issue this year.
"Schumer graduated Harvard Law School years after I did, and now he's not returning my calls," Nader added with a chuckle.
"I guess he thinks he's a big shot."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
151 Comments so far
Show AllI thought that the statewide recount would have confirmed it but Gore didn't fight for any of it. I don't even want to get into the details as there were plenty of other opportunities he missed in other states including his own that would have given him the presidency.
Yeah, he really had to work at giving it away to Bush, including ignoring the congressional black caucus's pleas for just one senator to contest the election. It troubles me every time I hear discussion of whose fault it was he lost, when he won.
Ralph Nader has not disgraced himself. He has saved more lives and done more for transparent, accountable government and the environment than the entire current Senate combined. It is the Republicrat party that has disgraced itself and crapped all over the constitution for the past 3 decades.
Let me propose an idea I think we can all agree on. Have Nader run a primary challenge to Dodd within the Democratic Party, just like Ned Lamont did against Joe Hitlerman. If Nader wins the primary, Chris Dudd can start his own party called "Financial Titans for Chris Dudd." Dudd does not have a "liberal base" because he's not liberal. He has a base of complete morons who don't even know what they are voting for.
Ralph Nader never did anything to anyone else's elections. The fact of the matter is that the Democrats didn't have strong campaigns in 2000 and 2004, nor did they fight the Republicans over the [stolen] election(s) results. Nor was there ever much of a move on their part to impeach Bush. So, whose fault is it for letting Bush/Cheney get into and persist in office for all those years?
Ralph Nader is one of the few truly honorable people in politics these days (I hesitate to call him a "politician," because that's a dirty word in my book).
Anyway, I also wanted to congratulate you on highlighting the meaning of Nader's name when you call him "Nadir." Yes - his last name is from the same Arabic source as the word "nadir." In Arabic, the name means "rare," (as in "extraordinary" or "unique") and is considered a good name to have.
Personally, I think the name suits him. He is a truly rare and extraordinary individual, and a hero to many people, including me.
Its sad to read such a negative reaction to a man who has done more for the country than any politician I can think of. But if what you say about Simmons is true, maybe Ralph should consider changing his residency like Hillary did to become Senator of NY. Montana could use a new one.
CV thats just the kind of nonsense thinking that got us to where we are today. A quote most everybody knows; "You can't solve your current problems by thinking the same way that got you into them - Albert E." Well, maybe a paraphrase, but you get the jist.
That old canard about voting for the Democrat as the lesser of two evils perpetuates the current disastrous situation. Vote for the best candidate, thats your responsibility as a citizen. Can't you see what happens with the Demcons get your vote? Same thing that happens with the Repcons get your vote, you lose!
How long will it take, and how bad does it have to get, before you wake up and figure it out?!
CV writes: "It's time for Ralf Nadir to retire, he's already disgraced himself and done so much damage that all his previous good works are forgotten or destroyed."
I think that you are beyond understanding the irony of your statement, especially recognizing that the democrat's actions on recent bills (funding of war, lack of single payer health care) is the real disgrace.
Mr. Nader knew they would cave in and support the corporate elite, why didn't you?
People don't have a right to base an opinion on a blatantly wrong fact. You can't say that in your opinion the world is flat. It is just an incorrect statement.
Furthermore, I don't have any interest in helping the democrats getting another seat. I want Ralph Nader to get the seat.
Well said, NotOneMore!
This comment isn't related to Nader (I'd vote for him), more related to Chuck Schumer, but reading this article brought to mind that the order of priorities for a member of congress (senate or house) must go something like this:
1. How many lobbyists can I court this year and which ones would be the most lucrative for me?
2. Which causes will give me the highest public profile?
3. What causes can I espouse this year that will make me a promising candidate for President?
3. How can I get on the most important and and high-profile committees?
4. I have to brush up on my double-speak so that I'll always sound like I'm on the side of any group I speak with.
5. How many times can I manage to get on television this year to promote myself by allowing people to think that I'm thinking like them?
6. I have to remember when I'm addressing any group to always allow myself some "wiggle room" (just like Obama does) to flip-flop from one side of an issue to the other without sounding wishy-washy.
7. How many fund-raisers will I be able to squeeze in per week?
8. How many times can I arrange to have myself photographed with the "newsmakers" of the week?
9. How many times a week can I arrange to get myself on the talk shows that have the highest profiles on cable news?
10. I'll keep abreast of the issues most important to the electorate and never appear in public without mentioning how important they are to me, without necessarily indicating my personal stand on them.
How many times do I have to put up hearing such lame brained party apologists blaming third parties as "spoiler" from both Republicans and Democrats? Listen both parties ! Neither of you are standing for the people but for the monied elites. Third parties are only a symptom of what's wrong with both of you. To all you party apologists in CT who want to say "A vote for Nader is a vote for Republicans", I've heard that lame brained argument before and I proudly voted Nader thrice because he actually put principle above party first. Nader is spoiling no one. Pardon my language but it is the voters who are spoiling and soiling their own future and their children's and grandchildren's future by refusing to open their hearts and minds and judge candidates by what they really stand for. Chris Dodd pushed for bailing out Wall $treet last year and he deserves to LOSE. To all you CT voters who picked Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, how do you feel now? I hear that the economy in CT is slipping into misery status and that even some Democrat voters are tired of both their senators. Come on CT ! Learn from VT and give Nader a chance !
P.S.:
All you Obamabots and Mccainiacs out there can keep screaming "Nader lost, get over it !" but YOU are the losers for blindly putting party loyalty above principle. And to those of you who voted for Mccain or Obama and regret it, well I'll forgive you and welcome you aboard as long as you are willing to put party aside and take the issues seriously. Vote whoever you want to next time but you won't regret opening your hearts and minds to the issues and judging candidates for office (local, state, and federal) by what they actually stand for. Give it a try and stop saying "spoiler".
Accusations about Nader helping the Republicans are really rich coming from a party that spent eight years handing over our country lock, stock, and barrel to Bush/Cheney. In 2004, the Democrats actually helped the Republicans change state filing deadlines so that Bush could get on the ballot while they were trying to keep Nader off. That shows us who the Democrats view as their REAL enemy! The Republicans are a rival faction of the Corporate Party, but Nader is not part of the Corporate Party at all.
VAGreen, I remember that year 2004 when Nader was forced off the ballot. My suspicion with the Democrat Party grew from there. I cannot trust the Democrat or Republican parties. Even when I do stumble across an individual who is independent and/or progressive at heart such as Paul and Kucinich (ok, Paul isn't progressive exactly), running as a Democrat or Republican puts a damper on whether he or she will really be that dedicated once in office.
P.S.: Your name reminds me of what I heard about the election results in VA and NJ. VA appears to have been the biggest blow to the party. I hear Deeds tried to run as a lame brain centrist and lost by double digits. I did a google search on that state's results and found no third party running whatsoever. What happened?
Jennifer,
The Green Party needed 10,000 valid signatures to get McKinney on the ballot in Virginia in 2008. It took a lot of work to get on the ballot. We knew that we would have to petition all over again in 2012, because there was no way that we could get the 10% needed to become a recognized political party. Obamamania was just too strong.
We decided not to petition this year because we would have faced the same hurdles, and focused on local races instead. The other third parties in Virginia made the same decision (in your home state, the Greens would only need 2% in a statewide race to become a recognized party). We took on the Democratic monopoly on the Arlington County Board over the issues of affordable housing and wasteful county spending on overdevelopment. Our candidate John Reeder got 32% of the vote in a two-way race with a Democrat in spite of being outspent by more than 10 to 1. We also ran a candidate for the House of Delegates. Josh Ruebner was the only candidate to talk about reforming Virginia's regressive tax structure and lax campaign finance laws. He got nearly 5% of the vote in a three-way race with a Democrat and a Republican. Josh was also badly outspent.
The elections were overall a positive experience for us. We reached more voters than we had in previous elections, recruited more poll workers and other volunteers, and did more sophisticated targeting of voters. We may also develop a stronger relationship with the firefighters and police unions. Right now, they are so mad at the County Board that they are willing to conduct a petition drive that will get a referendum on the ballot to change the county form of government. Our local party is considering support for the referendum. If it passes, we will have an easier time getting elected, because the county will have elections by district instead of at large. We hope to do more to focus on building locals around the state, and we're starting to attract progressives who are fed up with the Democratic Party.
Out here in VA Beach, I didn't feel like voting that day last week. When I saw mainly seniors and veterans lined up like never before at the voting booths and all crowded up that morning on my way to work, I knew that Deeds was up in smoke. For Northern VA, Deeds couldn't even win Fairfax County, a suburb even John Kerry won. Even Arlington County only went 65% for Deeds. For Hampton Roads, Norfolk and Hampton pulled only 60% for Deeds while Newport News was really close. The rest was 60-65% for Mcdonnell.
I need to find out more about the Green Party in Hampton Roads.
Max, if you're interested in finding out more about the local party in the VA Beach area, contact me at vagreen@earthlink.net
exactly correct Jennifer. this is not about being"The Spoiler", this is about cowardice and stupidity. The american people who claim they want change, want the result of that change known in advance. This is absurd,because the introduction of a new direction comes with not knowing the outcome. If you want to have an experience that you have never had before you must have the courage to overcome the fear of not knowing how it will turn out. The stupidity component is about already knowing what the results are from having a two party system. Nothing , nada, zilch zero. How much of nothing does it take in order to stop accepting the two party system and introduce a third, fourth, fifth, etc parties.Unfortunately, i think the american public will wait until everything is stripped from them before acting.
"i think the american public will wait until everything is stripped from them before acting."
I don't know if waiting is what they have in mind. They somehow think they'll fly out of it with this or that "magical personality" and I have seen this in both the Dubya and Obama camps. They think that they'll be able to be "rich" as Donald Trump and fly like Peter Pan with such mediocre leadership when in fact they're losing their arms and legs economically speaking and don't get me started on the wars. God wake these people out of their fuzzy thinking.
If everyone displayed your courage and conviction Jennifer, the mess would be a lot less. thanks
The reason Schumer isn't backing his own proposal from when he was in Congress is very simple. Back then he was a liberal congressman representing parts of Brooklyn and Queens (including my parents) that is now represented by his former protege Anthony Weiner, of recent single-payer fame. But then he became the Senator of the whole state, in which Wall Street is, with no close competitor, the largest industry in dollars, employees, and here's the real hard part for a politician -- taxpayer to the New York State treasury, which is in total free-fall since the financial collapse reduced Wall Street's tax liability so vastly. So what do you expect from the guy? His job changed, and along with that, his advocacy. In other words, like most politicians, he has no consistent principles that are his own at his core. His advocacy is dictated by his circumstances, not his convictions. And that's why the Ralph Naders of the world are so odd, and considered so dangerous, including by many Common Dreams readers, who do not share Schumer or Dodd's circumstances, are not politicians, and should be as capable as Nader of caring about doing what's right -- and not making excuses for people who aren't.
I work on issues regularly with a progressive Democrat county legislator in the county adjoining mine (our history predates his election). He has actual principles, and sometimes I tweak him when he sets them aside to protect himself from organized intra-party attack. One of these instances was his agreement to withdraw from running in the special election to fill Blue Dog Kirsten Gillibrand's seat, and support new Blue Dog, corporate private equity fund manager Scott Murphy instead. Murphy won. This week Murphy voted against the health care bill, stating that his belief that it would tax two big industries in his district was the cause. So I tweaked my pal again with a little "told you so," and he went public with his objection to Murphy's vote. He got predictable pushback from his Democrat committee, including from at least one "progressive," for making that statement. Here's what I wrote back to him, so the anti-Naderites here, the lesser-evilists, the corporate accomodationists, can see the error of their ways, no matter how well-intentioned they may be. For the record, I am not a Democrat, and belong to no party.
"I got that email and it was worth it. Anyone who tells you otherwise, just say "I've incorporated that into my thoughts on this topic, and my sense of history is that over the long haul, Democrats lose votes when they don't establish a clear set of values to present to the public, and show the commitment to stick by them. Based on what I've seen in the media this week, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of women, our party's single largest constituency, start looking at third-party candidates as a result of the caving in on abortion rights in HR 3962, which in and of itself could eliminate our narrow margins of victory in hundreds of elections and throw the country into the hands of the teabaggers." Or words to that effect. Because that is the truth, and if the organized structures of the Democratic Party resist getting down to brass tacks on that discussion, then people like me are going to have cause to go after your voters, and career Democratic Party voters are going to have good reason to look for candidates like me. If we can't keep you honest via discourse, we will keep you honest in the ballot booth, and we all know what the (at least short-term) impact of that will be. Tell them to wake the eff up."
So, lesser-evilists, this is why third party candidates run. We're not going to man the guns on Schumer and Dodd's corporate ship. We have core principles. We're conscientious objectors. If you're looking for someone to blame, blame the people who make it necessary, not the people who do it because it's necessary.
Great post. It should be clear that with the possible exception of Nader as Senator, politicians values change with the values of their campaign donors. In a system where money dictates who wins, a protest vote can make one feel righteous, but it usually favors the greater evil. Therefore, its puzzling why progressives are not militant about getting money out of politics, as Nader has said.
The two party system in the US has been a farce for years and after Obama's dismal failure to remedy anything it is now totally dead. The time is now overripe for an independent challenge to the Rep-Demo neoliberal warfare coalition. Nader for Senator in 2010 would be a good trial start in a new drive for democracy.
Steve Greenfield says, "So what do you expect from the guy?".
Integrity, honesty and consistency. Yes, we know that's like believing in santa claus and doesn't fit in the old calculus of political viability stuff, but quite frankly, we are tired of mendacity and situational ethics. He dances with those that brung him? (Walll street). He is a crook, period.
The era of grand strategies is over. Most people in New York state would cheer to have every single CEO and board member of Wall Street strung up from the lamp posts and laid out in front of the bull statue by the New York Stock exchange. The so-called monetary power of Wall Street as a constituency to be feared is an illusion. They got that money to bribe legislatures through theft, financial trickery and embezzelement. They have been shown to be leaches, not financial leaders to be kowtowed to. Schumer knows all this so he is part of the problem. He is a "business as usual" politician as you pointed out. That's over. I know you are for incremental change but incremental doesn't cut it any more. Americans, for the first time ever, prefer NO government to a corrupt one because the corruption has gone into overreach.
RUN RALPH RUN....
I will work for you again (like I did '04 and voted for you in '04 and '08) and will proudly help you whip Dodd's ASS in 2010! While we are at it....how can we replace that lying scum-bag Lieberman? Could you replace them both?? You do more work than both those crooks combined!
PEACE AND JUSTICE!!
mindy
Nadir is the american's best option. Unfortunately, he could effect little change as long as the donkeys and elephants are the majority in the zoo.
Vote all of them out, clean the cages, elect humans.
First, All of you people who STILL blame Ralph Nader for the so-called "democratic" party loss for Gore/LIEberman are fools who won't give credit where credit is due. The stupidity of the people who would vote FOR Bush/Cheney or the aforementioned corporate whores (who masquerade as whatever will get them more attention) is the problem.
Secondly, I can't see where challenging the abundant stupidity and self-serving fraudulence which is manifest in the greed driven state of Connecticut and the majority of its people (Lieberman over Lamont - Really?!!) would be worth the effort for Mr. Nader.
Thirdly, Ralph Nader has integrity and that's not something the majority of the people of "Connect"icut are able to or want to connect with their politics.
Fourthly, YOUR blaming Nader is the favorite tack of so-called progressives who are unable to take a stand based on principle and prefer to play games while peoples lives are being destroyed by the candidates they support.
This article about independent candidates is a taste of more to come during the next 2 election cycles.
Democrat strategies:
1) Lower the expectations of left leaning voters with excuses such as: we don't have enough congressmen to affect change, change takes more time, you can't do it all at once, you are better off with us than Republicans.
2) Blame the voters, rather than look inwards and assess personal blame.
3) Promote candidates with star appeal such as Obama and Hillary so people vote on personalities rather than policies (Republicans do this also).
4) Attack independents' personalities rather than policies and work to keep them off the ballots.
5) Don't differentiate yourself on foreign policy since both the Democrats and Republicans essentially have the same foreign policies.
This is what the Democratic Party did to our democracy in Oregon:
Oregon public interest lawyer, Dan Meek, writes:
"After conducting a trial, the Presiding Judge of the Marion County Circuit Court concluded that Bradbury had booted Nader by using "unwritten rules" that were "not supported by the written administrative rules as set forth in the [State Candidate's] Manual." He also found the "unwritten rules" to be "inconsistent with ORS 247.005, as well as with the prior policy of the Elections Division" and "not applied either uniformly or consistently in actual practice.
"These "unwritten rules" disqualified over 700 valid voter signatures, all of which had already been verified by county elections officers, who themselves signed and dated every sheet with an affidavit of authenticity (often with a county seal as well). This subtraction left Nader 218 short of the 15,306 needed.
"But the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that Bradbury had the legal authority to use his "unwritten rules," a conclusion that now requires all petitioners to comply with any requirements he dreams up but fails to publish, before or even after the signatures have been collected and filed."
If you are at all interested in reviving this so called democracy of ours, which is now at the death rattle stage, you'd better think seriously about how to overcome the HOSTAGE SITUATION: Demolishing our right to express our views at the ballot box!
Changing the rules to ensure democratic victory or changing rules to ensure republican victory is disgraceful and shortsighted, and done all the time.
The democrats would rather have a republican win then a progressive like Nader.
This is what I was hoping to hear; Nader running for something, anything, other than president every four years. I would rather have him in congress writing legislation than just about anywhere else.
I don't know what kind of rules they have in Connecticut, but here in Ohio it's very difficult for third party candidates to get enough signatures to run for the Senate. If you are the major party candidate, you need 1000, minor party candidates need 500, and third party candidates need five thousand! The House of Reps is much easier, only 25- 50 signatures. Either way, he should start right now.
I have a little wet dream of seeing Kucinich, Weiner and Nader (and a few others who still have a spine) write a real piece of legislation that actually benefits people outside the beltway.
P.S. Here's a cool site which explores senate possibilities in 2010: http://usliberals.about.com/od/electionreform/tp/2010SenateRaces.htm
Too bad it is not Joe Lieberman's term that is up instead of Chris Dodd, as Lieberman is much worse on so many levels. Dodd hasn't exactly been a saint either.
Nader is over-qualified for any Office other than the Presidency. I will continue to vote for him - as I have done for more than 20 years.
One more time: voting for a candidate whose positions are opposite yours makes a farce out of the right to the democratic franchise.
The last nine years of organized smears against Nader by the Democratic Party cannot erase this simple fact. Nor have the Dems ever been prevented from making Nader irrelevant by taking actual left positions instead of the "bipartisanship" to which they are addicted much as a junkie to smack.
If this is too much to ask a Democratic candidate, then there is no reason for him or her to expect progressive support.
please please please please please run ralph. dodds a
real dirt ball.
please please please please please run ralph. dodds a
real dirt ball. enough of his give away:s to wall st.
and to his wives friends.
please please please please please run ralph. dodds a
real dirt ball. enough of his give away:s to wall st.
and to his wives friends.
I think we need to look at Ralph Nader more closely.
I voted for Ralph in 2008 based on the good things he has done in the past.
Watching him lately in interviews, dissing Democrats, but not offering concrete solutions, I have misgivings.
He seems arrogant and out to settle a score focusing on his own ego and not on the best interests of the people.
In 2004, Ralph came in at the end of not campaigning, accepted Republican money in states where Kerry could win, used the state's attorney that Bush used in Florida's 2000 recall and then.. what?
Who did Ralph serve other than his own ego?
I realized that Ralph is an authoritarian. I don't think we want or need another "your with us or against us" Harvard graduated millionaire as president.
If you want to know more about the self-dubbed "Saint Ralph", check it out for yourself. I never knew he refused to go to people's houses who had pets because he thought cats carried Leukemia and he hated dogs according to his former editor David Sanford. He is also very secretive and refuses to disclose his tax returns.
Sourced from: http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm
"Another authoritarian trait of Nader's is his inability to tolerate any criticism. Journalists who question his excesses are inevitably accused of personal vendettas, or being tools of industry.
James Fallows, author of a recent book critiquing the media, worked for Nader at the start of his career. He wrote: "I think you won't find many people who have had a pleasant parting with Ralph. It's usually pretty ugly when the separation comes, and I think it's largely that by leaving you seem to make a choice... a 'if you're not with us you're against us' sort of thing."
"Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety Research Institute. In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times, buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had $150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high risk and tricky transactions.
In 1973, PSRI bought stock in Allied Chemical, the primary manufacturer of airbags, on the very day before GM announced they would offer optional airbags on 1974 models. PSRI made a 12.5% profit in 3 and a half months.
His main group, Public Citizen, has actively fought disclosure laws that would inform the public of the role that special interest groups -- such as his -- play in lobbying on legislation. (e.g. H.R. 81 in the 96th Congress)
He runs a network of organizations, which he claims are independent -- but his brother, sister and cousins hold major leadership positions with several, Nader heads advisory boards for others, and he is the only or major financial donor to 3 groups. Many other groups are funded in whole or in part by other groups in the network that Ralph does directly control."
Seems like the corporate smear machine has invaded CD.
Yeah, they always show up here. It's their duty to "God and country," meaning the "corporatocracy."
They know they've gotta get up pretty early in the morning to pull their moth eaten wool over our eyes again.
Can you believe what they're saying, in essence: "Sit back and let the corporations make all the decisions for you."
hmmm How has this "strategy" been working out for us? Something to think about, eh?
"dissing Democrats, but not offering concrete solutions, I have misgivings."
This is when I stopped reading Sue 1403, after this blatant lie.
Sue 1403, we mostly smart, informed people here. You're going to have to ask for another set of talking points if they insist on sending you to CD. No solutions!? You gave yourself away!
rvrwalker,
First, like I said, I voted for Ralph Nader in 2008. Dennis Kucinich was not on the ballot and I did not want to vote for Obama due to his voting record.
I am guilty, though, of not doing further research on Ralph and basing my vote on his past record of doing good work for consumers.
After viewing interviews of Nader and reading his articles on CD, I realized that his behavior was disgruntled and negative. I really do not doubt that he would go after corporations as President but I also cannot put my support behind him as a result of his actions, past and present (see previous post).
That's it. I just think we need to be informed. I think with Obama, most people accepted him based on his speeches of "hope" and "change" and maybe because I live in Illinois, I was more aware of his voting record in the Senate supporting corporations and violating civil rights (patriot act).
I don't attack people for their opinions and I would appreciate that same level of decency.
My concern with Ralph is (1) that he is a millionaire, (2) he is arrogant and mean-spirited (see his comments about Dodd, "he thinks he's a big shot" because Dodd was not returning his calls, for one example, (3) he does not campaign, (4) he's never even run for any office but expects to go straight to the White House (5) he admitted to taking money from Republicans in states where Kerry could have beat Bush in 2004, (6) he will not disclose his tax records (7) he hates dogs, (8) he is unnecessarily vicious when someone criticizes him, (9) his words and behavior are negative and he seems like he has a score to settle (10) he seems tired and not uplifting about a better future for the people.
If he is on the ballot, though, and Dennis Kucinich is not, I will probably vote for him. But I will vote for him against a Republican as the lesser of two evils.
Again I agree with Sue.
Nader has done some good things in the past, but he is no longer insightful, reasonable or effective.
rvrwalker,
'we mostly smart," Sir, Hi you attacked me so now I see you. For a nanosecond, and God, Sir, try "we ARE mostly smart!" Say it out loud several times. Both ways.
Check this too; yer fallible, absolutist! See above. Ya err! See above; now extrapolate that times 360 degrees squared times the number of years you've lived.
Lotta fallible. Scary? Should help ya realize you got room to grow. Be happy you don't really know everything. Learning is such a Joy. Maybe lay off as political guru & educator until you brush up on grammar and not ATTACKING PEOPLE.
Signed, une chien ciegos. I was laying down. Let sleeping dogs lie.
Nader is not God. His actions define him as a good man, but certainly he has made mistakes, compromised himself and erred as humans all do. Shit, he was on Fox multiple times, paid, A Sin. So what? He's invested and involved heavily w/ Cisco who Naomi klein says helps the PRC spy on it's own citizens So what? Ya wanna put Ralph down? No? Start with he is human. Who all err, compromise and sin.
Informative, and I've researchrd RN, a good man, but flawed as are all.
Did you catch the irony of being called a 'tool of industry,' yourself, below, by the erudite and wise ezeflier? (hi friend).
If I was a hardcore, I'd do it the other way-trot RN's foibles out, so what them, then focus on his rightness.
It's insistence on absolutes-Sainthood for ex., that trips people up in discourse. It's not survivable, as you demonstrate. Uh...Relatively!
Postman, please mail this letta/reply from azjoe unto Sue 1403, thank you.
Ralph,
Please consider running against Dodd, in the Democratic primary.
After you win the primary,the election, and are sworn in to office, you can do as Bernie Sanders did.
Declare that you are an independent.
What do you think, Senator Nader? You have my vote.
I agree with you but I hope he, unlike my Senator Sanders, walks the talk. Sanders makes a lot of noise and then folds under pressure (see war funding). Nader is ten times the man that Sanders is.
Someone told me that Sanders endorsed Obama last year though I have to verify that. I am concerned about his not bringing up S703 in the Senate or for that matter not using his power to filibuster war spending and Obamacare. Otherwise, he is pretty good. I think Sanders needs real company such as Nader. I am also thinking that Cynthia Mckinney should try running for senator of CA and replace one of those two senators.
Jennifer,
Cynthia Mckinney would be great!
I'd love to see Cindy Sheehan bump Pelosi out of congress also.
We'll see.
These PR folks thought they were so-o-o-o clever. In 2007 they saw the people were screaming for positive change so they slipped us Mr. Yes We Can with the "change" theme.
Well, the Wall street criminal politician buying gang is about to experience real, populist change in this country that will rock it right down to the foundations. Hang on. The winds of change are starting to blow. I may be wrong but I believe the elite are sweating bullets now.
Nah, the two-party psyops department will fix it up by election time. I'm well past 60 yrs old, the activism today is nothing compared to what we saw in the past and yet they were always able to channel the American shee ... er .. voters. They're always way ahead of us with their media and lies that stick. The "big shift" will probably come from the R side, with a lot of collusion from the D side. I put quotes around "shift" because it won't be a shift at all, it'll be, again, disguised as a grass roots, populist movement but ......... you know.
And now for something entirely different .......
If it weren't so tragic, it would be fascinating to study.
I am from CT.....If Nader decides to run, I would most certainly work for him making phone calls and distribute leaflets for him.....
Indeed, Ralph, Run, Run. Run....America needs you....The idiots who don't like you because they blame you for 2000 also need you but they are just too ignorant to know any better!!!!