Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by lee635, Feb 23, 2004.
NPR is reporting that Ralph Nader plans to make an independent bid for President.
No need for the Democrats to worry. Nobody is going to vote for him this year. Even the Greens consider defeating Bush to be the highest priority. The only interesting element Nader will add is that he evidently plans on spending all his time hammering on Bush without needing to be concerned about losing votes himself.
It's gonna be a fun year. :lol:
Some political analysts say that Nader siphoned off dem votes in 2000 and probably sabotaged Gore's chances.
The question is, who will he adversly affect this time around. Not meant to be a slam, but my instincts are that
if he stays in the race, Nader will draw off more D votes than R votes.
I heard today that the DNC had been quietly trying to talk Nader out of running.
Nader could just rile up enough Dems to send more of them to the polls this time though. I wouldn't be surprised if this is in fact the effect that his running has.
I agree with you. I think that's exactly what will happen. I'm getting more and more optimistic that Bush & Co. will get rolled in this election. Who Kerry picks for his VP will be important, but I wouldn't be surprised if the D's won big time. Even the R's are getting fed up.
The only thing Nader wants to do is rile things up. Dean served that purpose during the primaries, and Nader will take over in the general election. Democrats are not going to get siphoned off this time. We have seen primary after primary with record turnouts. Democrats are unified in a common goal to see Bush defeated, while the Republicans are increasingly fragmented. It's very likely that fringe Republicans will vote for Kerry. Or even Nader.
In the 2000 election, just in Florida Nader received 97,000 votes. Bush won Florida by only 537 votes (supposedly). How many of those 97,000 who voted for Nader would have instead voted for Gore? Who knows, but more than likely more than 537 of them would have.
I don't really understand Nader's reasoning for running again. In previous years he had something to contribute. Now it just seems egomaniacal and ugly.
As far as ego-maniacal, Nader is unwilling to admit that he screwed up the 2000 election. As far as ugly, it sounds like he is planning on focusing a lot of ugly on Bush, saying things the Democrats can't/won't say. They can take the more or less high road while Nader snaps around Bush's ankles, being annoying. By being a candidate it gives him a legitimacy to make these comments, and he will get a little more attention. Like I said, it looks like its going to be an interesting election.
Kerry voted for the war and NAFTA and many other things that Nader was opposed to. Edwards hasn't been around long enough to have much of a record, but neither could be seen as radically anti-establishment, although the GOP will certainly try to paint them that way.
I think Nader is in it to keep his issues alive and hold the Dems feet to the fire, so to speak. If Kerry or Edwards are nominated, and especially if elected, it could be very easy for them to assume these issues are not really all that important since neither were champions of them nor fought for them in the past, yet were still nominated and elected. They may conveniently forget that it was Nader and Howard Dean, and even Sharpeton, Kucinich and Mosley-Braun who brought out these core Democratic issues and lit the fire under the drive to dump Bush. Both Kerry and Edwards were late comers to these issues and only adopted them when it became obvious Howard Dean would wipe the floor with them if they didn't.
My concern with Kerry all along(Edwards is a bit more of an unknown quantity) is that he is basically just another cookie-cutter establishment politician. His record of voting and with special interests sure wouldn't indicate otherwise. His main asset to this point seems to be "electability" and Dems are so fed up with Bush & Co., nothing else really matters at this point.
Nader is just there to remind whoever is nominated that electability is a fine thing, but there is also something called issues.
Let's make sure the world knows this - Ralph Nader did not keep Al Gore from getting elected. AL GORE kept Al Gore from getting elected. He can be a crybaby about it all he wants and say "Ralphie took my votes. Wah-wah". But it doesn't work that way. Bush faced the libertarian party and defeated them. Plus, if anybody took Al Gore's votes, it was Bush . Oh, and the same works backwards - if Al Gore hadn't been running then Ralph Nader probably would have won the presidency (maybe, it would have been close)! I really dislike Al Gore, though he would have been to me the lesser of the two evils. GO NADER!
Now, on the other hand, this time, Nader won't even be looking votes (last time he was looking to get enough to win the Green Party campaign matching funds). He's just be one more person on Kerry's campaign team. GO NADER!
It's entirely possible that Nader hopes to influence the Democratic platform to lean more in his direction and then support the nominee after the convention. November is a looooong way off. If, as I suspect, he fares worse in this election than in 2000, he will have to deal with the claim that his ideas are not as popular as they once were.
Nader is so over, I don't think he could influence Dairy Queen to put sprinkles on his ice cream cone. His bug-loving followers have assimilated into suburbia and are now doing blow, driving SUVs over squirrels and pushing little white balls down at the country club.
The world already knows what happened. Al Gore won and it was systematically stolen from him before, during and after the election with the Supreme Court eventually "awarding" the Presidency to George Bush. Before with phony "felon voter purge lists". During, by demanding for instance three forms of ID from minority voters and closing polls with people still in line IN THE POLLING PLACE. And after, by not allowing the recount guaranteed by Florida law.
One could be charitable and say Bush stole the election fair and square, but he stole it nonetheless.
But that's water under the bridge, as is Nader. But it'll be intersting to see who's the "sore loser" come November, and how low he'll stoop to avoid becoming one. America gave Bush the benefit of the doubt after 9/11. But they're beginning to see the Emperor has no clothes.
Democrats will vote democrat even if a Bush politics man were running on the ticket. That's because most Democrats don't vote issues, they vote against the other party's issues or the other party just by name. Kerry wants to debate the Viet Nam War. Huh? Who the F. cares? Let's debate National security in the 21st century. Let's debate WMD's and why they have not yet been found. Let's debate the plan to get into our personal freedom with the Homeland security act. Kerry is an idiot if he thinks America is interested in debate on the VietNam war. Of course, I know a bunch of Southerners who WOULD be interested in a debate about the South will rise again.
Nader- ?????? Even my Green Party friend doesn't understand it.
So what to do?
Bush- Loss of more personal freedom, continued low interest rates, more industry getting away with environmental destruction, trigger happy but well planned military use, more government telling me how to live my moral life, a feeling of comfort that the government is more concerned about America's security than being liked abroad.
Kerry- Fear of losing out military to the United Nations, Fear that our economy will turn to the days of Carter economics, ie high taxes, high interest rates runaway inflation, stock markey crash and staying there, Return to Clinton like using the military, or what's left of it for social experimentation. Sending our military into poorly planned war for diversion from White House scandles of sexual promiscuity. When the military needs to be used for real crises it will be so downgraded it will not be ready and we will have a repeat of Viet Nam. Leaving Iraq unprotected and allowing another corrupt government to surface. Kerry and probably most who run on the Democrat ticket get free votes because they don't have "Republican" attached to their name.
Green Party- ???? Spoilers. Only radical environmentalists will vote Green Party. These people ( I know one who is radical) wants everyone in the nation to return to living like cave men. He will support any law that will destroy big business. For the most part he lives the part too except he has been arrested for litering. Go figure???
Nader- Like Perot, a loser! a Spoiler!
Libertarian- I'm a libertarian but the party is too disorganized and the ones in control have way too many ridiculous positions that just won't work for the country to ever get enough votes to get elected. Another loser. But not enough popularity to be a spoiler.
What I want- Considering my personal prosperity- I would have to select Bush and hope we get enough Democrats in Congress to keep a nice check and balance going for domestic issues. Let someone who has demonstrated a successful track record with running the nation's security and defense against terrorism to continue. The choice is the United Nations control of our national defense. For Quick decisive action that is no nonsense, Bush (family) has demonstrated you don't mess with a Texan from the northeast. I'll vote for BUsh again for Pres but every Democrat I can for Congress until we get some balance. Then again, the libertarian in me says all are under control by the one with the money. Maybe what we need is a constitutional amendment that forbids any soft money period or a mandatory 50 year prison sentence for both giver and taker. The buying of a congressman's vote has to end, somehow. Term limits of 2 years should also be a new rule. Give these soft money get rich congressmen only 2 years to be in office and then they must stay out of congress for 6 years. That may keep them honest. I think this would get rid of the professional politician and get rid of "This is how we do it in Washington" and replace it with "this is what I will do for the good of the nation" President can stay in office for 1 term but must leave after 1 term. Judges need to be replaced, say, every 4 years too. We need to depoliticize the split in the nation's people and make it a government of the people and for the people again.
Final comment- Bush asking for a constitutional amendment to define the sex in a marriage? Is he nuts? I like how he builds the military as opposed to the other guys but please don't tell the people who they can and can't have as their household partner. Can you imagine the next step? Same sexes living in a house will be hauled off to prison because they are in violation of the constitution. Don't we have more serious issues to worry about?
Kerry with wanting to debate the Viet Nam War and Bush wanting to regulate who we have as out friends and partners. What are they thinking?
Right on, Don! :righton:
I'm with you on everything you said except for changes in term lengths and limits.
Here's my take:
President - leave as is - 4 years, plus 4 more
Senator - 6 years, plus 6 more, max 12 year then out
Representative - 2 years, renewable, limit 12 years then out
Overhaul in congressional benefits - will never happen - they vote their own goodies
Bottom line: We're screwed whatever happens.
Yeah, well you understand my take on the term limits. I believe the only way to prevent congressmen from taking office and coming out with a hundred fold increase in wealth due to selling his vote to the highest bidder is to shorten the term AND make it severe penalty zero tolerance on accepting any money from special interests including soft money. The system as it stands now is all about who has the deepest pockets. Oh and that includes judges and the President / vP as well. Something's got to change with the ability of big deep pockets being able to cast majoriety vote while making these guys rich. I don't disagree with your softer approach, as it is actually more practical. I just am getting to the point of knee jerk clean house (pun intended) approach. If it soon doesn't stop, you will be where my head is at soon enough!
Ah, yes, my pet peeve with these people. GET RID OF BENEFITS!! ALL OF THEM!!!
"The world already knows what happened. Al Gore won and it was systematically stolen from him before, during and after the election"
Ignoring your before and during bit because I don't have the knowledge to comment - the after bit is nonsense. At least, it is if I'm assuming you're basing that on either the fact Al Gore got more votes or the recounts in Florida. First, Florida was recounted. More counts wouldn't have changed things. Second, Al Gore got more votes. Big deal. If America was a direct democracy, that would mean something. It's not. It's a republic. Some states have and have always had more influence than others. Those states happened to vote republican.