See, you people have me defending Ralph when I don't really want to, just as the Republicans have me defending Bill Clinton when I don't really want to.
So don't defend him. ;-)
I'm really quite angry at him. Hopefully this will be so obviously wrong-headed that it won't actually have an impact. But just one or two percent...
Sozobe
Sozobe, why limit our focus to Nader. What about all those other voters with other party candidates. They helped Bush win, too.
What I hope happens is that people will get angry enough to vote for the Democrat candidate. And I hope that anger is enough that all the voters out there who are NOT Democrat OR Republican, will vote to oust Bush regardless of other party affiliations.
AND I hope that voters will also sweep into office enough Democrats for them to regain control of the House and Senate. Otherwise, we will have a paralyzed Democrat as president without the voting power in the Congress needed to change things.
If we can't elect a Nader, then elect a Democrat to get rid of Bush and his cronies.
Our foreign policy, our fiscal policies, and the Supreme Court replacements depend on it in this election more than any other in the last 100 years.
BBB
It is possible that Kerry/Edwards will make a behind the scene overture to Nader - agree to hit on some Nader themes in exchange for his dropping out. His hat in the ring could be a ploy, ya know.
edgarblythe wrote:It is possible that Kerry/Edwards will make a behind the scene overture to Nader - agree to hit on some Nader themes in exchange for his dropping out. His hat in the ring could be a ploy, ya know.
I would love for this to be the case, Edgar.
I don't know --(where have I said that before?) -- but it is possible.
We'll see.
When the primary fiascos are over -- the nominee will begin speaking to the general public. That is when we will know what is going down.
I must say, I cannot see how Kerry can avoid bringing Edwards on the ticket -- and I think a Kerry/Edwards ticket will be a strong challenge to Bush/Giuliani.
Edwards has become an attractive candidate to me. He may offset the "I didn't vote for Kerry in the past; why vote for him now?" thoughts I have had.
sozobe wrote:<primal scream>
Oh, I'm about as pissed as I get.
OK - everybody run. Hide.
[size=7]actually, this is just my way of bookmarking ...[/size]
Bush/Giuliani? Did I miss something?
One week before the 2000 election the most powerful man in America was Ralph Nader. He was polling over six percent, higher in some areas, and, as Micheal Moore recounts in his book "Stupid, White Men" he had the chance to do two things: 1) assure a win for Al Gore and 2) still poll over the five percent needed to gain federal funding for the Green Party.
Moore tells it this way. (I'm paraphrasing a book I read three or four years ago, so forgive me if I leave out some details.*) Moore called the Nader campaign from a airliner. He was on a flight out of Florida having spent the previous week or so there. He told the campaign that Ralph should call Al and make him a list of what the Green Party wanted - health care improvements- and end to the fake drug war - whatever- list them-- X-Y-Z- then if Al would go on tv and say that he'd met with Ralph and that he and the Democrats would work towards the goals he had been working for AND X-Y-Z because the Democratic party was the only one who could represent those goals as well. Afterwards, the most powerful man in America, Ralph Nader would speak to his supporters and say that in the swing states they should vote for Al Gore but in those states where there was a clear Republican majority, they should continue to vote Green.
So he could have had it both ways. Poll over five, get concessions from the winning party and be in a position of power for the next election.
===
I too have liked Ralph Nader from the moment I first read about him in the sixties. I have always liked his earnestness and his ability to make others face facts. The latter skill, I'm afraid he has yet to learn himself.
====
I'm going to work hard this election to get out the vote for the Democrats and part of that is going to be going to the Green Party, and the Working Families Party and the Socialists and getting them to join us, or re-join us to get these miscreants out of power.
===
Joe
===
* I have the book around somewhere if someone needs a more exact retelling.
I can see thinking of Nader as a kind of political saint. As much as I might have considered voting for him if he actually had a chance to win the election, I have trouble envisioning him having a successful presidency, and can easily envision an equal and opposite reaction presidency to follow.
His virtue to me is that he has clarified ecological issues, increased understanding, for many - including, in a way, the many who disagree with him. Still, by and large, I think he has been - separate from his runs for president - a positive force for ecologic benefit.
His 'sin' is that given two tight presidential elections, his manueverings to secure his vision by running for national office effectively triggered and potentially will trigger again vast damage. Is his clawing for his vision ego or not? The joan of arc plan to lead the kingdom?
What ever it is, it is astoundingly shortsighted for a vision, given the consequences.
So what (in his exact words, Joe, if you don't mind the trouble, and certainly at your convenience in any event) did Ralph say to that proposal?
It bothers me that Democrats have bemoaned the administration as stifling personal freedom, but want to stifle the man's right to run. I don't see him taking votes away in swing states this time. Hell, I live in Texas, a non swing state, and I don't plan on voting for him.
Bottom line, Nader is doing what any principalled person would do in like circumstances.
"Stifle the man's right to run"? Huh? Has anyone here been saying that he should be arrested for rampant idiocy? (Hmmm...) I don't want to take away his right to run, I'm just very very pissed that he is choosing to run. A run will not help the Greens, it most certainly will not help the Democrats, and it will absolutely not help America. It will help Bush get re-elected. That's it. Some people find that a noble goal, but I don't and I don't think that's Nader's conscious goal. (Though who knows, maybe BPB will get a reply...)
You do realize that Nader also claimed many republican votes as well last election, right? It's not as though just the Dems had a monopoly on votes for Nader. Does anyone have sort of statistisical breakdown of party votes for Nader in 2000?
I had thought it was far more likely that people who would otherwise have voted for Gore voted for Nader than people who would have otherwise voted for Bush. But would be interested in stats.
Nader is no longer a Green Party candidate.
OK, just found an exit poll:
2 to 1 Democrats over Republicans (2%, 1%), with the largest percentage being Independents (6%).
This may be more "otherwise Gore, otherwise Bush":
There it's 6 to 1 Liberals over Conservatives (6%, 1%).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html
I know Edgar, that's why I said it won't help the Greens. (In 2000, if he got a certain percentage -- 5%? -- that translated to funding.)
I'll write out the poll results, thought I could post it as an image but it didn't work.
