Ralph Nader Running?

by patio34 43 Replies latest social current

  • Phantom Stranger
    Phantom Stranger

    Yes, it's a free country and all of that, but running for president is NOT Nader's business. Typically, if someonee asked something like, say, the dimensions of your genitalia, you would reply 'I'm sorry, but that really is my business.' If, however, you appeared on a nationally televised news program, and announces your intention to insert said genitalia into America's rectum, that is no longer 'my business'. Do you understand, or shall I demonstrate? http://slate.msn.com/id/2095593/

    I understand that a lot of conservatives despised Clinton, and discussing why any longer is useless - it's a known fact. Gore inherited much of that antipathy, and he earned a good deal of it with his impersonal campaigning style and appearance of waffling on issues.

    But for conservatives to attempt to take the personal antipathy that they have felt towards one man, and attempt four years later to use it towards any Dem that happens to run for Prez, is using a very wide brush that's not very fair or balanced (if I can use those words without Roger Ailes' lawyers attacking me). It's as if the GOP has only one trick now - acting like vicious Rottweilers - and they're gonna use that trick every chance they get.

    I know that there are some Republicans who would make fine leaders of this country. If John McCain had been in the general election against Al Gore, I would have struggled mightily, but I probably would have voted for McCain, because I think he's a better leader than Gore (or Bush). Likewise, I think that I trust Kerry's decisions more than I trust Bush's decisions - even though I don't agree with all his positions (and I doubt I'll ever see a candidate where I do agree with 100%). But we don't have John McCain... or others. We have Shrub. And Shrub scares moderate Republicans with his spending, his environmental policies, his intrusions on civil liberties, and his WMD-based tap dancing. And that's moderate Republicans! (Which, thank Bog, we still have some of!)

    But this country has been led through times of trouble and strife with Democratic presidents, men more liberal than anyone we could put on the ballot today - and lived to tell the tale. This country has had great leaps forward with Republican leaders (TR and his support in labor laws comes to mind - something I can't imagine coming from the GOP today). The fact of the matter is, the debate shuld be on the issues, not on personal attacks, and you can't make a case the the country would be unsafe with John Kerry at the helm. You can say it, in big bold letters - but you can't make a case for it. You can try to use fear to sway voters - because in this case, you sure don't want them to use their minds.

    Are you better off than you were four years ago? Do you feel safer than you did four years ago?

    Vote Democrat - the party for fiscal responsibility and national security.

    (PS to git: Acknowledging where the American electorate is right now nationally, Ralph and Kucinich and such should spend their time on local races, building a track record, which in the long term could finally break the two-party system - but only if it starts locally. And it will take years.)

  • ColdRedRain
    ColdRedRain
    Vote Democrat - the party for fiscal responsibility and national security.

    Ummm, aren't these the same guys that let the WTC93 terrorists go and opposed the Bush tax cuts?

    Anyways, I live right in the middle of Nader country and I know that Nader's electorate wouldn't have voted for Gore-tex. Why? They don't normally vote. Nader may have had some pull from Gore, but it was minimal at best. Democrats and Greens attract 2 different bases, the former being a party that's mainly populated by urban and rual socially conservative-fiscally liberal people and the latter being run by fiscally and socially liberal people.

  • Phantom Stranger
    Phantom Stranger

    I'll see your Minnesota and raise you Oregon. Most of the Nader voters here that I know vote every time, and are very politically active.

  • ColdRedRain
    ColdRedRain

    Hey, we're becoming more conservative in Minnesota! We have a Republican governer, a one of our senators is a Republican (Although he's sort of a RiNO.) and until recently, we had a Twin Cities Mayor that was a Republican (Even though he left office to become our junior Senator)

  • Badger
    Badger

    Nader won't have the same impact...and Perot didn't have that huge of an impact in 92 and less in 96. The voters for Perot were very divided between secondary support for Clinton and Bush. Remember...it comes down to electoral votes...Perot may have cost Bush Voters, but he didn't cost them states.

  • gitasatsangha
    gitasatsangha

    Democraticans and Republicrats are just going to have to stop whining about spoiler votes and accept the fact that the two party system is nearly over. Libertarian presidental candidates are consistantly getting hundreds of thousands of votes. for decades now. It's only a matter of time till they get a break-out candidate like Nadar and start posting large voter turnout also. The Greens may not hit big this time, as some greens will take Kucinich's appeal and vote Democrat just out of ABB syndrome, but they'll be back in 2008. The two party system is over.

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    In a perfect world, I would vote Libertarian. However, Bush fits the closest bill. At least he has a plan, the Dems cry a lot, but offer no solutions. Kerry voted for most of Bush?s agenda, I wonder how he will wiggle out of his voting record. Here is an example of filp flop....

    Senator Kerry, in an October speech to the Arab-American Institute in Michigan (story): "I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build the barrier off the green line cutting deep into Palestinian areas. We don't need more barriers to peace." Senator Kerry in the Jerusalem Post this week: "Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self-defense. No nation can stand by while its children are blown up at pizza parlors and on buses." WHAT??

    I hope most here take a good look at stuff like this....

    Now a Boston Globe story: "Senator Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, frequently calls companies and chief executives 'Benedict Arnolds' if they move jobs and operations overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes. But Kerry has accepted money and fund-raising assistance from top executives at companies that fit his description of Benedict Arnolds."

    On these two issues like so many others, John Kerry is on both sides ? telling whatever audience he's speaking to exactly what they want to hear. Let's not forget Jim Glassman's report that Heinz ketchup has 22 American factories and over two-and-a-half times as many, 57, overseas! Heinz is a Benedict Arnold corporation by Kerry's definition, and he's married to it -- with nary a word of criticism. So what's all this razzmatazz about outsourcing?

    The Globe: "On Monday, Kerry was asked why two of his biggest fund-raisers were involved with so-called Benedict Arnold companies. Kerry said it was done without his knowledge, then sought to "clarify his position" by saying he doesn't think "that people don't have the right to go overseas and form a company if they want to avoid the tax. 'I don't believe the American taxpayer ought to be giving them a benefit. That's what I object to.'" I guess we can't call him on any of these contradictions, folks, because that would be "questioning his patriotism."

  • patio34
    patio34

    Thi Chi and Loves_Truth, Git,

    No matter to me about the foibles and imperfections of Kerry. It seems to me that Bush is so dangerous and warlike that it's paramount to get him out of office. I agree with a lot of the thought in the ABB (Anyone But Bush) camp.

    Patio

  • gitasatsangha
    gitasatsangha

    The DNC will pick a boring waffler like Kerry just like they did with Gore, then blame it on the Greens.

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    Why just "blow over" these facts?

    It looks like you will be voting for someone just like Bush. Kerry voted for the War, Kerry is for outsourcing. Kerry wants "the Wall" in Israel. However, Kerry was on the wrong side of History during the Reagan years......(and thank God for thatt!)

    Go Nader, Go!!! Really, I predict a landslide for Bush this time....

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit