... he's going to do it again.
Good lord ...
Friggin’ Nader 26
-
Posted 7:45 PM on 4 Feb 2007
by David Roberts -
Posted in
Read More About
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
TokyoTom Posted 5:59 pm
04 Feb 2007
Permalink
bhurley Posted 9:25 pm
04 Feb 2007
Permalink
Jones Posted 10:36 pm
04 Feb 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:33 pm
04 Feb 2007
Push real energy policy and an immediate Murtha style redeployment in Iraq, or who knows what kind of corporatista regime will be installed. Remember the movie "Hacking Democracy", we need every vote we can get to beat Diebold.
Cheney and Kristol want to invade Iran now, to get rid of the pall over the neocon agenda that Iraq has become. Maybe Iran will yield to "shock and awe"?
They figure it's worth a shot, Halliburton cannot keep its growth rate going without another round of invasion, occupation, and nation building. Only throuigh continuous war can peace be maintained!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Icelander Posted 12:39 am
05 Feb 2007
If Nader wants to effect national politics, he should pick a Democratic candidate and throw his support and the support of the Green party behind that person. In primaries, especially in New Hampshire and Iowa, a small group of vocal proponents can make or break a candidate.
Besides, Dems are still angry about 2000. Nader doesn't stand a chance.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:44 am
05 Feb 2007
"If one man--an intelligent, reasonable one at that--can send the US down a path of unjustified war and generalized ignorance, just by exercising his constitutional rights, doesn't that mean it's the constitution that's wrong? I understand your frustration, but it does no good to blame the symptom and ignore the disease."
I believe we have to work with the Constitution we have, not the one we want. It is fine to discuss how we might improve the election process, but major changes will demand years of debate and perhaps decades of discussion by the state legislatures that will have to approve the changes. It is also possible that such a major overhaul could lead to a Constitutional Convention that will be largely controlled by religious fundametalists and corporations. Do we really want to open that can of worms? Moving from our current system to a national runoff or some form of parlimentary system will not be simple.
Progressives should stop worrying about modifying the Constitution amd focus on learning how to get their message out and overcome funding issues. This is the system we live under. Time to stop whining about it and learn how to play the game.
Regarding Ralph Nader, I believe he wants the system to fail and bring on a political crisis in this nation. He is a dangerous radical. If he truly wants to improve matters, he would use his intelligence and other resources to either achieve power though one of the current political parties or support progressive candidates. He knows very well that running as a third-part candidate helps Republicans win.
Why doesn't he participate in the Democratic Primary?
I think he knows he will lose. He is not able to persuade America to vote for him. He unwilling to modify his positions. He is not interested in finding a way to communicate with or even relate to the average voter. He is stubborn and arrogant. By not runnning as a Democrat, he does not have to take responsibility for his failure... he can blame the system.
Fellow progressives, please ignore Nader and focus on reshaping the Democratic Party. I think -- perhaps someone can confirm this -- most new political parties in the United States have emerged from earlier parties. The system we live under does not permit one to form out of thin air.
Forward!
Permalink
haveasliceofpi Posted 4:18 am
05 Feb 2007
There is no such thing as "merely" a good thing
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:17 am
05 Feb 2007
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:22 am
05 Feb 2007
Most of their current positions are to the right of Richard Nixon. The intellectual content of debate in the Democratic Party is non-existent (especially in the fields of energy and foreign policy which is what I watch) . The Party sucks energy and money from activists and gives little in return.The Dems bitch about Nader, bitch about the Republicans, but what do they stand for? It's just image and opportunism, as far as I can tell. At least Nader and the Republicans have a set of values and core beliefs.
The problem for the Democratic Party is that they will probably win big in 2008, just in time to face the multitude of problems that President Bush has unleashed: Iraq, economic meltdown, declining U.S. prestige. Without ideas, they won't have a strategy. Without values, they won't be able to evoke support in times of trouble.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:35 am
05 Feb 2007
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:54 am
05 Feb 2007
I think the Electoral College serves a valuable purpose by moderating the influence of larger (by population) states. I would like to remind everyone that we live in a union of semi-independent states. The individual states have rights and one role of the Electoral College is to ensure that the smaller states are not neglected.
Changing the U.S. Constitution so Presidential elections always reflect the popular vote will...
Increase the influence of California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Georgia, each currently having only one electoral vote per about 630-690 thousand people.
Decrease the influence of Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, and Wyoming, each currently having one electoral vote per about 170-330 thousand people.
Is this a good trade-off? I don't know the answer, but I would like an answer if we are going to discuss abolishing the Electoral College system.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:04 am
05 Feb 2007
I fear that efforts to change a political system as a means to saving the biosphere are doomed to failure. By the time environmentalists manage to change not only the politcal system in the United States, but also throughout South America, Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia -- so our leadership perflectly reflects the views of the majority of educated and curious peoples in various nations -- our planet will be a charred cinder.
I'm not saying this out of pessimism. I just wonder whether it is a good place to invest scarce resources.
Forward!
Permalink
statusquobuster Posted 8:09 am
05 Feb 2007
Joel S. Hirschhorn
It's hard to avoid labels. I am a proud political dissident. Could the majority of Americans be dissidents? Think of the two-thirds of the country that believe the nation is on the wrong track, the 52 percent that believe politicians are dishonest, the majority that do not vote, and the vast majority that think of themselves as centrists, libertarians, moderates or independents, rather than liberals, Democrats, conservatives or Republicans. And definitely think of the many thousands of Americans out in the streets in recent months to protest the Iraq war, and the larger numbers reading Internet sites to sidestep the mainstream corporate media. Dissidents exist because placing faith in mainstream politicians is as delusional as George W. Bush believing that sending more American soldiers into the Iraq cauldron is justified. It flies in the face of reality, experience and sanity.
The great paradox is that so many people still desperately place faith in politicians. It's as if through magic or divine intervention some super-honest, non-corruptible, brilliant and charming Democrat or Republican can reform the system. And make us feel good again, restore quality to American democracy, and fight economic inequality by rejecting and stomping on all the evil corporate and other special interests that have robbed we the people of our country. Someone that will actually put the interests of working- and middle-class Americans above those of rich and powerful elites.
So what should American dissidents put their faith in?
I have long sought the answer to that question to avoid existential depression and despair. And also to avoid doing what most Americans do to dull the pain: compulsive and distractive consumerism. This is just fine with mainstream politicians. Debt-ridden consumers are so much easier to govern than active dissidents. As George W. Bush has preached on many occasions, neo-patriotism equates to personal borrowing, spending, shopping and consumption.
Other than protesting, I have arrived at two things worth putting my political faith in. And faith is exactly the right word. They require devotion and commitment as an act of faith. There is no way to prove that they will materialize or, if they did, that they would deliver all that is needed. Yet, to keep putting faith in glib, power-hungry politicians is plain nuts, based strictly on actual history.
My first answer is third parties. At critical times in American history third parties have come to the rescue and greatly improved our nation. We need more political competition. We need some third party to become competitive to Democrats and Republicans in local, state and federal elections. Some party that does not advocate fractious issues that divide, but rather presents a set of principles that bring American dissenters together to collectively pursue substantial changes in our political and governmental system.
Yet, third parties have not done well in recent decades, despite having highly committed members, albeit in relatively small numbers. The two-party duopoly has convinced most people to think of votes for third-party candidates as wasted. And so in every election many - and perhaps most - voters end up voting for the lesser evil Democrat or Republican, and eventually regretting it. Many others reject placebo voting. They have properly lost political faith.
My second answer is less understood and just as undermined and sullied by the two-party duopoly and other status quo defenders. It is to compel Congress to obey Article V of the Constitution that says it "shall call a convention for proposing Amendments" if two-thirds of state legislatures apply for one. That numeric requirement is the ONLY constitutional requirement for an Article V convention. Now, here is an absolute truthful fact. Applications have been submitted from 50 states - actually over 500 applications. An official with The John Birch Society - one of the nations's far, far right-wing groups - when confronted with that fact said: "had we ever reached the requisite number of state applications, a convention would indeed have been called." I could not believe that this anti-government, pro-constitution group could actually have such faith in Congress. Or was that just a fanciful excuse for opposing a convention?
Still, we must ask: Why has Congress not called an Article V convention? The answer is simple.
Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have not wanted to share the constitutional power to propose amendments with the states. Institutionally, Congress has defied Article V to keep power. As Russell L. Caplan noted in Constitutional Brinkmanship: "Congress has never kept regular track of incoming convention applications, and there exists no official catalogue of the applications adopted by the states since 1789." Researchers have had to dig through many documents to build an inventory of state applications (see http://www.article5.org).
While Congress has acted surreptitiously, many people and organizations on the left and right have steadfastly and openly opposed an Article V convention. What do they have in common with Congress? They want to maintain the status quo that gives them ample opportunities to control government. For decades they have successfully implanted fear into the public consciousness. They especially like to talk about a "runaway convention," able to overturn our Constitution, destroy our democracy, and rob us of our civil liberties and freedoms.
Indeed, at a 1998 House hearing on a bill to amend the Constitution, Republican Charles T. Canady said: "The specter of a `runaway convention' seems to have been accepted by many as a convincing political argument." In 1995, when both houses of the Virginia legislature passed a resolution to limit Article V conventions, one reason cited was "many states are reluctant to ask Congress to call a national convention for fear of creating a `runaway convention' that might undermine the delicate constitutional framework the forefathers worked so hard to establish."
Yet some people see the truth. Writing in the Wall Street Journal in 1997, Roger Pilon of the libertarian CATO Institute made these salient points about an Article V convention: "With Nebraska as the only state with a unicameral legislature, it takes majorities in 75 of the 99 state legislative bodies in America to ratify any change in the Constitution. Looked at from the other direction, it takes only 13 such bodies to block any change. ...Are we really to believe that a runaway convention could get its schemes past the public? Are there not 13 bodies in this land that would rise to block all but the most popular of proposals? ...By overwhelming majorities, averaging 75 percent, Americans of every creed and color have come to understand that there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that has resulted, under modern conditions, in our being ruled year in and year out by a class of professional politicians. That situation is neither healthy nor right in a limited, constitutional democracy. Fortunately, the Framers provided a way to do something about it, a way to make substantial change while ensuring that our fundamental principles remain in place."
And Wendell Cox, speaking before the right wing American Legislative Exchange Council in 1995, asserted that "concerns about a `runaway' convention are entirely unfounded." At the conservative Heritage Foundation James L. Gattuso concluded in 1988 that "there are numerous political and restraints which make it virtually impossible for a `runaway' convention to rewrite the Constitution against the wishes of the American people."
The Framers gave us the Article V convention option because they anticipated that the federal government could become too powerful or just plain incompetent and ineffective. Dissidents know this has happened. The government has already been hijacked by all kinds of moneyed special interests and corrupt politicians. An Article V convention is like a fourth, temporary branch of the federal government - except that it is really a production of the states aimed at improving the federal Constitution. With enormous public and media attention its delegates would be far more difficult to corrupt by special interests.
What must be emphasized is that an Article V convention would have NO power to change the Constitution or do anything else other than to propose amendments that would have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
John de Herrera recently summed it up nicely: "Americans have been conditioned like Pavlov's dog to fear a convention because of what might happen--that it would be some kind of Pandora's box. But what the newspapers and politicians failed to mention is the ratification process. They only told us half the truth, and as the late great Ben Franklin mentioned, half the truth is often a great lie."
All kinds of people say totally stupid and wrong things to keep the public afraid of a convention. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, a Democrat, wrote in 1986 that "one of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights." Wait a second! An Article V convention can only make PROPOSALS.
In 1987 arch-conservative Phyllis Schlafly said: "If a constitutional Convention can change our structure of government as defined in Articles I, II, and III, it can also change the Article V requirement that three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify any changes. The Convention of 1787 reduced the number of states required to ratify a change from 100% of the states to 75%, and a Convention in the 1980s could `follow their example' and reduce it further, to 66%, or 60%, or even 51%." Just that one stubborn problem: An Article V convention can only make PROPOSALS!
On the positive side is how former Attorney General Griffin Bell saw things: "Those who wring their hands over the prospects of a convention run the risk of exposing their elitism, implying that the average citizen cannot be trusted." This resonates with me. As certain as the law of gravity is, is that elitist politicians cannot be trusted.
Another favorable view was that "the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others [Congress] not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse." Abraham Lincoln said that in his first inaugural address.
It comes to this: Be a proud dissident. Find a third party to believe in. Take a good look at some new efforts: the Centrist Party (http://www.uscentrist.org), the Populist Party of America (http://www.populistamerica.com), and the Whig Party (http://www.thephoenixchronicles.org). Join the movement to make Congress obey the Constitution and call an Article V convention that could safely re-energize and engage Americans politically. The only thing to fear is that bipartisan lies about an Article V convention will triumph. The job of making American democracy is not done. Doing what our Founders anticipated we would have to do, through a convention, is not the same as undoing what they did. They had faith in us.
Thomas Jefferson was correct. A free people have the right to alter or amend their government when they see fit. Everyone believes in freedom, yet too many fall victim to phony political faith healers. Dissidents keep the faith and want to practice freedom themselves. Just like the people who created our nation.
[Check out the author's new book: http://www.delusionaldemocracy.com, and for more information on fighting for an Article V convention contact him at articlev at gmail at the usual dot com.]
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 9:34 am
05 Feb 2007
Notice how Al Gore started saying interesting things as soon as he had given up on electoral politics.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 9:54 am
05 Feb 2007
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
TheSSG Posted 5:37 am
06 Feb 2007
THIS IS NOT A TWO PARTY GOVERNMENT BY LAW. In practice, it is, but it doesn't have to be.
That Article V post is quite interesting, I think it could gain some REAL traction were someone as prominent as Ralph Nader to begin publically supporting it. I bet he could stitch together an unholy Team of public figures (Al Gore, Dan Rather, or anyone else who's a bit vocal about the current state of the US).
Permalink
Pandu Posted 6:00 am
06 Feb 2007
The problem is that the U.S. Constitution allows for more than two parties but does not establish a system where more than two viable parties can compete and have the most favored one win in most cases.
That problem could be corrected by a ranking system whereby a voter could register relative preference for each of the candidates. A counter-intuitive system, but still better than the present one, would be casting a vote against the person most disliked.
The trouble is that there are a lot of states would lose influence by changing the system. Even if a change would help the country as a whole, individual states that would lose influence would almost certainly be against it. So we appear to be stuck with the present system.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:52 am
06 Feb 2007
"The problem is that the U.S. Constitution allows for more than two parties but does not establish a system where more than two viable parties can compete and have the most favored one win in most cases."
In my opinion, our primary system permits more than two parties to compete in any given election... if the other parties would make an effort to exploit it. There is very low turn-out for primaries. Progressives must change this. Furthermore, very few incumbants actually face a primary opponent. If you have the courage to get your name on the ballot, you will receieve attention by having the nerve to run against an incumbant in the primary.
There is constant babble about how the Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same party (I disagree) and that the Democrats and Republicans do not reflect America's values.
Well... if you are essentially liberal and do not believe your Democratic representative does not support your values, support an alternative candidate in the Democratic primary. If your candidate wins, great. If he or she loses, you will have a chance to vote for the next-best candidate in the main election. There is no throwing away your vote or enabling the other guy to win by voting for who you really want to see in office.
If you are conservative and do not feel Republicans represent your views... follow the same method. If you are an environmentalist, get a pro-environment Republican into the primary. Or get YOUR name on the ballot.
Instead of wasting time trying to fight "the system" and demanding Constitutional changes that will require decades to ratify, CONTACT YOUR LOCAL ELECTION BOARD AND LEARN HOW GET ALTERNATIVE CANDIDATES ONTO PRIMARY BALLOTS. Take on the incumbants you despise so much. Get your own name on the ballot if no one else has the courage to confront an incumbant who is steering America in the wrong direction.
How many of you recently voted in a primary or attended a caucus? How many of you supported a "true" Democrat or "true" Republican in that primary or caucus?
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:55 am
06 Feb 2007
"Well... if you are essentially liberal and do not believe your Democratic representative does not support your values, support an alternative candidate in the Democratic primary."
I meant...
"Well... if you are essentially liberal and do not believe your Democratic representative supports your values, support an alternative candidate in the Democratic primary.
Forward!
Permalink
foliofiend Posted 7:35 pm
06 Feb 2007
In 2004, Ralph Nader was definitely not going to run for president. When it became obvious that George Bush might not win, Ralph Nader decided to run.
He is another person whom I wish had stepped off the stage while I could still respect him.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 11:21 pm
06 Feb 2007
Personally, although I usually vote D, it is mostly because my nature is to move things to balance (4 planets in libra), and I see the system as giving unfair advantage to the R's. I've never felt like either a D or a R, so registering with one of the parties seems insincere. (Perhaps an aversion to insincerity forces me to keep some distance from politics.) If I'm not a D or R, then I can't really say much about the primaries for these parties. I would rather be less involved with the process than identify myself as a member of a party that does not really represent my ideology.
For now, I'm just saying that it's easy to conceive of better systems, and unfortunate that political realities support unequal representation.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:25 am
08 Feb 2007
"I've never felt like either a D or a R, so registering with one of the parties seems insincere."
This explains some of my confusion regarding independent voters. Wisconsin -- like several other states -- has an open primary. There is no need to register your party affiliation. You simply select a party ballot when you enter the voting booth.
This permits an independent to vote in whichever party primary they choose. Of course, you are restricted in that if you vote in the Democratic presidential primary, you can vote only in the Democratic congressional primaries.
Given that "alternative" parties rarely field more than one candidate for each office, it seems that independents have nothing to lose by voting in the Democratic or Republican primary. And they have the power to put a better Democrat or Republican on the ballot.
Nader should be pushing for open primaries in all states. It will help "alternative" candidates work their way into and change -- hopefully for the better -- the dominant political parties. By not requiring people to register their party affiliation, it will encourage independent to participate in the primary process.
Is Nader doing this doing this?
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:31 am
08 Feb 2007
I've heard there are no good candidates for higher office.
I've heard that both the Democrats and Republicans are too close to big business.
Please tell me...
Why was Ralph Nader a better candidate for President than Al Gore in 2000? Why did you decide to vote for Ralph Nader?
Why is Ralph Nader superior to Hillary Clinton.. and why do YOU think he should run for President only if SHE is the Democrat on the ballot? Is Hillary Clinton worse than ANY Republican?
Is Ralph Nader a better candidate for President than John Edwards?
Forward!
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 9:19 am
08 Feb 2007
But it's on economics issues that the conservativism of the Democrats really shows: the polarization of the U.S. into rich and poor, uncritical globalization and the powerful influence of lobbies. The Democrats have gone along with these trends, though in a less virulent way than the Republicans.
As one example, see the Danny Schechter interview which describes how financial interests have manipulated the credit system with the cooperation of the Democrats.
Dwelling on personalities obscures the larger issues. Many politicians are very aware and idealistic. But as practical politicians, they have to take the system as it is.
Since we are not under the same pressures, we can take the lead in changing the political environment. That's where Nader and third parties come in. They can introduce new ideas, criticize vested interests.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:08 am
20 Feb 2007
There is a special comment for those not in Wisconsin below the next two paragraphs.
Two of the three candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court will advance to the April 3 general election. Expected voter turn out is 10-20%. This is a non-partisan election, no need to declare support for a party. If you feel left out of the political system, here is an opportunity to particpate, vote for who you truly support and/or not feel like you are wasting your vote.
The system for electing Supreme Court Justices in Wisconsin is very similar to how some folks would like to see the U.S. Presidential election organized. Show the nation that the system works. Furthermore, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will be looking at laws regulating activity harmful to the environment. It is a very important election, starting with today's primary. If you don't vote in this primary, but continue to complain about the system being rigged -- especially if you support Ralph Nader -- I will have no interest in your opinion. Here is the chance to participate you are always asking for.
Now for the other Grist people. I am sure there are similar primaries all across the nation. Not necessarily today, but at some time during the year. PARTICIPATE! If you are not willing to paricipate in such primary events, but continue to complain -- especially if you support Ralph Nader -- I have no interest in your opinions regarding flaws in our political system. You apparently have no real desire to participate, but only wish to blame someone else for our nation's problems.
Have a nice day.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:52 am
02 Apr 2007
There is a special comment for those not in Wisconsin below the next two paragraphs.
Tuesday in Spring Election Day in Wisconsin! There are two very different candidates running for State Supreme Court Justice. And results of this election could affect whether laws designed to protect the environment, reduce urban sprawl, et cetera are enforced. If you've complained about being left out of the system, here is a chance for your vote to make a difference. There is very low turnout for Spring elections, so every vote is significant.
There are also numerous local races. I know of one race in which forces interested in preserving agricultural land are facing hostile forces interested in reducing restrictions on development. Every vote will be important for one side or the other and will afffect interpretation of the local land use plan.
Now for the other Grist people. I'm not sure what's happening in your part of the nation right now. But whenever there is an "off-season" election PARTICIPATE! If you are not willing to paricipate in such local, but nevertheless important events, and continue to complain -- especially if you support Ralph Nader -- I have no interest in your opinions regarding flaws in our political system. You apparently have no real desire to participate, but only wish to blame someone else for our nation's problems.
Have a nice day.
Forward!
Permalink