The last Nader post this election cycle -- I promise!

"...but isn't that a pretty shallow reason to launch four consecutive presidential bids?" (0.00 / 0)

As opposed to running two candidates whose basic positions are bought and paid for by international corporations..?

---

by: jed @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 00:14:36 AM CST

...those folks... (0.00 / 0)

...who are "bought and paid for," might actually win and have the opportunity to actually make change and set policy.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:37:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think that Nader (0.00 / 0)

is just trying to see if he is still relevant, somehow. It's unfortunate he has to resort to seeing vote tallies to do so.

My sense is that his numbers will seriously decline, and this may be the last we see of him. People who have voted for him in the past may see Obama as a better choice this time around (and I'm a bit embarrassed to say that I fall in this category). Third party protest votes are sooo yesterday.

---

by: JC @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:23:16 AM CST

Nader may be passé. (0.00 / 0)

He's been sufficiently demonized now that he's no longer useful. Look at how everything he does results in personal attacks. And what has he done? He threatened the power structure. Once - one time, presidentially, and, or course,  for his whole public life before that. Show me one Democrat who has done as much for America as has Ralph Nader. One. Shake a tree and a hundred Baucuses will fall out, and only one Nader.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the Democrats will never leave money on your nightstand. Or maybe the better metaphor is Lucy holding the football for you to kick once more.

No - money on the nightstand works better. Enjoy the dating sex. After the marriage you will be, as with Clinton, on the outside of the bedroom window looking in on the fun.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:04:53 AM CST

That's actually three metaphors ... (0.00 / 0)

I mixed them up good.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:16:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I can't imagine (0.00 / 0)

Baucus in any tree that anybody would bother to shake.  
The fruit of Montana's politics has never been worthy of the effort required to shake it.
So far I've found the leftist crowd on this forum fairly pleasant and congenial; but otherwise typical of Montana's sophisticated politicos.

---

by: jed @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:00:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually, (0.00 / 0)

if you shake the tree Senator Gumby is in, he just keeps on rockin...

---

by: JC @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:56:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"personal attacks" (0.00 / 0)

His agenda certainly isn't substantive. His platform is a hodge-podge of loosely related ideas tied together by...Ralph Nader! There's nothing really to criticize other than his character.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 14:19:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's not it at all.... (0.00 / 0)

That's nonsense - he's got policy positions on everything and a long, long list of issues that Clinton and Obama are ignoring.

Look - let's be frank. You're incensed that he is dissing the Democrats, and maybe a little sensitive to the criticism that liberals are being walked all over by the party. It's about ego, all right.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 18:31:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nonsense (0.00 / 0)

I feel like the best path through change is through the Democratic party, not Ralph Nader. The facts support me, logic supports me. If Nader was truly a progressive who wanted to really implement change, there's no earthly reason why he'd step into this race. So the rest of us are left to scramble around and find his motivation for running.

Why you think this is a good idea is beyond me. Your rhetoric on the two parties being the same rings hollow in light of the deeds of the Bush administration. Is that what you want? More Bushistas running this place? By the time they're done we may not have spirited elections to argue over.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 18:54:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Long list of issues (0.00 / 0)

Yes, like "impeach Bush and Cheney." Er, first they'll be out of office if he wins the presidency. And second, how's he going to accomplish this as president? It's Congress that impeaches.

That's what you call "substantive"? That's a slogan, not an issue.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 19:04:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Tax structure ... (0.00 / 0)

punitive taxes on working people while Wall Street enjoys favored rates ... enforcement of existing environmental laws .. end the war in Iraq ... single payer health insurance ... taking on the drug companies on pricing ... refusal to enforce labor laws ... get out of NAFTA and CAFTA ... Credit card companies preying on young and old people ... re-regulation of Wall Street ...

All issues neither Obama or Clinton have touched. There are many more, none having anything to do with slogans. Clinton and Obama are like Bush and Gore in 2000 - so close on the issues that they have to make up stuff to debate about.

And remember, Gore came to us after eight years of Clintonism, ran away from his base, selected a right wing conservative as a running mate, and refused to deal with any liberal issues that Nader raised. He, like Clinton, is a retroactive liberal.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 20:44:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

folks want a party that more closely represents their own personal political beliefs... (0.00 / 0)

"folks want a party that more closely represents their own personal political beliefs; but there's never enough consensus within a third of the electorate on what that party would be."

Or maybe some Dems really do feel represented by the Green party, but are scared that not enough other dems will move over and they'll be "throwing away" their vote.  

---

by: John @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:24:37 PM CST

I suspect we would naturally break into three (0.00 / 0)

Conservative, liberal, and an in-between party much like Britain's labor party. The Democratic Party, at this point, actively works to keep this from happening by sucking liberals in at election time and actively working to keep third parties off state ballots. They exist to do what Edwards did - gather up liberal sentiment, and dash it on the rocks.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 13:29:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

...or more... (0.00 / 0)

I figure the conservatives would break, too. There'd probably be a religious party with progressive economic and environmental platform, but very conservative on social issues... Kinda like the Catholic parties of Europe...and don't forget Libertarians!

So...in a US parliamentary system:

Greens
"Labor"
Conservatives
Evangelical
Libertarian

Now that would be sweet if we had those options, and the parties could form governing coalitions...etc & co.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 14:17:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Jay, are you secretly (0.00 / 0)

a Bob Kelleher supporter? ;-)

http://www.onewest.net/~kelleher/

And in your vision of a US parliamentary system, can we include neosocialists/anarchists? How about the Bushian notion of compassionate conservative that disappeared after 9/11?

---

by: JC @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 18:17:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

haha! (0.00 / 0)

I love that guy!

I like the idea of a parliamentary system of government. It certainly gives more views representation.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 18:56:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In the two-party system (0.00 / 0)

only marginalized characters are going to run on issues such as Kelleher's, eh, jay?
Why do you see that as a good thing..?

---

by: jed @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 18:48:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I never said I liked the two-party system... (0.00 / 0)

...but it's here and real, so we've got to deal with it.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 19:25:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I doubt were much different than Canada or great Britain ... (0.00 / 0)

We'd have three major parties, splinters, and coalitions. Liberals, in such a system, would have some clout.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 18:35:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

definitely (0.00 / 0)

But, then, they are throwing their votes away.

Figure that, if everybody who liked the Greens' platform voted for 'em, they'd get...what? Ten? Twenty percent of the vote? (Remember, we're talking about a party that couldn't elect a mayor in San Franciso in 2004.) That number gets subtracted mostly from the Democratic candidates.

So yeah, it's a throwaway vote...or worse. It's a vote for the GOP. We've seen how that goes.

IMHO, it's better just to put forth and support better democratic candidates than it is to try and create a third party.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 14:14:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You continually ignore the fact that ... (0.00 / 0)

It's the Democrats refusal to carry out liberal positions once elected that creates the impetus for dissent, and "throwing votes away". Obviously, if people thought a vote for a Democrat was worth all that much, they wouldn't do that.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 18:34:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't understand... (0.00 / 0)

...do you expect Democrats to carry out every liberal issue? Do you really think a Democratically-controlled government would implement no liberal issues?

I've heard you say this a lot, but history shows that Democratic presidents and Congresses do enact liberal leglislaition.

Do I expect them to make sweeping changes? No! Why should I? It's a conservative process. There's too much money involved in running for office. Change isn't going to be handed down from on high.

Screw waiting on your precious white knight to save us. I'm climbing down off of this tower on my own...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 19:01:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

History shows taht change happens outside the parties ... (0.00 / 0)

Out most liberal presidents during my lifetime were Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. They signed into law a host of progressive legislation - the reason was surely not Democrats. There were movements out there that were threatening - civil rights and environmental and anti-poverty.  They had to throw them bones. It was the movements that existed outside the parties that brought about change.

There's a liberal element within the Democratic Party, I'll grant you. But they are a minority. The party is run by right-leaning centrists who don't even like liberals but know they have to put up with them. What we are going through now is what we go through every election cycle - during the primaries, Democrats sound liberal. Once nominated, they revert to form. Obama, for sure, is an unknown quantity, though there are tantalizing hints in his record that he is a DLC Centrist. But Clinton is not. Look at her now, disavowing NAFTA - you know as well as I do that she supported it, supports it, and will support it in the future if elected. But it's the primaries ...

The road to change is through the Democratic Party? It's not their role. Their role is to contain you, to neuter you, to collect your sentiments and dash them on the rocks, as Edwards has done. They are not the party of change. they are the party that prevents the organization of movements to force change. Progressive movements are taken in to the party, and they vanish.

Have you not learned anything these past two years?

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 20:38:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

what did you expect? instant results? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:13:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Instant? (0.00 / 0)

Only if you happen to be a glacier.
It has been over a year; and if anything--things are worse..!

---

by: jed @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 18:54:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

you prove my point! (0.00 / 0)

Nixon and Johnson weren't third-party candidates. Pressure was put on them by activists, not by white knight third-party candidates. I believe -- and it's my opinion -- that Nader is hurting the work we're doing.

And if I've learned anything in last two years, it's the surprising amount of effect an ordinary schmoe can actually have on the process.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:18:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not at all ... (0.00 / 0)

The two parties are essentially one. The outside pressure in The Johnson/Nixon years was put on both parties, forcing them to move on issues that, normally, both resist. It was like any other time in history when change has happened - outside forces, and not the parties, brought about that change.

Since that time the Democratic party has been captured by right-leaning centrists, and is not a force for change. Liberals are in a minority and are marginalized. Hillary is no liberal, Obama is suspect, Edwards was probably a stalking horse for Hillary (best laid plans - I don't think she took Obama seriously enough soon enough).

There are times in history when forces collide and popular movements force real change upon us. This is not one of those times. We were probably fortunate to be witness to one of those times in the 60's and 70's. Maybe again in my lifetime sometime. But not now.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:37:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

boy! (0.00 / 0)

You sure are the grim gertie today, aren't you?

What would you have us do? Throw our hands up in despair? Rip out our hair? O, woe is us!

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:54:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Lucy's holding the football ... (0.00 / 0)

Go for it.

As I get older I'm becoming more a jaded observer. It's the same process over and over again. The definition of insanity. One must look outside this crazy system for solace.

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 22:23:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The H used to statnd for humble. (0.00 / 0)

Now it seems to stand for half-baked.

I've heard it said that a sure sign of insanity is repetition of mistakes over and over again in the vain hope that this time it will make things better.

How long since this nation made a choice of candidates not belonging to an established party?  
How long since those choices were not made as a result of the most expensive campaign in history?

---

by: jed @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 17:57:01 PM CST

Jed, (0.00 / 0)

The party argument is a good one, but what is your practical solution?  

I mean really, has this country not changed dramatically over time? We are a rather conservative, judeo-christian based morality state in which when progressives do make change it is piecemeal and slow and fought in the courts, but we generally move forward, I agree that some of the major changes I think you advocate for(?) are necessary soon, but how do they just appear?  How do we get there? You know as well as I the electorate can be scared away from any candidate that sounds like they will bring major change. What does the cost of the campaign have to do with it, or is that just you griping over wasted dollars in a capitalistic world(isn't that what you're truly attacking).  

---

by: natedogchunkystyle @ Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 23:30:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, chunk, I am--have been for years--attacking Capitalism; (0.00 / 0)

(does that shock you?)
but the expensive campaign I mentioned is simply a reference to the ongoing and mushrooming corruption inherent in our bought and paid for two-party system.

I have been fighting the good fight for a third party for years--I began voting in 1958--with absolutely no success at all.  
I have never even voted for a winning presidential candidate!

Are you suggesting--as Jay does--it is better to continue to make the same mistake over and over and over while expecting some useful change..?  

---

by: jed @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 19:21:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Voting (0.00 / 0)

So I have never voted for a winning presidential campaign either, I barely missed voting in 2000 due to my age, but it wouldn't have been for a winner.

I could pose the same question back at you about doing the same thing over and over with your 3rd party voting.

I understand your mistrust of the system, but the platform the democrats have(and I am not a staunch party person) is pretty good this year, Healthcare, Energy, Out of Iraq, Environment, along with the restoration of civil liberties via no more torture, restoration of Habeas Corpus, closing Guantanamo, ending wiretapping.

I know this does not sound like a repudiation of capitalism, but these are strong governmental moves to control the evil corporations Nader speaks of(and I generally agree) with less oil company control, insurance change, not letting the Military Industrial Complex dictate our foreign policy and forcing certain higher standards on polluters. These all sound like good answers and a start to corporate control.

I think Nader presenting himself as the none of the above candidate is silly, there is a distinct difference this election in the candidates, as their obviously was in 2000.

---

by: natedogchunkystyle @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 13:04:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You weren't even 18 in 2000; and you're trying to convince me of the errors of my ways? (0.00 / 0)

That has to be good news for anybody who cares about this nation's potential future--a kid who gives damn!

But think of it this way, chunk:
I may have taught your Grandfather in high school.
And your father at university!

By the way--what you regard as high points of a Democratic platform sound pretty much like nothing more than reactions to G. W. Bush:  
What exactly will either candidate do to combat that Military/Industrial Complex--since both will be indebted to their corporate donors?
What is it they're planning to do for really poor people?
How do they plan to put Americans back to work in meaningful jobs?
What can they do to modernize our infra-structures?

Nothing can be done until campaign finance laws are changed utterly...

---

by: jed @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 17:46:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]