- ‹ previous
- 3551 of 8795
- next ›
What Are Progressives to Think of Ralph Nader?
Okay, so Ralph Nader has entered the presidential race and all of progressive America is having horrible flashbacks.
All of the criticisms of his 2004 run still hold, and even the left-wing blogosphere is completely against the idea. It's a narcissistic and, at this point, almost embarrassing endeavor that has only the chance to do harm to the progressive values and ideals Nader holds dear.
But let me suggest a stay of the beating of chests and tearing of garments. The Nader magic had diminished significantly by 2004, and is diminished further today. He is no longer the Green Party's chosen candidate, and his argument that the two parties are essentially identical doesn't hold water when one party is running a woman and an African-American. Any call for change that Nader makes this year will be a hollow echo of the calls the Democratic candidates are already making.
Besides, no candidate who took 0.38 percent of the vote in 2004, when the Democratic candidate was dramatically worse than the options available today, is going to see a resurgence in November 2008.
So fret not, citizens of Berkeley, Burlington, and Madison. You've made your mistakes with Nader in the past but America can forgive you. Particularly if you ignore him this time around.
Michael L. Wagner ? I wouldn't look to Russ Simons for political advice.
Good point on solar. Subsidies from the 2005 energy plan should be reinstated and states should expand their solar and wind subsidies to make it cost effective. In the end, it is in the states interest to lessen the load on the current infrastructure.
poetryman69 ? ANWAR is a bad idea. According to USGS data, it will take 20 to 30 years for ANWAR to provide 5% of our current oil demand. Those are FACTS.
"If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we." ? Their ethanol is largely from sugar cane. To get that, they cut down rain forest. See where I'm going?
Ethanol from corn is a total scam.
Nukes sound good, but remember that you have a 10,000 years to deal with the waste. Think about it ? 10,000 years!!!
As for ethanol from biomas and alge, yes we should be going in that direction. Sustainable and with an excellent energy balance.
In the end, conservation is the key. Remember when "conservatives" were actually for conservation???
What it comes down to is that we as a country are totally screwed. We have a economy based on consumption that is just about to tank and because Americans spend more than they take in. To keep people from going bankrupt or loosing their homes (which should happen to accelerate the recovery) the government is going to intervene. That is NEVER a good thing because it will put off and exacerbate the inevitable.
As for energy, health care and food ? those too are big problems that are not being addressed. I do not see Nader capable of being a leader and only being a protest vote. When it comes down to it, Obama has the fewest connections and least debts to pay.
As for the Wall St. money, they are going that way because they want a CO2 Cap and Trade which is total BS. It only creates an unnecessary market for traders to skim off of.
What I would like to see is a study of the last 7 elections, what candidates "promised" and what was delivered. In the end, a president really doesn't do much and all this crap about health care reform is hooie. It will NEVER happen. And if it does, lord help us all.
He has my vote, again.
and for those whinney so-called progressives, your man BO has it right when he says that the job of the Democrats is to be so compleeling that a few percentage points should not matter. So far I don't hear anything compelling, except from Nader.
With Nader, Carbon Tax Is Back in the Debate
By Dan Shapely, The Daily Green 2 25, 2008
Nuclear Power, and Corporate Personhood, Would Exit Stage Left
Ralph Nader has joined the race for U.S. president, and with him may come increased debate about nuclear power, corporate personhood and a carbon tax.
A carbon tax, a ban on nuclear power and an end to "corporate personhood" are among the platforms that Ralph Nader is bringing to the table, as he launches his fifth bid to be president of the United States.
The accomplished consumer advocate and far left-wing darling said he's running to bring up issues that have been ignored by the major party candidates left in the race.
On the environmental side, those include the carbon tax, which had been championed by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd before he dropped out of the race following the Iowa caucuses. Some economists have argued that a tax on carbon would be the most efficient way to reduce the greenhouse emissions fueling global warming, but all the major party candidates with a chance at their party's nomination ? Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Republican John McCain ? all favor a cap-and-trade regulation to limit greenhouse gas pollution and allow polluters to trade pollution credits in a regulated market.
Nader also has a hard line against nuclear power, which McCain supports, and which both Democrats have described as a possibility. Nuclear power has long been opposed by environmentalists because its waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, but some have embraced it in the era of global warming, given that it can produce huge amounts of energy without greenhouse gas emissions (after the mining and processing of fuel is accounted for).
Finally, Nader would take a revolutionary step in removing corporate personhood, which some argue gives companies undue legal cover for harming the environment and human health.
Obama? you're kidding I hope. You might want to take a look at his advisers, the men and women who likely form the backbone of the candidate's future cabinet if elected president.Obama's top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. And he was asked by the interviewer, "Well, don't you think this might have had some bad consequences?" And Brzezinski replied, "Absolutely not. It was definitely worth it, because we were going after the Soviets. We were getting the Soviets." Another top Obama person?
Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, he was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.
Another Obama adviser, General Merrill McPeak, an Air Force man, who not long after the Dili massacre in East Timor in '91 that you and I survived, he was?I happened to see on Indonesian TV shortly after that?there was General McPeak overseeing the delivery to Indonesia of US fighter planes.
Another key Obama adviser, Dennis Ross. Ross, for many years under both Clinton and Bush 2, a key?he has advised Clinton and both Bushes. He oversaw US policy toward Israel/Palestine. He pushed the principle that the legal rights of the Palestinians, the rights recognized under international law, must be subordinated to the needs of the Israeli government?in other words, their desires, their desires to expand to do whatever they want in the Occupied Territories. And Ross was one of the people who, interestingly, led the political assault on former Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Carter, no peacenik?I mean, Carter is the one who bears ultimate responsibility for that Timor terror that Holbrooke was involved in. But Ross led an assault on him, because, regarding Palestine, Carter was so bold as to agree with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa that what Israel was doing in the Occupied Territories was tantamount to apartheid. And so, Ross was one of those who fiercely attacked him.
Another Obama adviser, Sarah Sewall, who heads a human rights center at Harvard and is a former Defense official, she wrote the introduction to General Petraeus's Marine Corps/Army counterinsurgency handbook, the handbook that is now being used worldwide by US troops in various killing operations. That's the Obama team.
This is a shoddy hit-piece all the way through, and apparently what passes for "journalism" in MoJo's David Corn-led Washington bureau.
The headline, "What Are Progressives to Think of Ralph Nader?" and first sentence ("all of progressive America is having horrible flashbacks") implies that Jonathan Stein either is a progressive, or at least has standing to tell them what they should think.
Since he's consistently attacked Edwards, Kucinich, and now Nader, he clearly thinks that only centrist Democrats like Clinton and Obama are OK for the American electorate to vote on. That's progressive , or even particularly liberal, so why is he in any position to tell progressives what they should think or do?
As for "all of the criticisms of his 2004 run", those came from DLC Democrats who couldn't beat Bush or come even close despite the unpopularity of the occupation of Iraq, and without the Florida vote rigging as an excuse. How about "all of the criticisms of the spineless 2004 Democrats still hold"?
By "left-wing blogosphere" Stein clearly means liberal Democrats, who are about as left as Stein can conceive. Anyone beyond them ? including progressives and those who reject a perpetual two-party state ? believe that the Democrats should be able to win without excluding their competition. (It's sort of like corporate types who talk about a free market, while doing everything they can to create a monopoly.)
What exactly are "the progressive values and ideals Nader holds dear"? Based on his announcement on NBC, multi-party democracy and citizen involvement seem to be two of them, and yet Stein tells us that Nader's candidacy will "harm" those two things ? whereas not promoting a third-party candidate and not running will ... what, Jonathan, help promote those things? How's that exactly? By not doing something, we enable people to do it?
Stein is bright enough to notice that "one party is running a woman and an African-American", as if that differentiates it from a party with an African-American woman as secretary of state who's being seriously touted as a vice presidential running mate. Sorry, Jon-o, but the days of touting the Democrats as the party of inclusion are long passed, thanks to minorities such as Rice, Powell, and Gonzalez. You'll have to do better than that to differentiate the Democrats and the Republicans. Hey, I know, how about support for civil liberties? Wait, no, not much difference there. Voting to fund the war? Uh, no, not there either. Sucking up to corporate power and taking their money in exchange for pro-corporate legislation? That's a dead-heat. Let us know when you find something that's not largely cosmetic and symbolic ...
But for sheer audacity (to say nothing of denial), Stein then has the chutzpah to write that "Any call for change that Nader makes this year will be a hollow echo of the calls the Democratic candidates are already making." REALLY?! Did you even watch his announcement, Jon, or at least read the transcript? His whole platform is based on calls that neither of the two MoJo-sanctioned, inside-the-Beltway, Democratic Party centrist candidates are making. Would you like that list of differences in alphabetical order, or by order of importance?
Finally, Stein goes on to say that, "the Nader magic had diminished significantly by 2004, and is diminished further today" and that "no candidate who took 0.38 percent of the vote in 2004, when the Democratic candidate was dramatically worse than the options available today, is going to see a resurgence in November 2008" ? and yet he's clearly worried enough to write this hit-piece imploring so-called "progressives" (as if he knows any) not to vote for Nader.
So, which is it, Jon-o? Is Nader a "significantly diminished" non-entity, or someone whose genuine progressive values and ideals ? especially in the face of craven Democratic Party sell-outs ? could genuinely threaten to take votes away from the official, David Corn-sanctioned centrists candidates that we slaves on the Democratic plantation are required to support?
Both things can't be true ...
Michael L. Wagner ? I wouldn't look to Russ Simons for political advice.
Good point on solar. Subsidies from the 2005 energy plan should be reinstated and states should expand their solar and wind subsidies to make it cost effective. In the end, it is in the states interest to lessen the load on the current infrastructure.
poetryman69 ? ANWAR is a bad idea. According to USGS data, it will take 20 to 30 years for ANWAR to provide 5% of our current oil demand. Those are FACTS.
"If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we." ? Their ethanol is largely from sugar cane. To get that, they cut down rain forest. See where I'm going?
Ethanol from corn is a total scam.
Nukes sound good, but remember that you have a 10,000 years to deal with the waste. Think about it ? 10,000 years!!!
As for ethanol from biomas and alge, yes we should be going in that direction. Sustainable and with an excellent energy balance.
In the end, conservation is the key. Remember when "conservatives" were actually for conservation???
What it comes down to is that we as a country are totally screwed. We have a economy based on consumption that is just about to tank and because Americans spend more than they take in. To keep people from going bankrupt or loosing their homes (which should happen to accelerate the recovery) the government is going to intervene. That is NEVER a good thing because it will put off and exacerbate the inevitable.
As for energy, health care and food ? those too are big problems that are not being addressed. I do not see Nader capable of being a leader and only being a protest vote. When it comes down to it, Obama has the fewest connections and least debts to pay.
As for the Wall St. money, they are going that way because they want a CO2 Cap and Trade which is total BS. It only creates an unnecessary market for traders to skim off of.
What I would like to see is a study of the last 7 elections, what candidates "promised" and what was delivered. In the end, a president really doesn't do much and all this crap about health care reform is hooie. It will NEVER happen. And if it does, lord help us all.
He has my vote, again.
and for those whinney so-called progressives, your man BO has it right when he says that the job of the Democrats is to be so compleeling that a few percentage points should not matter. So far I don't hear anything compelling, except from Nader.
With Nader, Carbon Tax Is Back in the Debate
By Dan Shapely, The Daily Green 2 25, 2008
Nuclear Power, and Corporate Personhood, Would Exit Stage Left
Ralph Nader has joined the race for U.S. president, and with him may come increased debate about nuclear power, corporate personhood and a carbon tax.
A carbon tax, a ban on nuclear power and an end to "corporate personhood" are among the platforms that Ralph Nader is bringing to the table, as he launches his fifth bid to be president of the United States.
The accomplished consumer advocate and far left-wing darling said he's running to bring up issues that have been ignored by the major party candidates left in the race.
On the environmental side, those include the carbon tax, which had been championed by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd before he dropped out of the race following the Iowa caucuses. Some economists have argued that a tax on carbon would be the most efficient way to reduce the greenhouse emissions fueling global warming, but all the major party candidates with a chance at their party's nomination ? Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Republican John McCain ? all favor a cap-and-trade regulation to limit greenhouse gas pollution and allow polluters to trade pollution credits in a regulated market.
Nader also has a hard line against nuclear power, which McCain supports, and which both Democrats have described as a possibility. Nuclear power has long been opposed by environmentalists because its waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, but some have embraced it in the era of global warming, given that it can produce huge amounts of energy without greenhouse gas emissions (after the mining and processing of fuel is accounted for).
Finally, Nader would take a revolutionary step in removing corporate personhood, which some argue gives companies undue legal cover for harming the environment and human health.
Obama? you're kidding I hope. You might want to take a look at his advisers, the men and women who likely form the backbone of the candidate's future cabinet if elected president.Obama's top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. And he was asked by the interviewer, "Well, don't you think this might have had some bad consequences?" And Brzezinski replied, "Absolutely not. It was definitely worth it, because we were going after the Soviets. We were getting the Soviets." Another top Obama person?
Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, he was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.
Another Obama adviser, General Merrill McPeak, an Air Force man, who not long after the Dili massacre in East Timor in '91 that you and I survived, he was?I happened to see on Indonesian TV shortly after that?there was General McPeak overseeing the delivery to Indonesia of US fighter planes.
Another key Obama adviser, Dennis Ross. Ross, for many years under both Clinton and Bush 2, a key?he has advised Clinton and both Bushes. He oversaw US policy toward Israel/Palestine. He pushed the principle that the legal rights of the Palestinians, the rights recognized under international law, must be subordinated to the needs of the Israeli government?in other words, their desires, their desires to expand to do whatever they want in the Occupied Territories. And Ross was one of the people who, interestingly, led the political assault on former Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Carter, no peacenik?I mean, Carter is the one who bears ultimate responsibility for that Timor terror that Holbrooke was involved in. But Ross led an assault on him, because, regarding Palestine, Carter was so bold as to agree with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa that what Israel was doing in the Occupied Territories was tantamount to apartheid. And so, Ross was one of those who fiercely attacked him.
Another Obama adviser, Sarah Sewall, who heads a human rights center at Harvard and is a former Defense official, she wrote the introduction to General Petraeus's Marine Corps/Army counterinsurgency handbook, the handbook that is now being used worldwide by US troops in various killing operations. That's the Obama team.
This is a shoddy hit-piece all the way through, and apparently what passes for "journalism" in MoJo's David Corn-led Washington bureau.
The headline, "What Are Progressives to Think of Ralph Nader?" and first sentence ("all of progressive America is having horrible flashbacks") implies that Jonathan Stein either is a progressive, or at least has standing to tell them what they should think.
Since he's consistently attacked Edwards, Kucinich, and now Nader, he clearly thinks that only centrist Democrats like Clinton and Obama are OK for the American electorate to vote on. That's progressive , or even particularly liberal, so why is he in any position to tell progressives what they should think or do?
As for "all of the criticisms of his 2004 run", those came from DLC Democrats who couldn't beat Bush or come even close despite the unpopularity of the occupation of Iraq, and without the Florida vote rigging as an excuse. How about "all of the criticisms of the spineless 2004 Democrats still hold"?
By "left-wing blogosphere" Stein clearly means liberal Democrats, who are about as left as Stein can conceive. Anyone beyond them ? including progressives and those who reject a perpetual two-party state ? believe that the Democrats should be able to win without excluding their competition. (It's sort of like corporate types who talk about a free market, while doing everything they can to create a monopoly.)
What exactly are "the progressive values and ideals Nader holds dear"? Based on his announcement on NBC, multi-party democracy and citizen involvement seem to be two of them, and yet Stein tells us that Nader's candidacy will "harm" those two things ? whereas not promoting a third-party candidate and not running will ... what, Jonathan, help promote those things? How's that exactly? By not doing something, we enable people to do it?
Stein is bright enough to notice that "one party is running a woman and an African-American", as if that differentiates it from a party with an African-American woman as secretary of state who's being seriously touted as a vice presidential running mate. Sorry, Jon-o, but the days of touting the Democrats as the party of inclusion are long passed, thanks to minorities such as Rice, Powell, and Gonzalez. You'll have to do better than that to differentiate the Democrats and the Republicans. Hey, I know, how about support for civil liberties? Wait, no, not much difference there. Voting to fund the war? Uh, no, not there either. Sucking up to corporate power and taking their money in exchange for pro-corporate legislation? That's a dead-heat. Let us know when you find something that's not largely cosmetic and symbolic ...
But for sheer audacity (to say nothing of denial), Stein then has the chutzpah to write that "Any call for change that Nader makes this year will be a hollow echo of the calls the Democratic candidates are already making." REALLY?! Did you even watch his announcement, Jon, or at least read the transcript? His whole platform is based on calls that neither of the two MoJo-sanctioned, inside-the-Beltway, Democratic Party centrist candidates are making. Would you like that list of differences in alphabetical order, or by order of importance?
Finally, Stein goes on to say that, "the Nader magic had diminished significantly by 2004, and is diminished further today" and that "no candidate who took 0.38 percent of the vote in 2004, when the Democratic candidate was dramatically worse than the options available today, is going to see a resurgence in November 2008" ? and yet he's clearly worried enough to write this hit-piece imploring so-called "progressives" (as if he knows any) not to vote for Nader.
So, which is it, Jon-o? Is Nader a "significantly diminished" non-entity, or someone whose genuine progressive values and ideals ? especially in the face of craven Democratic Party sell-outs ? could genuinely threaten to take votes away from the official, David Corn-sanctioned centrists candidates that we slaves on the Democratic plantation are required to support?
Both things can't be true ...
Nader was never really the Green Party's chosen candidate. He isn't even a member of the party.
He also does not really hold values that are that progressive: As a feminist, he is one of the last people for whom I would vote. His stand on women's issues has always been weak.
"The Nader magic had diminished significantly by 2004, and is diminished further today."
Yes - he was buried under 23 lawsuits and hundreds of "pro-bono" corporate lawyers by the DLC Dems. Signature gatherers were threatened, fake names placed in the petitions, etc. He has filed suit for 2004 this year in preparation for the next DNC/DLC felony.
Details here:
http://newjerseyuntouchables.blogspot.com/2007/10/democratic-party-sued-...
In August 2004, Kerry said he'd do what Bush did in Iraq. That's who the DNC/DLC peddled?
And let's not forget "Nukes ain't carbon" Al and his pal Lieberman. Both voted to confirm Scalia. Lieberman cheerled the (current) war, ran against the Democrat in his home state, and is next to McCain on the all the hustings. Al Gore was bashing Bush I in 1992 for not overthrowing Saddam.
So, look at your paycheck, look at Wall Street, look at the military budget, look at your family's health care prospects, look at the FDA, FCC (Telecomm Act of 1996), NAFTA/CAFTA, look at any regulations passed since 1993, look at "impeachment off the table", Israel/Palestine and laying waste to Lebanon, Cuba policy, trade policy, Iraq/Iran, the spineless, corrupt Dem-controlled Senate and House - and tell us the difference.
It's great that an African American and woman are running as (major) party candidates. I don't need a marketing effort - I need a candidate! What about the fricking ISSUES?!?!
Bye-bye, you dumb Dems.
Remember when the founder of the environmental movement called Gore the most evil person ever... Evidently you don't!!!
And here, don't we have to wonder why, so far, no candidate has emulated George W. and called for limits on greenhouse emissions from power stations--the worst polluters...???
Maybe because they're too damn busy advocating the Emmissions Trading Scheme: "A year ago, Citigroup's Peter Atherton confessed in a PowerPoint that the EU-ETS (European Union-Emission Trading Scheme) had 'done nothing to curb emissions' and acted as 'a highly regressive tax falling mostly on poor people.' On whether policy goals were achieved, he admitted: 'Prices up, emissions up, profits up ... so, not really. Who wins and loses? All generation-based utilities--winners. Coal and nuclear-based generators--biggest winners. Hedge finds and energy traders--even bigger winners. Losers ... ahem ... Consumers!" Kevin Smith, The Case Against Carbon Trading, Transnational Institute.
Sometimes I wonder whether people are really as stupid as it seems--or is this some kind of Big Business, Big Mojo conspiracy???!!!
An Open Letter to Ralph Nadar
Mr. Nadar
There is no doubt that your last self serving electoral process substantially contributed to the past 8 years of degradation in this country. No doubt at all. Quite honestly, I can't even accept your protestations to the contrary as genuine any longer. I also feel that your actions have significantly moved back a legitimate third party process in this country.
I believed in your message, once, as did so many others. If you did, in fact, represent a true opposition, you would have been engaged and participatory during these past years. The fact that you only seem to move towards the cameras when the lights are the brightest and the effort the least shames progressive politics and that which you once represented.
While I am not much of a conspiratorial theorist, your connections and motivations have become incredibly suspect. Please don't shame yourself or the progressive movement once again. And please show respect for those Progressives and Democrats who have believed in your work and message and care about the future of our country. Only once the Republican degradation has ended will we be able to move forward.
Inasmuch as you have absolutely no chance for winning and have shown no interest in working at or actually representing your message otherwise, please let us know why you are re-engaging this foolhardy charade.
My mistake...NadER
Nader will make about 1/3 the impression that Kucinich made. He's a non-starter and it is crazy that he would run. At this point you need to wonder about his ego.
We got a shot with Obama. A damn good one. He isn't a neo-con like Billary and he isn't a party puppet like Kerry. Forget about Nader and let's catapult Obama to the White House and hold his accountable every step of the way.
Say it brother Lou!
I got a feeling that this one will get a lot of comments. If the over/under is 30, I'll take the over.
I for one am always open to the idea of a third party candidate, but it would be a lot better if we had Australian ballets (first, second, and third choices). Given Gore's positions on some issues like free trade I can see why some people turned against him and toward Nader, and given Hillary's history on issues like trade and the war I can see why some people would turn for Nader if she won the nomination. The one thing I can't figure out is why Nader running now that Obama is the obvious front runner. Nader initially endorsed Edwards because he had that impressive progressive master plan and a strong stance on the issues, but now he's (probably) going to be running against Obama and I can't figure out why. Is it because Obama isn't progressive enough for Nader's taste? Obama may act a bit moderate for my tastes too, but let's face it his record on the war (especially in comparison to Hillary's), his rasing the issue of Hillary's consistent position on trade, and his campaign being financed mostly by supporters and not corporations all go together to make him a great and credible progressive candidate. I could see myself voting for Nader on the off chance that Hillary steals the nomination with super delegates, but if Obama gets the nomination Nader's candidacy would be more pointless than Mike Gravel's was.
"last self serving electoral process substantially contributed to the past 8 years of degradation in this country"
Nader is the DLC/DNC excuse for their poor candidates. Gore/Liberman didn't win Arkansas or TN. Even Mondale won Minnesota (and DC) in 1984 and lost everything. Maybe the Republicans should be prevented from running - then any idiot the DLC puts up will win, like they are "entitled" to. The other reason the DLC/DNC dumps on Nader is to keep the peace and justice people pulling the DNC lever again and again.
News flash: Nader was buried under lawsuits in 2004 and Kerry still LOST!
"your connections and motivations have become incredibly suspect"
Ralph's motivations are all above-board. What you see is what you get. Can you say the same for the lobbyist-controlled DNC and RNC and their 527 pals?
Go to opensecrets.org and look how the corporate 2008 money flows - then watch what comes out of their mouths.
"Inasmuch as you have absolutely no chance for winning"
Like "Mr. Insurance" Chris Dodd? Tom Tancredo? Where are the Whigs?
One reason to run is to get party status. And why is it OK for Reps and Dems run against entrenched opposing party incumbents?
Sorry, but this is all called DEMOCRACY. Ralph isn't busy keeping the DNC/RNC off the ballot, so relax and vote for whoever you want. Please let your DNC know they should stop conspiring - illegally - against OUR candidate, OK?
He, he, he--who's talking up a "junior United States Senator ... who has accomplished nothing thus far in the Senate ..."
Barack Obama doesn't look very angelic after you've read the aticle Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate, Mike McIntire, The NY Times, 02/03/08.
According to the so-called CEO of Hip-Hop, Russell Simmons--Obama "... collected more than any other Democratic candidate from Wall Street people. So at the end of the day, he's controlled, too. That's my point. He's a mouse, too, like everyone else."
Yeah--the Mouse that Roared!!! "I was a strong supporter of the war in Afhganistan. But I said I could not support a 'dumb war, a rash war' in Iraq. I worrried about a 'U.S. occupation of untermined length, at undetermined cost, with undertermined consequences' in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we 'finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda.'"
Obama once suggested that the U.S. "one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs."
My point is that Russia was forced to pull out of Afghanistan--so shouldn't we be worrying about an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost??? What--he doesn't have a man-child of draft age...???
We should have "countered" the terrorist training camps with surgical strikes...
On the subject of things surgical...: "Salaries paid to top hospital executives grew an estimated 95 percent from 2002-2006, according to a task force ..." In 2005, Mrs. Obama received $316,962 in total compensation as a hospital executive (both are Harvard lawyers...).
Forget he's a Harvard lawyer...--he's for ethanol (BIG WONDER!!!)--a MIT report says that ethanol actually increases greenhouse gases, smog, plus it significantly increases the price of natural gas!!!
Well, I am sorry--but explain to me how in the world anyone could possibly trust Obama, or Clinton, or McCain???!!!
Yikes--some real, real scary folks (or is it just me???!!!)
The problem is:
We have a "majority" rule so a "winner takes all" - now explain to me how a third party (or 4th or 5th) can make a serious run?
It is a two party system because THAT serves the two parties.
Until and unless we ever get IRV (instant run-off voting) there will be no real consideration of any third party.
"how in the world anyone could possibly trust Obama, or Clinton, or McCain?"
Are you seriously saying someone SHOULD trust ANY politician? That third party candidates are trustworthy because they are a third party?
Are you serious?
Politicians SUCK all of them - but we will have one of the three you list taking up the WH soon - so should it be HRC, BHO or McCain?
These BS protest votes (I just can't vote for the r's or d's) favor the worst candidate and never offers hope to the best.
Sorry you don't like the only actual potential candidates. A protest vote is better than the jerks that never vote, so good on ya.
Energy Independence Now!
No more Oil Wars!
Stop funding the terrorists!
Drill in Anwar.
Build more nuclear power plants
Use More coal.
Use more natural gas
Turn trash into energy
Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.
If France can do nuclear power so can we.
If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.
If Australia can do LNG power so can we.
Domestically produced energy will end recession and spur the economy.
Chief:
You're saying that should the Dem. and Rep. candidates come right out and say:
1./ prepare for the draft because oil is worth more than certain young lives,
2./ prepare for more smog bcause coddling ADM (ethanol) is more important than our lungs (or global warming),
3./ prepare to pay more for virtually everything because the Emissions Trading Scheme represents an awful lot of money to certain VIPs...
In fact, Obama, Clinton, and McCain are all in favor of the H1B visa program--which allows employers to hire skilled immigrants instead of their U.S counterparts...
Obama says, "Those with advanced degrees (MS or PhD) from US colleges are typically the most desirable. This group should not be subjected to any H1B quotas. These are the people that are most valuable to maintain our competitive edge. They come to the US to get world-class graduate education and it is madness to let go of them."
He, he, he--isn't he the fool???!!!
Most people of integrity will vote for Ralph Nader. The two major parties are both controlled by big money capitalists and Wall Street. There are many books on this subject. You know it, vote for what is right.
"He, he, he--isn't he the fool???!!!"
Um, which one isn't a fool?
The issue I spoke to was - one of those three will be president.
Soon it will be a choice between two.
People will make their choices and I am not lobbying for one over the other.
In a choice between BHO and McCain I would vote for BHO - but that is just me.
The idea that some kind of a protest vote means something is another question.
Without IRV no third party candidate has a chance.
Are you seriously saying that voting for a third party candidate will change the H1B program?
If that makes sense to you - go for it!
Answer: Not Much.
Sure, I'd like to see an electable candidate with no ties to corporate [Un-]America. Edwards was the closest candidate to that. Hillary makes a big claim about univeral healthcare but most of her campaign money comes from that section of business. IE Dont buy the canards.
We have to create some other form of politicians rasing campaign contributions.
Why not support ethanol? I could believe that corn ethanol could be worse on emissions given how much other energy goes into refining it, but corn is just a step toward better methods of refinement, namely cellulostic. There is a lot going for cellulostic ethanol if it can be done as cheaply and cleanly as people are predicting, it could be under $1 a gallon, and if it can produce energy at the 8 or 10 to return ratio that is predicted the emissions created it making it would pale in comparison to the emissions it would offset. The fuel its self burns a lot cleaner than any fossil fuel could hope to, its practically zero emissions. It may produce CO2 when burned but of course that is CO2 that the plants it was made from going back into the atmosphere, a net emissions of nearly zero. You ought to find a better reason for not supporting a candidate than ethanol because while it may not work now the future potential is huge.
It seems as though Nader's cause has gone from green, to a self serving, one man narcissistic, hell bent vendetta against the Democratic Party for the perceived unjust attack on his previous presidential Bid. (Lawsuits, contesting of signed petitions and so forth) I agree totally with Lou Sandler.
You say Nader, I say fool.
Nader: Fool
Nader: Fool
Nader: Fool
Nader - Nader - Nader
Fool - fool - fool.
Can't believe that any real leftist, liberal, progressive is negative on Nader. I know you aren't fooled by Hilary, but you really believe in Obama? Here's a guy who voted for the Cheney energy bill which gave billions of profits to the energy folks; who was buddies with Lieberman for the whole time until 2 or 3 weeks before the election when he faintly supported the real democrat. He is not ignorant of earmarks and then getting contributions from the beneficiaries of those earmarks-- yes not as much as others have, but hey he is only a beginner. Give me a break, please, about his so-called health plan. So, you say, he is better than the other guy-we can't afford more years of THAT.But he is only a "pain pill" that America badly wants because it really doesn't want real change yet--just something to make it easier to shop at the mall or on internet. Eventually the pain will get overwhelming and then America will vote for some real change like it did in 1930. In the meanwhile I will vote for the person who is for REAl change.
The argument about ethanol misses the point where gasoline is mixed into the E85 equation.
And that's where the message is in the medium...
I think the future should be in offshore wind farms; some people say hurricanes would be the bane there--but again, the big message is that I seem to be the only one who finds it remarkable that we're polluting more by going green..., or that here's this great opportunity to make cars that operate virtually free (imagine home solar panels...)--but instead we're burning all kinds of crap under the hood (as in who needs the heat of the running engine).
I mean I'm not a leading Presidential candidate here...
Mr. Stein,
Mother Jones hired you? Didn't you used to work for the ultra conservative shill, Chicago News Tribune? Is your article supposed to be an example of "smart, fearless journalism?" It's striking how true Hersh's (You know who Seymour Hersh is, don't you?) comment was a few years ago how since the Bush administration has come to power, words no longer have any meaning. Your words, Mr. Stein, are a perfect example. Not a single word is true. You're not a journalist. You're a shill. If Mother Jones is content in having you, they forfeit their integrity and no longer fulfill a purpose.
Michael L. Wagner I wouldn't look to Russ Simons for political advice.
Good point on solar. Subsidies from the 2005 energy plan should be reinstated and states should expand their solar and wind subsidies to make it cost effective. In the end, it is in the states interest to lessen the load on the current infrastructure.
poetryman69 ANWAR is a bad idea. According to USGS data, it will take 20 to 30 years for ANWAR to provide 5% of our current oil demand. Those are FACTS.
"If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we." Their ethanol is largely from sugar cane. To get that, they cut down rain forest. See where I'm going
Ethanol from corn is a total scam.
Nukes sound good, but remember that you have a 10,000 years to deal with the waste. Think about it 10,000 years!!!
As for ethanol from biomas and alge, yes we should be going in that direction. Sustainable and with an excellent energy balance.
In the end, conservation is the key. Remember when "conservatives" were actually for conservation???
What it comes down to is that we as a country are totally screwed. We have a economy based on consumption that is just about to tank and because Americans spend more than they take in. To keep people from going bankrupt or loosing their homes (which should happen to accelerate the recovery) the government is going to intervene. That is NEVER a good thing because it will put off and exacerbate the inevitable.
As for energy, health care and food those too are big problems that are not being addressed. I do not see Nader capable of being a leader and only being a protest vote. When it comes down to it, Obama has the fewest connections and least debts to pay.
As for the Wall St. money, they are going that way because they want a CO2 Cap and Trade which is total BS. It only creates an unnecessary market for traders to skim off of.
What I would like to see is a study of the last 7 elections, what candidates "promised" and what was delivered. In the end, a president really doesn't do much and all this crap about health care reform is hooie. It will NEVER happen. And if it does, lord help us all.
He has my vote, again.
and for those whinney so-called progressives, your man BO has it right when he says that the job of the Democrats is to be so compleeling that a few percentage points should not matter. So far I don't hear anything compelling, except from Nader.
With Nader, Carbon Tax Is Back in the Debate
By Dan Shapely, The Daily Green 2 25, 2008
Nuclear Power, and Corporate Personhood, Would Exit Stage Left
Ralph Nader has joined the race for U.S. president, and with him may come increased debate about nuclear power, corporate personhood and a carbon tax.
A carbon tax, a ban on nuclear power and an end to "corporate personhood" are among the platforms that Ralph Nader is bringing to the table, as he launches his fifth bid to be president of the United States.
The accomplished consumer advocate and far left-wing darling said he's running to bring up issues that have been ignored by the major party candidates left in the race.
On the environmental side, those include the carbon tax, which had been championed by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd before he dropped out of the race following the Iowa caucuses. Some economists have argued that a tax on carbon would be the most efficient way to reduce the greenhouse emissions fueling global warming, but all the major party candidates with a chance at their party's nomination Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Republican John McCain all favor a cap-and-trade regulation to limit greenhouse gas pollution and allow polluters to trade pollution credits in a regulated market.
Nader also has a hard line against nuclear power, which McCain supports, and which both Democrats have described as a possibility. Nuclear power has long been opposed by environmentalists because its waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, but some have embraced it in the era of global warming, given that it can produce huge amounts of energy without greenhouse gas emissions (after the mining and processing of fuel is accounted for).
Finally, Nader would take a revolutionary step in removing corporate personhood, which some argue gives companies undue legal cover for harming the environment and human health.
Hey Kirkbrew,
Don't be fooled that BO has no connections.....it costs a lot of money to run any kind of campaign in the USofA. From what I have read, the banks that are funding sub-prime mortages are funding BO
Ralph Nader has my vote. He has courage to speak out against the big corporations. The other candidates all take money from the big corporations. The choice is simple.
Nader is the pinch-hitter for Kushinic. Having failed miserably, Nader becomes the re-do. If people wanted Nader, they would have voted for Kushinich.
Trollstein, you just hate Nader because he has Arab ancestry and you are a Likud Party shrill.
As an Independent, plan to look closely at his take on Corporate deception and it's Take over of our Government. It could be that I may actually have a choice this time.
Also to date, no one has truly challenged our Militarism, which is our new religion of fear.
Nader must have the Harold Stassen syndrome. Stassen ran for president nine times, only two of them seriously the last time at 85 years old. A sad end for the war hero/ governor of Minnesota from World War II.
Nader had a solid reputation as a crusader before 2000 and again in the last two elections. Also sad.
Ralph Nader did not "cost Al Gore the presidency". I am so sick of those misinformed journalists who have been perpetuating this myth and used it to blame Nader for the failures of the Democratic Party. Here are a few facts: According to exit polling, those who voted for Nader were first time voters, formerly Perot voters. Sixty-two percent of Nader's voters were Republicans, independents, third-party voters and nonvoters. In New Hampshire, exit polls showed that Ralph "took more votes" from Republicans than Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin. In other words, many of his voters did not naturally belong to the Democratic Party. Remember that the Democrats lost the 2002 congressional elections, the California and New York governorships, and many state legislatures throughout the country." Surely Nader is not to blame for those defeats.
Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the election for many reasons: First, remember that Al Gore actually won the election in 2000. George W. Bush, the Supreme court stop of the recount , Gore who decided not to contest the election, Katherine Harris-style purging of ninety thousands of non ex-felons from the voter roles, more than 250,000 Democrats in Florida, and the deceptive butterfly ballot, which Democratic officials approved, cost Al Gore the election. And you know what else cost Al Gore the election? The Democratic Party itself that, while defending corporate interests, voted for or failed to stop: The Iraq war resolution turning Bush into a wartime president, The Patriot Act, John Ashcroft, Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, The Medicare fiasco, etc.
The excellent documentary, "Ralph Nader, an unreasonable man", shows that during the campaign, Nader offered to meet with Gore and was about to leave the election in exchange for some compromise. Gore refused and so committed a fatal flaw. It's the responsibility of any candidate to form a coalition but Gore chose not to work with Nader. This was the Gore effect, not the Nader effect.
If one accepts the flawed logic that suggests Ralph 'cost' Gore two states (New Hampshire and Florida), then it would also follow that Buchanan 'cost' Bush four states (Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico) in 2000. CNN's polling data said that if neither Nader nor Buchanan had run, Bush would have beat Gore 48 to 47 percent, with 4 percent who voted not voting.
No one is entitled to votes, they must be earned. Although, I voted for Gore I regret I didn't vote for Nader. I won't do that mistake again. To say someone has a negative effect is to relegate all third-party and independent candidates to second class citizenship. American does not belong to two parties.
For the last four years Democrats and media pundits have been smearing Ralph Nader and the Greens, oblivious to the facts, looking for a scapegoat for the failures of their own party and its candidates.
It is not the job of third-party or Independent candidates to make sure either of the two major parties wins. That would be like asking Toyota to stop manufacturing cars so GM, Chrysler, and Ford increase their market share.
Moreover, there are 100 million people in this country who do not vote. There are plenty of nonvoters for all candidates to attract.
At what point do you stop relying on a party to be an opposition party and start asking what else needs to be done to put some spine into Washington politics? How much BS can we take?
Voting for a third party is more than making a symbolic statement; it's making sure you have the right candidate in the office, a candidate whose values best reflects yours, who can end this old political monopoly, not to support one wing of that monopoly as a lesser evil against the other wing. To select the lesser of the evils is a matter of opinion, what about voting for no evil at all??
Ralph Nader--um, isn't he the guy who saw no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore?
"Can't believe that any real leftist, liberal, progressive is negative on Nader."
Well, if "progressive" still = feminism (something I'm really doubting these days), then I am very negative on Nader, yes.
While the people "in the know" trash Nader, people in the street will give him a listen. They know from personal experience that the major parties avoid their problems or make promises they never intend to keep. Credit Card Debt Servitude is the new corporate slavery.So Nader confirms what ordinary people already know.That's why Nader is feared and despised by the Smart Guys.People in the street figure this out.
As an Independent I will take a close look at Ralph Nader's position on Corporate Corruption and Corporate take over of our government. Interested to see if he has any criticism of our new religion of fear, Militarism and it's economic consequences.
Those of you who are urging Nader to run are forgetting a couple of things. First the Green Party already has a candidate (Cynthia McKinney), and I betting money that (especially now that he's facing strong opposition for his congressional seat due to his now very well known stance on the Iraq Occupation) Paul will be handed the Libertarian Party baton. The Greens have the foot soldiers to have a very visible, if inexpensive campaign in most states. Paul has done squat with his funds in the GOP nomination, so will have enough money to do national buys on the airways, and he has a stout cadre of followers who will remind most every voter that there is an alternative to the 2 major parties in just about every state. Both parties are fielding candidates who know enough of "nuts and bolts politics" to give very credible visions of how the country can be led from an alternative base, and both are fielding candidates that will allow both parties to build on their efforts in elections to come. Seems to me that Nader cares very little about allowing 3rd parties to grow and flourish. This time around he'll probably steal more votes from McKinney and Paul that he will from the major party candidates.
Fine: he'll get on the ballot in at least 40 states because this time the DNC will decide it's not worth the effort to keep off the ballot. He'll be a sideshow before Independence day, and the Ben Cohens, Jerry Greenfields and other deep pockets he used in 2000 learned their lessons. And after the election this time, it'll be the alternatives to the Greens and the Libertarians who will take Nader to task for stunting THEIR growth.
This will be uglier than Jordan's 2nd comeback in the NBA.
Rachael:
Nader is no more Arab then myself. Not one DNA. In fact, there is a possibility that Nader stems from Euro background--like Turks and Kurds and Greeks. Whereas Semitic Jews are actual genetic cousins to the Arabs. At most, Nader is also a Semitic.
Nader is a Catholic (Marionite) christian, or at least that is his family background. Theyu have been at war with the Muslims longer then the Jews. Their Saint, a former Lebanese king by the name of Karan, was granted his saintly status by the Vatican for his victories in battles (against Muslims).
I am a Green-Democrat, a party I founded--not a "Likud". (Ehud Barak by the way was in my office a few years ago.)
Its amazing how uninformed the so called "intellectual Left" has become over the past few years. Indistinguishable (intellectually) from Jerry Springer people.
I feel sorry for Mr. Nader. he will go to his grave, rationalization aside, knowing he is responsible for the deaths of more Americans than any individual, living or dead. There is also the matter of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis but that merely clouds the issue.
There were a lot of ways that Gore might have won in 2000 and one of them most certainly would have been if Ralph had not run. Even back then, when his presence was many times more impactful than the joke he has become, his candidacy made no positive contribution to anyone but George Bush.
Obama? you're kidding I hope. You might want to take a look at his advisers, the men and women who likely form the backbone of the candidate's future cabinet if elected president.Obama's top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. And he was asked by the interviewer, "Well, don't you think this might have had some bad consequences?" And Brzezinski replied, "Absolutely not. It was definitely worth it, because we were going after the Soviets. We were getting the Soviets." Another top Obama person
Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, he was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.
Another Obama adviser, General Merrill McPeak, an Air Force man, who not long after the Dili massacre in East Timor in '91 that you and I survived, he wasI happened to see on Indonesian TV shortly after thatthere was General McPeak overseeing the delivery to Indonesia of US fighter planes.
Another key Obama adviser, Dennis Ross. Ross, for many years under both Clinton and Bush 2, a keyhe has advised Clinton and both Bushes. He oversaw US policy toward Israel/Palestine. He pushed the principle that the legal rights of the Palestinians, the rights recognized under international law, must be subordinated to the needs of the Israeli governmentin other words, their desires, their desires to expand to do whatever they want in the Occupied Territories. And Ross was one of the people who, interestingly, led the political assault on former Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Carter, no peacenikI mean, Carter is the one who bears ultimate responsibility for that Timor terror that Holbrooke was involved in. But Ross led an assault on him, because, regarding Palestine, Carter was so bold as to agree with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa that what Israel was doing in the Occupied Territories was tantamount to apartheid. And so, Ross was one of those who fiercely attacked him.
Another Obama adviser, Sarah Sewall, who heads a human rights center at Harvard and is a former Defense official, she wrote the introduction to General Petraeus's Marine Corps/Army counterinsurgency handbook, the handbook that is now being used worldwide by US troops in various killing operations. That's the Obama team.
Unfortunately, both the Republican and Democratic parties have convinced us that only one of their members deserves to be president. The mainstream media then weighs in, planting suggestions that a third party candidate cannot win. Election laws, passed by Democrats and Republicans, further stack the deck. We need to change the system of national elections in this country to an instant runoff system. That way people could vote for who they really want instead of voting for someone they don't really completely agree with for fear that someone even less in agreement with their positions would be elected. It would be interesting to see how many people would then vote for Nader in that scenario. Don't look for it to happen though, as the two major parties will fight it tooth and nail to preserve their monopoly.
Sure as hell has my vote!! Since Kucinch left, there was no hope against the machine which includes BO and HC. And for those who are afraid of splitting the dems against the repubs.....what split? They have become 2 heads of the same evil coin. I see it as a no brainer.
Bob:
Agree.
Moreover, back in 2000 before the election when Nader was asked "what if" he costs the "D"s the election, his reply was not to deny that this might occur. Rather, he insisted that he would get at least 15% of the vote and such gave him leave to mount his challenge, the idea being that each successive election, he would get more and more votes.
PS: He got 2.7% in 2000 and 0.4% in 2004. He used to be one of my heros. Now he's like George Forman trying to compete for the boxing championship again. He essentially had admitted that a poor showing might cost the election, while providing no positive gain.