Ralph Nader's endorsement of Edwards sure sounds more like an undorsement of Clinton. Questions:
- Is Nader's endorsal opposition to Clinton more irrelevant to her chances than another Nader presidential run would be, or the same amount of irrelevant?
- Will this cause Edwards to lose support, as Dem primary voters deploy the sensible heuristic that the opposite direction from Nader's political instincts is the best way to go?
- Is Cynthia McKinney pissed about this?
U.S. pushes for compromise in Copenhagen climate talks
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 5:33 am
02 Jan 2008
Hopefully this endorsement will not hurt John Edwards. Yesterday, talking to Wolf Blitzer, he seemed sheepish, saying that on the one hand he gladly accepts the endorsement of any American, but on the other he strongly disagrees with Nader over whether Nader's campaign in 2000 was a good thing (i.e., Nader says it was, Edwards says it was not).
But that kind of statement is not likely to assure any Democrat who reacts viscerally to the mention of Nader's name.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
justlou Posted 6:31 am
02 Jan 2008
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:36 am
02 Jan 2008
As far as depriving Edwards of support is concerned, someone bright enough to vote for Edwards will not care about what Nader has to say. Others probably don't even know who Ralph Nader is or how much damage he did to America by running as an independent in 2000. It was a long time ago. A bunch of voters were only 10 years old at the time.
The !@#$ will hit the fan, however, if Edwards is not selected as the Democratic nominee for President. Considering Nader's behavior in 2000 and his remarks about Clinton, he is probably prepared to run aother spoiler campaign if she is the Democratic nominee. Nader is making me nervous.
Finally, I'm a bit concerned about Dave's remark...
"Will this cause Edwards to lose support, as Dem primary voters deploy the sensible heuristic that the opposite direction from Nader's political instincts is the best way to go?"
Sensible? Why on Earth would it be sensible to avoid supporting someone just because Nader supports the person?! Is that how you make your decisions, Dave? Don't wear seat belts or check products for safety warnings because Nader thinks it is a good idea?
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:44 am
02 Jan 2008
What does that have to do with Nader's political instincts?
grist.org
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 6:52 am
02 Jan 2008
Tired of the Nader bashing.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:14 am
02 Jan 2008
You might want to study Nader's political instincts. Please start here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader
and here...
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/categories/6-Biography
You'll see he played an important role in establishing the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. He is largely responsible for improvements in auto safety that have likely saved the lives of several of your family members, friends, and/or co-workers. He is also interested in rights for disabled people and corporate responsibility.
Really, steering opposite of Nader's political intincts on a regular basis would probably lead to the deaths of hundred of thousands if not millions of innocent people. It would not be a "sensible heuristic".
He's a good and respectable human being. We need more activists like him. I just can't forgive him for taking votes away from Al Gore. And the notion that Democrats and Republicans are the same is absurd. Imagine a world where Al Gore won in 2000. I wish Nader would focus imforming leaders rather than trying to get elected President.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:17 am
02 Jan 2008
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/11-Organizations ...
Peace.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:28 am
02 Jan 2008
Others are, of course, welcome to their own opinions of him, and are welcome to refrain from reading posts in which I call him an ass, of which I fully expect there will be more.
grist.org
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 7:44 am
02 Jan 2008
Handing the presidency to Bush qualifies him as an ass, no matter what he did thirty years earlier.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 8:00 am
02 Jan 2008
Top 10 Ways American Cars Would be Different if Ralph Nader Had Never Been Born
10. Dashboard hibachis
9. Seat belts made of piano wire
8. Windshield replaced with ant farm for kids
7. Strobe headlights make oncoming traffic look like old time movie
6. 50-foot antennas allow you to broadcast while driving
5. Optional front-seat hammocks
4. Wiper fluid reservoir routinely filled with thousand island dressing
3. New York City taxis would be exactly the same
2. The paper Buick
1. Speedometer replaced with electronic voice chanting "Punch it! Punch it!"
(Thanks to this dude for ensuring that anything you vaguely remember from 1986 is still accessible on the web somewhere.)
Permalink
GreenNPR Posted 9:44 am
02 Jan 2008
Ad hominem statement anyone?
In regards to Florda 2000, Nader was popular with many paleo-conservatives because he railed against the abuse of govenrment power as well as corporate power (many paelo-cons also did not like NAFTA)
Also not talked about is that Nader galvanized many of those who have never voted before or those who would have stayed home on election day if Nader wasn't in the race.
I also think it unfair that when people accuse Ralph Nader of "stealing" votes (because we all know that political parties are entitled to a person's vote rolls eyes), they neglect to point out that every single third party in that was on the ballot in Florida could have tipped it to Gore.
Final Count
537 vote difference between Gore and Bush
Republican - 2,912,790
Democratic - 2,912,253
Green - 97,488
Natural Law - 2,281
Reform - 17,484
Libertarian - 16,415
Workers World - 1,804
Constitution -1,371
Socialist - 622
Socialist Workers - 562
Write-in 40
Al From, former Leader of the Democratic Leadership Committee, said in Blueprint Magazine (1/24/01) that according to their own exit polls, Bush would have won by one percentage point in Nader hadn't run.
America badly needs electoral reform like Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation.
http://www.fairvote.org/
Permalink
JMG Posted 10:06 am
02 Jan 2008
1) Gore DID win FL. Using the law in effect at the time ("will of the voter" standard) of voting, more people walked out of FL booths having voted for Gore than Bush.
As for why it was close enough for the Supreme Court to install the Bush junta (and to jump over the standing doctrine to do so):
2) Exit polls in FL show that far more -- hundreds of thousands, in fact -- of FL DEMOCRATS and FL UNION MEMBERS voted for Bush. All the hatred foolishly aimed at Nader just distracts from the failings of a party that can't even get its own members and primary base to support its candidates in a crucial election.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:09 am
02 Jan 2008
"America badly needs electoral reform like Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation."
This is a very good point and worthy of further discussion. It certainly works fine in local races. There is far too much effort placed on campaign finance reform and restricting ads. Money flows like water, following the path of least resistance, and restrictions generally do more harm than good.
I would like to see Grist -- perhaps they have and can direct me to the post -- discuss different electoral reforms in terms of whether they help or hinder efforts to protect our environment.
This would be far more productive than a dialogue that includes the terms "ass", "dunderheaded", "narcissistic fuckwit", and "egomaniac".I hope David doesn't have to ban himself from the Grist Website for using such vulgar language and posting remarks that fail to enhance the discussion here, fail to solve problems, and fail to demonstrate that liberals are not shrill Cassandras.
(I myself am trying to rein in my use of foul, hurtful, and unproductive language this year... one of those resolution things. Feel free to send an email when I cross the line. I'll take it as constructive criticism.)
Peace.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:12 am
02 Jan 2008
Peace.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 10:13 am
02 Jan 2008
And I'll not forget that Gore would have won the election if he'd just campaigned in his own God blessed state. He did not, and he lost it. Had he spent a sliver of time there, the Florida vote would have been moot, having already secured the electoral quota. He listened to his handlers in this case, like a lot of other times when they gave him bad advice during that campaign.
In a way, despite losing what should have been a slam dunk, it's good he lost (taking a cue from WisdIdea's recent pledge to see the bright side) in a sense b/c he's effected more change outside the Beltway than he could have IN.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:35 am
02 Jan 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:54 am
02 Jan 2008
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 1:06 pm
02 Jan 2008
"In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."[11]
The large likely discrepancy was widely reported, and even Wikipedia has this quote.
That's a margin of 13,000 more votes for Gore than Bush out of Nader's 97,000.
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 1:10 pm
02 Jan 2008
You really ought to move your blogging to dailykos, this style fits right in. Emotion over facts. But then, I guess we can't trust any Democratic pollster, can we? I guess that I had better repeat from another comment. "Al From, former Leader of the Democratic Leadership Committee, said in Blueprint Magazine (1/24/01) that according to their own exit polls, Bush would have won by one percentage point in Nader hadn't run."
Wes Rolley
CoChair - EcoAction Committee
Green Party US
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:52 pm
02 Jan 2008
The 2000 election was so close that, yes, obviously Gore lost for dozens of reasons, any one of which could have tipped the balance -- bad campaigning, bad consultants, the media, SCOTUS, etc. etc. Nader was one of those reasons. He made his choices, so he takes his lumps.
Why didn't Nader lobby for voting reform (the need for which I couldn't agree with more)? Why didn't he do the painstaking work of party building at the local level, where third party runs can actually succeed? Why did he run again in 2004, when it was painfully clear just how much difference there is between the parties? Why didn't he do anything between 2000 and 2004, or between 2004 and now, to build a grassroots movement? Why is he bashing Clinton and endorsing Edwards rather than stumping for this year's Green Party candidates? All the questions have the same answer: He's a narcissistic attention monger who cares more about demonstrating his superior virtue than he does about the less fortunate of this country, who are suffering under reactionary government. Maybe he wasn't always that way, but he's that way now, so as far as I'm concerned he can take his moral purity and you-know-what it.
grist.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:07 pm
02 Jan 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:10 pm
02 Jan 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:12 pm
02 Jan 2008
http://prorev.com/nader.htm
Some choice bits:
THE NADER 2000 MYTH
THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY is perpetuating the Ralph Nader myth, blaming him for Bush's election in 2000. This is, at best sloppy journalism; at saddest, extreme denial; and at worst a plain lie. Here are just a few of the actual facts:
A Review study of poll results throughout the campaign found no correlation between Bush's percentage change and that of Nader except in July and August when the change was minimal.
For example, in September of 2000, Gore's average poll result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only declined by 1 point. Similarly, in November, Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7 points but Nader's only went up 0.8 points.
In Florida, it was also true. In nine successive surveys in which Nader pulled only 2 or 3 points, Gore's total varied by 7 points. As late as two weeks before the election, Gore was ahead by as much as 7-10 points.
As Michael Eisencher reported in Z Magazine, 20% of all Democratic voters, 12% of all self-identified liberal voters, 39% of all women voters, 44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000 per year and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31% of all voting union members cast their ballots for Bush.
According to exit polling, those who voted for Nader were disproportionately under 30, independent, first time voters, formerly Perot voters, and of no organized religion. Sixty-two percent of Nader's voters were Republicans, independents, third-party voters and nonvoters. In other words, many of his voters did not naturally belong to the Democratic party.
The public had a cynical view of both major candidates with 41% believing that both would say anything to win votes. Barely half considered either major candidate honest and trustworthy. And an astounding 51% had reservations about their own vote.
Perhaps the most important, but seldom mentioned, factor in the outcome was the impact of the Clinton scandals. 68% of voters thought Clinton would go down in history more for his scandals than for his leadership. 44% said that the scandals were somewhat to very important and 57% thought the country to be on the wrong moral track.
In short, the individual who did the most harm to Gore (aside from himself) was Bill Clinton. If Gore had distanced himself from the Clinton moral miasma he would probably be president today.
Kevin Zeese points out that had Nader not run, Bush would have won by more in Florida. CNN's exit poll showed Bush at 49 percent and Gore at 47 percent, with 2 percent not voting in a hypothetical Nader-less Florida race.
Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, Bill Clinton's Arkansas and traditionally Democratic West Virginia; with any one of these, Gore would have won.
Nine million Democrats voted for Bush, and less than half of the 3 million Nader voters were Democrats.
Zeese also notes, "The Democrats lost the 2002 congressional elections, the California and New York governorships, and many state legislatures throughout the country. Surely Nader is not to blame for those defeats."
Along those lines:
THE DEMOCRATS: OPEN UP OR SHUT UP
For the past four years, the only thing the Democrats and their media enablers have had to say about Ralph Nader is that he was to blame for their troubles. It was an utter lie that ignored, among other things, the lack of correlation between Nader and Gore in the polls leading to the election. For example between August and September 2000 Gore's average poll results rose 7.5 points but Nader's went down only 1 point. Between September and October, Gore's average went down 5.7 points and Nader's went up .8 points. At least 85% of Gore's changes were due to something other than Nader.
The Democrat's libel is further revealed in exit polling which showed that:
34% of union members voted for Bush but only 3% for Nader 13% of self-described liberals voted for Bush but only 6% for Nader 25% of gays voted for Bush but only 4% for Nader 15% of people who voted for Clinton in 1996 voted for Bush in 2000 but only 2% for Nader. 26% of those who voted for a Democratic candidate for governor split their ticket to vote for Bush but only 2% for Nader. More significantly, and totally unmentioned by either Democrats or the media, was the role that Clinton's corruption played in the electron. Sixty percent of votes had an unfavorable opinion of Clinton and 68% said he would go down in history books for his scandals rather than his achievements.
Further the party remains in deep denial about what had happened to it during the Clinton years. It went into the 2000 race having lost under Clinton nearly 50 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, 11 governorships, over 1200 state legislative seats, 9 state legislatures, and over 400 Democratic officeholders who had become Republicans.
It also ran as a presidential candidate a loyal member of the Clinton political machine which had chalked up criminal convictions for drug trafficking, racketeering, extortion, bribery, tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement, fraud, conspiracy, fraudulent loans, illegal gifts, illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, perjury, and obstruction of justice yet still insisted that its only problem was about sex.
Now, I come not to praise Nader but to object to the attempt to bury him under the sanctimonious and completely baseless canard that Nader was the cause of Gore's undoing in 2000.
The Democratic partisans' endless whine about Nader is really reminiscent of the Post-WWI German meme about the country having been "stabbed in the back by the Jews" -- rather than face the cause of their defeat (which was the same as the cause of their involvement in the war), the bitter few extremists seized on the "stabbed in the back" as a way to explain the defeat in a way that their ideology could accept.
Rather than look at a reality-averse Kaiser, an uninspired and uninspiring General Staff, and the fact that Germany simply lacked any oil to speak of (just as planes and tanks and ships were all demanding ever more of it), the conspiracy theorists grabbed a convenient target and made as much out of it as possible.
So too with Nader and Gore--rather than ascribe any fault to the millions of union members and registered Democrats who voted for Bush, the fault must all be with Nader; rather than deal with the fact that Gore quickly abandoned the populist anti-corporate message that got him such a big bump after the Convention, blame Nader for having run with a populist anti-corporate message the whole way through, thereby stealing votes that rightfully "belonged" to Gore because .... well, because.
The Democrats took over Congress on a strong anti-war vote; since then the war has consumed nearly another 1000 US soldiers' lives and injured many more (to say nothing of the Iraqis, who we all know don't count); they walked meekly away from their own energy bills' best ideas; they have given Il Duce Cheney and his trained monkey Bush essentially everything demanded re: abandoning habeas corpus and endorsing kangaroo courts in Gitmo.
I don't know who the Democratic nominee will be -- I hope it will be Edwards (despite his insane stand in support of biofuels and his miserable statement that we can't legalize pot because it sends the wrong message to kids).
But I do know that, no matter who the Dems put up, their victory in November depends on an electorate who is willing to deal with reality as it actually is. Grappling with the reasons for Gore and Kerry's losses (yes, including the stolen votes, but also the Democratic Party's complicity in promoting vote technology that makes stolen elections easy and their refusal to back Conyers' examination of the stolen votes in Ohio) is the most important thing the Democrats can do.
Abusers and alcoholics have to confront the reality of how THEY have made their reality before they can be cured and helped to change their behavior. The most worrisome thing about the virulence of the venom spat at Nader is that it says that precisely none of the necessary work has occurred.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 2:43 pm
02 Jan 2008
Wes Rolley
CoChair - EcoAction Committee
Green Party US
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 3:01 pm
02 Jan 2008
JMG, I actually agree with a lot of what you've said about all the ways the Democrats have blown it over the years (and many continue to blow it, especially in Congress), and I also support Edwards for his angry populist message (and for being out front on carbon policy).
BUT -- I don't know anyone who has refrained from any necessary grassroots work because they're dwelling on Nader. I don't see that accusation as real.
Dave is right that Nader has to take his lumps. Gore may have won but for any one of a variety of things, but still, Nader is one of those things. I don't think that's forgivable.
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:20 pm
02 Jan 2008
Nader was not one of those things.
Instead, despite the reality that Nader did not, even a little, cause Gore to lose (remember, Democratic polls saying that Gore might have actually lost FL cleanly had Nader not run) the utility of Nader for Democrats is that he lets them have a boogie man to blame that absolves all the Democrats who voted for Chimpy.
What's really going on is that Democrats want to keep beating that dead horse to justify their anger and hostility against Greens and Nader for all the times that Greens/Nader said that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties.
THAT is the phrase that sticks in their craw, and that is why they have to conjure up some blame for Nader, so that people who have not done 1/10,000th of the grassroots organizing or community organization building that Nader has can call him silly names and complain about what he should have done with respect to the Democrats who were calling him those names and worse.
Nader was a convenient scapegoat in 2000 for the outrage that Democrats felt for sitting by and watching every Democratic Senator sit on their hands when the Congressional Black Caucus tried to bring a challenge to Florida's electoral vote certification.
The "not a dime's worth of difference" charge stings so hard because it requires a lot of work to rebut. Ludicrous charges are easy to deal with -- you laugh. Serious charges, memorably expressed -- now that requires a great show of anger against the speaker.
But instead of wasting that anger on a guy who has done more for good for democracy than 90% of the folks in Congress, better to direct your anger at the Republicans for being fascist warmongers and at Democrats for aiding and abetting them.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:32 pm
02 Jan 2008
The Democratic Party manual seems to have a rule that you should be nice as hell to the GOP that is eating you alive, while concentrating your most vicious attacks on the people with whom you most agree on policy. It's like Bizarro-world's Norman Vincent Peale guide for politics--"How to Lose Friends and Influence Them to Stay Home."
It's got rules like
Trash the hell out of a guy who has worked his whole life to better the lot of the common man; claim to represent the common man.
Rebut charges of a corrupt two-party duopoly by helping keep minor parties off the ballot and out of debates.
Never forgive a supporter of a minor party candidate for thinking that they have the right to vote for whomever they want -- but ignore all the people who supposedly actually belong to the Democratic Party but who vote for the GOP candidate.
Have your partisan pundits insist that, no matter what the facts are, the declared Enemy of the People deserves to be slandered and libeled for having opposed The Party; meanwhile, say nice things about the GOP, allow them to filibuster any good bills that haven't already died in committee, and withhold support from people like Ned Lamont.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:54 pm
02 Jan 2008
Remember NAFTA? That nasty little bit of legislation that resulted in the current agricultural disaster in Mexico as well as the loss of quite a few US jobs.
Clinton gave the environmentalists no love either and as a result we ended his presidency with nothing to show in the way of fuel efficiency standards or improved building standards. Climate change would have been a LOT easier to deal with if we had that 12 year head start. Enviro's were P.O.'d at the Dems in 2000 and Gore wasn't running as a green tinged Democrat.
How about welfare reform? Now my bitty little town has to have a homeless shelter for mothers with kids. That worked out real well too.
With all of that the vast majority of Democrats DID vote for Gore and then Mr. Gore sat there like a lump while his victory was stolen from him. It has since been established beyond any doubt that the voting machines used in the 2000 election were entirely riggable. Of course they were made by a privately owned company owned by a top republican party fundraiser.
The Democratic Party has done very, very little for green voters in the last twelve years yet we stick with them because they're the only game in town. The energy bill they just handed to Bush was a joke in the face of Climate Change.
Nader was exactly right in his assesment of the 2000 political landscape. His endorsement of Edwards will make me give him a second look despite his big-ass house out in the country all by itself with no solar panels to keep it company. It's just possible his wife's cancer has made him a true believer in green causes also. Stranger things have happened.
Now if he can just stay out of small planes; Edwards not Nader.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 12:13 am
03 Jan 2008
That's not to apologize for the size of Edwards' house, but it does make me a bit less skeptical about their sincerity. I don't really understand why the Edwards' didn't respond, at least in that way, to the charges about their house.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 12:23 am
03 Jan 2008
There is no question that with IRV in place:
(1) Al Gore would have indisputably won Florida's electoral votes, and
(2) Anyone who wanted to vote for Nader as their first choice -- in Florida or anywhere else with IRV -- could have done so without torturing themselves over the dilemma that they might be 'wasting' their vote on a 'spoiler' candidate and thereby throwing the election to an asshole like GW Bush.
News flash: It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.
Sound too good to be true? It's not.
To learn more about Instant Runoff Voting, check out the Wikipedia entry.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:58 am
03 Jan 2008
It was the oval office BJ. Workers oppressed by sexist bosses and a promotion sytem based largely on sex, backed Nader. He didn't even realize it, but he played to it.
So what is the sex issue in this election round? Follow the sex, watch for money strewn along the trail, arrive at the power center.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:10 am
03 Jan 2008
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:16 am
03 Jan 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
justlou Posted 2:32 am
03 Jan 2008
Whether or not this will be enough to accomplish anything effective on energy or the environment is the big question. My bias is that it will not be and that too many other neglected mega issues will keep our concerns below the threshold level to permit timely, effective action in Washington.
For Nader to pick Edwards out of the litter because his populist rhetoric more closely matches his own, places undo faith in the real differences among all these candidates and what each of them can actually achieve within the bounds of Washington politics.
Nader is right about one thing -- it all really sucks!
Permalink
askantik Posted 5:30 am
03 Jan 2008
Both of them have publicly stated that Kucinich is right on the issues, but they won't support him. Moore made up some BS about how Kucinich has given up. HELLO! Kucinich continued campaigning in 2004 after EVERYONE but Kerry quit. This man is NOT a quitter. Underdog, yes. Quitter, no.
And if there was on person on the face of the planet who I thought would endorse an underdog, it'd be Ralph Nader! He said a while back that if Kucinich got the Democratic nomination, he wouldn't even think about running for the Green Party. Now he's backing John Edwards. WTF?!!!
I'm voting for Kucinich. I'm NOT voting for the lesser of evils and I'm not going to be swayed by what some jerks say when they don't even support the people they agree with.
Kucinich CAN win!
http://www.kucinichcantwin.com
http://www.myspace.com/ecoaware
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:15 am
04 Jan 2008
Here On Earth: Radio Without Borders
Best known for his activism and two presidential bids, Ralph Nader has a softer private side as the son of Lebanese immigrants. After three, on Here on Earth: Radio Without Borders, Jean Feraca talks with Ralph Nader about what went on at the family table when he was growing up.
Listen on the web...
http://wpr.org/hereonearth/
Peace.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:11 am
06 Jan 2008
However, after reading some of the analysis above, realizing Al Gore could have done more to get elected, recalling that Congress did not do everything it could to preserve democracy, and, especially, after listening to Mr. Nader describe his family and their traditions (see previous post), I have changed my view. He seems like a nice guy who sincerely cares about our country, not the "egomaniac" I thought he was.
Why is this important?
(1) It is a good idea to hear both sides of the story, gather all the facts, and calmly reflect on what you've learned before condemning people and harboring anger against them for the rest of your life.
(2) It is a lot harder to hate someone once you learn about their personal experiences, where they acquired their values, and simply learn a little more about them and what motivates them.
I might actually have to read Ralph Nader's recent book about family traditions.
Finally, I really do have to wonder whether America would be ready to embrace a Democratic candidate for President -- selecting from an African American, a woman, and a populist, off all the options -- and giving Democrats more control over the Congress, if they had not witnessed the horror of allowing our nation to fall into the hands of slash-and-burn capitalists, Christian fundamentalists, and leaders not grounded in reality. Let's hope eight years of GWB will firmly push the pendulum in the opposite direction.
Permalink
dhwert Posted 5:04 am
08 Jan 2008
Apparently two-party politics is more sacred to DR (and Grist?) than actually making a difference. Well, you go, Democratic sycophant!
Have fun kissing the Donkey's ass and hoping it does you any good.
A lot of your sorry support at this self-important, too-cute-for-you, bloviating blogazine probably comes from people who supported Nader in 2000, and yet you don't care that you tar us with the same "I'm bad-ass Dave Roberts! If you don't like it, suck it!" brush.
Umbra can stay kidnapped next time for all I care. I'm not giving any more money to this Democratic Party front group.
Sheesh.
Dave
Permalink