The Cincinnati Beacon - Daily Kos: A Forum for Honest Debate?

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Daily Kos: A Forum for Honest Debate?

Tuesday night, I attended a Ralph Nader discussion and booksigning on 7th street in DC. I figured it might be a good idea to liveblog the event for those who couldn’t make it, so I did so on Daily Kos. That diary is located here. While the diary got a lot of comments (145), an overwhelming majority of them were negative. Some of them were just plain hysterical. Here are a few of the most reccommended comments:

It’s not a DKos diary, that’s for sure.

As has been often pointed out, this is a Democratic blog, not a blopg for the promotion of the GOP or their allies like Nader.

Ralph who?

I’m seriously considering going there right now

shout things like “Thanks for the War, Mr. Nader”, “Thanks for the deficit, Mr. Nader”, etc.

The Green party is a subsidiary of the Republican party.

BTW for anyone who got sidetracked by the chance for a Nader fight, I just posted the fourth part of my series comparing voting records (this time between Clinton and Obama).

Ask him

Please ask him to sit down and shut up.

It is clear that many of these people are not interested in debating ideas, they are just looking for a target for their knee jerk reaction. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the experience was the fact that people repeatedly changed the tags for the diary to “troll diary,” “amnesia,” and “hurricane ralph.” The tags I originally used were things like “Ralph Nader booksigning” and “the seventeen traditions.” I think it is pretty sad that the level of discourse has dropped to the point where people will edit the tags on someone else’s diary in order to purposely mislead other readers and avoid an honest discussion. That kind of immaturity is disheartening and I hope it isn’t a regular occurrence there, or anywhere.

With all of that being said, I’d like to point out that I post there regularly and enjoy the discussions on policy and democratic candidates, among other things. On topics such as those the debate is generally fierce and honest. Hell, I even went to their national conference last year in Vegas and had a great time. I sincerely hope, though, that they learn to have honest discussions about topics outside the realm of democratic electoral politics. If not, I will be much less interested in posting there in the future.

The full text of the diary in question is blockquoted below.

Amid rampant speculation regarding his plans to once again seek the Presidency in 2008, Ralph Nader was willing to address a small but diverse crowd at Olsson’s books and music tonight in Washington D.C. Despite claims by some Democratic activists that his candidacy had a spoiler effect in the 2000 election, Ralph maintains that the presence of independent and third party candidates in national politics is a necessary alternative to the duopoly that has controlled Washington decades. Ralph’s tireless work to protect the interests of ordinary Americans is an inspiration to many. Despite attacks from all points on the political spectrum, Ralph continues to act as a watchdog on the corporate and political forces that would do us harm.

Ralph should begin speaking shortly. I’ll update frequently throughout the discussion.

If you have any questions you’d like to ask him, through me, leave them in the comments.

*Update: Serious questions only please*

This is the book he’ll be discussing:

Seventeen Traditions
So begins this unexpected and extraordinary book by Ralph Nader. Known for his lifetime of selfless activism, Nader now looks back to the earliest days of his own life, to his serene and enriching childhood in bucolic Winsted, Connecticut. From listening to learning, from patriotism to argument, from work to simple enjoyment, Nader revisits seventeen key traditions he absorbed from his parents, his siblings, and the people in his community, and draws from them inspiring lessons for today’s society. Warmly human, rich with sensory memories and lasting wisdom, it offers a kind of modern-day parable of how we grow from children into adults responsiblea reminder of a time when nature and community were central to the way we all learned and lived.

7:30 - The place has filled in nicely, standing room only. He is expected to begin speaking any minute now.

7:35 - They say he will speak in 3 minutes.

7:38 - Ralph is now in the front of the room and is being introduced.

7:40 - Nader begins speaking, “I’ve never written a book like this.”

7:42 - I just got a pop-up saying my diary was edited by an admin, not cool.

7:43 - Ralph is talking about the restaraunt his father owned when he was a child. You could go there for “a cup of coffee and 10 minutes of politics.” He seems to be getting toward how his experiences there dealing with different types of people shaped the politician he became.

7:45 - “The first tradition in the book is the tradition of listening.”

7:46 - “We got instructed at school and educated at home.”

7:48 - He is explaining how his parents taught him the value of independent thinking at an early age.

7:51 - Ralph’s mother used the question “how much would you know about yourself if you only remembered the last 6 months?” to illustrate the value of history.

7:55 - He is still discussing the importance and value of family and how much he enjoyed writing about his family.

7:59 - “Watching my mother on the phone, talking to the editor of the local newspaper, was civics 101, all by itself.”

8:03 - “To my parents, civic values were family values. Business values were family values.

8:07 - He is now telling a story about judgemental kids in his 8th grade class and how he learned a lot that day about justice and sticking up for the little guy (or girl, in this case.)

8:09 - He is now taking questions.

8:11 - He was just asked what he thought of John Edwards’ emphasis on poverty. “He is starting to hit the right notes.” He wasn’t impressed with Edwards’ record in the Senate. Talked briefly about the importance of fortitude. “Hilary Clinton is a classic panderer.”

8:18 - When asked about 2008: “It’s too early to say.”

8:19 - He is now discussing the problems of the campaign finance system and the two-party system.

8:20 - He is heavily praising Bill Moyers and seems as if he would support him if he ran on the Democratic ticket in 2008.

8:21 - He is talking about the inflated military budget and other misplaced priorities in Bush’s proposed budget.

8:23 - Question: “Who would you like to see run in 2008?” “Well, Russ Feingold is out.” He seems to respect Gravel and Kucinich above all others remaining. “Any Democratic candidate who voted for the war is unfit for the Presidency.”

8:24 - “The democracy is for sale.”

8:30 - He was just asked about impeachment. He said that both Bush and Cheney are both guilty of impeachment offenses on multiple counts. He also mentioned that in 2004 that was a large part of his campaign.

8:33 - He said that Bush and Cheney are raising the bar in terms of what future President’s can get away with without getting impeached. In terms of the impeachment he says Bush and Cheney should be a “package job.”

8:35 - It is just about over. Thanks for the lively discussion. I’ll be back by 9:30 Eastern to respond to more of the comments.

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

Help The Cincinnati Beacon Grow! Participate in Social Networking!

Socializer!

Members

Tell us what you think!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

Josh Nelson says:
08 Feb 2007 at 11:32 am | #

Also, for Nader fans:

I’ve lined up an email interview with Ralph to take place in the next few weeks. I’ve asked a few Beacon contributors to provide a question each for the interview. If any of you have questions you’d like to ask, leave them as comments here. Please keep in mind, if you want a serious chance at having your question included, ask a serious question.

Looking forward to the questions!

Josh

says:
08 Feb 2007 at 12:26 pm | #

Josh,
I’m not being a smartass, but seriously ask Nader if he still thinks there is no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. See, that was his favorite line during the 2000 campaign and it lead to a lot of Liberal-leaning voters to vote for Nader instead of Gore. The rest, as we’ve all witnessed, is history.

Ask him if it’s better to be a principled believer in having viable 3rd party candidates, or if it’s better to be a realist and recognize that voting for a 3rd party candidate can actually have the opposite effect than the vote was intended to have. I’d be interested in hearing his answers. Thanks.

Josh Nelson says:
08 Feb 2007 at 12:33 pm | #

That is a reasonable question and I’ll definitely consider it.

Green Machine says:
08 Feb 2007 at 12:43 pm | #

Excellent post Josh!

The dishonesty of the tow line corporate Democrats is disgusting. It reminds of the debates I’ve had with Yossarian. They don’t like to talk about real issues, instead all they can do is make petty personal attacks.

Here’s the usual from the corporate Democrat playbook:

“It�s not a DKos diary, that�s for sure. As has been often pointed out, this is a Democratic blog, not a blopg for the promotion of the GOP or their allies like Nader.”

Here you have the LIE that Nader is an ally of the GOP. He opposed the war, NAFTA and GATT, the PATRIOT ACT etc. Their blog is so “Democratic” you can’t disscuss our greatest consumer advocate without having them change YOUR diary and make up bold faced lies.

Now guess who supported the Bush aganda every step of the way. The Democrats are Bush’s allies!!!

“Ralph who?” While this is supposed to be a joke. the truth is they don’t really know who Nader is and what he’s done.

“I�m seriously considering going there right now
shout things like �Thanks for the War, Mr. Nader�, �Thanks for the deficit, Mr. Nader�, etc.”

Once again, Nader oppossed the war and the deficits its created, but obviously the Democrats continue to support these failed policies despite the mandate they were given to end it. They know what the public wants but are to beholden to the same corporate interests.

“The Green party is a subsidiary of the Republican party.”

More lies without a shred of evidence. On the other hand the Democrats get money from the same special interests as the Republicans. Just look at our local races.

In 2004 Dennis Kucinich’s Peace delegates weren’t allowed to hold their signs for peace and they moved protesters to “free speech zones”.

They got half of the peace movement to vote for a pro-war candidate. That is something Bush and the GOP couldn’t have accomplished alone. That’s why corporate Democrats are worse than Republicans. They’re wolves in sheeps clothing.

I say and I’ll say again there’s not a damn bit of difference between Democrats and the Republicans.

Care to comment Yosssarian? Go get your little talking head friends.

Josh, let this be a lesson and keep up the great work my free thinking friend!!! Green Party, Peace Party!!!

Green Machine says:
08 Feb 2007 at 01:38 pm | #

ohiocrat, you do know that Gore won the election, right? Seriously, do you or do you not know that???

If your going to talk about history, I want to make sure you know what the history is. Clinton and Gore were for regime change in Iraq.

If you understand history you’ll know that third parties have brought all the important changes to this country from ending slavery to the great social programs demanded by the socialist party and implemented by FDR. The Black Panther party had the first free breakfast program.

Nader has said “power is only responsive when it is insecure.” Fredrick Douglas said “power concedes nothing without a demand”. It never has and never will.

There is no reforming the Democratic party it’s been tried by several generations. People at the grassroots level make the real changes. The status quo hoes at the top react when things get to a critical mass and tipping point.

Is it better to be principled or is it better to be a “realist” is what you’re asking. What’s the point of voting if you aren’t voting for your values and beliefs?

Should I vote for Kerry if I’m against all the policies that he stands for? The same policies that Bush represents. You can choose one pro-war, pro-Patriot Act, pro-NAFTA and corporate globalization candidate or the other. You have the illusion of choice.

You might as well vote based on who you’d like to have a beer with or whatever party your daddy always voted for.

The only reason 3rd parties aren’t “viable” is beacuse we don’t live in a Democracy, we live in a Plutocracy. We are governed by the rich for the rich. Of the Halliburtons, for the Duponts by the GE’s.

Nader’s policies are popular among the population and that’s why he can’t be allowed to be a part of the debate or a “viable” choice . Ending the war in 04 wasn’t a “viable” option, the ruling elites and gate keepers in the corporate media they own decide the parameters of the debate.

“Liberal” media outlets like NBC and MSNBC, CSNBC are owned by GE. GE is a war profiteer so don’t expect to see the peace movement represented in the debate. They have conflicts of interets because of their military contracts and interests in the nuclear industry.

GE moved jobs overseas so they have an interest in trade policies like NAFTA and GATT. They have bipartisan support suprise, suprise. It’s pay to play so their the “decider”.

GE has tax shelters overseas and subsidies at home. Are they going to do a story about how multi-national corporations don’t pay their taxes?

GE is a major polluter. Are they going to investigate themselves or their major advertisers like P&G etc.?

Is ABC going to report on what Disney’s doing???

Wake up and clear the cob webs from your head!!!

says:
08 Feb 2007 at 10:40 pm | #

Green Machine,
Do you honestly think we’d be in Iraq if Al Gore was president? If so, I need some of that “green” your name suggests you’re smoking.

More importantly, do you think Samual Alito and/or John Roberts would be on the Supreme Court?

How about no movement (at least negotiations) towards recognizing the perils of global warming? Do you think it would be that way with President Gore?

You think Brownie would have been the head guy at FEMA?

What about Guantanamo? You think that would have been the moral and public relations disaster it’s been?

What about No Child Left Behind? How ‘bout the explosion of un-proven, under-qualified, sometimes corrupt charter schools that have blossomed under Bushie’s reign? What about subsidizing Catholic and private schools through vouchers? You think Gore would have supported that mess?

What about the bankruptcy bill, the energy bill, the new Medicare prescription drug handout to big Pharma? Do you think those would have been signed into law under Gore?

What about tax cuts (and no, this is not a “talking point” that can be dismissed) that have overwhelmingly been tilted in the favor of those that need tax relief the least?

What about health insurance premiums increasing over 50% since 2000 without a single thing being done to address it?

Just as you did, I could go on and on and on. One last one--because this is a tangible way that Democrats and Republicans differ. Do you think a President Gore signs into a law that doubles the interest rates for college loans AND makes the biggest cut in history to the college loan program?

When you say that voting for Democrats and voting for Republicans is the same, you take the easy way out. Sure, it sounds good at a party with people that don’t know shit about politics or government, but it’s far from a fair statement.

I agree with your assessments of some problems facing the country--especially with regard to the ever-consolidating, corporate media being out of touch with reality. I never allow the old “Liberal media myth” to go unchallenged.

That said, I still don’t believe supporting Nader is doing anything but helping to put more neocons in office. Once again, it sounds like you’re doing something couragous, but in reality, it’s a tad bit selfish.

If Ralph Nader was serious about becoming president he should run in the Democratic primary. First of all, millions more Americans would hear his platform (and like a lot of it--especially his consumer advocacy ideas). He’d be in a million TELEVISED debates that otherwise (rightly or wrongly) he’d have been excluded from when running as a 3rd party candidate.

What if every disgruntled Conservative would have left the Republican Party every time they didn’t agree with the party leadership? They would have never won an election in the past 20 years. Instead, they (Christian Conservatives) took control of “their” party. And no, I’m not comparing Nader supporters to right-wing wackos, but their positions on the political spectrum have similarities. Nader supporters--coupled with Liberal Democrats-- could have the same clout inside the Democratic party as the wingers have in the Republican. Somehow, I’d like to think we’d do a better job than they’ve done, but I’ll save that for another post. I’m done!

Green Machine says:
09 Feb 2007 at 02:42 am | #

ohiocrat, I appreciate the fact that you took the time and energy to write such a detailed response. I look forward to responding. It would help me know where to begin if you would answer my first question about the 2000 election.

Do you believe that Al Gore won the election or not? Yes or No?

says:
09 Feb 2007 at 11:43 am | #

Green Machine,
I voted for Gore, he got more popular votes than Bush, and he should have been the winner of Florida if you honestly judge the intent of the voters. But, no, he didn’t “win” the election because the Supreme Court ruled against him.

And, unlike the Conservatives who disregard court rulings that don’t go in their favor (Terri Schiavo anyone), most Gore supporters have long since moved on and have focused on what they can do here and now. Shit, even Gore himself has long since moved on from the 2000 debacle.

I’m not sure what you want me to say about 2000. Yes, I think Al Gore “won” the election, but in reality, that’s not how it was interpreted by the Supreme Court. What else are people suppossed to do other than not let the next election be close enough where it can be “stolen.”

Green Machine says:
09 Feb 2007 at 05:40 pm | #

ohiocrat, the reason I asked if you thought Al Bore won or not is because he did win. Gore and the Democrats didn’t fight for it. They moved on before it was over. You can read CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin’s book “Too Close to Call” for documentation on this.

The Congressional Black Cacus couldn’t find one Democratic Senator to back their efforts to stand up for all those disenfranchised voters. (Most of whom were African Americans.)

I know what Scalia and the Supreme Court did was BS, but why didn’t the Democrats expose them. Scalia’s son Eugene got a job with the administration and so did Rheinquists daughter. The Republicans would’ve screemed bloody murder if it had been the other way around.

Sandra Day O’Conner was overheard at a cocktail party saying “this is terrible” and being visibly upset after it was first called for Gore. There were two reputable papers that confirmed that there were several witnesses to this.

Why didn’t the Democrats investigate and bring charges against those that broke the law and committed treason? Seriously? It seems as if they were complicit.

Now let’s go to your backyard in 2004. Once again the Democrats let the GOP disenfranchise tens of thousands of African Americans. Edwards said they’d demand that every vote be counted right before Kerry conceded.

Kerry was aware of the problems at the time and later admitted to Mark Crispin Miller that he now believes it may have been stolen, but won’t say anything because people might say he has “sour grapes”. This is our country we’re taking about! (Not a Skull & Bones coffin party.)

Did the Democrats investigate and call for a recount? No! The Green and Libertarian parties (that you have such contempt for) did. The candidates that you think are second class citizens launched an investigation and uncovered a systematic pattern. Then John Conyers stepped up and wrote his report “What went wrong in Ohio” without real support from his party.

There were all kinds of problems with the recount. About a week ago two people were convicted for illegalities in the recount.

Why vote for a party that isn’t concerned with making sure your vote gets counted? There was a time when the Democrats kept black people from voting in the South. (Until 1964) Why have they allowed private partisan companies to count our votes? Why haven’t they pursued Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, Ken Blackwell and the others involved these illegal activities?

The Green party candidate Dr. Bob Fitrakis and his team have been doing all the work that the Democrats should be doing. The Democrats have the resources, but not the will.

In fact Fitrakis and investigative reporter Harvey Wasserman have a book signing in Columbus this weekend. Their book “What Happened in Ohio” is the most up to date and indepth report documenting this theft.

I almost laughed when I saw your response was we just “need to not let the next election be close enough where it can be “stolen"." What’s sad is it’s the same response from the Democratic party leadership and part time progressive Sherrod Brown. No investigations, charges, paper trials, international election observers or making it an issue. That’s pathetic!!!

As for your silly speculation game. Stay tuned, I’ll be back!!! Green Party, Peace Party!!!

Green Machine says:
11 Feb 2007 at 05:36 pm | #

ohiocrat, if really you want us to speculate about what Gore would’ve done as President, the best way is to look at past performance.

What the Clinton-Gore adminisration did:

1. Promoted welfare reform that ended the federal safety net and put many children at risk.

2. Lobbied, with big business, NAFTA and GATT into law against labor, consumer, environmental and human-rights groups.

3. Expanded corporate welfare programs.

4. Approved dozens of giant mergers in the chemical, oil, drug, defense, agribusiness, media, HMO, hospital, auto, banking, and other financial institutions.

5. Encouraged larger military weapons exports by the private munitions companies using taxpayer subsidies and approved many costly, and redundent weapons programs.

6. Supported a bloated military budget, post-Soviet Union, driven more by defense industry greed than national defense needs.

7. Failed to enforce laws against corporate crime, fraud and abuse.

8. Gave away to corporations massive taxpayers assets in natural resources, scientific, health, space, and other R&D areas.

9. Bailed out, with taxpayer billions, reckless governments and oligarchies through the IMF.

10. Opened up large areas of Northern Alaska for oil and gas drilling and supported the destruction by coal companies of mountaintops in Appalachia.

11. Gave the auto companies an eight-year holiday from higher fuel efficiency and auto saftey standards.

12. Signed legislation eroding civil liberties and produced a record that commentators called �abysmal.�

13. Under-enforced the civil rights laws while orating for them.

14. Backed large corporate prison expansions and failed to address discrimatory patterns of criminal justice enforcement.

15. Supported dictatorships and oligarchies that have suppressed their people.

16. Continued the deep sleep of the regulatory agencies at the expense of health, saftey and economic assets of consumers and workers.

17. Favored big agribusiness over the family farmer.

18. Subsidized and gave the biotechnology industry insulation from regulation.

19. Raised large amounts of money from almost every corporate interest and let big money continue to nullify honest elections.

20. Opposed ways and means to facilitate consumers, workers, taxpayers, and investors banding together for self-defense.

Green Machine says:
12 Feb 2007 at 04:42 pm | #

ohiocrat, you’re pretty quite now. You haven’t cut and run have you?

“I agree with your assessments of some problems facing the country--especially with regard to the ever-consolidating, corporate media being out of touch with reality. I never allow the old ?Liberal media myth? to go unchallenged.”

Do you think Clinton and the Democratic party are going to do anything about it at all. Look at the record above. Why didn’t the Democrats try to block those judges?

“I still don?t believe supporting Nader is doing anything but helping to put more neocons in office. Once again, it sounds like you?re doing something couragous, but in reality, it?s a tad bit selfish.”

ohiocrat, even William Saffire the former conservative columnists for the NY Times called Kerry the newest NeoCon. Clinton and Gore’s running mate Joe Lieberman certainly qualify as NeoCons too don’t forget.

It’s easy for Gore to be vocal about climate change now that it’s too late for him to affect policy. He was so weak on the campaign trial, he couldn’t landslide a bumbling Governor from Texas with a horrible record.

It’s also too late for Kerry to be against the war. Sorry, but the Democrats shut out the peace movement. They can’t even muster a non-binding resolution against the war, or censure, much less impeachment against the most impeachable resident in our nations history.

“If Ralph Nader was serious about becoming president he should run in the Democratic primary.”

The political bigotry that says that 3rd party candidates are second class citizens and Democrats are entitled to our votes is unAmerican, selfish and foolish nonsense.

Yes, “millions more Americans would hear his platform (and like a lot of it--especially his consumer advocacy ideas).”

I like your honesty there!

“He?d be in a million TELEVISED debates that otherwise (rightly or wrongly) he?d have been excluded from when running as a 3rd party candidate.”

First of all their aren’t “a million TELEVISED debates”. Second, the debates are controlled by a corporation that is owned by the Democrats and the Republicans.

These charades are largely scripted. The candidates choose who the media outlets are, how many debates they’ll have and they protectively immitate each other on major issues like Iraq, the Patriot Act etc. which takes them off of the table. We get no choice. Hillary Clinton refused to debate her Democratic opponents, a strong Green named Howie Hawkins and very reluctanly debated her Republican opponent only once.

What kind of “Democracy” allows for that? None. No real Democracy would allow this or pretend that two parties that agree on so much could represent 300 million Americans. What a joke! Imagine if the Democrats and the Whigs had been able to stifle the radical abolitionists party. Imagine if big business gets to stifle small innovaters how we lose out. 3rd parties have always brought the major innovations and positive changes in this country only to have one of the major corporate parties take the issue when it gets to critical mass. Then we’re supposed to cheer for the status quo paarties?

“I?m not comparing Nader supporters to right-wing wackos, but their positions on the political spectrum have similarities.”

Please provide an example for your ridiculous statement!

says:
12 Feb 2007 at 11:38 pm | #

Green Machine,
I’ll take the bait. I wasn’t going to respond to post #10 since in was clearly a paste and post from somewhere other than your own thoughts. But, since you actually put some thought into the last post, I’ll respond in kind.

I’m not sure what you are bitching about. No one (especially me) said that 3rd parties shouldn’t be allowed, or even encouraged. But, we don’t live in a vaccum. Realize that some 3rd party candidates are going to help elect the candidate furthest from their political stance. Once again, it’s pretty clear that in all honesty, most Nader supporters would have rather had Gore in office than King George. If I’m mistaken, I’m sure you’ll let me know.

I’m not sure what you don’t understand about my comment that read: “I’m not comparing Nader supporters to right-wing wackos, but their positions on the political spectrum have similarities.”

Right wing wackos occupy the far right on the political spectrum. Many Nader supporters occupy the far left on the political spectrum. Enough said. They are equi-distance from the middle.

Why I said that is because Naderites (and all Democrats, too) could learn from the wing-nuts. They didn’t take their ball and go home when they lost primary after primary. No, they fought harder and were willing to start at the local level before broadening their aspirations. And, you know what, pretty soon they were in charge of the Republican Party. For all of their faults (and there are too many to mention) the wingnutery should be commended for their persistance.

Bill Clinton is my favorite politican of at least the past 25 years. His ability to outwork and outthink his political rivals earn reluctant admiration from even his biggest critics. His ability to examine, comprehend, and then easily explain any issue to the American people is amazing--especially when compared to Bush or Nader. I’m sorry, but there is really no disputing that.

That said, I disagree with Clinton on many key issues. And that’s the point. No matter who you vote for, who you give money to, or who you campaign for, hopefully you will not agree with that person on every single issue. How boring politics would be if that were the case.

Need proof? How obnoxious is it that every Bush supporter almost automatically and instictivly takes his stance on global warming and/or fuel efficiency and the broader issue of the environment. Even though most Bush supporters probably don’t know shit about the issues at hand, they are willing to take “W’s” word on it. Is that how you are with the Greens and Nader, or are you willing to call them out when you disagree?

Looking back, I would not support Clinton’s NAFTA stance. Shit, I’m not sure Clinton would support Clinton’s NAFTA stance. But when you are the most powerful man in the world for 8 years, you are bound to make decisions that don’t appeal to everyone--even your supporters. I like to look at the “big” picture. Did the person in question help more people than he or she hurt? Did their accomplishments outweigh their shortcomings/disappointments. Did they leave the country in better shape than they found it?

Using that criteria, Bill Clinton had a more successful presidency (IMHO) than Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. Once again, was he perfect and was he Liberal enough (for you or me)on all of his positions? Of course not, but he got a whole hell of a lot more accomplished than his predecessors and his successor. To me, that’s what’s important. It seems you’d rather keep your “political integrity” than actually get anything done.

For what it’s worth, I’m leaning towards supporting John Edwards this time around. Will I like everything he says or advocates? No, but on the issues that are most important to me (anything having to do with sustaining the middle class) he’s the candidate that resonates the most with me. Who knows, maybe 10 years from now you can compile another list. Only this time I hope it’s a listing of all of Edwards’ shortcomings in office.

Green Machine says:
13 Feb 2007 at 03:25 am | #

ohiocrat, I meant to add that #10 is from Ralph Nader’s book “Crashing the Party”, sorry. You didn’t respond to my post before that about the elections. Care to comment?

“It�s pretty clear that in all honesty, most Nader supporters would have rather had Gore in office than King George.”

You falsely blame Nader for Gore not taking office when you know Gore won the election and the Democrats rolled over. Nader got most of his votes in Florida from Republicans, Independents and people that wouldn’t have otherwise voted according to Democratic pollsters.

Gore stole many votes from Nader because people liked Nader and his polocies better but were afraid of Bush because they know our elections are rigged. The same thing happened with Kerry in 04. Gore didn’t work for those votes he took them for granted and let the GOP steal them.

“Right wing wackos occupy the far right on the political spectrum.”

What exactly is a right wing wacko? I think Hillary Clinton fits the profile. She’s to the right of Nixon.

“Many Nader supporters occupy the far left on the political spectrum. Enough said.”

I guess we must be left wing wackos. Which of Ralph Nader and the Green party’s policies are whacko?

“They are equi-distance from the middle.”

There is no middle between the prowar demohawks and the prowar Republicans. Look at the polls, they are the minority. Wacko warhawks are bipartisan. Are you one?

Big money owns the Republicans and Democrats. Nader is not for sale, that’s why he’s not allowed to play ball in the debates. The ball is owned by the Republicrats and the playground was built by Halliburton and will be covered by GE.

Nader would wipe Bill Clinton off the floor in a debate because he’s right on all the issues.Did you look at post #9? Clinton’s record sucks. There’s no way Clinton would ever debate Nader. Not a chance.

He and Hillary are articulate NeoCons. Hillary just keeps moving further to the right and the media will scream she’s a liberal and a moderate that’s in the middle. She’s not in the middle. They still support NAFTA.

Simply getting things like NAFTA, the Patriot Act, and the war done isn’t more important than “political integrity”. If you’re in a ditch and you keep digging you could say you’re “accomplishing” something, but that doesn’t mean it is helping us.

I do agree with Nader and the Greens on all the issues. End the war, universal health care, clean elections, tax relief for working people, end corporate welfare, and living wages.

That would sure help build the middle class. I agree with Nader’s analysis of the Clinton-Gore record. You should read it again. You are niave in thinking the Democrats can be reformed and it’s not the wacko’s that you’re thinking of that really control the Republicans. It’s the same ones that control Clinton, Kerry and the other puppets.

Nader and the Greens will stick with these issues and the Democrats will continue to sell out to corporations and get pulled further to the right.

Edwards was late on ending his support for the war. He’s not very good on foriegn policy when it comes to Israel and Palestine etc. He needs to talk about corporate crime, fraud and abuse much more. Anybodies better than Clinton.

says:
13 Feb 2007 at 01:45 pm | #

Green Machine,
How late do you stay up man? Anyway, I agree with your statement that read: “I do agree with Nader and the Greens on all the issues. End the war, universal health care, clean elections, tax relief for working people, end corporate welfare, and living wages.”

Believe it or not, I agree with all of these stances too. I just think we have much more of a chance of accomplishing these by getting Democrats (progressive ones at that) elected than we do by supporting a 3rd party that has almost no chance of winning a major office. That’s the reality of the situation.

For example, I wish Joe Lieberman would have gotten his ass kicked in his general election battle with Ned Lamont. I’m sure you do too. But what do you want those evil Democrats to do? They outed Lieberman in the primary only to see him defect and win reelection anyway. A 3rd party candidate on the left would have only made his victory more dicisive. Do you realize that, or am I dealing with someone that only deals in theory rather than in reality?

Once again, I don’t know how I can say this any more clearly. Until our system is changed to a European/Isreali style democracy where there are multiple parties, supporting 3rd party candidates will only help the party furthest from your own beliefs. That does not mean that you will have no positive effect on the political system, but it does mean that you will not win elections. And, you will help your political enemies win more elections.

What if you are right that Gore stole votes away from Nader? Let’s say those 3-5% of voters had voted for Nader. Then what? Bush would have even more of a mandate than he already claimed he had. Would he have overreached even more than he already has? Probably.

I know it sucks to admit that the party you support has no realistic chance of winning elections. Now you know how it felt to be a Bengals fan for the entire decade of the 1990’s. But that’s the reality. You can push and lobby and bitch your way to change within the party most representing your views (like the Daily-kossacks have done in the Democratic party by helping to elect guys like Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, and James Webb) or you can always be on the outside looking in.

To me, I’d rather have a voice in the process. That’s all I’m saying.

Green Machine says:
13 Feb 2007 at 03:41 pm | #

ohiocrat, I find it easy to believe that you support all those issues. I bet most of the base of the party does too. Guess what, the leadership of the party doesn’t care what you or its base thinks at all. All that matters is what the big corporate doners care about. The same doners that give to the Republicans.

The Democratic party doesn’t have to do anything for unions except pay lipservice. The can pass NAFTA and the unions still throw away their support on a party that obviously doesn’t support unions. We’ve seen what happend because of NAFTA, but the Democrats still support CAFTA and so called free trade.

Same thing goes for African Americans. Clinton/Gore “under-enforced the civil rights laws while orating for them. and “backed large corporate prison expansions and failed to address discrimatory patterns of criminal justice enforcement”. African Americans still throw their votes away on a party that won’t make sure their votes even get counted.

The system is rigged. Third parties can’t win because your party keeps it rigged. It’s all about the money. Clinton and Kerry are never going to do anything about that because they are part of the system. That’s why they support Bush’s policies, they just think they’d do a better job of implementing them.

You vote for candidates and a party that doesn’t support the issues that I listed above. Issues you say you support. You think throwing your vote to them is going to make them do the right thing for a change? Their playing you for a chump.

During the time of slavery both the Democrats and Whigs said nows not the time for change. It took a third party to push abolition through. You have to take a stand and refuse to vote for candidates that support the war if you want to end it. Voting for Hillary Clinton and then saying you’re oppossed to the war means nothing. You just voted for it despite what you say.

Voting the lesser evil, is still voting for evil. Vote for candidates you believe in and represent the issues you support. Nader said “power is only responsive when it is insecure”. Fredrick Douglas said “power concedes nothing without a demand”.

You make no demands so you get taken everytime. The only thing you stand for is blind allegiance to a party that doesn’t represent the issues you support. You don’t need to abandon your party, they abandoned you two decades agao.

Until you admit that we need serious political reform and start to work on it, you will continue to see the Democrats lose to the worst of the Republicans and try to move to the right of them.

The Democrats can’t continue to run on “anybody but Bush” and “he’s not as bad as the other guy”. We deserve real representation. Greens are not on the fringe, we just aren’t allowed to have a voice and be a part of the debate. The whole system would change if we were. That’s why we aren’t and things get worse every four years.

You’re a Green without any moral courage. That’s all a part time progressive Democrat is. You have to draw a line somewhere and take a stand or follow Hillary into Iran. She’s saying we need to attack Iran, she refuses to take responsibilty and apologies for Iraq. Wake up and look in the mirror. When you vote for her you’re saying the same thing!

Hot News!

Contact Us

Events

Thursday, February 08, 2007