Nader 08

[Good Old Neon]

For all the vitriol directed at Nader from his run in 2000, people seem to forget that his main issue - that there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats - has been proven to be true.

 

Maybe President Gore would not have plunged us into an unwinnable war in Iraq, but look at the Democrats' votes on the Patriot Act, amending FISA to permit warrantless wiretapping, immunity for the telecommunications companies that illegally cooperated with the White House in providing subscribers' personal information, permanent bases in Iraq, and the approval of Bush's judicial appointments. But don't stop there. The Democrats went along with Bush and the Republicans in revising the bankruptcy laws to favor the large banking interests as opposed to the individual consumer (no reform of business bankruptcies, just individual bankruptcies) . . . the point is, Nader was right.

 

Both parties are owned and operated by virtually the same corporate interests. When a politician speaks of his constituency anymore, he or she is talking about Citigroup, or Halliburton, or Exxon-Mobil, or Verizon and AT&T. They are not speaking of the people who voted them.

 

Nader's presence in the campaign forced the others to talk about the corporatization of both the country, and the political process. Without him, there will be no discussion on how every health care proposal on the table represents a windfall for the large HMOs insurance companies, rather than tangible benefits for the consumer.

[myboyblue]

Having more viable candidates for 2008 will render Nader a bit less significant.

[cryptique]

For all the vitriol directed at Nader from his run in 2000, people seem to forget that his main issue - that there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats - has been proven to be true.

Because you included that last bit, this thread is based on a false premise. That has not "been proven to be true."

 

The differences may be minute, but they're real, and they have real-world consequences. Even if the only difference between them was the kind of justices a president of either party would nominate to the Supreme Court, that's real enough.

 

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but I see very distinct differences between the two main parties on issues that matter to me, and I vote accordingly. Anyone who claims there are no differences (sorry Mr. Nader) is glossing over the facts to make a rhetorical point.

 

As for Nader himself ... I'm a fan, and I think he'd make a great president -- but he won't get elected, and if I had been consulted in the matter, I would have urged him not to run.

 

Also, as myboyblue already observed ... I don't think Nader will have nearly as much effect on the election this year. There's too much at stake. He'll attract votes from people who wouldn't have voted for either major party candidate, but I doubt he'll be able to steal many votes that otherwise would have gone to one of those candidates.

[mountain bed]

If he is included in debates before the general he could refer to McCain as "my younger opponent".

 

Seriously though - I like the guy, I really do. He would force some discussion about issues THDW mentioned. I only hope things aren't so dreadfully close that he actually affects the outcome at the end.

[Good Old Neon]

Because you included that last bit, this thread is based on a false premise. That has not "been proven to be true."

 

The differences may be minute, but they're real, and they have real-world consequences. Even if the only difference between them was the kind of justices a president of either party would nominate to the Supreme Court, that's real enough.

 

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but I see very distinct differences between the two main parties on issues that matter to me, and I vote accordingly. Anyone who claims there are no differences (sorry Mr. Nader) is glossing over the facts to make a rhetorical point.

 

As for Nader himself ... I'm a fan, and I think he'd make a great president -- but he won't get elected, and if I had been consulted in the matter, I would have urged him not to run.

 

Also, as myboyblue already observed ... I don't think Nader will have nearly as much effect on the election this year. There's too much at stake. He'll attract votes from people who wouldn't have voted for either major party candidate, but I doubt he'll be able to steal many votes that otherwise would have gone to one of those candidates.

 

 

On matters related to abortion and same sex marriage, etc, I

[Mr. Kinsley]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

 

Until there is a clear and present danger of the US being attacked by rogue militant Corvairs, I will not vote for him.

[cryptique]

However, on the big issues, health care, Iraq, The Patriot Act, amending FISA, immunity for telecoms, approval of Bush’s judicial nominees, etc, both parties vote(d) the same way – which begs the question, why vote for one over the other? How and why are they so different?

Because:

 

On matters related to abortion and same sex marriage, etc, I’ll grant that there are some real, tangible differences.

Also, do you deny that there's a difference when it comes to Supreme Court nominees?

 

Do you really think there's no difference on the issue of Iraq? Really? If Barack Obama is elected president, do you really believe that the U.S. course in Iraq will unfold exactly the way it would have if McCain is elected?

 

Do you really believe there's no difference on healthcare? The Republicans shout about socialism and scuttle any attempt to bring healthcare to the uninsured by telling horror stories about the systems in Canada and the U.K., but offer no substantive solutions of their own that will improve the current situation. The Democrats' plans are hardly perfect, but are the first step toward what could eventually be a much-needed overhaul. Plus, the fundamental philosophies toward healthcare are fundamentally different: Republicans think it's a privilege, and Democrats think it's a right. But you still see no difference?

 

The Democrats have been way too submissive on the Patriot Act, but do you really think with a Democratic president that their acquiescence will continue? For one thing, Obama or Clinton won't be attempting to strengthen it, so the Dems in congress won't have the chance to buckle.

 

Your entire approach in this thread is to drop a bunch of gross generalizations as if they're settled fact, and then use them as the foundation for your argument. Haven't you learned yet that this is no way to engage in discussion? You've been doing this, it seems, since you first joined this board, yet you persist.

[MrRain422]

For Nader's stated goals, he'd be better off focusing on grassroots organization rather than trying this again. His ego is getting in the way of his motives. The issues that he stands for are good ones and important ones but I think his tactics are way off at this point.

[deepseacatfish]

I only hope things aren't so dreadfully close that he actually affects the outcome at the end.

This is really my main concern. I think Nader's done some great stuff in his day for consumer rights, etc. and I don't like the two party system...but when it comes down to it the election may be pretty close and Nader's inclusion in the race could make things more difficult for the Democratic candidate. I don't know, I think the guys kind of proved his point on the whole presidential race thing, I'd rather he went back to doing more constructive work for real people.

 

His ego is getting in the way of his motives.

Yes.

[Good Old Neon]

Also, do you deny that there's a difference when it comes to Supreme Court nominees?

 

There are certainly differences, but if the democrat

[cryptique]

Looking back, the points you responded with are just as speculative as mine, (your claim that Barak will change our current course in Iraq for example) - I’m simply no longer willing to give democrats the benefit of the doubt.

Your points are pure speculation. Mine are based on statements and precedents from the candidates themselves. All you do is make claims and then use them to base your further arguments. I make claims based on easily supportable evidence. There's a big difference there, though with your inability to discern differences, you're obviously missing it.

 

And you completely changed the subject regarding Supreme Court nominees, with some claptrap about how the Dems will "roll over." I don't know how to explain it any clearer to make you understand: with a Democratic president, the nominees will be liberal on the issues that matter to me, and apparently to you, and those nominees will be confirmed by a Democratic-majority congress. Where does "rolling over" factor in?

 

Democrats should rightly be held accountable for their votes that allowed for the Iraq war, and I have never claimed otherwise. I also suspect that the rhetoric currently practiced by Obama on Iraq would be tempered by reality to a large extent should he attain the White House. But the fundamental difference in philosophies between Obama and McCain remains: Obama does not believe in the Iraq war and sees it for what it is, while McCain is fully on board with the war and has made noises about American presence there into the indefinite future. If you seriously think that the differences between those fundamental, core philosophies won't make a damn bit of difference in the next administration, then I don't know what else to say to you.

 

Healthcare is a much muddier proposition, and you're right, both parties are beholden to special interests on that issue. But there, too, there is a fundamental difference in philosophy. While I don't believe that a Democratic president, even abetted by a strongly Democratic congress, will be able to fully overhaul the disaster that is our current healthcare system, I do believe that the steps taken during a Democratic administration will be more helpful than those taken during a Republican one.

 

Regarding the Patriot Act, as with your other points, you're confusing the congress with the White House. Based on his statements on the subject, Obama is not likely to seek to expand the reach of the legislation, and is much more likely to let it expire or even dismantle large parts of it (some would doubtless remain). Without pressure coming from the White House to expand executive power and compromise civil liberties, the Democrats in congress won't have to take contradictory positions, like many of them have found themselves doing under Bush.

 

I have to repeat once again that I am not a Democrat, but your argument that there's no difference between the parties, and therefore no reason to vote for one major-party presidential nominee over another, gets more laughable every time you try to buttress it.

 

"You're a very silly man and I'm not going to interview you anymore." Now, in the spirit of not feeding the troll any further, I'm out.

[quarter23cd]

For all the vitriol directed at Nader from his run in 2000, people seem to forget that his main issue - that there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats - has been proven to be true.

Having voted for Nader in 2000 based on this premise, my response is: You're kidding me, right??

 

On a high level, sure, I can see Ralph's point that both parties are inordinately indebted to serving special interests (particularly their own) over the interests of the public. Sure. Undoubtedly, they are. And from a broad point of view you can say one is just like the other. But that is a gross oversimplification, and the devil is in the details. I've spent eight years watching in disbelief as as the differences between the two options I had in 2000 have become clearly laid out for me. To be honest, the lesser of two evils has never looked so damned appealing.

[Good Old Neon]

And this?

 

"Democrats' votes on the Patriot Act, amending FISA to permit warrantless wiretapping, immunity for the telecommunications companies that illegally cooperated with the White House in providing subscribers' personal information, permanent bases in Iraq, and the approval of Bush's judicial appointments. But don't stop there. The Democrats went along with Bush and the Republicans in revising the bankruptcy laws to favor the large banking interests as opposed to the individual consumer (no reform of business bankruptcies, just individual bankruptcies)"

 

I'll endby letting the democrats record speak for itself.

[cryptique]

And this?

 

"Democrats' votes on the Patriot Act, amending FISA to permit warrantless wiretapping, immunity for the telecommunications companies that illegally cooperated with the White House in providing subscribers' personal information, permanent bases in Iraq, and the approval of Bush's judicial appointments. But don't stop there. The Democrats went along with Bush and the Republicans in revising the bankruptcy laws to favor the large banking interests as opposed to the individual consumer (no reform of business bankruptcies, just individual bankruptcies)"

 

I'll endby letting the democrats record speak for itself.

You're still using examples from Congress to support your argument about the race for the White House. The two things are somewhat related, but not enough that you can use an example from one to apply to the other.

 

Through all of this, you haven't offered any reason why Obama or Clinton would be exactly the same as McCain -- only that the Dems in Congress are pushovers. You're changing the subject instead of addressing it.

 

Honestly, it's people like you who create fodder for people like Rush Limbaugh and enable them to paint liberals as shallow lunatics. Your arguments are never supported, you make wild assumptions, you operate almost entirely on speculation, and you're thereby undermining your own cause. Please, for the sake of progressive politics across the nation, either start doing your homework or hold your tongue and stop giving lefties a bad name.

 

That's it. I'm done.

[Mr. Kinsley]

There are certainly differences [in regards to Supreme Court nominees], but if the democrat

[Oil Can Boyd]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Until there is a clear and present danger of the US being attacked by rogue militant Corvairs, I will not vote for him.

My first car was a 1963 Corvair (which I bought in 1991).

I gained a little respect for Mr. Nader the day I totalled my car.

[Good Old Neon]

You're still using examples from Congress to support your argument about the race for the White House. The two things are somewhat related, but not enough that you can use an example from one to apply to the other.

 

Through all of this, you haven't offered any reason why Obama or Clinton would be exactly the same as McCain -- only that the Dems in Congress are pushovers. You're changing the subject instead of addressing it.

 

Honestly, it's people like you who create fodder for people like Rush Limbaugh and enable them to paint liberals as shallow lunatics. Your arguments are never supported, you make wild assumptions, you operate almost entirely on speculation, and you're thereby undermining your own cause. Please, for the sake of progressive politics across the nation, either start doing your homework or hold your tongue and stop giving lefties a bad name.

 

That's it. I'm done.

 

That

[mountain bed]

This is ridiculous. The Dems won't have to roll over if they're the ones nominating the justice. If they don't have the votes to overturn a Rep nominee, they have to roll over or else they just look foolish.

Yes. And in regards to FISA etc etc a veto proof majority is an absolute necessity.

[John Smith]

For all the vitriol directed at Nader from his run in 2000, people seem to forget that his main issue - that there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats - has been proven to be true.

 

I do nto for one minute believe that anything of the sort has been proven true. In fact I think just simple observation of how each party operattes when they have power shows just how different they are. Nader mucked things up in 2000 for one reason and one reason only...the republicans dressed up an ideological incompetant turd and sold him as a competant middle of the road sort of guy. They painted Gore as an incompetant far left "liberal" Nader got most of his votes from people who would normally have voted Dem, very few came from the right. This year I don't think it will matter. Voter anger is so intense that Naders effect will be minimal.

 

BTW...If republicans and democrats are funded by the same corporate interests, who funds Nader?

[theologian]

I find the "ego" argument against Ralph to be developed by "cut and run" democrats within their own democracy.

 

 

I think Ralph would be a great president. Can you imagine him pardoning a turkey? I can't.

 

 

And

I can't vote for a guy who has the nerve to ensue that a vote for him is a vote for hope.

I'll take Nader's record and word over Obama's any day.

[bobbob1313]

The two party system is awful for our country, so I have no problem with anyone who wants to do something about it.

[MrRain422]

The two party system is awful for our country, so I have no problem with anyone who wants to do something about it.

 

Sure, but isn't it imoprtant what that "something" is? Shouldn't it be something that will actually make an important difference? If the tactics used end in miserable failure, isn't that an important thing to consider?

[Good Old Neon]

Here you go, Crypt - more examples of just how far apart the democrats and republicans are on the issues:

 

 

http://www.therealdifference.org/print.html

[bobbob1313]

Sure, but isn't it imoprtant what that "something" is? Shouldn't it be something that will actually make an important difference? If the tactics used end in miserable failure, isn't that an important thing to consider?

 

I mean, I would argue that for all of the people who think the environment is an important issue, Nader did them a great service by "screwing up" the '00 election.

 

He is doing what all 3rd parties hope to do. Have some sort of effect on the outcome that way the major party that they "hurt" are forced to take their issues on.

 

I suppose in order to buy into the "miserable failure" bit of your post, you have to believe that McCain is any more or less likely to be a great (or terrible) president than Obama or Clinton, something I'm not sure I believe.

[j4lackey]

Having voted for Nader in 2000 based on this premise, my response is: You're kidding me, right??

 

On a high level, sure, I can see Ralph's point that both parties are inordinately indebted to serving special interests (particularly their own) over the interests of the public. Sure. Undoubtedly, they are. And from a broad point of view you can say one is just like the other. But that is a gross oversimplification, and the devil is in the details. I've spent eight years watching in disbelief as as the differences between the two options I had in 2000 have become clearly laid out for me. To be honest, the lesser of two evils has never looked so damned appealing.

Man, Well put. You saved me from having to spew an expletive-laden barrage of disbelief and anger. Nader cut himself off from any relevancy with that whole "no difference" thing. It's just not true.