A. That these two are leaders.
B. That they think this is a proper way to handle a campaign.
C. That they didn't have enough sense to know the FOX mics were still on.
From Manila Ryce of Largest Minority:
I can understand why mainstream Democrats fight against the very idea of democracy by cockblocking any truly liberal candidate who fights against injustice, but why bloggers toe the line is beyond me. Why we actually believe that the lesser of two evils can be good runs contrary to our own interests. Do you want universal healthcare, clean energy, peace in the Middle East? Well, you could've had it all by now if Kucinich was elected in 2004. Continue to vote for Corporate America if you wish, but don't cry about your interests not being represented afterwards. The Democrats do not listen to the Left. It's a sad reality which ought to be obvious to everyone by now.
How many decades has it been since the Democrats actually worked for the people instead of for big business? After Reagan, the Democratic Party stopped being liberal, and they have no reason to be as long as we keep voting for their front runners. With each election, the party grows more and more conservative, and they know the Left has nowhere else to go, no one else to vote for. Kucinich is the only exception in this campaign. Any high school student with a basic understanding of politics can look at where everyone else stands on the issues and see that Kucinich is the only true liberal. And anyone who declares themselves a liberal ought to at least recognize as much.
So what would happen if we actually voted for a good candidate rather than the lesser of two evils? What would happen if we actually stopped parroting what we hear on television? What would happen if we bloggers thought for ourselves, and used this new form of media to empower the people? In 2000, Nader said there wasn't much difference between the Democrats and Republicans. They denounced him, but spent the last 7 years proving him right. Instead of being pissed off at people like Nader or Kucinich who point out the hypocrisy in the Democratic Party, how about being pissed off at the party itself for having those faults? Unless you'd like to continue voting for the continuation of Reagan's policies, Kucinich IS the only sane choice.
"Imperial candidates." That kinda nails it, Dennis. But making this about issues? Fat chance.
ReplyDeleteOh, and a check to you is in the mail, DK.
Limiting democracy. I thought that's what we were supposed to be voting AGAINST. Silly me.
One thing you got wrong, though, Dennis.
ReplyDeleteThese people are not your friends.
Good LORD! There are POLITICIANS running for President???!?!?!? As DEMOCRATS?!??!??!?!
ReplyDeleteHe'p me, I feel faint! Fetch my smelling salts!
I don't know, people. I know we're not at that point yet, but think about where we'd be today if it hadn't been for Nader in 2000...
ReplyDeleteI think he's playing into FOX's attempts to divide the left.
"Divide the Left"?
ReplyDeleteNo offense, but are we to infer that that means either Sen. Clinton or Mr. Edwards are either anywhere NEAR the Left?
I agree with Dave, and encourage everyone to watch "An Unreasonable Man". The problem is not with the Left being divided. This is a lie the Democratic Party has perpetuated to explain why they didn't win either election. The problem is that the Left is not being represented by the Democrats.
ReplyDeleteNader even met with Kerry to get him elected. The three major issues Nader tried to get Kerry to address were Corporate Welfare, Corporate Crime, and Labor Law Reform. Kerry rejected the issues which would've set him apart from Bush. As Nader said: "The three issues would've gotten him more votes, and the election wouldn't have even been close." The fault of the 2000 and 2004 elections were the fault of the Democrats. They should've won by a landslide in both had they actually stood for something.
... Kucinich is the Ron Paul of the Democratic party,... he speaks a brand of true-ism that does not jive well with the corporate direction both parties seem to be heading. I think (and pardon the blatantly silly comment) the problem with the guy is that he looks funny... in a Ross Perot kind of way,... and thats too bad. If you listen to the message and not the messenger, one realized his candor is genuine, his logic is almost bullet-proof, and he (along with my fav Ron Paul) has not wavered in message no matter the polls... , If I ever dared vote Democrat, this little-big man would make me yank the lever for him.
ReplyDeleteQuick recap of history...
ReplyDeleteReagan’s policies a) defeated Communism, a world threatening movement responsible for the extermination of over 20 million people globally in the 20th century, and b) pulled America out of a recession, started by Jimmy Carter in the 70’s. Not sure what the problem with that is. You wonder why liberals shifted right after Reagan? Well, his policies actually WORKED, maybe that had something to do with it…
~James Nordby (got to get me an account)
I agree with Karen. This is a FOX News strategy to divide the left that clearly seems to be working!
ReplyDeleteKucinich claims he couldn't hear what they were saying, but then goes on to condemn a conversation he didn't hear? What's up with that? There isn’t enough audio to know exactly WHAT they were talking about.
And how anyone could defend Nader is a mystery to me. At one time I had a great deal of respect for Nader, but he destroyed that when he claimed there was no difference between Bush and Gore, or Bush and Kerry. That was simply an intellectually dishonest comment for him to make. He was the spoiler in both those races, and we are now stuck with a U.S. Supreme Court that has already begun to eviscerate every civil rights protection progressives care about.
And don’t get me started on Ronald Reagan. He didn’t defeat Communism – he simply mortgaged our nation’s future past the point where the Soviet Union could keep up! It had taken this nation 200 years to become a trillion dollars in debt. Reagan nearly tripled the debt in just eight years. His trickle-down economics only trickled yellow fluid on the middle class in this country – nearly wiping them out.
And with all his faults, the only president who has provided this country with a sustained period of both peace and prosperity in the last 30 years was Bill Clinton. I think having another Clinton in the White House might be just what we need.
BAC
BAC,
ReplyDeleteI'm no defender of the GOP by any stripes, but if I recall my civics, the executive branch does not have the power of the purse, Congress does. The trippling of the debt during Reagan's presidency is as much Tip O'neills fault as it was Reagans for spending the Soviets into the "ash head of history" FDR spent us to oblivion to defeat the Axis (as well as New Deal social programs) and I don't hear too much complaining about that. The Dems held the house and could have made a better effort in stemming the military spending tide. Your other points are valid as to Mr. Nader. There is no doubt that at least in Florida 2000 he was the Perot factor. Just my humble opinion.
Did somebody "shift Right" in this room (craning neck, looking about)? Anybody? Hello? Bueller?
ReplyDeleteAnd nobody here SERIOUSLY thinks of Clinton or Edwards (or even Obama) as being "Left", do they? REALLY???
T-P is right. Reagan did what he did because the Dimocrats in power at that time let him. That's why I find it amusing now when some of them try to invoke Reagan as some kind of boogeyman. If he boogied, it's because they let him. And as far as "defeating communism" goes, bac is right. He just gave a hard shove to a doomed system that was heading over a cliff very nicely all by itself.
Nader cost Gore the 2000 election? Only if you ignore the fact that Gore threw in the towel way too early, and that little business of the Supreme Court...
But now Nader's talking about running AGAIN? Puh-LEEZE Lord NO! If folks are looking for a real progressive alternative, Ralphi isn't it.
Dennis is.
I still can't believe people are pissed off at Nader for having the audacity to run for our interests. A few people here need to stop relying on what Democratic leaders have said about Nader. First, he never said there was no difference between Bush and Gore or Bush and Kerry. He said there wasn't much difference, and that's true. Second, 10 million more Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader. That's a fact. Why couldn't Gore even carry his own state? Nader didn't ruin Gore's chances, Gore did. The Democrats are not entitled to the presidency. They need to earn it. Then when there were questions about the election being rigged, the Dems rolled over, just like they did on the war, health care, and no child left behind. Is Nader to blame for all of that too?
ReplyDeleteAs for the Clintons being our saviors... you've got to be shitting me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI understand that it is important to feel like your vote is not wasted. My votes in a liberal bastion are consumed by the conservatism of the rest of my red state. I did vote for Nader in 2000 and will definitely vote for Kucinich. There is no reason to vote for anyone different than you truly want (in the primary at least.) Put that person in a position to win in the general election. I agree with you, Blue Gal, that Kucinich is the only true liberal that I see in the field, except Gravel. We'll talk later if it's a Hillary/Edwards ticket and they are down in the polls againt Romney/McCain, but I'd have to see who else was on the ballot, even then.
ReplyDelete"I still can't believe people are pissed off at Nader for having the audacity to run for our interests"
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm actually pissed at Nader for being a shallow, egomaniacal, narcissistic hack who deliberately undertook an electoral kamikazee mission that is directly responsible for the last six years of the current smirking fascist buffoon in the White House. And Edwards and Clinton are right: MOST of the Democratic presidential candidates are NOT serious (and I put Dodd, Gravel and Kucinich in this category). They don't have enough money, they are never going to get enough money, and so they are never ever ever in a hundred million billion years going to get the nomination. If they can't get the nomination, then they are not "influencing the debate," or "trying to raise some issues": they are wasting everyone's time. I wish the nomination (and for that matter the election) wasn't almost completely dependent on money, but right now it is. And we have to run in the real world, not some bizarre Liberal Fantasyland where Kucinich is considered a realistic candidate and where it's somehow a good idea for liberals to withhold their vote from candidates who a) can win and b) agree with them 85%-90% due to their lack of ideological purity. Let's leave these sorts of thought-pogroms in the Republic Party where they belong.
"How many decades has it been since the Democrats actually worked for the people instead of for big business?"
ReplyDeleteA- fucking men!
I'd rather not vote at all than choose between the lesser of "two evils."
That makes absolutely no moral or intellectual sense. Evil is evil.
Pepsi or Coke is not Democracy.
Kucinich's remarks however, are a little disingenuous considering both parties refuse to debate Independent Candidates.
"No, I'm actually pissed at Nader for being a shallow, egomaniacal, narcissistic hack who deliberately undertook an electoral kamikazee mission..."
ReplyDeleteThat's false. I've addressed why above. There's also a study which shows the movement of his campaign did not favor swing states. Hardly the intention of a spoiler. You can continue to believe everything the Democratic leadership tells you if it makes you feel better, but it's still a lie.
"And Edwards and Clinton are right: MOST of the Democratic presidential candidates are NOT serious (and I put Dodd, Gravel and Kucinich in this category)."
You argue these candidates are not serious because they're not corporate whores. Besides the fact that you're arguing in defense of fascism, I'm not even sure I should take YOU seriously since you're not a millionaire either.
"I wish the nomination (and for that matter the election) wasn't almost completely dependent on money, but right now it is."
If we were in a different time, would you simply replace the word "money" in your statement with "race" or "sex"? Why try to change anything that's unjust? Good point.
"And we have to run in the real world, not some bizarre Liberal Fantasyland where Kucinich is considered a realistic candidate and where it's somehow a good idea for liberals to withhold their vote from candidates who a) can win and b) agree with them 85%-90% due to their lack of ideological purity."
Yes, it is a crazy notion that people would actually vote for candidates who represent them. Shame on us for not voting how we're told. Show me a liberal candidate and I'll vote for them. If Edwards or Clinton is your idea of liberal then you should probably include Giuliani as well.
The problem with remembering the 2004 election is, we have to recall what a dull, wooden, PRICK Al Gore was before the Inconvenient Truth movie turned him into everyone's favorite witty earth-saving mensch. I don't want to go back to the old Al Gore, and I trust in the American People's (tm) incredibly short attention span to allow Gore to swing down on an organic vine, scoop up Obama and land on the perfectly horizontal limb of victory, leaving the two microphone monkeys conniving because they have the biggest warchests. (And how anyone could defend Hillary for her "Thanks Barack, thanks Dennis" while she's talking right on stage about stabbing at least one of them in the back.)
ReplyDeleteBAC you're right about one thing Bill Clinton would never have done something so stupid as trying to bond with Edwards right there on the stage. He would have had his people talk to Edward's people where no one knew the meaning of the word "is."
Please guys, we haven't had one vote cast in this election yet. NOT ONE. Sure I think Dodd and Gravel are complete wastes but it's their debt-ridden asses up there and I don't have to watch.
Democracy, baby.
"There's also a study which shows the movement of his campaign did not favor swing states."
ReplyDeleteNader deliberately chose to campaign in swing states, like Florida, despite the request of many liberals that he refrain from doing so. He is directly reponsible for Dubya (him and Gore's incompetence as a candidate).
"You can continue to believe everything the Democratic leadership tells you if it makes you feel better, but it's still a lie."
Please don't presume to tell me what I believe. You have no idea.
"You argue these candidates are not serious because they're not corporate whores."
No, they are not serious candidates because they can't attract money. Money wins campaigns. The definition of a candidate without money is a loser. I don't like this system, in fact I've reluctantly decided that public financing is the only realistic way to go, but that's reality and we have to live in it.
" Besides the fact that you're arguing in defense of fascism"
This statement is so assinine as to defy description. It makes as much sense as Right Wingers saying liberals are Nazis.
"I'm not even sure I should take YOU seriously since you're not a millionaire either."
Nice straw man. Can I put a little hat on him?
'If we were in a different time, would you simply replace the word "money" in your statement with "race" or "sex"?'
No.
"Why try to change anything that's unjust? Good point."
And now a rhetorical straw man. I'll have to find another hat for this one.
"Yes, it is a crazy notion that people would actually vote for candidates who represent them."
No, it's a crazy notion to vote for candidates who have absolutely, positively, no chance whatsoever of winning.
" If Edwards or Clinton is your idea of liberal then you should probably include Giuliani as well."
Wow, a THIRD straw man! I need to run to Wal-Mart for some cheap gimme caps. I didn't say Clinton OR Edwards were "liberal," whatever you think that means.
"Nader deliberately chose to campaign in swing states, like Florida"
ReplyDeleteTell me, did Nader campaign more or less in swing states? And what about the 10 million Democrats who voted for Bush? We should scapegoat Nader for that as well.
"Please don't presume to tell me what I believe. You have no idea."
Actually, I think we all have a pretty good idea judging by what you've said here.
"I don't like this system, in fact I've reluctantly decided that public financing is the only realistic way to go, but that's reality and we have to live in it."
So you don't like the system, but have chosen not to do anything which might hope to change it.
"This statement is so assinine as to defy description. It makes as much sense as Right Wingers saying liberals are Nazis."
No, actually it's fairly accurate. Fascism is a governmental system which suppresses opposition and criticism. It is a system controlled by corporatism, militarism, and totalitarianism. You admit that you don't like our system, because of these characteristics, but have decided to participate in it and defend it.
"Wow, a THIRD straw man! I need to run to Wal-Mart for some cheap gimme caps. I didn't say Clinton OR Edwards were 'liberal,' whatever you think that means."
Why am I not surprised that you'd choose Wal-Mart of all places to dress down the similarities between your argument and those of the apologists which came before? You want change, but are unwilling to do anything which may bring it about other than rely on party leaders to do it for you. This mentality is why our country is where it is.
Now it's time to stop the pissing contests and start planning the birthday party. Manila is my date and next-to-last dance goes to Local Crank.
ReplyDeleteI'll be sitting out the last dance as QD won't be there. And threadingwater will be taking me home, as she's gonna be sitting next to me f2f on Monday night.
See you then, guys.
Can I at least bat at the piñata, BlueGal?
ReplyDeleteSheesh,
Tengrain
""And what about the 10 million Democrats who voted for Bush? We should scapegoat Nader for that as well."
ReplyDeleteNope, they're just idiots.
"Actually, I think we all have a pretty good idea judging by what you've said here."
I admire your Frist-like telepresence system.
"So you don't like the system, but have chosen not to do anything which might hope to change it."
Exactly right. I have no desire to do anything to change anything. Which is I ran for office myself and have been working for various campaigns since I was 17. You got me pegged, buddy.
"No, actually it's fairly accurate. Fascism is a governmental system which suppresses opposition and criticism."
Right, because suggesting that Kucinich can't win is EXACTLY the same as wanting him locked up in a prison camp. Also, I invade Ethiopia next Saturday.
"but have decided to participate in it and defend it."
I see. Voting for candidates you don't like and advocating positions you don't agree with is fascism. Are you sure you're not really Jonah Goldberg?
"Why am I not surprised that you'd choose Wal-Mart of all places to dress down the similarities between your argument and those of the apologists which came before?"
I have no idea why you are not surprised.
"You want change, but are unwilling to do anything which may bring it about other than rely on party leaders to do it for you."
Exactly so. I am typing this as Howard Dean dictates even now. "Rely on party leaders," that IS funny. I have to laugh at loud at that. I wouldn't rely on the "leaders" of the Democratic Party to organize a sock drawer, much less a plan for taking the country back from the mega-corporate/tele-Pharisee alliance who are systematically plundering her body and soul.
"This mentality is why our country is where it is."
I couldn't agree more. Voting for candidates who can win is PRECISELY why Dick Cheney is one irregular heart beat away from the Presidency.
"Now it's time to stop the pissing contests and start planning the birthday party."
But--but, Blue! He started it!
Anyone who knows me knows that I do not shill for the Democratic Party. I think Bill Clinton should have been impeached for signing the welfare repeal bill and for NOT lifting the ban on gays in the military after dozens of soldiers came out in support of his campaign and were then forced out of the military when he caved on "don't ask, don't tell."
ReplyDeleteI am as critical of Democrats as Republicans. My comments about Nader are based on my observations of the man, not the Democratic Party line.
Al Gore was stiff as a board in 2000, but it is beyond me how a guy who married his college sweetheart, has for all appearances been a faithful husband and who studied religion could be seen as less of a "family values" guy than George Where's-my-next-drink Bush!!
And how stupid was it of Kerry to allow himself to be 'swift boated' over a guy who was MIA during Vietnam?
This election, like 2000 and 2004, is the Dems to lose ... and we ALL know they are very capable of doing just that!
Find me the perfect candidate and I'll vote for them. I have yet to meet one.
I don't like Kucinich based on a personal conversation I had with the man before the LAST election. He had a perfect opportunity to clear up the controversy surrounding his election-year conversion to a "pro-choice" position, but he blew it. Not only did he blow it, but he started giving me a hard time for even suggesting to him that he might want to clarify his position.
I approached him at a conference in DC, when he was so unknown that anyone could stop him and have a very long conversation, and shared with him that a number of feminist groups were looking for a candidate to support but were concerned about his recent conversion. We were at a conference of more than 2,000 activists, and I suggested that he might want to take advantage of the opportunity to address any doubt about his sincerity. I relayed that there was significant discussion on a number of lists I subscribed to and I thought my suggestion might help him win them over. His response was immediate and aggressively "no." My thought at the time, which I didn't share with him, was "fuck you." I took the time to share information I thought would be helpful to his campaign and he didn't give a shit.
And what does it say about him when you consider that it’s abundantly clear where he stands on the war -- 70% of the American public opposes the war -- yet they are NOT supporting him in any significant number?
BAC
Out of respect for Mrs. Blue Gal, I will not continue this endless debate over Nader. No headway is being made there. Instead, I will ask if anyone here is comfortable voting for a candidate who is prepared to declare nuclear war on Iran. The two "serious" democratic hopefuls, Clinton and Obama, have said that ALL options are on the table with regards to Iran. Nuclear war? It's a possibility. Are you willing to vote for these people even with a Third World War as a possibility for the future?
ReplyDelete'The two "serious" democratic hopefuls, Clinton and Obama, have said that ALL options are on the table with regards to Iran. Nuclear war? It's a possibility.'
ReplyDeleteWait, wait, wait, wait, wait. What do you think the comment "all options are on the table" means? That Clinton or Obama would nuke Iran at the drop of a hat? Or that they would nuke Iran if Iran nuked us? Or that they are just politicians trying to cover their asses on the national security issue?
Good Lord 'n' Butter, but I hate having to defend Hillary Clinton: she's like all of the bad in Bill Clinton and none of the good. But c'MON! She's not going to lob a nuke into the men's room in Tehran. Neither, presumably, is Obama. Geez!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI'm having a flashback to Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson ... and a mushroom cloud commercial ... yikes!
ReplyDeleteBAC
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDeleting one comment each from Manila and Local. Your testosterone levels are noted.
ReplyDeleteLove you guys. Cut it out.
Fran/BG