One of the things I learned in campaigning for Ralph Nader was that the media has its stories, for the most part, before it even gets to the scene.
I got involved in the Nader campaign in mid-September. From then until mid-October, there were almost no stories on Ralph or at most one a day from all the newspapers across the country. There was no TV coverage at all.
I attended speeches at Harvard and at Brown and saw no reporters, no TV, nada. Two weeks before the election, Nader announced that he knew that he wouldn't win. From that point on, newspaper coverage grew exponentially. From no stories to one a day, two a day, five and then ten a day, it was exciting. Ralph even got interviewed by David Letterman.
Almost all of the coverage focused on Ralph's potential role as a spoiler, even as his campaign press room continued to put out position papers on various issues. At one point Nader even put out a press release: "Ralph Nader hands the election to John Kerry on a Silver Platter: 10 Ways to Beat George Bush". Didn't see it mentioned once in the news.
The weekend before the election, I finally saw my first television cameras trained on Ralph. Making a brief appearance in Providence, Rhode Island at AS220, a local arts mecca, Ralph gave a nice 20 minute speech. He talked about why he was running, what was wrong with the Democratic Party, what sorts of things people should demand from their government, and why there was no real difference between Kerry and Bush.
The TV reporter from ABC then asked her question: 1) Ralph, do you care that you might wreck everything? I don't remember if the reporter from NBC said anything. I don't think so.
To be fair, CBS wasn't there. They didn't even bother to show up. They left it to NBC and ABC and the Providence Journal that night. They were probably too busy covering 'real' news.
It was as if he hadn't even given his speech. I was so frustrated.
After the reporters had finished their one minute of questions, Ralph was about to leave (he was making stops all over New England that day). He waved to his army (very small but nevertheless formidable) of supporters. I asked him, "The Red Sox did it. Why not you? Do you want to be President?" He said that he did want to be President and that "the Red Sox had had the benefit of a level playing field." It was as if "he had to pitch from 500 feet off home base."
Both the NBC and ABC stations ran stories that night on their 11:00 news. It was actually the lead story on ABC-6 and they both used clips from the speech and questions.
Both also gave time to a Kerry employee from the naderfactor.org who had been following Ralph around from town to town across the country and giving interviews to all the press. They did not know that he was an employee. They did not know that he was not local. He got his 30 seconds of air time to decry Ralph's negative impact. But this time at least, I got mine too.
Lessons:
1) Real journalists know the answers to the questions before they ask them. They only ask as a courtesy.
2) Real journalists know what the real stories are. There was little except pictures of John Kerry waving at crowd in the last weeks of the campaign. This represented reality.
3) Letters to the editors at the newspapers that do not fit the mold are not used. Even Slashdot rejected every single posting I made about Ralph Nader. (I think that I made 18 submissions.) I can't quite recall where the editors announced their support for either Kerry or Bush but they surely weren't open to third party candidates.
4) Americans themselves have to take the blame for the lack of issue discussion in this campaign. They didn't demand it. It didn't happen. There was little difference between the two major parties on the most significant issue of the campaign-- the war.
There was a lot of discussion about heroism or the lack thereof and cronyism, and there was a lot of hand wringing about some actual journalism that actua
One of the things I learned in campaigning for Ralph Nader was that the media has its stories, for the most part, before it even gets to the scene.
I got involved in the Nader campaign in mid-September. From then until mid-October, there were almost no stories on Ralph or at most one a day from all the newspapers across the country. There was no TV coverage at all.
I attended speeches at Harvard and at Brown and saw no reporters, no TV, nada.
Two weeks before the election, Nader announced that he knew that he wouldn't win. From that point on, newspaper coverage grew exponentially. From no stories to one a day, two a day, five and then ten a day, it was exciting. Ralph even got interviewed by David Letterman.
Almost all of the coverage focused on Ralph's potential role as a spoiler, even as his campaign press room continued to put out position papers on various issues. At one point Nader even put out a press release: "Ralph Nader hands the election to John Kerry on a Silver Platter: 10 Ways to Beat George Bush". Didn't see it mentioned once in the news.
The weekend before the election, I finally saw my first television cameras trained on Ralph. Making a brief appearance in Providence, Rhode Island at AS220, a local arts mecca, Ralph gave a nice 20 minute speech.
He talked about why he was running, what was wrong with the Democratic Party, what sorts of things people should demand from their government, and why there was no real difference between Kerry and Bush.
The TV reporter from ABC then asked her question:
1) Ralph, do you care that you might wreck everything?
I don't remember if the reporter from NBC said anything. I don't think so.
To be fair, CBS wasn't there. They didn't even bother to show up. They left it to NBC and ABC and the Providence Journal that night. They were probably too busy covering 'real' news.
It was as if he hadn't even given his speech. I was so frustrated. After the reporters had finished their one minute of questions, Ralph was about to leave (he was making stops all over New England that day).
He waved to his army (very small but nevertheless formidable) of supporters. I asked him, "The Red Sox did it. Why not you? Do you want to be President?" He said that he did want to be President and that "the Red Sox had had the benefit of a level playing field." It was as if "he had to pitch from 500 feet off home base."
Both the NBC and ABC stations ran stories that night on their 11:00 news. It was actually the lead story on ABC-6 and they both used clips from the speech and questions.
Both also gave time to a Kerry employee from the naderfactor.org who had been following Ralph around from town to town across the country and giving interviews to all the press. They did not know that he was an employee. They did not know that he was not local. He got his 30 seconds of air time to decry Ralph's negative impact.
But this time at least, I got mine too.
Lessons:
1) Real journalists know the answers to the questions before they ask them. They only ask as a courtesy.
2) Real journalists know what the real stories are. There was little except pictures of John Kerry waving at crowd in the last weeks of the campaign. This represented reality.
3) Letters to the editors at the newspapers that do not fit the mold are not used. Even Slashdot rejected every single posting I made about Ralph Nader. (I think that I made 18 submissions.) I can't quite recall where the editors announced their support for either Kerry or Bush but they surely weren't open to third party candidates.
4) Americans themselves have to take the blame for the lack of issue discussion in this campaign. They didn't demand it. It didn't happen. There was little difference between the two major parties on the most significant issue of the campaign-- the war.
There was a lot of discussion about heroism or the lack thereof and cronyism, and there was a lot of hand wringing about some actual journalism that actually got done by CBS. Dan Rather ran a story based on his gut instinct as a journalist. He didn't check it enough. They didn't get it vetted by the White House. He has since apologized and has learned-- Never run a story unless it comes directly from one of the major party press rooms. You can't take risks. You can't afford to be wrong. Ever.
I am very pleased to see that the level of discourse on this thread and the level of passion for John Kerry has risen dramatically in the last week.
I still reach different conclusions-- For example, I don't believe that increasing the number of troops in Iraq is the answer.
That approach was tried, with disastrous results, in Vietnam.
Month after month, more and more troops were sent in. Month after month, more bombs rained down. Month after month, the body counts scrolled on the nightly news screen-- shouting that fifty new Americans and 1000 new VC had gone on to the 'Happy Hunting Ground'.
Still, they fought on. How was it possible when we had dropped more bombs on them than were dropped in all of World War II?
I was just growing up while all this was going on. I missed out on the draft lottery by one year. (I graduated from high school in 1975.) It made an impression.
I have a 15 year old daughter and two sons, 13 and 8. I do not want them to be going to Iraq unless it is on a tourist visa.
I will gladly give my life and even my children's lives to defend my neighbors when it is required. My neighbors did the same for me numerous times and I have enjoyed the benefits of freedom for my whole life with no personal cost.
This war is not required. This war is not helping any one. There is no end in sight. There is no light at the end of the tunnel.
This is a deep dark pit that we are marching into. Do not go gently into that dark pit.
Vote for Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo.
My neighborhood is plastered with Ralph Nader signs. No one has touched them. I have started seeing them many places in New England. They are appearing everywhere you look.
I agree with most of what you say--- but I don't think that politics is about the 'modal' opinion. It is about the perceived 'modal' opinion.
Perceptions are formed through media reports and actual exchange of information and these 'modal' opinions become engrained in granite and just about as hard and resistant to change as a wall of granite.
But the 'Old Man in the Mountain' slid down the hill last Spring and the Red Sox came back from three and three-quarters games down and the Patriots beat the Rams, and even Ralph Nader has a chance at breaking through.
He just has to keep kicking at the rotten old log and he will find the soft spot. And then one good kick will crack the entire rotten thing in half.
Perceptions aren't reality. Perceptions may be a reflection of reality but they are not reality.
Reality is reality.
Less isn't more. It is less. More is more.
Bush is not the enemy. He is our President. He should not be reelected... but he is not the enemy.
Nader is not the enemy. He is trying to break through into people's consciences... but even though he stands right in front of them, people cannot see him.
Kerry is not the enemy. He is a good guy. He is a war hero. He is not a leader, however, and cannot lead people where they need to go.
Step out of your reality for a second. Check your assumptions. Test your reality. Verify the opinions that you rely on. Trust your instincts.
Let no rock go unturned.
Well, your assumption is wrong. The more I looked at it, the more I realized that although I hated what Bush has done, I could not imagine John Kerry beating him or even making it close.
Kerry did surprise me with his debate performances. He was never that good in the Democratic debates and he never did much for the state of Massachusetts that i could see in the years he has been a Senator. (I have lived in Massachusetts since 1975, with a hiatuses in NYC (7 years) and Rhode Island (8 years).
But still, he is getting torn to shred in the post debate analysis and platform speeched of George W. Bush. Few people really like him and no one is willing to risk anything on him.
He is a good guy. He is a smart guy. He is not a leader. He should be the Secretary of Energy or the ambassador to France. He should not be President.
Ralph on the other hand is a natural leader. People work tirelessly and thanklessly for him. They are not after plum jobs because they do not expect there to be any. The people who are working for him believe in him.
Ralph should have been included in the debates. It was wrong for Kerry to oppose his entry.
Nader is the only candidate against the current Iraq war. He is the only one in favor of universal healthcare access and a $10 minimum wage.
Well, gee, it is not hard to imagine that Ralph could endorse half a dozen candidates in House and Senate elections and thereby help to tip those elections.
He worked inside the system for years. That is why you heard little about him
He decided to change the way he approached things when he decided to run for President and I think that you will see a lot higher than 1% when the election actually occurs.
To me, all of you are just like the sports commentators who said that the Red Sox had no chance. What would you have had them do? Fold their tent and wait until next year?
No, the only way to win is to be in the game and I think you will see over the next few weeks just how in-the-game Ralph is.
We already have that system in place. You are a Citizen. You get to vote. You get to talk with your neighbors. You can work for the candidates that you like.
Who are you working for? What are you trying to accomplish?
You don't have to vote for anyone in particular.
You don't have to be educated or white or a homeowner or a Yankee fan.
You don't have to be super good looking, or have a killer smile or anything.
You don't even have to be loyal to your Commander in Chief (in the voting booth only), if you think that he is doing wrong.
You just have to care about the place you live and the people around you.
For those of you looking for a cheap thrill, send $1 to Ralph Nader at VoteNader.org
He might not like that for $1. He has been taking cheap shots for years though from people like you at campaign events and has taken all the verbal abuse that people can heap on him from of charge.
I'll bet he would consider your idea for a $1MM contribution to his campaign though. Why don't you write to his campaign and ask him?
Let me ask others, how much would you pay for one free shot at Ralph? I expect a lot of ludicrous answers here, but I am actually interested in people who would really pay real dollars to assault a Presidential candidate.
How about Bush? Would you pay more for a shot at Bush?
For those of you with more principles, how many times would you pay to hit a big Nader punching bag at a fair for $1?
If Ralph had a dollar for every time someone said, "I support what he stands for, but he can't win", he would have the largest campaign chest of any candidate.
How about this? A challenge-- to those of you who have said or thought this-- send $1 to Ralph Nader's campaign. Is his contribution to this election worth $1?
Heck, you Democrats can probably overtax his computer systems with all those $1 transactions.
Look, you can continue to make claims without any backing... or you can admit that your argument has no clothes.
I am a Nader backer. I certainly would vote for Kerry is he had leadership qualities... but I have lived in Massachusetts for many years and I have never heard that he has done anything for the people of the state.
You of course are free to vote for a man who has done nothing... but I think that it would be far more likely that one could correctly categorize your support as mindless...
Ralph's job is not to help elect other candidates. He is running for President... a hard enough job in itself. If these other candidates actually want Ralph's help, they might consider supporting him...
No, you said that he and his supporters somehow would impose his views on others.
I'd like to see you post a link to something that he has said that gives evidence for your view.
And if the Greens really have three times the votes of Nader, then you are three times the threat to the election of John Kerry.
Why don't you just work for your candidate and forget about tearing down the others who aren't in complete agreement with you?
Why don't you use your eloquence to attack Bush instead of Nader? Surely, Bush is a more important target.
I just saw the clip of Stewart's appearance on Crossfire. That was the best 8 minutes of the entire election.
His point: Crossfire serves the purposes of its corporate masters. It plays host to spin-meisters and does not offer real debate.
He killed those guys. It was like looking at that Star Trek episode where Kirk and Spock are standing around looking down at the aliens who had used illusion to create a castle and you saw just how pathetic they really were, looking like dying baby squids making little croaking noises.
I still wish that Jon would come to his senses and change his endorsement to Nader... but he was right-- he is a comedian and you can't expect comedians to do your thinking for you.
It's up to you to decide who you want to vote for.
Honestly, if you spent five minutes reading something that Ralph has actually written... instead of making up fantasies about how you want to be dominated, you'd know that Ralph is no dominatrix.
He won't even ask for people's votes, much less force you to give up video games.
You want to spend your life playing video games. That's fine. You want to use school time to promote video games? That's not fine.
But again, he would only be the President. He can't make you do anything unless you are a member of the armed forces.
Hint: Sign up now and avoid the last minute rush when Kerry and Bush admit that they were wrong-- they have no choice but to institute a draft. "This thing has gone on for 5 1/2 years and cost 5,000 US lives. The National Guard is empty. There is just no other choice.
Jon Stewart-- I love "The Daily Show" but I think that Stewart is guilty of the same sort of two-sidedness as anyone else. He gave one-half of a page in his new book to Ralph Nader and other third party candidates. He rarely mentions Nader on his show. He is deliberately ignoring a goldmine of comic material because he is part of the same media system he criticizes. Instead of just reporting on the news, he filters it for us.
I say, Ralph deserves to be in "The Daily Show's" scope, the same as any other legitimate candidate. Do us a favor, Mr. Stewart-- Remember why you first got into comedy... Well, other than the girls... The second reason...
If no third party has ever won, what happened to the Whigs and the Federalists? How did the Republicans ever win?
And what about the system is designed for two parties? The fact thatat just normally happens because the mainstream press ignores them.
And we don't have majority voting. If you recall, Gore won the most votes, but he lost.
We have a representative democracy. We entrust the will of the people to our representatives. Back in the days when our country was founded, it took quite a while to collect, count and process all the votes. That probably explains why inaugurations were held in March.
I say again-- Where is your evidence? Do you have any for any of what you say?
Exactly when should Nader come back?
The first Tuesday after the election?
Perhaps the first Tuesday after you get back from your vacation?
Perhaps after you get your memos done, grass cut, hedges trimmed?
How about after the Red Sox win the World Series?
I hope that the rest of you have registered to vote. The election of 2004 is too important to leave in the hands of people who don't have time for democracy.
I don't think the issues qualify this as bigger than the election of Johnson over Goldwater--- the country had just had to deal with nuclear threats in Cuban missile crisis, US involvement was starting in Vietnam,etc.
Could site examples in every other election since... but you don't have time...
Perhaps-- Most important in remaining months of 2004-- I'll give you that.
"Would like to see others included, just not now"-- Hmm, when have I heard that before--- maybe Hitler, Stalin, Mao said stuff like that. Since when is there a right time and a wrong time for democracy?
Nobody more self-absorbed than Nader? Give me one example. I think that the fact that he is willing to put up with the non-thinking responses of people like yourself election after election qualifies him as pretty non self-absorbed. You think it's fun to have to sue to get ballot access? Network access? Debate access?
Name me one issue that you actually disagree with Nader over.
Just one!
You supported the war in Iraq?
You would send more troops?
You against a $10 minimum wage?
You against health care?
You believe that corporations should have more power and access to the system?
Seriously, I don't think that the government should go after spammers, unless they are promoting some kind of swindle where someone actually suffers a real monetary loss. (i.e., the frozen Nigerian Bank account story, etc.)
Otherwise, let the marketplace go after spammers. They are doing a better and better job.
Or maybe we could put them to work writing letters for the Kerry campaign to all those ladies out in Dubuque who can't be bothered to make it to the polls anymore.
Conventional assumptions about the electorate as polarized Republican and Democratic camps misses the trend of the last three presidential elections -- third-party candidates are tipping the outcome of presidential elections.
-- Lawrence R. Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project for the Humphrey Institute
PBS's ONLINE NEWSHOUR reports that the United States is home to more than 54 political parties, 37 of which have had candidates run for President. Although only a handful of third-party candidates have received more than 10% of the vote in all the years since 1860, third parties are often thought to have a major influence on U.S. policy and political debate.
Third parties often raise issues that major-party presidential candidates neglect, sometimes leading to substantial change in the public dialogue. Ross Perot, running on a platform that advocated reducing the federal budget deficit, received 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 election. The fact that Perot's key issue has been an important question in almost every campaign since is seen as somewhat of a victory for the Reform Party, even though their candidate lost the election.
In 2000, what might have been seen as the next high point for third parties was marred by controversy. Ralph Nader gained more than two million votes as the Green Party candidate, but some Democrats blamed Nader for causing candidate Al Gore's defeat by attracting votes that might have otherwise gone to Gore. But it is rare that third parties garner enough votes to warrant this kind of complaint. More often, third parties struggle to raise the millions necessary to run a presidential campaign, and have a hard time getting a fraction of the media exposure the Republican and Democratic candidates receive. Read about how third-party candidates are regularly excluded from the televised presidential debates.)
In the end, some voters who might support a third-party candidate's platform worry that their votes will be "wasted" on a candidate who is unlikely to win. Because of the way the United States electoral system works, only the candidate who wins the majority of popular votes in most states receives any electoral votes. (Learn more about the electoral college system.)
Despite these challenges, third parties continue to endorse candidates for the presidency. Each election year, dozens of people decide to run for the presidency. In October 2004, with the election less than a month away, Ballot Access News reports five third-party candidates will appear on a significant number of state ballots, an accomplishment in itself. Although there are few requirements for eligibility, a significant amount of paperwork is required to become a viable candidate. Each state has its own ballot laws, each one requiring that a party obtain a different number of signatures to get on that state's ballot. This is why third-party candidates are seldom listed on every state ballot.
THE WASHINGTON TIMES reported in September 2004 that third-party candidates in this election are as much or more of a threat to President George W. Bush than they are to his challenger John Kerry. Libertarian presidential hopeful Michael Badnarik told the TIMES, "We are playing to the conservatives who do not have a party to vote for. For example, Republicans have traditionally stood for smaller government, but this president has not adhered to that standard." Badnarik is currently on
Nader Blasts G.O.P.
Someone brought this Borowitz report to my attention today. I think that it's true that the Republicans are falling down on the job with regard to promoting Nader.
To Republicans, I say:
How about running a few ads for Nader?
What are you doing to get him on the ballot today?
Haven't you guys learned when you are being taken for a ride?
Howard has done this kind of schtick his entire career. In fact, he has built his career on fighting with his employer, his family, his listeners...
I have listened off and on for the last twenty years. I must have heard Howard announce he was going to walk out when his contract ended at least 20 times.
Do you remember his movie? What was that scene where the manager is reviewing his numbers and says something like, "The people who like him listen for an hour a day! And the people who hate him listen for two!!"
The economics alone should tell you that this is pure bull. They're going to let him walk from a $170 million a year revenue generator to one which at best, even if his show got every dime from every subscriber would be $60 million? (600,000 x $10 a month x let's just use 10 months instead of 12)= $60 million.
Oh please. As much as people love Howard, I don't think enough of his listeners are going to pony up $200 to $300 for equipment plus $120 a year just to hear him. And Clear Channel isn't going to let him go quietly into the good night. They know who butters their bread.
Is Howard going to give up ad revenues? Those satellite broadcasts don't have commercials, as I understand. Are you going to pay and still listen to those 10 minute commercial breaks on his show? I don't think so.
He won't survive in a place where he can say whatever he wants. He can do that now-- it's called a forest. He doesn't want to do his show in the middle of a quiet forest. He wants to keep chucking big rocks into the pond by your house.
So my prediction is that Howard will learn to live with both media. There is some stuff that he can't do now on the public airwaves that he would like to do. But there is no way you are going to get him off of the public airwaves unless you physically drag him away from the mic.
Slashdot Mirror
I got involved in the Nader campaign in mid-September. From then until mid-October, there were almost no stories on Ralph or at most one a day from all the newspapers across the country. There was no TV coverage at all.
I attended speeches at Harvard and at Brown and saw no reporters, no TV, nada. Two weeks before the election, Nader announced that he knew that he wouldn't win. From that point on, newspaper coverage grew exponentially. From no stories to one a day, two a day, five and then ten a day, it was exciting. Ralph even got interviewed by David Letterman.
Almost all of the coverage focused on Ralph's potential role as a spoiler, even as his campaign press room continued to put out position papers on various issues. At one point Nader even put out a press release: "Ralph Nader hands the election to John Kerry on a Silver Platter: 10 Ways to Beat George Bush". Didn't see it mentioned once in the news.
The weekend before the election, I finally saw my first television cameras trained on Ralph. Making a brief appearance in Providence, Rhode Island at AS220, a local arts mecca, Ralph gave a nice 20 minute speech. He talked about why he was running, what was wrong with the Democratic Party, what sorts of things people should demand from their government, and why there was no real difference between Kerry and Bush.
The TV reporter from ABC then asked her question: 1) Ralph, do you care that you might wreck everything? I don't remember if the reporter from NBC said anything. I don't think so.
To be fair, CBS wasn't there. They didn't even bother to show up. They left it to NBC and ABC and the Providence Journal that night. They were probably too busy covering 'real' news.
It was as if he hadn't even given his speech. I was so frustrated.
After the reporters had finished their one minute of questions, Ralph was about to leave (he was making stops all over New England that day). He waved to his army (very small but nevertheless formidable) of supporters. I asked him, "The Red Sox did it. Why not you? Do you want to be President?" He said that he did want to be President and that "the Red Sox had had the benefit of a level playing field." It was as if "he had to pitch from 500 feet off home base."
Both the NBC and ABC stations ran stories that night on their 11:00 news. It was actually the lead story on ABC-6 and they both used clips from the speech and questions.
Both also gave time to a Kerry employee from the naderfactor.org who had been following Ralph around from town to town across the country and giving interviews to all the press. They did not know that he was an employee. They did not know that he was not local. He got his 30 seconds of air time to decry Ralph's negative impact. But this time at least, I got mine too. Lessons:
There was a lot of discussion about heroism or the lack thereof and cronyism, and there was a lot of hand wringing about some actual journalism that actua
One of the things I learned in campaigning for Ralph Nader was that the media has its stories, for the most part, before it even gets to the scene. I got involved in the Nader campaign in mid-September. From then until mid-October, there were almost no stories on Ralph or at most one a day from all the newspapers across the country. There was no TV coverage at all. I attended speeches at Harvard and at Brown and saw no reporters, no TV, nada. Two weeks before the election, Nader announced that he knew that he wouldn't win. From that point on, newspaper coverage grew exponentially. From no stories to one a day, two a day, five and then ten a day, it was exciting. Ralph even got interviewed by David Letterman. Almost all of the coverage focused on Ralph's potential role as a spoiler, even as his campaign press room continued to put out position papers on various issues. At one point Nader even put out a press release: "Ralph Nader hands the election to John Kerry on a Silver Platter: 10 Ways to Beat George Bush". Didn't see it mentioned once in the news. The weekend before the election, I finally saw my first television cameras trained on Ralph. Making a brief appearance in Providence, Rhode Island at AS220, a local arts mecca, Ralph gave a nice 20 minute speech. He talked about why he was running, what was wrong with the Democratic Party, what sorts of things people should demand from their government, and why there was no real difference between Kerry and Bush. The TV reporter from ABC then asked her question: 1) Ralph, do you care that you might wreck everything? I don't remember if the reporter from NBC said anything. I don't think so. To be fair, CBS wasn't there. They didn't even bother to show up. They left it to NBC and ABC and the Providence Journal that night. They were probably too busy covering 'real' news. It was as if he hadn't even given his speech. I was so frustrated. After the reporters had finished their one minute of questions, Ralph was about to leave (he was making stops all over New England that day). He waved to his army (very small but nevertheless formidable) of supporters. I asked him, "The Red Sox did it. Why not you? Do you want to be President?" He said that he did want to be President and that "the Red Sox had had the benefit of a level playing field." It was as if "he had to pitch from 500 feet off home base." Both the NBC and ABC stations ran stories that night on their 11:00 news. It was actually the lead story on ABC-6 and they both used clips from the speech and questions. Both also gave time to a Kerry employee from the naderfactor.org who had been following Ralph around from town to town across the country and giving interviews to all the press. They did not know that he was an employee. They did not know that he was not local. He got his 30 seconds of air time to decry Ralph's negative impact. But this time at least, I got mine too. Lessons: 1) Real journalists know the answers to the questions before they ask them. They only ask as a courtesy. 2) Real journalists know what the real stories are. There was little except pictures of John Kerry waving at crowd in the last weeks of the campaign. This represented reality. 3) Letters to the editors at the newspapers that do not fit the mold are not used. Even Slashdot rejected every single posting I made about Ralph Nader. (I think that I made 18 submissions.) I can't quite recall where the editors announced their support for either Kerry or Bush but they surely weren't open to third party candidates. 4) Americans themselves have to take the blame for the lack of issue discussion in this campaign. They didn't demand it. It didn't happen. There was little difference between the two major parties on the most significant issue of the campaign-- the war. There was a lot of discussion about heroism or the lack thereof and cronyism, and there was a lot of hand wringing about some actual journalism that actually got done by CBS. Dan Rather ran a story based on his gut instinct as a journalist. He didn't check it enough. They didn't get it vetted by the White House. He has since apologized and has learned-- Never run a story unless it comes directly from one of the major party press rooms. You can't take risks. You can't afford to be wrong. Ever.
I still reach different conclusions-- For example, I don't believe that increasing the number of troops in Iraq is the answer.
That approach was tried, with disastrous results, in Vietnam.
Month after month, more and more troops were sent in. Month after month, more bombs rained down. Month after month, the body counts scrolled on the nightly news screen-- shouting that fifty new Americans and 1000 new VC had gone on to the 'Happy Hunting Ground'.
Still, they fought on. How was it possible when we had dropped more bombs on them than were dropped in all of World War II?
I was just growing up while all this was going on. I missed out on the draft lottery by one year. (I graduated from high school in 1975.) It made an impression.
I have a 15 year old daughter and two sons, 13 and 8. I do not want them to be going to Iraq unless it is on a tourist visa.
I will gladly give my life and even my children's lives to defend my neighbors when it is required. My neighbors did the same for me numerous times and I have enjoyed the benefits of freedom for my whole life with no personal cost.
This war is not required. This war is not helping any one. There is no end in sight. There is no light at the end of the tunnel.
This is a deep dark pit that we are marching into. Do not go gently into that dark pit. Vote for Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo.
Little Orphant Ralphie
Perceptions are formed through media reports and actual exchange of information and these 'modal' opinions become engrained in granite and just about as hard and resistant to change as a wall of granite.
But the 'Old Man in the Mountain' slid down the hill last Spring and the Red Sox came back from three and three-quarters games down and the Patriots beat the Rams, and even Ralph Nader has a chance at breaking through.
He just has to keep kicking at the rotten old log and he will find the soft spot. And then one good kick will crack the entire rotten thing in half.
Perceptions aren't reality. Perceptions may be a reflection of reality but they are not reality. Reality is reality.
Less isn't more. It is less. More is more.
Bush is not the enemy. He is our President. He should not be reelected... but he is not the enemy.
Nader is not the enemy. He is trying to break through into people's consciences... but even though he stands right in front of them, people cannot see him.
Kerry is not the enemy. He is a good guy. He is a war hero. He is not a leader, however, and cannot lead people where they need to go.
Step out of your reality for a second. Check your assumptions. Test your reality. Verify the opinions that you rely on. Trust your instincts. Let no rock go unturned.
Nader for President.
Kerry did surprise me with his debate performances. He was never that good in the Democratic debates and he never did much for the state of Massachusetts that i could see in the years he has been a Senator. (I have lived in Massachusetts since 1975, with a hiatuses in NYC (7 years) and Rhode Island (8 years).
But still, he is getting torn to shred in the post debate analysis and platform speeched of George W. Bush. Few people really like him and no one is willing to risk anything on him.
He is a good guy. He is a smart guy. He is not a leader. He should be the Secretary of Energy or the ambassador to France. He should not be President.
Ralph on the other hand is a natural leader. People work tirelessly and thanklessly for him. They are not after plum jobs because they do not expect there to be any. The people who are working for him believe in him. Ralph should have been included in the debates. It was wrong for Kerry to oppose his entry.
Nader is the only candidate against the current Iraq war. He is the only one in favor of universal healthcare access and a $10 minimum wage.
He should be President.
Well, gee, it is not hard to imagine that Ralph could endorse half a dozen candidates in House and Senate elections and thereby help to tip those elections. He worked inside the system for years. That is why you heard little about him He decided to change the way he approached things when he decided to run for President and I think that you will see a lot higher than 1% when the election actually occurs. To me, all of you are just like the sports commentators who said that the Red Sox had no chance. What would you have had them do? Fold their tent and wait until next year? No, the only way to win is to be in the game and I think you will see over the next few weeks just how in-the-game Ralph is.
Who are you working for? What are you trying to accomplish?
You don't have to vote for anyone in particular.
You don't have to be educated or white or a homeowner or a Yankee fan. You don't have to be super good looking, or have a killer smile or anything.
You don't even have to be loyal to your Commander in Chief (in the voting booth only), if you think that he is doing wrong.
You just have to care about the place you live and the people around you.
For those of you looking for a cheap thrill, send $1 to Ralph Nader at VoteNader.org
I'll bet he would consider your idea for a $1MM contribution to his campaign though. Why don't you write to his campaign and ask him?
Let me ask others, how much would you pay for one free shot at Ralph? I expect a lot of ludicrous answers here, but I am actually interested in people who would really pay real dollars to assault a Presidential candidate.
How about Bush? Would you pay more for a shot at Bush?
For those of you with more principles, how many times would you pay to hit a big Nader punching bag at a fair for $1?
How about this? A challenge-- to those of you who have said or thought this-- send $1 to Ralph Nader's campaign. Is his contribution to this election worth $1?
Heck, you Democrats can probably overtax his computer systems with all those $1 transactions.
Look, you can continue to make claims without any backing... or you can admit that your argument has no clothes. I am a Nader backer. I certainly would vote for Kerry is he had leadership qualities... but I have lived in Massachusetts for many years and I have never heard that he has done anything for the people of the state. You of course are free to vote for a man who has done nothing... but I think that it would be far more likely that one could correctly categorize your support as mindless... Ralph's job is not to help elect other candidates. He is running for President... a hard enough job in itself. If these other candidates actually want Ralph's help, they might consider supporting him...
No, you said that he and his supporters somehow would impose his views on others. I'd like to see you post a link to something that he has said that gives evidence for your view. And if the Greens really have three times the votes of Nader, then you are three times the threat to the election of John Kerry. Why don't you just work for your candidate and forget about tearing down the others who aren't in complete agreement with you? Why don't you use your eloquence to attack Bush instead of Nader? Surely, Bush is a more important target.
His point: Crossfire serves the purposes of its corporate masters. It plays host to spin-meisters and does not offer real debate.
He killed those guys. It was like looking at that Star Trek episode where Kirk and Spock are standing around looking down at the aliens who had used illusion to create a castle and you saw just how pathetic they really were, looking like dying baby squids making little croaking noises.
I still wish that Jon would come to his senses and change his endorsement to Nader... but he was right-- he is a comedian and you can't expect comedians to do your thinking for you.
It's up to you to decide who you want to vote for.
He won't even ask for people's votes, much less force you to give up video games.
You want to spend your life playing video games. That's fine. You want to use school time to promote video games? That's not fine.
But again, he would only be the President. He can't make you do anything unless you are a member of the armed forces.
Hint: Sign up now and avoid the last minute rush when Kerry and Bush admit that they were wrong-- they have no choice but to institute a draft. "This thing has gone on for 5 1/2 years and cost 5,000 US lives. The National Guard is empty. There is just no other choice.
I say, Ralph deserves to be in "The Daily Show's" scope, the same as any other legitimate candidate. Do us a favor, Mr. Stewart-- Remember why you first got into comedy... Well, other than the girls... The second reason...
And what about the system is designed for two parties? The fact thatat just normally happens because the mainstream press ignores them. And we don't have majority voting. If you recall, Gore won the most votes, but he lost.
We have a representative democracy. We entrust the will of the people to our representatives. Back in the days when our country was founded, it took quite a while to collect, count and process all the votes. That probably explains why inaugurations were held in March.
Exactly when should Nader come back?
I hope that the rest of you have registered to vote. The election of 2004 is too important to leave in the hands of people who don't have time for democracy.
I don't think the issues qualify this as bigger than the election of Johnson over Goldwater--- the country had just had to deal with nuclear threats in Cuban missile crisis, US involvement was starting in Vietnam,etc.
Could site examples in every other election since... but you don't have time...
Perhaps-- Most important in remaining months of 2004-- I'll give you that.
"Would like to see others included, just not now"-- Hmm, when have I heard that before--- maybe Hitler, Stalin, Mao said stuff like that. Since when is there a right time and a wrong time for democracy?
Nobody more self-absorbed than Nader? Give me one example. I think that the fact that he is willing to put up with the non-thinking responses of people like yourself election after election qualifies him as pretty non self-absorbed. You think it's fun to have to sue to get ballot access? Network access? Debate access?
Name me one issue that you actually disagree with Nader over.
Just one!
You supported the war in Iraq?
You would send more troops?
You against a $10 minimum wage?
You against health care?
You believe that corporations should have more power and access to the system?
Seriously, I don't think that the government should go after spammers, unless they are promoting some kind of swindle where someone actually suffers a real monetary loss. (i.e., the frozen Nigerian Bank account story, etc.) Otherwise, let the marketplace go after spammers. They are doing a better and better job.
Or maybe we could put them to work writing letters for the Kerry campaign to all those ladies out in Dubuque who can't be bothered to make it to the polls anymore.
Maybe Hormel could sue these guys too for damage to their good name and trademark. (Spam, spam, spam, spam, lovely spam, wonderful spam...)
I'm rooting for Nader but he has a bye that week. Chat It Up With Nader
Schedule for Bill Moyer's Now
The Third Parties
Conventional assumptions about the electorate as polarized Republican and Democratic camps misses the trend of the last three presidential elections -- third-party candidates are tipping the outcome of presidential elections.
-- Lawrence R. Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project for the Humphrey Institute PBS's ONLINE NEWSHOUR reports that the United States is home to more than 54 political parties, 37 of which have had candidates run for President. Although only a handful of third-party candidates have received more than 10% of the vote in all the years since 1860, third parties are often thought to have a major influence on U.S. policy and political debate.
Third parties often raise issues that major-party presidential candidates neglect, sometimes leading to substantial change in the public dialogue. Ross Perot, running on a platform that advocated reducing the federal budget deficit, received 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 election. The fact that Perot's key issue has been an important question in almost every campaign since is seen as somewhat of a victory for the Reform Party, even though their candidate lost the election.
In 2000, what might have been seen as the next high point for third parties was marred by controversy. Ralph Nader gained more than two million votes as the Green Party candidate, but some Democrats blamed Nader for causing candidate Al Gore's defeat by attracting votes that might have otherwise gone to Gore. But it is rare that third parties garner enough votes to warrant this kind of complaint. More often, third parties struggle to raise the millions necessary to run a presidential campaign, and have a hard time getting a fraction of the media exposure the Republican and Democratic candidates receive. Read about how third-party candidates are regularly excluded from the televised presidential debates.)
In the end, some voters who might support a third-party candidate's platform worry that their votes will be "wasted" on a candidate who is unlikely to win. Because of the way the United States electoral system works, only the candidate who wins the majority of popular votes in most states receives any electoral votes. (Learn more about the electoral college system.)
Despite these challenges, third parties continue to endorse candidates for the presidency. Each election year, dozens of people decide to run for the presidency. In October 2004, with the election less than a month away, Ballot Access News reports five third-party candidates will appear on a significant number of state ballots, an accomplishment in itself. Although there are few requirements for eligibility, a significant amount of paperwork is required to become a viable candidate. Each state has its own ballot laws, each one requiring that a party obtain a different number of signatures to get on that state's ballot. This is why third-party candidates are seldom listed on every state ballot.
THE WASHINGTON TIMES reported in September 2004 that third-party candidates in this election are as much or more of a threat to President George W. Bush than they are to his challenger John Kerry. Libertarian presidential hopeful Michael Badnarik told the TIMES, "We are playing to the conservatives who do not have a party to vote for. For example, Republicans have traditionally stood for smaller government, but this president has not adhered to that standard." Badnarik is currently on
Someone brought this Borowitz report to my attention
today. I think that it's true that the Republicans are
falling down on the job with regard to promoting
Nader.
To Republicans, I say:
running a few ads for Nader?
doing to get him on the ballot today?
you doing to get him elected today?
The Borowitz Report.com
.
Howard has done this kind of schtick his entire career. In fact, he has built his career on fighting with his employer, his family, his listeners...
I have listened off and on for the last twenty years. I must have heard Howard announce he was going to walk out when his contract ended at least 20 times.
Do you remember his movie? What was that scene where the manager is reviewing his numbers and says something like, "The people who like him listen for an hour a day! And the people who hate him listen for two!!"
The economics alone should tell you that this is pure bull. They're going to let him walk from a $170 million a year revenue generator to one which at best, even if his show got every dime from every subscriber would be $60 million? (600,000 x $10 a month x let's just use 10 months instead of 12)= $60 million.
Oh please. As much as people love Howard, I don't think enough of his listeners are going to pony up $200 to $300 for equipment plus $120 a year just to hear him. And Clear Channel isn't going to let him go quietly into the good night. They know who butters their bread.
Is Howard going to give up ad revenues? Those satellite broadcasts don't have commercials, as I understand. Are you going to pay and still listen to those 10 minute commercial breaks on his show? I don't think so.
He won't survive in a place where he can say whatever he wants. He can do that now-- it's called a forest. He doesn't want to do his show in the middle of a quiet forest. He wants to keep chucking big rocks into the pond by your house.
So my prediction is that Howard will learn to live with both media. There is some stuff that he can't do now on the public airwaves that he would like to do. But there is no way you are going to get him off of the public airwaves unless you physically drag him away from the mic.