Go Back to the B3 Home Page
Complaints, compliments, arguments? Email me.
[<< "Let the next scandal begin."] [Archive Index] [>>"An important interview which is not on the media's radar."]
02/22/2004 Archived Entry: "Nader's ego announces bid for presidency."
Nader's ego announces bid for presidency.
Ralph Nader's ego today announced it will be running for president in 2004.
With no party affiliation, no constituency (after breaking its promise not to campaign in close states in 2000), and no reason to run outside of a grotesque case of self-importance, Nader's ego said 'It's all about me. I demand to be included in all presidential debates, in order to satisfy my need to be in front of television cameras.'
What is the goddam point here? I mean, really??
Replies: 27 people speak up
not much of an impact. if it gets Kerry to move to the left more power to the naderegomaniac.
Posted by haitch76 @ 02/22/2004 12:27 PM NY
I might vote for him again.
Posted by C Bryan Lavigne @ 02/22/2004 12:28 PM NY
This guy Nader is a nut. He's doing this all for attention. If he really wants to be president and if he really wants to remove Bush then why didn't he come out as a Democrat? He's just adding another name to the ballot to split votes. We're much better off going against one guy than two.
Also, I wound suggest that we all pay close attention to who is supporting Nader and giving him money. The Republicans are no doubt somehow behind this.
As a side note; this is most definately tin-foil hat stuff, but at least take a look at this following site:
http://johntitor.strategicbrains.com/
Even if John Titor was 1% real we should heed his warnings. And if he was completely correct then we better start moving to Australia as soon as possible. Bush won't hesitate to allow a civl war to happen; remember what he was doing while the two WTC towers fell?
Posted by Coujeaux @ 02/22/2004 03:50 PM NY
Guy over on Alter.net says pretty much everything I would have said if I could write that well.
And C Bryan....a vote for Nader isn't a proof of anybody's level of politcal purity, it's a vote for George Bush.
Posted by Xan @ 02/22/2004 09:38 PM NY
I keep having the image of Nader showing up at the Dem convention, & telling Kerry he will throw his support to the Dems if he establishes a Dept. of consumer protection & pulls out of NAFTA & WTO.
Posted by strangefriend @ 02/22/2004 10:37 PM NY
If only my Uncle Rocco were still alive...
Posted by Metropolitan99 @ 02/23/2004 09:47 AM NY
Xan, Fuck You.
Being opposed to Bush doesn't endear me to your millionare, Skull and Bones, suck-corporate-dick-for-campaign-donations, NAFTA-loving, War-mongering candidate (I'm assuming here that Kerry is going to get the nomination, but Edwards ain't much different.)
According to Vote Smart, Kerry supported Bush in 72% of his votes in 2002 (and 65% in 2001.) He's a whore. And Edwards is no better. A vote for either of them is a vote for George Bush at least 65% of the time.
No thanks, you can keep the Democratic Party. I'm not "throwing my vote away" on trash that I don't believe in.
Posted by C Bryan Lavigne @ 02/23/2004 10:44 AM NY
(to C Bryan) Yes, but that 35% can be SIGNIFICANT in terms of issues on abortion, the environment, etc. The following URL, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html) is a link to an article on just how bad the global warming situation is, citing a PENTAGON document, which Bush has suppressed and ignored. It's scary stuff. Kerry and Edwards would likely be MUCH more friendly to environmental causes than Bush. Gore, previously dubbed "Captain Planet" by conservatives, would have been more eco-friendly than Bush (who's environmental policies have been SO hostile, it almost seems as though he HATES nature), had he been elected. If you think he wouldn't have been, you're fooling yourself.
Wanna support a *really* progressive candidate? Support Kucinich through the convention (as stated in an Alternet article this week, his platform is nearly identical to Nader's), then vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election (as Kucinich has pledged to do). Even Michael Moore, who supports putting Greens and other progressive 3rd party (or independent) people in offices at the State and local levels, has stated that voting for a candidate like Nader for President this time around is too dangerous, it's essentially a vote for Bush. Like it or not, that's the way it is.
Maybe that 35% difference betweek Kerry and Bush seems insignificant to you, but to anyone who's passionate about the environment and abortion rights, it's HUGE!
Posted by Tina @ 02/23/2004 11:45 AM NY
Amen, Tina. Amen. I've never throught of putting it like you did, with the 35% argument. I'll have to remember that one.
Posted by Jason @ 02/23/2004 01:36 PM NY
We're heading for an ecological disaster and if you think the Dems can stop it you're deluding yourself. Their softcore, business-friendly approach is like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. "More eco-friendly" isn't good enough. That isn't going to save the planet. Radical change is neccessary.
What else... Abortion? One issue. A rather less significant one compared to ecological disaster, but I'll give it to ya.
Anything else? You didn't mention labor rights. Kerry's pretty week on those (more NAFTA anyone?) That happens when you're a millionare. Dems are more labor-friendly in general, but in the past when the working class needed something done they've usually had to do it themselves. Next.
Health Care? What have the Dems ever done for me on that front? Twelve years since the promise of universal health care and I'm still unable to get proper care.
Etc.
Your repeated assertion that I am "voting for Bush" is not winning me over I'm afraid. I just don't think 35% is worth it. It might be okay for the people only concerned with issues that happen to fall within that area, but that kind of small-mindedness doesn't work in the long run.
And fuck Michael Moore -- he's funny, but he's a lying fuck. I don't care what that idiot says.
Posted by C Bryan Lavigne @ 02/23/2004 01:53 PM NY
Yeah, in debate it's easy to fixate on a big number and hammer away with it as "evidence" to support an argument, but a small number can be significant too, IF you look at EXACTLY what that small number represents. Sometimes a small difference isn't as "small" as it seems.;-)
Posted by Tina @ 02/23/2004 02:03 PM NY
For clarification, that last comment was in response to Jason.
Posted by Tina @ 02/23/2004 02:05 PM NY
"More eco-friendly" isn't good enough. That isn't going to save the planet. Radical change is neccessary."
The environment is one of the issues I'm most passionate about, and while I'd LOVE to see a candidate like Kucinich or Nader win the Presidency, it's not realistic. A candidate who promises radical change can't enact radical change if he doesn't get elected. And considering the type of "radical change" we got from Bush, to me a "bandaid on a gunshot wound" is far preferable to swallowing a live hand grenade. Next.
You mentioned labor? I lost my job on Bush's watch, thank you very much! (I've since been lucky enough to find a new one). You said yourself that Dems are more labor-friendly, which almost makes my point for me. A "more labor-friendly" Dem will protect more jobs than a very labor friendly independent or 3rd party candidate who doesn't get elected. Next.
"Health Care? What have the Dems ever done for me on that front? Twelve years since the promise of universal health care and I'm still unable to get proper care."
Um...HELLO! For the majority of that time we've had a REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress! In fact, I believe it was Clinton's advocacy of socialized health care (and the subsequent special-interest-funded disinformation campaign) that propelled the GOP to take back the Congress in 1994.
"I just don't think 35% is worth it. It might be okay for the people only concerned with issues that happen to fall within that area, but that kind of small-mindedness doesn't work in the long run."
I applaud your idealism, idealism is great. Unfortunately, at some point reality has to kick in, and in reality, even a 35% difference between Kerry and Bush (or Edwards and Bush) is significant enough to have real impact on real people who are losing real jobs and drinking water with real arsenic in it, etc, etc, etc.
Posted by Tina @ 02/23/2004 03:56 PM NY
Addendum: For the record, I DO believe we need to get a Kucinich or a Nader-type candidate into the Presidency, and the sooner the better, for the sake of ALL of the issues, not just the ones I mentioned. BUT, this time around, it's not realistic, and the situation is dire enough that even a small improvement on ALL of the issues is preferable to the downward spiral we're on with Bush. He needs to go, NOW!
Posted by Tina @ 02/23/2004 04:06 PM NY
To me its simple. Nader can't win. He will never gets the vote behind him to due so. I would've loved to seen Kucinich take it, but then I'm a bit of a pragmatist. Regardless of how much anyone distrusts Kerry of Edwards, one of them stands the best chance of getting elected over Bush. Nader does not. Ergo, a vote not for Kerry or Edwards rather for Nader leaves Kerry/Edwards with one less vote, and that gives Bush that much more of a lead. I understand people wanting to vote their conscience, but I have to wonder what will weigh on their conscience more. Voting for Kerry/Edwards over Bush or allowing Bush the possibility of 4 more years of running this country. If you think he's fucking about royally now, just wait until he doesn't have to worry about making concessions to get re-(s)elected. I have already told my wife and family this: I have dual citizenship with Germany. If Bush is relected, my ass is outta here.
Do yourself, and your countrymen a favor, swallow your pride and do what is necessary, by any means necessary, to ensure Bush cannot preside over the US for 4 more years.
Posted by djdissent @ 02/23/2004 10:54 PM NY
BTW, I've just added Tina to my list of personal heroes.
Posted by djdissent @ 02/23/2004 10:57 PM NY
No, Tina, the reality is that 35% doesn't matter because in 50 years we're all in the toilet no matter which of the two gets the presidency this year. I'm not being idealistic here. The Dems can't save us. Period. You have to face that reality.
Posted by C Bryan Lavigne @ 02/24/2004 01:03 AM NY
"No, Tina, the reality is that 35% doesn't matter because in 50 years we're all in the toilet no matter which of the two gets the presidency this year. I'm not being idealistic here. The Dems can't save us. Period. You have to face that reality."
So it's all or nothing then??? Either we get ALL the changes we need to save the planet NOW, or screw everyone, damn the consequenses? Who's being short sighted now? I'm not talking about putting a Dem in the White House each term for the next 50 years, I'm talking about THIS term. Maybe putting a Dem in the White House won't SAVE us, but they could help buy us some time until we can get someone in the White House who CAN. And in four years (or eight), if enough people mobilize, who knows, a Kucinich might be able to actually make it in the White House and enact serious change.
Maybe you're willing to say "screw the whole thing" but I'm not willing to give up that easily. I'm not the only one affected, millions, even billions, of people are. When I vote, I don't consider just how my vote affects me, I consider how it affects EVERYONE; taking an all or nothing attitude with other people's lives, and quality of life, is not something I'm willing to do.
Posted by Tina @ 02/24/2004 08:01 AM NY
"BTW, I've just added Tina to my list of personal heroes."
*blushing furiously*;-)
Posted by Tina @ 02/24/2004 08:24 AM NY
Now look who's being all idealistic and naive. If you think any kind of Progressive will get elected later on down the line because we vote Democrat now then your more deluded than I thought.
You wanna know what will happen? In four years it'll be "We gotta elect Kerry again or else the Repugs will take back the White House!" And in 8 years it'll be "We gotta elect Edwards or else the Repugs will take back the White House!" And so on and so fourth. Or -- equally likely -- the Repugs will take back the White House and then four years later it'll be this same old bullshit yet again.
That's reality. That's what happens in the real world. You get an endless cycle of bullshit between the two parties and nothing ever gets done unless the People get off their fucking asses and change things themselves.
Posted by C Bryan Lavigne @ 02/24/2004 10:38 AM NY
and voting for a candidate who cannot win is somehow getting off one's ass and doing something?
Yah, thats real nice and symbolic and all, but lets step back to reality. k thnx. Alright, now, in order to get an independant/green candidate in the oval office, you must first make impotent its largest adversary in said objective, and that is the republican party (and the extreme right to be specific). They need to be rendered totally powerless. We can worry about rolling the dems later. In the short term it is an absolute necessity to remove bush from office BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
Posted by djdissent @ 02/24/2004 10:08 PM NY
as an added note, I think NOFX said it best in the song "Franco-UnAmerican": The president's laughing 'cause he voted for Nader.
www.punkvoter.com
Posted by djdissent @ 02/24/2004 11:21 PM NY
dj, voting is never getting off one's ass and doing something. As far as democracy is concerned, voting is the least important thing one can do. Activism is important. Direct Action. Communication. Organizing.
That said, you obviously didn't get the point of my last post. It's always going to be an "absolute necessity" to remove whatever Republican happens to be in the crosshairs (or to keep them from office.) It's never the time to elect progressive candidates with you people and your masters in "the party." It's always been this way. And it's always going to be this way.
It's a control mechanism. You have to recognize it for what it is. It's false hope nurtured in an effort to keep people like you in a party that doesn't give two tugs of a dead dogs cock about you.
Posted by C Bryan Lavigne @ 02/25/2004 06:22 AM NY
"If you think any kind of Progressive will get elected later on down the line because we vote Democrat now then your more deluded than I thought."
Just for the record, I never said that a Progressive will get elected down the line BECAUSE we vote put a Dem in office now. After all, one does not logically lead to the other. What I said was: "And in four years (or eight), IF ENOUGH PEOPLE MOBILIZE, who knows, a Kucinich might be able to actually make it in the White House and enact serious change."
"Activism is important. Direct Action. Communication. Organizing."
THAT is exactly what I was referring to when I said "if enough people mobilize." Basically, my argument is this: get Dubya out of the White House now to minimize the damage, a Dem might not make things significantly better, but they're much less likely to make things significantly worse than Dubya is. In the meantime, we "get off our fucking asses" as you so eloquently put it, and WORK (through activism, direct action, communication, and organizing) to get a Progressive candidate to the point where, whether running as a Dem or as a 3rd party or Independent candidate, they stand a fighting chance of winning. Easier said than done? Definitely! Impossible? Hardly.
You're right, if we elect the Democratic candidate, then get complacent and think all will be well, significant change won't happen. But, that's not what I said at all, and that's not what *I* plan to do!
"As far as democracy is concerned, voting is the least important thing one can do."
I disagree. All the activism, direct action, communication and organizing in the world won't do any good if no one votes. IMHO, it's AS important as those four things. Voter apathy is one of the problems with our democracy--we're the oldest democracy in the world, yet have one of the lowest voter turnouts of any democracy in the world. Many of the people who do vote don't research the candidates and issues they're voting on. No wonder we're in this mess!
"It's never the time to elect progressive candidates with you people and your masters in 'the party.'"
Ad hominem attack, blanket generalization, fallacy of presupposition--three logical fallacies which do nothing to prove your point. You don't know my voting history, or anyone else's here for that matter. For all you know, everyone here may have voted for Nader last time around, and are regretting it now. Or if they didn't, they might vote for indie and 3rd party candidates the majority of the time. There are plenty of people speaking out against Nader's run this time who voted for him in 2000. Labeling everyone who speaks out against him as Democratic Party drones is inaccurate. Are there people out there who are like that? Sure, but it's arrogant to presume to know that the people here are, when you know so little about us.
Posted by Tina @ 02/25/2004 09:39 AM NY
What I said was: "And in four years (or eight), IF ENOUGH PEOPLE MOBILIZE, who knows, a Kucinich might be able to actually make it in the White House and enact serious change."
I say again: You are deluding yourself. In four or eight years we'll just have to elect this mainstream centrist Democrat in order to keep the big bad Repugs out of the White House. Round and round we go. Remember control mechanisms? There's a reason people don't "mobolize" behind progressive candidates. (I'm thinking of two words that I've heard so many times before. Oh, what are they? I think the one is "never" and the other may be "win.")
"It's never the time to elect progressive candidates with you people and your masters in 'the party.'"
I'm not talking about your voting record. I am talking about you right now and the views you are expressing here. Whether you want to admit it or not you are propping up a corrupt party with your arguements. You are serving the ends of a bunch of power-hungry fucks who don't give a damn about anybody. They'd sell us out for peanuts. In fact, they have -- plenty of times.
Anyway, there's more about voting vs. activism, but I'm tired. It's been fun (I love you to death, you know, you damn dirty liberal,) but I think I'm ready to call it quits. You've worn me out, and that's not an easy thing to do. My hat's off to you.
Posted by C Bryan Lavigne @ 02/26/2004 05:59 AM NY
Thanks, it HAS been fun! It's been SO long since I've had a good debate, and this was a really good one. Take care!:-)
Posted by Tina @ 02/26/2004 08:40 AM NY
It has at that. Until next time....
Bryan
Posted by C Bryan Lavigne @ 02/26/2004 05:02 PM NY
