Nader is sympathetic towards the Palestinians, and he is of middle eastern background so the Zionists and their allies are against him. They support Bloomberg, a true friend of Israel.

I understand our concerns regarding siphoning off votes from Democratic candidates, but why do these writers (of the linked blogs) insist in making Nader out to be the bad guy? It feels somewhat like shooting the messenger.

I agree that today no person in their right mind believes that Gore as president would be just the same as Bush, but is Nader actually saying or even implying this? To me he's an honest, active citizen working at making essential changes to our government, rather than just the usual political hack saying the right things to try and win some votes but without actually doing anything of substance. Shouldn't we all be more like Ralph? And when we complain about our Democratic candidates not living up to their promises and our ideals, aren't we really just saying we want a Nader-esque type of person?

Of all blogs/publications, I thought Mother Jones would have supported an honest citizen's attempt to correct the fundamental issues in America today.

Ah Kevin, you are so right. However, you are forgetting the “lefty insiders” need the Democratic party as much as the “fascists insiders” need the Republican party; “true believers” all.

For the same reason that the Sierra Club (which I’m a member of, btw) isn’t enthusiastic about the Green Party, you won’t find any of the socialist elites supporting a party other than the Democrats. After all, who has enough clout to “change the world for the better” allowing all of us to “obtain socialist enlightenment” that a BIG party – run by the elite insiders, of course. It’s the dream of all big government “true believers” - regardless of whether they’re socialist (Democratic) or fascists (Republican) - the dream of molding the peasants in their image.

Question the party? Question (Jesus | Bush | “Big Daddy” | “Mommy”) !!

Ghashang Pahlavi,

I haven't heard anything about Bloomberg's politics with respect to Israel. What have you heard? Or, are you just making the assumption that because he's Jewish, he must be a friend of Israel?

Given that probably no two Jews in the world agree completely on how to deal with the problems in the Middle East, it also brings up the question of what it means to be a friend of Israel? Blind support no matter what? Help in determining correct action? Financial support?

As for Nader, I think it was obvious what the difference was between Bush and Gore. If he couldn't tell the difference, he was an idiot. If he merely said it to further his agenda, he probably could have found much better wording.

The reaction to Nader strikes me as ingratitude for what he's accomplished as an advocate. To blame him for 2000 is ludicrous when we've seen the Republicans were willing to do whatever it took to steal the election. Not only was it not safe to assume all Nader's votes would have gone to Gore, but I doubt it would have mattered against the theft going on. What I don't doubt is that Nader's support showed the strategic blunder in blowing off the base to seek support from just swing voters and obeisance to wealthy special interests. Not only was Gore forced to move left, but Nader started the process of liberals taking back the Democratic Party. I can't defend his 2004 run, and running next year would be pointless, but we need to realize the long process of retaking the party started in 2000 with staunch liberals saying we won't be taken for granted or keep voting for candidates who implement a Republican-lite agenda, and I say that as someone who has since become active with the local Democratic party.

I already canceled The Nation because of Eric Alterman's Nader-baiting hate of progressives. Not you, too!

Obama supports leaving our army in Iraq, bombing Iran, and filling our cars with liquid coal. Hillary's about the biggest Iran/Israel hawk besides Lieberman. The others won't pass the primaries.

If you don't see why I'd stay home if Nader or some unbought candidate didn't run, then you're not doing your job as journalists. Like Boss Tweed always said, "I don't give a damn who you vote for as long as I choose the candidates."

Bloomberg is a member of AIPAC, the American Israeli Political Action Committee and he has attended numerous Jewish and Israeli functions. (CounterPunch "Still, “Bloomberg’s aides seemed buoyant about his visit here. It gave him ... a chance to show reform Jews like himself as well as the city’s Orthodox Jews his emphatic support for Israel. He made many statements that will certainly please that constituency.” When the billionaire self-funder entered onto the political stage he didn’t have enough historical knowledge to understand that he automatically cast himself as the villain in a play scripted by none less than Madison. His ignorance re American history also produced a total lack of principle re the relationship of religion and politics. This led him to demagogically jump onto Zionism’s bandwagon, even as it marches into ever increasing isolation, among Jews and gentiles alike.")

WAKE UP people. He will not win the election. He will take enough votes away from the Democrats(all it takes is less than 5%) to give the election over to the GOP candidate. If you find that appealing, then, by all means start dancing in the streets. Then it really doesn't matter who the Democrats elect, because Bloomberg(don't forget he is a Republican) will deliver the election over to the GOP candidate by taking enough votes from the progressives . During the 2000 election, some rich GOP people funded Ralph Nader to take away enough progressive votes to give it to the mafia that is running Bush.

I, for one, found the inclusion of Nader in the political milieu to be a breath of fresh air in an otherwise scripted election process. I find the allegation of Nader being the *primary* reason that Bush took the 2000 election to be balderdash. What I do find offensive is excluding Nader from debates by the private corporation which decides such configurations. And since I am resident in a RED RED state (Kansas), I could afford the luxury of voting for him without be stricken with guilt at having taken votes from the good guy.

Here is what I thought of the 'lection of 2000:

Say, here is a fantastic scenario which I thought might make an interesting story.

The thing starts out with two guys running for office, the highest in the land, as a matter of fact. One is a chunky ivy-league drone, who has been training for the job for several decades. Smart and knowledgable but an insufferable stiff from a made political family. The other guy is certainly not the bightest bulb on the string, okay? Personable, yet he seems unable to formulate interesting or even sometimes coherent off-the-cuff spontaneous remarks. No credible thought processes are visible that could not be read off a prompter. Virtually his whole entourage are managers of one sort or another. Managers of him, that is. He, from a family of affluence and standing, had a reputation as being somewhat of a cutup; someone you might have a fair to midling time with at a party as long as there were sufficient intoxicants. But you wouldn't want him on your Trivial Pursuits team.

There was a "spoiler" in this dynamic (of course) and while he too would have the upper crust collegiate background would be far more grounded in a normal upbringing. Certainly a bit odd, smarter than the other two by leagues and fully capable of evisceration in debate, he would be deleted from any official and public encounter between the other two, even as an audience participant.

There would be a perception amongst the 'enlightened progressive' camp that although it would be great fun to clamor for the third party entrant, the numbers would seem alarmingly close. Circling the wagons and uniting behind their party's candidate actually seemed to be a real stategy which thoughtful persons might choose to embrace. Somehow, the reality of folks actually voting for the other fella would seem so remote and surreal. Realistically, it would be fixed that the really smart guy had no chance even to make a decent showing.

The campaign would lumber on, with the waxing and wanning between the two primary suits providing some measure of amusement. But the overhanging dread in the land at large would be that these couldn't possibly be the best candidates the two major parties could field. Or, as the dread reveales itself more clearly ... maybe they were.

The story goes a little awry at this point. The election is historically close and converges on a southern state whose governor (~I know this sounds a little contrived~) was the brother of one of the candidates and the main election official in that state was his co-campaign chairman. In addition, the ace up the sleave for him, ultimately, was that his party controlled the legislature (State and Federal) who could by fiat just declare their selection the winner, if all else failed.

Although there would be a spirited campaign within the campaign to provide social imagery in an effort at selling the public at large that there was democracy at work in the U S of A ... somewhere ... it would be a sad and wrenching failure.

Much misdirection from one of the camps would be synchronized with fevered, increasingly unattractive and desperate activity from the other characterizing the last daze of this quasi-political/legal sideshow. This would enshrine the process and the crass debacle which was the election forever in the minds of a significant portion of the electorate as some stealthy trick of circumstance.

One could hardly think anything could rekindle the attention of the Great Disinterested, usually cynical and disengaged in the extreme. But this chad-infested- manual-recount-candidate-agent-talking-head-Supreme Court-mandated exercise would be a most unsual power struggle, normally carried on in more private environs. It would succeed in both trumpeting the fable that all votes really count and simultaneously working like hell to not count them.

The candidate who had the brother (not surprisingly) wins the election! The other guy actually gets more total votes. The spin would be that the whole country was advantaged by a mechanism which distorts the simple counting of votes by something which has the comforting and pompous name 'college' attached to it - saving the American people … from themselves. This would be presented to the world as a functioning victory for American democracy.

All organizations tasked with monitoring election irregularities in third world countries quietly would scratch America off the list of potential impartial observers. They might invite Jimmy Carter but only if the Lithuanian contingent was caught up in traffic.

What? Not plausible? Yeah, too unbelievable.

Hi

The most inconvenient truth is that Democrats are on the same payrolls as the Republicans. If you will accept that fact and then examine the Clinton/Gore years with an eye on their performance in the areas of labour, environment, and international affairs (think Serbia, Sudan, Iraq, etc), you will see that the only excuse you can make for that administration is that they "were not as bad as Bush".

So, is that still the only argument the Democrats can pull out against Nader?? "Vote Democrat because the Alternative is Worse"?? At least Nader would actually change the system rather than continue to belly-up to the trough like the Dems have after pandering to labour and minorities to get elected and then not having the balls to follow through on their promises and fight tooth-and-nail for what is merely just.

Give us all a break you lily-livered, turncoat worms!

First, the comment above- who the heck has that much time to write a couple pages??? J. Kelly McNamara- get back to work- your boss is going to fire you for cyber-slacking.

Sure, Nader has done some nice consumer advocacy things and what not but he is simply not presidential material. Also, not sure what the hell Nader has to do with the Middle East and Palestine. I don't think the guy has any foreign policy experience.

While I do think people scapegoat Nader a bit too much, I don't support another run by him because it's purely symbollic and really accomplishes nothing except a few lost votes for dems and repubs and maybe give Nader a hard-on in the process. I do think Nader has some good ideas and would bring reform but the Whitehouse for him shouldn't be the means for change.

DUBYA TEE EFF -

You needn't worry about my workplace productivity (tee hee Tee Eff;-). This was written some time ago and was merely cut 'n paste.

I have long ago given up on the implausible given construct of the conventional electoral process. I have cast about looking for alternatives to the SOS to the point that I actually worked the petition gathering and voting for Ross P.

IMHO, if Nader had even been allowed in the debate he would have changed the dynamic of the mail-it-in format adopted by our current formatters of debates. Nader doesn't win? So what. I am not wasting my vote on unlikely candidates by not voting for or supporting the blended nominee of the established political infrastructure.

Presidential material??? I take it that the current process which gave us George Dubya adequately provided us with presidential material ... twice? LISTEN to what Nader says and contrast it with what Bush is allowed to say. If you see no fundamental differences, then you have merely a different standard about who is in the office than I can muster. We agree to disagree. I would have no heartburn if you choose to disagree with my contention that the difference between the usual R and the usual D becomes difficult to comfortably discern. Granted, Bush is veering to the extreme in crazed meglomaniac occupants. But contrast the 1st Bush with Clinton.

I guess I really want to shake things up ... for a change!

Oh, btw. Right on, Douglas!

Good. He can split the Deomcrats like logs and make sure the GOP wins in 2008!

Ames -

If the small amount of votes historically tallied for Nader actually decides the election, then the Democratic candidate did not make his points strong enough to influence the divided, cynical and mostly disinterested electorate we have developed in this country. Perhaps the set of socio-political ideas put forth by the Democratic candidate was insufficent to inflame the set of non-ideological voter base to become active enough to register and vote and THAT may be the most significant element in the 2000 defeat.

It is some 6 or 7 years later and I am still astounded that Gore (or even Kerry) would not have been able to *trounce* Bush in debate or the contrast in campaign philosophy. I believe that Nader would have gutted Bush even if he would have likely not won the election. Of course, he would have been an equal threat to the Democratic candidate's pool of intellectual ammunition.

In earlier debates, the thrust of the development of ideas would have been less robust without Perot's contribution. So he stole votes away from Bush#1 by dint of points he made. There is still a significant cluster of opinion, which was strongly developed by that "giant sucking sound" line of debate, in active operation today and would have been *completely* absent in that debate without Perot. Had he been excluded, his percent of the vote would have been significantly less and we may have had a 2nd Bush#1 administration. Funny I never hear the same amount of heat about Perot's influence as I hear about Nadar's.

Rather than being angry at Nader, if we channel this energy into dumping the idiotic Electoral College and found a different organization to construe Presidential debates, we would all stand to improve the process.

I am still idealistic enough to consider that elections should be about ideas and to restrict the pool of credible ideas is to dumb down the process to no one's advantage. That is other than the crass political infrastructure dependent on sound bytes, misinformation and a scarcely interested voter base.

Wonder what Mr. Stein thinks about this?

J. Kelly McNamara,

Ditching the electoral college is a great idea. Many have been saying since about the time that Rutherford B. Hayes won the election due to the electoral college.

What the electoral college does is allow land to vote. What do I mean by that, you might ask? I mean that states with a lot of land and few people get more electoral votes per capita than states with many people and less land, i.e. land votes.

This is a silly, stupid, and outdated concept that should be thrown out immediately. The only downside, if you think it is one, is that we would go from being a federation to being a nation. We already call ourselves a nation in our pledge of allegiance. We've been a nation in the pledge for a lot longer (since 1892) than we've been under god (since 1954).

However, we have no national election. This is because of the treaties originally signed by the states. Well, get over it, this is a nation. Let's call ourselves one and have a national election where the people really get to vote at the national level, something we have never done before. Wouldn't that be nice?!

I appreciate these enlightening remarks. Every time I get a chance to review rationale for the electoral college, I marvel we have made it this far. It seems like such a scam but is certainly highlighted when a misapplication occurs, especially, taking place in our lifetime. And, yes Scott, it would be, at the very least, nice.

Hi Kelly,

I'm glad you weren't let go from your job for writing comments on Mojo blog all day-only kidding.

While I have heard Nader speak recently on The Daily Show (my only source for news) I do think he is intelligent and of course would be a better leader than Bush- who wouldn't? Even without the Electoral College as a hurdle, Nader has no realistic chance of achieving political office. I would be much more open to voting for Bloomberg as an independent canidate because he is well funded and unlike dems and repubs, less likely to be subject to the control of lobbyists, etc. To me, I think Bloomberg brings a good balance of liberal leaning policies (pro gay marriage, environmentalism, gun control) and also brings strong experience on the business side. Just a thought. Nader means well and I don't think he should take all the blame for the 2000 election but another run would achieve little. He was a non-factor last election- people don't care about him anymore. He is like a washed up child actor trying to revive his career. I report, you decide.

GEE, NADER REALLY HAS A CHANCE IN 2008. ALL WE NEED TO DO IS GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND SOMEHOW FORCE HALF THE COUNTRY TO VOTE HIM... SOUNDS VERY LIKELY TO HAPPEN.

Getting rid of the EC would be a plus no matter who was running. Do you kinda remember the results of the 2000 election?

My basic contention was the exclusion of ideas from debates, which often are the primary source of allot of folk's insight into candiates, seems on the whole undemocratic and excessively controlling on the part of the major parties. Even if potential voters didn't actually see the debate, they might be informed by subsequent discussions about them. Excluding non-traditional entrants from these venues serves no one. But let us rejoice that the candidates of the major parties are so superior to any possible consideration outside of them that we are well served by this two dimentional world you seem so content with.

Frankly I would rather vote for someone who is not likely to win but has the integrity of independent and fundamentally different solution sets than one of the homogenized products of politics as usual. And, as I have implied all along, their inclusion could change the very substance of public dialog even if they remain "losers".