Ralph jumps in [Archive]

CarneVaca

02-23-2004, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by DrummerDeanna
I don't know how I feel about this....I really see the appeal of independent...I'm not a fan of either the democratic or republican parties at this point BUT I'm in the "get Bush out of office" boat and I just don't think Nader has the backing to do that...so it comes down to the main worry of many demos/ex-Nader supporters....will his running take votes aways from the dems making it less likely to un-seat Bush?

I understand the soul searching. It is something I had to do when the rumblings that he might run again started. After seeing him on Meet the Press, I was reminded why I voted for him last time. And why I should vote for him again.

When you decide to vote for Nader, it isn't because you think he's going to win. It's because he represents what you believe in. So if the Democratic Party is going to continue ignoring those issues you believe in, why should you give them your vote? By doing that you're contributing to the perpetuation of the corruption of Washington. Ralph is right when he says that Washington is corporate-occupied territory. Ultimately voting for Bush or Kerry (if he gets the nomination) doesn't make a huge difference. Yes, the democrats are going to say of course there's a difference. Look what happened last time. Keep in mind these are the same democrats who voted for everything Bush wanted. Kerry never saw a Bush bill that he didn't like, as evidenced by his voting record.

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is who gives away the most the fastest. This is clear from the Clinton administration's record. The Clintonites pushed Nafta, welfare reform and their FCC gave away the farm. Megamergers got way out of control during the Clinton years. If we're being honest, we have to recognize that despite the oral-sex sideshow of the Clinton years, the country was already veering dangerously to the right. The groundwork was laid for Bush, whose administration by the way likes to point out that regime change in Iraq was a policy hatched up by the Clintonites.

Do I want to see Bush get reelected? No. Do I want Kerry? Not really, though I can see he's better. Yet, putting a Democrat in the White House in 2004 is only going to prolong the huge need we have in this country for real change. Because all we'll ever get from the corporate-bought Democrats is mediocre centrism, which is really right-wing policies desguised as Democratic programs. No thanks. I'll take the four more years of pain that might just be the thing that finally wakes people up in this country.

strandinthewind

02-23-2004, 12:17 PM

Carne - I agree with most of what you say.

But, my problem with Nader is while I think he is saying the rights things about corp. fraud etc. I am unsure if an immediate end to that would be good for us. I mean let's say he won and the first day in office he puts in 25 bills which the effective end of which is that all corps. no longer have tax shelters effective immediately. Corps. must make up that money somehow and I think that somehow will be in the reduction of workforce. Morevoer, Nader would be looked on as a joke because there is no way the R and D controlled Congress would agree to his stuff. So, I cannot vote for him even though I believe in what he is saying. I guess I look at it from a practicle point of view and Nader's stuff is just not immediately practicle, although I think it could be done over say a five to ten year period with gradual reductions, etc.

My $0.02

estranged4life

02-23-2004, 12:35 PM

guess I will be voting for no-one this coming November because I do not believe any of the believed candidates (I somewhat like Sen.Edwards, but he isnt going to win the Democratic nomination) for the parties stand for what I believe in...

Brian "The more things change the more they stay the same...Especially in the corrupt world of politics" j.

DrummerDeanna

02-23-2004, 01:37 PM

LOL..this thread is going to mess with my head even more!! hahaha...no but seriously....you made some really good points Strand...I think that is generally the boat I am in...I like what the man has to say, I'm just not sure how effective a president he would be...esp. with Congress to consider...lol...I work in news..but as you can see politics is NOt my forte :)

dissention

02-23-2004, 02:00 PM

I love Nader and I voted for him in the last election, but I just have to be practical this year. Our country cannot survive another four years of ChimpCo and it's as simple as that. We can't do it. At this point, I have to vote for the candidate who has the best shot at beating Bush. Voting for Nader would be a waste. I despise Bush and his administration and need to show support with the Democrats to get him OUT. Regardless of whether or not I like Nader better than Edwards or Kerry, it would be a waste to support him; he'll be lucky if he gets 1% this time around. My goal is to oust Bush and that is my only goal. Yes, Kerry f*cked up too many times to count (and I disagree with him on many, many things), but stack him up next to Bush and he's the lesser of the two evils. The fact is that it's either Bush or Kerry who is going to be president and the question that needs to be asked is who do you prefer and consider the lesser of the two evils? My vote goes to Kerry; it will go to him on Super Tuesday and it will go to him in November. He's our last salvation to getting ChimpCo out.

Anyone But Bush

gldstwmn

02-24-2004, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by CarneVaca
John Kerry may yet regret all his waffling now that Nader is in.

At least the problem of who I should vote for in the general election is solved.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.:)

gldstwmn

02-24-2004, 11:45 AM

P.S. Why won't Nader release his tax returns?

dissention

02-24-2004, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
P.S. Why won't Nader release his tax returns?

:laugh:

He probably hasn't paid taxes in years. ;)

estranged4life

02-24-2004, 11:55 AM

is a basket-case IMHO...And I agree, He will take votes away from the Democratic candidate moreso than he believes.

Brian "I.Been Had for Prez in 2004" j.

gldstwmn

02-24-2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by dissention
I love Nader and I voted for him in the last election, but I just have to be practical this year. Our country cannot survive another four years of ChimpCo and it's as simple as that. We can't do it. At this point, I have to vote for the candidate who has the best shot at beating Bush. Voting for Nader would be a waste. I despise Bush and his administration and need to show support with the Democrats to get him OUT. Regardless of whether or not I like Nader better than Edwards or Kerry, it would be a waste to support him; he'll be lucky if he gets 1% this time around. My goal is to oust Bush and that is my only goal. Yes, Kerry f*cked up too many times to count (and I disagree with him on many, many things), but stack him up next to Bush and he's the lesser of the two evils. The fact is that it's either Bush or Kerry who is going to be president and the question that needs to be asked is who do you prefer and consider the lesser of the two evils? My vote goes to Kerry; it will go to him on Super Tuesday and it will go to him in November. He's our last salvation to getting ChimpCo out.
Anyone But Bush

It's hard to be perfect. Don't become a Kerry apologist. Kerry will make a damn fine president. I will support him proudly and you should too.
:)

gldstwmn

02-24-2004, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by estranged4life
is a basket-case IMHO...And I agree, He will take votes away from the Democratic candidate moreso than he believes.

Brian "I.Been Had for Prez in 2004" j.

How about if Clark is VP?

estranged4life

02-24-2004, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
How about if Clark is VP?

Ya mean the same Clark who ONLY won the state of Oklahoma because Kerry offended the liberal left with his "I'm a conservative...More conservative than the conservative candidate." remark??? Uh, No thanks...I'll pass!!!

Brian "I.Been Had & I.P.Freely in 2004" j.

strandinthewind

02-24-2004, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It's hard to be perfect. Don't become a Kerry apologist. Kerry will make a damn fine president. I will support him proudly and you should too.
:)

ANYONE, even John "I can't make up my mind what I want to be" :cool: Kerry would be better than this tripe we have now. The only thing he did well enough IMO was the tax cuts and he even screwed those up with his outrageous spending.

To paraphrase an old Southern Expression, "I'd piss on a sparkplug" if I thought it would help not reelect that idiot. :laugh:

CarneVaca

02-24-2004, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.:)

Bull****. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. A vote for Bush is a vote for Bush.

CarneVaca

02-24-2004, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by estranged4life
Ya mean the same Clark who ONLY won the state of Oklahoma because Kerry offended the liberal left with his "I'm a conservative...More conservative than the conservative candidate." remark??? Uh, No thanks...I'll pass!!!

Brian "I.Been Had & I.P.Freely in 2004" j.

What do you know about Ralph Nader? How can you just dismiss a great American who has done more for you and me than any of the corporate-bought Washington types can ever hope to achieve by calling him a "basket case?"

strandinthewind

02-24-2004, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Bull****. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. A vote for Bush is a vote for Bush.

Touche' AND if the candidates were strong enough Nader would be irrelevant. Interestingly, the talking heads and television pundits are indicating that Nader may siphon more votes from W than Kerry because the D's apparently are united and the thrule fiscally conservative "old school" R's are furious at W for his D'esq. spending.

Also, I think there is more to the whole "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" thought process. I mean you (Carne) live in New York. Historically, the D's win New York by a healthy margin. So, uyour vote for Nader is irrelevant to the D's winning N Y. Conversly, your vote for Nader helps in a little way toward making the U.S. less of a corp. controlled two party system, a laudable goal IMO.

CarneVaca

02-24-2004, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Also, I think there is more to the whole "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" thought process. I mean you (Carne) live in New York. Historically, the D's win New York by a healthy margin. So, uyour vote for Nader is irrelevant to the D's winning N Y. Conversly, your vote for Nader helps in a little way toward making the U.S. less of a corp. controlled two party system, a laudable goal IMO.

Thank you. And you inadvertently point to another perverse little reality. In winner-take-all states your vote counts for nothing if you vote for the losing party.

The system is broken. That being the case, I am voting my conscience.

Bella Figura

02-24-2004, 01:19 PM

Once again, I will be voting for Nader. and thank goodness for me because I was actually thinking of voting for Bush, which would have been my first time ever voting Republican in a presidential election...

strandinthewind

02-24-2004, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Bella Figura
Once again, I will be voting for Nader. and thank goodness for me because I was actually thinking of voting for Bush, which would have been my first time ever voting Republican in a presidential election...

See - there is one vote W is not getting because of Nader!!!! :wavey:

dissention

02-24-2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It's hard to be perfect. Don't become a Kerry apologist. Kerry will make a damn fine president. I will support him proudly and you should too.
:)

Oh, I'm not turning into an apologist; I think he will make a damn fine president. :laugh: I was just saying that while I disagree with him on many issues, he's still the best man for the job. No one will sway me of that opinion, doll. :D

I adore Nader; if I didn't, I wouldn't have voted for him in '00. But I don't want to waste my vote this time and run the risk of ChimpCo residing in the White House for four more years. It ain't happening.

dissention

02-24-2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Also, I think there is more to the whole "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" thought process. I mean you (Carne) live in New York. Historically, the D's win New York by a healthy margin. So, uyour vote for Nader is irrelevant to the D's winning N Y. Conversly, your vote for Nader helps in a little way toward making the U.S. less of a corp. controlled two party system, a laudable goal IMO.

Very good point, I must say. I'm in MA and there's no way in hell this state will vote Republican, so I guess it wouldn't matter if I voted for Nader again. But still, I have to have a hand in getting Shrub out. :laugh:

dissention

02-24-2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Bella Figura
Once again, I will be voting for Nader. and thank goodness for me because I was actually thinking of voting for Bush, which would have been my first time ever voting Republican in a presidential election...

:eek:

You considered voting for Bush?! Crack is whack! :laugh: :wavey: j/k

estranged4life

02-24-2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by CarneVaca
What do you know about Ralph Nader? How can you just dismiss a great American who has done more for you and me than any of the corporate-bought Washington types can ever hope to achieve by calling him a "basket case?"

What I know is that anyone who believes he isn't going to take votes away from the Democratic candidate, In a race he knows for a fact he cannot win, Is a basketcase in my eyes...Nothin' more, But then again I doubt he will even be on most of the ballots come November.

As far I see, The Democrats/Republicans of this country all they have done for me is alienate me from believing ANYTHING either party has to say!!! (They both reach common ground on 2 goals: #1-All they care about is $$$ & #2-They are full of s--t!) I guess the saying is true "Unless you live on the East/West Coasts politicians could care less what you would like to see done, Unless it is time for elections...Then all they care about is your vote and nothing more."

Brian "Independent til the end!" j.

ps-I agree he may have done alot for consumers (I read up on him awhile back mind you), But I feel he shouldnt jump into the election now...Personally, I think he SHOULD'VE jumped in earlier just to see what he could've done with the independent voters who don't like either parties stance (I accidently deleted what was written here before while posting it, My bad.)

Bella Figura

02-24-2004, 02:18 PM

dissention...I do not vote based on the fact I want to get rid of someone...so the whole Howard Dean thing never hooked me. I try to vote for someone not just against somebody else.

Edwards is a little to green and and his charm too slick for me though his message speaks to me and I do find him attractive being the "typical" middle-aged housewife demographic.

but John Kerry does flipflop on issues and he is part of the system so for me is part of the problem. so I'm having quite a bit of trouble feeling supportive enough to pull the lever for him...

not to reiterate old debates but I supported Bush and still do for his strong stand on terrorism regardless of how many countries it has pissed off...most countries never liked us so we just found out again who our true allies/friends are. I've traveled abroad several times since the mid-80's and I've always heard Anti-American rhetoric on each and every trip...which is why I was
"leaning"

I'm basically of the mind that the whole world has the maturity of a schoolyard so politically I try to be an anarchist who votes...and I'm definetely an anti-corprite so Nader's my vote so far!!!

estranged4life

02-24-2004, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Bella Figura

I'm basically of the mind that the whole world has the maturity of a schoolyard so politically I'm an anarchist who votes...

Statement I have heard anyone say to describe their view of the political world...

So, I guess I am an anarchist too...

Brian j.

dissention

02-24-2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Bella Figura
not to reiterate old debates but I supported Bush and still do for his strong stand on terrorism regardless of how many countries it has pissed off...most countries never liked us so we just found out again who our true allies/friends are. I've traveled abroad several times since the mid-80's and I've always heard Anti-American rhetoric on each and every trip...which is why I was
"leaning"

If Bush was tough on terrorism, I'd agree with you. But he isn't and one issue shouldn't be the deciding in a particular vote, IMO. What has Bush done, really? Not much, except for making some of his right-wing zealots happy. He's run this country down the toilet, as evidenced by the abnormally large deficit. And the latest thing with his constitutional ban on gay marriage is the final straw. It's insulting, just like his administration and the man himself. He's practically anti-social programs, so that's enough to vote him out right there. Everything he's promised to do either hasn't been done or has been so under-funded that the goal can't be accomplished. Now, our soldiers in Iraq are going to be without any funds from September to January. What's he doing with all this money???

CarneVaca

02-24-2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by estranged4life
What I know is that anyone who believes he isn't going to take votes away from the Democratic candidate, In a race he knows for a fact he cannot win, Is a basketcase in my eyes...

Oh, I see. But then in the same post:

As far I see, The Democrats/Republicans of this country all they have done for me is alienate me from believing ANYTHING either party has to say!!! (They both reach common ground on 2 goals: #1-All they care about is $$$ & #2-They are full of s--t!)

And Ralph says:

The lack of substantive response from both the DNC and the RNC to important subjects and necessities facing Americans reinforced the need for an alternative choice to the two major parties in the presidential race. The two-party duopoly has demonstrated again that they will not engage in a simple discussion of the issues about the future direction of key policies that will shape the nation.

And you say:

ps-I agree he may have done alot for consumers (I read up on him awhile back mind you), But I feel he shouldnt jump into the election now...Personally, I think he SHOULD'VE jumped in earlier.

So who's the basket case? Give me your address, I'll send you a mirror and you'll be able to answer that in no time.

estranged4life

02-24-2004, 03:24 PM

oh wait it's CarneVaca...I am so intimidated...LMAO!!! I guess people arent allowed to make mistakes whle posting a reply huh?

CarneVaca

02-24-2004, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by estranged4life
oh wait it's CarneVaca...I am so intimidated...LMAO!!!

No reason for intimidation. You classified a whole group of people, myself included, calling us basket cases... then you proceeded to make a seemingly irrational, irreconcilable statement.

Let's not turn this into a pissing match between posters, as so often happens around here. Let's deal with the merits of the topic without degrading it with gratuitous insults.

Edit: Brian has since edited his post to make it less irrational. :laugh:

estranged4life

02-24-2004, 03:49 PM

according to Oklahoma Liberal Democrats Nader is a "Basket-case" for running as an independent candidate, So being I'm an "Independent" guess I'm a "Basket-case" too...LOL!!!

Brian "Basket-case & Mirror Breaker" j.

dissention

02-24-2004, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by estranged4life
Brian "Basket-case & Mirror Breaker" j.

:laugh:

estranged4life

02-24-2004, 04:05 PM

we have 3 candidates:

1.The Shrub...To quote an Everly Bros. song "Bye Bye Shrub" :)

2.The "Basket-case"

& 3.Kerry (For some reason he has no nickname)

Brian j.

dissention

02-24-2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by estranged4life
& 3.Kerry (For some reason he has no nickname)

I've seen him referred to as Franken-kerry. :laugh: :wavey:

estranged4life

02-24-2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by dissention
I've seen him referred to as Franken-kerry. :laugh: :wavey:

Does that mean he's part Al Franken? ;)

I really think he does look like a real version of the breakfast cereal character "Franken-berry"...

Brian j.

Bella Figura

02-24-2004, 04:35 PM

yes, the whole anti-gay marriage amendment proposal would be our second constititutional infringement on basic civil liberties (prohibition being the first) and is definetely not the path this experiment in democracy should be taking...there are enough oppressed people in the world already.

and the whole deficit thing gives me a "been there, done that" headache, but then again very few administrations have handled our tax money in a responsible manner...either we get more taxes or get more deficit...

but I originally said I was "leaning"; security and a willingness to "stand up" to the bullies attitude were my main reasons. I personally don't want a perception of weakness from my president. and believe me, Middle Eastern and many other cultures are still big on a "man being a man" to the point that being a rational and compassionate man is considered being a "weak" man. and I do believe that Bush's "crazy Texan" personna has given terrorists and other dictators pause...

I don't like it, I personally like my men to be smart, kind and mushy on the inside but reality bites...and in all the interviews I've seen over the years with Ralph Nader, he has never come off as weak...and if we do elect a new president, you can always count on that he too will be tested by the bullies in this world.

DrummerDeanna

02-24-2004, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Bella Figura
yes, the whole anti-gay marriage amendment proposal would be our second constititutional infringement on basic civil liberties (prohibition being the first) and is definetely not the path this experiment in democracy should be taking...there are enough oppressed people in the world already.

ACK!! I know....this is really ticking me off....I just want to vomit when I see shrub's smug ass face talking about how "disturbing" gay marriage is....

My thing is this...if he and all other opponents of gay marriage could give me some good solid reasoning that IS NOT religious or personal opinion, then I would be happy to listen to their reasoning....bah...I'm just going to start rambling.....so there I'll stop.

gldstwmn

02-24-2004, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Touche' AND if the candidates were strong enough Nader would be irrelevant.

He will be. He'll have a hard time getting on the ballot in a lot of places being an Independent.

strandinthewind

02-24-2004, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
He will be. He'll have a hard time getting on the ballot in a lot of places being an Independent.

Don't get me wrong, I think even though he may be right on alot of things, Nader is way too far out there and think no one should vote for him - he would be 100% ineffective as I mentioned above. He is FAR more effective as a private citizen.

I agree he may not even get on some states' ballots, which brings an interesting equal protection claim :eek: :eek:

gldstwmn

02-24-2004, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Thank you. And you inadvertently point to another perverse little reality. In winner-take-all states your vote counts for nothing if you vote for the losing party.

The system is broken. That being the case, I am voting my conscience.

I agree with you, the system is broken. If you want to reform the system, a good way to start is by getting your local Greens/Independents elected to local government first. Nader is not going to win. If Bush wins again, do you think they are going to pay any attention whatsoever to the concerns of those who voted for Nader? Hell no. The bull**** is from Ralph himself when he duped people into thinking that there was no difference between the two parties. Can you in all honesty sit there and tell me that we'd be in the same boat now if Gore had been our president for the last four years? If it's social change and hard line liberalism you're voting for, then why not support Kucinch? At least Dennis has the opportunity to get those concerns heard through his ability to debate them on national television. You think they're gonna let Nader debate? Just what are Mr. Nader's plans should he be elected? Has anyone researched that? I don't think so. His role in this is as a spoiler and spoiler only. I know what he's against but I sure the hell don't know what he's for.
So while you and others are busy voting their conscience, I hope you can bear the thought of having more neoconservative judges appointed, more money funneled into the military industrial complex aka Halliburton and The Carlyle Group, more of our civil rights and womens rights slowly being eradicated, more Christian-conservative hate being shoved down our throats, more countries being invaded, more jobs being lost, more national debt, more "terra, terra, terra" because by voting for Nader and taking votes away from our Democratic nominee who actually does have a shot at winning this thing, that's what you'll be voting for.:)

gldstwmn

02-24-2004, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Bella Figura

.

but John Kerry does flipflop on issues and he is part of the system so for me is part of the problem. so I'm having quite a bit of trouble feeling supportive enough to pull the lever for him...

I admire the fact that Kerry is willing to listen to his constituents and change his mind about things. It's a hell of a lot better than the "stay on message' regime currently occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Kerry has a great record on the environment, is a decorated veteran, scholar, former prosecutor and his wife donates huge amounts of money to left wing causes. Watch any debate with him. He is clearly the most qualified for the job, IMO.

gldstwmn

02-24-2004, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Don't get me wrong, I think even though he may be right on alot of things, Nader is way too far out there and think no one should vote for him - he would be 100% ineffective as I mentioned above. He is FAR more effective as a private citizen.

I agree he may not even get on some states' ballots, which brings an interesting equal protection claim :eek: :eek:

Correctomundo.:)

gldstwmn

02-24-2004, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by estranged4life

& 3.Kerry (For some reason he has no nickname)

Brian j.

I'm leaning toward Mr. President myself.:)

estranged4life

02-24-2004, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I'm leaning toward Mr. President myself.:)

Figures someone would say that sooner-or-later...:)

Oh well, As long as I don't have to ever the words "President Clinton" (Hillary or Slick Willie)!!!

Brian j.

strandinthewind

02-24-2004, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I'm leaning toward Mr. President myself.:)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Well, Nader's platform last time was stated. Here is his website. http://www.votenader.org/

Here is his issues page

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php

Sadly, it reads like a Democratic Party platform 30 years ago :( Again, I wish I could vote for him, but will not because he will have no hope of being effective. But, like Carne, I could vote for him in Georgia because Georgia is pretty much most assuredly going to Bush unless these people wise up and tell their Bible Thumpin' ministers to shut up, which, trust me, WILL NEVER HAPPEN. But, stranger things have happened and I would relish being wrong :laugh:

estranged4life

02-24-2004, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I could vote for him in Georgia because Georgia is pretty much most assuredly going to Bush unless these people wise up and tell their Bible Thumpin' ministers to shut up, which, trust me, WILL NEVER HAPPEN. But, stranger things have happened and I would relish being wrong :laugh:

Same thing goes for Oklahoma & it's "Bible Belt" mentality, "...And God spoke from the burning 'Shrub'."

Btw, I wonder who the Liberatarian (sp?) party candidate is this year???

Brian j.

strandinthewind

02-24-2004, 06:51 PM

It always amazes me that people who quote The Bible or at least their minister's rehtoric HAVE KNOW IDEA what The Bible actually says andor that they are picking and choosing what is convenient!!!!!!

GypsySorcerer

02-24-2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by estranged4life
Btw, I wonder who the Liberatarian (sp?) party candidate is this year???

Brian j.

I think there a couple Libertarian candidates; the main one is Gary Nolan. I'm voting Libertarian in November. These candidates the past two elections have been mediocre at best.

CarneVaca

02-24-2004, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
The bull**** is from Ralph himself when he duped people into thinking that there was no difference between the two parties. Can you in all honesty sit there and tell me that we'd be in the same boat now if Gore had been our president for the last four years?

Chris, here's the deal. I understand your position. I don't agree with it, but I support your right to think that way and act on it. But I am a radical at heart. I don't believe any real social or political change ever happens by working from within. You can go back for centuries upon centuries and find that real change always happens in a dramatic way. I'm not asking for a revolution here, though to be honest, I've lived through one, and it was kind of cool. :cool: I'm asking for this nation, which has become way too complacent, to do some real soul-searching and realize that we can't continue on our path. Voting for Kerry is really just more of the same. Do you not see that the Clinton years were an unequivocal slide to the right? I mean, we had the oral-sex sideshow, but the Clintonites were already giving away the store. Nafta, welfare reform, deregulations, you name it.

Would Gore had done things differently from Bush? Sure. But I truly believe it is a matter of who gives away the most the fastest. The corporations own Washington. Is that going to change with Kerry? No. Would it have changed with Gore? No.

Kerry lost all credibility with me when he voted for the war. Being the radical that I am, I am aghast at the way people who opposed the war, and some of who even marched in opposition, are now rationalizing Kerry's vote. People are voting against, not for. I cannot do that. I've lived in a dictatorship. I remember what it was like when people got the right to vote. And to sit here and squander my opportunity to work toward change because some bull**** party tells me you better vote for our guy or else would be a betrayal to myself, my family's personal struggle and everything I believe in. If I cave in to the party because that party wants it so, it starts too feel a little bit too much like authoritarianism. And it's not for me. I vote my conscience. This, I realize, is a concept somewhat alien to Americans, most of whom when compared to other countries, have not really had to struggle for a good number of generations. And those who are struggling don't vote anyway because they have been so beat down they don't realize this great country has given them the best tool for change of them all -- the right to vote.

Elections in the America of today are a farse. So if I'm going to participate in this farse, since I have no choice other than sitting it out altogether, which is worse, then I will vote my conscience.

Let the chips fall where they may. Until the Democratic party wakes up and gives me a candidate I can support, they will not get my vote. If Bush is reelected, so be it. Four more years of this crap might just be exactly what we need to wake up our nation from this chronic case of political narcolepsy.

You think they're gonna let Nader debate?

No. Which only reinforces my point that elections are a farse.

I know what he's against but I sure the hell don't know what he's for.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Ralph Nader is a great American, and he's done more for you and me than Gore, Kerry or anyone else in Washington could ever hope to (with a couple of exceptions). Go to votenader.com if you want to know what he represents. It's not a secret, believe me. There's no record of saying one thing and acting in diametrically the opposite way, as is the case with Kerry.

Nader and taking votes away from our Democratic nominee

Do you have so little faith in your candidate that you don't think he can win against Nader? That says something about your candidate.

dissention

02-24-2004, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I am aghast at the way people who opposed the war, and some of who even marched in opposition, are now rationalizing Kerry's vote.

There can be no rationalizing Kerry's pro-war vote; it just can't be done. I support Kerry, but even I won't try to explain away his ****ty vote. If there is one thing that will be the end of Kerry it's that vote. He can complain all he wants about Iraq, but he took a hand in bringing us there. Nor will I tackle his motivations for voting on the ridiculous 'No Child Left Behind' and the other Bush crap. The fact of the matter is that in the past three years, he didn't see a Bush proposition that he didn't like. However, look at the good things he has done and the things he stands for. His record on the environment is extremely admirable (and one of the main reasons I support him), he doesn't support a constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage, and so on. Yes, it will be more of the same rhetoric, but there will also be a big enough change where I won't have to say, day in and day out, that I'm ashamed of my president.

If I voted with my conscience, I would vote for Kucinich in a heartbeat. He's the true liberal and I would say that almost all of us here on this board would vote for him, too. But he stands no chance and his extremely liberal views would not go over with most of America; he doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell.

To be honest, sometimes I look at the people who are running and just think to myself 'Our country will never be great again.' And it may not be. However, if we want to get at least a shred of dignity back, we should support the man who will get ChimpCo banished from the White House. It'll do us good. Kerry won't do wrong by our environment, he won't do wrong by the gays in our country, he won't do wrong when it comes to healthcare, and he won't do wrong when it comes to the fundamental social programs that keep this country and its citizens afloat.

strandinthewind

02-24-2004, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by dissention
There can be no rationalizing Kerry's pro-war vote; it just can't be done.

:laugh: I have no problem doing it!!!! :cool:

dissention

02-24-2004, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
:laugh: I have no problem doing it!!!! :cool:

Well, explain it to me because I think he f*cked up big time.

dissention

02-24-2004, 09:31 PM

Just to make sure that my zinger doesn't get overlooked:

Three Texas surgeons were having lunch together and discussing surgeries they had performed. One of them said, "I'm the best surgeon in Texas. A concert pianist lost 7 fingers in an accident, I reattached them and 8 months later he performed a private concert for the Queen of England."

One of the others said. "That's nothing. A young man lost both arms and legs in a terrible accident, I reattached them and 2 years later he won 2 gold medals in field events in the Olympics."

The third surgeon said, "You guys are amateurs. Several years ago a guy who was high on cocaine and alcohol rode a horse head-on into a train traveling 80 miles an hour. All I had left to work with was the horse's ass and a cowboy hat. He's now president of the United States."

:D

strandinthewind

02-24-2004, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Well, explain it to me because I think he f*cked up big time.

That is because you refuse to acknowledge that the entire world for like 11 years thought SH had WMD based on this intelligence :laugh:

Again, I think Kerry, like many including Clinton and the entire U.N. for 11 years, saw the intelligence and thought "Oh Sh^t" SH has WMD." Then, Bush says give me the power to go to war on terrorism, and SH is a terrorist because of the WMD. Then W just takes that authority and flies off of the handle with it. Weak I know - but it makes sense at least to me. Again, as I have been saying all along everyone who saw that intelligence thought SH had WMD and was deliberately hiding them from the world for whatever bad reasons :shrug:

Personally, I wish Kerry would have the sand to say, I am glad SH is gone and the intelligence supported removing him - but Bush is such a dangerous hot head that he stretched the intelligence and flat about lied about some of it in order to go to war. Conversely, I would not have gone to war without the UN or clarification of the intelligence. Or - once I learned the nuclear stuff was bogus, I would have stood down even if it meant egg on my face. Or something like that. :cool:

gldstwmn

02-24-2004, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Chris, here's the deal. I understand your position. I don't agree with it, but I support your right to think that way and act on it. But I am a radical at heart. I don't believe any real social or political change ever happens by working from within. You can go back for centuries upon centuries and find that real change always happens in a dramatic way. I'm not asking for a revolution here, though to be honest, I've lived through one, and it was kind of cool. :cool: I'm asking for this nation, which has become way too complacent, to do some real soul-searching and realize that we can't continue on our path. Voting for Kerry is really just more of the same. Do you not see that the Clinton years were an unequivocal slide to the right? I mean, we had the oral-sex sideshow, but the Clintonites were already giving away the store. Nafta, welfare reform, deregulations, you name it.

Would Gore had done things differently from Bush? Sure. But I truly believe it is a matter of who gives away the most the fastest. The corporations own Washington. Is that going to change with Kerry? No. Would it have changed with Gore? No.

Kerry lost all credibility with me when he voted for the war. Being the radical that I am, I am aghast at the way people who opposed the war, and some of who even marched in opposition, are now rationalizing Kerry's vote. People are voting against, not for. I cannot do that. I've lived in a dictatorship. I remember what it was like when people got the right to vote. And to sit here and squander my opportunity to work toward change because some bull**** party tells me you better vote for our guy or else would be a betrayal to myself, my family's personal struggle and everything I believe in. If I cave in to the party because that party wants it so, it starts too feel a little bit too much like authoritarianism. And it's not for me. I vote my conscience. This, I realize, is a concept somewhat alien to Americans, most of whom when compared to other countries, have not really had to struggle for a good number of generations. And those who are struggling don't vote anyway because they have been so beat down they don't realize this great country has given them the best tool for change of them all -- the right to vote.

Elections in the America of today are a farse. So if I'm going to participate in this farse, since I have no choice other than sitting it out altogether, which is worse, then I will vote my conscience.

Let the chips fall where they may. Until the Democratic party wakes up and gives me a candidate I can support, they will not get my vote. If Bush is reelected, so be it. Four more years of this crap might just be exactly what we need to wake up our nation from this chronic case of political narcolepsy.

No. Which only reinforces my point that elections are a farse.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Ralph Nader is a great American, and he's done more for you and me than Gore, Kerry or anyone else in Washington could ever hope to (with a couple of exceptions). Go to votenader.com if you want to know what he represents. It's not a secret, believe me. There's no record of saying one thing and acting in diametrically the opposite way, as is the case with Kerry.

Do you have so little faith in your candidate that you don't think he can win against Nader? That says something about your candidate.

I have tremendous faith in my candidate and think he can win the election, just like Gore did. The current regine will do anything, anything to stay in power. That is why we must not have a close call this time or the bastards will steal it again. As for the American people waking up, well you have high hopes my friend. I don't want to go off on people in this country being dumbed down into passivity and how they got that way. A very few are questioning what happened on 9/11. You live in one of the affected areas, so perhaps it is perceived differently (a better understanding) there but for the most part people have accepted the spoon fed explanations they were given about it. It's that way with a lot of things now. So the regime is doing whatever the hell it pleases. I'll say it again. They're dangerous.
While Clinton governed with a Centrist to Right hand and I don't like NAFTA or some of the deregulation I can say this: The Clinton years showed us a good economy, peace and put us in good standing with a lot of the world. Frankly, I'm sick of the right bagging on him for all of the current administration's problems like he was the antichrist. Running up huge deficits wasn't Clinton's fault, folks. He also didn't lead us into war on false pretenses and spare me the drivel about the intelligence being the same. I know. I honestly do not think in my heart of hearts he would have lead us into this quagmire. We took one of the very few countries in the Middle East that had no terrorist activity and turned it into a cesspool with daily suicide bombings, completely knocking out it's infrastructure in the process. The plans for said action were apparently drawn up on the inside of a matchbook.
I'm not thrilled with Kerry's IWR vote either. Did he send the troops in? No. Do I think he can lead out out of this mess? Yes. Are Americans a bunch of corporate slaves? Some of us are to a degree, yes. Can we change it? Yes. Are we willing to pay the price? I'll answer that with a question. Are we willing to stop shopping at WalMart?
I'm well aware of the good work Ralph Nader has done. However, every time I see him speak publicly, it's about what they're doing, not what he's going to do. I watched him announce his candidacy on MTP last Sunday morning and that's what it was. What's Ralph been doing about that for the last four years? These people in power now are extremely dangerous. They're playing from their own rule book and making up the rules as they go along. I'm not against third party candidates. However, this is no time to be mucking up the waters in the hopes that the big dogs are gonna throw you a bone. It's too late for that, IMO.
So vote for who you must, I most certainly understand your point of view. I just hope your conscience doesn't come back to bite you in the a**.:)
I'd like to hear about surviving the revolution sometime.

gldstwmn

02-24-2004, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind

Personally, I wish Kerry would have the sand to say, I am glad SH is gone and the intelligence supported removing him - but Bush is such a dangerous hot head that he stretched the intelligence and flat about lied about some of it in order to go to war. Conversely, I would not have gone to war without the UN or clarification of the intelligence. :cool:

He has pretty much said verbatim your last sentence. I think it was in one of the debates.

dissention

02-24-2004, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
That is because you refuse to acknowledge that the entire world for like 11 years thought SH had WMD based on this intelligence :laugh:

Yup, and I'll continue to refuse it until the day I die. We knew that he had no WMDs, yet we invaded anyways. It's as simple as that.

dissention

02-24-2004, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I have tremendous faith in my candidate and think he can win the election, just like Gore did. The current regine will do anything, anything to stay in power. That is why we must not have a close call this time or the bastards will steal it again. As for the American people waking up, well you have high hopes my friend. I don't want to go off on people in this country being dumbed down into passivity and how they got that way. A very few are questioning what happened on 9/11. You live in one of the affected areas, so perhaps it is perceived differently (a better understanding) there but for the most part people have accepted the spoon fed explanations they were given about it. It's that way with a lot of things now. So the regime is doing whatever the hell it pleases. I'll say it again. They're dangerous.
While Clinton governed with a Centrist to Right hand and I don't like NAFTA or some of the deregulation I can say this: The Clinton years showed us a good economy, peace and put us in good standing with a lot of the world. Frankly, I'm sick of the right bagging on him for all of the current administration's problems like he was the antichrist. Running up huge deficits wasn't Clinton's fault, folks. He also didn't lead us into war on false pretenses and spare me the drivel about the intelligence being the same. I know. I honestly do not think in my heart of hearts he would have lead us into this quagmire. We took one of the very few countries in the Middle East that had no terrorist activity and turned it into a cesspool with daily suicide bombings, completely knocking out it's infrastructure in the process. The plans for said action were apparently drawn up on the inside of a matchbook.
I'm not thrilled with Kerry's IWR vote either. Did he send the troops in? No. Do I think he can lead out out of this mess? Yes. Are Americans a bunch of corporate slaves? Some of us are to a degree, yes. Can we change it? Yes. Are we willing to pay the price? I'll answer that with a question. Are we willing to stop shopping at WalMart?
I'm well aware of the good work Ralph Nader has done. However, every time I see him speak publicly, it's about what they're doing, not what he's going to do. I watched him announce his candidacy on MTP last Sunday morning and that's what it was. What's Ralph been doing about that for the last four years? These people in power now are extremely dangerous. They're playing from their own rule book and making up the rules as they go along. I'm not against third party candidates. However, this is no time to be mucking up the waters in the hopes that the big dogs are gonna throw you a bone. It's too late for that, IMO.
So vote for who you must, I most certainly understand your point of view. I just hope your conscience doesn't come back to bite you in the a**.:)
I'd like to hear about surviving the revolution sometime.

"Did you ever know that you're my hero...?" :laugh:

Amen to everything you said. I knew there was a reason we were pals. :laugh: :wavey:

CarneVaca

02-25-2004, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I just hope your conscience doesn't come back to bite you in the a**.:)

But, see, that's the beauty of voting your conscience. It can't bite you in the posterior. ;)

[/quote]I'd like to hear about surviving the revolution sometime. [/QUOTE]

I wouldn't call it "surviving." Here's the abridged version of how it all went down: One day, a bunch of Army colonels overthrew the government. It was a military coup. With a twist: You see, the colonels took over and said, "We want democracy." They immediately installed a new president and kicked off the drive toward democracy. The people rejoiced (except for the fascists). A year later they went to the polls.

During the revolution itself, no blood was shed. Only later, during demonstrations, skirmishes and what have you. Still, it was a very peaceful affair by any standard.

strandinthewind

02-25-2004, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by dissention
"Did you ever know that you're my hero...?" :laugh:

Amen to everything you said. I knew there was a reason we were pals. :laugh: :wavey:

I'm not a pal :confused:

:laugh:

Seriously, I agree with alot of stuff you all say. I just do not see how people are unwilling to say Clinton did the same thing W has done, albeit on a lesser scale. Clinton used police actions without UN approval. Clinton stuck at Al-Q without U.N. approval. Finally, Clinton, the U.K., and France in the name of perhaps dubious or at least somewhat ineffective humanitarian protection (sounds like W's new rationale) enforced the "no fly zones" in Iraq, The no fly zones were not authorized under the cited authority (Security Council Resolution 688). People (mostly Iraqi's ) died in the enforcement of those no fly zones. How are their deaths different than the deaths under W's interpretation of U.N. authority? Moreover, essentially the same intelligence on WMD was used then as W used. So, I say a spade is a spade.

Note: I am not saying the no fly zones were not a good thing. I am just pointing out that if you string up one person for doing something, then you have to string up all who have done the same :shrug:

Also, none of the above excuses W's lying about the nuclear stuff and then going to war anyway. I say impeach him for that.

CarneVaca

02-25-2004, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I'm not a pal :confused:

:laugh:

Seriously, I agree with alot of stuff you all say. I just do not see how people are unwilling to say Clinton did the same thing W has done, albeit on a lesser scale. Clinton used police actions without UN approval. Clinton stuck at Al-Q without U.N. approval. Finally, Clinton, the U.K., and France in the name of perhaps dubious or at least somewhat ineffective humanitarian protection (sounds like W's new rationale) enforced the "no fly zones" in Iraq, The no fly zones were not authorized under the cited authority (Security Council Resolution 688). People (mostly Iraqi's ) died in the enforcement of those no fly zones. How are their deaths different than the deaths under W's interpretation of U.N. authority? Moreover, essentially the same intelligence on WMD was used then as W used. So, I say a spade is a spade.

Ahh... therein the blindess of partisanship. I was against every single military action undertaken during the Clinton years, even though I admit to momentary ambivalence during the Kosovo campaign, which one has to concede was rather successful if one can call "successful" something that by necessity had to waste so many lives. I remember asking my wife during the Kosovo campaign, "What happened to us liberals? Why do we favor war now? This is not what I believe in."

Clinton violated international law a bunch of times. On top of that, where he was most successful was in hijacking Republican issues, such as Nafta and Welfare Reform, and pushing them through. But on traditional Democratic issues, such as health care and Kyoto, he was a miserable failure. Positively ineffective. The net result was a further slide to the right during his administration.

What makes anyone think that it will be different if Kerry wins this year? Here's what will happen if he does: Laws and programs approved during his administration will continue to push the country to the right because anything truly liberal will be blocked. We'd be better off by electing a couple of Paul Wellstones and Teddy Kennedys to Congress to balance out Dubya.

I've read here and elsewhere that Kerry will make the economy improve because Clinton had a good economy. How anyone can reach that conclusion is beyond me. The economy exploded during the Clinton years because of the Internet. It had little, if anything to do, with Clinton's policies. But what we can attribute to his policies is the ****ty outcome of an ecomony built on mostly vapor. His administration and the Congress were too busy bending over for the corporations. Meanwhile, they and Republicans gave us the Monica sideshow to keep us distracted.

A return to that charade? No thanks.

Four more years of Bush? No thanks. But if that happens, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel in 2008. At that point, a Ralph Nader or a Howard Dean or a Dennis Kucinich will be seen as the political messiah. And, yes, the people will rejoice when Nader/Dean/Kucinich is elected. (Personally, I'd give my vote to Bruce Springsteen or Tim Robbins if either of them ran.)

President Nader? You bet I'd welcome that with open arms.

strandinthewind

02-25-2004, 10:48 AM

Oh Carne, I agree with ya but, like most, don't have the sand to stand by it :laugh: So, I compromise, vote for Kerry, and hope for the best - worse things have happened :cool:

strandinthewind

02-25-2004, 10:54 AM

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (search) urged Congress on Wednesday to deal with the country's escalating budget deficit by cutting benefits for future Social Security (search) retirees rather than raising taxes

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112438,00.html

____________________________________________________

This will do W in - a political axiom is you don't fu@$ with the AARP.

CarneVaca

02-25-2004, 11:37 AM

strandinthewind

02-25-2004, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I'm not so sure. They screwed the oldsters with Medicare reform and not only were a lot them unaware they were being screwed, they actually fell in line behind it.

I agree. However, this is the actual checks. That they understand!!!! :laugh:

dissention

02-25-2004, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I'm not a pal :confused:

:laugh:

Well, of course you are. But very rarely do you post something to do with politics that seems to be taken right from my brain. :laugh: There isn't a conservative thought that my brain entertains. :laugh:

gldstwmn

02-25-2004, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by CarneVaca

Four more years of Bush? No thanks. But if that happens, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel in 2008.

You mean when they nominate his brother Jeb?

gldstwmn

02-25-2004, 12:24 PM

gldstwmn

02-25-2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I'm not so sure. They screwed the oldsters with Medicare reform and not only were a lot them unaware they were being screwed, they actually fell in line behind it.

They're talking about skipping payments, not sending out any checks.

dissention

02-25-2004, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
You mean when they nominate his brother Jeb?

:eek: :eek: :eek:

*runs in terror and searches for real estate in France*

strandinthewind

02-25-2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
That's the first thing I thought when I saw it. What the hell is Greenspan thinking?

Although I have nothing concrete to base this on and his montonous voice and blithe demeanor are very hard to read, I think Greenspan HATES Bush. I think he thinks W is an idiot. I get this feeling from his statements about his lamenting the effectiveness of the tax cuts when considered along with W's horrific spendning, which has caused the deficits, etc.

estranged4life

02-25-2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by CarneVaca
(Personally, I'd give my vote to Bruce Springsteen or Tim Robbins if either of them ran.)

President Springsteen...has a nice ring to it, But so would President Bruuuuuuuuuuuucccceeeeeeee.

I can't say I would enjoy Susan Sarandon's "son" running for office though ;)

Brian j.

dissention

02-25-2004, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by estranged4life
President Springsteen...has a nice ring to it, But so would President Bruuuuuuuuuuuucccceeeeeeee. I can't say I would enjoy Susan Sarandon's "son" running for office though ;)

Brian j.

I can say with absolute pride that I would enjoy saying President Sarandon. Why has the woman not gotten into politics? She could save us all.

strandinthewind

02-25-2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by dissention
I can say with absolute pride that I would enjoy saying President Sarandon. Why has the woman not gotten into politics? She could save us all.

esp. if she made all guys wear garters!!! :cool:

dissention

02-25-2004, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
esp. if she made all guys wear garters!!! :cool:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

We can't have garters without the corsets, so bring those on, too. :nod: :laugh:

strandinthewind

02-25-2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Wednesday, February 25, 2004

WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (search) urged Congress on Wednesday to deal with the country's escalating budget deficit by cutting benefits for future Social Security (search) retirees rather than raising taxes

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112438,00.html

____________________________________________________

This will do W in - a political axiom is you don't fu@$ with the AARP.

Might I add that in this article, Greenspan once again, says:

"Tax rate increases of sufficient dimension to deal with our looming fiscal problems arguably pose significant risks to economic growth and the revenue base . . . The exact magnitude of such risks is very difficult to estimate, but they are of enough concern, in my judgment, to warrant aiming to close the fiscal gap primarily, if not wholly, from the outlay side."

The article also states:

Greenspan did not rule out using tax increases to deal with the looming crisis in Social Security, but he said that tax hikes should only be considered after every effort had been made to trim benefits.

"I am just basically saying that we are overcommitted at this stage," Greenspan said in response to committee questions. "It is important that we tell people who are about to retire what it is they will have." He warned that the government should not "promise more than we are able to deliver."

W's smart response was "my position on Social Security benefits is, those benefits should not be changed for people at or near retirement." :rolleyes:

CarneVaca

02-25-2004, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by gldstwmn
You mean when they nominate his brother Jeb?

Chris, I will repeat what I said when George I and Dubya got elected:

"Americans get what they deserve." You're gonna be apathetic and let someone make the decision for you, or you're going to believe in the lies and vote accordingly, you get what you deserve.

CarneVaca

02-25-2004, 02:52 PM

For your reading pleasure:

Winning with Ralph Nader
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

Listening to Democrats screaming about Ralph Nader's entry into the presidential race we finally understand the mindset of those Communist dictatorships that used to take such trouble to ensure that the final count showed a 99 percent Yes vote for the CP candidate. It's a totalitarian logic. "Anybody But Bush" chorus the Democrats. But they don't mean that. They mean, "Nobody But Kerry". And if John Edward wins big in the primaries next week, they'll start shouting "Nobody But Edwards".

What they're saying is that no one has the right to challenge Bush but a Democrat, whoever that Democrat might be, no matter what that Democrat stands for. As CounterPuncher Fred Feldman recently sarcastically parodied this totalitarian logic: " Democracy is when everybody but the good candidate pulls out of the race, and indeed the only way to save democracy is for all candidates except Kerry to withdraw. That should include Bush too, of course. If there is more than one candidate, the horror of 2000 may be repeated! More than one candidate means vote-stealing, reactionary advertising campaigns, the possibility of Republican and Green and socialist candidates, and unpredictable outcomes. The good candidate may not win."

The stream of abuse at Nader, a man who has toiled unceasingly for the public good for half a century has been childishly vulgar and vitriolic. Nader is a "faded chanteuse in a dingy nightclub," wrote Robert Scheer venerable liberal pundit for the Los Angeles Times. He should know. If Nader had an ounce of principle, railed Bruce Jackson, distinguished professor of culture at the University of Buffalo here on the CounterPunch site, he'd "go sit on the capitol steps, douse himself with gasoline and exit this world of imperfect humanity in a blaze of protesting glory. He could even wear a monkish robe."

What has Nader done since 2000, asked Scheer scornfully, albeit stupidly. As Jim Ridgeway points out in the Village Voice, It's been Nader and his groups, not the Democrats, who've spearheaded universal health care ever since Hillary Clinton botched the chance for health reform in the early 90s. It's been Nader and his troops who've kept the searchlight on corporate crime, who raised the hue and cry on Enron, when Democrats were smoothing the counterpane for Lay in the Lincoln Bedroom.

From the point of view of democracy, the American political system is a shambles of corruption, gerrymandered to ensure that it is almost impossible to evict any sitting member of the House of Representatives. The presidential debates are fixed to exclude unwelcome intruders. Nader says that in the whole of his 2000 challenge he got about 3 minutes face-time on the major networks.

You can understand why the two major parties don't want any outsider spoiling the fun. They arranged things that way, as Nader understands, and explains better than anyone.

"I think the mistake the Democrats are making" said Nader at the National Press Club on Monday " when they use the mantra 'anybody but Bush' is, first of all, it closes their mind to any alternative strategies or any creative thinking, which is not good for a political party. And second, it gives their ultimate nominee no mandate, no constituency, no policies, if the ultimate nominee goes into the White House.

"And then they'll be back to us. I guarantee you the
Democrats, the liberal groups, the liberal intelligentsia, the civic groups that are now whining and complaining, even though they know they're being shut out increasingly, year after year, from trying to improve their country when they go to work every day. And they'll be saying, 'Oh, you can't believe -- we were betrayed. The Democrats are succumbing to the corporate interests in the environment, consumer protection.'

"How many cycles do we have to go through here? How long is the learning curve before we recognize that political parties are the problem? They're the problem! They're the ones who have turned our government over to the corporations, so they can say no to universal health insurance and no to a living wage and no to environmental sanity and no to renewable energy and no to a whole range of issues that corporations were never allowed to say no to
30, 40, 50 years ago. Things really have changed."

Nader's seen it happen time and again. Bold promises from a Democratic candidate, followed by ignominious collapse. And each time the promises are vaguer, more timid. Each time the whole system tilts further in the direction of corporate power. Nader is saying that the Democrats are so hopelessly compromised that they don't know how to energize people to get them into the polling booths to vote against Bush. So he's going to lend a hand. Nader can be the candidate denouncing the war that Bush started and Kerry voted for. Nader can denounce the corporate slush that's given Bush his hundred million dollar war chest and Kerry his $30 million in corporate swag over three senate terms.

With NBK as their war cry ("Nobody But Kerry") we doubt the Democrats have much of a shot at the White House. Already George Bush has winged Mr Facing-Both-Ways pretty good. Kerry looks like a beaten man to us. If we were advising John Edwards we'd push for a joint press conference with Nader, welcome him into the race, hail him as a man who knows what's wrong with America and how to mend it. That would make for an exciting political year, and a pretty good chance of ousting George Bush.

Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair's new book, Imperial Crusades: Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, will be published by Verso in May. St. Clair's new book, Been Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me: the Politics of Nature, is now available from Common Courage Press.

http://www.counterpunch.org