What have we here? A candidate actually defending the right of another such to run for the office, how not mainstream of Ralph.....
If only, amidst this torrential downpouring of charge after charge, mostly silly stuff too, coming more from the supporters than from the candidates, to be fair, more folks would read the words of Ralph Nader..if only. Not just on this subject but on the entire panoply of political agendas Nader is making the most sense, is the most democratic of the candidates and is, in my own opinion, the most deserving of my vote.
That Nader cannot win is secondary to the esential fact of his being the most fit to hold the office for which he strives. Those who call him "spoiler" or "narcissist", whatever, are just guilty of partisanship and distortion of fact and constitutional rights. I believe Ralph Nader has done more for the American people in his long career than has any of the other candidates, and I say that with all due respect to McCain's imprisonment and torture.
If the electorate judged a candidates worth solely upon his words and deeds Nader might win in a landslide. That this nation would become a better place for that would be nice too.....
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 10:43:38 AM
Yes, Hillary and Ralph both have the right to run for as long and as often as they wish to do so, just as the American electorate has the right to reject one or the other or both for as long and as often as they wish to.
You would think there is a dividing line between an iron willed persistance and the foolish consistancy described by Emerson.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1045 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 10:53:42 AM
A foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines. With consistancy a great soul has simply nothing to do.
Those of you who clamor for everyone but your own chosen candidate to exit a race do much harm to the entire democratic process. Sadly your little minds cannot encompass the damage you do.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 5:37:39 PM
that you who condemn and trash Senator Clinton instead of speaking about policies and agendas are doing egregious harm to the political process and have adopted the style of Karl Rove.
Congratulations
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Monday, March 31, 2008 at 6:54:02 AM
You fail to see that I "trash" only the notion that the Democratic Party is the road to success in placing a progressive agenda before the people of this nation. I also "trash" the notion that either democratic candidate for the nomination is a progressive, in fact they are both Centrists of the first order. They are also both globalists as well.
Any reading of Obama's book would show that he admits readily to being a globalist and his position as against the war is entirely based on a 13 second sound bite that is all that survives from a two bit speech he made in Chicago that noone remembers and noone bothered to record, excepting for that bite from a newscast in Chicago. The featured speaker that day was Jesse Jackson you might understand and the two hundred or so who showed up to hear Jackson didnt even know who the heck Obama was....The Obama campaign has gone so far as to attempt to rerecord that speech, funny that...
Of course according to his supporters he is the second coming of Robert Kennedy, a real insult to Bobby actually. I understand the desperation of most folks seeking anyone to undo the damage of George Bush but I simply do not comprehend this need to tear down the other guy ( gal actually). Perhaps you folks do understand the lie of Obama mania and needs cover that with vitriol.
Whatever the case may be I believe ,sans vitriol, that third party politics will, eventually , rescue this nation from the lie of the two party system. But not until folks like you get a bit more sophistication....
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 7:38:33 PM
that your elevated level of sophitication would reveal to you that, theoretically, you need a majority to choose a government in this country. You won't find a majority of progressives yet, and perhaps should work to acheive what you need incrementally.
Then again, perhaps it is not so much sophistication as sophistry.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1045 comments)
on Friday, April 4, 2008 at 1:22:28 PM
If spoilsport Nader had actually listened to what Sen. Leahy said, he might not have written what he did. He said that she had every right to run, he just wanted her to think of the potential consequences.
Ralph, I have the same suggestion for you. Just sit on it.
by
calvinthecat (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 11:27:45 AM
Are that people vote for Nader instead of the other candidates he is running against. Or that people do not vote for Nader and vote for one of the other candidates who are running.
Nader's run or anybody's run cannot be responsible for anything that goes wrong in America.
The responsibility for American criminal regimes like the Bush administration lies with the American people who do not camp outside of Capitol Hill demanding a tyrant be deposed, politicians who have the power to impeach, and the criminals who are in power who have committed the crimes.
Nader is scarcely responsible for the woes of this nation.
by
Kevin Gosztola (193 articles, 103 quicklinks, 63 diaries, 775 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 12:41:09 PM
"I know something about it." Yes, President Ralph Nader. You know so much about it that you have been elected by a landslide every time you have run. You know so much about it that you deftly pretend to be "our side" in order to destroy our own argument.You pretend to be on the left, on the side of the people, against the corporations, but all you do is butress their power, by assigning to any argument a counter argument that negates it, implying that both are equally true. Now you are taking Hillary's side. What ever happened to tweedle dum and tweedle dee?? You are a snake in the grass. You do not show the slightest ability to understand the art of compromise, unable to retreat if the offensive forces are not yet developed, and when you fail, you can blame an unresponsive public. You refuse to work with established groups, but rather expect others to drop everything and join you, even though you have exhibited a scarce ability to form an enduring and growing political party over these many years. You won't join another party, but you won't develop your own. Instead of focusing on the defeat of the ultra-right, you focus on destroying both parties by implanting a so-called third party, which in fact never materializes. Setting up a third party is typically sectarian. Someone who barely gets 2.74 % of the popular vote is scarcely a leader of the masses.You are a demagogue, and getting Hillary to hang in there is a good way to weaken the Democrats and strengthen McCain's candidacy. Fortunately you are so over nobody will pay any attention to you any more, except the media who hope to see McCain win.
by
Antonio (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 12:42:47 PM
Thank you Antonio. Anyone but self-center, egotistical Nader telling self-centered, egotistical Hillary to hang in there, it is her right, would be assumed to pretending to be Nader while in fact working as a comedian on Late Night Political Jokes. Come on, Ralph, you really shouldn’t write the script for someone like Leno unless you join the comedy writers’ union.
by
Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 149 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 2:02:49 PM
He hasn't been elected by a landslide but does that matter? Failure to be elected does not mean he is trying to destroy "our side." Where is the proof that this is Ralph Nader's intention? This is such a pejorative and conspiratorial claim to be making without proof. (It's also one the corporate media and powers that be love people to believe because it raises Ralph Nader to legendary proportions and make it seem like he is the plague of American politics.)
Why should Ralph compromise? What for and why for?
Established groups? Why that's saying that our nation is supposed to be a country that is a two-party dictatorship? This is hardly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when our nation was established and in fact, political parties were anathemas to many of the leaders who were around back then. This historical note is one reason why Nader does not wish to be involved in building a political party.
I challenge you to prove that Ralph Nader's candidacy and message has not been more focused on the defeat of the ultra-right than the past Democratic candidacies of Gore or Kerry. Gore and Kerry both allowed their campaigns to become less and less progressive as November came closer and closer.
The primary goes on until June. The time after can be spent regrouping (if necessary). Until then, it is political bigotry to say Hillary does not have the right to finish what she started.
by
Kevin Gosztola (193 articles, 103 quicklinks, 63 diaries, 775 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 4:06:43 PM
Thank you for telling the truth about Nader, if it is really him. As you so rightly say, he is so full of himself that he negates any kind of meaningful reform. I experienced that in 1989 with the California Auto Insurance referenda (there were several ballot props). He keeps on trying to live off of "Unsafe at Any Speed," yet he has never acknowledged that there are quite a few of us who are smart enough to figure things out for ourselves. He seems to have become one of those annoying people who believe that they should do our thinking for us. No, thank you, Ralph.
by
Kenneth Barr (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 77 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 5:28:20 PM
the destruction of the two parties would be a bad thing in your view? That's very interesting. What strengths do you see in the two-party system? Have they given you competitive interests or extreme polarization within the country?
Perhaps you can support your diatribe against the constitutionally guaranteed process for mounting a political run, with the rather simple and straightforward encouragement from Nader to Clinton.
Why have we been given (by the two parties you applaud) the insanity of a two-year run-up to the political conventions and yet now, five months before the conventions, it's suddenly unpatriotic to continue a campaign.
A nation abused by not enough information about George Bush is now ready, willing and (perhaps) able to shut Hillary Clinton down--for what? For the simple expediency of winning. The operative word there is simple.
Winning, as a goal, is what got us in this disasterous mess and now you would shut Hillary down to win.
If we need relief, we certainly do not need it by shutting down what has already been too long a campaign season--we need it by shortening the cycle, not shutting off candidacies. We now have seven months left to chew the cud of sound-bite politics. Is this trip really necessary?
by
Jim Freeman (108 articles, 41 quicklinks, 191 diaries, 363 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 6:22:56 AM
Nader is absolutely right. It is much easier for corporate moguls to control a debate if there are only two candidates who stay on script. "Got to bail lending institutions out when they step in shit", "America does not want a single pay system.... it is unworkable", "America has the best health care system in the world", "globization is good for America", "unions are bad for the economy", "consumers have enough choices", "we don't need to regulate ownership of media outlets", "Americans will never use public transportation", "the wage structure in America is fair...that's just the way the market works (shrug)", "the two party system is the only thing that will work with Americans" and on and on. Both Democrats and Republicans fear a third party that thinks outside of the stifling box. The Democrats promised big changes if they were elected. What we have gotten is 15 more months of war, "impeachment is off the table", ignored supenoas, and continued wiretapping and a justice department running amok, and a recession as well. In a word, a continuation of Republican rule. I am tired of having party bosses who say that the game has to be played their way. Let the two of them go to the convention and have a real honest to goodness vote------wow what a novel idea! There is a joke going around that says, "Do you know what a Democrat is? .........Someone who leaves the room when a fight breaks out." The Democrats have played nice for too long. They won the last two presidential elections but didn't have the fight to complain about Florida and Ohio. A little bit of fight is what has been lacking among them.
by
vidiot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 170 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 1:14:14 PM
The lack of a third party in America is not the result of corporate bosses or the failure of anyone to think outside the box. It's the result of the US Constitution. We don't have a parliamentary system like most of Europe, where third parties, fourth parties, and sometimes even more parties flourish. There, you put together a ruling coalition, no matter how many parties it takes, and when it falls apart, you have a new election to sort things out.
I wish we had that system -- if we did, George Bush would have long since been history -- but we don't. Here, you're stuck with the government you got, no matter how bad, until the next written-in-stone election date. The only way to maintain a governing majority under such a system is to keep things limited to two parties -- one of them has to have a majority. Fairly reliable proof of this is 220 years of US history -- never has a third party gained more than a handful of seats in Congress, and never has one lasted more than a few years.
So if you want a third party, get busy on a Constitutional Convention. Otherwise, quit whining.
by
Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 2:27:10 PM
such as it is, is presumed to be a typically American, prepackaged pair of coalitions. It is something that the nation sort of naturally fell into soon after the ratification of the Constitution in spite of warnings about "factions" from Madison and others.
It does seem, though, that a lack of political parties might make for a rather unwieldly ballot.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1045 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 12:37:18 AM
The same old rationalizations from The Traitor; same old denials he helped the war criminals come to power in 2000. Now his flaming ego is at it again, helping McWar and the Republicans in 2008. I'd say, "Shame on you," but Traitors have no shame.
by
James Cordray (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 55 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 1:40:58 PM
in my opinion, Ralph Nader is many things; pompous, arrogant,self-centered and egotistical to the point of hubris. However, he is absolutely not a traitor. I'm sorry, sir, but you go too far.
by
Kenneth Barr (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 77 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 5:31:39 PM
Nader wants to sell popcorn at the Demo convention
while the two candidates beat each other to a pulp. The convention may turn out to be a mini-armageddon and Ralph will laugh all the way to the polls. The Demo's are doing a bang-up job of destroying the party without needing help from any seat-belt salesmen. The sooner the two partys are gone the better, but I wont be voting for any global carbon tax.
by
john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 392 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 1:50:08 PM
Nader reached his nadir in 2000 when he effectively handed the presidency to our favorite Worst President. He later defended himself irrationally by claiming he drew equal votes from Republicans as from Democrats, as if average Republicans would respond eagerly to Nader's strong anti-corporatist agenda (which I agree with BTW).
Now Nader is disingenuously speaking out for "free speech" when the actual issue is that Clinton has already lost the nomination but won't admit it, and all this is to the great detriment of the nation, not to mention the Democratic Party.
Keep in mind that this election transcends gender and race, and has everything to do with whether or not America as we'd like to know Her continues to exist.
Therefore, Nader is in this narrow sense an unwitting and witless threat to America.
Mr. Nader, take down your lame arguments.
by
Lover of Truth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 1:53:25 PM
