I agree with you on Nader, Todd. But surely you see why you're getting a venomous response -- it's one thing to tell a group of people that you want their chosen candidate to lose and entirely another to tell them that their chosen candidate shouldn't run.

I don't think he should run, either.

But when we say that, we confirm the suspicions of a lot of Greens who believe that they've been completely left out of the process. Now there's a lot of reasons why most Greens would be ably represented by a Democratic candidate, but they don't want to hear that. They want their own candidate. When we point out that they're doing more harm than good, they get mad.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

The two-party system sucks. The process of selecting US presidents is bizarre to say the least. Fix the system instead of whining about Nader.

What would you do?

I hope Nader doesn't run, but I think he's mostly right.

My big 3 indices of national insanity-

1.US military spending is more than the rest of the world's combined, even though its armed forces have recently been ineffective against every opponent except a tinhorn dictator who decided to fight WWI again.
2.The "Land of the Free" imprisons a larger fraction of its citizens than any nation on earth.
3.US federal spending for health care is larger per capita than Canada's, even though it leaves the vital function of insuring most of its citizens to a private system that's obscenely inefficient, costly, and profitable.

Our next Democratic candidate will be solidly in favor of maintaining national insanities 1 and 2, and I'll believe #3 is going to improve the day I see it happen.

A little venom in the rhetoric might not be a bad thing. The republic is broken.

Two dominant parties are a natural result of winner-take-all voting. If you want more than two you need either parliamentary government, or runoff voting.

Another natural result is that as polling grows ever more reliable and sensitive, elections will be closer and closer in teh popular vote, although the Electoral College alters the popular vote in paradoxical ways, sometimes creating a landslide that isn't and sometimes giving victory to the popular voter loser. The latter is not common, but the former is likely to happen more often, to the extent that the country gets more homogenized and less regional.

I really wish the Greens in general -- and Ralph Nader in particular -- would focus on winning some achievable races in city councils, state legislatures, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Nothing would make me happier than to have the Greens hold the balance of power in Congress, for example. I think the Democratic Party leadership should be just as afraid of the left as it is of the right.

But a futile race for the top job when you've never won anything else? When the only likely result is to help a right-wing lunatic get elected?

What's your solution? How would you fix this system that you complain sucks so badly?

If Mr. Nader wants to be president, I guess he's got a right to try, but I'd suggest to him that perhaps he ought to actually try this time, instead of merely pretending to be in the race. If he wants to be president, first he needs to find the money to finance a campaign. The half-assed way he's gone about it in the past has accomplished exactly nothing (except to help defeat Al Gore, of course).

One other thing he might consider is to pay his dues before he runs for the highest office in the land. What kind of an arrogant ass believes that Americans are going to put a guy with NO PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE in politics into the White House?

There's nothing wrong with the two-party system. Ralph Nader is perpetrating a con job on the weak-minded. If he seriously had any good ideas, he could run as either a Republican or a Democrat and win the nomination. Then he could win the election. Then he could change everything about how the country works, and turn America into Nirvana-on-Earth. The problem is, he's totally full of crap. That's why he prefers to tilt at windmills instead of doing something realistic and achievable.

i tend to agree with the unrealistic expectations explanation. (and i think it starts with the simplistic, patriotism-first approach to civics in primary education that doesn't improve much in secondary education.)

Everything Nader has done since 1999 has furthered the partisan success of the GOP.

He is, effectively, the GOP's best friend.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

You think there is no distinction between Democrats and Republicans?

There is a better argument to be made that there is no distinction between Nader and the GOP, since Nader furthers GOP interests as well as any GOP party loyalist could ever hope to.

You obviously have no clue as to who Ralph Nader is , if you think he just 'counts his money', as you so ineloquently say. Check this link out, if you want to know what Ralph has done.

http://www.salon.com/bc/1999/01/26bc.html

Al Gore is, for the most part, a good man. So are Wes Clark and Howard Dean. However I will never forget Al Gore as Tennessee Senator when I was there and I cannot forget his wife's accomplishments in the PMRC and his choice for Vice President for the 2000 election.

Make no mistake Ralph has done huge things with little fame and glory to have helped him. He's not a politician, something we direly need right now in quality for a President.

The Status Quo does not work any more. Ralph runs, I will vote for him.

Unfortunately, one must win under the old rules to be able to fix those rules. Nader's candidacy will not help to fix the problem, it may help Republicans win, which seems to only make the problem worse.

Nader needs to stand down.

MS.

This is the equivalent of red-baiting. I never said I thought there was no distinction between Democrats and Republicans. Unlike drgipsontx and Mr Gitlin I don't follow Nader's every move.

I do think that reasonable people will be repelled and made indignant by these manifestly unfair attacks and inuendos and they will backfire on the attackers. I am sorry to see such tactics being used on this site.

Actually the left would be associated more with Communism, not Fascism; That's towards the right.

When Nader quits his counterproductive campaign to undermine the very strong, grassroots efforts currently underway to effect progressive change, I'll leave him alone. Until then, I'm throwing rotten tomatoes as hard as I can.

your link is dated 1999.

seems worth pointing out.

Or, perhaps more to the point, what did you just do, whine or do something about the "system that sucks?"

Ralph Nader sucks. He uses the Greens like Rove uses the funde Christians. Rove and Nader are one in the same as far as I am concerned. Did I say Nader sucks?

I think that movement politics is an important component of political parties. It is not the whole thing. If you want to create a certain policy, start a movement that becomes very big, and then you're in great shape to lobby with either party to get what you want done. It's the way things work in this country.

As for third parties, wow, that's a real difficulty. The two parties are so entrenched that major movements get sucked into one party or another, changing the coalition that the party contains. Like, for instance, the way that the Depression and civil rights changed the Democrats, and the Solid GOP South changed them.

Nader seems to be forgetting his roots. He should be campaigning for citizen's issues, and forcing change and wise policies on the political establishment. Until he does that again, he's just an old popinjay.

But I do agree that some of the most intolerant, absolutist and paranoid rhetoric I've heard has been on the "left fringe."

Do references to mass violence by the Freikorps violate Godwin's Law?

I'd say so, mostly because many of them ended up becoming brownshirts, and because it was a forerunner of Nazi insurrection.

(But with regard to Ralph Nader, who's still alive and apparently thriving, this is the worst analogy I've read today. Congrats)

Yes, perhaps you're right. What had Al Gore accomplished up til 1999? Thanks for pointing that out....

The Greens don't want actual power. They just want to gum up the system. That's why they don't have a strategy for winning small races and building from there.

If the Greens were serious about winning power, they would look to contest races they can win. Instead, they run candidates in close races where they can tip the election to the Republicans. They seem to detest Democrats more than Republicans.

Lotsa folks share Nader's "policies." It's his psychology that is whacked.

And they'd probably argue that they went "all or nothing" because they were being offered nothing. A lot of the anger from their group stems from the notion that as the Democratic party moved to the right, it look left wing votes for granted. They were at least effective in saying that their support shouldn't have been considered a given.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Nader Campaign Accepts Republican Donations

Peter Camejo is deciding to keep the money after all. Today, Ralph Nader's running mate said money from Republicans will be welcomed. ABC7 political reporter Mark Matthews joins us with the latest in the battle for money and votes.
Local Headlines

Last week we learned that Republicans are giving money to Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo in the hopes that the third party candidates will draw votes from the Democrats. Camejo initially said maybe the money should be returned, then Nader said no dice. Today Camejo fell in line.

Peter Camejo, (I) vice presidential candidate: "I just want to say to all those Republicans who support us, donate money to us."

In a bit of a shift from last week's hesitation, Peter Camejo is now welcoming Republican contributions - few if any questions asked.

Camejo: "We have no way to know what the intent of money is."

The Independent candidate for vice president brushed aside any apparent conflict over the money issue. Of far more importance he says are efforts by Democrats to keep Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo off the ballot.

Camejo: "We are not going to sit back and have the rights of the voters taken away from them by the Democratic party. We will do what it takes to get on the ballot everywhere we can."

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=News&id=1873814

Can't argue with that.

Actually, I would credit Diebold and the Supreme Court for the current GOP position.

Cite me one issue that Nader and the GOP stand hand in hand on. Otherwise, you're bantering that Nader helps the GOP win sounds just like the NeoCon talking point the Democrats are defeatists and want us to lose in Iraq.

Vote for who you want. Do not get angry because I vote my conscience.

We must remember that Gore did win the election, and the votes for Nader wouldn't have changed the outcome to either of the last two elections. Its the Supreme Court that is the problem, and they're falling off the right end now.

Nader gets people (like myself) into caring about politics when he frequently goes after what he doesn't see as right.

I voted for him in the 2000 election because I got tired of the machine in place. Its only a few years after that things changed and now I would only vote for him if I didn't like the alternatives.

All in all, there are great things about him (and the Green Party) and he shares many of the progressive views of the Democratic party and goes further. Since the corporations, brainwashing, and filthy rich has turned even the common laborer in their direction and even away from their religion, the Democratic Party has moved further right too and they don't even do enough.

When the Democrats act Conservative-lite, then its nice to have someone else. I have always thought there should be more than one party and they should be included so there wouldn't be ultra right-wing and conservative-lite.

At this time, I can hardly harbor any resentment for Nader.

The only illogical part of that anecdote is with Bush and Gore running so neck in neck, there was no reason to give money to Ralph Nader.

Otherwise, I agree with you. I'd love to register and vote solid Democrat. How can I though, knowing full well they are not going to grow a backbone any time soon and pander to the same interests as the Republican party?

There may be quite a difference between the Dems and the GOP, but there is a Hell of a lot more difference between Nader's Raiders and the two put together. You want change? Significant change? Then why in the heck do you continue with the status quo?

--Cite me one issue that Nader and the GOP stand hand in hand on.--

Nader took GOP money to fund his campaign.

Nader took away votes for Gore, which effectively gave the presidency to Bush.

Nader made it clear in doing these things that he did not stand with the Democrats.

Nader's actions helped the GOP.

Nader's actions hurt the Democrats.

Whether he stood with the GOP on any issue or not is irrelevant to whether he helped them; one does not help a political party only by standing on the issues with them, giving mere moral support, or by funneling money and voters to them, but also by funneling money and voter support away from their opponents, which Nader did.

But, since you brought it up, if Nader didn't stand with the GOP on any issue whatsoever, then unless you can prove that he didn't stand with the Democrates on every issue (and the original post lists many shared stands on a variety of issues), his claim that the differences are insignificant is without merit.

That makes him a dishonest demagogue directly responsible for the Bush presidency as the result of a false and slanderous accusation that is not supported by fact or reason.

And if rejecting the Democrats in favor of the Republicans despite sharing many common goals with Democrats and none with Republicans is not a demand for lockstep agreement with his every policy preference, then I can't imagine what is.

That's the problem. Nader has commendable roots when it comes to citizen issues, but he lacks roots when it comes to establishing his political credentials.

Most politicians begin at the grass-roots level of politics - school board, city counsel...Nader has bypassed those. Going from no political roots to running for president is a leap which most voters interpret as, if not jousting at windmills just plain arrogant.

Because Nader has a history of success in effective mover-and-shaker citizen activism, he would be well advised to begin his campaign for any political office from what has worked for him in the past. As it is, he's seen, unfortunately, merely as a spoiler which raises the inevitable question of what is he spoiling for.

Gosh, I almost forgot. Who failed to filibuster Alioto and Roberts? Why, that would be the sanctified Democrats who must not be challenged.

If Al Gore wins Florida there is no Iraq war or Patriot act to vote for, no Roberts or Alito to Filibuster.

So please spare me the sanctimonious whining.

Yeah, that's why we elected Lincoln -- oh, wait.

Mr. Gitlin, I agree with you 100%. I work as a political organizer for Democratic causes and candidates. That said, I am a committed Democratic Socialist -- wealth should be redistributed and workers should own the means of production.

I deal with Greens and Kucinich people regularly and I am often amazed at, not only, their lack of understanding of how the political process functions, but the arrogance with which many operate. You do not hear all that much about Greens running credible campaigns for school boards, town councils, or state legislatures. It is as if, they are convinced they are the only ones with the correct answers and should just be put right in charge.

We live in a beautifully complicated world and that is a fact which should be celebrated. Many of the Greens and Kucinich people act with a smugness that suggests they think the world is quite simple and they are the only ones who understand what needs to happen.

A few letters I got, and posts I saw from out in the wild left yonder, were as insanely rageful, vicious, indifferent to evidence and logic as any I've ever seen from the winger battalions.

How many letters and posts did you receive exactly, Todd? What percentage of Nader supporters are we talking about? Some members of the anti-Nader battalions, as evidenced by this thread, seem equally vengeful and irrational. Your post seems to spring as much from a personal vendetta as from analysis.

The lefty blogosphere was largely born in the aftermath of the 2000 election, and the hatred of Nader is more intense here than anywhere else. Thus it's very easy to start one of these bloggy, Ralphicidal gang bangs with just a few choice words. Congratulations. But is this really the time to be provoking fights in the slave quarters?

I sincerely wish Nader hadn't run in 2000, and I hope he doesn't run now. I didn't and wouldn't vote for him for the same depressingly practical reasons others have given. Yet, like some other commentators above, I bitterly resent living under the repulsive system of two-party tyranny which prevents me from voting for the people I would actually prefer without wasting my vote.

So when some people are just so fed up and frustrated that they lose their minds and wander of the reservation, I get angry at them, but not at them chiefly. My attitude is similar to what I imagine it would be in a prison camp. If some wits-end prisoners crack up, or start a riot or try to escape, we are all likely to suffer. The guards will probably beat or punish some of the rest of us to teach a lesson to other potential rebels. Thus, I will be mad at the guys who acted up. But I should never let my anger at them exceed my anger at my actual jailers.

I'm mystified by one use of scare quotes. Do you think Dennis Kucinich is not a true liberal? Suppose by some miracle of political inversion, he actually had as much of a chance of winning as any of the other candidates. Would you vote for him?

I supported Nader financially and voted for him, and if the same sort of conditions exist again, with the Dem candidate being a mirror-image of the Repub, I'll do those things again and try to convince as many people as I possibly can to do the same.

This is still a democracy, isn't it? Or should we just walk mindlessly into the polling booth and pull the Dem lever. It's this sort of fact-ignoring allegiance that has strengthened the DLC and made the corporate-loving Dem party what it is today.

Prove it. The PROBLEM with two parties is, as we've seen, they merge, effectively, into one.

You say vote for the lesser of two evils?
Well, Gore was in favor of the Iraq War and the Dems are now more vocal than Bush on whacking Iran, and Obama wants to attack Pakistan.
On domestic issues the Dems are largely silent on changes that will really help the people who need to be helped in our society--they've been bought.

Gore would have gone to war in Iraq

Speech at Council on Foreign Relations
Feb 12, 2002

In the immediate aftermath [of 9/11], I expressed full support for our Commander-in-Chief, President George W. Bush. Tonight I reaffirm that support of the President’s conduct of the military campaign in Afghanistan, and I appreciate his candor in telling the American people that this will be a long struggle - - for which the nation must be braced and its political leadership united across party lines. . .there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular [of the 'Axis of Evil'] represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. . . In 1991, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade. And we still do. So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts.

http://www.al-gore-2004.org/gorespeeches/02122002.htm

remove double post

Dictionary.com: thug /??g/ 1. a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer. 2. (sometimes initial capital letter) one of a former group of professional robbers and murderers in India who strangled their victims.

According to dhrebendorf this is "fine."

Gore was in favor of the Iraq War

That's news to me. It's also news to the leftist Gore-haters at the American Prospect:

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0925-01.htm

I swear, you Naderites are as misinformed as LaRouchites.

---Nader took away votes from Gore---

I hate to disappoint you here, but Gore won Florida. Fraud won that day. More info on this at
http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm

Or perhaps it's more convenient to blame Nader, eh?

Your monologue is one-sided and without merit. Take the 2000 election, when by the way you write I assume you blindly voted for Gore.

You see, I know Gore. I was in Tennessee in the 80s when he voted to remove money from education and put more money into prisons. The Democrat Party let me know about this, by the way. He also gave relevance to his wife's PMRC actions. I also remember the day in Nashville he announced his VP running mate Lieberman. I did the research and found out what kind of animal he was.

Please don't snivel to me Ralph Nader, my candidate, is like a vote for Al Quaeda. You've taken on the same rhetoric Bush has; A vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for the GOP? How do you feel when someone says A vote for the Dems is a vote for Al Quaeda.

The Democratic population in this country are a great and highly intelligent people. Our Democratic representatives should be an embarrassment to you. I suppose the biggest irony is Gore is acting like Nader now, unfettered by political office.

As Don Bacon stated above, are you for these things?

*opposition to Iraq war
*against Patriot Act
*against massive corporate welfare programs
*for universal health care
*against drug war
*against free-reign trade
*for affordable college
*against ballot access obstructions
*against unqualified support for Israel
*against huge Pentagon budget
*for action on global warming

I know Ralph is against these things. He's spoken against and acted against them. I can even cite organizations he helped start for them.

Can you say the Same of Gore pre-2000?

The DLC just had their convention...and none of the Presidential candidates attended.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/25/114627/377

The DLC is basically on life support. Are you even paying attention to political developments? Or are you just sitting around griping for four years while waiting to throw money at Ralph again?

I remember when I told a group of friends I was voting for Ralph Nader in 2000. I was given a riot act for doing so, saying that Nader could never win. There were 5 in this group of friends. I pulled each one aside and asked them 'If you think Ralph could win, would you vote for him?'

Each said yes, without hesitation.

Therein lied the problem. You people don't want him to win. Otherwise, you would have voted for him. Ralph did a lot by himself, but he's done more with the help of people. A candidate like Ralph demands you have to get your hands dirty. You have to do something besides just pulling a lever to put him in office. That kind of thing is scary for the majority of you. It is for me too.

But it needs to happen. I need to participate. You do, too. You vote for the typical Dem or, worse still, GOP candidate, you will be told THEY will do what they can for you. After all, you are electing them to do a job. In a nice, progressive government, that's what should happen. But we've seen the results of the system lately, eh? Bush got his war, for example.

What would you do if you called your Congressman to step up to change and he said, "Well, if you come down here right now, I can put you on the frontline to get this law passed."

That's what Ralph Nader does. I don't think we will get anything beyond the status quo with the current candidates, so my vote goes to Ralph. Good luck with your Democratic candidates.

You are going to need it to get what you want.

Chill everyone. You've got a twenty on one going here and it's not pretty. It's been blatantly obvious for some time now that when Naderites say things like "the system is broke and no one is representing us," it is really some distorted expression of disappointment in their own lives. I've known -- and liked -- many such folks and it's not even very well hidden. Supporting Ralph is a very personal thing based on everything BUT politics, and is rather pathetic. Luckily, not nearly enough do it anymore to make any difference. Just ignore him, as the Dem candidates are (rightly) doing.

Oh and Green Party does not equal Naderite. Far from it.

So you think Ralph Nader was more significant if Florida than Diebold, Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court?

I just want you to be clear on this point. If you think Ralph was more significant, please read this.

http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm

Your opinion would be nice on this.

Hey, how about that list? Nader's a "mirror image" (see Don Bacon's 8:04 comment) of AL GORE!

Dude, you shoulda voted for Bush! Oh, wait -- in effect, you did, didn't you?

According to the article you cited the Democratic legislators have suggested the following reforms:

"Eliminating universal default terms by requiring that any penalty rate or fee increase be linked to a material default directly related to that specific account.
* Limiting penalty rate increases to no more than 50% above the account's original rate.
* Providing at least 30 days' notice a card issuer is invoking a penalty pricing clause.
* Prohibiting the retroactive application of pricing changes so that rate changes are applied only to purchases made after the issuer gives notice of the rate change.
* Ensuring that grace periods and payment posting rules and practices are not designed to trigger late charges and penalty rates for minor tardy payments.
* Requiring disclosure of the full costs of making only the minimum payments on a credit card, including the number of years and total dollars it will take to pay off the debt."

***

All of this is highly desirable. But still it doesn't address the root of the problem: there is no word about the interest rates themselves -- and this is what impressed me when Nader talked about it years ago, and what no one else is mentioning that I know of, particularly presidential candidates (if they are I will be glad to hear of it). The fact is that the credit card companies are still allowed to charge 18- 20 per cent interest, a dispensation that began when our inflation rate was over 12 percent in the Reagan era. Now it is officially way below that and interest on credit card ought to be closely tied to the rate of inflation. (Revolving credit ought to be discouraged altogether as a social evil.)

For the good of our country and the world allowable credit card interest now ought to be no more than seven percent, if that. We have given the banks a license to print money and no one talks about taking it away from them in the near future.

Well, I'm not offering a dissertation and will gladly admit being wrong if the counter-proof is obvious, but I'll say I've heard discussions that make the same argument and found them convincing.

The corollary point addresses the simplistic "they're the same party" complaint. At the center, they're of course only different in name. But the center is an abstraction, like a center of gravity. Most of the mass  of opinion in the two parties is spread out. But in order to win the middle you'll here a fair amount of almost-the-same politicking on some issues.

As to the center of mass within each party, I think the previous GOP administrations and Congresses are wildly different from the equivalent Democratic ones. The results tend to conversge, when there is a split, like Clinton. But the goals, at first, can be compared. Clinton---provide health care. Bush---eliminate social security.

I'll vote Dem, until we have instant runoff voting or similar.

The exit polls in Florida (Nader got something like 87,000 votes in Florida) revealed this:

Of every 10 Nader voters:

3 would have stayed home if Nader hadn't run.

6 would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't run.

1 would have voted for Bush if Nader hadn't run.

Okay, tell me how they differ.

Dems don't want to discuss Kerry--they always revert to Gore. Let's talk about one campaign at a time and avoid confusion.

Kindly cool down, and scroll down to Gore's position on invading Iraq.

Re: Iran Senator Clinton has said that all options are on the table, in her speech at Slaughter's Woodrow Wilson School. Obama hasn't beem quite so strong, but he's made it clear that Iran is an enemy.

If you just read through the comments here, Mr. Gitlin, you will see, as anyone plainly can, who is hateful and who is not. I hope you will apologize for your generalization that those who support Nader are hateful.

As for holding a grudge against the Democrats? I hold no grudge. I was disappointed in them and I switched parties. Why would I hold a grudge and be hateful? That's the kind of thing that makes one sick. As for the poster who said those who support Nader can't understand why Democrats hold a grudge against us? I'm clear on that. The Democrats have moved to the right and that's where they are comfortable. Nader is asking them to get back to their roots. They feel threatened by Nader. As for me, I'll keep voting for Nader until the Democrats run someone with integrity like Russ Feingold, until the Democrats move back to my territory.

1.Citizenship is simple. You support and vote for the candidate who represents your interests and your political positions.

2. For some people citizenship means running for office, and if they qualify they have a right to do so.

Now obviously these two ways to express citizenship upset some folks. I read that people should support and vote only for major party candidate. Others fault a third party candidate for running, or for not running but criticizing those who do, or that the third party doesn't run candidates, or that the third party takes money from a major party, or whatever.

Remember this?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

For me, 1. and 2. above are essential components of my liberty. I will support and vote for whomever I please, and I expect that those who wish to run for office will have a chance to do so.

So life is simple, after all.

Tom, do I try to tell you how to spend your time? Please don't try to tell me.

Some sort of proportional representation system would be good. I was in Ireland recently during their election. There were about eight parties running (including the Greens) and, with that number of candidates, they had a complicated system to re-assign the votes. Seemed much more democratic to me--a citizen could actually cast their top vote for someone they thought represented them. Un fortunately their voter turnout isn't much better than ours. I don't know why, but some older citizens I spoke with were disillusioned and apathetic.

I have never ruled out voting for a Dem--read my posts. If they have a progressive platform I will support them. Unfortunately that probably won't happen. My big issue is war (including Afghanistan), and the Dem candidates seem committed to it.

Um--what Dems have learned from their mistakes and reaped the political benefits? The Dems in the 110th Congress that replaced Repubs in the 109th Congress, for the most part, are conservative warmongers which is why the Dems can't muster the votes to change anything. In other words, Rush Limbaugh is correct. The Dems are impotent, and while they can't do anything productive they rant and rave about Alberto Gonzales and other issues that are not as significant as the ones they should address. Rush is correct on that, too.

Your comments on Nader are unprovable baseless slander.

Damn, there must be something in the Rocky Mountain air that makes you so perceptive. I love Nader because I'm disappointed in my life! And I didn't even know it! What's the remedy, to vote Democratic I suppose. THat won't be a disappointment?

If the Dem candidates ignore a candidate Nader it'll be a big change from what John 'The Real Deal' Kerry did.

Ah, once again the great quadrennial question: Will Ralph Nader run? Do I care? Should I? How dangerous is he really to all life on earth? Let's break it down. Certainly the biggest impact Nader ever had or is likely to ever have on a presidential election was in 2000. A good place to start would be asking how much damage he really did do then.

Of course we now know that if the hand recount of selected counties in Florida in 2000 had gone exactly as forward as requested by the Gore campaign, Al Gore would likely still have lost the state. We also know now that if the Gore campaign had called the Bush campaign's bluff and demanded a hand recount of the entire state (as the US Supreme Court said they must if there were to be any hand recounting), Gore probably would have won by 100-200 votes.

So did Ralph Nader cause Al Gore to lose Florida in 2000? Obviously not if Gore rightfully won the state, or would have if every vote had indeed been counted. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Still, of the votes that were counted in FL it's hard not to look at the 97,488 that were counted for Ralph Nader (a whopping 1.63% of the PV) and think that if not even quite 1% of that total had gone to Gore instead, the world could very well be a safer, cleaner, saner, more peaceful and prosperous place right now. What could Gore have done differently to shave off that 1% of the 1.63-percenters that would have won the day for him?

Sadly, the answer is probably nothing. Realistically there was nothing Gore could have done to prove his virtue to ideologues. They see the world in black and white, colors that rarely occur in nature. It's the nature of an ideologue to trim off the parts of reality that don't fit their preformed conclusions. They already "knew" Democrats are as bad as Republicans, ergo Gore must be as evil as Bush and that was that. So at the end of the day, Nader and the Naderites were irrelevant in 2000. They mattered even less in 2004 and they will still be irrelevant in 2008. They're irrelevant because they choose to be, so screw 'em. If we keep giving them attention for whining, they're just going to go on doing it. And if there's one thing I can't stand it's a damned whiner.

I remember when I told a group of friends I was voting for Ralph Nader in 2000. I was given a riot act for doing so, saying that Nader could never win. There were 5 in this group of friends. I pulled each one aside and asked them 'If you think Ralph could win, would you vote for him?'

Each said yes, without hesitation.

Therein lied the problem. You people don't want him to win.

What a smug, self-righteous, idiotic thing to say. First if all, your premise rests on the assumption that you and your friends resemble average voters in their political preferences. You don't. The country is a lot more conservative than you are.

And by the way, you know that half of the electorate that doesn't vote? Polling indicates that their political preferences are within a few percentage points of the half that does vote. There is no cache of would-be voters who would come to the polls if only there was a worthier candidate in the race.

THEN, you impugn the motives of people who are reality based and know that one of two people will be elected president -- the Rethuglican or the Democrat -- and if you don't want the worst one, you'd better vote for the other one.

As for me, I don't want Ralph Nader to win. He's a union-busting bastard in his own organizations, his personal finances are questionable, he lied about Al Gore all through the 2000 campaign, he deliberately focused on swing states down the stretch to try to tip the election to Bush and to this day he refuses to acknowledge that he was one of several key factors (along with voter suppression, the butterfly ballot, the MSM's war against Gore, Gore's bad legal strategy and a partisan Supreme Court) that gave this country and the world the worst U.S. President in history.

And it's "lay," not "lied."

Under a Democratic president waterboarding was prosecuted a war crime; under the current Republican, after more than a century of moral condemnation, it became acceptable for American agents to use it. The Dem wasn't Clinton, but I'm pretty sure that we wouldn't have Gitmo, 'enhanced interrogation techniques' and botched ME wars had Gore been elected.

Attacking the 80-year old Nader (and his tiny group of supporters) is analogous to the USA attacking the tiny country of Granada. It's a way of looking cartoonishly tough and thuggish without having to do, say, or risk anything of substance.

It is basically a matter of self-presentation for future employment purposes -- so that your friends and cronies can disingenuously say, "Previously I thought you were a leftist, but now I see that you are a regular and very employable person."

You are right. There is no left in the USA, only center right and far right.

It's such an interesting phrase isn't it? That votes "belong" to the Democrats.

It goes along with another type of thought that irks me -- the notion that anyone left of center has a job to do and that job is to get Democrats elected.

No one owns an individual vote and no individual is obligated to either party.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

This is not about giving you a chance to express your beliefs: this is about the impact of your actions in the real world.

Not more significant but significant enough that if he hadn''t been there Bushco couldn't have pulled the steal off.

And Nader's solution to all this is to alienate people who on the basis of issues would be his natural supporters by playing the role of the spoiler?

So far, Nader has not replaced one of those politicians you so despite by a better one.

This is not red-baiting: peope are assumed to intend the forseeable results of their actions: aiding the Republicans was a highly forseeable result of his last run.

Without Nader what they did wouldn't have been enough to pull off the steal. Also how many marginally interested voters were convinced to stay home because " there was no difference between the parties." No, he doesn't get politically weasel out of his responsiblity for the outcome by pointing out that there are worse bad guys out there. Or maybe not worse, they at least were accomplishing what they thought was right: he aided what he asserts is wrong.

Support for his positions will indeed influence and hasten the progressive changes we seek: support for him in an election which has the effect of electing candidates with the opposite views over better choices has the opposite effect. It also gives the other side a bully pulpit to spread Bushco ideas.

Stop trying to live in a nonexistent ideal world -- that is how it is supposed to work -- well in your life time has it?

In Michigan the State Senate remains in Republican hands because of a Green spoile candidate: Both the Governor and House are Dem.

For most politicians those city, county and state representative posts are the first steps of the rungs of the political ladder to Federal office. Not only do they control local policies they most often provide the backbone of the local branches of the political parties whose activity or lack thereof has a lot to say with who gets nominate and who gets elected on the National level.

Our local school board stopped retaining records of who checks out what once it was clear that the Feds would be able to access that info. Think Federally, act locally.

The absence of Green activity in the primaries of all levels of the Democratic party does tend to move the party towards the right.

Val: your response contains an error in logic. Nobody has claimed that Nader was forcing people to believe like him. He is followed by true believers. What we are claiming is that he urges the true believers to refuse to help anyone who is not also a true believer and that this has the effect of harming the causes he and you (and most of us in this thread in different proportions) do believe in.

For the good of our country and the world allowable credit card interest now ought to be no more than seven percent, if that.

absolute crackpottery.

Ralph Nader is, unfortunately, correct when he says there is little distinquishing the parties. Both parties have been suborned by corporate lobbying, so much so that they have been labeled as "corporatist" parties or in the case of the Republicans as "Kleptocrats". This brings to mind Professor Carroll Quigley's definition of Fascism as "the collusion of big business with big government". Both parties collude with business, big and small, ipso facto they are fascist in nature--at the moment--and becoming more so.

Yes, the Democrats do have non-essential differences with the Republicans. They do at least make gestures in favor of higher minimum wages, health insurance, etc. This is not to minimize these differences, the Democrats hopefully would do a better job in running our day-today internal affairs--and they have a lot of repair work to do. Yet under a Democratic congress little has been down for New Orleans.

However in foreign policy there is little difference except in kind. The lead Democratic contenders, Clinton and Obama, both would support a strong military and an aggressive foreign policy where "all options are on the table" which means "nuclear weapons" against those weak states they deem to be a "threat" against the expansion of Empire and "American", read, war industry, interests. Their complaint against Bush isn't his wars but his incompetence and failure.

The Democrats are one of the twins of Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum, most probably the dum brother as they are the more inveterbrete of the two.

The problem with both parties is that they are War-Parties, forwarding a war-industry agenda rather than an agenda forwarding the best interests of this nation.

Ralph Nader, though with little if no chance of success, at least has integrity and at least is not part of the War-Party. He, unlike Obama and Clinton does not support the Nuclear Energy industry, nor its offspring, nuclear weapons and war. He, unlike Clinton and Obama, did not support the weakening of our Constitutional Rights. He did not authorize or avoid voting on Military Commissions and the erasure of Habeas Corpus, the fundamental right of individuals to have rights at all from an absolute monarch. He also did not authorize illegal wars, or continued funding of them. He did not stand by when America went to the dark side and condoned torture or “enhanced interrogation methods”. He did not lose face.

He also would not be a stooge of AIPAC, an organization that should be listed as a foreign agent, and would bring real negotiations between all parties in the Middle East, a crisis that has lasted for more than a half century.

Of course, he isn't a Senator so he could not vote, but you and I and everyone else know he would not betray us or sell our country down the river for monetary gain or some other special interest. He would do what is right for this country, he would bring the executive branch under the law and would make America part of the world of nations, under the rule of universality where all nations are subject to law. And he would restore our lost rights.

He is worthy of trust.

Marcus, I see what you're saying about the parties and I think we all largely agree that's a problem. But even on the foreign policy front, there are major differences.

Clinton used the military sparingly in 8 years. Somalia was left to him by Bush. He didn't intervene in Rwanda. He did, at Europe's request, in the Balkans but he didn't inavde and occupy the place. There were isolated strikes against Hussein (to enforce the no-fly zone) and attempts on bin Laden.

At the time, there was serious pressure from the right for the US to invade Iraq. Clinton resisted that. You might criticize the sanctions he upheld, but Clinton kept us out of any major military occupations.

There's no way that's not different than the Bush doctrine.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

You've got to be kidding. The only difference between the Dems & Repubs that you can come up with is WATERBOARDING? Like the CIA never tortured anyone under Clinton, I suppose. Sure.

It is "crackpottery" to suggest that usury laws that we used to have before 1980 ought to be restored to protect people from going on orgies of consumerism and becoming debt slaves, instead of saving responsibly as they do in other countries.

What next? I suppose you will say that the graduated income tax is also "crackpottery" -- and the anti-monopoly laws of the progressive era.

The power to nominate SC justices is often pointed to as the one reason to vote Dem instead of Repub (since the parties are alike in most other ways). I'm not a SC scholar but here's what I think.

1. One never knows how SC justices will turn out when they sit on the highest bench and consider momentous issues, in light of the Constitution.

Earl Warren was an immensely popular Republican governor when President Dwight Eisenhower appointed him to the Supreme Court. Ike later regretted his choice. (Wikipedia) As Chief Justice, his term of office was marked by numerous rulings affecting, among other things, the legal status of racial segregation, civil rights, separation of church and state, and police arrest procedure in the United States. In the years that followed, the Warren Court became recognized as a high point in the use of the judicial power in the effort to effect social change in the U.S. and Warren himself became widely regarded as one of the most influential Supreme Court justices in the history of the United States and perhaps the single most important in the 20th century.

2. The Dems acquiesced with Bush's nominees and in Bush's domestic dictatorial takeover of citizen surveillance (see latest news).

3. Personally, the SC is not my main priority, war is. If the SC is paramount in your mind, and you think Dem appointees might be better, than go for it. I will never criticize someone for voting his/her conscience unless they vote for war, then I will.

4. I don't care two shakes about your opinions of my intellectual capacity, which I would call "limited, but well-meaning". My opinion of yours is of course influenced by your lack of factual citations.

Hi destor23,

Yes, there are differences. One, I like Clinton. Yet he continued Bush I's seige of Iraq which resulted in at least 500,000 deaths of children. His seige included daily bombings of Iraq. But no occupation. The genocide in Bosnia occurred after the US intervention and not before as most believe.

His bombing of Libya was hopefully based upon false information and caused unnecessary harm to innocents.

His policies were more of policing actions which is much better but he still violated Geneva conventions and used military force to serve his ends. But, again, he's methods were better than Bush II's.

I simply don't agree with using force to solve problems when communication and diplomacy can do all the work and get better results. I don't believe a big fist slammed down on others is a good way to forward communication or to resolve differences.

There is a matter of degree. Clinton actually did good things for the Nation and the economy. He did not ravage the nation's resources and treasury. He did bring balance to the Nation's checkbook from Republican excesses.

I think his major error, even beyond Nafta, was allowing media consolidation. This has created our present environment of Newspeak where any scandal by Bush is overlooked and anything done by Democrats is riduculed or downplayed.

Yes, the Democrats are better than the Republicans, but only in degree, not in substance. A little bit of spine would help the Democrats' image immensely.

The lack of public rhetorical prowess among our leaders and "best and brightest" candidates then and now is astonishing. How hard did Gore fight for the Green vote? Why not buy an hour on prime time TV and make his case that he was the best candidate with the best chance of furthering a green agenda?

Did Gore offer anything to Nader (like a seat in the cabinet)? I think he basically ignored him. Then Gore lost credibility by opening the Strategic Oil Reserve to help lower fuel prices in the northeast. What did Gore deliver in terms of environmental protection during 8 years as VP? The Greens who voted for Nader in 2000 must have thought, not much.

Those of us who lean green get tired of Democrats who turn green when it suits them.

The history of third party performance in America is not very encouraging. For those dissatisfied with either major party, the best bet is probably to get active in one of them and push for change. This is basically what the netroots did to win back the Senate and House last year. But if the Democratic nominee gets all "squishy" in their stated positions, we'll see a lot of defections to the Green candidate.

The candidates need to realize this is a two way street. If they want our support, they need make a convincing case to the general public, and they need to deliver.

Not the only one, but a significant one.  I don't know if the CIA did this under Clinton - I will say that Harbury v. Deutsch, which concerned American complicity in the torture murder of a Latin American activist (the CIA apparently knew that he had been abducted by his government, and chose not to disclose or act on the information) was committed under Bush 1 but the feds under Clinton continued to fight it.  Still, are you really telling me that you think that a Gore administration would have opened Gitmo, used torture, etc.?  

Gore apparently didn't care about "capturing votes in Florida"--he didn't dispute the unconstitutional SC ruling stopping the state recount and failed to support all the Afro-Americans Floridians who weren't allowed to vote, if you'll remember the opening scenes of Fahrenheit 911.

As for voting for “doomed candidates"—should progressives have voted for Nixon in 1972 as McGovern was clearly going to lose the race big time?

Additionally, it is not my understanding that voting for “doomed candidates” is a practice that “rarely does anything significant to change society in a positive direction.” Our history is replete with examples of “doomed” third-party candidates running on “losing” issues like the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, etc., ideas that were eventually adopted by one or both of the major parties and ultimately became the law of the land . . .

More pertinently, if we look at the example of the four Progressive “third-party” presidential candidacies where the candidate got at least one percent of the vote (Theodore Roosevelt in 1912; Robert M. LaFollette in 1924; Henry A. Wallace in 1948; Ralph Nader in 2000) we find that in one quarter of the cases the Progressive candidate’s entry in the race actually caused a VICTORY for the most progressive candidate in the race (Wilson’s win in 1912), in one half of the races the Progressive candidate’s entry in the race had no determinative effect (1924 & 1948) and in only one quarter of the races did the Progressive candidate’s entry in the race (2000) even theoretically create an immediately negative outcome. In short history teaches us that at least seventy-five percent of the time voting for “doomed” Progressive third-party presidential candidates results in a positive or a benign outcome.

I would go still further: Since I concur with Randall Robinson that, "the habit of voting for the lesser of two evils only serves to erode democratic society," I think it every citizen’s duty to allways vote their conscience—even if that means not voting at all if there are no candidates in the race(s) that reflect their beliefs.

As for me, I have never voted for a Democrat or a Republican and I do not ever expect to.

Dave Goldsmith
Baltimore County Green Party Coordinator

AJM,

Citation, please. I've never heard Nader urge the true believers to refuse to help anyone who is not also a true believer."

Did you make this up?

Tom,

Re: "You're saying it's your right to vote ineffectually."

IF MY VOTE IS INEFFECTUAL THEN WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE ALL UPSET ABOUT? WHY THE BOGUS 'OBDURACY AND SLIME' CHARGE?

I vote my conscience. I don't know any other way I can do it and still be at peace with myself. I'm a patriot, a dangerous man apparently. But I'm not alone and we are not ineffectual, obviously.

Voting is an act with real consequences that ought to be weighed, but so are the dirty tricks, character assassinations, and similar self described "thuggery" that party hacks engage in during campaigns. It is foolish and short-sighted to alienate your own side in pursuit of a "center" that doesn't exist. How many times do you have to re-invent the wheel? Dan K.'s counsel of expediency above all is only likely to result in more of the same (according to him I should have voted for Ronald Reagan).

I like the ring-kissing part: Our Commander-in-Chief, too. Had a nice ring to it. (pardon the pun).

It is "crackpottery" to suggest that usury laws that we used to have before 1980 ought to be restored

when was the last time interest rates were capped at 7%? it was 'before 1980', but if memory serves it was about a hundred years 'before 1980'. (but maybe i'm wrong on that...)

usury laws capping interest rates are not crackpottery. but suggesting usury laws ought to cap interest rates at 7% is crackpottery.

What next? I suppose you will say that the graduated income tax is also "crackpottery" -- and the anti-monopoly laws of the progressive era.

nope.

Do you mean to say that we're now forgiven for throwing the 2000 election? Oh thank you. It was a long time coming but now we're off the hook because Miri11 writes that Nader is irrelevant, and Todd was just wasting time even thinking he wasn't.

On the other hand, in a disagreement between Miri11 whatever and Todd Gitlin---hey, I'll go with Gitlin despite his bogus rhetoric.

Sounds like a good argument for Nader, to me.

So long as opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses instability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it.

Thanks.

OF course there is a difference in intent, but I remain to be convinced there's a difference in result when polling, approaching a national election, says the third party is trivial. At that time, it's a better use of one's vote to throw it towards a contender.

By all means, campaign (before the election) for the third party, but if you make it to the polling station, think about the stakes.

"The country is a lot more conservative than you are.

The Progressive Majority:
Why a Conservative America is a Myth

Polling shows that the public is much closer to the progressive view. The latest survey of the National Election Studies (NES) shows, for example, a preference for a vigorous government role in a complex world. Sixty-seven percent said we need a strong government to handle complex economic problems. Nearly 58 percent said government should be doing more, not less; and 59 percent agreed that government has grown because the country's problems have grown.

http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/report

"Nader has effectively stated that the differences between Democrats and Republicans are insignificant, despite the clearly articulated major differences listed in Todd's post, which is hardly exhaustive.

Dems vs. Repubs--2004

Gitlin's list of DIFFERENT positions:

". . .the minimum wage; "war on terror"; nation-building in Afghanistan; health insurance for children; legislation to help labor organize; investment in green energy."

(If the differences on nation-building and the "GWOT" were clearly articulated I missed it. Global warming also--it wasn't mentioned in the Dem platform. Appeared bad for corporations, you know.)

"Hardly exhaustive" indeed.

My list of ESSENTIALLY SIMILAR positions:

For: war,Patriot Act, corporate welfare including bloated Penatgon budget, free-reign trade, third party restrictions--ballot access, debates, etc, inaction on global warming, unqualified support for Israel.

Against: universal health care, affordable college.

AJM,

Do I try to tell you how to live?
Are you a fascist?

. . .and if he's seen as a spoiler that's not something that he can change, is it? Would you quit doing something you believed in, taking positions that politicians refuse to take, but which are needed, because someone called you a spoiler? Perhaps you would.

Pure conjecture not supported by evidence.

If exercising liberty inflicts 'dire damage' then liberty is at fault?
In any case Nader's 'dire damage' is an unproven allegation, a mere fable that is promoted by Dems to enforce party discipline and guarantee thoughtless support of their party.
A third of the electorate calls themselves independent and doesn't believe this 'obduracy and slime' stuff.

No, I won't "look it up".

then laziness and willful ignorance will forever be your handicap.

I'd like to read your explanation of it, and so I imagine would others. Lay it out and tell us what it proves, if you can.

you have already been told what it proves: plurality electoral systems lead to two-party systems as a matter of course.

because plurality representation causes coalitions (parties) to form around the objective of merely securing enough votes to win more votes than the next closest coalition (party), plurality electoral systems inevitably result in the dominance of only two coalitions (parties). it is an observable fact as well as an example of basic logic.

"that doesn't mean that the country is as far to the left as Ralph Nader and his acolytes."Probably true, but my first reaction was "left my nose." When Nader acolytes have to come up with apolegetics in which torture is no worse than standing policy, a right wing court on everything from racial discrimination to regulation of business to abortion does not matter and you never can say when an appointment will be an ideologue, and minor details like tax cuts for the wealthy don't matter, they dont sound all that far left to me.  They could pass for the "fair and balanced" or "moderate" GOP. 

Goes to show that extremes don't meet after all. Also goes to show how much of this supposed ideology is just based on emotion, the gut feeling that we have to do something, so let's kill all the politicians, if not all the lawyers. Next year the same angry voices will defect instead of a free market ideologue like Ron Paul or a middle of the road businessman like Bloomberg. And there will be new excuses. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

"Think Federally, act locally"

And never never never settle for the lesser of two evils.

Gore and Kerry won the majority of popular votes, no? Where I live, Gore won 8 out of 10 votes and it was really throwing my vote away to vote for him. He didn't even bother to campaign or put up a single poster here, so much did he take us for granted. But could we take for granted that he would represent our views? Not likely.

Perhaps the electoral college really is a problem. What other industrialized country has anything like it -- but, don't look over there. Blame everything on Ralph Nader.

Depending on how one defines goals and successes, my votes for nader in 96 & 00 were either ineffectual (because I failed to miraculously gain my maximum demands) or effectual (My and others work let Democrats know there was a left-wing alternative to the corporate warfare state and liberial-imperialistic me-tooism by Dems that greatly enabled the growth of imperialism and the national security state's domestic nefariousness even under Clinton).

But may I point out that your presumed votes for Gore and Kerry in 00 and 04 were also ineffectual, largely because the national Democratic party has not been awake to, and continues to underplay, the ability of the Republicans to steal votes in county clerks' offices and steal narratives in the mass media.

i see the third-party urge as a tide. Ironically, in these times it seems that a centrist Democratic administration is the force of gravity that lifts the 3rd party tide. Times of conspiratorial Republic ultra-fascism greatly deuce the 3rd party tide, which is why all you nader-haters should be quiet for a while and fool us into uniting with you behind Dems against Repubs.

Those of us who want deep, real change against imperialism abroad and the many deficits of democracy at all levels of govt. domestically, will have to form an organized force that must be ready to both work with and within the Dem party, and in our own separate organizations as necessary. There is a DC culture of allowable corruption and manipulation, shared by too many centrist Dems, that must be overturned if this country is to be a better place for my children and grandchildren.

What if their work has in fact yielded only trivialities? What if their beliefs are not soundly based and are impractical?

Well, that's what you get when you trust government to us common folk. 

If you want the trains to run on time, you'll have to choose a different system.

"Perhaps it's because some of us wish the Greens well and would like to see some Greens actually holding offices in government,"

If you wish the Greens well, why do you attack them for running for office? Why don't you vote Green if you wish the Greens well? Otherwise your wishing doesn't mean much, does it?

"demonstrating some credible ability to govern"

You mean like the Democrats have been showing by ending the war in Iraq, putting a stop to earmarks and other corruption and impeaching the POTUS? Oh wait... Never mind.

"one would have to learn have to learn to pick one's battles and use what resources they have wisely, and to greatest effect."

Oh you're so cute when you're condescending.

Without Nader what they did wouldn't have been enough to pull off the steal.
I'm really interested to see the evidence that supports this extraordinary claim.

These are the same people who lied us into a war, stripped habeas corpus out of the constitution, and invented a new kind of political prisoner called an enemy combatant.

Yet your belief system can allow that George, Karl, Jeb, & Kathy wouldn't be able put their heads together and find a way to hide a mere 50,000 votes with an already packed Supreme Court behind them in the service of "what they thought was right." Pardon me just a moment while I stare at you incredulously.<stare incredulously> ........................................ </stare incredulously>If you're looking for someone to blame for the last seven years, don't blame Nader, Bubeleh -- look in the mirror. You just didn't work hard enough or smart enough.

After reading this article and many of it's responses and writing a few of my own, did it ever occur to anyone that the 'venom' spewed here by either candidate supporter is just plain unproductive?

For example, why did you write this article, Todd? It offers nothing constructive, tearing at the fact that maybe, just maybe, the Democrats should have said 'no' countless times. Poor Ted Kennedy was suckered into voting for No Child Left Behind. The vast majority in the Dem's ranks voted for the war. Suckered there too?

If you were all just given a candidates positions on plain white paper with no name given to the candidate, you would have voted for Nader, simple as that. There is not a policy he personally would have as President any here would disagree with.

I stand with Nader and say 'no'. Obama? Clinton?
Neither of these candidates is going to give you more than 60% of what you want. Edwards? A good man, just like Gore, but both free of office right now and can say what they damn well please without worry of a constituency.

Hell, perhaps I will vote for Edwards. But if he isn't considered a shoe-in by many here, I'm throwing my vote away. Perhaps I shouldn't vote at all. It almost seems safer, as to be verbally accused of putting Bush in the White House. Such accusations do not win the hearts of individuals such as myself and those doing so, even though we may agree on %90 of the issues, find themselves standing with one less in their ranks.

So I would only ask one question, sir; Which of Nader's Presidential policies do you not agree should happen? Never mind the 'Can't get that past the GOP'. Where do you stand, sir?

Fageddabowdit, Matt. When the Dems run Jeb Bush against Dick Cheney (because Jeb can WIN, doncha know), these people will complain because Arlen Specter ran as a crazy left-wing spoiler.

Funny that I just posted a blog entry referring to Nader, although I was really venting my frustration with the Democrats. I think they lack the will to fight the drive to oust Alberto Gonzales or to corral the President.

But because the Dems continue to play a game that looks suspiciously like "Demonize the POTUS, but Preserve the Power," I have yet to be convinced why I should vote for them. Honestly. And I certainly don't need a spoil-sport like Ralph Nader to vote for. Welcome back to 2000.

I guess, according to you he should be glad only to have had his character assassinated.

I really wish the Greens in general -- and Ralph Nader in particular -- would focus on winning some achievable races in city councils, state legislatures, the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Gosh, that's funny. The day the Supremes handed the presidency to George W. Bush in December 2000, I was doing precinct and election observation work for Matt Gonzalez, a Green, who won the runoff election that day for a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Gayle McLaughlin, the mayor of Richmond, CA, is a Green. That's just in my neighborhood, and it doesn't begin to exhaust the "achievable" Green wins in my region or in my state. In fact, as of June 2007, at least 226 Greens in 28 states and the District of Columbia hold elected office. The offices include mayor, city council member, school board member, auditor, various types of election officials, supervisor, and others. You know, small, achievable, local offices. You can see the list at http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.html (www.feinstein.org is Mike Feinstein's website. He was Mayor of the City of Santa Monica, CA from 2000-2002, and on the Santa Monica City Council from 1996-2004. Did I mention he's a Green?)

Speaking of Matt Gonzalez, he ran for mayor of San Francisco in 2000 and lost 52.8-47.2. He was outspent somewhere between 6 to 1 (as reported in the SF Chronicle) 10 to 1 (as reported in City Mayors magazine by the machine-endorsed Gavin Newsom, a Democrat. Make no mistake about it: the Democrats were scared. They called in the big guns and the big money to campaign for Newsom: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Dianne Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi. (Remember, this was a campaign for mayor.) Only 3% of San Franciscans are registered Green. (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031222/mccarthy) Despite that fact, despite the big guns and the corporate money pouring into Newsom's coffers, despite the strong backing of the downtown big business interests, the Democrats eked out a less than 6% victory margin over a Green candidate. And again, I couldn't find exact figures, but Newsom reportedly spent between $4 and $7 million (depending on how you do the math, and whether City Mayors or the SF Chronicle is right). According to a Green Party news release following the election, Newsom spent $31 per vote. Gonzalez spent $4.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/10/MNGQV3IVM61.DTL
http://www.citymayors.com/report/sf_election.html
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_12_10_03.html

So that's what happens when Greens focus on winning achievable races.

Incidentally, with the money now required to run a federal campaign for the House or the Senate, please explain how you consider those races "achievable" for a third party candidate.

The number of Greens in elected office has, in fact, been steadily increasing from 1985 to the present. The fact that you don't know anything about that doesn't change that fact.

Care to share any more of your wisdom and advice with us?

Thank you.

Where I come from that is standard operating policy in politics: the politicians talk repeatedly to the activists in settings that are open to the public, do their best to engage the voters in discussions and beg for help of several kinds. Anybody who thinks that politicians want only our vote and our money cannot have attended very many meetings of any political party.

Voting for Nader is not going to put someone in office that believes what you believe but rather the opposite: elect someone who is further from your beliefs.

What is this assumption that you think I have made?

You know nothing. McKinney was defeated by Jewish money and Republican cross-over votes in the Georgia open primary. Twice.

Read: "The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney", by Greg Palast
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0619-12.htm

Zell Miller?? Hah.

The Greens don't think so, if you read their posts, and they should know.

That Kerry was not in your view intelligent makes Nader's actions any better?

Or perhaps you're just confusing Ralph Nader and his followers with the Greens. I guess maybe the one good thing about Nader is that he slices the Green party pretty neatly into the idealist and Ideologue factions. Of course there are also the idealists who only have ideologues as role models, but they are effectively lost to us anyway until such time as they manage to sort that out.

I do have a real affection for Green idealists though. I may not completely agree with them 100% of the time but I am perfectly willing to give money and time to Green idealists running for winnable offices anywhere I can find them. I wish there were more of them. I am completely serious. Last year I gave one Green candidate for state office in my state more money than I contributed to any single Democratic candidate for a federal office. I think it's that important.

Ralph Nader on the other hand, the horse he rode in on and anyone who follows him and/or his horse around pickling up their poop and trying to pass it off as Shinola, I wouldn't give the time of day. Not only do I have no time for any such narcissistic and Quixotic flights of fancy, the fact is he's not even a very nice person in real life.

So you tossed him out "pre-emptively" -- (he wasn't even in the room where the debate audience was, but in a room where it was being watched on a monitor.)

Yeah. I tossed him out preemptively. Of course I feel bad about it now, but at the time it seemed to be the right thing to do. He didn't go easily either, let me tell you. For a man of his age, he's remarkably strong. He kicked and screamed and scratched all the way out the door. Plus, he's a spitter.

What the Democrats need is more people who realize that life isn't fair and that, if you want to win, you've got to be willing to put up your dukes and fight. They need fewer Pollyannas and more pugilists. This notion that you can simply "do the right thing" and all will be well with the world is pure hogwash. The people who want to do the wrong thing don't admire your rules, and they don't follow them either. If you think that a pit bull or a Republican is going to quit tearing chunks out of your leg simply because the truth is on your side, I've got news for you: you're going to lose your leg. Don't be a such a pantywaist.

I seem to remember that we fought a world war with people who made deception and dishonesty into a principle -- and we beat them.

You have been watching too many episodes of the Sopranos.

I have news for you -- life isn't a TV show and it's not a choice between being a thug (your word) and being a panty waist (your word). That is how we got into the mess in which we now find ourselves.

Real life requires people with brains as well as bluster. Brains would require focusing our energies on defeating our enemies, not on alienating allies.

"I seem to remember that we fought a world war with people who made deception and dishonesty into a principle -- and we beat them."

Yeah, we handed them flowers and used our brains to reason with them until they came around to our way of thinking, right?

"You have been watching too many episodes of the Sopranos. I have news for you -- life isn't a TV show and it's not a choice between being a thug (your word) and being a panty waist (your word). That is how we got into the mess in which we now find ourselves."

I have news for you. You're missing the point. Many times, the way we get into messes is by failing to take appropriate action when appropriate action is required. And sometimes appropriate action means beating the crap out of someone who's trying to beat the crap out of you. Believe it or not, not every situation is win-win. Sometimes, if you don't win, your opponent will. And if your opponent happens to be the type who thinks winning means destroying his adversary, then your brains are going to be left lying on the floor right alongside your bluster.

I've never seen the Sopranos. I hate television. You spend too much time watching the Muppet Show.

I think your definition of thuggery is "any use of force that John Culpepper happens to personally disagree with". The rest is heroism.

Democrats are attacking welfare mothers? Speaking of whole-cloth dishonesty...

Unlike Humpty Dumpty, I go along with the dictionary definition.

Welfare "reform" was an attack on welfare mothers. The Democrats did this. That is why I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000 -- but not 2004.

The appropriate question is not "Did Nader intend to win"? but did Gore and Kerry?

I totally agree. I just can't accept the status quo any longer.

I am not proposing that credit cards be capped at 7 percent. I threw out 7 percent at random, since the official rate of inflation has been "officially" under three percent for some years - though that has certainly not been the subjective experience of most consumers, expecially when buying gasoline, food (other than snack food), or a house.

I do remember credit card rates being no more than 10 percent before 1980. Nor was it common for everyone to have revolving credit. Banks were forced to be more careful about to whom they lent money and people had to save up for purchases. Revolving accounts were for the hapless customers of cheesey furniture outlets.

A five percent differential between Federal Reserve Rates (not the inflation rate) and consumer rates (including credit cards) seems, not crackpottery but reasonable to me and was in fact the law in many states before exceptions were made for "national" banks in 1980 (not 1880).

If a consumer opens a savings account and gets three or four percent interest, it does not seem reasonable for a bank to charge 18 or 21 percent for a credit account. Nor does it seem reasonable for banking regulations to vary so wildly from state to state. They should be federalized.

Nor is this a radical left wing position on the order of say, nationalizing the oil industry, or instituting a 90 percent top income tax rate, but just sensible consumer protection.

The kind of simplistic view that two parties emerge in the practice of coalition building demonstrates a failure to understand what it really takes to build and maintain a coalition.

on second look, it seems possible i misunderstood that what you are demonstrating here is a failure to understand what i said. i did not say that 'two parties emerge in the practice of coalition building'. i said: 'because plurality representation causes coalitions (parties) to form around the objective of merely securing enough votes to win more votes than the next closest coalition (party), plurality electoral systems inevitably result in the dominance of only two coalitions (parties).'

what is being described here is the difference between plurality systems and proportional systems. obviously, 'coalitions' work very differently in the two systems.

It is a "law" in the same way that political science is a "science," much though the two main parties might wish that their constituents would unfailingly "obey" it.

It is more accurate to call it a tendency -- and one that doesn't apply in periods of great instability and discontent (or in Canada and India). There is a tendency, too, for monopolies to form, no? -- of which Duverger's principle seems to be a correlary.

Be that as it may, our electoral college system also ensures that large sections of the voting public, a plurality in recent years, are effectively without representation.

and evolution is only a theory...

Today the Democrats in both houses have capitulated again. They are afraid that if they didn't give Bush what he wanted, the GOP would have spent the next month saying they aren't tough on defending the country.

Fear, fear, fear and capitulation, again and again and again.

How do you like them now?

Evolution is a very sound theory with tremendous explanitory power that admits of no exceptions and is supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence in many many fields of scientific knowledge. Duverger's "law" is not in that caliber. It is because political theory has such "laws" that it qualifies (along with economics) as a branch of theology rather than a science.

I beg your pardon, but would you please make note of who is doing the whining on this topic? "Mummy, Ralph Nader stole my election! Make him stop! Wah!"

Read 'em and weep some more: GORE WON FLORIDA! It was the Supremes who stole the election, not Nader.

I can't believe you "You vill vote for anyone mit a 'D' in front of zee name regardless of membership status in zee Aryan Nation" people are willing to overlook Ohio 2004 yet still harp on Nader in Florida 2000. You just make yourselves look pathetic.

You want the votes of lefties? Then nominate someone with lefty sensibilities. Can't do that? Sorry, then. I can't help you.

Want Fred Thompson to run things at 1600 the next eight years? Easy. Nominate Hillary.

I think most of you have the ability to read, think, and calculate. What I don't understand is why you so adamantly refuse to do so, but insist on blaming your friends for voting their conscience.