|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
 Posted - 09/20/2004 : 23:34:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
...If you've read any of the statements from the Democratic Leadership Council - the group that now controls the (anti-)Democratic Party and its agenda, you'll see that they don't even have any use for Howard Dean, let alone someone like Ralph. And Howard's a Democrat! And just ask Dennis Kucinich (once the election's over) how receptive Kerry and his group are to dissenting opinions...
Paladin - Your consistent use of repeated forced catch phrase name-calling is right (pun) out of the Republican manual, under the Divide and Disrupt chapter. I know someone very close to the Dean campaign, (who lives across the street from me.) Howard Dean and many of his supporters are actually in the Kerry camp right now. I like Kucinich. Sure, I'll ask him what he thinks of the Kerry camp when the election is over.
The fact remains that the "Nader folks will not vote for Kerry so it makes no difference" idea fails to take into consideration the Nader folks who would vote for Kerry. And yes, Nader deserves to be on the ballot if he legally belongs there.
This election is different from any other in US history. Many Republicans support Nader, but only as a disruption of Kerry votes. If Bush wins, his administration not going to listen to Nader. The main thing is to get Bush out. Then we can build a three, four, five party system that works if we want it. With Bush in, that won't ever happen.
John Kerry has the best chance of defeating George Bush. If Kerry wins, he may not be the best president we could have had. But he cannot be worse than Bush. Bill Maher said recently (paraphrasing): "John Kerry is like macaroni and cheese, but the alternative is dust and spit."
|
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2004 : 02:23:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Unfortunately when Ralph Nader participated in an election that he had no chance of winning George W Bush became president.
That may be true, depending upon your point of view, but I believe you're implying cause and effect. I disagree with the contention that Ralph's candidacy caused Al Gore to lose the 2000 election, and I hope we can simply agree to disagree on that point.
Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida, Bush won the state with 537 votes.
Do you find it unresonable to think that if Nader wasn't present on the ballot, 538 or more of those voters would have voted for Gore?
Al Gore lost the election for a lot of reasons and the democrats have no reason to look for Nader to blame.
Nader who made the choice to participate should however examine the consequence of this choice, so should all the people who did or did not cast a vote.
In my opinion you have a responsibility for the results of your actions (or lack of action). Both the direct results, and the indirect results that you could reasonably foresee.
I dont blame Ralph Nader for the current insanity. If Ralph Naders participation in this election gives Bush another 4 year, I will blame him.
quote:
Incidentally, I'd like to clarify my use of the word "uninformed." When I make that reference, I'm alluding to the fact that most of the Nader-bashers I've encountered appear to know very little about the man, other than he supposedly cost Gore the election or threatens Kerry's poll numbers. For most, that's all they care to know.
I'll admit that this is true. While I'm not totally ignorant, I have not followed Ralph Nader closely as an US small party candidate is not especially important to the world.
Naders qualities is however not the point. Ralph Nader will not win this election. You can either vote for Bush, vote for Kerry or waste(with regard to the result of the presidential election) your vote. You might feel that a vote for Nader gives some other value and this might be true (so in uncontested states it might be reasonable), but it is not a vote against Bush and it is not a vote for change.
We have 7 parties in our parliament. Every election(national, european parliament) I'll have to find the least evil among those that will make the 4% cut.
quote:
Surely, you're not expecting to prove a premise solely on the basis of how many people believe in it
Nah, It was a link with Nader supporters that found it crucial to remove Bush.
I'm not a Nader supporter, those people are. It was an appeal to authority not to popularity. If you believe and could show that it was false authority you would have a point.
quote:
Similarly, I propose that those folks signing that declaration are also mistaken. And here's why.
In their very own words, "For people seeking progressive social change in the United States, removing George W. Bush from office should be the top priority in the 2004 presidential election." But this is extremely short-sighted and, in the long run, will most likely HURT the cause of "progressive social change in the United States," not help it.
Your opinion. I think you are dead wrong.
"extremely short-sighted"??? This vote decides who should be the president the next four years. Bush has done alot of damage in 4 years. He will do much more if reelected.
So you rather have Bush than Kerry as this increases Naders chances in the long run. This is what I ment with "total cynic".
I would never vote for such a individual, even if i agreed on policies.
quote:
Voting "against" Bush with a Kerry ballot, while ignoring all other progressive priorities,
Why should you ignore all other progressive priorities? Do you think the Nader 2000 Citizens Committee will vote Kerry and then ignore all other progressive priorities?
quote:
How long are you willing to wait? How much water are we willing to let the ship of state take on before we stop bailing and actually do something about fixing the leak?
So 2008 we will have a scorced wasteland filled now enlighted voters realising that nows the time for change and Nader is the Man.
The next election there will be another candidate running .
If Dubya gets this term this person will most likely being one of his fundie cronies. (Reagan-> Bush Sr, Clinton-> Gore). If Kerry wins the Bush crowd (the losers) will find it more dificult to win the 2008 nomination.
Kerrys 2008 campain will then depend on the nature of this candidate not how he defeated Bush. If Nader is strong enough to be a contender in 2008, the democratic party will be affected by this to.
Even if Nader is the best candidate, a vote for Nader in 2004 does absolutely nothing to fix the leak and will give you the kudos it deserves (= zilch).
[made small addition] |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
| Edited by - Starman on 09/21/2004 02:34:35 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2004 : 02:25:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
John Kerry is like macaroni and cheese, but the alternative is dust and spit."
I like that. Somebody ought to take it up as a signiture.
Ok, botton line from la casa filth: I no longer give a syphiletic rat's ass about political philosophy. At this point, I don't see it as relevent. I just want fucking Bush gone before the slimy bastard has a chance to really wreck the country.
What the hell is Ralph thinking? Can't he see that no matter who wins, he loses? And we lose with him? Politics, whatever party, is a game of paybacks. If kerry wins, he will be shunted aside only to be ignored by the Democrats. If Bush wins, he will be shunted aside only to be shat upon whenever he opens his mouth. What will become of his visions then?
Reality, my friends. Fuck philosophy; we can't afford it. It's reality that we need to embrace. We can wax philosophical after we've taken out the trash.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2004 : 07:30:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In their very own words, "For people seeking progressive social change in the United States, removing George W. Bush from office should be the top priority in the 2004 presidential election." But this is extremely short-sighted and, in the long run, will most likely HURT the cause of "progressive social change in the United States," not help it.
What will HURT "progressive social change" is having G.W. Bush be the person who gets to appoint ATLEAST one new US Supreme Court Justice.
Removing Bush should indeed be the top priority, and it is by no means short-sighted. The consequences of a vote for Nader = greater chance that Bush gets reelected. Bush getting reelected will damage this country for DECADES as the Justices have LIFE TERMS. Suppose Bush gets some hard-core neocon fundie (like Ashcroft) appointed to the Court? If the republicans maintain control of congress and Bush gets reelected... it WILL happen. Not might happen, but will happen.
The "long term" outlook for progressive social change will be severely damaged by letting Bush be reelected.
So... if you WANT some insane neo-con fundie appointed to the court, go ahead.... vote Nader. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2004 : 07:55:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
His vision for America I do not agree with. However, it is important to note that the inclusion of Nader on the Florida ballot directly flies in the face of Florida election law. Nader needed 1% of all registered electors to sign his qualification document to be eligible to be printed on the ballot. He did not meet that, so he shouldn't be printed on the ballot. Nothing in the ruling prevents people from writing in his name.
Actually, no. This particular debate over his inclusion on the Florida ballot was over his status as the Reform Party candidate. The Democrats contended that the Reform Party was no longer a bona fide national party and that Nader wasn't properly nominated. However, the Reform Party is still recognized by the FEC as a national party, and Nader was, indeed, nominated at their convention. Thankfully, it appears that the court agreed. His independent candidacy, which is what I believe you're referring to, wasn't the issue at all.
Incidentally, here's a little tidbit for those of you who insist that Democrats are only insisting that Nader simply follow the rules like everyone else, from a piece at Counterpunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff09202004.html
Here's the jist of it:
"...according to a report in the St. Petersburg Times in Florida, the Bush campaign filed its election documents with the secretary of state's office in Tallahassee a day late, thanks to the Republican Party's decision to hold its nominating convention so unprecedentedly late (and conveniently close to the 9/11 anniversary). Technically, that late filing should have prevented Bush's name from appearing on Florida ballots in November. But did Democrats seek to make the state follow the letter of the law? No. The Democratic Party, incredibly, gave Republicans a pass and failed to challenge them! (Just imagine what would have happened had Kerry's people filed their papers a day late)
Ironically, the one place the Democrats have played hardball is in seeking to block access to the ballot by independent candidate Ralph Nader--and not just in Florida. Here, the Democratic Party machine has pulled out all the stops, challenging signatures, hiring pricey attorneys, defending arcane anti-democratic rules, and even using deception on occasion, in at least one case sending its own volunteers to Nader volunteer sign-up events to prevent genuine volunteers from getting into meetings."
What the St. Petersburg Times does not say is that the Republicans requested and were granted an extension for filing due to the timing of their national convention. (MSNBC Hardball, second day of the RNC, approx 11PM EDT.) This arguement is a non-starter.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2004 : 09:10:38 [Permalink]
|
The idea that you can further a more progressive policy by standing by your guns even if it means a Bush election defies logic. Since a part of the Bush agenda is to remove as many civil liberties as he can get his hands on, there will be so much damage to undo that even if a progressive were to be elected in 2008 he/she will not have the time to move forward on policy. Damage control will be the hallmark of that administration even if they are successful in getting elected. And that is a big if!
Wisdom dictates that "you have to know when to hold them and know when to fold them" or you loose everything.
When a progressive democratic candidate, Eugene Mcarthy refused to endorse Hubert Humphrey who won the parties nomination after Johnson resigned the result was a victory for Nixon in a very close election. That meant five more years of Viet Nam for one thing. It also set up a spiral that lead to the eventual election of Reagan and Bush. So much for progressive stubbornness. Does history teach us anything?
I have seen the results of high minded progressives unwillingness to be pragmatic. The last time it cost us thousands of lives (Nixon) and set the country on a coarse that led to such a low that Reagan's cheer leading was more important to many Americans than his actual policy's that also lead to giant deficits, a widening of the gap between the rich and the middle class and poor, and all the other crap that Americans accepted because he made them feel good. (Safe, in the Bush case.) And he was liberal when compared to Bush... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2004 : 19:50:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chippewa
Paladin - Your consistent use of repeated forced catch phrase name-calling is right (pun) out of the Republican manual, under the Divide and Disrupt chapter. I know someone very close to the Dean campaign, (who lives across the street from me.) Howard Dean and many of his supporters are actually in the Kerry camp right now. I like Kucinich. Sure, I'll ask him what he thinks of the Kerry camp when the election is over.
The fact remains that the "Nader folks will not vote for Kerry so it makes no difference" idea fails to take into consideration the Nader folks who would vote for Kerry. And yes, Nader deserves to be on the ballot if he legally belongs there.
This election is different from any other in US history. Many Republicans support Nader, but only as a disruption of Kerry votes. If Bush wins, his administration not going to listen to Nader. The main thing is to get Bush out. Then we can build a three, four, five party system that works if we want it. With Bush in, that won't ever happen.
John Kerry has the best chance of defeating George Bush. If Kerry wins, he may not be the best president we could have had. But he cannot be worse than Bush. Bill Maher said recently (paraphrasing): "John Kerry is like macaroni and cheese, but the alternative is dust and spit."
Chippewa, I assume you're referring to my use of the phrase "(anti-)Democratic Party." I use it because they have demonstrated time and time again throughout this election cycle a decidedly UN-democratic (small "d") bent. In state after state, they have shown little reluctance to follow, as you put it, "the Republican manual." Some of their Machiavellian maneuvers would make Karl Rove proud.
As you point out, Howard Dean and many of his supporters have joined the Kerry campaign. So what? Maybe the man's a masochist. Or perhaps he's cutting his losses, hoping for some crumbs to be thrown his way from a Democratic president. Most likely, he's simply joined the "anybody but Bush" crowd. The fact remains that the DLC doesn't care for Dean's politics. But don't take my word for it. Take theirs:
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251690&kaid=127&subid=900056
A snippet that focuses on Dean:
"What activists like Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration: the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home."
Not exactly a fair characterization, in my opinion. So, if you're quoting from the "Divide and Disrupt" chapter of the "Republican Manual," perhaps you should give kudos to the DLC folks who helped write the Democratic edition. These are the people controlling John Kerry's campaign.
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2004 : 20:11:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida, Bush won the state with 537 votes.
Do you find it unresonable to think that if Nader wasn't present on the ballot, 538 or more of those voters would have voted for Gore?
I don't find it unreasonable, but I don't find it compelling, either. Please keep in mind that, according to exit polling, over 300,000 Democrats crossed party lines and voted for George W. Bush. That's 120,000 more than the Republicans who voted for Gore. Another point to consider is that four other left-leaning presidential candidates also received more than Bush's 537 margin of victory:
John Hagelin (Natural Law) 2,281
Monica Moorehead (Workers World) 1,804
David McReynolds (Socialist) 622
James Harris (Socialist Workers) 562
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Al Gore lost the election for a lot of reasons and the democrats have no reason to look for Nader to blame.
Nader who made the choice to participate should however examine the consequence of this choice, so should all the people who did or did not cast a vote.
In my opinion you have a responsibility for the results of your actions (or lack of action). Both the direct results, and the indirect results that you could reasonably foresee.
I agree with all three statements, though I expect we disagree on exactly what those consequences/results are.
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
I dont blame Ralph Nader for the current insanity. If Ralph Naders participation in this election gives Bush another 4 year, I will blame him.
With this, I definitely disagree. Ralph Nader cannot "give Bush another 4 years." Only the voters can do that.
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
...Naders qualities is however not the point.
Actually, it IS the point, at least, it was originally. Please keep in mind that I stepped into this conversation because someone (you, in fact) suggested that Ralph Nader was either a "megalomaniac, delusional or just a total cynic." Actually, if you hadn't included that one single sentence at the end of your original post, you and I probably wouldn't currently be having this specific discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Ralph Nader will not win this election. You can either vote for Bush, vote for Kerry or waste(with regard to the result of the presidential election) your vote. You might feel that a vote for Nader gives some other value and this might be true (so in uncontested states it might be reasonable), but it is not a vote against Bush and it is not a vote for change.
As I've already explained, I believe that it IS a vote for change. But it appears we'll continue to disagree on that point as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Your opinion. I think you are dead wrong.
"extremely short-sighted"??? This vote decides who should be the president the next four years. Bush has done alot of damage in 4 years. He will do much more if reelected.
So you rather have Bush than Kerry as this increases Naders chances in the long run. This is what I ment with "total cynic".
I would never vote for such a individual, even if i agreed on policies.
No, I wouldn't rather have Bush than Kerry. I would rather have Nader. Barring that, I'd rather have Kerry beat Bush - not by limiting peoples' choices (and, in essence, telling the American people he doesn't trust them to make the right ones), but by becoming a better candidate.
And I've already tried to explain why I feel their priorities are shortsighted. I really don't know how I can say it any other way.
quote:
Voting "against" Bush with a Kerry ballot, while ignoring all other progressive priorities,
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Why should you ignore all other progressive priorities? Do you think the Nader 2000 Citizens Committee will vote Kerry and then ignore all other progressive priorities?
I fear I may have poorly phrased that one, Starman. I was referring to voters who vote for Kerry (and against Bush) to the exclusion of all other progressive priorities. The complete quote is :
"Voting "against" Bush with a Kerry ballot, while ignoring all other progressive priorities, may keep him from returning to the White House, but it won't stop the rightward slide of our government."
I don't contest that getting rid of George W. Bush is a priority. But most of folks who have adopted this as their highest priority seem to have abandoned all others. Of all these major groups that have lined up behind Kerry, from labor to environmental and women's organizations, I can't think of any of them that have made a single demand on their candidate, other than to defeat Bush. They're simply assuming (and hoping) that things will be better once he's in office. To me, that's not only foolhardy, but dangerous.
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
So 2008 we will have a scorced wasteland filled now enlighted voters realising that nows the time for change and Nader is the Man.
The next election there will be another candidate running .
If Dubya gets this term this person will most likely being one of his fundie cronies. (Reagan-> Bush Sr, Clinton-> Gore). If Kerry wins the Bush crowd (the losers) will find it more dificult to win the 2008 nomination. Kerrys 2008 campain will then depend on the nature of this candidate not how he defeated Bush. If Nader is strong enough to be a contender in 2008, the democratic party will be affected by this to.
You may be more or less correct, Starman. And while I'm glad you're taking a more long-range look at things, it appears that you're seeing them in purely a Democratic/Republican context.
To me, the primary issue is which political direction our country is going to move over the next decade or two, not who's doing the moving. Bush and the Republicans are already moving to the right. If Kerry wins without making any significant concessions to his p |
Paladin |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2004 : 20:12:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
...If kerry wins, he will be shunted aside only to be ignored by the Democrats.
Huh? |
Paladin |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2004 : 20:15:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
What will HURT "progressive social change" is having G.W. Bush be the person who gets to appoint ATLEAST one new US Supreme Court Justice.
Removing Bush should indeed be the top priority, and it is by no means short-sighted. The consequences of a vote for Nader = greater chance that Bush gets reelected. Bush getting reelected will damage this country for DECADES as the Justices have LIFE TERMS. Suppose Bush gets some hard-core neocon fundie (like Ashcroft) appointed to the Court? If the republicans maintain control of congress and Bush gets reelected... it WILL happen. Not might happen, but will happen.
The "long term" outlook for progressive social change will be severely damaged by letting Bush be reelected.
So... if you WANT some insane neo-con fundie appointed to the court, go ahead.... vote Nader.
This is what I call the "big bad boogey man" that's always trotted out by the "anybody but Bush" crowd to keep progressives in liine. They keep everyone's focus on the Supreme Court, while the Senate confirms all but six of Bush's 177 nominees to the federal courts. As People for the American Way notes:
"The vast majority of federal cases never make it to the Supreme Court, but are decided by lower federal courts. These lower federal courts are extremely important, and every year decide thousands of cases that affect our lives. In 2000, for example, the federal appellate courts decided more than 27,000 cases, many of which were important rulings on privacy, the environment, and human and civil rights. This is in sharp contrast to the United States Supreme Court, which handed down only 74 opinions last term. In effect, many appeals court rulings stand as the final word governing the law in their regions."
This is where the real battle is taking place. If the Dems aren't willing to stand up and fight against Bush's rotten excuses for court nominees, how could we expect them to support, in the face of inevitable Republican opposition, anyone Kerry nominates? And Kerry has suggested that he wouldn't be averse to nominating federal judges who disagree with him on issues such as abortion.
So is it better to just give Kerry a pass on this issue, too, solely because his nominees may not be as bad as Bush's? Or is it better to try to persuade him to be more responsive to progressive input? And, since nobody else appears inclined to demand ANYTHING of Kerry, who will apply this pressure other than Ralph Nader?
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2004 : 20:19:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
What the St. Petersburg Times does not say is that the Republicans requested and were granted an extension for filing due to the timing of their national convention. (MSNBC Hardball, second day of the RNC, approx 11PM EDT.) This arguement is a non-starter.
Actually, the Counterpunch does explain that the deadline was missed because of the scheduling of the RNC. And it's certainly NOT a non-starter, as it demonstrates that the Democrats are willing to accomodate the Republicans while they exercise every available recourse against Nader.
Of course, that's not the only example. In Illinois, where Democrats furiously fought Nader's ballot efforts (possibly even using state employees, FOIA inquiry pending), the Democratic-controlled state legislature passed a special bill to ensure Bush wouldn't miss his ballot deadline.
http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2004/Jun/30/News_new/law_a.shtml
And they accomodated him in California as well:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/14/MN216669.DTL
And other states changed their deadlines for Bush, including Idaho and Indiana.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42628-2003Apr26?language=printer
The Republicans also had potential problems in Alabama and West Virginia, though I haven't yet found any updates on those two states.
But it really doesn't matter. My point is that, throughout the country, the Democrats seem to have no problem with accomodating Bush in regard to ballot access, but fight Ralph tooth and nail in almost every state. Perhaps, instead of "anybody but Bush," they should change their slogan to "anybody but Nader."
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2004 : 20:26:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
The idea that you can further a more progressive policy by standing by your guns even if it means a Bush election defies logic.
Since a part of the Bush agenda is to remove as many civil liberties as he can get his hands on, there will be so much damage to undo that even if a progressive were to be elected in 2008 he/she will not have the time to move forward on policy. Damage control will be the hallmark of that administration even if they are successful in getting elected. And that is a big if!
I disagree. It's perfectly logical. The only likely difference between the scenario you paint and the one that's currently in progress is the speed with which they'll occur. It's time to begin applying the brakes now.
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Wisdom dictates that "you have to know when to hold them and know when to fold them" or you loose everything.
This is true. But how many times do you keep folding 'em before you find yourself walking home in a barrel? 
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
When a progressive democratic candidate, Eugene Mcarthy refused to endorse Hubert Humphrey who won the parties nomination after Johnson resigned the result was a victory for Nixon in a very close election. That meant five more years of Viet Nam for one thing. It also set up a spiral that lead to the eventual election of Reagan and Bush. So much for progressive stubbornness. Does history teach us anything?
But why did Eugene refuse to endorse Humphrey? I suspect it was because Hubert refused to renounce the Vietnam war, which his progressive base detested. If history does, indeed, teach us anything, this ought to sound eerily familiar...
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
I have seen the results of high minded progressives unwillingness to be pragmatic. The last time it cost us thousands of lives (Nixon) and set the country on a coarse that led to such a low that Reagan's cheer leading was more important to many Americans than his actual policy's that also lead to giant deficits, a widening of the gap between the rich and the middle class and poor, and all the other crap that Americans accepted because he made them feel good. (Safe, in the Bush case.) And he was liberal when compared to Bush...
On the contrary, I can only speak for myself, but I believe I'm being completely pragmatic, for reasons I've already explained in detail throughout this thread. As for Reagan being crappy, and Bush being worse, this only reinforces my point that, as our expectations grow smaller and smaller, so do our candidates.
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2004 : 22:19:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
Chippewa, I assume you're referring to my use of the phrase "(anti-)Democratic Party." I use it because they have demonstrated time and time again throughout this election cycle a decidedly UN-democratic (small "d") bent. In state after state, they have shown little reluctance to follow, as you put it, "the Republican manual." Some of their Machiavellian maneuvers would make Karl Rove proud...
The Democratic Party isn't perfect. What a revelation. Actually, they're amateurs compared to the ultra-right brand of Republicans currently running the country. You're overlooking the majority of Democratic supporters, working class people and professionals, volunteers, campaigners, etc. All corrupt? I think not. And you're underestimating Karl Rove and the Bushies. Its not a level playing field. They are worse. Anybody but Bush? Well, YES! Of course.
In this race, Kerry and company are a foot in the door. Even if you believe that John Kerry won't follow the proposals of Ralph Nader, Nader's ideals have no chance to take root without the Democrats. Unless of course you're a closet Bush supporter just muddying the waters here trying to create doubt. That's what I meant by "Republican Manual." The Democrats need not follow it. They just have to come out swinging. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2004 : 02:05:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
I don't find it unreasonable, but I don't find it compelling, either. Please keep in mind that, according to exit polling, over 300,000 Democrats crossed party lines and voted for George W. Bush. That's 120,000 more than the Republicans who voted for Gore. Another point to consider is that four other left-leaning presidential candidates also received more than Bush's 537 margin of victory:
John Hagelin (Natural Law) 2,281
Monica Moorehead (Workers World) 1,804
David McReynolds (Socialist) 622
James Harris (Socialist Workers) 562
This only mean that 300k Democrats, Al Gore & Co, Hagelin, Moorehead, McReynolds & Harris should examine the result of their actions.
Does these canditates run in this election?
This is kind of a childs argument "~ But everybody elese does..."
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
I dont blame Ralph Nader for the current insanity. If Ralph Naders participation in this election gives Bush another 4 year, I will blame him.
With this, I definitely disagree. Ralph Nader cannot "give Bush another 4 years." Only the voters can do that.
Indirect result of an action. If something happens because Ralph Nader does something and Ralph Nader knows that this might or will happend, he has responsiblity.
The voters responsibilies is not Naders problem when deciding if he should run.
What might be the result of his action is.
"~ But it was them that voted..." does not cut it.
quote:
Please keep in mind that I stepped into this conversation because someone (you, in fact) suggested that Ralph Nader was either a "megalomaniac, delusional or just a total cynic." Actually, if you hadn't included that one single sentence at the end of your original post, you and I probably wouldn't currently be having this specific discussion.
Then I'm glad I included the sentence  .
You have not convinced me of another possibility I'm afraid. I'm leaning on total cynic at the moment.
quote:
As I've already explained, I believe that it IS a vote for change. But it appears we'll continue to disagree on that point as well.
I can think of two results of a vote for Nader instead of Kerry.
- Nader can show that he has a little more support
- A state which Kerry would otherwise win, is won by Bush
The first result might be of some benefit. The argument from popularity, remember? But it is no change and you could probably get the same or better results in other ways.
The other result can get horrendous consequences, like it did in 2000.
quote:
No, I wouldn't rather have Bush than Kerry. I would rather have Nader.
Yes I've got that. But you don't have this option. (My daughter is 2. I'm getting used these types of discussions.)
quote:
Barring that, I'd rather have Kerry beat Bush - not by limiting peoples' choices (and, in essence, telling the American people he doesn't trust them to make the right ones), but by becoming a better candidate.
Yawn!
So you wont take responsibility for your own vote. It's all Kerrys own fault.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Why should you ignore all other progressive priorities? Do you think the Nader 2000 Citizens Committee will vote Kerry and then ignore all other progressive priorities?
I fear I may have poorly phrased that one, Starman. I was referring to voters who vote for Kerry (and against Bush) to the exclusion of all other progressive priorities. The complete quote is :
"Voting "against" Bush with a Kerry ballot, while ignoring all other progressive priorities, may keep him from returning to the White House, but it won't stop the rightward slide of our government."
Ok, but I fail to see why this is an argument for Nader running in this election or for someone to not vote for Kerry.quote:
Of all these major groups that have lined up behind Kerry, from labor to environmental and women's organizations, I can't think of any of them that have made a single demand on their candidate, other than to defeat Bush. They're simply assuming (and hoping) that things will be better once he's in office. To me, that's not only foolhardy, but dangerous.
You do know that the Democratic party had other candidates?
You do know that the Democratic party selected John Kerry among those?
You do know that these other candidates are now backing Kerry even though they might have different opinions in manny issues?
Why do you think it is like this?
quote:
You may be more or less correct, Starman. And while I'm glad you're taking a more long-range look at things, it appears that you're seeing them in purely a Democratic/Republican context.
To me, the primary issue is which political direction our country is going to move over the next decade or two, not who's doing the moving.
This is about an event in reality, the November 2, 2004 presidental election, which will decide if the Republican or the Democratic candidate will be president until 2008.
The next election there might be a candidate form an other party with a chance of winning, but not this time.
This time it is a Democratic/Republican context whether you like it or not.
quote:
Bush and the Republicans are already moving to the right. If Kerry wins without making any significant concessions to his progressive base, he'll surely be convinced that he did so by moving to the right as well. In either case, the country's political leadership continues to move rightward, to our |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
| Edited by - Starman on 09/23/2004 02:07:04 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2004 : 07:20:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
What the St. Petersburg Times does not say is that the Republicans requested and were granted an extension for filing due to the timing of their national convention. (MSNBC Hardball, second day of the RNC, approx 11PM EDT.) This arguement is a non-starter.
Actually, the Counterpunch does explain that the deadline was missed because of the scheduling of the RNC. And it's certainly NOT a non-starter, as it demonstrates that the Democrats are willing to accomodate the Republicans while they exercise every available recourse against Nader.
Of course, that's not the only example. In Illinois, where Democrats furiously fought Nader's ballot efforts (possibly even using state employees, FOIA inquiry pending), the Democratic-controlled state legislature passed a special bill to ensure Bush wouldn't miss his ballot deadline.
http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2004/Jun/30/News_new/law_a.shtml
And they accomodated him in California as well:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/14/MN216669.DTL
And other states changed their deadlines for Bush, including Idaho and Indiana.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42628-2003Apr26?language=printer
The Republicans also had potential problems in Alabama and West Virginia, though I haven't yet found any updates on those two states.
But it really doesn't matter. My point is that, throughout the country, the Democrats seem to have no problem with accomodating Bush in regard to ballot access, but fight Ralph tooth and nail in almost every state. Perhaps, instead of "anybody but Bush," they should change their slogan to "anybody but Nader."
Well, Bush is the sitting President. And that the RNC realized that they were going to miss deadlines and filed for extensions shows that they were willing to work within the rules. The Democrats, realizing that they would have to deal with Republicans in the future in Congress to get legislation, did not object.
Nader lacks the votes to be elected, nobody much cares about his candidacy, but they do insist that he obey the rules. Again, none of the measures seek to make him ineligible to run, he just won't be printed on some ballots. And in Illinois, most of the signatures on his petition were falsified. That is why he got booted off in Illinois. It's also why the Democrats were pushing so hard for it.
Since the Republicans are aiding and abetting this fraud in several states, the Democrats are fighting it. Republicans have been organizing petition drives for Nader and are the source in Illinois for the falsified Nader petitions. The question you should be asking is why are the Republicans expending so much effort to put Nader on the ballot? Methinks there's an underhanded political trick in there. And this coming from someone who worked his first campaign in 1972. (I stuffed envelopes for Dan Walker (Illinois Governor) at the age of 5)
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
