Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, Mar 25, 2006.
Nicely put, I think.
Thank god for Ralph Nader.
Now how do we get people to read this?
nice find skunk , Nader has hit the head on the nail on describing the bush clan I thought GOP were Savers on fed. money .. I guess the GOP are spenders
Well, they certainly know how to spend political capital.
I think that was well said too, I'll be forwarding this to my family.
Funny, did I miss it or did Ralph forget to say he was sorry for the ill-advised equation of "Bush=Gore" in the 2000 campaign?
The article is fine, but Nader is a flawed messenger.
But Nader ran because he felt, among other things, a two party system is nearly as bad as a one party system.
This could honestly be the first thing that Ralph Nader has ever said that I have found to be logical and well-thought-out. I'm impressed.
I hope that the mid-term congressionals go well and there are enough votes to oust the President. I have heard the word "impeachment" a LOT lately. More than before - where it was scarcely mentioned. I wonder...
I'm all for expanding the system to allow for more parties to realistically have a chance, but that doesn't mean third parties or independents get a pass on their rhetoric. Nader's statements that there was no difference between Bush and Gore are obviously wrong with hindsight and he should have been more careful when he said it. Part of being taken seriously should be admitting when you are wrong, but I've never heard Nader say one word of self-criticism about his role in the 2000 election.
Yeah, we wouldn't have to impeach Bush if he hadn't stolen much-needed Gore votes. I use the term "stolen" loosely.
We can only hope.
However, his candidacy was a luxury we obviously could not afford. There's this funny thing called timing- it's everything.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with those who feel that Nader's message, while spot-on, is tainted by his previous ridiculous statements such as Bush = Gore. While I'm not blind to the corruption in my own Democratic party, Bush ≠ Gore.
i'm all for moving towards a multiple-party system, but i don't think the way nader went about it was the right way (and that's not just hindsight).
rather, the green party and others need to concentrate on local politics and build up. imo, anyway.
Gore = what Bush said he was. He was far worse than most of us even could imagine, and in retrospect Gore wasn't really that bad. I dare say I actually started liking him awhile after the election when we started to see where Bush was going. Were he more like that, more people may have voted for him, and certainly fewer people would have voted for Bush had they known what he'd be like. I still don't like Kerry. I've always liked Nader, despite his obvious faults, and almost voted for him in 2000. He is good at stating things like this, which should be obvious to everyone.
But yeah, can't help but be a little mad about the 2000 thing. Especially since he tried to do it again in 2004. Gore should have picked him for VP, couldn't be worse than it is now.
Like I said, timing is everything. And Nader has no sense of that.
Nader makes some typical Nader points in there. He's a smart guy. Not a very good public speaker though (I've saw him several times in 2000 (no I didn't vote for him)).
Reasons why Nader didn't pull out:
In polls not too long before the 2000 election, the Green Party was showing almost the required 5% of the popular vote that would have given them a huge windfall of public money for future elections. This would have exponentially increased the stature of the green party in the US. It would have, by many definitions, made it a 3 party system.
Gore was pretty sucky... Better than Kerry, and certainly better than Bush, but his popularity was more based on the fear of Bush than any quality he had. He was boring and he shot himself in the foot several times.
Hindsight is 20/20 - no one could have predicted at the time just how dangerous Bush was. In fact, until 9/11, it looked like Bush wasn't going to get the kind of support he needed to get anything done. His approval ratings sucked. he was spending most of his time on the ranch. He wasn't doing good, but he didn't have the power to do too much harm. There was no way that Nader or anyone else could have predicted 9/11.
The simple fact that that many people voted for Nader was a sign that the democratic party was losing touch with it's roots.
Why was the election even that close. It was already clear that Bush was a buffoon, so why did people vote for him? Because the Democrats (Gore) were not only not captivating, but were also both arrogantly offensive and out of touch with the way a lot of people live in the US.
Also, let's not forget that no matter how much people hate Bush and Co, there really is no democrat here that's gonna jump in and be mr. perfect.
That's a good point. We can blame Nader all we want, but it's just as much the fault of Gore and most of the rest of the Democratic party. If not more. Had they been better, Nader would have been irrelevant, thus proving his point.
He still should have known better in 2004.
i did. others did. the onion did.
bush still hasn't done all the bad things i've imagined. he's still got 1) a nuke to drop, and 2) and end-of-term to ignore.
edit: i forget 3) disband congress. though in fairness, that one didn't occur to me until more recently.
I beg to differ.
BTW, did you buy the line that "No one could have predicted the failure of the levies"?
"No one could have predicted a terrorist attack using airplanes."
"No one could have predicted the budget surplus would disappear."
"No one could have predicted Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction."
"No one could have predicted such a high level of domestic violence [ed: note it's never called an insurgency by the WH] in Iraq."
I don't expect Nader to be able to forecast the future. Yes, many of us did warn of some of these dangers with a Bush presidency, but the the real point is that it was painfully obvious that the differences of a Bush or Gore presidency were not as minor or as insignificant as Nader would have had us believe. I understand the reasons he ran and I understand the need for new voices, but those new voices need to be accountable for what they say. Nader was dead wrong about "Bush equals Gore" and, unfortunately, enough people believed him to swing a very close election. A little humility on Ralph's part wouldn't hurt.
That's what third parties always say. It's their USP.
Don't blame Nader for the Bush victory - blame the people that voted for him.
What Bush victory?