Get Your "No to Nader" Blog Badge!

Hmm...the Dem race turning towards in-fighting, and now a third-party candidate horning in....
Not good omens this week. I hope it blows over, somehow.
(Not that the opinion of a Canuck counts for anything....)

Ah, negativity, ain't it wonderful?

Look, either you think Nader has a message that resonates with your constituents, or you think he doesn't. If the latter, I don't see why you would care if he is in the race or not. But you do. So the former.

In which case, why the hell doesn't Obama go chat with Nader and try to get his endorsement? Or failing that, say "I like and respect Nader, and am willing to adopt some of his message".

Why isn't Ralph angling to be head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission?

I feel sad for the guy.

I miss Kucinich, myself. It does feel like the corporations have already limited the conversation to safe subjects.

Coal? Oh, yes, we know about coal, they paid for our debates.

Shouldn't that be "Point to Nader and laugh derisively"?

You know, at this point, I don't think this is necessary. Even if the Democratic candidate lost by one vote, you couldn't blame it on Nader, because he's down to his rabid core constituency who wouldn't vote for anyone else ever. Even if you rubbed their nose in the blood of fallen soldiers in Iraq.

Ralph and his supporters should take a page out of the Religious Right playbook. The Religious Right is a powerful part of the Republican party because they work INSIDE the system. By working outside of the system, Ralph marginalizes himself and his supporters. They will always be a voice outside. If they worked within the party system, then they could have some influence.

whine, whine, whine.
The democrats continue to move to the right and we need Ralph to keep them marginally progressive.

Ralph and his supporters should take a page out of the Religious Right playbook. The Religious Right is a powerful part of the Republican party because they work INSIDE the system. By working outside of the system, Ralph marginalizes himself and his supporters. They will always be a voice outside. If they worked within the party system, then they could have some influence.
*************************************************

Of course how did they become so powerful in the Republican Party? Because they ran 3rd Party Candidates. (Wallace in '68 for example and before him Thermond in '48). Wallace's run encouraged Nixon to undertake the Southern Strategy to attract what we now know as the Christian Right. Why do you think all those Republican candidates went on down to give speeches at Bob Jones University? This of course moved the Republican Party to the right socially. The Democrats also slowly began to move to fill the void left by the GOP as they moved to the right. Hence the DLC was born. This nation has moved to the right because of it.

The progressive/socialist runs of the first half of the 20th century opened debates that would not have happened otherwise, moving the US to the left. The work within a party only works when you have an "other" to play against. Neither Obama nor Clinton is a progressive. They are centrists (I would say slightly right of center). Do Republicans blame Libertarians when they lose? How many registered Democrats voted for Bush? Democrats need to stop whining and show some leadership. This nation needs more than a token opposition party.

I don't think it's as clear this time that Nader votes would come at the expense of the Democrats as it was the last two times.

Aside from Nader being a Republican, this stratgey would be useless "go chat with Nader and try to get his endorsement", as Nader and his 5 o'clock shadow of followers didn't care enough in this campaign to even put forth a platform, much less raise the necessary funds to promote it--to busy smokin' weeds and hangin' in trees to do the door knocking.

But rubbing noses in dead soldiers blood? Yuck--maybe we could just rub noses in an American culture that promotes soldiering as a life skill? We didn't need to go all the way to Iraq to get a wiff of that mess.

Well, all icky talk about blood aside, I think the Nader supporters are outnumbered by the "independent" and "undecided" voters. Throw in some "RINO"s that are sick of war and bible-thumping, and Nader's candidacy becomes irrelevant.

The only reason most D voters vote for Ds is that they dislike the R candidates even more. The only reason most R voters vote for Rs is that they dislike the Ds candidates even more.

Neither party has any reason to change as long as they can present themselves as the only alternative to the other guys.

I may vote for Nader out of ennui alone. We'll see how I feel on Election Day.

I am an anarchist. I will not vote, it provides legitimacy to an exploitive and violent system. I encourage everyone else not to vote, as well. I don't vote out of apathy, I don't vote because of hatred for authority and our government. I protest and I don't accept dialog and I have no common ground to explore with those I protest. I am the radical-left, if you wish, but I know I'm not the one you wanted, Greg.

As an anarchist, this hatred of people who refuse to vote for your political tribe is a perfect example of how illegitimate our system is. These tribes seem to think that peoples votes belong to them. It shows the fact you really have no choice to vote for.

Also, don't give me the lesser-of-two-evils cliche. We have had over 100 years of constant warfare and empire building. Both parties have helped in this. Millions have died from our aggression. I don't care what promises our great leaders give, they will not be able breath life back into these people. Our empire is of hundreds of military bases to ensure our military can strike at any group of people who do not follow our demands. Our economic empire is just as oppressive, both parties fully support this capitalist stranglehold on the world. Both parties have aided union busting and the economic destruction of our own people. Taft-Hartely existed over the rule of both parties. Our own rights have been eroded by by our war on crime, our war on drugs, and now under the war on terror. Both parties have aided this. The little differences are minor compared to those evils.

Now, to Rey Fox, I know you think you are being smart with your convoluted logic about the causes of the war. I know you somehow think that you had one hell of a zinger. As an infantryman who fought in Iraq, you are an effing moron. Who voted for that fucking stupid war. 42% of the democrats, to include Clinton, but it is Nader's fault somehow. It wasn't just them, the war was just an extension of the Clinton's policy of raining bombs all over that nation. This stupid war was what turned me to anarchism. I hate the war, I hate myself because of the war, I hate myself for not being brave enough to CO, and I hate both parties for starting it. Those bastards caused the death of the 8-year old girl who bled out because some stupid, cherry private got scared and freaked out with an M240. She was just salvaging scrap metal to try and feed her family. I don't forget that, her screams or the image itself. I hate them for friend and the way he died. I don't forget that either, I still remember his last gasp. I hate them for the nightmares I have where I am near an explosion, and I just think "I hope there are no body parts, I can't handle that today." I hate them for every time I flinch from a loud sound. I will never forget and I will never forgive. Ever.

Okay, I've depressed myself, and I still have to finish studying for a CS exam and write a lab report, so I can't play longer. I also figure I will get banned for this post.

If the people with ennui are all going to vote for Nader, then we are truly skrewed. CMF: Criticize our culture? Me?

Greg: yeah I,m with you....that comment about dead soldiers was directed at Rey Fox.
I personally don't jump on the bandwagon of o' da po' soldiers and all that: they had a choice, and so did I-->I voted no to war years ago, and voted with my boots. So all that dead soldier rhetoric sounds great at funerals, police union meetings, and Klan rallies, but I still say no to unjustified war.

While I'm not voting for him, I can't help but think this isn't a positive thing to do.

I'd bet most [if not all] of your opposition to Nader is because of how he 'stole votes' in 2000 [even though Gore won anyhow] and how he'll do the same thing again in 2008.

The problem is that clearly isn't going to happen again. Even if you were to subtract two to four percent of votes given to Obama in the national election [I'm damn sure he's going to get it.] Barak would STILL win given his amazing popularity.

Singling out Nader because he refuses to stop running is a bit narrow minded. He's an American hero who refuses to give up, even in the face of absolute failure.

I think that's something to celebrate, not decry.

love nader. i say hell yeah to nader, and thank you for fucking up that which sorely needs fucking up.

i just read thomas' comment, and just wanted to give a a little high five here, because he's right. he is also one of many who have turned their backs on the status quo because of this war. so greg has real reason to lament. there are a lot of us.

Can someone give me some good reasons not to vote for Nader? All I ever seem to hear is that he causes Democrats to lose elections, but that argument doesn't fly with me. If the Democratic candidates were doing it right, they should be winning by a landslide regardless of whether Nader is running.

Scotty: It is the IF in your argument that makes you dead wrong.

Ground yourself. Get in touch with reality. Imagine the next election between a democrat and a republican and it is very very close, but the democrat is going to win by several tens of thousands of votes. Now imagine any third party candidate, no matter how good they may be, taking away more democratic votes than republic votes and thus causing the election to be won by the republican.

Get it?

Scotty: It is the IF in your argument that makes you dead wrong.

Ground yourself. Get in touch with reality. Imagine the next election between a democrat and a republican and it is very very close, but the democrat is going to win by several tens of thousands of votes. Now imagine any third party candidate, no matter how good they may be, taking away more democratic votes than republic votes and thus causing the election to be won by the republican.

Get it?

I understand your point, but as I said, that argument just doesn't fly with me. We can argue the point, but in the end we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Instead, I was asking for other reasons why Nader would not be the best choice for president given the current choices.
Thanks for any help you can offer,
Scotty B

I understand your point, but as I said, that argument just doesn't fly with me. We can argue the point, but in the end we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Instead, I was asking for other reasons why Nader would not be the best choice for president given the current choices.
Thanks for any help you can offer,
Scotty B

Sorry, I am not moocking you, I'm having internet problems.

Scotty, sorry, our server is acting strange so sometimes the posts time out then when you hit some button again there ends up being two of them.

Personally, I put Nader in the "Jerry Brown" category. Great concept, but the moment he is president Canada invades.

I want Nader in a cabinet position.

"I want Nader in a cabinet position."
I want that too, but I want to make damn dure that cabinet has NO formaldehyde in it; and safety hinges...because right now, it looks like he has come unhinged, and is set to steal more votes from OBAMA.