Ralph Nader Might Announce Run For President

SonicSpike writes "According to the AP, Ralph Nader could be poised for another presidential campaign. Nader will appear on NBC's 'Meet the Press' tomorrow to announce whether he will launch another White House bid. Nader kicked off his 2004 presidential run on the show. Kevin Zeese, who was Nader's spokesman during the 2004 presidential race said, 'Obviously, I don't think Meet the Press host Tim Russert would have him on for no reason.'"

Comments

How many times?

[YaroMan86]

Oi, assuming he gets anywhere,how many times would this be that this guy has tried running for president? I think he's a wee bit too late in the running to make much of a difference.

Re:How many times?

[notnAP]

Agreed, especially considering his allure is strongest on the far left and the independent democrats. If Obama wins the nomination, I'd think - and, I have to admit, hope - that Obama would not lose many votes, considering his allure is so strong among those same voters. Hillary as well would probably not lose many votes.
I think it's a damned shame our political system does mean a vote for Nader is effectively a vote for the Republican party. I also think it's a shame Nader's got to run for president just to further his causes. Having survived a head on car collision earlier in my life, I have to wonder if I'd still be alive if it weren't for his efforts. I don't tend to think the automotive industry would have up and improved themselves on their own. That said, I'd really rather not see the democratic vote split again.

Re:How many times?

[Rei]

And we all know that Nader is going to run another, "Both parties are the same even though they vote the opposite" campaign.

Perhaps he and his supporters expect *every* Democrat to vote the same on *every* issue? Because that's usually what his campaign speeches come down to. Never mind that the vast majority of Democrats, on a given issue, side with him, and that compromises are almost always made only due to pressure from Republicans. No, because all don't fall in lockstep with his views, both parties are clearly the same.

Re:How many times?

[superwiz]

What do you mean "too late"? The main campaign hasn't started, yet. We are still not done with the primaries. Of course, if Ralph gets any votes it will be from Democrats. So if he is successful, it will be president grandpa monster McCain.

Re:How many times?

[ryanov]

How is it late in the running? There has been a bunch of pomp and circumstance surrounding the primaries this year, but don't forget that the REAL election has not even started.

Re:How many times?

[JackieBrown]

Compromising is failing depending on the issue and how much you give.

Re:How many times?

[Valdrax]

Never mind that the vast majority of Democrats, on a given issue, side with him, and that compromises are almost always made only due to pressure from Republicans. No, because all don't fall in lockstep with his views, both parties are clearly the same. Oh, and in the meantime, his stubborn lack of willingness to consider Democrats as different from Republicans has cost the county eight years of leadership opposed to every single thing he stands for. I think I'll go absolutely off the deep end insane if he manages to lose us a swing state and cost the election in 2008 like he did in 2000. Like crawling up the walls, growing a beard and braiding it, and mailing pipe-bombs filed with candy corn insane.

Re:How many times?

[cayenne8]

I don't know there are independents he might get wouldn't necessarily be democrats he sucked votes off of. both current dem candidates are so far left I don't think he'd take many of their votes

Re:How many times?

[AuMatar]

Or a success if you give in on a minor issue, to make progress on a major one.

Re:How many times?

[iminplaya]

Would you feel the same if he had won? He didn't cost the election. He provided an alternative to the Party. Something the country desperately needs. Besides, I can guarantee you that Lieberman is every bit as evil as Cheney. THAT'S what cost the democrats the election.

Re:How many times?

[tverbeek]

I disagree with calling the phase after the parties have selected their candidates "the main campaign". If anything, I'd say the phase in which the field of major-party candidates is winnowed from a couple dozen down to two is "the main campaign". That's the phase where it's determined whether we're going to have a choice of, say, Romney and Edwards, or McCain and Clinton, or Huckabee and Richardson, or Giuliani and Obama, or Brownback and Kucinich. That makes a huge> difference, and I think the actual choice of candidates by the two major parties does more to determine the outcome of the election than anything that happens afterward.

Re:How many times?

[Valdrax]

Would you feel the same if he had won? No. I would've been quite happy if he'd won. Both he and Gore reflected most of my values. If we lived in a country with approval voting or IRV, I would've voted for the both of them. I actually almost *did* vote for Nader since I lived in a red state that was going to Bush anyway, but I thought that there *might* be a chance for Gore to pull the state.

He didn't cost the election. He provided an alternative to the Party. You speak like those are mutually opposed. The mathematics of the electoral college combined with the winner-take-all voting in most US states is the reason why a 3rd party candidate has *never* won the election. The only person to come in 2nd was Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party which split the Republican base and put Woodrow Wilson into office. Thurmond and Wallace almost cost Truman reelection, Ross Perot cost Bush the election to Clinton, and Nader gave New Hampshire and Florida to Bush.

Nader cost Gore the election by taking away a larger margin of liberal voters than Bush won each of those states by. If either state had gone to Gore, we wouldn't have had this bunch of yahoos in office when the planes took off on September 11th, and this country might still be respected in the world. At the very least a consumer advocate like Nader wouldn't have managed to let Bush put foxes in all the henhouses in Washington, thus directly curbstomping the very cause that made him famous.

Besides, I can guarantee you that Lieberman is every bit as evil as Cheney. THAT'S what cost the democrats the election. Oh, Lieberman's a political opportunist and quite a bit of an old-school neocon (as in the pre-Reagan sense), but there are some huge degrees of difference there, and I can't imagine him wielding anything like the unprecedented power and influence that Cheney has as vice president, which has largely been a ceremonial role in the past.

Also, I'd like to see you back up the "Lieberman cost the election" theory. The numbers on Nader's influence in NH & FL are easy to find, but I'd like to see some numbers on Lieberman. I can't imagine that that many people were terribly influenced by him.

Re:How many times?

[blueg3]

There's one person ultimately responsible for Al Gore's loss. That person is Al Gore.

There's also, of course, the roughly 50 million that voted for Bush that did nothing to help matters.

Re:How many times?

[iminplaya]

Instead of directing your distaste for those who voted for Nader, you direct it to those who voted for Bush. They put him into office, not the Nader voters. And Lieberman has his name all over patriot act in case you have any doubts about him. His vote for that(and his authorship of same), the war, the military commissions act show he's no different from the goons in the white house and their staff. You don't need to imagine anything. His record speaks for itself. And his relationship with Obana is a little too chummy for my tastes. And now he and McCain will make a fine pair. Rest assured Gore would have lead us down the same path that we are on now. Nader was the only hope for anything different, and the same applies if he runs now. The other three are joined at the hips.

Re:How many times?

[illegalcortex]

Let's say I drive recklessly and wind up with my car precariously perched on the edge of a bridge, front two wheels off and the car seesawing a bit. It's 100% my fault and I shouldn't try to avoid the blame. But then this guy comes along and nudges the bumper, sending my car over the edge and into the river. It's still ultimately my fault, but that guy - that guy is a total dick.

Re:How many times?

[dwye]

> Where's Pat Paulson when you need him.

Alas, he is now with Harold Stassen.

Well, now in the same grave site, but...

Re:How many times?

[nicolastheadept]

Also from Uncyclopedia:

Known for his Machiavellian treachery, he runs as an extreme leftist in order to draw votes away from more moderate liberal candidates, thus sabotaging their campaigns. It does seem like he's trying to help the republicans on purpose.

Re:How many times?

[nicolastheadept]

It is possible to hate both those who voted for Nader and Bush, as it is all of their voters' faults. Its just that hating those who voted for Bush goes without saying.

Re:How many times?

[sumdumass]

You think it is a shame that a vote for Nader is essentially a vote for the republicans? I think it is a shame that Nader has taken so many democrats away from their party time after time and the democrats don't think anything he supports is proper enough to be included in their platform. That is the strength of the third party after all. Once they get into the office of president, they are a lame duck because now they have to bypass a majority from another party in congress to get anything done. If he vetos everything he doesn't like, you will start seeing congress going around him and making deals between themselves to override the veto.

The only effective thing a third party candidate for president can do without a grass roots bottom up support already in office, is to expect to push issued onto the major partied platforms. If the democrats would have taken his concerns and issues seriously, he probably wouldn't need to run and effectively funnel votes away from the democrats candidates.

But something else that is interesting which nobody wants to mention or talk about. A lot of people won't break with tradition for whatever reasons and they would prefer to vote for a white male as president rather then a woman or a black man. There could be a number of reasons why this might be (racism and misogyny included). But Nader could see a larger then normal vote count in his favor which might ensure access to debates and federal matching monies. Every time I bring this concern up, it get modded down as if out of site, out of mind. But in the context of Nader, it might be what it needed to bring a third party to a national level with influence above spoiling a party platform.

Re:How many times?

[sumdumass]

Why must hate come into it? I mean hate is the reason the world is as bad as it is in the first place. One person's self-righteousness in the application of hate doesn't ad legitimacy to it. I'm sure the 9/11 hijackers thought their hate was legitimate too.

Find another way to vent your anger and frustration before it becomes hate. Otherwise, you are the reason the world "hates" us. Because hate breads hate. It is a cluster fuckfest that doesn't deserve the light of day. Do you know why Iraq invaded Kuwait which has in many ways shaped our most recent history including causing 9/11? It is because a Kuwaiti ambassador told Iraq that he thought of Iraqi women as 10 dollar whores. Saddam said during his interrogations that this made him hate Kuwait so much that he had to find a way to invade them and make them pay. The entire slant drilling which was the "offense" or justification at the time was only a cover for Saddam's hate. Many bad things in recent history can be traced back to that. Both Iraq wars, the positioning of our troops in the middle east which was a chief complaint of Bin Ladin who hated us because of that which spured 9/11 and a few other act around the world. The war in Afghanistan, our perception in the world and many more things that you would see as bad. All because of hate.

Walk away, search deep inside yourself and find a way to overcome your hate. You don't have to like them, you don't have to love them, you don't even have to care for them, just don't hate them.

Re:How many times?

[vandan]

Nader cost Gore the election by taking away a larger margin of liberal voters than Bush won each of those states by.

1) You need to improve your alleged democracy somewhat so that this doesn't happen. First past the post is a joke.
2) Nader's track record is that he actually believes what he says, fights for what he believes, etc. This is as opposed to the Democrats, who are the alternative party of big business. If people in your country can't see the difference, and therefore vote for the democrats, then I put it to you that:
  a) You deserve whatever the fuck you get. What's the average IQ over there?
  b) It's the DEMOCRATS who lost the election, not Nader. Why not ask the Democrats not to run?

Re:How many times?

[blueg3]

Let's say it's the release of the next hot new gaming console. Our local purveyor has 100 units for the release, and there's a line. I'm 100th in line, you're 101st. You're a dick if you blame me for your not getting a console.

Shall we continue the inappropriate and obviously biased metaphors?

Re:How many times?

[sumdumass]

The difference is the candidates in the primaries are running against each other in the same party compared to the people they are ultimately going to be having a showdown for the position on.

This is important because candidates often emphasize different things within the party compared to what they would outside it. Something like supporting and expanding government roles could be seen as a plus in a party but as fodder against another. Of course McCain seems to be taking your position and running on the independent vote and the swing democrat vote as well. It may be that your hypotheses is being played out in this election but traditionally, it has been the other way around.

A side effect of this is that you would think the two most popular candidates within a party would be the most effective president/vice president ticket. But they often bash each other so hard that putting them on the same ticket seems impossible. On the other hand, something McCain has appeared to have done is left the door open to put Huckabe in the vice presidential seat. Hillary or Obama wouldn't be able to achieve this with any candidate that lasted longer then the first couple primaries. Bush and McCain in 2000 couldn't either. The vice president's position politically is so weak, that we have stop running for it within the parties and just selected them. It would be interesting to see something like a president/vice president campaign in a primary race. Mybe next year colbert and Stewart could run again but across platform with one attempting to get on the republican ticket and the other attempting to get on the democrat ticket while promising that they would be running mates.

Re:How many times?

[Eli Gottlieb]

Well too bad for you, you should be prepared!

Re:How many times?

[OakDragon]

Well, look at it this way: it seems the Democrats (and the major media, et al) are pretty much assured that the Democrat candidate will win this fall, and quite handily. This means that you have a few extra votes to burn! So pick your "ideal" candidate - Nader, McKinney, etc. You could even engage in some write-ins, like Hugo Chavez or Raul Castro. Heck, you might even get Fidel out of retirement with a few votes.

Re:How many times?

[The One and Only]

I could detect the distinct scent of marijuana coming from that comment...

Re:How many times?

[Stanistani]

>Nader was the only hope for anything different...

Indeed. The stockholders of Halliburton thank you.

The 3000+ dead soldiers, not so much.

Re:How many times?

[superwiz]

Well, look at it this way: it seems the Democrats (and the major media, et al) are pretty much assured that the Democrat candidate will win this fall, and quite handily. This means that you have a few extra votes to burn! So pick your "ideal" candidate - Nader, McKinney, etc. You could even engage in some write-ins, like Hugo Chavez or Raul Castro. Heck, you might even get Fidel out of retirement with a few votes. Cute, very cute. I guess this was a crack at my calling McCain granpa monster (a phrase I must admit I didn't invent). Well, I am a registered Republican, so go figure. Of course, the 100-year-war man is not necesserily the proper Republican candidate. I am sure teh party leadership would be more comfortable with someone more orthodox. Since you suggest democrats would be better suited writting in Castros, may I suggest you write in King Saud of Saudi Arabia?

Re:How many times?

[iminplaya]

Easy for you to say when you have no idea if it wouldn't have been 10,000 under Gore/Lieberman. Try again.

Re:How many times?

[Stanistani]

>you have no idea if it wouldn't have been 10,000 under Gore/Lieberman...

Of course I don't - but 3000+ have died in a neo-con planned war, and your number is fantasy. Mine is real. I'll stick with that.

There are lots of things that are worse here in the States because Bush won. Nader bears some responsibility for his election - a small part, but still part.

Your opinion is different than mine. Enjoy the right to freely speak while we still have it.

If Nader comes to campaign in my town, I will be there with placards and a bullhorn. My right.
I have already emailed his campaign and told them exactly that.

I used to contribute money and time to his organizations. That stopped in 2001.

Re:How many times?

[illegalcortex]

Sure! You're that 100th guy, and you DON'T EVEN OWN A TV.

That's Nader.

Re:How many times?

[iminplaya]

In case you haven't noticed, most of the democrats are neo-cons in cheap, shabby neo-lib clothing. And I saw lot higher numbers under democrat rule in congress during the Vietnam war. Blame the Bush victory on Bush voters, where it belongs. I'm not falling for it, and I'm not going to vote to maintain the status quo. That stopped in 1972.

Re:How many times?

[Stanistani]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I happen to have a strong one on this, and neither of us will budge.

Let's agree to disagree.

Re:How many times?

[iminplaya]

That's all fine and dandy. Just don't go around blaming me for the Bush/Cheney victory. Which is basically what you're saying because I didn't vote for your favorite candidate when I saw an adequate alternative. Nobody "siphoned off" my vote. I didn't vote for him. And I didn't vote for Gore/Lieberman either for the same reasons. I don't vote for criminals and despots. If you think the system is so broken, then fix it, instead of complaining about people who threaten your agenda. I hope you get my drift. thankyouverymuch.

Re:How many times?

[Stanistani]

I don't think the system is broken. I think Nader is grasping for one last shining moment in the limelight, and not thinking of what will happen outside of his own narrow interest.

So you think Nader would be a good President? Heh.

I admire the man he used to be, but he wouldn't have been able to run the country. Activists don't compromise their principles - or anything else. In politics, you have to give some to get some. Activists make rotten politicians.

I'll complain about whatever I want. Ralph taught me that, back when I worked with CALPIRG, before he lost his flippin' mind.

I get your drift now. You want me to shut up - inconvenient truth and all that.

No.

Re:How many times?

[iminplaya]

You want me to shut up - inconvenient truth and all that.

Well you got it wrong. You are the one to cut off the discussion. But you are definitely wrong to blame anyone for the results other than those who produced them directly. That's just simple fact, not an opinion. And the simple fact is that enough people voted for Bush for him to win the election. Your loss is due to your own divisions. The fact is that you all failed to produce a single candidate to defeat him. The fact is that Gore would have given you the same results that you have. The eight years before Bush provides more than enough evidence of that. Enough people knew that to decide to look elsewhere. But good old bling ruled the day. I do not want you to shut up. But don't put your thoughts into my head, or as the case may be here, words in my mouth. I do expect you to see what happened in a logical vein. To blame someone who is every bit as qualified, more so actually, as the standard bearers of the status quo for your(editorial) own failures is not reasonable. You are telling him to shut up, and he's telling you, "No". And to anyone who will stand up to these people, I will always say, More power. If I like what you say, you will get my vote. And you shouldn't be so quick to condemn activism. That activism brought many freedoms to people who didn't have them in the past. And we need it now more than ever to take back the freedom to move about unmolested that we have lost over the past several years. We need that same activism to free the political prisoners of the drug wars. The disaster we are experiencing now is due to excessive compromise for nothing more than appearances. So don't shut up. Speak up! While you can. Or don't. It's all up to you.

Re:How many times?

[Copid]

No he isn't. He gave you exactly what you deserved.

What about the people at the bottom of the cliff who got crushed by the car?

Re:How many times?

[Scudsucker]

There's one person ultimately responsible for Al Gore's loss. That person is Al Gore.

There's also the slight matter of the vote suppression in Florida in 2000. And the Supreme Court ruling that stopped the recount and handed the state to Bush, when a statewide recount would have given Gore the lead.

Re:How many times?

[Scudsucker]

Nader's track record is that he actually believes what he says, fights for what he believes, etc.

If that were actually the case he wouldn't have risked throwing the election to a man who was the polar opposite to nearly everything he believed in, rather than insisting there was no difference between Gore and Bush.

This is as opposed to the Democrats, who are the alternative party of big business.

Some Democrats, as opposed to all Republicans.

Re:How many times?

[Stanistani]

I suspect despite our difference on Nader's run, that we would get along on most topics.

I've decided to get back into the movement.

Bought a bullhorn today. It's sweet. Effective range about two miles.

Re:How many times?

[Copid]

Easy for you to say when you have no idea if it wouldn't have been 10,000 under Gore/Lieberman. Try again.

Yeah, we really dodged a bullet there, didn't we?

But I want RoooOoon

[empaler]

The problem with the US being that if their economy folds, so does a lot of others. Huzzah!

Re:But I want RoooOoon

[Dunbal]

I wouldn't be so sure. Europe seems to be weathering the storm just fine.

Re:But I want RoooOoon

[gambolt]

The storm has barely even started.

Re:But I want RoooOoon

[tomhudson]

The storm has barely even started.

That's for sure. Already, 10.3% of all homes are "under water" on their mortgages. Its expected that between 30% and 50% will end up tht way before we get to the bottom of the trough. The US could be in for a Japan-style meltdown, with at least a decade lost.

This will sideswipe the worlds' economy.

Already, there's a question of whether several German state banks, who hold billions in US toxic mortgage paper, will be forced into bankruptcy.

That's what happens in a global economy where lying ratings agencies give triple-a ratings to junk in return for fees.

Why?

[squiggleslash]

Is it too likely that a Democrat might win this time?

Hey, remember when he stood in 2000, with the full support of the Green movement, because, wait for it, Al Gore wasn't an environmentalist?

Re:Why?

[PseudoThink]

I really wonder if Nader is financially backed by the GOP as a spoiler meant to take votes from the Democrats. Our election system is a joke, and the people with the power to fix it rely on it being broken to stay in power. Obvious conflict of interest.

Re:Why?

[Disfnord]

Maybe it was Gore's ultra-liberal running mate? Or have you forgotten already? Not to mention Al's wife... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW1NHUhJmwQ

Re:Why?

[I_Voter]

PseudoThink wrote:

Our election system is a joke, and the people with the power to fix it rely on it being broken to stay in power.

-----

If you are committed to more democracy voting for 3rd parties is normally the best action -UNLESS (see below )

Presidential Frontrunners Support Instant Runoff Voting

The two frontrunners for their party's nominations, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, are both active backers of instant runoff voting (IRV). In 2002, Sen. McCain recorded a message for backers of IRV in Alaska, while that year Sen. Obama was the lead sponsor of legislation to implement IRV for certain Illinois elections. With most third party candidates also supporting IRV, we may see a rare issue of consensus this November, although neither McCain nor Obama have yet secured their party's nomination.

I_Voter

The Political Power of the U.S. Citizen

Re:Why?

[ksheff]

Ron Paul has said that he won't run as an independent, so maybe Nader thinks he can get the Paul supporters to vote for him.

Re:Why?

[Lord Kano]

The way he saw it, Gore stood in his way. Al Gore was not entitled to anyone's vote.

If Gore had gotten out of the race, maybe Nader would have won.

LK

Re:Why?

[ConceptJunkie]

Well, the Democrats are poised to nominate their first candidate since Bill Clinton with actual charisma (and the second since Kennedy), so there is a danger they could win. If they would go back to nominating droning weenies whose mothers couldn't even sit through their speeches, they could maintain their losing streak.

Re:Why?

[Scudsucker]

Maybe it was Gore's ultra-liberal running mate?

If you think Lieberman is ultra-liberal, you need to take a nice long vactation to North Korea to see what the left wing actually looks like.

I voted for Ron Paul - don't blame me!

[SonicSpike]

Yup - don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul. :-)

Re:I voted for Ron Paul - don't blame me!

[morari]

I only forgive you because supporting "Dr. Paul" takes votes away from viable Republican candidates, and thus hopefully ensures that they won't be able to continue to ruin the country. ;P

Re:I voted for Ron Paul - don't blame me!

[Grishnakh]

I only forgive you because supporting "Dr. Paul" takes votes away from viable Republican candidates, and thus hopefully ensures that they won't be able to continue to ruin the country.

No, it doesn't. Dr. Paul's supporters are almost diametrically opposed to most of the other Republicans' stands on issues, so it's highly unlikely they'd even vote Republican if Dr. Paul weren't running. Personally, my wife and I both registered Republican this year ONLY because of Dr. Paul; we'd both be either independent or Libertarian otherwise. We're firmly opposed to this stupid war, along with all the other foundations of the neo-con platform (corporate welfare, imperialism, unilateralism, insane deficit spending, etc.), so there's no way we'd vote Republican otherwise, since they're all neocons. We're also not big fans of the Democrats, since we're opposed to most of the foundations of the Democratic party: imperialism (just not as ugly and unilateral as the Reps), ridiculous taxation, welfare, gun control, War on (Some) Drugs, corporate welfare (just different corps than the Reps support--media vs. oil), etc. Many, many people registered as Republicans this year only because of Dr. Paul. Unfortunately, it wasn't nearly enough to counter all the die-hard "Republicans" who voted for McCain (even though his voting record isn't even in line with the Republican Party on many issues, and the more conservative Republicans absolutely hate him.

And what's with the quotes around "Dr. Paul"? He's an MD, and in America, that usually earns a "Dr." in front of your name. If you don't like him, that's your prerogative, but at least give him the respect he's earned, even if he doesn't practice any more (he's over 70, after all; doctors don't have to practice for life, nor would you want them to if it involves surgery). Don't be such a rude asshole.

Re:I voted for Ron Paul - don't blame me!

[OakDragon]

Dr. Paul's supporters are almost diametrically opposed to most of the other Republicans' stands on issues, so it's highly unlikely they'd even vote Republican if Dr. Paul weren't running.

Paul supporters may be diametrically opposed to the Republican platform, but by and large, Dr. Paul himself is not. In different circumstances, Ron Paul is a Republican/conservative wet-dream:

• Ron Paul is pro-life. Whether his Libertarian sensibilities would prevent him from directly supporting anti-abortion legislation, I don't know.
• Ron Paul believes strongly in the 2nd amendment, and that it guarantees an individual right to gun ownership.
• On environmental issues, Ron Paul believes the best solutions come from ownership of private property and the exercise of a free market economy.
• Ron Paul opposes increases in the FDA's power.
• Ron Paul opposes affirmative action. (Maybe. I think that's what it boils down too, but I'm not going to make a big case for it.)
• Ron Paul apparently supports free market solutions to the health care debate in the U.S., not various "mandatory" and "one-payer" solutions put forward by Democrats.
• Ron Paul supports home schooling, and wants the government to be less involved in education.

Other information on his site indicate that he may be a "strong borders" candidate.

Now, why is he not a conservative darling? It's that one difference on Iraq. Conservatives have have hitched their wagon to Iraq, and they'll be there to the end, for good or ill. (Well, the principled conservatives, anyway.) Other than that, he is Old School conservative, even more hard-core than Reagan. Other than that, I would have his sign in my front yard.

What puzzles me is, why do so many liberals support him? Just because of his Iraq stance? The Democrat candidates don't want us in Iraq, and they believe in abortion, 2nd amendment restrictions, etc. I believe the reason is this: many liberals know that neither Obama nor Clinton, no matter what their rhetoric, would pull our presence from Iraq immediately. Paul, however, might just do it.

Re:I voted for Ron Paul - don't blame me!

[Grishnakh]

Paul supporters may be diametrically opposed to the Republican platform, but by and large, Dr. Paul himself is not. In different circumstances, Ron Paul is a Republican/conservative wet-dream:

* Ron Paul is pro-life. Whether his Libertarian sensibilities would prevent him from directly supporting anti-abortion legislation, I don't know.
* Ron Paul believes strongly in the 2nd amendment, and that it guarantees an individual right to gun ownership.
* On environmental issues, Ron Paul believes the best solutions come from ownership of private property and the exercise of a free market economy.
* Ron Paul opposes increases in the FDA's power.
* Ron Paul opposes affirmative action. (Maybe. I think that's what it boils down too, but I'm not going to make a big case for it.)
* Ron Paul apparently supports free market solutions to the health care debate in the U.S., not various "mandatory" and "one-payer" solutions put forward by Democrats.
* Ron Paul supports home schooling, and wants the government to be less involved in education.


None of these are hot-button issues in this race, except perhaps the 2nd Amendment one (which is always a hot-button issue for gun owners), and the healthcare one. The issues I named before are. Iraq is the biggest issue of all, and for good reason: it's going to utterly bankrupt our country and destroy our economy if it goes on much longer.

Other information on his site indicate that he may be a "strong borders" candidate.

I forgot to mention that one. That's another issue where he's diametrically opposed to the current Republican party platform, which is open borders because it's good for businesses. Don't talk to me about where Republicans supposedly stand; just look at Bush's actions (and McCain's too).

Now, why is he not a conservative darling? It's that one difference on Iraq. Conservatives have have hitched their wagon to Iraq, and they'll be there to the end, for good or ill. (Well, the principled conservatives, anyway.) Other than that, he is Old School conservative, even more hard-core than Reagan. Other than that, I would have his sign in my front yard.

You're mostly right on Iraq, but these aren't "conservatives", they're neocons. True conservatives aren't interested in "nation building" or getting involved in foreign affairs; that's a liberal idea that the Republican Party adopted in recent decades, mainly because of events in WWII.

You say "old school conservative"; the real term is "paleoconservative", because Dr. Paul's stances reflect the way Conservatives used to think, before the current crop of neocons took over.

What puzzles me is, why do so many liberals support him? Just because of his Iraq stance?

That's probably the main reason; also, he's the only candidate that wants a balanced budget. The rest of those politicians, like many Americans, seem to think money grows on trees and that credit is infinite, and that you never have to pay back money you owe.

The Democrat candidates don't want us in Iraq,

Wrong. Hillary voted for the Iraq invasion. If elected, neither of the Democratic candidates would pull us out of Iraq very quickly. RP is the only one who would immediately withdraw troops. Is that bad for the people of Iraq? Maybe, maybe not. It's not our problem; they need to govern themselves. It's already obvious they aren't very happy under our puppet government.

and they believe in abortion, 2nd amendment restrictions, etc.

The Democrats' stupid support of 2nd Amendment restrictions is what keep losing them elections. It's the main issue that lost Al Gore the 2000 election, according to many. Lots of people are sick of the Republicans' stupid support of this stupid war, and all the other big-government issues

Re:I voted for Ron Paul - don't blame me!

[SonicSpike]

Yes - I wont be voting for the Democrats or John McCain. They are all whores. Ron Paul was the only one who was any different.

My vote will go to the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, or I'll write-in Ron Paul's name.

Will Bloomberg enter the race?

[SonicSpike]

This could get VERY interesting (as if it hasn't been already) if both Nader and Bloomberg both run as separate 3rd parties. Since both are liberals it might divide up the Democrat vote enough to give a win to McCain (who is also a liberal).

For those of us who want smaller government, lower spending, less taxes, individual rights, personal liberties and freedoms, etc we don't have a choice anymore :-(

Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race?

[DarkFencer]

This could get VERY interesting (as if it hasn't been already) if both Nader and Bloomberg both run as separate 3rd parties. Since both are liberals it might divide up the Democrat vote enough to give a win to McCain (who is also a liberal).

Towing the party line on 90% instead of 100% of issues does not make one a liberal.

Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race?

[try_anything]

For those of us who want smaller government, lower spending, less taxes, individual rights, personal liberties and freedoms, etc we don't have a choice anymore :-(

Did you ever have a choice? Bush and Reagan gave us spending increases (aka deferred tax increases), the Meese commission, and the Patriot Act. The small government, low-spending guys may live somewhere on the right and have more power over Republican rhetoric than Democratic rhetoric, but that doesn't seem to have much influence on how elected Republicans govern. Nor did the Democrats' supposed affinity for big spending stop a Democratic president from leading the effort to balance the budget when it was politically profitable to do so.

Civil liberties are always the priority of the party out of power -- witness how the right raved about privacy and black helicopters while Bill Clinton was president and then completely lost interest in civil liberties under Bush, even though Bush expanded the surveillance and detention powers of exactly the same government agencies they were so afraid of under Clinton. Under Bush, the outrage over wiretapping and detention came from the left.

Likewise, a move towards fiscal responsibility is always bipartisan, like it was in the nineties under Clinton. When politicians bring the bad news home, they need somebody to blame it on. "Sorry, honey, I had to slash the budget because otherwise the goddamn [insert other party here] would have wasted it all." (Notice how the balanced-budget guys the right never got any traction under Reagan and Bush? They might as well have been on vacation for twelve years. They should have had help from the Democrats, but the balanced-budget guys on the left made the stupid political mistake of concentrating on the most outrageous part of the budget, military spending, which in the public's mind is magically irrelevant to fiscal responsibility. As a result there was no bipartisan traction for reining in spending.)

My point is that civil liberties and fiscal responsibility aren't achieved at election time. They're achieved between elections, when politicians on both sides, who would all inevitably become bread-and-circuses emperors if given unlimited power (whether they liked it or not), struggle for advantage by offering concessions to powerful interests. The public has power, and the public gets (a little bit of) whatever it happens to show the most interest in at those times.

Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Who told you the lie that McCain is a liberal? He goes with the Republican party 85% of the time. I understand that conservative talk radio are doing that, but really, at least some of them are just upset with his position on illegal immigrants. If voting lock-step with your party only 85% of the time makes one a traitor, I don't think I really want to be a part of that party.

Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race?

[value_added]

As a news site, Slashdot is invaluable and worth reading on daily basis. The headlines aren't done well, the editing is non-existent, and well, we all know the rest. That said, I do enjoy those occasions where I come across a good story from a reader, a novel insight, a tidbit of useful information from someone with specialised or privileged knowledge, or the successes of those trying to master the art of the pun. Regrettably, much of what I see more closely resembles the scribblings on a bathroom wall. Looking at it, or trying to read through any part of it may be useful in gauging general attitudes and opinions, but otherwise the dubious nature of such a pasttime (a characterisation embarassingly reinforced by the recent addition of the "Hot Comments" sidebar), should be obvious to anyone.

Your post, on the other hand, is worth reading on its own merits. For any number of different reasons. I sincerely hope that if you haven't already done so, you consider writing as a vocation.

Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race?

[Hellburner]

"...enough to give a win to McCain (who is also a liberal)"

WTF?

An anti-abortion rights hawk (100 years in Iraq, anyone?) who stood on stage hugging and endorsing Bush 43 is a LIBERAL?

Get bent.

Oh...and tangentially: Nader is an imbecile. I don't know if he lost the 2000 election (TN would have been nice, Al...) but he's an egomaniac who thinks than anyone not in lockstep with his ideals is scum. Sort of like Bush 43.

Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race?

[SonicSpike]

Let's see -

McCain will increase spending

McCain will not seal the border

McCain will grant amnesty

McCain will not lower taxes.

How exactly is he conservative?

Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race?

[SonicSpike]

McCain is pro abortion.

He is also pro spending

Pro taxation.

And anti-free speech (McCain/Fiengold anyone?)

Exactly how is McCain conservative?

Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race?

[Scudsucker]

Pro taxation.

A lie.

He is also pro spending

A straight up conservative then: against taxes but pro-deficit spending. Woot.

And anti-free speech (McCain/Fiengold anyone?)

Unlimited campaigns pending by lobbyists is what is anti free speech.

Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race?

[Scudsucker]

(Notice how the balanced-budget guys the right never got any traction under Reagan and Bush? They might as well have been on vacation for twelve years.

Nah, they just never existed in the first place. "Fiscal responsibility", "small government" and "balanced budgets" mean cutting social spending and regulation, not prudent spending policies.

Re:I can't be the only

[Kjella]

No, but you might be the only European to visit the US politics section (see that semitransparent US flag under the banner? If no other part on slashdot is US-centric, this one is) and not google or check wikipedia. But to karma whore a little:

Ralph Nader (born February 27, 1934) is an American attorney, author, lecturer and political activist in the areas of consumer rights, humanitarianism, environmentalism and democratic government. He helped found many governmental and non-governmental organizations, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Public Citizen, and several Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), including NYPIRG. Nader has been a staunch critic of corporations, which he believes wield too much power and are undermining the fundamental American values of democracy and human rights.

Nader has run for President four times (in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004), and is currently considering running in 2008.[1] In 1992 he ran as a write-in in both the New Hampshire Republican and Democratic primaries, and other primaries. In 1996 and 2000, he was the nominee of the Green Party; in 2004, he ran as an independent, but was also endorsed by the Reform Party.[1] His campaigns have been controversial, with his role in the 2000 election in particular being subject to much analysis and debate.[2]

He appeared on the cover of Time magazine in 1969 for his role as a consumer advocate.[3]

goat shit.

[dotmax]

i hope he chokes on it.

Re:I can't be the only

[notnAP]

Nah, just the only one who's never heard of Wikipedia

Should we just call it now?

[TheQuantumShift]

I would love to see less of the two party system, but lets face it, Nader running an extended campaign will only take votes from Obama and give McCain the edge. (at least this time it's not Bush)

Someday I hope we can get beyond the "I belong to this party" mentality. To me there should only be one party, American Citizens. Candidates step up and state what they actually believe and what direction they want to take the government, and are judged by the voting public on those merits alone. Hell, we can even do it American Idol style and text our votes each week.

Though I have noticed in the last few years the lines between the parties blurring quite a bit (excepting the childish displays during the State of the Union). I wonder if we could find someone who's never been exposed to any of the contenders and see if they can guess the party affiliation and what they stand for.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[jjohnson]

To me there should only be one party, American Citizens

All this would accomplish is to make the U.S. like the Soviet Union with its one-party system. The end result is informal parties called factions. You'd just be moving the factional politics inside the party itself. What the U.S. needs is a parliamentary system with the possibility of coalition governments so that candidates aren't forced into one of two molds.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[LithiumX]

Coalition governments seem to have a nasty tendency to break those coalitions, because they're not truly one government. They're parties agreeing to cooperate, under current circumstances, in a power sharing deal. I have long considered this to be one of the most delicate forms of democracy, only suitable for a fledgling government trying to find a final form.

For all the bickering, our two party system is effectively one government, but polarized largely along two artificial poles. What those poles are changes over time, but it's a constant adversarial system. It does not work very effectively, but it seems to do far better than most of what we see in the world.

Consider that we have (if I am right), the longest running continual government - only broken once, partially, by a civil war. That civil war managed to crystalize a new format that, for all of it's faults, was more manageable over the long term than the previous form, and managed to effectively stay the same model of government (but with the balance of power shifted in ways that not everyone likes). Even the UK, while still the same nation, has changed drastically in waves, and each new government that comes in is virtually a new government, whereas ours is designed - imperfectly - to make the transition of power between parties relatively mild and - in the end - of little relevance except to policy.

I'd agree with Washington that static parties are a generally bad idea. It promotes partisanship, and that partisanship is preventing us from having the government we could have. It is, however, far superior to a parliamentary system - a system that rarely seems to function as well as our own inefficiently adversarial model.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[mr_matticus]

We've already got that. We don't have a two-party system. We've got a 100-party system. California Democrats and Wyoming Democrats couldn't even ideologically be considered part of the same party, to say nothing of New York Republicans and Alabama Republicans. The factional politics ARE inside the party itself. There is no "national" party since we don't elect national candidates, with the exception of presidents and vice presidents. The national leadership is the faction within the party that can wield the hammer best at a given time. Parties for Congress are run at the state level. Once they all get to Washington, they figure something out as a pool of a couple hundred individuals.

Are you saying that Ronald Reagan is a Republican in the mold crafted by the current leadership? Is Ron Paul? Hell, is John McCain? Is Eisenhower?

Is Harry Reid the same kind of Democrat as Nancy Pelosi? As FDR? As Wilson?

Each party has a fully realized set of factions, but only one gets to lead at any given time. There's no problem with the "number of parties" in the United States. There's a strong party line dictated by the leadership, and whips keep Reps and Senators on short leashes. All that needs to happen is for the caucuses within the parties to start banding together and voting on the issues, but there's always going to be someone in charge, and that means they've got the loudest voice. The basic problem is that the voters are too lazy to elect people based on their values and ideals. Getting rid of the neocons and Jesus people would be easy if the people wanted it.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[perlchild]

If one vote for one candidate is automatically against the other candidate, you have a two party system. Next!

Re:Should we just call it now?

[jjohnson]

It's a very good point that the two parties each have deep factionalism inside them. The problem is that the U.S. system winnows it down to one person representing all those factions. When it's a California Democrat candidate, the Wyoming Democrat is faced with a binary choice: vote for someone who's not really representative of them, or don't.

The visible result of this dilemma is that Christian Coalition now gets zero representation in their president. Because they supported Mike Huckabee, Romney lost to McCain, and now they have to either vote for McCain or stay home. On the left, those who would be greens perenially get stuck with voting for a more centrist Democrat than they prefer, or throwing away a vote on Nader. Likewise, the Libertarians.

The virtue of a parliamentary system is that factions retain their relative power after the election, and a continual process of compromising with them is required. In the U.S., once you've elected someone who doesn't really agree with you, you have very little leverage except the threat of taking it out on their successor. As the Republicans have demonstrated repeatedly since Reagan with respect to the Christian Coalition, that threat carries very little weight.

The basic problem is that the voters are too lazy to elect people based on their values and ideals. Getting rid of the neocons and Jesus people would be easy if the people wanted it.

Actually, this illustrates my point. The neocons and Jesus freaks are not numerically superior, but because they mobilized in 2000 and 2004, they outweighed other factions like the paleocons and the libertarians, and thus had political power far greater than the portion their numbers should grant them. But if, as you suggest, the paleocons and libertarians had mobilized sufficiently to block them, then those factions would be overrepresented.

Congress, with its informal caucuses, is halfway there. But balanced against the power of the president, proportional representation is diluted to almost nothing.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[mr_matticus]

There's only one chair, and more than two candidates. A vote for one candidate is a vote against every other candidate, even in SMDM (or are Westminster system democracies "two party systems" as well?).

Maybe you're forgetting that there aren't two candidates. There are four candidates for president right now, and there were many more when voters first started voting. And I don't know about you, but I've had at least six choices for Congress as far back as I can remember.

Next, indeed, you sanctimonious tool.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[jjohnson]

I will observe that this exact scheme, winnowing it down to one person, is cited as a virtue of the U.S. government, not a flaw. At the end of the day, there's one candidate, and after the election, one president, with very little ambiguity (usually).

Re:Should we just call it now?

[Jafafa Hots]

The founding fathers thought a revolution every now and then was a GOOD thing. You seem not to like multiple parties out of some kind of distaste for the mess. Democracy is messy. There are different needs and wants and power structures and powerless constituencies out there, all constantly vying for a piece of the pie or all of it. There NEEDS to be give and take.

You talk about ONE government that lasts hundreds of years, finds a "final form" (is inflexible, doesn't adapt to newer times).

I can see how such a government would be desirable - to those governing. But how is that a good thing for the people?

Re:Should we just call it now?

[mr_matticus]

The problem is that the U.S. system winnows it down to one person representing all those factions. Every system winnows it down to one person.

The virtue of a parliamentary system is that factions retain their relative power after the election, and a continual process of compromising with them is required. Well, for starters, you're conflating parliamentary and proportional systems, and even allowing that for the moment, a "continual process of compromise" isn't necessary in majority governments, and coalition governments of more than two parties rarely last more than six months, if that.

The US system requires compromise, too. Reps are technically free to vote as they like. There are frequent bipartisan votes, and winning any major issue often requires at least a few members of the other party, particularly if the president is opposed. If enough of the party base disagrees with the leadership, not much will get done in the US system. The reality of course is that you satisfy your caucuses by compromise in general, whether it's within your party or across to your coalition partner.

The visible result of this dilemma is that Christian Coalition now gets zero representation in their president. They had their chance, and they lost. They were represented by their participation. We could certainly go STV for primaries, but the virtue of SMDP is that it's simple, decisive, and effective. At some point, the voters of unpopular candidates are going to wind up voting for someone else. The number of satisfied voters works out to be the same, though a different system would sometimes elect a different candidate.

As the Republicans have demonstrated repeatedly since Reagan with respect to the Christian Coalition, that threat carries very little weight. Because it's an empty threat. If the people had actually ever summoned the strength to spend the five minutes carrying it out, it would be taken more seriously.

then those factions would be overrepresented. The winners are overrepresented in every system. Take a government coalition of 55% in a parliamentary and proportional system: that 55% runs the show. The other 45% have zero input. In our system, the minority can still make plays and win sometimes.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[CSMatt]

Hell, we can even do it American Idol style and text our votes each week. Bad idea.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[CSMatt]

"The ballot was confusing!"

Re:Should we just call it now?

[tverbeek]

And I don't know about you, but I've had at least six choices for Congress as far back as I can remember.

As a matter of fact, I do know about me :) ... and most of the time I get one choice for Congress. My party sometimes recruits a sacrificial lamb, while the other party either nominates the incumbent if he's healthy, or calls someone up from the minors (i.e. state legislature) if he's not. In November, I get to vote for their candidate, or against him. There's a "Soviet Russia" joke in here someplace.

It could be worse, though... at least I live in a "swing" state where my vote for president has the potential to count.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[the honger]

I too am worried that the strangers may not be truly represented by the best-qualified liar.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[Digitus1337]

You seem not to like multiple parties out of some kind of distaste for the mess. The US founding fathers seemed not to like mutliple parties out of some kind of distaste for the mess. Madison was vocal about the dangers of parties ('factions') to democracy for any number of reasons (though Jefferson, ever the rogue, might disagree on this point). Would you like to know more? See Federalist No. 10.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[Xtravar]

One of my favorite quotes - Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith Paris, Nov. 13, 1787:

God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[westlake]

The founding fathers thought a revolution every now and then was a GOOD thing.

There was a sea-change in American thought when the French Revolution descended into the Terror. The Founders were never revolutionaries in the modern sense, which is why radicals such as Sam Adams fade out of the picture very early on.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[that this is not und]

A virtue of the U.S. government is that that one person only sits atop one section of a three-part government.

A lot of the action takes place in other spheres of government, and there are MANY different types of people elected to seats in those spheres of government.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[jesterzog]

Coalition governments seem to have a nasty tendency to break those coalitions, because they're not truly one government. They're parties agreeing to cooperate, under current circumstances, in a power sharing deal. I have long considered this to be one of the most delicate forms of democracy, only suitable for a fledgling government trying to find a final form.

Which coalition governments have you studied? There are many different ways to design a structure that encourages coalition governments, and they cater to different needs.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[urbanradar]

Coalition governments seem to have a nasty tendency to break those coalitions, because they're not truly one government. They're parties agreeing to cooperate, under current circumstances, in a power sharing deal. I have long considered this to be one of the most delicate forms of democracy, only suitable for a fledgling government trying to find a final form.

I live in Switzerland and we have the so-called "concordance system", which Wikipedia quite accurately describes as "consensus: the government must reach a compromise, even though it is composed of antagonistic parties". In other words, we're big on coalitions.

Switzerland is one of the countries with the longest histories of democracy, is considered one of the most democratic countries if the world -- the most democratic, by many -- as well as one of the most stable, peaceful and prosperous. And we're finding that what you call a form of democracy "only suitable for a fledgling government" has been serving us quite nicely for quite a while.

Seriously, it's surprising how much people will harp on about how democracy should or should not be, without even taking a look at the systems already out there. If you want to find out what true democracy looks like -- or as close as you can get to it -- take a look at the Swiss system.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[The One and Only]

Interestingly enough, Jefferson was later elected president, making a historic peaceful turnover of power from one political party to another. Instead of overturning all the Federalist policies at once, Jefferson consciously chose to maintain continuity.

Re:Should we just call it now?

[ginbot462]

His beer is highly overrated as well.

Re:I can't be the only

[Degrees]

Here you go

He wrote a book in 1965 Unsafe at Any Speed that slammed the Chevrolet Corvair. He appeared on the cover of Time magazine in 1969 for his role as a consumer advocate.

If you are part of the liberal main-stream-media in the U.S.A., and you need to fill some column-inches or 30 second sound-bites, Ralph is a pretty good guy to help you slam the big old mean corporations. Not that there aren't corporations that need to be skewered - just that Ralph is a go-to guy when you are low on material.

Re:if nader runs

[milsoRgen]

if nader runs If Nader runs, don't waste your vote on him. He doesn't have a shot and those votes are better off with the lesser of two evils, the democrats.

Re:I can't be the only

[nbert]

I can't be the only European to ask my self who the hell Ralph Nader is.

He's mentioned in Europe quite often when describing the state of the US' party system. I'm sure I read about him before I knew that George H. W. Bush had any kids with political ambitions.

What next?

[The One and Only]

Is Ross Perot going to run again too? I miss that guy.

Re:What next?

[R2.0]

I remember Dennis Miller describing him as "a Hobbit in a golf cart."

Best.Description.EVAR

Re:What next?

[Apiakun]

Can I finish? Can I finish?

Re:What next?

[tverbeek]

Hobbits are cute.

And lovable.

And decent enough to safely carry the One Ring.

So.... Worst. Description. Ever.

Re:What next?

[CptNerd]

Hobbits are cute.
And lovable.
And decent enough to safely carry the One Ring.
So.... Worst. Description. Ever.

Gollum was a hobbit, too.

If Clinton wins the D. nom, he should.

[Draconix]

If Obama gets it, Nader probably won't get much support anyway, but if Clinton gets it, he'll probably get enough support to hurt the DNP in the general election, and frankly, the DNP needs a massive smack upside the head. They need to learn to stop fielding candidates the people can't get behind. Gore was too robotic, Kerry was too wishywashy, and Clinton is too ambitious and unscrupulous. Maybe, just maybe, if Clinton runs and Nader "steals her votes" the party might just get a frigging clue.

Re:If Clinton wins the D. nom, he should.

[Apiakun]

I understand your sentiment here, but I think that instead of stepping up and realizing that it's their own fault, they'll just happily blame Nader instead. It's always easier to blame someone else than to modify one's behaviour.

Re:If Clinton wins the D. nom, he should.

[ryanov]

That's what everyone has done so far.

I have to say, though, parent is incorrect on almost everything. All of those things he said about the other candidates were what the media says was true of them. In reality, to me, the reason Gore didn't win is that he didn't stand for what he stood for. In reality, that's the same thing Kerry did. Look at Gore now -- did he believe all of the things he says and does now in 2000? Maybe, but it certainly seems as if he was told not to say any of it. Every time the Republicans have sandbagged Democrats with ASININE bullshit (look at what Bush has done and compare it to anything that the Democratic candidates have), there has been no tough response that points out how stupid it all is. The debates of 2004 showed Kerry basically failing to intelligently hit back on any question.

I suppose too wishy-washy could be true, but I call it a failure to actually stand for anything. Not that the Republicans truthfully stood for anything either, but at least they put on a better show.

Re:If Clinton wins the D. nom, he should.

[Draconix]

Sorry, I probably should have qualified my statements with "in the eyes of the public."

Re:If Clinton wins the D. nom, he should.

[ryanov]

This is actually a very interesting article:

http://www.alternet.org/election08/77346/ ...it talks about how, before Kerry was seen as a flip-flopper, Bush's media advisor laid out his plan during an interview. I'm not sure it really matters who they run as long as they can't combat this stuff. You can find some sort of way to discredit almost anyone, and if it isn't addressed as bullshit right away it gets into the public subconscious.

He is

[dpryan]

This is discussed numerous places. A quick google pops up this article from the San Francisco Chronicle during the 2004 race. It's really one of the sad things about Nader. He has some good ideas but he often undermines his goals with his actions.

Re:He is

[Original Replica]

Nader has done more good for this country than Gore (or most others in politics.)

But in securing Dubya's win he did enough harm to over shadow all the good he has done. It's a safe assumption that if Nader had not run, that the vast majority of those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore, and Gore would have won Florida and the election. Sure 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan may well still have happened, but the Iraq war and the abuse of signing statements and Gitmo and the DHS and the Patriot Act 1&2 and wiretapping would not have happened under Gore. Nader has done a lot of good, but also a lot of damage, he should get back to doing good instead of following his ego and "paving the road with good intentions."

Re:He is

[Vellmont]

Nader has done more good for this country than Gore (or most others in politics.)

Maybe so, but what's he done lately?

Nader has turned into an egomaniac. What good did he do with his 2000 and 2004 presidential campaign?

Re:He is

[ryanov]

See the "egomaniac" thing everyplace. Now, considering you and all the other people say that probably know precisely dick about Nader, and the media regularly calls Nader an egomaniac, it really looks like you're just parroting with no personal knowledge.

Re:He is

[hackiavelli]

Wow, I've been interpreting that saying incorrectly my whole life according to Bartleby. I always interpreted "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" as good actions leading to the exact opposite results. Bartleby says it's attending to do good but never getting off your butt and actually doing it.

Re:He is

[iminplaya]

Sure 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan may well still have happened, but the Iraq war and the abuse of signing statements and Gitmo and the DHS and the Patriot Act 1&2 and wiretapping would not have happened under Gore.

WHAT?! Are you aware of the part that Lieberman played in writhing the patriot act? Everybody talks about Gore, Gore, Gore, apparently ignoring the baggage he carried by having Lieberman on the ticket. It's why I didn't vote for him. Not in a million years. Lieberman is every bit the warmonger that Cheney is. Maybe more. And Clinton wanted all that wiretapping ability before 9/11. And you do remember the Clipper chip, right? Crypto export control? Line item veto? Tipper? Hillary's "health plan" which called for national IDs? And guess who spoke the loudest against those things. That's right, McCain. A proud member of the Keating Five. You better open your eyes. Nader is right about the dems and the GOP being the same, because they are. Nader is way ahead of Gore and the present front runners in terms of personal freedoms and corporate control of the government. But 99% of of you prefer to stick with the status quo.

Re:He is

[we3]

Which is why we need democrats like Rahm Emanuel and Jan Schakowsky, both of whom of have made it clear that impeachment is out of the question. Or democrats like John Conyers, who as the head of the Judicial committee, is blocking the impeachment of Dick Chenny. Or maybe we we need good democratic senators like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who voted for everything you just mentioned. And don't tell me that bull about Obama not voting for the war, voting to fund it is exactly the same thing.

Gore lost because he refused to stand up to goofbals in florida who were rigging elections. And he didn't get the green vote because he waited until after the election to tell them what they wanted to hear.

Now look, maybe I'm just being a little pissy because I just got out of a PRIMARY election in the state of Illinois where all over the state the "DEMOCRATS" AND Republicans where refusing to give Green Party ballots to Green Party members. Now I don't know about you but I'm not going to take this freedom and democracy crap from democrats who refuse to allow me to vote in my parties primary, and then insist that I shouldn't have the right to vote for my party in the general election.

Democracy means you get to vote for whoever you want. I'm going to vote for someone who believes in free elections, not someone who won't even stand up for his own voters.

Re:He is

[ChrisMaple]

Ah, this is so funny. In my opinion, Nader's ensuring Bush's election made a small step away from a lifetime of evildoing. There's irony in a malicious nutcase undermining the campaign of a less vicious nutcase, resulting in the election of someone who fails to think through the long-term consequences of his actions.

Re:He is

[HappyEngineer]

But 99% of of you prefer to stick with the status quo.

No, 99% of us don't know how to get rid of the status quo. The system is strongly stacked against 3rd parties. There are 2 ways to make a 3rd party win. One is to put an immensely popular person in a third party. But, that's not going to happen because such a popular person would probably be able to be the candidate for one of the 2 main parties.

The other way is to get constitutional reforms passed which change how elections work. Good luck getting that to happen. That would require the help of at least one of the two existing parties and I don't see that happening.

So, the only purpose of a 3rd party is to draw votes from another party. Deciding to run in a 3rd party does not mean you're presenting a 3rd choice. It means that you're attempting to draw votes from the major party that agrees with you the most.

I don't like it. I very much wish we could alter the system to allow people to vote with some sort of multi-vote system as in I like person #1 but if they don't win then I prefer person #2. There are a variety of other voting schemes, any one of which would probably be better.

But, there is only one possible outcome of another Nader run. That is to draw votes away from Obama. If Nader runs and McCain wins then Nader bears the blame just like he bears the blame for getting Bush elected.

The only real possibility that I see for change is to push to get the primaries opened up more. That is where we have real choice. The primaries are corrupt in many ways. There are plenty of very undemocratic issues in the primaries for both major parties. That needs to change and it's the only way that change can occur.

Re:He is

[iminplaya]

But, there is only one possible outcome of another Nader run. That is to draw votes away from Obama. If Nader runs and McCain wins then Nader bears the blame just like he bears the blame for getting Bush elected.

I'm sorry, but that just sounds a little too much like "the devil made me do it". Kucinich was in the primaries, but the simple fact is that he didn't get the votes. It wasn't because somebody put a gun to peoples' head and said "don't vote for him". It was a free choice on the part of the public because they choose to believe the propaganda. It's not the system's fault that people will only pay attention to what's being presented to them. It is their own fault for not seeking out the alternatives, of which there are many. Nader bears the blame for nothing. It lies squarely on the shoulders of the voting public who voted for Bush. They are the ones that got him elected simply because they voted for him. To believe otherwise is to deny that humans have a free will, of which I do have my doubts also. B.F. Skinner anyone?

Re:He is

[HappyEngineer]

Nader would have no blame if he ran in the Democratic (or Republican) primaries. He does bear blame if he runs in the general election.

I don't know what your point is about Kucinich. He may not have won the primaries, but he was at least a choice. If you agreed with him then you absolutely should have voted for him. Having him run did not cause a terrible candidate to get in. But, if Kucinich was to announce a 3rd party candidacy in the general election then he would deserve fault for getting McCain into office if Obama loses.

I really don't understand your point of view. The place to vote your conscience is in the primaries. The worst case scenario is that a less than ideal person would get the nomination. If your favored candidate doesn't win, I fail to see how that proves that they should have run as a 3rd party which is a guaranteed way to lose and also helps your least disliked D or R party also lose.

We have a stupid two party system that, like it or not, cannot be changed directly. If you want change then you need to reform the primaries first. That's possible because you can do those one state at a time starting with small states. Reform them to have different types of voting procedures that allow for 2nd choice voting. Eliminate superdelegates. Eliminate the fraud that occurs at some primaries, etc.

Re:He is

[donut1005]

According to the official 2001 Statistics of the Presidential and Congressional Election of November 7, 2000, George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Florida by 543 votes.

"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush"
-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

Yeah, blame it all on Dems who voted for Nader. Let's NOT give a tongue lashing to the Dems who voted for Bush in FL.

Re:He is

[SnowZero]

I'm curious. When Perot ran, did you see that as a Democrat conspiracy against Bush Sr.? I'm wondering the same thing myself. Apparently this concept is so invisible none of the replies to your post was even willing to quote it.

Instead of complaining about spoilers and trying to convince them not to run (how nice to see that in a "democracy"), I wish people instead pooled their efforts to get a better election system (approval voting, etc.), where we might solve this problem permanently. I do not feel sorry for Gore, and I would not feel sorry for Clinton, Obama, or McCain if they lose due to a spoiler; Having all spent time in the senate, they all had ample time to introduce legislation to fundamentally improve our election system, but they chose not to do so. The only reason I can think of is that both parties are too worried that they might lose some power under a better election system (i.e. one which would not marginalize additional parties). They even avoid such reform to the extent that they might lose a few elections.

Re:He is

[iminplaya]

I'm saying that you see a difference between democrats and republicans that just doesn't exist. Just look how the whole of congress has voted over the last seven years. The democrats put up no opposition the white house policies because, in reality, they are not opposed to them. Rationalized by not wanting to appear "soft on terrorism". Screw them. They are not the "lessor evil". They are the same evil, to the core. They were pushing for Bush-like policies while Clinton was in office. I don't dislike one side of the Party any more than the other. Both will always bring about the same results. I watched them send over 58,000 Americans to a needless death 40 years ago(and at that time by force, with military conscription), and they're doing the same now(and they are threatening to reinstate that conscription). What they do is motivated by political expediency. "Anything to win". These crooks win because people vote for them. They aren't voting for the lessor evil. They are voting to bring those earmarks to their home town with no regard for the consequences. The time to vote your conscience is always. That's the obligation of everybody who votes.

Re:He is

[flyingsquid]

Nader has done more good for this country than Gore (or most others in politics.) I'm curious. When Perot ran, did you see that as a Democrat conspiracy against Bush Sr.?

No, we Democrats didn't view it as a conspiracy, rather as a blessing. It's not that I think my party is too good to stoop to such levels, I just think we're too divided and incompetent to. Believe me, I wish the Democrats were the kinds of clever schemers who could play Perot against the Republicans, but we're just not that smart.

*****BREAKING NEWS UPDATE: NADER IS RUNNING!!!*****

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4336298&page=1

My reaction: dear God, not again... I was angry at him. I don't think he bears the full blame for the Bush presidency. I think he bears part of it, but Al Gore and his campaign manager deserve much more blame. But now, I look at him, and I just feel a sense of mild annoyance, mixed with pity.

Look at his photo. With his leathery skin and eyes that don't point in the same direction, he looks like Admiral Akbar. Ralph, listen to me: IT'S A TRAP!!!! Your ideas and crusades once inspired people. I heard Nader speak back in 1998 and I found him motivating and inspirational. But now? It's like a desperate bid for relevance. I can't really see how he can make a difference. Is there a deluded sense of idealism that keeps him going, or is it his ego? Give it up, Ralph. The world still needs idealists, crusaders, and vocal critics. But these silly campaigns don't actually accomplish anything. They haven't delivered any results, any important changes in policy, and so in the end all they do is discredit your ideas as being part of an impractical, irrational lunatic fringe.

Re:He is

[ConceptJunkie]

He has some good ideas but he often undermines his goals with his actions.

Or by being a cantankerous old crank... kinda like that Ron Paul guy. The problem is that the people who are willing and able to actually change something are never the ones with the sleazy-used-car-salesman-soul that it takes to get elected. I guess that "being principled" thing doesn't jibe with the self-whoring it takes to actually get elected.

Re:He is

[Scudsucker]

Or by being a cantankerous old crank... kinda like that Ron Paul guy.

Except Paul manages to challenge the status quo and stand up for his beliefs without fucking over the country. Nader should take tips from Ron Paul.

Re:He is

[Scudsucker]

It's not an ad hominem if it's true. Nader isn't building a movement for change, he only runs as a spoiler once every four years, and he's perfectly happy accepting support from Republicans wanting him to siphon votes from their Democratic opponents.

Re:He is

[ConceptJunkie]

Yeah, but being an egomaniac and being irrelevant is much funnier.

Re:He is

[Scudsucker]

And Clinton wanted all that wiretapping ability before 9/11.

You do know that's a lie, right? Carnivore was not mass warrantless wiretapping. And it would have required warrants to use...unlike warrantless wiretapping.

And you do remember the Clipper chip, right?

Which again, required warrants.

Hillary's "health plan" which called for national IDs?

And it would have saved Americans a few hundred billion dollars, tens of thousands of lives, and prevented thousands of home foreclosures by eliminating medical bankruptcies.

And guess who spoke the loudest against those things. That's right, McCain.

Because McCain is a pathetic political hack, that's why. Contrast his rhetoric on "cutting and running" and "stay in Iraq for 1000" years with his demands to pull out of Haiti and Somalia.

Re:He is

[Scudsucker]

The problem with whining about the "two party system" is the fallacy that you only have two choices. You've had like 8 candidates to chose from in either party this year. You don't think there's a slight bit of difference between Hillary and Kucinich? Guiliani and Huckabee?

Re:He is

[Scudsucker]

I'm saying that you see a difference between democrats and republicans that just doesn't exist.

Nonsense. Nader was a complete fucking idiot to have suggested such a think back in 2000, and that was before 8 years of Bushco's incompetent fascism. There are some rotten Democrats, but the party isn't 100% rotten like the Republicans. Pick your issue - the Iraq War, Military Commissions Act, telecom immunity - some sell out Dems voted for them, but many voted against - as opposed to Republicans who voted in lockstep on all those issues.

Re:He is

[iminplaya]

Carnivore was not mass warrantless wiretapping.

Just because they didn't spell it out for you, it doesn't mean they're not doing it. Their kool-aid is no different from the other's. J. Edgar Hoover wasn't exactly working within the constraints of the law either. The only difference between then and now is they do it in broad daylight. Besides, it's too easy to get a warrant anyway.

And it would have saved Americans a few hundred billion dollars, tens of thousands of lives, and prevented thousands of home foreclosures by eliminating medical bankruptcies.

Doubt it very much, but there's no way of knowing. I believe it would be just as corrupt. To do it right, just make it so a guy can walk in and be fixed without a lot of paperwork. There's no reason to be tracing every step they make. Her system still feeds her corrupt friends in the business. And it would be abused by the authorities still.

I know McCain is a shill. Just want to point out that they all bend with the wind. You can be sure I won't vote for him. But the others will find a reason to keep us there also. Next thing you know we will have "secret bombings in Syria, just like Cambodia in 1970. And I believe it's "only" 100 years.

Don't be fooled. There is only one Party running the country. They represent the same thing. The last 45 years alone has illustrated just that.

Re:He is

[Scudsucker]

Just because they didn't spell it out for you, it doesn't mean they're not doing it.

So something Clinton possibly could have done is equal to things we not only know for a fact Bush has done, but has boasted about it and promised to continue doing? Interesting thought process you have there.

Doubt it very much, but there's no way of knowing.

Actually, we do know. Watch Sicko. Other nations spend half as much money or less for better care, care that you actually get as opposed to paying insurance companies high premiums only for them to turn around and deny you coverage. Nations where no one looses their house because of medical bills.

Re:He is

[iminplaya]

So something Clinton possibly could have done is equal to things we not only know for a fact Bush has done...

Considering the government's history, it's close enough. I will not give those in authority the benefit of a doubt. I demand a much higher standard from them. It should go with the job.

Actually, we do know. Watch Sicko.

I'm not moving to Cuba, and the weather in Canada sucks. And though I'm sure he's very entertaining, Michael Moore's credibility is not exactly above reproach. I do like the idea of universal health care, and I'm not arguing against it. and I like things such as no fault auto insurance paid by gas taxes or licensing fees. But the suggested methods coming from the candidates is deeply flawed and simply subject to too much corruption and abuse. Especially Hillary's mandate that we should be forced to buy from from our pocket to pay her friends in the insurance industry and making us do all the paperwork. And that other guy's plan is simply inadequate. Doing it wrong is worse than not doing it at all. And no national ID is needed either when a simple drivers license or state ID will do just fine. I don't want these people placing their bureaucratic workload on me. This is precisely what we pay the government for. Bureaucracy is their job, not mine.

I can guarantee that the dems will not give you what your looking for. They never have in the past, and they're not about to start now, seeing as that we are perfectly willing to keep corrupt politicians, democrat and republican, in office. Nader may be a loon, but he's absolutely correct about the single party system beholden to the corporate hydra that we are under. We simply will not see any improvement as long as that is the case.

Re:He is

[ryanov]

There is why he says he runs, then there is why others say he runs (ego). When he attempted to get 5% of the votes in order to get the party on the ballot, how is that not a movement for change? Even an unsuccessful attempt is still an attempt. I have seen ZERO, nothing, to back up the "ego" claims.

Re:He is

[Copid]

Yeah, blame it all on Dems who voted for Nader. Let's NOT give a tongue lashing to the Dems who voted for Bush in FL.

Don't worry. There's plenty of blame to go around.

Re:He is

[Scudsucker]

I have seen ZERO, nothing, to back up the "ego" claims.

Then you ignore the obvious.

When he attempted to get 5% of the votes in order to get the party on the ballot, how is that not a movement for change?

In a 50-50 country, what's going to happen when you take 5% from one side? He's not going to take a single vote from the gawd warriors, the gun nuts, or the free market jihaddists. So until that block is broken up, the only thing Nader will accomplish with another presidential run is to throw the election to that block, again. Doing his best to keep Republicans in office isn't change.

Nader was spot on about the corruption in the establishment Dem leadership, personified by the Democratic Leadership Council. But he didn't challenge that corruption, he just ran around insisting there was no difference between Gore and Bush, one of the more profoundly stupid ideas advanced in the course of human civilization. No, it's Democrats cleaning up the Democratic Party. Howard Dean has pushed the DLC into irrelevancy with the 50-state strategy and spending money on local offices rather than on "battleground" states and high priced consultants. It's Democrats like Ned Lamont and Donna Edwards running primaries against craptacular Democrats like Joe Lieberman and Al Wynn.

If Nader actually wanted to have a positive influence on politics, he'd run against against a tool like Diane Feinstein or Nancy Pelosi. Or enter the Dem primary and challenge the other candidates on the issues, the way Dennis Kucinich did, or Ron Paul on the Republican side. But no, he just runs for office every four years, taking money from Republicans and votes from Democrats.

If Nader wanted to lead a movement, he would have spent the last few years building a party. But when he announced that he was getting in the 2008 race, he didn't have a party picked out yet. So yeah, Nader's run is about Nader's ego.

Re:He is

[ryanov]

It's not about ignoring the obvious, because you could take all of those things a hundred different ways. There is no "fact" regarding the ego hypothesis, because it's all a bunch of people trying to find some way to sling mud. Incidentally, why don't you go ahead and tell me what sort of ego boost losing a presidential election is. Don't worry, I'll wait.

As far as I know, to get a party on the National ballot, you have to get 5% of the vote. If you do, at least the next election will have three parties on the ballot. That is a major change, and is a lot of the reason that it is so hard to run currently.

Incidentally, the reasons he did not stick with the Green Party have a lot more to do with the Green Party and mistakes/confusion there than with Nader.

Nader should be on Slashdot

[Tiger4]

He has an Iconoclastic view of the world,
He pulls obscure facts out of nowhere to make trivial debating points,
He thinks ThePowerStructure is out to ruin everything,
He knows how everyone else should run their lives,
And he's a total Karma Whore.

perot unlikely to run

[DietFluffy]

Is Ross Perot going to run again too? I miss that guy.

less likely after realizing last month that obama is not a muslim: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Perot_pleasantly_surprised.html

Ralph Nader is getting nominated by the Greens

[Kligat]

whether he likes it or not. He won in California, the state with the most delegates, by 60%. They have over 100 while all other states have 4 to 16. In states where he can't be on the ballot in the Green primaries, they have someone from the Draft Nader committee, who will presumably tell his delegates to all vote for Nader. What happens if he wins, but doesn't run? He essentially gets to single-handedly pick the Green nominee. In second place is Cynthia McKinney, a former Democrat member of the House of Representative and the Green running with the most political experience, but nearly all media attention she's received is for striking a security guard with her first after being caught running through the halls without the badge identifying her as a Congresswoman, and also saying "Al Gore's Negro tolerance level isn't very high. He only has one Negro around him at maximum at all times." As someone earlier mentioned, the Green Party weirdly doesn't seem fond of Al Gore. In third place is Kat Swift, whose main political experience is being co-chair of the Texas Green Party and coming in 2nd place for city council. Get this---while running for president, she's also running for city council! Just because it's a third party, doesn't mean it's better than the two in power. The Green Party seems to be the only third party tracking how many delegates each candidate has, but I saw while researching third parties that in Minnesota, all Constitution Party candidates available in their caucuses were Republicans or Democrats, minus one guy I'd never heard of with 2.5% of the vote, and Ron Paul won with over 80%, despite saying he would not run on a third party ticket. The Constitution Party, from their website, looks like the Republican Party without support for the Iraq War or warrantless wiretapping or anti-drug laws, but they mention Jesus in the preamble of their platform. It's pitiful that 2 out of 3 of the third parties the media ever talks about seem to be in favor of people that are not running. Also, I'm new here, so be nice.

Re:Ralph Nader is getting nominated by the Greens

[sethawoolley]

Nader is not running for the Green Party nomination. Cynthia is and is winning most of the other primaries, so it's likely that Cynthia will win by count in the end. California had a similar amount for Nader in '04 and he still lost. Most of the rest of the Greens outside of California aren't rich former-hippies, so they tend to not support Nader-types.

Re:Ralph Nader is getting nominated by the Greens

[mgabrys_sf]

Um - no he didn't.

Not popular or electoral. Don't know what gave you that idea.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2000&f=1&off=0&elect=0&fips=6&submit=Retrieve

Re:Ralph Nader is getting nominated by the Greens

[Kligat]

I'm not talking about the 2000 general election. I'm talking about the 2008 California primary that the Green Party holds. You know, like the ones that Democrats and Republicans have. Here's where I got the idea - from the Green Party website's press release section. Here's the article. The other person that replied to my post is right, though.

Also, I'm sorry my last post got bunched together without spacing; I forgot I had to do HTML. By the way, the Draft Nader Committee guy who's probably going to give all his delegates to Nader is named Howie Hawkins, which isn't a pseudonym, despite the alliteration.

Re:Ralph Nader is getting nominated by the Greens

[mgabrys_sf]

re:"I'm not talking about the 2000 general election. I'm talking about the 2008 California primary that the Green Party holds"

Then you might make a point in mentioning it for those of us non-mind reading types. Here's a soundbite. Ghandi ate babies.

(I'm not mentioning it in the context of some vapid horror movie script that was made but never released 12 years ago - you're supposed to know that after all)

Re:Ralph Nader is getting nominated by the Greens

[arbitraryaardvark]

You must be new here. Your post was informed, on point and insightful.
Anyway, I thought I'd mention that Nader's in.
He announced on Press the Meet with Tim Russert this morning.

Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race? No.

[tverbeek]

Bloomberg's not getting into this race. Unlike Nader, who's motivated by a kind of principled idealism that places the outcome as a secondary consideration, Bloomberg's interest in running for president is calculated, to win. If the GOP were nominating a religious fanatic, he'd be able to draw enough secular conservatives to do well, but with McCain getting the GOP nomination, the constituency just isn't there for him. So he'll sit it out.

GOP says "PLEASE!"

[R2.0]

I'm all for him running - he can throw the election to the Republicans like he did last time.

Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race? No.

[R2.0]

"If the GOP were nominating a religious fanatic, he'd be able to draw enough secular conservatives to do well, but with McCain getting the GOP nomination, the constituency just isn't there for him."

Are you kidding? Every conservative I know views Bloomberg as a sneaking, dishonest limousine liberal who posed as a Republican to get the NY Mayoralty and then did absolutely zero to live up to the moniker. He's basically Corzine, only less honest.

Listen Carefully,,,

[cacepi]

That's the sound of John McCain's campaign staff high-fiving each other.

In other news, Lyndon LaRouche launched a lawsuit against Ralph Nader in federal court today, claiming that a 2008 Nader presidential campaign infringes on his trademark to "crackpot candidate."

"I'M the nutjob who always runs for President, no that tree-hugger!" rages LaRouche in a strong-worded press released issued earlier today. "The American public looks to ME as their butt of wisecracks and snide remarks come election time, and I'll be damned if some Ralphie-come-lately takes that away. I ruined Ross Perot; I'll ruin him, too!"

A Nader spokesperson refused to comment on the lawsuit except to say that the 'Unsafe at any Speed' plans to summon George Wallace from the grave as an expert witness should LaRouche's petition go to trial.

Re:if nader runs

[Disfnord]

And what if you don't happen to think the dem's are the lesser evil?

Re:if nader runs

[anonypus_user]

i'm still voting for him if they let him on the ballot, sorry. otherwise i prob just wont vote. really between hillary, obama, and mcain im kinda indifferent, i wouldn't really mind either on of them compared to bush.

Who is Ralph Nader?

[orangepeel]

Before he ran for president the first time, all I really knew about Ralph Nader was that he appeared on Sesame Street once long ago.

During his run for president (both in 2000 and 2004), I learned a little more about him here on Slashdot. 90% of what I read here was negative.

I was deceived -- the reality was that 90% of the comments I read here on Slashdot were just gross oversimplifications and instances of senseless finger-pointing.

What changed my point of view? Just one thing: an Independent Lens documentary, "An Unreasonable Man".

After watching that documentary, I still don't know if Ralph Nader would have made (or would make) a good president. Instead, what I do know is that I'm sorry I took most of the Slashdot comments back in 2000 and 2004 as a good source of information. Ralph Nader has been unfairly dragged through the mud by many, and by some has been blamed for everything they care to believe went wrong with American leadership over the last 8 years. From some of the comments I'm reading here, it seems there's still a lot of unfair hostility aimed at him.

If you have the opportunity to watch that documentary, do so. It might create a more complete picture of the man for you, as it did for me.

Re:Who is Ralph Nader?

[ryanov]

It's kinda too bad he forced you to wear a seatbelt, isn't it?

Re:Who is Ralph Nader?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I'd ask you to back up your opinions, but then, whatever. You sound exactly like the kind of person the grandparent post was trying to warn us about.

Re:Who is Ralph Nader?

[ryanov]

Thanks for writing this. I hate to read the 90% here too -- I already knew otherwise, but it's a little disappointing to see so many idiots parroting bullshit on a site that one might think has some intelligent users.

Re:Who is Ralph Nader?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Let's make it simple. No Nader, No President Bush.

Re:Who is Ralph Nader?

[ryanov]

Why does one need to drive in order to advocate for auto safety?

Re:Who is Ralph Nader?

[Agripa]

He makes a lot of sense in what he says. But he needs to learn that running a snowballs chance in hell campaign every 4 years where he only siphons away votes from the lesser of two evils doesn't help the country.

It is a good thing the Democrats have been advocating election method reform then to prevent the spoiler effect.

Re:Who is Ralph Nader?

[GWBasic]

What changed my point of view? Just one thing: an Independent Lens documentary, "An Unreasonable Man". After watching that documentary, I still don't know if Ralph Nader would have made (or would make) a good president.

I watched that same documentary. It gives me the impression that Nader is best as a watchdog instead of the leader. The president has duties that involve diplomacy and defense. Nader's focus is more of a consumer watchdog. I'd rather see him as a member of a cabinet, or a leader of some department of consumer protection.

And yes, in 2000, I voted for Nader.

Besides, as the documentary implies, the man hasn't been laid in years, if ever. IMHO, the President needs a First Lady and a First Family.

Re:Who is Ralph Nader?

[Scudsucker]

Let's make it simple. No Nader, No President Bush.

Or as I said upthread, Nader isn't building a movement to challenge the status quo (a la Howard Dean), he just runs as a spoiler every four years. He hasn't even picked a party yet to run under.

Conservatism is a failed ideology which has joined communism in the trash heap of history.

I like Conservatism: the rationalization of selfish elitism.

In that case...

[pestie]

In that case, here's hoping you:

1. Have to use an electronic voting machine
2. That machine only counts votes if you can find the shift key

Alternate response: "Sorry, if you can't find your own shift key, you're not allowed to vote. Thank you, and God bless."

Re:Will Bloomberg enter the race? No.

[R2.0]

I know plenty of "non-fundy" conservatives. NO ONE believes Bloomberg is a conservative, except liberal reactionaries who automatically equate "rich" with "conservative". Every commentator who brings up the subject opines on how a Bloomberg run would affect the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Really, what are his conservative credentials?

Re:if nader runs

[milsoRgen]

And what if you don't happen to think the dem's are the lesser evil? Then vote republican, but don't delude yourself into thinking a vote for Nader or any of those fringe candidates means anything.

Granted Nader is an independent, I do think the major problem with any candidate that isn't of the two major parties is the fact they try and win the presidency. As opposed to getting mayors, councilmen, congressmen, etc., etc.. Into office. 3rd party/independent candidates are simply fail waiting to happen without a solid base.

Re:if nader runs

[milsoRgen]

i'm still voting for him if they let him on the ballot, sorry. otherwise i prob just wont vote. really between hillary, obama, and mcain im kinda indifferent, i wouldn't really mind either on of them compared to bush. Then you are voting with your heart, not your mind. The fact of the matter is there's a better chance of snow in hell then Nader winning the presidency. And I like the guy. But the fact remains, change is going to be incremental. So why not vote for someone who actually has a chance of winning and has a few ideas you agree with? As opposed to voting the guy you agree with much more, but ain't gonna win.

Nader is an agent of change.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ralph Nader is a huge agent of change. His support for change is stronger than the support of Barack Hussein Obama for change. The difference is that Nader is not charismatic and that he is explicit about what he will change. By contrast, Obama rarely talks about specific changes in his speeches; he just fills them with emotion.

Charisma without specific details is much more attractive to the cult-leader-seeking American public than dullness filled to overflowing with specific details about proposed changes.

If Nader enters the race, he will bring media focus to bear on the vagueness of speeches by Barack Hussein Obama.

Re:Nader is an agent of change.

[ryanov]

You know, this was moderated troll, but it is really on target.

Re:Nader is an agent of change.

[SetupWeasel]

I once worked for an activist group started by Nader for 1 day. Nader can go fuck himself.

Re:Nader is an agent of change.

[mengel]

All speeches are vague.

Obama, at least, has a website with more details than most candidates.

So the folks who are swayed by slogans (alas, apparently most) can be swayed by the slogans, and those that wish details can get them.

McCain, in fairness, has some policy details at his website, as well... But I'll leave it up to someone who likes those policies to put up a link to them.

Re:Nader is an agent of change.

[mike2R]

The troll mod will be for the reminder that his middle name is Hussein - a pathetic attempt to imply that Obama is either a closet Muslim or at the very least not a proper American.

Re:Nader is an agent of change.

[ryanov]

Unfortunate that "closet Muslim" is an insult. I frankly think that everyone would do well to completely ignore digs at his name. I'm not totally sure that it bears addressing.

Re:Nader is an agent of change.

[mike2R]

Maybe you're right, but I've always thought that ridicule is the best way to answer these kind of ploys. It is an insult to the reader's intelligence that this is meant to influence us, and I feel it should be pointed out.

Whenever I see Barrack Hussein Obama (and it's cropping up a lot in the discussion threads on newspaper sites), I have this image of someone sitting in front of their computer, awed by their cleverness and subtlety. It gives me a strong urge to prick that bubble.

Re:Nader is an agent of change.

[ryanov]

Or that, yeah. The current "hey now, I'm not an Arab" really doesn't do it for me, since it never really addresses the fact that the whole attack is juvenile and embarrassing.

Re:if nader runs

[anonypus_user]

the more votes he gets, the more attention he'll get.

Re:if nader runs

[milsoRgen]

the more votes he gets, the more attention he'll get. True enough, to each their own! :)

The man who put Bush in the White House

[Animats]

This is the man who put George Bush in the White House, by getting a small number of votes in the closest Presidential election in American history. Nader needs to give it up.

Re:The man who put Bush in the White House

[ryanov]

Really? Let's take a step back for a moment -- why was this the closest Presidential election in American history? Gore's shit campaign? Republican meddling? Ralph Nader's margin NEVER should have mattered in an election where a man with a fairly distinguished record was running against an apish former cokehead. You can't blame that on Nader.

Re:The man who put Bush in the White House

[rpillala]

No one but Gore is to blame for Gore not being able to get enough votes.

Re:The man who put Bush in the White House

[Jeff DeMaagd]

No one but Gore is to blame for Gore not being able to get enough votes.

I'd say that's probably the truth. If he could have carried his own state, he would have won.

Re:The man who put Bush in the White House

[kst]

I agree; the 2000 election shouldn't have been close. I've never understood why so many people voted for Bush in 2000, much less in 2004.

But even in 2000, Nader knew it was going to be a close election, he knew he had no real chance of winning, and he knew that he would be taking more votes away from Gore than from Bush. Knowing all this, he ran anyway.

I'm not saying the Bush presidency is his fault (there were plenty of other factors in play), but if he had chosen not to run, there's a very good chance Bush would not have been sworn in on January 20, 2001. And Nader should have known this.

And no, it's not fair that a vote for a third-party candidate has nearly the same effect as a vote for whichever of the two major candidates you like least. There are electoral systems that don't have this problem, such as systems in which you rank all the candidates, so if your first choice loses you're still able to express a preference among the others. If Nader were out there advocating election reform, I'd have some respect for him.

Re:The man who put Bush in the White House

[zsau]

I'm not an American, and I don't understand what the obsession with carrying your own state is. Gore could've one if he'd carried Florida, but that's not his own state. Many people have different opinions from the people in their home state, and that's part of why they move around. Why do you (and others) single out his own state?

Re:The man who put Bush in the White House

[Cervantes]

No one but Gore is to blame for Gore not being able to get enough votes.

I'd say that's probably the truth. If he could have carried his own state, he would have won. What is this obsession with carrying your own state? Like, because you were born there, everyone has to vote for you? What, they should all remember you from the old days and know what a great guy you were? Or, just because you were born there, you must automatically share the social and political views of the majority?

Seriously, I'm much less worried about a state exercising their brainpower and voting according to their beliefs, than I am about everyone voting for Jack Johnson because he's a good ole' boy and it's about time we have someone from Tennessee in the House. Unlike that nasty northerner, John Jackson.

Re:The man who put Bush in the White House

[Scudsucker]

No one but Gore is to blame for Gore not being able to get enough votes.

And the Republicans who disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters in Florida. And the Republicans on the Supreme Court that stopped the recount for petty partisan reasons. And on Nader and the people voting for him for throwing the election to a man opposed to the entire Green Party platform, as opposed to the Democrat most aligned with it.

Re:The man who put Bush in the White House

[rpillala]

There certainly are other people responsible for Gore not winning, but the votes? Normally this kind of petty distinction wouldn't matter (i.e. getting the votes versus winning the election) but as you pointed out, the Supreme Court put a fine point on it. If Gore couldn't appeal to those voters who chose to vote for Nader, it's a reflection on Gore.

Re:The man who put Bush in the White House

[Copid]

No one but Gore is to blame for Gore not being able to get enough votes.

I agree that Gore did a terrible job of managing his campaign. How in the world did he let anybody take the environmentalist vote from him? That being said, there's an old saying that begins, "You can lead a horse to water..." If the Nader voters in Florida honestly thought that they were furthering their interests and beliefs by voting Nader, I don't know what to say. Maybe blaming them is like blaming toddlers for putting dangerous things in their mouths.

Nader's Ego in 2008

[Black Art]

In 2004 I listened to an interview with Ralph Nader and why he was running. It was very apparent by the end that he does not give a damn what happens if he runs, he is only concerned with feeding his ego. In fact he seems to think that the disaster of the last eight years is a validation of why he must run. He does not have a clue, nor does he want one.

Ralph needs to wake up and figure out just how much damage his running would cause.

A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.

Re:Nader's Ego in 2008

[maxume]

This seems to be a rather popular position. It embodies a rather dim view of Nader-nee-Dem supporters, unable to foresee Nader's inability to win, yanking the lever for their man, ignorant of the consequences. I don't think so. Your average voting, bipedal primate is wickedly good at applied game theory and certainly able to understand the two party situation endemic to presidential elections in the U.S.A., and the consequences of a third party vote.

I could get behind "Occasionally, a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.", but anything more than that is overstating the case, as the joker voting for Nader knows damn well what he is doing, so you can't really assume that they would have voted democratic without Nader in the picture.

Stated another way: If people who voted for Nader were interested in making sure McCain did not win, they would vote for the Democratic party candidate, rather than Nader. That they vote for Nader indicates that they could give a flip about the choice between the major candidates, so it is a bit of a stretch to assign them either way.

A vote for Nader is...a vote for Nader(and all that stands for), unless you think the person voting is a blithering moron.

I've never voted for Nader, and I've voted both Democratic and Republican in presidential elections, so let's not make this about me.

Re:Nader's Ego in 2008

[Fex303]

In 2004 I listened to an interview with Ralph Nader and why he was running. It was very apparent by the end that he does not give a damn what happens if he runs, he is only concerned with feeding his ego. In fact he seems to think that the disaster of the last eight years is a validation of why he must run. He does not have a clue, nor does he want one.

Pure character assassination with nothing backing it up. Care to add some actual quotes or examples? If not, -1 Troll.

Re:Nader's Ego in 2008

[blueg3]

I often think it's interesting that people blame third parties for a Democrat or Republican losing (somehow, neither the Democrat nor Republican are to blame).

It seems they've lost sight of the fact that most Americans don't vote. While some don't want to vote for an inappropriate reason, many don't vote because they feel none of the candidates represent their views. You can consider third-party voting a more vocal and obvious form of this same thinking -- since I think everyone voting third-party knows full well their candidate's realistic chances of winning. So the "blame" lies just as much with the tens or hundreds of millions of Americans whose concerns are not addressed by any of the candidates -- and ultimately, *that* is the fault of the candidates, the parties, and the system.

Re:Nader's Ego in 2008

[snl2587]

From the New York Times article today that announces he is, in fact, running:

"Not a chance," he said. "If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just pack up, close down, and re-emerge in a different form."

Since it's clear he holds views much closer to democrat than republican, why is he even running and raising the chance he'll be a spoiler again?

This is great news

[Billly Gates]

I want John McCain in the white house and I would love to see him tip it again.

You go Ralph. :-)

Re:if nader runs

[calebt3]

It's that logic that keeps Independents from winning in the first place.

Re:if nader runs

[ryanov]

You are supposed to vote for the candidate you wish to win, not the candidate that you think others will pick that you would be able to tolerate. You and those that do the same are missing the entire point of voting.

Granted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting/ would take care of that problem. But I don't think Republicans would ever win under those circumstances.

Re:if nader runs

[milsoRgen]

It's that logic that keeps Independents from winning in the first place. It's reality that keeps them from winning, it's about dollars and connections. And the only reason it is that way is because, in general, the American public is far to ignorant, self absorbed and lazy to elect any meaningful leaders.

Re:if nader runs

[milsoRgen]

You are supposed to vote for the candidate you wish to win That's great, but you must think of the greater good. Sure you may want Nader to win. But he won't. Why not place your vote with someone who actually has a chance of winning and might actually do some good for the people.

Re:if nader runs

[snl2587]

Which is how Bush gained the presidency. People went to the polls with their hearts and a false sense of morality instead of their minds.

This is a country we're talking about, not the leader of your local group. Use your head.

Re:if nader runs

[ggpauly]

This line of thinking perpetuates the two party duopoly. With strategic voting - advocated self-servingly by both major parties - we do not know who Americans really want for president (or any other office).

A system of Instant Run Off voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting or Condorcet voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method would eliminate the "spoiler effect" and might weaken the grip the major parties have on our government and treasury.

Re:if nader runs

[milsoRgen]

This line of thinking perpetuates the two party duopoly. Perhaps it does but until we actually get some measures in place that would allow the American will to be shown in elections, I'm going to ensure my vote remains effective by voting for viable candidates.

Who doesn't have a clue?

[xealot]

A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. People like you are the reason why America is locked into a two party system, with only the choice between the lesser of two evils. I voted for Nader in 2000, and if he wasn't on the ballot I still wouldn't have voted for Gore, or Bush for that matter. My vote for Nader was not a vote for Bush, and I doubt many of the other were either. I have no trouble believing that there are 5% of voters in America who feel the same and would never vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate because it's obvious that they are both in the pockets of lobbyists.

I'm sorry, but as a geek I'm only going to vote for someone with an ounce of intelligence and common sense, not the one who needs the votes to beat the greater of two evils. Nothing is ever going to change unless the greater population of the US realizes that professional politicians, regardless of party, are all the same. If you don't vote for who you actually want to win what is the point of living in a democracy, why not move to China?

Re:Who doesn't have a clue?

[Kjella]

A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. People like you are the reason why America is locked into a two party system, with only the choice between the lesser of two evils. Sorry, but it's really not his fault that the analysis is correct. Let's say you have a 60/40 spilt in Congress. Now, for some infinitesimal reason the 60% party splits right down the middle to two 30% parties. The voters haven't moved one bit, but they've lost all power to the 40% making up the minority. I mean seriously, it's like 30% want a slightly darker blue and 30% a slightly lighter blue, so let's go with the 40% that wants red. WTF? The US is recognized as a representative democracy, but that's the closest I've ever seen to an unrepresentative democracy (yes, I made that up). Either you have to try to change things within the big two parties or the only thing you'll achieve is to weaken everyone you partially agree with. A third party is an inherently unstable situation in the US system because they get far less power as two parties than as one, even though they have the same popular support. It's the system that'd have to change but you can be damned that it'll take a revolution to do since all those benefitting from it are those sitting in Congress.

Re:Who doesn't have a clue?

[CopaceticOpus]

It's not people like the parent poster who "are the reason why America is locked into a two party system." The two party system is the natural and only possible result of the way our government and our voting system is designed. It's not going to change because a small percentage of people decide to vote for a third party, and the idea that it will is simply wishful thinking.

I'm no fan of the two party system, and I would love to see it changed. But to do so would require a major overhaul of our voting system. A system such as Ranked Pairs or Range Voting would allow other parties to become more relevant. (See Wikipedia for nice descriptions of these systems.) Unfortunately, I don't know of any realistic way to push for such a change.

In the meantime, we're stuck with our two parties. Since you say you're a geek, you should approach this logically, and place your vote where it has the best possible outcome. Your comments about all politicians being the same and moving to China are just emotional tripe. The fact that both choices are flawed doesn't mean that one can't be significantly better than the other. Until you can manage to change the system, sometimes you just have to work within it.

Re:Who doesn't have a clue?

[Malkin]

Now, don't go blaming Black Art for the evils of the two-party system. Neither Black Art, nor people like him/her are the reason we are locked into a two-party system. The reason we are locked into a two-party system is because of the way our voting system works. Black Art is merely exposing one of the darker consequences of our flawed system: tactical voting. Tactical voting is inherent in our system, and is not going to go away tomorrow, so if you give a damn about this stuff, settle in with some coffee, and read up.

The United States uses a First Past the Post (FPP) system for voting for presidents. This system is not very expressive. We have one vote, and that one vote is a 100% vote. We have no way to indicate preference (or, for that matter intense distaste) across our slate of available candidates. We have no way to throw our weight behind a beloved long-shot, without giving up the opportunity to also express a preference for a candidate who has a greater likelihood of success, or to express an intense opposition to another. We cast our ballot impotently, able to paint in one color, when really, our will is better expressed with many.

In our current system, the rise of a third (or fourth, or fifth) dominant party is downright dangerous. The more you divide the field, the smaller a percentage of the population needs to support a candidate for that candidate to win. A radical nutbag faction could throw its weight intensely behind one terrible candidate, and win the Presidency, when multiple more reasonable candidates were available. Moreover, even when confronted with the atrocities this terrible president has committed, the majority may find it impossible to unseat him, because the people have chosen disparate candidates to throw their weight behind.

Having two dominant parties masks this flaw, and protects us from it, to a degree. We're still often electing presidents who couldn't even manage to scrape together a majority of the electorate (and, in some cases, couldn't even get the most votes, period), but we haven't seen the worst it can do... yet.

Duverger's Law even goes so far as to suggest that two party systems develop spontaneously, in voting systems such as ours.

If you hate the two-party system (as you seem to), you shouldn't be trying to convince realists like Black Art that they're wrong. Because, well, frankly, he isn't. What you should be trying to do is encourage our country to choose a new system for voting. It's not such a radical idea. There are many countries that use other approaches. Wikipedia has a great article on voting systems, if you want to know about some alternatives.

Re:Who doesn't have a clue?

[Eskarel]

With the way the American political system is set up, a vote for a third party is a vote for the major party which is most against your ideals. This is a fact of life.

If you want to change that, campaign for instant run-off voting in federal elections. Write your congress critter, put your little geeky heart and soul into it, because until you get run-offs third parties in the US are screwed.

That's not to say that third parties do particularly well anywhere in the western world, and they're never likely to work particularly well in a non parliamentary system, but at least with run-off voting when you vote for Nader and Nader doesn't win, your vote goes to someone who can(in the Australian system where I live now, it's either the person you specifically said would be your next choice or whoever the party/person you've voted for has negotiated for the votes to go to).

You still end up with the same schlubs in office, but at least you get to show who you really wanted to vote for and if enough people agree with you you could actually put someone in.

Also get over your self righteous bullshit. I know you hate the majority parties, and I know they have a lot of faults. Nader was a good candidate(a little unrealistic, but a good one), but if you think that voting with your heart was worth 8 years of dubya then you're an asshat.

Re:Who doesn't have a clue?

[blueg3]

It's not correct. Among the many faults of this argument, I'll pick the simplest, for brevity.

Say it's between Obama and McCain. Nader, along with many other third parties and independent candidates, is also running. The claim is "a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain".

Consider a person who would not have voted for either Obama or McCain. A vote for Nader is equivalent to a vote for nobody.

Consider a person who would have voted for Obama, if Nader wasn't running. Voting for Nader decreases Obama's "potential votes" by one, and doesn't affect McCain. If that person had instead voted for McCain, it would decrease Obama's potential votes by one and increase McCain's votes by one -- twice the effect. Here, again, voting for Nader is like not voting -- in much the same way that if Obama lost, a vote for McCain "was" a vote for nobody -- something McCain supporters probably wouldn't agree with.

Even the above is predicated on the idea that it's appropriate to narrow the acceptable choices in an election to the two "most popular" candidates and that you "owe" your vote to whichever of these two candidates the general populace considers closer to your ideology.

Re:Who doesn't have a clue?

[Copid]

Say it's between Obama and McCain. Nader, along with many other third parties and independent candidates, is also running. The claim is "a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain".

True, i's simplistic. I'd rephrase it, "A vote for Nader is skipping an opportunity to prevent policies that you disagree with."

Re:Who doesn't have a clue?

[blueg3]

Well, that much is true -- but bear in mind that someone who agrees with Nader might consider both (Democrat) and McCain to share a policy that they disagree with. Granted, voting for Nader won't stop that, because he won't win, but it draws attention to an issue.

As far as drawing attention goes, Nader is pretty good at that. Whether or not it's productive, I'm not sure.

Doesn't surprise me.

[Valdrax]

After all Rick Santorum's campaign directly funded putting a Green party candidate on the ballot in 2006 to try to take votes away from the Democratic front-runner, Casey. It didn't work out for him in the end, but it shows just how little principle was involved with either side of that cold-blooded, strategic transaction.

I'll bet we see a lot of Republican money flowing into Nader's coffers if he announces a run.

Wasteful Voting

[mqduck]

The two-headed beast known as Tweedledeeum has something like a 101% chance of winning. Truly, if you don't like the beast, nothing can be a greater waste of your vote than to give it to either of its heads, Dee or Dum. The Iraq War, for instance, is a lost cause and will be given up soon, no matter which branch of rhetoric the president subscribes to. Don't forget that the Vietnam war began under a Democratic president and ended under a Republican one. Despite the common, status-quo-serving wisdom, I insist that the only way for your vote to mean a goddamn thing is to vote for a third party.

(Personally, I'm hoping Cynthia McKinney wins the Green Party nomination. She's the one I'd most like to campaign for, though I'm a big Nader fan too.)

Re:Wasteful Voting

[snl2587]

Don't forget that the Vietnam war began under a Democratic president and ended under a Republican one

Gee, haven't heard that one before...I'm glad you enjoy looking at a single fact in a long conflict.

Despite the common, status-quo-serving wisdom, I insist that the only way for your vote to mean a goddamn thing is to vote for a third party.

I don't know about that, but I do know that with today's system voting for a third party certainly makes your vote means you enjoy pretending that your single vote can make a difference. Seriously, you're not going to change anything by voting for a third party; at best a person you can tolerate will win the election, and at worst...well...you get the picture. Sure, it may seem like voting for a third party is an exercise of freedom, but at the moment, it's nothing more than an exercise in futility.

In response to the parenthetical statement, I hope that the Green Party does not vote for Nader. In the last two elections the people have spoken and not voted for Nader in increasing numbers. At the very least they should nominate someone else no one will vote for.

And for the record, I don't agree 100% with the Democratic party but I'd much rather have them win. It would be nice if we had a multiple-party system in which other parties stood a chance, but we won't anytime in the near future. And no, even mobilizing a large amount of voters for a third party won't make that change because they're highly unlikely to win enough states over to win the electoral college.

Re:if nader runs

[cayenne8]

I don't know, many republicans do not think McCain Is much of a 'current' style republican. I hope not neo cons have stolen the party from true conservatives. I long for fiscal conservatives and lovers of smaller govt.

Re:if nader runs

[notamisfit]

If you're hoping for a fiscal small-government conservative, you're shit out of luck with McCain. Really, he's the worst of all worlds, simultaneously selling the country down the river to the religious wackos, the welfare statists, and the greens. No one else on the Republican side, not even Ron Paul, is a hell of a lot better. Really, my plan for this election is to vote Democrat and hope for gridlock. I despise their ideas, but at least they come from policy makers rather than invisible men in the sky.

Re:if nader runs

[ryanov]

If I were convinced that the one of the other candidates were better for the greater good, I'd have been voting for them from the get-go.

Re:if nader runs

[ryanov]

Don't be a jackass. If Gore ran a good campaign, he'd have won. Hell, if he took a stand on important issues, I'd have voted for him. He didn't. I voted for the best candidate. It's not my fault that you, and many others, didn't. If anyone failed America, it was the folks who voted Democrat while they weren't worth voting for.

Nader about Nader, not building a strong 3rd party

[leftie]

Right now, the primary obstacle to building a strong progressive 3rd party is Ralph Nader. There's going to be no building of 3rd parties as long as they remain focused only on Presidential candidates and campaigns. There will be no strong 3rd party movement without a heck of a lot of hard work building a real grassroots party structure down at the local and state levels, and getting new methods of voting like instant runoff voting in place.

Nader disappears most of the time when it's time to do the hard work of party building, and then parachutes in again when the cameras arrive.

Standard Nader stuff, though. Nader has a decades long history of letting others bust their ass on projects for years/decades, then Nader arrives just at the moment that the work begins to produce results, and then kick the other activists that did the work out of the way of his camera time.

Nader also has a long history of treating people who work for him like crud. Nader has a bad rep around DC because of all the lower level people he's treated like crud through the years.

Green Party isn't going anywhere until they free themselves of Nader.

So how about Warren Buffett?

[tomhudson]

Its not like he doesn't have name recognition, and he already has enough money that he doesn't have to steal more for his friends, like BushCheneyHalliburton.

Re:So how about Warren Buffett?

[tverbeek]

How much of Warren Buffett's "name recognition" has him confused with Warren Beatty or Jimmy Buffett? Is he really all that well known by voters who don't read The Wall Street Urinal?

Re:So how about Warren Buffett?

[that this is not und]

You spelled McChimpyBushaliburton wrong, moron.

Re:if nader runs

[ryanov]

If you're voting based on what other people will do, your vote already means nothing.

Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[sethawoolley]

The range of bills the Republicans and Democrats will vote on is a mere fraction of bills third parties would offer for a vote.

The Democrats and Republican work in the committees that get bills onto the floor. So we only see their minor differences.

It really only looks like they are widely disagreeing, but it's all a show. They all support uncontrolled capitalism, the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and corporate control.

Do you not see the fallacy you're making? It's pure selection bias.

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[Russ Nelson]

You get uncontrolled capitalism when the government passes legislation that stops competition. Free-market capitalism (which, I must note, not many capitalists support) is very much controlled by customers, who are vicious in their lack of loyalty.

Oh, and if capitalism caused the poor to become poorer, then how do you explain the fact that the poor in capitalist countries are much better off than the poor in socialist countries? (and don't give me the Nordic countries -- they're capitalist countries with a socialist veneer.) Or if you don't like that comparison in space, let's try a comparison in time: why are the poor in capitalist countries richer than the poor in the same countries before they were capitalist?

Or do you not actually believe that the poor are richer, and were just tossing off a cliche?

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[sethawoolley]

Oh, great, Russ Nelson, self-claimed "angry economist" replies to me with doublethink: "control creates uncontrol". That's a gem.

Listen, Russ, I'm a capitalist _and_ a socialist. I strongly believe in market economies. I also believe in a welfare state and decentralized planning in economies. Those are controls on a capitalist economy that are really what have enabled the poor in western countries to not be so poor as most centrally-managed economies. Stick your head in the sand all you want and try to disagree, but at least don't spout contradictory assertions like you did here. I'm a strong supporter of national single-payer health care implemented at the local level, managed by doctors, medical service delivered in private practice (I used to work for a 20-doctor medical group), as well as a national minimum income for the destitute and the culturally artistic who can contribute to our creative commons. That won't destroy our economy. That's just being nice. I make a six figure salary and want to make sure people who aren't as gifted as I am have the benefits of modern society as well, since everybody's taxes help support the road network that spatial software (which I write) operates on. Maybe you don't -- perhaps that also separates us. I also ride my bike to work when it makes sense (which turns out to be most of the time). If I got a minimum income, one thing's for sure, all my software would be open source (not just what I can afford to open up). All the private businesses that want to make more than the minimum income would be able to use all that infrastructure for free -- I think that would be a very cooperative arrangement.

At no point, though, would I take anybody's right to do business in a private capacity, or even to do pretty much whatever they wanted. Sometimes, though, we recognize that certain behaviors are not only unethical, but inherently bad enough that we should protect consumers.

You're probably going to ridicule income taxes as immoral at some point, as they fuel a national minimum income. But seriously, though, what's fundamentally wrong with progressive taxation? You had to give a little back to the society that enabled you to aggregate its wealth? You would overthrow the government for trying to redistribute wealth in rather light moderation? Listen Russ, the rich are rich enough everywhere the rich are. They don't need another jacuzzi, and it's not a "human rights" issue that we'll force you to share. It's an issue of human decency. If you really don't want to share, leave the U.S. and go to a Banana Republic or an island nation you can buy where human decency is not a concern.

But back to uncontrolled capitalism -- even you must acknowledge that there must be limits to capitalism -- no murders, for example. Should we buy and sell murdering? Taking your rights away when you murder somebody is totally cool in your book, yes? "free market" capitalism is just a meaningless word, Russ. What's "free" is what's at issue for most capitalists (you and me included). Or do you /really/ want "uncontrolled greed" running everything? Do you? Are you actually Gordon Gecko?

And I know you're probably going to say that the distinction between murder and income taxation is that murder is infringing on the rights of the person murdered. That's a great distinction, but it's arbitrary, Russ. It also doesn't work. If the poor aren't allowed to participate in the economy and buy your shit, then who's left to benefit? Who's able to buy from you? If only ten people control all the wealth, they only end up trading with themselves, and the rest are left behind. The question, then is, who should be left behind? Fundamentally, a totally "free" market, even with the libertarian distinctions on freedom and constraint, implies that the poor should be left behind. I think that's a moral issue that conflicts with your arbitrary definition of "rights". The right to be sheltered and fed could very well be a "right" that when integrated

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[Hubbell]

All I hear from you is "I know what's best to spend the money YOU earned so give it up."

Who the fuck are you to take money at gunpoint from someone simply for earning it?

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[Hubbell]

My statement refers only to the federal government, which has no place instituting a success tax. There is no need for the income tax federally, and it should be done away with.

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[sethawoolley]

My statement refers only to the federal government, which has no place instituting a success tax. There is no need for the income tax federally, and it should be done away with. Your statement didn't refer to the federal government. Your rhetorical question about the use of force was just as valid for states is it is for the feds.

I sympathize with moving the income tax from the feds to the states because the feds should not be the place where most implementation should occur. The feds should give money right back to the states for implementation and local control. But there's no fundamental reason they can't be the main tax collector for all the states.

However, there's a practical reason why we should remove the income tax from the feds and move it to the states:

It's true that the feds, through Supreme Court decisions, have gained the presumptive power that they are allowed to go beyond the tenth amendment by using its tax collected money to influence states to do what it wants through earmarks and conditions on receiving federal funds. That's reason enough to oppose federal tax collection unless we are able to reverse that decision, which won't happen until and unless the Supreme Court loses its neoconservative elements.

If you had a rational reason like that, and could articulate it intelligently, maybe people would take you seriously, but the way you acted here just made the responder presume you're a small-minded, reactionary idiot that is forced to backpedal when somebody replies with perfectly valid critiques of their sweeping, general statements.

The ironic thing is that the critique the AC gave wasn't all that coherent and strong (as it was mostly a rant, but your rant met a rant, so that's not all that unexpected), and I think you could have defeated it, but instead, you backpedaled.

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[sumdumass]

I was with you until I read a paragraph you wrote then reread your post after considering this. It is a fundemental difference in some things that I need to take issue with.

But seriously, though, what's fundamentally wrong with progressive taxation? You had to give a little back to the society that enabled you to aggregate its wealth? You would overthrow the government for trying to redistribute wealth in rather light moderation? Listen Russ, the rich are rich enough everywhere the rich are. They don't need another jacuzzi, and it's not a "human rights" issue that we'll force you to share. It's an issue of human decency. If you really don't want to share, leave the U.S. and go to a Banana Republic or an island nation you can buy where human decency is not a concern.

First, I personally don't have a problem with a progressive tax system until it becomes an entitlement and is used to remove the responsibility of a portion to pay taxes at all. And I especially object to our way of giving earned income credits resulting in refunds in excess of the amounts of taxes paid in. It could go a lot further providing child care, educational opportunities or whatever else that could increase that person's income to a more livable state then giving them a paltry 1-2 grand a year because they have a few kids. This being said, it isn't the progressive tax, it is the abuse of it without a meaningful gain that I object to.

But you mentioned You had to give a little back to the society that enabled you to aggregate its wealth?. This is fundamentally wrong. Society doesn't enable you to do anything. It might allow opportunities to exist, but you enable yourself to do whatever. Whenever a society attempts to enable something, they are essentially taking certain freedoms away and disabling other legal and ethical actions or raising the bar for entry into it. Very few people who have amassed wealth attribute it to the society enabling them to do something. they attribute it to decisions they made or decisions people around them made. Expecting society to enable or provide leads us to one sides wealth opportunities where the rich get richer because they are the only ones who can afford to make money. Everyone else is subjected to getting "paid" money or payments for their part in helping a rich person make money and create wealth.

Another thing is, that you address need to someone's ability to do with what they earned. Whether they made it or earned it, it is theirs. While a jacuzzi isn't a human right, owning, keeping and disposing of property is. It doesn't matter if this is a jacuzzi, a car, a house, a telescope or microscope, money "paid or earned or made", owning property and doing as you wish is a fundemental human right. One of the reasons we have the problems we have is because people make claims to what others need and don't need then attempt to act on it. It doesn't matter if we are talking about theft, taxes, or minimum-maximum earnings, it creates problems that shouldn't exist. If it wasn't for this thing alone, there probably wouldn't be any banana republics for someone who disagrees with to go to.

In all, I think your one paragraph pretty much changed the entire context of the rest of what you said from a reasonable position to an unreasonable one. If you think you make too much money and own more to the government or society, cut them a check. Pay extra on your taxes. Give to charities, start a charity of your own, give money to people specifically, buy them clothing, do whatever you want. Just don't force it on others by claiming they don't need something or attempting to manipulate society so that it provides and ends up locking people into compensated slave labor positions. An yes, I would say you are in that position seeing how you receive a check from someone else for your role in making them wealthy (even if it is the government you work for).

Not everyone can be in a position of creating wealth and money, but the choice should at least be theirs and not some implementation of society.

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[sumdumass]

The entire point of progressive taxation is to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Your point here amounts to saying, "I don't mind transfering from the rich to the poor as long as the formula used has a certain arbitrary mathematical property of being straight linear without an offset coefficient below which the transfer will actually happen without having to use social programs as the circuitous route with which we do the wealth distribution. I would think somebody who doesn't like big government programs would rather just cut them a check they can use rather than force them to sign up for some titular entitlement program that you in fact don't like anyways.

No, the entire point of progressive taxation is that there are certain needs of a society and those who are more capable of paying for them, pay a larger chunk of the costs. The only redistribution would be in the not charging as much to the poorer people. There is nothing arbitrary about it except what the government needs to be effective. And the government doesn't need to give things to people outside a few very basic things like security by a police fire and emergency medical services, roads adequate enough for commerce, sanitation and possible public education to a certain degree.

It sounds like you're ok with transfering money to government as long as it never helps the poor, and instead only helps the people who are paying. Why not just come out and say that? It's probably because you've heard an attack on entitlement programs and don't really understand that the people who masterminded these attacks that you're just supposed to "go along with like a sheep" are doing it because they don't want to ever help the poor by force.

Lol.. If I had my way, anyone making an income would be paying a tax so yea, helping people who are paying is close to an accurate wording. But more importantly, I don't think it is the role of the government to be helping anything. It needs to get out of the road and most the poor will find incomes.

You haven't come out and said that you don't believe in indirect entitlement programs (e.g. welfare, universal health care, national minimum income), so I have to ask, do you?

I'm not against the government regulating health care to a certain extent but I am a firm believer in that the so called problems we think we are having today is a direct result in the government getting involved. The have regulated business to the point that the bar for entry is beyond most people's aspirations. They have created the positions of welfare by part of this. They have totally screwed up the medical providers and insurance industries. Medical in the US was affordable until the government started mucking around with the HMO act of 73-74. They got into the business of providing medical payments that were at one time above the going rates which caused the rate to increase. It's $1500 for a simple MRI scan, there is nothing causing the costs to b that high, it is only that way because people will pay it. and when I say people, I really mean the government thru welfare, medicare, or insurance.

And no, I am not against a minimum wage, I would be against a minimum income though. Fresh and inexperienced workers aren't as productive as seasoned workers. We need a way to pay them less while they gain experience and develop trade skills. The idea of a minimum wage has grown from a minimum you can pay an inexperienced person to something you need to live from. In my younger years, the only time you made minimum wage, which was $3.35 and hour- just up from $2.85 a few years before I started working, was when you were i high school or just out of it or in retirement looking for a little extra income. People didn't live of off minimum wage jobs, even the dishwashers at the restaurants where paying more then minimum wage for dishwashers and bus boys if you had experience. Of course the inflation of the 70's and the

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[sethawoolley]

1) liberty == freedom, but to you it doesn't. Strange

2) You don't care about the poor. You said so yourself.

3) How they are poor and whether or not specific individuals contribute doesn't change the validity of any of the arguments. Take those same people who are great con artist beggars, stop them from begging so that begging becomes pointless, and they'll likely get a legitimate job in sales to make extra money.

4) I was referring to San Francisco, where they have tourist pressure to give them money. In Portland, Oregon, where I am now, we rarely see homeless people -- the legitimately homeless get free housing and the vagrants get free bus tickets out of town. Every now and then I still see a hitch-hiking student begging on a corner, but they're never in rags. The policy's been a success. They just implemented it in the last couple years, and before then I worked with business groups that had problems with vagrants. The change has been pretty solid. My wife worked for the county psychiatric crisis center for a few years as a crisis assistant -- we know the mentally ill and homeless issues pretty well first-hand.

Here in Portland, people move here to have a "high tax, high benefits" system. We have excellent public transit (no fare downtown, includes aerial tram, system funded via an employer-paid tax) and the best library system in the country for a city its size (as well as the world's biggest book store). Free wifi at the airport. (I rarely see that when traveling!) We have both the smallest park and the largest forested city park in the country. Every other city is in a recession, and Portland is still experiencing housing stability. A house a block away is being flipped -- went to the open house today. They are asking 80k over what they paid and they expect it to close in a week.

Places like Bush-run Florida are crashing like crazy, but up here in Portland, we're sitting pretty. We also have the highest percentage of bike commuters of any city in the country (4% and rising) and the city has created special bike boulevards and bike boxes to protect bikers from cars. It's turning into what San Francisco was and is no longer. Oregon created bottle and can recycling. We created the urban growth boundary system and extensive land use regulations. Portland passed an income tax when the Republican rest of the state was trying to defund schools at the state capital. Fortunately, Democrats swept into office because of that and the rest of the state got funded schools only a short while later. Republicans created the recycling laws, cleaned up the Willamette River, instituted land use regulations (Governor Tom McCall). Now the Democrats and Greens are the ones fighting to keep those regulations in place -- and winning! The Republicans changed tacts and squandered their leadership here. Now they are a minority.

Choose not to live here, and I won't move to where you are. You don't see the poor, but the numbers show that the poor are more numerous per capita in red states than in blue states.

You're so inconsistent -- you laud how regressive your area is in telling people to just get a job, and then you say, but if the government got out of the way, corporations would step up and handle the problem. They don't:

http://www.everychildmatters.org/homelandinsecurity/table-01a.html

Plus, maybe you think the poor can just move? Really? Children can't just "move".

Rural and Red areas consistently show higher child poverty levels. Oregon still has some pockets of Red and thus child poverty, but it's gotten a lot better than the purely red states like Texas.

Where do you live that is such a cool "no poverty, nor taxes here" zone? Or are you not going to say where you live so I can show how wrong you are?

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[The One and Only]

See, Russ, we're not all that much different. We just believe in a more progressive umbrella of rights than you do. Richard Dawkins discusses this in his recent book, The God Delusion if you're interested in a more modern discussion of rights than you'll find in Locke, Hume, and Friedman.

Or, instead of Dawkins, you could read actual political philosophers of the past century or so, instead of a windbag biologist. That guy's getting more annoying than Chomsky. You should also read philosophers who don't work so much in terms of rights, if you really want to broaden your perspective.

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[sethawoolley]

Hi, thank you for the feedback.

However, I'm only using the word "right" in the discussion because that's the language the libertarians are familiar with. They don't understand any other.

I'm quite familiar with philosophers that don't work in terms of "rights". Baby steps, baby steps.

I don't actually consider most people who call themselves philosophers as philosophers these days, however. To me, THEY are the tired windbags who can't keep distinctions separate and thoughts straight in their heads, specifically the postmodernists.

Dennett, Pinker, Dawkins, and others like them are the real public intellectuals of our era. If you want to complain about somebody who acts like Chomsky, maybe a Hitchens would have been a more accurate reference.

Though, some political philosophers were on the right track -- Rawls, for instance, so I don't count them all out.

If you don't have an understanding of ethology from a biological perspective, you're not going to be able to understand human nature at all.

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[The One and Only]

Daniel Dennett is a philosopher. So were Rawls and Nozick, who both have more interesting things to say about political philosophy than Dawkins. It sounds like your problem isn't with philosophy, but with continental philosophy--the analytic tradition, which dominates philosophy in the English language, has no problem keeping distinctions separate and thoughts straight, and has focused strongly on that goal.

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[sethawoolley]

Yes, that's exactly right, although I still like reading Nietzsche for entertainment purposes, but he was writing before the rise of European fascism caused the analytic philosophers to jump ship to England and the US -- skipping France altogether. ;)

The two women in my life, my wife (has a politics degree and introduced me to Rawls/Nozikc, etc.) and my sister (has a degree in philosophy (continental) and introduced me to continental philosophy) and I (computer science -- interested in the AI perspective like Dennett and the Santa Fe Institute and the analytic philosophic tradition from Wittgenstein, Frege, Carnap, Ayer, Popper, Reichenbach, Russell, etc.) have frequent discussions on politics. All generally left of center, but different nonetheless.

Speaking of that, ever since the Sokal affair, I haven't talked much with my sister ;).

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[sumdumass]

1) liberty == freedom, but to you it doesn't. Strange

Liberty means specifically freedom from certain oppressions and political influences. We are talking about politics and the use of the terms in the context of the use in the constitution. It means freedom from coercion of government. In modern times, they seem to express this as negetive liberty which is described as an individual is protected from tyranny and the arbitrary exercise of authority.

That is not what you want to do. And if you look at Jefferson's or about any other account of the day, you will find that as accurate. Are you basing your political ideal on a rebranded definition that you found in a dictionary or something?

2) You don't care about the poor. You said so yourself.

Who fucking cares? I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Even though I already explained the thought here, you seem to be focused on this one thing. Let me do it again, The poor had nothing to do with what I was saying. The scale between rich and poor is arbitrary anyways. You can have everyone making at least $100,000 a year in todays current economic environment and they would be poor by the definition. Poor seems to be some magical rallying cry to you that offers a way to demonize people you don't agree with. That is not helping anyone as you incorrectly think you are doing.

Besides, why all the focus on me not caring about the poor? You said you don't care enough about they yourself. You claimed to pull a 6 digit income but can't donate to charities, you can't donate more in taxes, you can't start a charity or do a good deed yourself. No, you stated that you needed everyone else's money. You even mad the statement that you need the venture capitol funding that resulted in you getting the 6 figure income to help the poor because your too greedy to make a difference yourself. Those are your words that you offered for no apparent reason. You are the problem, not the solution.

3) How they are poor and whether or not specific individuals contribute doesn't change the validity of any of the arguments. Take those same people who are great con artist beggars, stop them from begging so that begging becomes pointless, and they'll likely get a legitimate job in sales to make extra money.

It changes everything. It they are poor because your political oppresion is forcing their job to move to other countries to remain competitive, you would be th reason they are poor. If your not willing to do something yourself, but demand that we take everyone else's money to fix the problem, you are not only a hypocrite, but you are failing to take action that you damn well could to further your cause.

And the worse part about this is that you are to stupid to see that you are the problem not the answer. You can't even keep a context straight which is probably why you believe the way you do. I never said all beggars are scam artists, I said some are and I said handing out money doesn't get them out of the problems they are in.

I was referring to San Francisco, where they have tourist pressure to give them money. In Portland, Oregon, where I am now, we rarely see homeless people -- the legitimately homeless get free housing and the vagrants get free bus tickets out of town. Every now and then I still see a hitch-hiking student begging on a corner, but they're never in rags. The policy's been a success. They just implemented it in the last couple years, and before then I worked with business groups that had problems with vagrants. The change has been pretty solid. My wife worked for the county psychiatric crisis center for a few years as a crisis assistant -- we know the mentally ill and homeless issues pretty well first-hand.

I'm familier with portland's policy. The homeless get more then free housing, they get help with their problems whether it is job orientation, mental help, education and

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[sethawoolley]

1) liberty == freedom, but to you it doesn't. Strange

Liberty means specifically freedom from certain oppressions and political influences. We are talking about politics and the use of the terms in the context of the use in the constitution. It means freedom from coercion of government. In modern times, they seem to express this as negetive liberty which is described as an individual is protected from tyranny and the arbitrary exercise of authority.

That is not what you want to do. And if you look at Jefferson's or about any other account of the day, you will find that as accurate. Are you basing your political ideal on a rebranded definition that you found in a dictionary or something?

Heh, I guess I should follow your definition of truthiness, not the dictionary.

2) You don't care about the poor. You said so yourself.

Who fucking cares? I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Even though I already explained the thought here, you seem to be focused on this one thing. Let me do it again, The poor had nothing to do with what I was saying. The scale between rich and poor is arbitrary anyways. You can have everyone making at least $100,000 a year in todays current economic environment and they would be poor by the definition. Poor seems to be some magical rallying cry to you that offers a way to demonize people you don't agree with. That is not helping anyone as you incorrectly think you are doing.

Besides, why all the focus on me not caring about the poor? You said you don't care enough about they yourself. You claimed to pull a 6 digit income but can't donate to charities, you can't donate more in taxes, you can't start a charity or do a good deed yourself.

I have a policy of donating only to political organizations so that people like you are forced to pay as well ;) Private donations simply aren't enough, and every dollar I donate to a political organization causes a 1000:1 effective tax change. I'm being about a thousand times more effective than you. Furthermore, I run candidates on third party tickets to force the other parties to concede votes where they normally are pro-corporate. We spent about a thousand dollars and ultimately got a vote against CAFTA, for example. That's real change for almost nothing.

No, you stated that you needed everyone else's money. You even mad the statement that you need the venture capitol funding that resulted in you getting the 6 figure income to help the poor because your too greedy to make a difference yourself. Those are your words that you offered for no apparent reason. You are the problem, not the solution.

I do need everybody else's money. My money is a one-time thing if I waste it on donating it to a non-profit org. that's apparently used for business networking by your friends. But political donations are the donation that keeps on giving.

3) How they are poor and whether or not specific individuals contribute doesn't change the validity of any of the arguments. Take those same people who are great con artist beggars, stop them from begging so that begging becomes pointless, and they'll likely get a legitimate job in sales to make extra money.

It changes everything. It they are poor because your political oppresion is forcing their job to move to other countries to remain competitive, you would be th reason they are poor. If your not willing to do something yourself, but demand that we take everyone else's money to fix the problem, you are not only a hypocrite, but you are failing to take action that you damn well could to further your cause.

And the worse part about this is that you are to stupid to see that you are the problem not the answer. You can't even keep a context straight which is probably why you believe the way you do. I never said all beggars are scam

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[sumdumass]

Heh, I guess I should follow your definition of truthiness, not the dictionary.

If your attempting to say that they historical context of a word doesn't mean anything when you are attempting to take someone else's words to champion your own cause, then you are worse off then I imagines. Your cause is most likely based on a pack of lies too. Of course that could explain your constant attempts to take things out of context and add implications that simply wasn't there.

I have a policy of donating only to political organizations so that people like you are forced to pay as well ;) Private donations simply aren't enough, and every dollar I donate to a political organization causes a 1000:1 effective tax change. I'm being about a thousand times more effective than you. Furthermore, I run candidates on third party tickets to force the other parties to concede votes where they normally are pro-corporate. We spent about a thousand dollars and ultimately got a vote against CAFTA, for example. That's real change for almost nothing.

That's just real nice. You have a policy of saying the poor deserve better but only if you can force someone else to help them. Your a class act here. You are essentially saying you need the poor to advance your causes but are unwilling to do anything about them yourself except exploit them to advance your causes. But it is some how OK in your mind because you are claiming to champion them when exploiting their needs for your own political gain.

I do need everybody else's money. My money is a one-time thing if I waste it on donating it to a non-profit org. that's apparently used for business networking by your friends. But political donations are the donation that keeps on giving.

Keep telling yourself that and you might sleep better at night. The simple truth is you are exploiting the less fortunate to advance your own political agenda. You are making excuses like your little bit of money doesn't compare to all the other people's money which you are envious over. And your too blind to see that when politician get elected on the backs of the poor, they need to keep them poor in order to get reelected. Why do you think that the problem hasn't been solved by now?

Heh, you're criticizing me for not mentioning how good the policy is from my policy views. The whole point of giving them housing is only the first step in a comprehensive plan, of course, and I pointed that fact out already.

No, I am criticizing you for not understand the positive benefits of portland's policy. You come across as if it is simple take and give. The bottom line is that it isn't. It is education, restructuring their lives and addressing the problems. Something that is totally different then what you are pushing.

They are bussed back to their families and support structures where they are often helped by other government entities already. If they have no place to go, then they aren't bussed anywhere. They aren't forced out.

Yes, they are bussed out to be someone else's problem. you can do a lot of good by pushing the problem people into some one else's house can't you.

And on your point, welfare states need protectionism such that they only provide assistance to the class of people under their umbrella. It's to make sure you guys are exposed to problems of your own creation. This is the problem Mexico is creating for the U.S. They support their people leaving Mexico.

And you think that is good or something? I mean you think it is good to bus the vagrants away.

That being said, if we have borders open to goods in the back of a truck but not to people, that's a grave miscarriage of justice and fairness.

The borders are open to people. They just need to sign their names at the gate instead of sn

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[sethawoolley]

I just looked up the 2008 median income tables published by the government:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/20080201/bci_data/median_income_table.htm

Oregon beats both Ohio and Florida in median income for every category except Ohio barely eeks out a win in the family of four median income. (The new growth in Oregon is in single and couples without children or with one child and in Hispanics with two or more kids -- you can see that would drag down the family of four count.)

http://lungaction.org/reports/stateoftheair2007.html

Air quality indexes show Oregon beating the shit out of Ohio and beating Florida in ozone and a wash in particulates.

I'm not sure where you got your numbers ridiculing Oregon.

Plus, what's this about alternative fuels? Alternative generation mechanisms is important. Hydro is an alternative generation mechanism that requires no fuel.

Wind energy requires no fuel either. Ohio has 7 megawatts and Florida doesn't even make the list. Oregon has 885 megawatts of wind generation and it's not a very big wind state.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/oregon.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/florida.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/ohio.html

From looking at the electricity profiles, Oregon creams Florida and Ohio in every measure across the board.

So, in all those things you've criticized Oregon for, it turns out it's all a pack of delusions.

In 2002, Oregon, under Republican control of its legislature, was dead last in children going hungry. Since then, under Democratic leadership, it's now up to 30th instead of 50th due to a concerted effort to open up accessibility to food stamps. Corporations could have stepped in at any point and helped out, but it took the government to do that.

How are you going to respond to that?

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[Scudsucker]

Conservatism: the rationalization of selfish elitism.

Low taxes have hight costs. You have more money and more freedom with taxes and government spending than you do without.

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[sumdumass]

I just looked up the 2008 median income tables published by the government:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/20080201/bci_data/median_income_table.htm [usdoj.gov]

Oregon beats both Ohio and Florida in median income for every category except Ohio barely eeks out a win in the family of four median income. (The new growth in Oregon is in single and couples without children or with one child and in Hispanics with two or more kids -- you can see that would drag down the family of four count.)

Unfortunately, those aren't real statistics. The are CPI adjusted numbers based off the 2006 numbers we were comparing earlier. They actually paint a worse picture for oregon then the other number we were talking about. You see, the take the latest numbers (2006 is the last consumer survey compiled I believe), adjust it for the inflation in the area and then it is used as a base income for a means test to decide if you make too much too much money or have too much asset value in order to file bankruptcy or certain types of bankruptcy. What it is showing is that Oregon had had an large amount of inflation (consumer price index increase which really isn't an inflation value but is treated as one).

The CPI is good for determining factors about the economy but currently they only survey about 7 major geographical areas with a few specific samples averaged in somehow. It is basically lumping Oregon in with california, Washington, Idaho and a few other states. It isn't a real reflection of median income but a projection of how much it would have to of increased to keep the same standards of living since the last survey was compiled.

Air quality indexes show Oregon beating the shit out of Ohio and beating Florida in ozone and a wash in particulates.

I'm not sure where you got your numbers ridiculing Oregon.

lol.. There we go with that context thing again. I never said anything about ohio'd particulate matter for one. For two, I specifically stated when comparing Oregon's non hydroelectric plants, Florida does a better job. Read that exactly as it says, when comparing kilowatt to kilowatt produced by the non hydro plants (that Florida simply can't use because it lacks the necessary rivers), Florida is better on emissions. This means that for the pollution Oregon does do, it does it better then Florida. Keep reading those pages and do the math. you will get to the same numbers and come to realize that when they put their mind to it, Oregon can pollute the best.

From looking at the electricity profiles, Oregon creams Florida and Ohio in every measure across the board.

Only if you count the hydro, which seeing how Florida has spent so much effort on their conventional plants, if they had the same hydro resources available, you wouldn't be able to casually say that.

So, in all those things you've criticized Oregon for, it turns out it's all a pack of delusions.

I don't know why I am still amazed at how ignorant you are. What it turns out to be is that you simply don't understand context and you simple don't understand the processes you are blindly championing. You seem to be willing to ignore anything that stand in the way or your Ideals. That what it turns out to be.

Lets look at some numbers. Oregon produces, by your own links, 53,340,695 megawatthours of electricity using primarily hydroelectric generation. For the non hydro plants, they produce about .5 thousand metric tons of sulfur dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide per megawatthour with about 293 thousand metric tons of Co2 for the same. In contrast, florida produces about 4.2 time the amount of electricity (223,751,621 megawatthours) with fossil fuels as their primary source and is the second largest electr

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[sethawoolley]

First, the updated median income figures were actually quite accurate according to HUD data. Interestingly the HUD data combines three different sources to figure out how to update their statistics. Some different census data:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/information_memoranda/im07-02.html

confirms that even based off 2005 data using whatever refresher to update to 2008 they use there, Oregon and Florida aren't all that much different. Ohio looks to be doing better likely due to their own Democratic administration.

The main point is that all the numbers vary so much that your argument that they are meaningful to compare (particularly since Oregon has a large rural population that brings down the state total) doesn't make any sense. Go to Portland and the incomes go up drastically (HUD website shows that as well, but they don't have permalinks to their data).

Second, I know you are saying we should leave hydro power out. I'm saying we should leave it in. Why should we leave it out? It's a renewable energy, and if Florida doesn't have renewable energy, then why would one live there knowing they are polluting by running computers?

Third, you say, "they are polluting on average as bad as Florida per megawatthour produced but do so using power stations that don't emit pollution into the air. Tell me, how it this not worse?"

Uhh, What numbers are you reading? Are you reading the Ohio numbers for Oregon? I see 293 vs 1247. It looks like you just multiplied a per megawatthour number with a correction factor for the megawatthours total difference to get the rest of the totals to match with Florida. You shouldn't multiply a per megawatthour number to get it to align for comparison -- it's already a normalized number for comparison! WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING?

Now you're saying I don't know how to look at statistics as a rebuke for another point, but you clearly misread the energy statistics that were the basis for that complaint. Hah! Maybe your mommy should look over your numbers instead of my mommy.

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[Hubbell]

I have less money and less freedom due to taxation being used to pay for ridiculous things such as the DHS, the Department of Education, and a whole host of other completely useless and unconstitutional programs/departments which do nothing but create bureaucracy upon bureaucracy and waste money without doing anything meaningful.

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[sumdumass]

First, the updated median income figures were actually quite accurate according to HUD data. Interestingly the HUD data combines three different sources to figure out how to update their statistics. Some different census data:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/information_memoranda/im07-02.html

Do you have a problem understanding the point of those figures? They aren't real numbers but adjusted numbers to show how poor a person is when attempting to get government benefits and filing bankruptcy. They are inflated due to the inflation of the area to provide an accurate idea of what it would take to live there. It isn't median income at all. Stop pushing it as so.

confirms that even based off 2005 data using whatever refresher to update to 2008 they use there, Oregon and Florida aren't all that much different. Ohio looks to be doing better likely due to their own Democratic administration.

Lol.. Ohio had 24 year of a republican administration. The democrat governor in charge got in office in 2006, one year after 2005. And BTW, is a democrat acted like you in Ohio, they wouldn't stay in office or ever go there. Not all democrats are doped out socialist who want to take everything. Actually, calling your style of politics a democrat ideal, is doing them a great injustice. There are only a few of them stupid enough to act like you.

The main point is that all the numbers vary so much that your argument that they are meaningful to compare (particularly since Oregon has a large rural population that brings down the state total) doesn't make any sense. Go to Portland and the incomes go up drastically (HUD website shows that as well, but they don't have permalinks to their data).

Ohio has just as much rural population. That's where our so called natural poverty rate comes from. Oregon is no different and Portland isn't the pickled ideal you claim. Hell look at the wikipedia article on it or just search for foreclosure rates and unemployment. There will be tons of newspapers and blog article discussing these problems. But more importantly, even if you count portland and oregon as a success, it pails in comparison with Florida's record that you summarily dismissed based on a name.

Second, I know you are saying we should leave hydro power out. I'm saying we should leave it in. Why should we leave it out? It's a renewable energy, and if Florida doesn't have renewable energy, then why would one live there knowing they are polluting by running computers?

Why do you leave hydro out? Well, that last set of math we did left hydro in. But the problem comes when you are just as much or more of a polluter when you do things the same. So for every non hydro power station, Oregon is producing more pollutants then Florida is. Look at it this way, If we both paint a house, and you use more pain then I do, we can assume a number of things. Your house might be bigger then mine or you waste paint. It turns out that you are waisting pain. So let say we have a lot of housed to pain. You decide to hirer someone to come in and reside some of the houses with a material that doesn't need paint because there is a suitable material (hydropower) that only you can use. Now it looks like I use more paint but the fact is different. You are using more pain per house actually painted then I am. SO sure, you are saving paint but you have done nothing to improve the quality of the paint job. When Oregon expands and needs more electricity (houses painted) they will run out of the natural water resource eventually and either have to buy from elsewhere or build more polluting plants.

Now when your comparing how much Florida pollutes to how much Oregon does, you need to look at the same types of production. It is call comparing apples to apples.

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[sethawoolley]

Photovoltaics are an inefficient source of power, have a short lifecycles, etc. Most places use solar-assisted water heating instead because per square foot it's more efficient at reducing the electrical load.

Wind power is available to Florida, as well, as they have lots of wind. If it gets too windy when storms come in, they can turn the blades.

And no, Florida has not done more to reduce their emissions, even to the fossil fuel portions that remain. The stats didn't show that. And no, you don't need to look at the same types of production.

Florida had a major power outage over its use of nuclear. Beaverton, OR had a substation explode and power was on sooner than a simple malfunction in the grid outside the nuclear plant. Oregon decommissioned the Trojan nuclear plant after it was shut down due to an equipment failure that forced it to shut down. The power company had ratepayers subsidize both the purchase and destruction of the plant (there's a line item on my power bill just for that). The company said it wasn't economical to reopen it.

And yet, some people still want nuclear. You don't factor in Florida's nuclear power, either. It's cleaner, right?

Re:Bills Nader would support never leave the table

[sumdumass]

Photovoltaics are an inefficient source of power, have a short lifecycles, etc. Most places use solar-assisted water heating instead because per square foot it's more efficient at reducing the electrical load.

Not the ones I have been looking into. They have 10-15 year life cycles and while not 100% efficient, they are 20% or better. Consider that against in my area when usable wind isn't available for more then 30% of the time. It seems that you might be stuck with your knowledge of 20 years ago.

Wind power is available to Florida, as well, as they have lots of wind. If it gets too windy when storms come in, they can turn the blades.

You need to explain these finding of yours to the government then. You see, they don't classify Florida as winding enough to make wind power more then a waist of money. Here, check for yourself Download the PDF linked to the first map. and it will give your the legend and reasoning for not listing FL (as well as other states) as usable or suitable for wind powered electric generation. I'm not exactly sure how you came across this information, but seriously, tell them about your revelations.

And no, Florida has not done more to reduce their emissions, even to the fossil fuel portions that remain. The stats didn't show that. And no, you don't need to look at the same types of production.

Lol.. First, yes you do need to look at similar means of production. Your claiing Oregon's Clean enviromentally friendly way is better then florida's whuich somehow makes Florida lacking. The problem is that Oregon is using resources that simply isn't availible in Florida. So when you look at the ones that are similar, you see a different picture. I know you don't like that picture but that is no reason not to view it.

Also the stats I showed weren't removing hydro power. That was with Hydro included. IF you take Oregon's production system as a whole (wind and hydro included), multiple it to produce the same output as Florida does, the pollution numbers are the same. This shows that Oregon, as a whole isn't as clean as Florida is when you consider how much of their system doesn't produce emissions at all. Now where this is really important to this conversation is where you incorrectly claimed Florida hasn't done anything and then attempted to base this off of the Bush name being involved.

Florida had a major power outage over its use of nuclear. Beaverton, OR had a substation explode and power was on sooner than a simple malfunction in the grid outside the nuclear plant. Oregon decommissioned the Trojan nuclear plant after it was shut down due to an equipment failure that forced it to shut down. The power company had ratepayers subsidize both the purchase and destruction of the plant (there's a line item on my power bill just for that). The company said it wasn't economical to reopen it.

Lol.. It wasn't over the use of nuclear. That was just an incidental factor of it that has no bearing to the loss or how long it was out. The substation's transformer spiked and cause a safety switch to shut down the reactor which over stressed other plants which caused them to trip the grid to isolate the issues. And no, the substation didn't explode either. But this is nothing new or specific to nuclear power. The blackout in the 80's and again in the 90's and who can forget the 2003 which was caused by similar things. One was a spike from a substation and solar activity and the other was faulty software that failed to relay it's condition after it saw a spike. Except instead of limiting it's effect to one state, they all covered almost the entire mideast and parts of Canada.

And the power station your talking about that was shut down. Your not bitching about it are you? I mean this entire thread start with you wanting to claim the governme

Gore is for carbon credits

[sethawoolley]

Which essentially means he wants to create a trading scheme on top of carbon, and the only way they can have value is that somebody would trade their right to call a generation mechanism carbon-free, so that carbon-consumption is something they are ok with -- they are ok selling it out.

So, you see, Gore isn't an environmentalist. He's a capitalist that wants to make money off of guilt -- guilt is the only way in which carbon credits have any meaning without real limits on carbon output (which don't exist). Moreover, carbon credits are fundamentally unfair. The rich get to buy their way out of carbon guilt!

Gore's a politician -- a salesman. He's sold the public, with his movie, carbon credits. After all of his speeches, he tells people they can all be carbon neutral if they just buy his promoted carbon credits!

I'm sorry, but the Greens were right to criticize him. He's just at the same old political lying.

Re:Gore is for carbon credits

[sethawoolley]

Say "High" to Rush for us. I'm sorry, do you mean the band or the talk show personality, and what does this have to do with anything? I'm just pointing out that Gore's policy proposals are flawed and don't actually solve the problems, however, they do create markets where there were not any (which is his ultimate goal). I don't think Rush would agree with that, either the Band or the Man.

Re:Gore is for carbon credits

[ConceptJunkie]

Wow, someone on /. recognizing Al Gore for the cynical Chicken Little huckster that he is. There really is hope in the world.

Re:Gore is for carbon credits

[ConceptJunkie]

I saw a bumper sticker that said "I can't hear you I'm listening to Rush" which I thought was incredibly cool until a friend pointed out that it almost certainly wasn't referring to the group. How silly of me. I'm a hardcore conservative and even _I_ think he's a big blowhard.

Re:Gore is for carbon credits

[Scudsucker]

and what does this have to do with anything?

Your repetition of lame right wing talking points, that's what. Say a coal plant would have to spend $5,000,000 to make a 20% reduction in emissions. But what if they could make an equal reduction in total emissions by buying $1,000,000 worth of Prius's? That's what carbon credits are for: reducing total emissions by allowing polluting companies to improve their infrastructure over time, and getting us moving on the path to a greener economy.

Re:Gore is for carbon credits

[sethawoolley]

and what does this have to do with anything?

Your repetition of lame right wing talking points, that's what. Say a coal plant would have to spend $5,000,000 to make a 20% reduction in emissions. But what if they could make an equal reduction in total emissions by buying $1,000,000 worth of Prius's? That's what carbon credits are for: reducing total emissions by allowing polluting companies to improve their infrastructure over time, and getting us moving on the path to a greener economy. Wow, you're a complete right-wing tool. The corporate "left" (Right-wing Democrats) love carbon credits because they don't actually hold anybody accountable and the rich can buy up the cheapest-to-offset offsets up while the poor are stuck forgoing all difficult-to-turn-renewable uses of carbon.

It's regulation the rich can get on board with.

Did you not understand the critique in the original post? I went into much more detail in my blog:

http://swoolley.org/blog.cgi/carbon%20offsetting%20is%20a%20ruse

In that post, I even talk about how to fix carbon credits to be more fair and thus something I could get behind that won't fuck over the poor, but until then, carbon credits are a corporate ruse, and you bough them, hook, line, and sinker.

Pat yourself on the back, brainwashed idiot.

Re:Gore is for carbon credits

[sethawoolley]

and what does this have to do with anything?

Your repetition of lame right wing talking points, that's what. Say a coal plant would have to spend $5,000,000 to make a 20% reduction in emissions. But what if they could make an equal reduction in total emissions by buying $1,000,000 worth of Prius's? That's what carbon credits are for: reducing total emissions by allowing polluting companies to improve their infrastructure over time, and getting us moving on the path to a greener economy. Wanted to add the obvious: say they bought a million dollars in prii. Their coal plant still emits greenhouse gases and eventually will have to be retrofitted anyways. There's no net savings. In fact, if they were incentivized to actually hit the coal plant by modernizing their fucking emissions system through innovative techniques that they could sell to other coal plants, they're likely to make a shitload of money and actually make a real dent in the problem.

All those prii, though? They are "offsetting" that coal, so anybody driving one is contributing in _real_ carbon figures the amount of a non-hybrid. They have to "sell out" to provide a _disincentive_ to the coal plant. See why that won't fucking work, idiot?

If not, then don't reply because you're clearly a dumbshit.

Re:Gore is for carbon credits

[Scudsucker]

Their coal plant still emits greenhouse gases and eventually will have to be retrofitted anyways. There's no net savings. If not, then don't reply because you're clearly a dumbshit.

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was dealing with a complete fucking idiot. Under the above scenario, the coal company made the same overall reduction in emissions and saved $4,000,000 in the process. If you can't understand something that damned simple, please do not have children for the sake of the gene pool.

Re:Gore is for carbon credits

[sethawoolley]

Their coal plant still emits greenhouse gases and eventually will have to be retrofitted anyways. There's no net savings.

Under the above scenario, the coal company made the same overall reduction in emissions and saved $4,000,000 in the process. They didn't save four million in the process. That carbon emission still has to be eliminated to be completely renewable, but it sounds like you don't care about making every use renewable in the long run. They just delayed their repairs so they could socialize the cost of innovation -- they might want to not innovate themselves and have somebody else to do it first to lower the cost. Whatever their reason, we shouldn't allow them to displace their guilt by raising the cost of cheaper renewables, which negatively affects the poor's ability to be credit-renewable themselves. You still haven't addressed any part of the other half of the carbon credit equation.

Why should that coal plant be able to pollute as it does without any incentive to improve beyond the cost of cheaper offsets? Any answer you give here will be just another right-wing excuse that the market is clearly enough of an incentive without integrating the externality of the type of carbon used up.

I see you didn't read my article on the subject.

Re:I can't be the only

[Russ Nelson]

--
The difficulty of libertarianism is not "I must be free"; but "That other jerk must be free as well." Ha! Ain't that the truth!

Re:to anyone thinking of voting for Nader in 2008

[ChrisMaple]

The claim that continued war in the midEast and a McCain presidency would harm the economy is unclear at best. Short term, of course, the war drains the economy, but the long-term danger of a successful militant Islam could do the economy, and our lives, horrific damage. McCain has a reputation as a budget-cutter and if he holds true to that, he will do tremendous good. Both Obama and Clinton want to tax and spend us into oblivion. Nader hates capitalism and would destroy the economy out of spite.

Hey Ralphie

[Ranger]

I hear that Mike Gravel is looking for a Vice Presidency.

An american political primer

[westlake]

What the U.S. needs is a parliamentary system with the possibility of coalition governments so that candidates aren't forced into one of two molds.

Party discipline as the European understands it does not exist in the American system.

The national political party does not exist as the European understands it.

Coalitions are forged internally within the Democratic and Republican parties. They are built from the ground up and can be remarkably stable once forged.

But when they collapse they "go all at once and nothing first, just like bubbles when they burst."

Re:if nader runs

[snl2587]

I take it you're a Republican, then?

Re:if nader runs

[snl2587]

After reading some of your other comments in the article, I retract that statement as the true political leaning is clear.

I do have one thing to say though: relax.

Before you take the scapegoating too far...

[greenguy]

... let me point out several things you appear to have overlooked.

1. Gore won. There is no question that Gore won the popular vote. It was our outdated (and I question whether it was ever in date) Electoral College for the highly improbably but all-too-real situation where the candidate who came in second might actually win.

2. Gore won. The Supreme Court cut off recounts at a very convenient time for the son of the man who put several of them there. So much for the balance of powers.

3. Voter disefranchisement. African Americans were presented with many obstacles to voting, as has been well-documented in Florida in 2000, and in Ohio in 2004. As much as I'd personally like to think they were there to vote for Nader, the fact is, they overwhelmingly supported Gore (Kerry). And I'll just mention the difficulties people had with the ballots in passing. All these are, of course, merely emblematic of systemic problems in all 50 states, plus our assorted territories.

4. Gore lost Florida fair and square.
4a. There were a string of other third parties on the ballot, mostly on the left, who presumably "took votes from Gore." Can you name them? Did you know they added up to more than 534 votes?
4b. Vastly more registered Democrats voted for Bush than total people voted for Nader. Reread that sentence as many times as it takes.
4c. There is no -- I want to make this very clear -- no reason to presume had Nader not been on the ballot in 2000, his would-be voters would hae automatically gone to Gore. That's sheer arrogance. A handful would have, yes, but a lot would have gone to other leftist parties, a number would have gone Libertarian, and an awful lot would have abstained. Notice: please do not respond merely to the word "handful" outside the larger context of this message. Thank you.

5. Gore lost Tennessee and Arkansas. His own home state. Clinton's home state. 'Nuff said.

Re:Before you take the scapegoating too far...

[kingduct]

I think it is also worthwhile to add two more items to the list:

6. The Democrats were complicit in the creation of a system that allowed the parent poster's points to be true.

7. The Democrats have done nothing to reform that system in such a way that the parent poster's points couldn't be repeated. In fact, they have been complicit in making that system stronger (corrupt electronic voting).

The Democrats are to blame if they don't win elections...that said, I hope they are able to win some elections this year. I also hope they realize that improving the election system will help both themselves and others.

Re:Before you take the scapegoating too far...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Gore won. There is no question that Gore won the popular vote. It was our outdated (and I question whether it was ever in date) Electoral College for the highly improbably but all-too-real situation where the candidate who came in second might actually win.

Gore lost. That isn't the first time that has happened, and discrepancies between popular vote and electoral results occurs sometimes in the first-past-the-post electoral system.

Gore lost under the electoral college system which has been in place for centuries. The electoral college reflects the fact that the president is elected by the United States of America, which is why Puerto Rico and Guam don't vote for president. If you don't like the rules, then go change the constitution (good luck). Clinton/Gore won under those same rules in 1992 & 1996. I didn't hear any complaining then. Suck it up and stop whining.

2. Gore won. The Supreme Court cut off recounts at a very convenient time for the son of the man who put several of them there. So much for the balance of powers.

Gore lost. The Supreme Court cut off recounts because they were being conducted in a manner that was unconstitutional. Only districts that were presumed to be under-counted supporters of Gore were being recounted. If you want to have a fair recount in Florida, you need to recount all the ballots state-wide, which might have led to higher vote totals for Bush. Incidentally, some of the Supreme Court justices were put there by Clinton.

3. Voter disefranchisement. African Americans were presented with many obstacles to voting, as has been well-documented in Florida in 2000, and in Ohio in 2004. As much as I'd personally like to think they were there to vote for Nader, the fact is, they overwhelmingly supported Gore (Kerry). And I'll just mention the difficulties people had with the ballots in passing. All these are, of course, merely emblematic of systemic problems in all 50 states, plus our assorted territories.

Voter disenfranchisement & fraud isn't unique to Florida, and has often occurred in favor of democrats.

4. Gore lost Florida fair and square.
4a. There were a string of other third parties on the ballot, mostly on the left, who presumably "took votes from Gore." Can you name them? Did you know they added up to more than 534 votes?
4b. Vastly more registered Democrats voted for Bush than total people voted for Nader. Reread that sentence as many times as it takes.
4c. There is no -- I want to make this very clear -- no reason to presume had Nader not been on the ballot in 2000, his would-be voters would hae automatically gone to Gore. That's sheer arrogance. A handful would have, yes, but a lot would have gone to other leftist parties, a number would have gone Libertarian, and an awful lot would have abstained. Notice: please do not respond merely to the word "handful" outside the larger context of this message. Thank you.

You also forgot Pat Buchanan. He got more votes than Nader, and "presumably" those votes would have gone to Bush.

5. Gore lost Tennessee and Arkansas. His own home state. Clinton's home state. 'Nuff said.

So? He wasn't very popular in those states. Maybe you noticed that public opinion changes from time to time. Hard to say why. Were voters in those states upset by the legacy of slick Willie? Lying under oath? Cheating on his wife? Tipper Gore's (Al's wife) war against "obscenity" in music movies? Maybe they wanted a more Christian president? Hard to say why.

Re:Before you take the scapegoating too far...

[The One and Only]

Gore lost under the electoral college system which has been in place for centuries. The electoral college reflects the fact that the president is elected by the United States of America, which is why Puerto Rico and Guam don't vote for president. If you don't like the rules, then go change the constitution (good luck). Clinton/Gore won under those same rules in 1992 & 1996. I didn't hear any complaining then.

Clinton/Gore won the popular vote in 1992 and 1996, so your point is irrelevant.

If you want to have a fair recount in Florida, you need to recount all the ballots state-wide, which might have led to higher vote totals for Bush.

After further review, no, it wouldn't have--all statewide recount scenarios show a Gore victory.

Re:Before you take the scapegoating too far...

[Scudsucker]

Gore won. There is no question that Gore won the popular vote.

He also would have won Florida if there had been a complete state-wide recount.

Gore lost Tennessee and Arkansas. His own home state. Clinton's home state. 'Nuff said.

A horseshit argument if there ever was won. If you're a conservative it's not your "fault" if you can't win your blue home state, anymore than it is for a liberal to lose their home state if it's red. Bush didn't win his home state either: he's from Connecticut, not Texas.

Re:if nader runs

[ryanov]

Like "use your head" isn't argumentative.

I'd like to be a democrat, but none of them seem to have anything worthwhile to say until after they lose the election. The current crop is a little better, but as someone pointed out earlier, Obama is quite happy to make charismatic speeches about how he's going to work together with Republicans to change the world. That's nice, but how does he propose to get Republicans to support things that they are obviously very much against (the child health care bill recently is an example)? I think it's naive.

People like you

[hlomas]

are the reason that Nader can sap votes. It's not obvious that all republicans and democrats are "in the pockets of lobbyists". http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00192: and http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00230: There are two major bills for lobbying ethics reform passed by Congress and sponsored by McCain and Obama, respectively.

Re:if nader runs

[that this is not und]

the American public is far to ignorant, self absorbed and lazy to elect any meaningful leaders.

Or: (and here is an alternative that grates political junkies of all stripes and colors to hear)

The American public is far too enamored with the idea, as espoused by our country's founders, that a weak and less-than dominating governmental structure is the ideal.

Granted, the government clearly isn't weak enough, because they wreck all kinds of havoc within and outside our borders. But the very notion that the government should exist as a powerful body to 'fix' all sorts of things (issues of the economy, etc.) is foreign to 'the American Experiment' as envisioned by those who set things up.

Possibly there shouldn't BE any meaningful leaders.

Re:if nader runs

[that this is not und]

The vast majority of Americans are neither Democratic nor Republicans.

The real problem is that there isn't a 'none of the above' choice to make, that takes a proportionate amount of political power away from whomever wins. If people who chose not to vote were empowered enough, maybe almost NOBODY would vote. Washington D.C. could have a lot more park land and museums then.

Re:if nader runs

[Mr. Slippery]

If Nader runs, don't waste your vote on him. He doesn't have a shot and those votes are better off with the lesser of two evils, the democrats.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is truly wasting your vote.

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."

--from So Long And Thanks for All The Fish, Douglas Adams

5 parties?

[HappyEngineer]

I absolutely agree that the Democrats have been little more than enablers. However, that is because of the people in the party, not some magical aspect of the party itself.

A party does not magically cause someone to become something they are not. Ron Paul is not a typical Republican. Kucinich is not a typical Democrat. Voting your conscience in the general election may make you feel better, but it's guaranteed to be a wasted vote. You can chide people for not voting their conscience in the general election all you like, but a 3rd party candidate cannot win unless they are wildly popular personalities. Arnold could possibly pull it off (if it were constitutional for him to be president).

Also, keep in mind we're talking about the presidency here. That is a single person with tremendous power. Only a lunatic would think that the choice between Gore and Bush was a vote for the same sort of person. That vote made one hell of a difference in the course of events in the world. If more people had voted their conscience then perhaps the gap would have been even wider with Bush winning.

There is one corner case that I hadn't thought of until just now. What would happen if there was an even number of parties? What if, instead of one Republican and two Democratish people running, we had two Republicanish people and two Democratish people? What if in the next election we had Obama, McCain, Nader, and Paul all running with Nader and Paul being the 3rd and 4th parties? That might still be tricky if one of the two extras was more popular and thus screwed things up. But, what if we then added a 5th who had cross party appeal like Arnold (again, assuming a modification of the constitution).

I'll bet that a race like that truly would be up in the air.

Perhaps that's one way to do it. If we want another party to win then we'll need at least 3 popular candidates spread out across the ideological spectrum.

Re:to anyone thinking of voting for Nader in 2008

[G. Ratte']

Salute to you; you're absolutely right. People who can't think strategically need to grow the fuck up before they do something dangerous, like, leave the house. To vote.

Not so fast my friend.

[OakLEE]

...but the Iraq war and the abuse of signing statements and Gitmo and the DHS and the Patriot Act 1&2 and wiretapping would not have happened under Gore.

Yah just like the DMCA, Defense of Marriage Act, Telecom Reform Act, and Communications Decency Act (Source) would never have been enacted had Bob Dole or Bush I been President?

It's too easy to speculate now since hindsight is 20/20, but remember that the majority of the PATRIOT Act power grab provisions were enacted on recommendation of the Justice Department, and had been provisions which the DOJ had been trying to get enacted for years.

Let us also not forget that the Clinton Administration signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act, which established "regime change" in Iraq as the official US position, and pretty much gave George W. Bush the legitimacy he needed to start a serious dialog on invading. In fact, that law was enacted to provide cover for the Clinton Administration to engage in Operation Desert Fox in Iraq (a very popular move a the time).

The point of the story here is not so much to lay blame on any particular person here, but remind everybody that politicians whose horizons really only stretch as far as the next election will do really stupid things if they think it can score them some brownie points with their constituents.

Re:if nader runs

[cayenne8]

"Really, my plan for this election is to vote Democrat and hope for gridlock. "

Well, trouble is...if you have a Dem. in for president, WITH a Dem congress...you're not gonna get that gridlock. We saw how 'well' this worked with the Rep. president and Rep. congress didn't we?

If you keep the Dem. majority in congress....you might wanna vote republican if you hope for gridlock.

I do have to agree....the Feds work best when they do as little as possible.

:-)

Re:if nader runs

[anonypus_user]

cues obligatory "but he did win"

That's not happening with Bernie Sanders

[leftie]

Bernie Sanders was supposedly further left than whole damn Green Party combined, but Bernie Sanders has rolled over for the neo-cons just like the all the Democrats.

Not one Bernie Sanders filibuster since he was elected to the Senate. Not to stop torture. Not to stop the telecom immunity bill. Nothin'.

Re:That's not happening with Bernie Sanders

[Ellis D. Tripp]

"Bernie Sanders was supposedly further left than whole damn Green Party combined"

According to who? Sanders has been a bit of a disappointment, but then again, so has the rest of the Congress.

Bernie Sanders isn't even the farthest to the left in the US Congress (that would seem to be Dennis Kucinich). Kucinich really should consider jumping ship and joining the Greens, like Cynthia McKinney did. The Democratic Party machine is supporting several challengers to his congressional seat, probably as payback for being too vocal about impeachment and the various Bush regime atrocities.

Re:Nader about Nader, not building a strong 3rd pa

[sumdumass]

It is about time I actually find someone else on slashdot who has the same idea about going nowhere and needing the lower levels of support in a sort of bottom up campaign in order to get a strong third party in American politics.

I have never said anything about Nader himself in my explanations but I have often echoed your sentiment. You wouldn't even need a new election system either. The more offices occupied next to real voters (levels of local and state governments), the more apt they will be to let the third party occupy higher offices like congress and the presidency. I don't have the link to it, but states that have active third parties in local races do proportionally better in votes in national races with third part candidates like the green party. It would just be a matter of time to get a third or even a fourth party going strong if they took the bottom up approach.

Why should Nader care?

[jesterzog]

But, there is only one possible outcome of another Nader run. That is to draw votes away from Obama. If Nader runs and McCain wins then Nader bears the blame just like he bears the blame for getting Bush elected.

Perhaps Ralph Nader doesn't think the Democrats would be any better or worse than the Republicans. If this is the case, why should he or his supporters care in the slightest what Democrat supporters and Republican haters think?

Besides, if Nader continues to draw votes from one particular side of a two-party system, it might actually motivate that side to realise that the system is quite screwed up, and push for changes to fix it.

I'm not a US citizen and it doesn't bother me a lot what happens except to the extent where the US stamps its foot over the rest of the world, but I find watching things from the outside quite interesting.

Re:Why should Nader care?

[HappyEngineer]

Perhaps Ralph Nader doesn't think the Democrats would be any better or worse than the Republicans. If this is the case, why should he or his supporters care in the slightest what Democrat supporters and Republican haters think?

If he thinks that then he bears even more responsibility for Bush. Yes, the Democrats have been enablers for Bush, but there is a big difference between both parties failing to make progress on lots of issues compared with one party smashing up the system while the other party looks on. If Gore had been the president then congress wouldn't have had anything to enable.

McCain certainly is no Bush. But, he's also strongly pro-war and not particularly motivated by civil rights. He voted in favor of telecom immunity (which I consider a treasonous crime all by itself).

We also need a liberal president so we can appoint some new judges to the supreme court if the opportunity arises. That court has been stacked by Bush. It needs more balance. I don't want a completely liberal or conservative court, but the court we have right now is stacked. There would be a world of difference between a McCain appointee and an Obama appointee.

I would love to get some opposing balance into the system. Get a president in there who will clean up the place with the same fervor that Bush destroyed it. But, that's not going to happen so it hardly seems like a good idea to put yet another ultra-conservative in there. McCain may not be an extreme neo-con, but he's also not someone who will clean up the place.

He's not particularly fiscally conservative either, but then again no electable politician is fiscally conservative.

Besides, if Nader continues to draw votes from one particular side of a two-party system, it might actually motivate that side to realise that the system is quite screwed up, and push for changes to fix it.

That's fantasy. There is already plenty of motivation to push for changes in the system. We don't need to hand neo-cons another victory to add to the pile. For instance, the electoral college got Bush elected. That should have been plenty of motivation to get a constitutional amendment passed to ditch that system. It's not going to happen and I'm not sure what would be required to make it happen.

Re:Spoiler ()

[Billly Gates]

Great and McCain thanks you.

Infact Mike Huckabee is quite happy about it. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/24/nader.politics/index.html

So go ahead and think for yourselves. The republicans will be very happy you did with more conservative rule as you work agaisnt your own core beliefs by spliting the party that fits you the most.

Re:if nader runs

[ryanov]

Fair enough, but it should have been a landslide! I know that taking Nader's percentage and adding it to Gore will not create such a condition.

http://www.systemsthinker.com/blog/2008/02/key-iss

[SystemsThinker]

A lot of people condemn Nader for running because he might "spoil" the election for the Democrats, but there is an even more important issue that I believe goes to the very heart of what is missing in all of Nader's campaigns.

I've written about it in a very short piece called The Key Issue Suspiciously Missing from Ralph Nader's "Table".

This is an issue that Nader often tries to sidestep, but which really challenges him to back up his claim that his campaign is about opening up the doors to more voices and parties. I really hope the press and voters will pick up on this issue and push Nader consistently to address it head-on during this campaign.

Why third parties actually exist

[Randym]

So, the only purpose of a 3rd party is to draw votes from another party. Deciding to run in a 3rd party does not mean you're presenting a 3rd choice. It means that you're attempting to draw votes from the major party that agrees with you the most.

And... what if you don't agree with the two major parties? What if you agree with Nader's position that the two major parties *have sold out our government* to the corporations? There *is* -- and always has been -- a reason for the existence of third (and fourth) parties: the two major parties *fail* to represent an alternative point of view.

In fact the status quo already fails us in two separate ways, which gives rise to the two major third parties: the governement fails to grant us the freedom guaranteed to us by our own Constitution (thus the Libertarians), yet it fails to protect us from the excess of business *and* fails to adequately reflect the myriad points of view outside of its own self-satisfied viewpoint (thus the Green Party).

I suppose, if you only possess the intelligence of an average American, you see nothing wrong with letting someone else decide how your life should be. Don't the 'governing experts' already know better? This 'docile vote' is exactly why we keep getting people into power who promise change and then cannot deliver it. Their hands are tied by the compromises they made to get into power. Even *if* Obama -- say -- becomes President, you will quickly discover the compromises that *he* made, by noting the areas in which he avoids taking significant action.

Re:if nader runs

[Copid]

I'd like to be a democrat, but none of them seem to have anything worthwhile to say until after they lose the election. The current crop is a little better, but as someone pointed out earlier, Obama is quite happy to make charismatic speeches about how he's going to work together with Republicans to change the world. That's nice, but how does he propose to get Republicans to support things that they are obviously very much against (the child health care bill recently is an example)? I think it's naive.

Because when I think, "Enlightened policies that we can convince the Republicans to get on board with" I think Nader.

no, 90% of the commenters had it right

[Scudsucker]

Yes, Nader did some great things for the consumers back in the 60's. But O.J. Simpson also had a great football career and made some funny movies before 1994. Just because you had some great accomplishments in the pass doesn't mean you get a free pass today.

Let's do a little comparison contrast between Ralph Nader and Howard Dean: in 2004 Dean ran a populist campaign as a Democrat against the DLC establishment and for "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." And he was promptly lynched by the DLC establishment and the mass market media. After he lost the primary, he ran for chair of the Democratic National Committee and won. His big contribution has been the "50 state strategy", where the DNC started spending money at the local level, giving money to places that had been seeded to the Republicans for decades, with the goal of fielding a good challenger for every seat in every race in the country. The Democratic Leadership Council sneered at Dean, wanting to continue spending money on "battleground states" and on their "50 + 1" strategy, or going for just over 50% of the vote. You know, the strategy that cost Dems control of Congress for 14 years and a couple presidential elections.

But when waves of Republicans were hit with scandal, there were Democratic challengers already in the bullpen thanks to Dean; a large part of the credit for retaking Congress in 2006 belongs to him. You further see validation of the 50 state strategy in the Democratic primary this year: Obama spends his money on local field offices and get-out-the-vote efforts in every state, and Hillary spends her money on consultants ($4 million a month for Mark Penn alone) and focusing on the big states. And since Super Tuesday, Obama has crushed her in every state by 20 points or more.

Whereas Nader ran under the Green Party in 2000 claiming that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Really? A man who spent his entire adult life in public service vs a man who was a drunken frat boy until age 40. A Democrat who lined up with most of the Green Party's platform, vs a Republican that was the polar opposite of just about everything they believed in. No one knew what a fascist Bush would turn out to be, but it should have been obvious to everyone in 2000 that he was an uninterested, incompetent tool.

And he apparently clings to this delusion to this day. You think so Ralph? Gore would have pulled troops out of Afghanistan to launch a bogus invasion into Iraq? Gore would have argued that he was above the law, had the right to hold American citizens in jail without charges indefinitely, would have used torture on detainees?

And unlike Dean, who is leading a long term effort to reform the Democratic Party, Nader seems to think his job is to run as a spoiler every four years in the presidential race, and he hasn't even picked a party yet this time! Why didn't he run for Congress against a corrupt Democrat, like Ned Lamont did in Connecticut? If he lived in San Francisco and ran against Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi, I'd vote for him over that sellout bitch in a heartbeat.

Nader doesn't challenge the corrupt DLC establishment, he just throws the race to the GOP. And if this election came down to McCain vs Hillary, he would have a real chance of putting another warmonger up to his eyeballs in special interests into the Oval Office, again.

Nader needs to take a lesson from Ron Paul on how to stand up for your beliefs and challenge the status quo without fucking over the country with an ego trip.

Re:if nader runs

[Copid]

Voting for the lesser of two evils is truly wasting your vote.

Not if the result is a less evil outcome than if you hadn't. Think about it.

that doesn't work

[Scudsucker]

The DLC hasn't learned their lesson a single iota from 2000 or 2004: they still triangulate, sell out the middle class, act as Bud Lite Republicans, and concentrate on "battleground states" while ceeding the rest to Republicans.

And the reason why it hasn't worked is that the DLC doesn't actually care about winning more elections, only enough to keep them in power. Kerry might have lost in 2004, but Al From made a fuckton of money.

And that's why another Nader run wont accomplish anything, because he doesn't threaten the DLC status quo: he only runs as a spoiler, he's not building a movement for change.

spare us the false equivilancy, my friend

[Scudsucker]

Yah just like the DMCA, Defense of Marriage Act, Telecom Reform Act, and Communications Decency Act (Source) would never have been enacted had Bob Dole or Bush I been President?

Which are molehills next to the mountains of torture, extraordinary rendition, breaking half the Bill of Rights, warrantless wiretapping, and endless incompetence.

Let us also not forget that the Clinton Administration signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act, which established "regime change" in Iraq as the official US position

Why don't you dig up those old lists of Democratic officials saying bad things about Saddam while you are at it? Democrats weren't saying we had to invade Iraq now, not later. Democrats weren't pushing non-existent ties between Saddam and Al Queda. Democrats weren't demonizing anyone who wasn't go ho on the war as being traitors.

The point of the story is that while the Democratic leadership deserves a good deal of blame, putting them in the same boat as the incompetent fascists is laughable.

Re:spare us the false equivilancy, my friend

[OakLEE]

You completely missed the point of my post. See the last sentence of my original post.

I'm not trying to push any particular political point of view. I'm merely pointing out that politicians will do stupid short-sighted things to please their constituents. Those constituents could be anything from the moneyed interests that donate to them to the local voters who are "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore."

For example, look at Sarbanes-Oxley and the Patriot Act. Both were half-baked pieces of legislation passed in populous fervor to perceived national crises without thinking through the consequences. We all know the short falls of the Patriot Act, and in the case of Sarb-Ox, almost all of the US's international finance business moved to London to avoid its heinous reporting requirements.

The DMCA, and Telecom Acts were passed to keep the campaign coffers flowing from media company donations. DOMA, and the Communications Decency Act were passed to appease and attract social conservative voters. The Iraq Liberation Act was passed to so that politicians could go back to constituents and say, "Hey see, I'm tough on terror and pro-national security."

All of these laws have one common thread, they benefited the politicians that passed them for benefits they accrued in the short term, but ignored headache the could cause in the long-term because they failed to think about how these laws could be misused and abused.

There's no false equivacy, here and you cannot say to me that Al Gore would not have been tempted by the same short term benefits of signing a law into effect that have tempted other politicians of both parties. (Another example, Nixon, who ran as an economic conservative, is the only President in history to enact comprehensive nationwide price controls.) He's not God, just another politician.

Re:Did you even read my comment?

[Scudsucker]

It does not matter how many votes Gore got in Florida, and we'll never know, anyway, because the vote count was stopped.

Actually we do know: the press did a complete statewide recount, and Gore got more votes than Bush. Period. Then 911 happened and they sat on the results - can you imagine the same happening if Gore's and Bush's roles had been switched? Somehow I doubt it.

Re:if nader runs

[ryanov]

At least he's not attempting to say "yeah, I'll do that, no problem."

Re:if nader runs

[Copid]

At least he's not attempting to say "yeah, I'll do that, no problem."

Exactly what is he attempting to say? Which of his proposals are likely to actually happen if he's elected? Your complaint about Obama seems doubly true for Nader, so the question is, what is he bringing to the table aside from the ability to split the vote enough to elect somebody whose policies he completely opposes?