Slashdot Mirror
The Nader Factor
TolkiEinstein writes "The NY Times is running an article on The Nader Factor that details the threat level old Ralph represents to John Kerry. Nader has made it on the ballots of 30 states, and polls show he could influence the outcome of 9 states where the race is a dead heat. While Nader argues that he isn't a spoiler, a Zogby poll suggests that if he weren't on the ballot, 41 percent of his supporters would go to Kerry and 15 percent to Bush. Ironically, this is why some of the prime movers in getting him on the ballot have been Republicans. As per the article, Terry McAuliffe - the democratic party chairman - says he should 'end the charade' of a campaign being kept afloat by 'corporate backers.' Could it be that in this way Nader is beholden to corporate interests? For shame, Ralph."
Ralph is betraying what he ran for last time, which was to help build a viable third party, by running as an independent. The Green Party was smart enough not to run him again or else become a one-candidate party. Also, they recognized that with the number of people who say he spoiled the last election that he would be more of a liability than an asset. The Greens are winning some local elections and with time might become a viable national party by working from the ground floor on up.
I'm wearing my tinfoil hat again, but the signals I'm receiving from outerspace tell me that the DNC and Clinton puppet Terry McAuliffe like Nader being in there.
I doubt you could convince me that Hillary Clinton is pushing for a Kerry victory. There's no way the most ambitious woman in the world has given up on running against Guiliani in '08.
Mr. Nader repeated this week that he had no intention of leaving the race. He said no one from the Kerry campaign or Democratic National Committee was pressing him behind the scenes to quit, and he said he thought that Mr. Kerry would not make a good president anyway.
I guess that means Nader himself is pro-Bush- that he thinks 4 more years of W is better than Kerry. He's lost all of my respect at this point.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
And we are to believe the other candidates aren't?
I'll believe that when the USA adopts party financing rules that make Quebec's rules look wimpy, and not a second before.
Only wasted vote is for a canidate you don't belive in. To think a vote for Nader or any 3rd party canidate is a vote for Bush is laughable. Voteing for the lesser of two evils still gives you evil.
Democratic slant that is. Take this latest one as an example:
"Could it be that in this way Nader is beholden to corporate interests? For shame, Ralph"
What proof o they have for this?! It's just a smear campaign by the Democrats. Just look at what Dems have been doing to Nader... all those frivolous lawsuits, constant misinformation's... Dems should be ashamed.
Two lawsuits try to keep Nader off ballot And this is just in one state, Florida! They've been using the same dirty tactics in other states as well.
Don't vote for the "better" of two evils, vote Nader in 2004! Evil is still evil and there's very little difference between the two major parties.
http://www.votenader.org/
Why does this guy get all kinds of press when he is only on 30 states ballots. When Michael Badnarik is on 48 states and libertarian party has a far larger percentage of votes.......
Ohh yea Nader takes votes from Democrats and is a tool for the Republicans.
never mind.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
"Could it be that in this way Nader is beholden to corporate interests? For shame, Ralph"
What proof do they have for this?! It's just a smear campaign by the Democrats.
It's just the Democrats learning from Karl Rove: attack your opponent's strength, not his weakness. Nader's whole raison d'etre is that he's not "beholden" -- so accuse him of it, and defuse his strength.
On the other hand...
Don't vote for the "better" of two evils, vote Nader in 2004! Evil is still evil and there's very little difference between the two major parties.
I say, don't vote for the "better-known" of the less-evils. If you're going to vote on the left side of the aisle, vote for the Green Party candidate -- David Cobb. We told Nader to take a hike at the Green Party convention.
Personally, I'm hoping that on November 3, we're looking at the map and smiling at the votes that Badnarik "stole" from Bush. If third parties on the left *and* the right are changing the outcome, maybe people will see that it's time the Big Two got put out to pasture.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Some points:
* Nader only got twice as many Dems as Repubs; and those combined were only half the number of Independents.
* Compare Nader's 2% of Dems with the Repubs %8 of Dems--4x as many Democrats voted Republican as voted for Nader.
What is it Christians don't like to hear? Oh right:
Wil
wiki
I am not a Nader fan, but hearing dems criticize Nader is like listening to neo-nazis bitch about being discriminated against. Yes, he will 'steal' some of Kerry's votes, but the fact of the matter is that the dems have been extremely active in trying to keep Nader off ballots via legal manuevers, rather underhanded if you ask me; not the sort of thing that I would find inspiring in my leaders.
In the upcoming election I will be voting for Kerry, but seeing dems attack Nader only further demonstrates how sad the state of affairs are in our country when the 2 parties involved need to resort to ridiculous legal strategies in order to secure their voter base. Between republican efforts to remove voters from the voter rolls and other various underhanded tactics involving misinformation (which, imo, is definitely worst), and the dems trying their hardest to keep 3rd party canidates off the ballot, this year's election is anything but exemplary for other countries and sure leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
The democratic party is, unfortunately, bankrupt in many metaphorical ways, amongst them ethically, progressively, and has lost many of the things that historically made them what they are. Its a sure sign that you need to seriously reassess your party's goals, orientation and voting base if you have to get court orders to remove candidates from the ballot in order to stay in power.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
Thanks for freeing America from Democrat party socialism.
Nader knows he won't win; he must.
Instead, he is running on the knowledge that if he or anyone else takes enough of the vote from one of the 2 major parties, they will alter laws so as to make 3rd party candidates not be spoilers.
This, of course, benefits everyone in the long run.
However, in the short run, a lot of folks won't vote for a 3rd party candidate if there is much at stake. It could be argued that the 2 major parties want people to think there is much at stake in every election, so they always remain the only two real options.
So, what I propose is that a party (probably the democrats) create legislation before it becomes an issue to eliminate the spoiler thing, or perhaps strike a deal with Nader that "If you don't run, we'll make the process more fair".
Very few Americans I've meet have even thought that their might be other ways to run a democracy. In my country we use a system of proportional represention. Every vote counts. In the states most people's vote are totally useless because they come from states/electoral colleges where one party has a clear majority. The US works under a system that fails to meet the basic requirements of a democracy - That is everyone votes, and all votes are equal.
American's need to stop thinking that they are the home of democracy and the land of the free. To the outside world they look like a corporate run country with corrupt politician.
Sometimes I hope that Bush wins this upcoming election and then continues to runs the economy into the ground so the rest of the world can start ignoring the US. What really pisses me off is when Americans I've meet around the world (including when I lived in the US) think that the rest of the world is jellous of them.
As someone from New Zealand, I look at the states and I'm pleased I don't live there. I live in a country with democratic representation, freedom of speach, human rights for all... and NZs generally got a better quality of life for all residents no mater whether they are rich or poor.
NZ slashdotter
PS- we let women vote before the US even considered it.
What do you mean?
The only spoiler is that people want to vote for someone other than Bush or Kerry, and I think that's great. If more people voted their conscience and voted for what was better, we wouldn't even have to choose between Bush or Kerry! It would be Badnarik vs Nader vs Kerry vs Bush vs anyone else qualified to run.
GPL Deconstructed
Bribing Ralph to withdraw
In other systems, if a party gets, say, 5% of the vote, they get 5% representation. That makes it appealing to start parties -- if you get 5% of the vote, you get 5% representation in parlament. In order to lead parlament, you need a majority. If no party has a majority, they need to get other parties to sign on with them. My 5% now comes in handy: I tell the Christian Democrat party that I'll support them for Prime Minister if they let me be the head of a committee of if they help to pass legislation that I support but that they are ambivelant about.
/.ers felt that each cadidate should be his own man, and fight for his own beliefs, etc. But if I and 20 other candidates do that but one of our opponents gathers many constituents together and represents them, he will win, unless we counter with our own block.
In the US, the President and Congress get elected by a winner-take-all system. This might be becuse the US was the first country to experiment with how to make elections work -- this method seemed reasonable and there were no experiments to study which election method best acheived good results in terms of the Founding Fathers' values.
In the US way, it is natural for a 2 party system to evolve. That way, any given consituent maximizes his chances of getting power. If you start your own party and get only 5% of the vote, you get nothing, exept the ability to bargin with your opponents -- to tell them you won't run again if you make room in your party for me and my ideas; they're worth 5%. The system encourages parties to disolve themselves to join forces early to win a majority.
G Washington saw that two parties were natually forming and this bugged him -- he, like may
It is in this sense that Nader is a spoiler -- not because he doesn't have good ideas or because people shouldn't fight or vote for what they believe in, but becasue he is not acting in the interests of his constuents. If he were to bargin with his 5%, he'd get something done -- he could try to get Kerry to promise him Labor Secretary or to put some Nader issue on his agenda.
As it is now, he will get nothing -- no proportional representation, no Democratic appeasment, no favors. And since he isn't even acting within a party anymore, he'll get no future bargining power for the 3% he may get this time.
What about Badnarik?? Granted Libertarians usually don't even get a single percentage point of the popular vote in presidential elections, but he could still very well influence the election. Every poll I've seen seems to completely ignore him.
I've talked to many Republicans who dislike Bush, but at the same time would never vote for Kerry. If Badnarik took just a quarter percentage point of Bush's voters in key battle ground states, he could potentially change the outcome of the election.
The 2 party duopoly is what allows the "spoiler" effect.
If we had instant runoff elections where instead of voting for only 1 candidate you could list them in order of preference then there would be no concerns about throwing your vote away or spoiler candidates. People would just say who they most wanted to be president and if that person(e.g. Nader) isn't elected who is your second choice (Kerry). I think this is a reform that Nader wants and if he may very well think that costing Kerry the presedency may be his best chance of getting people to consider such a reform.
I had never thought about this until I saw the green and libertarian candidates discuss it on Now with Bill Moyers. It makes a lot of sense to me.
But still -- please God don't let Bush win!
I don't understand what the big fuss is. He jumped throught the hoops and played by the rules and he's a candidate. He doesn't claim to be a different kind of democrat.
BTW, the argument could just as easily be made that the libertarians "steal" conservative votes. I've just never heard it.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
He is trying to defeat Kerry, thus forcing the rich liberals to fund think tanks and foundations to build a Leftist Propaganda Machine to match the rightwing propaganda machine (google "tentacles of rage" for a good explication of the Rightwing propaganda machine).
Once the LPM is underway, it can put out memes about leftist ideas to match the rightwing ideas that have dominated political discourse over the last 35 years or so. But if Kerry is elected, that LPM will be much slower to grow.
Just as necessity is the mother of invention, desperation is the mother of donations.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
First, framing the debate in terms of "spoilers" means votes are owned and that we should do nothing to challenge an inherently undemocratic system where the two entrenched parties push other parties and independents off the ballot (or make it harder to get on the ballot in the first place). Don't even get started about the exclusion from the televised debates run by the DLC and RNC.
Second, Nader has been saying that this Zogby poll shows a three-way split: half of his voters would not have voted at all. The other half is evenly split between those who would have voted Republican and Democrat. Thus only 25% of his voters would have otherwise supported Kerry, not a majority (not that there's anything wrong with that, as I said before, it's fine to compete and everyone is taking votes from someone else). Nader talked about this Zogby poll last night on Letterman's show.
All of the prime movers getting Republicans on the ballot in Illinois were Democrats. That's not irony when you consider that Republicans and Democrats are both fighting for the same corporate dollars and corporations are pleased to have either of those two parties win (hence a lot of large multinational corporations donate to both of those parties and set their agendas). It works well for both of these parties to exclude anyone that would question global corporate hegemony (as many third parties and independents do).
Please provide proof of this corporate backing and please supply evidence the Republicans and Democrats aren't taking corporate cash. My guess is that you'll have problems with both ends of this because (as far as I know) Nader/Camejo's campaign takes no corporate or PAC cash and only takes money from individuals (and each individual contribution is capped). McAuliffe is fine with misrepresentation: filling an Oregon ballot rally with Democrats who had no intention of signing the petition to put Nader on the ballot, thus Nader's people would think they had enough participation to get on and then be short signatures when they got the petitions back.
Digital Citizen
You're thinking only in terms of presidential poltics. The senate and house have a lot of power too. There are also a lot of bills that squeeze thru by just one or two votes. So a 3rd party with 5 or so Senators could actually be disproportionately powerful.
Justice O'Conner is considered particularly influential because the other justices tend to vote in blocs and she is often the deciding swing vote.
How dare Nader run and take away votes from Kerry?!? For that matter, how dare Bush run! If they weren't in the race, everyone would vote for Kerry! That's good . . . right?
Who are these people that would vote for Nader if he was on the ballot, but will vote for Kerry if Nader is not on the ballot? Are there any of them? If Nader was my candidate but not qualified because pro-Kerry people blocked his access to the ballot, would I really be expected to vote Kerry? At least the Republicans trying to disqualify black voters and trashing Democratic voter registrations makes logical sense in an evil sort of way.
Makes you think, of all the countries in the world, should the USA really be the one trying to spread democracy? They seem to have a really lousy grip on the whole concept right now. All of these events in the news surrounding votes should be about countries in the so-called "third world", not in the good old USofA.
501 Not Implemented
Obviously if your of the opinion that someone should not run because he may detrimentally affect your candidate your not the type of person who deserves to vote.
Its pathetic people like you who help doom all third party candidates. This beat Bush at any cost attitude so many of the liberal saps here have shows just how doomed we are. We are stuck with a bunch of hate filled twits that are so damn selfish that would sell everyone down the river just to have their idiot satisfaction
AC because I can
The key word in "Anybody But Bush" Is "anybody". Only a minority of those who might vote for Nader will consider a vote for Kerry. They're either voting Green or Libertarian, possibly even Constitution. They're already self-defined as Not-Democrats.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
and yet
Are you sure about that? Apparently voters like you are willing to give away your vote to an "ethically, progressively" "bankrupt" political party. So long as that is true, why shouldn't the Democrats continue to run to the Right and take their Progressive base for granted? You're not alone: lots of Progressive organizations (NOW, environmental organizations, educational organizations, and others) are willing to unconditionally endorse Kerry. What is the Progressive breaking point?
Digital Citizen
This time around the Greens are trying very hard to avoid being called spoilers by endorsing Kerry in contested states. This, despite how the Democrat platform has more in common with the Republican platform than the Green platform. This had little to do with avoiding a one-candidate party but real differences of opinion on when the Greens were deciding to run anyone for president and whether to run a 50-state campaign.
Part of the support the Greens got in 1996 and 2000 came from the awareness raised by Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns--campaigns that were endorsed by the Green Party.
Politics doesn't work according to the sequencing you're mentioning. Working together on specific issues is a great way to get things done, but first local, then national simply isn't how the Greens got the attention they now have.
Digital Citizen
That showing their true colors in the unending and childish attempt to limit choice and hoard votes might actually be proving Nader right? Their attacks upon him have been vicious, relentless, and going on since before John Kerry was even selected as the nominee. For the Dems, *ANY* candidate was more important than Ralph Nader, they always viewed him as a spoiler. They could have nominated a one eyed Chihuahua and still would be complaining Ralph was "spoiling" it for them. This election is *their* fight, and they won't even consider the prospect of there being a better candidate than theirs available to the public. So what do they do? They make sure there isn't one available. When was the last time you heard a Democrat criticise Ralph Nader as an inferior candidate as far as honesty, integrity, or stance on the issues? Yeah.
That colosally misstates Nader's take. Nader has said that Kerry would make a marginally better choice than Bush.
However there is an argument for Bush: Under Clinton the Left fell asleep. It would be horrible if that happened again.
Perhaps we're risking another Leftists-asleep-at-the-wheel under Kerry:
People are going to lose money and services under either Bush or Kerry, so it's not a question of harming the poor; the poor will suffer no matter which of the two major parties gets their candidate into the White House.
Digital Citizen
I don't disagree with your statements, however this particular election has too much at stake for me to let my idealism determine my vote. I am of the opinion that Bush, given 4 more years, will wreak greater harm upon our country than Kerry; his religous positions alone in relation to science (stem cell research), and their way of just ignoring science in favor of their own ideology is disturbing. There are many reasons why I am voting the way I am, and not going with the most idealistic candidate.
I am personally involve in an NPO organization that is, through grassroots efforts, trying to increase funding for progressive democratic canidates, and through this I feel lies potential improvements in the future. Improvements in politics start from the bottom, not from the top and so we must elect more progressive candidates on the municipal level, the state level, and finally the national level. The democratic party can be re-aligned back to its roots, but it will take time, effort, and money but is something I feel is worth working towards. The two party system is not going away anytime soon unfortunately, so I feel its better to work within the existing system to bring about change than work against inertia. While electing Kerry may not change any of that, which I doubt it will, I can rest assured that he will not be making decisions based on the results of his prayers.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
Whenever I hear that nonsense about "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush", I always tell the speaker that another way to frame the issue is that, if the Dems want to win an election, they had better start looking a lot more different from the Reps.
... might be the best way to describe the origin of everyone's complaint about this two party system. I direct your attention to Justice Story's "On the Constitution of the United States" at around page 161 et. seq. Justice story wrote, in the 1820's, that the whole point of the electoral college was to select people who could deliberate on the best candidate for President without the influence of parties, re-election, or other legislative duties. That is why folks who already hold national office are prohibited from being electors.
If we were sensible enough to vote for good electors, people we know and trust from our own states, and let them decide like the constitution intended... there would be no two-party system.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
You know what's interesting? For the fact that 3rd Parties get so little of the vote...a few percent, there appear to be a lot of supporters of third parties here on /. Now if all those Slashdotters would just go vote for who they wanted to win...
Logic, macros, and more
Why?
4 more years of Bush will galvanize the Left.
Logic, macros, and more
Thanks for responding. I understand your dilemma even if I don't share it. I happened to come across this speech by Ralph Nader where he asks the question I asked (not that he got it from me, I probably got it from him years ago or from some other Progressive). Put aside that this is meant to encourage you to vote for Nader/Camejo. I'd encourage you (and every other /. reader) to listen with an ear to the message of how duopoly power works to oppress. Much of what he says here could work just as well to talk about other political parties and independents you don't often hear from.
If you have time, I'd like to get an answer to the question I closed with: what is your breaking point? I ask the question in all sincerity. Different people will legitimately answer with different times. I'm perfectly comfortable with that. What I fear is that there is no breaking point for anyone who opposes the Corporatists.
Digital Citizen
I'd like to hear more about that. Google search got zero results. One of the reasons other members of my family support Bush is because they believe he is for the unborn.
Some could argue that Kerry is stealing votes away from Nader, not the other way around. That if the Democratic Party stopped participating in Presidential elections, Nader would win.
Kerry and Bush came down on different sides of virtually every single issue in the debates. Taxes. Abortion. Foreign policy. Health care. Iraq. The environment.
But other than that, yeah. Both parties are the same.
I'm sorry, but I cannot respect your viewpoint. The Bush administration is simply a catastrophe. First of all, they fucked up on 9/11. They were warned about al Qaeda, instead Bush chose to antagonize North Korea and China and spend billions on National Missile Defense. The Afghanistan invasion was the right move, but since then the nation has fallen into the hands of warlords and drug lords. The invasion of Iraq has been a massive catastrophe. We've managed to kill thousands of civilians, destroyed our image abroad with Abu Graib, and given new motivation to anti-US terrorists worldwide. Plus, Bush has ruined the country financially by spending massive amounts on Iraq while cutting taxes on the richest of the rich. Oh, and let's not forget that this president who promised to be a "uniter, not a divider" has pandered to the radical fundamentalist Christians and Neocons and left the nation more polarized than it has been in a generation. By any objective standard, the Bush administration is a massive, catastrophic failure and he's one of the worst presidents in a century.
Maybe Kerry ain't perfect, but he's better. A lobotomized chimp would be better than Bush (and smarter). We've got to make realistic choices. Between bad and worse, I'll take bad. That's life. You have to make tough choices- it's part of being grown up and mature. Don't like it? Tough shit, that's life. Suck it up and deal.
I meant that we don't know or care who they are; they're just the people each party puts up. It would be fun to vote for actual people as electors, rather than for a specific candidate.
sigs, as if you care.
He just thinks that 4 years of Bush would be indistinguishable from 4 years of Kerry -- and he's right. America has degenerated from a two-party system to a one-party system. That party justs has two public faces.
"Kerry and Bush came down on different sides of virtually every single issue in the debates."
Did they?
"Taxes."
Bush: Let's cut taxes massively.
Kerry: Let's cut taxes merely hugely.
Both: Let's keep the overall tax structure the same.
"Abortion."
Bush: I'm opposed to abortion, and I worked to ban partial birth abortion.
Kerry: I'm opposed to abortion, but I wouldn't work to ban it.
"Foreign policy."
Bush: I led the war on terror. The Patriot Act is good.
Kerry: I will hunt down and kill the terrorists. The Patriot Act is good, but we need to 'monitor' its use.
"Health care."
Bush: I passed Medicare 'reform' and support 'health savings accounts', which are thinly veiled tax shelters for people who can already afford health care. I oppose buying drugs from Canada because they cannot be trusted.
Kerry: I support opening up the federal insurance system to the public -- the system that, by and large, still deals with the for-profit middlemen. Also, I think we should undermine the Canadian pharmaceutical price controls by buying the drugs that they imported from us.
Neither: If we're considering buying drugs from Canada that they imported from us, shouldn't we consider implementing our own similar system? Neither candidate supports any major reform of the health system -- just small, iterative changes that merely solidify the status quo.
"Iraq."
Bush: I believe I was right to invade Iraq.
Kerry: I believe I was right to authorize him to invade Iraq, except he should have spent more time on diplomacy. But then unilateral invasion would be fine.
"The environment."
I have to agree with you there -- Bush's record is pretty abysmal on the environment. Of course, Kerry hasn't really given concrete proof he'll do better -- remember, Bush claims to be an environmental president, so you can't always believe what is said.
In general, though, Bush and Kerry had DIFFERENT views, but their views were very close.
Inasmuch Nader is the only candidate that isn't in Israel's grasp, a [N]ew York Times article sent in by an 'Einstein' denouncing him is just a bit obvious. Heh.
What is the Progressive breaking point?
Ironically, their brakings points are the same as ours (Conservative Republicans).
Abortion. Gun Control. Tax Cuts.
They're just on the other side.
All of the other issues that they pay lip service to don't really mean anything to them.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Bush is going to steal votes from Kerry.
And Kerry is going to steal votes from Bush.
Oviously Saddam Hussein got it right, since nobody could steal votes from him.
I have only one further comment. Duh.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
In Corporate USA Diebold steals votes from you!
Your voting system doesn't support this AFAIK. I am not an American citizen, nor do I know heaps about your voting system. But from what I've read, you don't do preferential voting. In Australia, when we're voting for the house of reps. we have to order the boxes in order of preference. If our first pref. doesn't get through, then his votes transfer to our second preference, and so on. So you guys could have
[1] Ralph Nader
[2] John Kerry
[3] One of those duck pendulum thingies
[4] A toothbrush
[5] The dog from Frasier
[6] George W. Bush
and a vote for Nader would essentially be a vote for Kerry (unless Nader got the majority).
-- The doctor said I wouldn't get so many nose bleeds if I just kept my finger out of there!
It's hard not to be slightly biased to the democrats. As a european I find it mind boggling that a guy like Bush can become president, basically do everything his opponents feared he would do (and much worse) and still convince about half of the electorate that he's doing an ok job. Clinton lied about a woman, Bush lied about a lot more.
Personally I think America really deserves another four years of Bush (and the associated prolonged economical problems). They've been arrogant, dominant and foolish. Four years ought to be enough to at least double the deficit, kill what's left of US industry and alienate the rest of the world insofar that has not been accomplished yet. Unfortunately, that would likely affect other countries (such as my own) so it would be better for me and my fellow non US world citizens if Kerry were to win.
If you are planning to vote Nader, just remember that neither Bush nor Nader needs your vote. Nader doesn't expect to win and Bush will cheer you as a disgruntled democrat that won't put any votes in Kerry's pocket. It's as simple as that.
This election is about selecting the next US president. You have four options: not voting at all, voting Nader, voting Bush and voting Kerry. Three of those options will help Bush more than Kerry, so really there's only two choices: Bush or Kerry. You can support Bush by not voting, by voting for Nader (which is essentially the same thing) or by voting for Bush directly. You can only support Kerry by voting for him. If enough people get off their ass to vote (whatever they want to vote) on the election day, Kerry will easily win this election. All the current polls take into account a siginificant number of mostly poorly educated americans not voting. Bush depends on those people staying at home because these are mostly potential democratic votes.
Jilles
If he wasn't running, those votes would go to Nader|Cobb|Brown. Darn that Kerry! Why doesn't he just drop out of the race and let a candidate with real ideas run?
Constitutionally Correct
already said this
Constitutionally Correct
I support third parties and fully believe that the only way to take out the two headed hydra that dominates DC is to run non-conventional candidates against them. However, Nader is just as scary, if not scarier than wack jobs like Buchannan and Perot. Nader has alot of ideas that I agree with. But honestly, he has the kind divine authoratian streak that make many slashdotters question our current pResident's sanity. My problem with Nader's run isn't that he'll take votes from Kerry, actually. Its the fact that Nader and his followers are puritanical ideologues convinced wholeheartedly of their own greatness. The fact that Smirk getting back into office doesn't scare them should send chills up the spine of any sane or rational progressive. The scarier problem would be if these freaks ever came to power. One of my biggest fears with Nader is not whether or not Bush wins...its the eerie notion of Nader a president. It would the bizarre bastard child of force-fed political correctness, 1950's style social graces and left-wing Fascism that will define a Nader presidency. Remember that crap ass movie "Demolition Man"? Remember the vegan, androgynous wimp world that they future was? There was no meat, rock music or profanity or sex. Im a vegan and I would cringe at the type of world. This is the kind of whacked out world would be a political wet dream from people like Nader. Talking to a lot of Naderites, there's an eerie dictatorial streak within them. They think just because they may be right, they can shoehorn and ram their ideas down peoples throats. Seeing as many of these guys think Communist Russia wasn't that bad doesn't surprise me. I asked a fellow Green and ardent Naderite how does Nader expect to pass all of his more whacked out notions (like banning video games) without the support of Congress. He said without blinking an eye that Ralph could just pass everything as an executive order. Isn't that the kind of tyrannical bullshit that they get all pissed about with Bush? Its fine for Nader to rule by fiat because "he fights for the people"? Come on guys, lay off the weed! We agree on one point, if Bush gets elected, no Republican would be able to seek office for next 20-30 years, if the nation survives that long afterward. If Nader, or anyone like him, were to get into the drivers seat, he'll set our agenda back twice as far. Even the national Green Parties (they are technically two) told Nader to take a hike. Why? Because Nader basically felt that somehow the GP needed him, He calls us political immature because we as a party had the audacity to nominate an actual Green for president. He didn't notice that Greens are officially the nation's third largest political party and are growing in spite of him. I'm a Green and will continue to be one. But my biggest pet peeves in politics are stubbornness and arrogance. Nader's a threat because he would put Bush back into office. But I would argue Ralph Nader would be just as scary, if not scarier, if he were in power A REAL Green
We told Nader to take a hike at the Green Party convention.
You told him to take a hike because he was too god at what he does.
I would submit that that the pride and stubborness of a certain now jailed leader is the cause of these deaths you mention, and that it is a bit unfair to suggest that these sanctions were imposed by one man or one country
regards
dbcad7
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
No, it's just the reverse. It's your vote that is wasted.
When you say you'll vote for a candidate no matter what, the issues you care about as a voter are irrelevant. You see this on both sides. For example, pro-lifers generally vote Republican no matter what. The Republicans control the presidency, house, and senate. Has the abortion rate declined? The left has equally foolish voters. Many of them are against the Iraq war and Patriot act, yet vote for a candidate who is in favor of both. They just can't figure out why Kerry voted for the Iraq War and Patriot Act so quickly.
You can't expect a politician to care about your issues when you will vote for them no matter what.
Surely Nader Voters know what they are doing. In fact, they probably put more thought into their vote than those people who vote Republican or Democrat so as not to "waste" their vote. Nader isn't forcing anyone to vote for him. Even if Nader or other third party candidates "can't win" the election, a vote for Nader is a vote for election reform.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
You're probably right about one of the three. Abortion is a pretty polarizing issue. The other two just aren't the same.
Gun control is not that big of a deal to most people. The two types of people who really worry about gun control are the "gun nuts" - people who really just have a vice they don't want the government to interfere with - and the people who have irrational fear of crime and therefore think that gun control is much more essential than it really is.
As for taxes, they're obviously an important issue, but you can't divide the nation into people who are for and against cutting taxes. Everyone's for cutting taxes when they feel that it's worth cutting spending or letting the debt grow. For every libertarian who thinks every government social program should be ended and for every socialist who believes the government should provide for everyone's needs there are countless people in between who would be willing to actually weigh the value of any given program against its cost, if they were given a straight information about it.
There are other things that are probably more polarizing than either of those. I suspect that except for a few other types of single-issue voters, the election will be decided mostly on whether one thought Bush's foreign policy was reasonable - in the sense of trumping up justification for overthrowing the government of some country that was no particular threat to us. Now THAT's polarizing. (and yes, Kerry was wrong about it too, but a lot of people weren't and most of us blame Bush a hell of a lot more.) One either believes that we made our country the "bad guy" and destroyed our international credibility, or that it was all completely justified for some reason, who knows. Anyway, if you're looking for a breaking point, that's the one this election.
I agree with this; my breaking points are when social issues (more so than economic, since honestly speaking, I wish to have a greater understanding of economics until I decide whether 'trick-down' is crap, or if taxes are the answer; I honestly dont know at this point and need to read more to adequately state an opinion on it) have re-aligned to the right within the democratic party. As the above poster said and the one who also responded as well, when social issues like abortion, gun control, gay rights, stem cell research, environmental protection and such begin to slide to conservative positions within the greater part of the democratic party, this would be the breaking point. Probably one of the most telling things about Bush during the debates came out during the last debate when he sidestepped the question on whether he would repeal the Roe vs Wade decision. This is the sort of stuff that makes me fear for America's future within the greater world, which with the exception of some Arab states and 3rd world countries, is moving towards greater progression within science and human rights.
America has enjoyed a major technological boom within the last 30 years or so with computers. As the prime developers of the computer as well as the internet, we've enjoyed a superiority within the field for a long time and we still do in certain respects. If we apply this same idea to stem cell / bio-tech, I find it outragous that we'd just hand off the potentials of this to other countries; its a fact that someone is going to develop and bring this technology to fruitation and the first nations to seize upon it will be the ones who will most likely have the upperhand during atleast the first period of expansion within that industry. I am friends with several people who are doctors & hospital administrators here in the USA, and they often talk about how people from other nations come to America to have important surgeries as we have amongst the best medical practitioners in the world; imagine throwing that all away and now instead you goto China, Japan, Britain, India, etc for these operations. Whos the one who gets the benefits then? Its definitely not America.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
There are other things that are probably more polarizing than either of those. I suspect that except for a few other types of single-issue voters, the election will be decided mostly on whether one thought Bush's foreign policy was reasonable - in the sense of trumping up justification for overthrowing the government of some country that was no particular threat to us.
Gee, you're letting your bias seep through huh?
Seriously, I understand the point of view that says this election will hinge on the Iraq war. I disagree.
With the exception of people who have children in the Persian Gulf, that war isn't a huge concern.
Both major parties are made up of big block of single issue voters.
Abortion voters. The democrats have to take a stance against any restriction of the practice. Republicans have to pass any restrictions they can.
Everyone realizes that the only way the landscape can possibly change with regard to this issue is a change in the balance of power in the Supreme Court. Justices will most likely remain on the bench until a President who is in line with their politics is in office. The way the balance of power will change is if a justice dies while an opposition President is in office.
This issue is so explosive because the people who vote on it WILL leave a party if they feel betrayed.
Gun control voters. This is more of a volitile issue for Republicans than Democrats because once again. The Republicans have to worry about 3-4 million members of their base getting up and leaving the table if they vote wrong in Congress. The Democrats' only real peril with regard to this issue is pissing off too much of the opposition base, like they did in 1994.
Greenies. These are the people who only vote Democrat if there is no other choice. These are the people that the Democrats are trying to steal away from Nader.
Tax Cuts. This is more of an 'icing on the cake' issue than anything else. People aren't going to switch their vote just based on the minor details of a tax cut. Republicans want to cut everyone's taxes. Democrats want to cut taxes for people making under $200k annually. I suppose that only time will tell who's right, but this isn't really anyone's primary issue.
Foreign Policy voters are only slightly more of a factor than Tax Cut voters. It's another 'icing on the cake' issue. People who were leaning away from Bush anyway may use it for the last piece of justification that they need.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
If Nadar is a threat to Kerry, you can bet Libertarian presidential candidate Micheal Badnarik is a threat to Bush, even more so than Nadar is to Kerry. Badnarik is on the ballot in all 50 states, and he's polling about 3% in many battleground states. Ticked off Republicans upset with Bush might just also go Libertarian aswell. People who think 3rd parties are unimportant are very wrong, they are going to be the ones deciding this election.
And he is not a spoiler. He is the only one who is deserving enough of my vote.
If you don't like it, tough shit. When I get in the voting booth and close the curtains, my vote is between ME and who I vote for. Got nothing to do with you.
Liberty.
They aren't endangered. Really.
Probably one of the most telling things about Bush during the debates came out during the last debate when he sidestepped the question on whether he would repeal the Roe vs Wade decision.
It was the only way he could respond without losing votes.
If he had supported Roe V Wade he would have lost the support of his base. If he had supported the reversal of Roe V Wade he would have lost the support of pro abortion "moderates".
Kerry only has to please one group on that issue. He has to say that he supports Roe V Wade. No pro lifers are voting for Kerry. So he doesn't have to worry about losing their votes.
I find it outragous that we'd just hand off the potentials of this to other countries; its a fact that someone is going to develop and bring this technology to fruitation and the first nations to seize upon it will be the ones who will most likely have the upperhand during atleast the first period of expansion within that industry.
China has slave labor. As a result of that, they can produce many goods more cheaply than anyone else in the world. I'm sure you're not going to suggest that we do the same thing, are you?
Some things have too high of a cost, regardless of the benefits.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
not on in New Hampshire and Oklahoma.
The republican party is IMO really showing signs of strain, and looks like it may split.
I do not know if it will be this election, but it may be the next (if dubya gets in again)
Bob Barr
LANCE LAMBERTON
Vin Suprynowicz
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Remember that crap ass movie "Demolition Man"?
Yeah, I seem to recall an "Arnold Shwarzenneger Presidential Library".
I'm more scared of that becoming a reality than of a Nader presidency.
What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
You have good points; after talking about this with some of my republican leaning friends, they said very similar to what you said about the 'Roe vs Wade' comments, and politically you are correct in that it was the smartest move.
I do not however agree with the latter part of your comments regarding slave labor as compared to stem cell research. Slave labor is wrong and theres no way it can be made to be just or moral as slavery is slavery. Yes, just killing babies to harvest stem cells would be wrong, but the fact of the matter is we're killing embryos anyway in abortion, so why not turn that loss into another's gain who might otherwise die? Embryos are thrown away as medical waste, which seems a grevious waste given how useful they could be if properly (and ethically) used to further stem cell research. I don't agree with killing embryos for research, nor with any other agressive action to make abortion anymore plentiful than it already is, but given the nature of the situation, it seems logical to turn that loss into a gain for everyone else. People can opt to have their organs donated; why can a mother not opt to donate her embryos or fetus's for such purposes? Unlike slavery, there does not seem to be a loss unless the research was done in a highly unethical manner with little thought to the lives of those involved. I do not advocate cloning people, nor cloning for purposes of harvesting, but rather to use what we already have and not merely throw it away. If you totally disagree with abortion of any form, then most likely you will totally disagree with what I've just said but otherwise, I see no reason to close down this avenue of technology as it can be persued in an ethical manner.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
What *I* find mind boggling is that people still believe that. Or ever believed it in the first place.
Yes, just killing babies to harvest stem cells would be wrong, but the fact of the matter is we're killing embryos anyway in abortion, so why not turn that loss into another's gain who might otherwise die?
I've heard this before. My response is if I see someone get murdered in the street, his wallet isn't doing him any good; why shouldn't I take it to improve my life? Because you can't extract good from evil.
People can opt to have their organs donated; why can a mother not opt to donate her embryos or fetus's for such purposes?
In what other case is someone allowed to determine what happens to the remains of their victim?
Unlike slavery, there does not seem to be a loss unless the research was done in a highly unethical manner with little thought to the lives of those involved.
How many TVs are made in the US? Some, but very few. Why are we losing heavy industry and manufacturing jobs? Because we can't compete with slave labor. That doesn't mean that we should start using prison inmates to drive our economy.
I do not advocate cloning people, nor cloning for purposes of harvesting, but rather to use what we already have and not merely throw it away.
Oddly enough, I'm in favor of human cloning. I don't understand the opposition to it.
If you totally disagree with abortion of any form, then most likely you will totally disagree with what I've just said but otherwise, I see no reason to close down this avenue of technology as it can be persued in an ethical manner.
Abortion is murder. You can't get any good out of it. I understand that you may disagree, but people like me are what drive the conservative agenda.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Comment removed based on user account deletion
from TFA: "He's not his own man," Mr. Nader said on Tuesday in a telephone interview from California. "Because he takes the liberals for granted, he's allowing Bush to pull him in his direction. It doesn't show much for his character."
Is it just me or does this sound like Nader thinks Kerry is too conservative?
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
We told Nader to take a hike at the Green Party convention.
Best reason NOT to vote for the Greens, then. Because if you were serious about this whole thing, you would have chosen a proven vote-getter like Nader. Instead, the Greens have lost a lot of the party workers who went to work on Nader's campaign. By not picking Nader you have thrown away any chance of his campaign getting you major party status in states where there are vote percent thresholds needed. You've effectively split the progressive non-Kerry vote in half.
Besides, the guy the Greens did pick has no qualifications, is strangely mute on the Drug War, and can't even participate in a debate with Michael Badnarik without ranting and raving like some hothead on a soapbox in the park.
A dead man in the street's wallet isn't up for grabs, nor is it going to be destroyed, it belongs to his rightful heirs--that's why you can't take it. An aborted embryo is just going to be destroyed. No one is claiming it at all, therefore it may as well be up for grabs.
Indeed. Our party did tell Nader to take a hike at the convention...which is why I'm no longer a Green.
I recall Kerry saying during the 3rd debate he wanted to lower the corporate tax rate to 5%. To wit:
At that point, I was absolutely stunned. If that isn't the biggest giveaway to corporate america I've ever heard. Hell, many Fortune 500 companies get tax rebates. This is insane!
Abortion
Not a hot-button issue for me
Foreign Policy
Granted
Health Care
Kerry's plan is overly wasteful as it still allows for public financing of private insurers. The only way to go is Universal Single-Payer health care. I refuse to budge on that issue.
Iraq
No substantive difference. Kerry said he would have done the exact same thing except he would have allowed the inspectors to finish and used a larger coalition.
Make no mistake, Kerry is better than Bush. Kerry is just not "better enough" to warrant me voting for him.
The U.S. Democrat party, on the world stage, is a pathetic right-moderate, corporate-beholden racket.
I do not OWE you my vote simply because I am not a conservative.
If you want my vote, and the vote of at least 1% of likely voters who will vote for Nader, then you have to EARN it.
It is OUR VOTE and we are free to direct it however we choose. If you want our vote then stop marginalizing our VOICE, and stop insulting our values.
John Kerry has not courted my vote. He has ignored it. And while ignoring it, his keepers have told me that I have two choices: shut up and vote Kerry, or shut up.
FUCK YOU
If a candidate from any party cannot convince people to vote for him, then that's just tough. In the case of the Democratic party there are just so many people working round the clock on this convincing that Kerry gets no sympathy if he can't win by a wide enough margin to withstand Ralph Nader.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
I am voting for stem cells.
As a scientist, George and Laura disgust me an order of magnitude more than anyone else.
I didn't say that there weren't scarier things out there.......it's just that Nader is rather scary.
http://www.votepair.org/
No, I did not read the f***ing article!
I am voting for stem cells.
Sorry, but there aren't any running for President.
But if you mean you are voting based on some sort of policy regarding stem cells, there isn't much to choose from. Bush supports stem cell research, as does Kerry. The difference is that Bush's policy is to not use federal funds for what is widely regarded to be an unpromising research area, while still allowing private funding: for embryonic stem cell research. All of the existing cures and promising reasearch are with adult stem cells. Kerry, on the other hand, wants to fund it and is using the false promise of miracle cures to try to win votes. It seems to be a promise that works on the poorly informed.
He won't even ask for people's votes, much less force you to give up video games.
You want to spend your life playing video games. That's fine. You want to use school time to promote video games? That's not fine.
But again, he would only be the President. He can't make you do anything unless you are a member of the armed forces.
Hint: Sign up now and avoid the last minute rush when Kerry and Bush admit that they were wrong-- they have no choice but to institute a draft. "This thing has gone on for 5 1/2 years and cost 5,000 US lives. The National Guard is empty. There is just no other choice.
You nailed it - it's sad no one "in the party" can (or wants) to understand this.
My first election was in 1980. I was 18 years old and the "three candidates" were Reagan, Carter, and Anderson. There was also a Libertarian on the ticket - whom I voted for - and even then he got little news coverage even on election night, and only a tiny fraction of the vote (independant John Anderson got much more, and mainstream coverage on election night). And this is the guy who is in the record books for getting the most votes of ANY LP presidential candidate.
The LP is anti-corporate, which pretty much guarantees they're going to have to pay for every second of airtime they get - Fox, Time Warner, Disney and the others sure aren't going to be giving them anything. They have this vague "anti interventionist" policy that never really addresses real world concerns other than they apparently want us to be the biggest, strongest, Switzerland in the world. That worked for Switzerland, but this isn't the 1600's and we're supposed to already be "free." They have a completely hands off social policy which would ultimately leave Millions of Americans in the exact same boat our great-grandfathers were in before the Great Depression, and they want to let people have the freedom to control their own bodies by legalizing drugs and prostitution.
So who is left to vote for them? I'm not a single issue voter, but it's not often I look at the field of presidential candidates and decide the LP is the only party that would represent a better alternative. If they want more votes, they need to come up with a softened platform that more of those "mainstream" Nader voters can relate to.
Libertarians don't like Nader for the same reason the Dems don't: they're jealous. In the last election Nader probably took more of the CONSERVATIVE vote than the entire lot cast for the LP candidate.
When I see an LP candidate on the ticket for judge, I vote for that candidate. When I see them on the ticket for local representative, I cast my vote that direction. I think the LP has a great platform for this sort of position in government (although if I recognize a green on the ticket, you lose that one too).
But even so, I'm not going to vote for ANYONE who accuses me of "throwing away my vote" when I am doing what is exactly my right and speaking my conscience. "Throwing away" a vote is voting for someone who represents more of the same greedy, corrupt system that we have now. There are plenty of alternatives to this without voting to abolish public education and social programs for the truly needy.
You're over-simplifying, but essentially you're right. Kerry and Bush will both fuck you if they get elected - the difference is that Kerry will buy you flowers first. (Then send you a bill for the flowers, due April 15.)
I don't blame the candidates for the current sorry state of affairs - they're just tools of the system. I blame the voters. THEY are the ones who keep the Demopublicans in power. If enough of those schmucks would just turn off the TV and think for a minute or two, they might realize the power that they hold, and actually do something useful with it.
Honestly, I think Arnold has what it takes to be a great leader and president. But sadly, he will not be able too. The reason being that even if a constitutional amendment is put into place, it will take many years before it goes active. And by that time, he will aready be to old to run for president :(
Life is not for the lazy.
You know, Clinton was handed Osama on a silver platter...and rejected the offer on "legal" grounds. Smells like political BS to me. The WTC was attact along with the USS Cole. And Clinton didn't do a damn thing to stop or prevent it.
Clinton slashed military funding. Clinton had bi-lateral talks with N. Korea and it failed (time for new stratagy...multi national this time)
Meanwhile, Bush got fucked because of the failures of Clinton and thus the Bush administration is playing the cleanup crew. Hell, even the ecconomy took a double whammy from the DOT BOMBs AND the 911 event. Talk about be compounded. So naturally, Bush is having to lower taxes to undercut the momentum of a dropping ecconomy.
And then there is Kerry. Jesus, where do I even want to guess what he can or will do. *shiver*
Life is not for the lazy.
How is this insightful?
I'll cut the political correctness BS and go right to the heart of the matter. On que in 1...2...3...4.
Ready? Ok, basically it's this. America doesnt give a DAMN what you euro-elites think. This is about AMERICA voting for an AMERICAN president who is sworn in by oath to protect the citizens of America. If Americans want to debate who should and should not be president, I'm cool with that. But for a bunch of Euros to start telling us American citizens that Bush is evil is insulting. It doesn't matter who is the president. But when you insult our elected officials, you are also insulting the majority of the American public who voted them into office in the first place.
Now, please...PLEASE PISS OFF.
Life is not for the lazy.
Yes, I know. Blame on Opera. For some reason it doesn't publish very well.
Umm, Roe v. Wade was a decision by the Supremes. The President has no power to repeal it. Nor does Congress, short of a Constitutional Amendment.
Now, the President and Senate do have some slight control over the issue, in that they collectively determine the membership of the Supremes. But since the Supremes are a lifetime appointment, your appointees don't actually have to vote any way but their own conscience.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Moi: We told Nader to take a hike at the Green Party convention.
Toi: You told him to take a hike because he was too god at what he does.
I was going to correct your typo, but it turns out you're right. The guy thinks he's God, and we already have one of those in the White House (or at least one who thinks God speaks through him).
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
"...Universal Single-Payer health care..."
Yes, because a government-controlled monopoly has worked out so well for Amtrak, the USPS, Ma Bell (in the past), and Social Security!
I wish he had. In fact, Clinton had a larger military budget than Bush the Elder.
There was once a time when we only paid for a standing army when there was actually a war. As for the war on terror, well, to be perfectly honest, we're fucked no matter what we do. There is no way to negotiate with the terrorists (and even if we could, it would be extremely unlikely that such talks would come to anything resembling a satisfactory conclusion) and trying to defeat them with military force is useless when they can easily cover their tracks and move elsewhere. This problem is compounded by the fact that our use of force only helps their recruitment. We are utterly fucked.
I've yet to see any evidence that the effect of anything so crude as tax policy on the economy can be determined in advance. I've never met a school of macroeconomics that I liked. You have to recognize that the health of the economy can only be gleaned from the niggling details that are glazed over by all of our economic indicators. From an information theoretic standpoint, the entropy of an economy is tremendous and the economic indicators don't give enough information to be of much use. There's simply too much going on in the world to establish positive correlations between government policies and changes in the economy.
Personally, I don't think this country can be saved. I give it 50 more years at the most.
I know :-). I was trying to make a joke.
What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
Immigration:
Bush: Lets have Open Borders-but not change not let these folks vote Democratic.
Kerry: Lets expand my voter base by giving another Amnesty, we'll talk tough and actually enforce the immigration law(really this time-even though it has n't been done before), but we'll also expand guest
worker visas.
... a Zogby poll suggests that if he [Nader] weren't on the ballot, 41 percent of his supporters would go to Kerry and 15 percent to Bush ...
For shame, John Kerry. If Kerry is such a weak candidate that he can not get the votes of those on the left who are predisposed to support him how is that anyones fault other than Kerry's. No democratic party member's vote is owed to Kerry, certainly no independent. Nader is a zealot, I did not vote for him, I will not vote for him, however is people feel that voting for him is the only way to force change then so be it. There is nothing wrong with that.
First off, the man elected this time around gets to appoint so many justices to the Court that his personal views on things like abortion will likely form judicial opinion for the next century.
Secondly, (to the Grandparent), Bush didn't side step the issue at all. He clearly said that he would not appoint justices who would hand down decisions like Dread Scott.
The Scott decision found that the slave in question was not allowed rights because he was property and not a person. As such, the state did not protect his rights. Bush's reference to Scott was not a way of saying that he was going to end slavery, it was a subtle way of saying that he was going to fight against Roe V. Wade (which denies a fetus rights on the ground that it, like Scott, is not a human being).
Bush didn't alienate his base... he cemented it brilliantly. Scott has been "code" for Roe V. Wade for decades now.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
You do realise the neo cons have wanted iraq for a long long time. How convienient that all this terrorists shit should happen at the start or a republican presidents reign.
The bush party managed to discredit richard clarke at home but as a citizen of Canada it wasn't convincing. It does seem a bit too convient to ignore.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
They said that in 2000. No new Supremes this last four years, though. Probably one or two this time, but by no means as certain as some people are trying to say.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Don't you think it's significant that not a single justice has stepped down under Bush? Don't you think it strange that Rehnquist, arguably the most conservative chief justice in living memory, has denied a republican president the ability to replace him?
The Court is getting old. Cancer has struck several members, and many of them were openly discussing stepping down before the 2000 elections.
The Court is -=terrified=- of Bush. He's run rip shod over the constitution and clearly considers his private ideology above that of the framers and the fundamental precepts upon which our Republic is based.
The justices haven't stepped down for a reason. The prospect of four more years of this guy, four years in which the Court may not have the endurance to survive, should horrify you.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
So, which Justices are terrified? The seven that voted with him in 2000? The two that voted against him? The Liberal ones? The Conservative ones?
Hate to say this, I have seen no more abuse of the Consitution under Bush than I saw under Clinton, Bush the Elder, Reagan, Carter, Ford, or Nixon. Reading history, rather than living it, we can extend that list to Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Franklin Roosevelt (perhaps the worst American President for abusing the Constitution), Lincoln (perhaps the other "worst" - it's really a toss-up between Abe and FDR), many others (I don't feel like listing every President since Washington, but they all fit on the list).
The prospect of four more years of this guy, four years in which the Court may not have the endurance to survive, should horrify you.
I'll bite. Why? Because he passed the DMCA? Wait, that was Clinton. Because he tried to sieze control of a significant portion of the economy? Wait, that was Clinton and Nixon and Roosevelt. Because he wants to suspend Habeus Corpus in some cases? Oh, wait! Lincoln did that. And FDR. And Wilson, I believe.
I disliked Clinton, mostly because he spent half his time talking about his "legacy" - if he'd worked at being a bit more honest, and a bit less "it depends on the meaning of the word "is", then he wouldn't have had to worry about his legacy. I didn't succumb to the opinion that the Union couldn't survive four more years of Clinton (if I had, I'd have tried to kill him), nor do I beleive that the Union will be irreparably harmed by four more years of Bush. Nor, in the alternative, will it be irreparably harmed by four years of Kerry. Though I concede that I don't believe that it will be helped by the election of either man (or anyone else running this time).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
We democrats should have put together a grass roots campaign to get Pat Buchannan or another ultra conservative on the polls. Shame we didnt think of it in time..:(
New and improved Guilt. Now its alcohol soluble!
you mean 53% of us told him to take a hike.
Oh, how far we have come from consensus.
suffering from pronoia
Clarke discredited himself:
p robe/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/20/berger.
Shoving top secret documents down your pants then "accidentally" destroying some doesn't give someone much credibility.