NO ONE HAS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE LEFT BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO PLACE TO GO ---

[defendandprotect]

However, the most horrifying and truthful and frightening words that the film speaks ---

--- "NO ONE HAS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE LEFT BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO PLACE TO GO" ----

*****************************************************************************


Saw PBS "An Unreasonable Man"/Nader tonight --- GREAT!tonight is 12/19/07 Wednesday and it's 11:30 pm as I post this --
Last night at this time people had that date on their posts ????

Meanwhile, was really happy to see the full list of Ralph's work because I've noticed that even Randi Rhodes in her criticism of him --- the standard, he lost 2000 for us --- she seemed to have no real idea that all the issues she talks about now and the understanding of corporate-fascism, etal is
something Ralph's been working on and advising the public about for decades!!!

I was very disappointed to see Joan Claybrook and her alibis for not doing what she should be doing.
I also thought they could have done more in explaining the stupidities of "scapegoating" Nader re 2000 --- for instance, you had Buchanan on screen . . . never mentioned his 3,000 PLUS votes in Florida which certainly harmed Gore.

Of course we know now that Gore won in Florida ---

but supposedly the fiction goes on that he lost by 537 votes ---
yet MANY THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES WHO ALSO RAN GOT THAT MANY VOTES OR MORE.

So -- why didn't someone blame Buchanan? Why didn't someone blame the Libertarians?

Also thought Bill Maher an absolute jerk --- as always.
But, felt very badly about Michael Moore --- and hope he wakes up soon on this issue and
apologizes to Ralph!

Meanwhile, Nader is backing EDWARDS ---

However, the most horrifying and truthful and frightening words that the film speaks ---

--- NO ONE HAS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE LEFT BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO PLACE TO GO ----

We have no place to go unless we have third parties ---


*****************************************************************************************








http://www.votenader.org/ballot_access/texas/

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I have yet to see it. I need to check it out

[defendandprotect]

2. Does the LEFT have "no place to go" --- ???

[Dhalgren]

9. Yes, we do. It is the Democratic Party that feels the left has no

other place to go. That's why the Party ignores the left and brow-beats it any time the left "acts up". That is why many Democrats believe that "the left" should just shut up and do whatever the Party says, because where can "the left" go?

But many leftists will not vote Democratic next November, because the Party has moved too far to the right.

[KittyWampus]

30. The "Many" Leftists you mention are addicted to losing. Running Progressive candidates is how

to effect real change.

[bobbolink]

103. Slapping leftists around will sure get you far.

:crazy:

[reggie the dog]

112. the left

could move to France...or Sweden....

[Dhalgren]

3. I saw it last night. It was a really good report, very well done.

I agree that people (especially Party loyalists) don't seem to understand the way freedom, liberty, and a democratic process work. If a person votes for the candidate they prefer, and the votes are accurately counted and recorded, then it has worked the way it is supposed to. The idea that one candidate "steals" votes from another, because a number of voters prefers one over the other never made any sense to me...

[defendandprotect]

6. right . . . and we need IRV voting to protect that, anyway ----

[OHdem10]

4. If the Left stayed Home one election, --things just might change

[defendandprotect]

8. Wouldn't you prefer to have something to vote FOR, rather than not voting???

[warren pease]

44. Sure, but after I cast my vote for DK in the primaries, who's left? n/t

[defendandprotect]

49. Nader is backing Edwards --- Granny D is backing Edwards ---

As far as I know Edwards isn't DLC ---

What I'd like to see is Edwards reach out for a VP we could be sure of ---
the whole VP thing --- post-Liebermann/Cheney --- is really frightening--!!!

[warren pease]

55. Well, my wife's getting pretty enamored of Edwards...

... although that may just be the $400 haircuts. :P

But he's definitely starting to sound like a populist, so it'll be interesting to see if that conversion is real and if it pulls more votes than the status quo crap he was spouting a while back. When he said he couldn't guarantee getting out of Iraq by 2013, I pretty much pulled the plug on him. And then Kucinich fired back regarding this whole sham timetable for withdrawal, saying "Yeah, I've got a timeline. It's called now."

After watching that Nader documentary the other night, I'm even more inclined to take his endorsement seriously. I'm still voting for DK in the primaries, but if Edwards manages to ride that populist message into a victory, with the happy side effect of derailing leading corporatists Clinton and Obama, I might not have to hold my nose next November after all.

Otherwise, it's a write-in vote for DK. Except for Clinton in '92, I haven't voted for a winning presidential candidate in my life. By the time '96 rolled around, he had become just another GOP-lite DLC clone -- the Telecom Act being one of the worst thing he inflicted on the public with that sick triangulation strategy.

Anyway, Edwards with a true progressive as a running mate might be a pretty good package. Probably won't work in most of the red states too well, but even there voters may be so sick of the GOP that they might just stay home or write in some nut like Tancredo.

Anyway, thanks for the info. I appreciate it because I'm thinking there's a remote possibility that DK isn't going to get the nomination. :sarcasm:


wp

[defendandprotect]

68. They have to pay someone to come out to airports . . .

I also like Kucinich better ---

and I agree that we have to see if Edwards holds as populist ---

Also anti-Clinton and Obama --

AND, the VP thing really worries me post-Liebermann and Cheney!!

As we have things set up now with only two terms --- and I think that should be lifted ---
it makes the VP more viable as the next challenger. Don't like that.

[warren pease]

70. Yeah, this whole "balancing the ticket" thing is overrated, imo...

Which is I guess what Lieberman was all about. But I don't think that people who would vote for a progressive at the top of the ticket want anything to do with another Lieberman allegedly balancing it out. And those who wouldn't vote for a progressive if they had a gun to their head surely aren't going to do so just because the veep is a dinosaur.

Then there's the polling on issues, which constantly tells us that the average American is way ahead of the DC pols on just about everything progressive. Something like 80 percent want single-payer -- and not just some expanded insurance scam like Clinton and Obama are touting. The majority wants out of Iraq yesterday and has no appetite for another invasion in Iran. The numbers continue to rise favoring impeachment of both Bush and Cheney, despite the fact that they couldn't possibly have been pushed in that direction by corporate mass media. Same on things like "free trade" vs fair trade; tanking the economy to reward armaments makers; obscene tax cuts for the rich; and so on.

I think if Edwards can continue to honestly advocate progressive ideals, he'll surprise a lot of people. Obama doesn't seem to be getting much additional support and Clinton's definitely trending downward. If he can win Iowa and do well in New Hampshire, he can get a real boost going into some of the big primaries.

However, I have to disagree re the 22nd Amendment. Can you imagine Bush for an unlimited tenure? Or Clinton for that matter. I'd actually prefer a single six-year term. Give them time to accomplish something without having to spend an entire four years running for reelection. Might free them up to let their consciences dictate at least some of their actions. Which doesn't apply to Bush, of course, since sociopaths have no conscience.


wp

[defendandprotect]

72. I don't know what Liebermann was about --- but horrifying!!!

And, certainly, Gore had served with him and they had "religion" in common so I'm sure that Gore knew what he was doing.

Re the 2 year term . . . I agree with you re Clinton and Bush and LBJ and Nixon, for that matter.
And maybe they actually did poison FDR to get rid of him, thereby ending a fourth term?
But -- again -- I think it distorts the VP and makes it more important than it should be.
And look at what's happened with Cheney . . . he's basically the president!

Dean was bombarded by MSM ---
Let's see what happens to Edwards now ---

[AndyTiedye]

18. If The Left Stayed Home, Things Sure Would Change. Can You Say President Huckabee?

[defendandprotect]

50. This is just imagining . . . however, I would say if progressive Dems all voted in a block

for the Green Party nominee, while you might have a Pres. Huckabee --- everything would be
brought to a stop -- and everything would begin to move to the left.

That's just my guess . . .

[AndyTiedye]

81. There is No Way Back from a Huckabee Presidency and the Theocracy it Would Bring

if progressive Dems all voted in a block for the Green Party nominee, while you might have a Pres. Huckabee --- everything would be brought to a stop -- and everything would begin to move to the left.

We just had a few voting for the Green Party nominee in 2000 and that was enough to allow Bush** to steal the White House. Sure didn't move us to the left that time! What makes you think it will be any different this time?

The only thing that was brought to a stop were all the social programs, protection for the environment and for workers, and any sort of regulation on business.

With Huckabee and the Dominionists in charge it will be worse! Much worse! Armageddon is their idea of a good time!

[defendandprotect]

92. I think you have to understand that Gore won Florida . . . and what was it . . .

Palm Beach County where Buchanan took more than 3,000 votes from Jewish families and
the poor?

The Democrats did nothing about either the 2000 or the 2004 steal ---
and please go to VOTESCAM and understand that this is nothing new it's been going on
for more than 40+ years!!!

Read the story of Jim & Ken Collier -- and their suppressed book which was the result of
a 26 year investigation beginning in the 1960's of the computer steals.


If anyone permitted the "steal" it was the Supreme Court . .
but if you spend a bit of time thinking about this, I think that will become obvious
to you --- that the folks who really delivered the steal and who didn't permit an
overturning of it are the people hiding behind "Nader did it!" ---

No -- Nader did nothing ---
and even if you want to buy that idea you have to work your way thru at least four
other parties who took votes out of the pool which you could argue would have elected
Bush ---

In fact, Buchanan is a prime example --- how many people point that out to you?

So -- there are things at play in the scapegoating of Nader which are intended to
keep you from seeing what actually happened.

[AndyTiedye]

97. I Will Give Nader the Benefit of the Doubt and Assume He is Suffering from Senility

No -- Nader did nothing ---

He spent all his time in the critical final days of the campaign in the swing states working to tip them to Bush. Why?

He insulted our intelligence by claiming he was just trying to get as many voters as possible, but to do that he should have been campaigning in big, blue states where people could vote for Nader without the risk they would have a Bush pResidency on their conscience. When his supporters came up with the "Nader Traders" scheme to get Nader more votes without endangering Gore's lead, Nader went to court to shut it down.

Telling us that the Repigs would have stolen it anyway is a cop-out. Why was Nader helping the Repiglicans, and accepting their money to do so?

[defendandprotect]

106. You have a lot of myth going there ---

Nader brought back voters --- voters who would not have turned out and the majority of them were voting for Democrats.

Buchanan via the "butterfly" ballot took more than 3,000 votes in Florida from
Jewish families --- very unlikely as he's said to vote for him or Republicans ---
and from the poor of the area --- also very unlikely to have voted for Repugs or
Buchanan.

GORE shut down the demonstrations in that area which might have brought a reassignment of those votes to him.

The Democrats are fighting a move to the left which Nader represents as a populist ---
The corporate-sponsored DLC sees Nader as its enemy and, in fact, the entire Green Party as its enemy and they have done all they can to co-opt the Green Party.

You have a DLC within your own party fighting to move the party to the right --
and refusing to fight the STEALS which have gone on for decades via computer voting.

SEE: VOTESCAM . .

The report and book --- which was suppressed --- by Jim & Ken Collier, Journalists who investigated computer steals for 26 years!

There's a website where you can scan or read their book.

Certainly Democrats have known about the computer steals for decades and have done nothing!
But, what did work well was giving you a scapegoat in Nader.
THAT you understand!

PS: I might also mention that you might pay a bit of attention to the GOP fascist rally
outside of Miami-Dade Election HQs which shut down the recount mandated by the Florida Supreme Court ---
That didn't change anything evidently . . . !!???

Where were the Democrats on that one . . . ????

Nor have Democrats provided any resistance to the steals --- 2000, 2004, 2006?

Nor any organized response to the Supreme Court assistance to Bush for the steal ---

[defendandprotect]

95. As for a Huckabee presidency . . .

I think you're overlooking the fact that we've had two steals in 2000 and 2004

what makes you think that it won't be stolen for Huck in 2008?


Again -- see VOTESCAM


You can't have a right-wing steal by the Supremes and then suggest that we should argue
that there was no move to the "left" . . . !

It seems to me that Bush is already delivering Armageddon --- at least in Iraq --
and the consequences of this, of course, will be felt all over the world.

He is torturing all of us.

[AndyTiedye]

96. It WILL Be Stolen in 2008 if It is Close

I know it was stolen in 2000 and 2004



The will steal it again if we don't win by a landslide.

[defendandprotect]

104. The Gore win wasn't close --- and it was very noisily stolen

Many also think that there was a much larger majority win for Dems in 2006, but that was also stolen by the Repugs ---

We have a election system which is not trustworthy --
we need IRV voting ---
and to get rid of computers

Those problems are creating steals ---

[AndyTiedye]

123. That's My Point! We Need a Landslide to Beat Them

A 5-6% lead isn't going to do it. We had that in 2000 and 2004 and we "lost".

ANYBODY the Repiglickons nominate has a pretty good chance of getting elected, with the churches and the Mighty Slime Machine behind them, and the Supreme Court to decide in their favor if it's close.
Look who is in the White House now!

Huckabee is enough of a threat that it may be worth crossing over to vote against him.

[papau]

5. How is that different than the situation for the right? for evangelical folks -for small gov folks ?

[defendandprotect]

10. You need an expert view on that . . . however, my opinion would be that they are a smaller block

of voters used as a wedge ---
If they stay home, the GOP maybe doesn't win --- or maybe has to steal more votes.

We need a non-corporate choice ---

[Dhalgren]

12. You are right. The nation has become too diverse and the state

of affairs too complicated for only two parties to address or deal with. There should be at least four parties and maybe more. Then coalitions could be formed with each party negotiating from at least some position of strength.

Right now, in the Democratic Party, the left has no strength, at all compared to its actual numbers, the Democratic right probably feels the same way (although Party control is in their hands right now).

[rusty quoin]

13. Yes. We try hard, but still have no representation. n/t

[papau]

73. Party delegate selection is effectively what your suggesting - only with permanent

"leaders" of each portion of the delegates - and that is in effect is what has happen - with Move-on, etc.

[rucky]

29. Four party system in 2009?

or five.

This is something Kucinich and Ron Paul could get together on. It would peel from each major-party pretty equally

[AndyTiedye]

85. The Repiglickin Party is Powerful Enough So They Can Get Away With Playing to Their Base

The evangelicals will all turn out for Huckabee. 150% turnout, at least.

[Kucinich4America]

111. But Pat Robertson said that God endorsed 9u11ani

So the fundagelicals could be split. Although the Klansmen that would have voted for Tancredo are now back in play.

[TahitiNut]

7. (Where's the low-sodium salt?)

:popcorn:

[defendandprotect]

11. Poll: Does following politics lead to high blood pressure --- !!! YES!!!

[defendandprotect]

14. Does the left have a place to go? Or is this a Question we all need to avoid?

[EFerrari]

15. I sort of disagree. The "left", like any constituency, has the challenge

of gaining a foothold, of protecting its position and of negotiating alliances to further its projects.

That's just politicking. Whether we do a good job or not is another matter.

[defendandprotect]

19. I think you're missing the overall point of the question....

If there should be deep betrayal by the Democrats, where do liberal voters go?
To the Libertarians? To the Greens? Nowhere?

The "footholds" in both parties are held by corporations.

As one of the former Democrats said . . .
"no one pays attention to the left because they have no where to go" . . . .

And, I think "further" is an odd word when we're one year out from the election and all the
Dem leadership has done is REFUND the war for Bush!! ????

[EFerrari]

21. No, I'm not missing the point. The party has been moving to the right

since the McGovern run or so. This didn't happen overnight, nor is American militarism a new phenomenon. The corporate influence has always been there, too, it's just more organized since the DLC.

That's just the situation. A better question might be, what do liberal voters do?

[defendandprotect]

48. Did you read the thread about the movie's comments . . . ?

No one is arguing about whether the Dems are further to the right, nor whether we have more corporate influence in the party.

The QUESTION was . . . if dissatisfied . . . where do the Democrats go?

Yes, you might like to say, "what do liberal voters do?" --

That is not as direct a question ---

Will you stop voting?
Will you move to another party?
Which one?

[EFerrari]

51. I myself moved to another party. And I watch the Democrats

and support the progressive ones (or, liberal gestures) in every way I can. That's what I can do.

My own resentment or sense of betrayal doesn't do anything to forward my own values. The decisions I make about who and how to support progressive candidates does.

The thing is, we do have choices. Stamping our little foot doesn't do much although we may need to do that now and again.

And the funny thing is, I'm probably more engaged now since I switched my registration than before when I was a registered Democrat and just voted the straight party ticket every time. I'm not advocating this as a way of life. That's just how it went for me.

[defendandprotect]

52. OK . . . so you're saying you did have someplace to go: to another party.

HERE at DU, moving to another party isn't considered a viable choice because of the fear that when Dems move, let's say to the Green Party or the Libertarians, that the loss of their votes then helps to elect a Republican president.

Most, I'm sure, if they were familiar with the Green Party platform would favor it over the Democratic platform . . . however, they would still FEAR electing a Republican president.

And, it is because of this fear that "they say" . . . that Dems have no place to go.

Of course, Dems do have someplace to go --- but FEAR keeps them where they are.

[EFerrari]

54. Over all, progressives seem to be able to reason their way out of paper bags

or tigers.

There is a huge progressive movement sweeping this country and even if it still doesn't get much traditional press, it's there.

The backlash against the movement to the right is fully in progress. Don't lose heart. This site is a great illustration. Dr. Dean chairing the DNC is another. It may be that people like me will be back soon.

I'm no one's cheerleader but, honestly -- I feel more hopeful for the Democrats today than I have in a long, long time. No, Nancy's House scorecard is not great. The Senate is barely moving. But, underneath it all is a grassroots movement that just keeps gaining support all the time. People are mad as hell and they are getting active. They were already that way when Kerry got the biggest turn out ever.

So much more so now.

[defendandprotect]

62. Global Warming isn't giving us much time --- we need immediate responses ---

nationalizing oil --
getting electric cars on the roads and getting gas-guzzler off ---
changing the culture completely ---


Meanwhile, the Dems are being pulled further to the RIGHT in re-funding the war in Iraq ---
continuing the occupation.

Meanwhile, the Dems are mainly involved in continuing to support insurance companies as middle-men
in health care.

What would be left of the Dems if you came back --?
It may be a totally corporate-supported Democratic Party?

[EFerrari]

130. My hunch is the formal structures of the party don't move as fast

as the grassroots do. I may be wrong, but it seems that way to me, anyway.

So, no doubt the corporate whoring will get worse before it gets better -- that's true of most any party in this country because of the way our elections are really big business for the defense industry / big media. But, the grassroots are quicker and lighter on their feet. That is a huge asset, imho.

[AndyTiedye]

82. Don't The Words "PRESIDENT HUCKABEE" Scare the Hell Out of You? THEY SHOULD!

If we split the Democratic party, we get President Huckabee and the Dominionist Talibornagains.

This is not about "FEAR" and overcoming "FEAR", it is about what WILL happen if we are unable to unite to defeat the Repiglicons.

[EFerrari]

87. The idea of President Huckabee scares me to death. n/t

[FlyingSquirrel]

16. LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE.....

The "True Conservatives" DO have a place to go (Ron Paul) and are giving him so much money that he can viably run a 3rd party Independent campaign this year. Betcha anything he does. Guess where that leaves the Repugs as they try to once again wedge themselves into the WH with barely over 50%? Out in the cold, 'cause your average Lefty Democrat will not vote for Ron Paul. Some may opt for the Green Party candidate (which won't be Nader), but nowhere near as many as "true" Conservatives who will vote for Paul.

In other words, all these polls that are trying to guess how each Democratic nominee will match up to each Republican nominee are USELESS because so far none of them take into consideration the third party candidate or candidates (Bloomberg's name is still out there too) which I believe are absolutely going to be there this time around, and absolutely going to make a big difference.

In fact, they may make so much difference that for once we will finally start having a choice (AFTER this election) and not have to vote for one of the big two every time. I see a major political shift taking place in this country.

Anyway.. go back to your polls everyone. ;-) It's looking pretty good for the Democratic nominee, whoever he/she is.

[AndyTiedye]

83. Ron Paul Probably Takes At Least As Many Votes From Democrats as Repiglicons

Some Democrats are going to vote for him because he will be the only candidate to call for an immediate end to the war.

[bvar22]

17. ..."...

[AndyTiedye]

20. BECAUSE IF WE VOTE NADER OR ANY OTHER 3RD PARTY—IT THROWS THE ELECTION TO THE REPIGS—JUST LIKE 2000!

Though in Nader's case, he knew exactly what he was doing when he was campaigning against Gore in every swing state, while lying to us that he was only trying to reach his 5% goal (which would have been much more reachable in big safe blue states than where Nader was campaigning!)

Al Gore would have been a fabulous President. Nader wanted us to have Bush instead so things would get bad enough that we would turn to him after the country gets totally trashed. Looks like he's getting his wish about the getting bad part, but we sure aren't gonna vote for him.

[reggie the dog]

115. the 2000 election was stolen, not' thrown' to the republicans

[Perry Logan]

22. I think the Dems are headed leftward, because that's where the people are headed.

[robcon]

23. I think you miss the point of the OP.

There is NO ADVANTAGE for politicians going left (even if, as you say, the electorate goes left) in a two party system. They will get no more votes by going left, rather than stay in the middle, as long as there is no where else for the left to go.

Politicians will lose (some) centrists by going left, but will gain (almost) no leftists by going left.

[Perry Logan]

24. Then again, maybe the left should thank the Democrats for putting up with them at all.

[robcon]

25. In a Parliamentary system, with numerous parties, the left matters.

By voting as a block in a minority party, especially if the leading party has a narrow lead, the left sometimes has a say in what legislation passes. There are alliances, coalitions, defections and new party eruptions, and the political arena is far more diverse when the Prime Minister is the head of the leading party.

In a two-party legislature, with an independently elected president, very little of that happens.

[Dhalgren]

26. That attitude is why a lot of lefties will not vote Democratic next November.

If the Democrats don't need the lefties, then they shouldn't care. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the Party doesn't need the left, then when the Party loses blame the left for not voting Democratic.

This country is done - it's fork-time. Even if the Democrats win (which they might or might not) the corporations' control will still be assured. Same shit, different asshole...

[robcon]

28. In other words, Dhalgren, you don't care about the country?

You're willing to urge people not to vote for the better person?

Vote your conscience (write it in if necessary.) If you don't vote, ("This country is done - it's fork-time.")that's un-American, IMO.

[Dhalgren]

33. Well, at least you went ahead and started calling me names before

this got too far.

When you choose between two evils, the only thing you are assured of is that you have chosen evil. In a Democracy, citizens should vote for the party or candidate that they choose. Period. It is none of anyone else's business for whom that vote was cast.

I urge people to vote for whom they choose. I did not encourage anyone "don't vote".

The reason I believe this country is "done" is because all of the candidates that have a chance of winning are in the pay of the corporations. Regardless of who "wins" next November, the new President will be owned by the corporations. If you wish to see some kind of silver lining in any of this, that is fine, I won't call you names or claim that you are "un-American".

The more I speak with "party first" Democrats, the more I know why I am not one...

[robcon]

38. I never urged you to vote for "party first."

Where did you meet your sensitivity about that? I encouraged you to vote your conscience, even if it means writing in your favorite candidate.

Since you say you are unwilling to vote, and you are encouraging others not to vote their consciences, I call you un-American and anti-democratic. And I emphasize un-American.

Just have your coup to get your candidate in - is that your solution, Dhalgren?

[Dhalgren]

40. No point in being a dim-wit, robcon. You and I have just misunderstood each other

(apparently). Good luck to you and yours. :hi:

[robcon]

42. If there's "No point in being a dim-wit" why do you persist, Dahlgren?

n/t

[Dhalgren]

41. If you will look at the post you are attacking me for, you will see that

I am responding to PerryLogan, not you. You and I are saying almost the same thing. Why you felt compelled to attack me and call me "un American" is quite beyond me...

[reggie the dog]

118. America is fucked, New Orleans showed this to the world

Based on the social services the USA gives to its people I would say the USA is a very rich second world country.
How else do you describe a country where 50 million have no health insurance and those that do have insurance still pay a shitload of money for health care and are not always paid back?

How else do you describe a war monger ego and a colonialistic war?

How else do you describe the patriot act, the war on terrorism or the war on drugs?

There are countries in the world where these ideas and practices do not exist and where people go to the doctor as a right.

I am an American citizen, but I am now also a French citizen. I choose to live in France because the USA is fucked, way more fucked than France, and I have no desire for my daughter to grow up in a country as shitty as the USA. Having said that it is not ALL the American PEOPLE I don't like. (sorry to say it but I do dislike the MAJORITY of Americans, I find them to be greedy, individualistic, money hungry slobs who have no idea what the words solidarity and welfare state mean.) I dislike the political system, the warrior goverment, the constant war mentality (war on drugs, war on terror, war in Afganistan, war in Iraq.....,) and I dislike the manner in which the richest country in the world is not able to give health care or university education as a right. I used to like the USA, I even thought it could be saved working for political change. Then one day the police held a gun to my head because they found 45 grams of cannabis in the back of my pickup truck. They threated to kill me, told me I would be raped in jail, and tried to put me in jail for 10 years (I would still be there, with no BA, no MA, no wife and no child). When I realized that their policy was ENCOURAGED by both major parties I started to vote Green and Libertarian in protest. Then folks blamed me for the fact that Bush stole the 2000 election from Gore, instead of looking at the policies that the Greens and Libertarians were advocating, so I just gave up. I stopped taking off my hat for the national anthem at ball games, people made remarks, then I decided not to stand either, and eventually I came to my current practice, I turn around on my seat, and put my back to the flag. It is just a piece of shit cloth that stands for NONE OF THE VALUES I HAVE. What fucking freedom, liberty, and justice do people like me have in the USA ( a highly educated, long haired, male, cannabis smoker)???? To think that they taught me at school that the flag symbolized freedom, justice, liberty and tolerance. It was all BULLSHIT. The real USA, the REAL values symbolized by the flag are, OPPRESSION, TERROR, VIOLENCE, HATRED, DEATH, AND COLONIALISM.
I am not sorry if you think that makes me unamerican. How in the hell could I be an "un" American if I have NATIONALITY???? I will only be unamerican the day that I renounce my citizenship (which I have not done because it is always possible that the EU will one day be worse off than the USA).

[TheWatcher]

35. Shhhhh, you're disrupting Perry's Sleep.

I agree with you, but let's not disturb those who are comfortably ensconced in the Coma that is Pleasantville.

Waking up a Sleepwalker is dangerous.

This is no different.

Handle With Care.

[defendandprotect]

63. Yeah, stop bugging the Dems for National Health Care and all that crap--!!!

Stop bugging the Dems to end an "illegal" war ---

Stop bugging the Dems to NOT support privatizing of Social Security --- !!!

Ah, life would be great without the LEFT in the Dem party ---

Just the Dems, DLC and those bright and shiny corporates -- $$$$$$$$$$$$

[reggie the dog]

119. After Clinton

I gave up hope of "bugging" the dems to end the war on drugs too. As one of the people this war is waged against I can tell you it is pretty fucking lonely being the scapegoat for the countries problems, being threatened with jail, and not having any major party state the obvious, that you are not violnet, hurt no one, and do not deserve to be a criminal. At least the Socialists here in France came out and said that.

[reggie the dog]

116. if the Democrats do not want to put up with the left

why don't they just admit that they are Republicans?

[kenfrequed]

32. There is no "Center"

There are only issues and how they are presented.

If you poll most Americans on the issues they overwhelmingly support progressive taxation on those that are more wealthy, protecting the environment, renewable energy, healthcare for all, increased minimum wage, increased spending on eduction, and any number of other progressive issues.

The fact of the matter is that we let the Republicans define the issues and cower when the heat turns up. Of course many democrats have joined with the republicans in favoring the powerful in favor of increased campaign donations.

[defendandprotect]

64. The fact of the matter is that corporations have bought Demcorats who will support THEM,

not us --

and this has been going on for decades with liberal Democrats targeted and moved out of the party.

And, it continues on now --- with the DLC soliciting "blue dog" candidates to oppose liberal
Democrats.

[defendandprotect]

53. No -- I think this isn't accurate. Huge numbers of people aren't voting ---

Nader brought them out ---
and they would return in response to a real liberal/progressive candidate ---

Where the disadvantage for candidates is that they would lose direct $$$ ---
and the $$$ is more a guarantee of winning than trying to attract voters with your campaign.

And -- having to face up to huge corporate power to bring about the pledges you make.

The reality is that there is someplace for the LEFT to go --- to the Greens and other parties . ..
but what holds them back is the FEAR that they will elect a Republican president.

What I'm saying is that even if they did . . . that Repug president would be hampered by the huge
liberal swing --- and certainly the Democrats would be quickly moving to the left.

Besides ridding ourselves of the computers which have been bringing home steals for 40+ years --
see VOTESCAM website/book ...

We need IRV voting so that we can vote third party and still block a GOP win.

[Renew Deal]

36. Nominating Hillary would prove otherwise.

That would be a hard right turn for the party.

[a kennedy]

27. Saw it also, and was very proud I voted for Ralph twice.

He was the candidate that I voted my conscience for. Thank you Ralph for all you have done for this country. :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: and flame away!!!

[KittyWampus]

31. All he's done? Like taking money and support from the Republican Party?

[reggie the dog]

120. unsafe at any speed

have you ever even heard of that book?


Why should Democrats deserve the money and support of people who do not have values or policies that are supported by Democratic candidtates?

[defendandprotect]

57. Love Nader . . .

And, I worked for him, but in the end my kids were frantic that Bush would win ---
and so I didn't vote for Ralph. THIS in NJ!!!!

I loved in the movie when he is talking with the police officers keeping him from entering
the debate and threatening him with arrest, that he remains so vulnerable and yet so
convincing. He showed again that it always comes down to individual conscience and made
clear that these police officers may be following orders but they were betraying our Constitution.

Mad about the man!!!

[AndyTiedye]

93. Since You Love Ralph So Much, PLEASE Explain…

…WHY was Nader campaigning so heavily towards the end in small swing states where doing so would be far more likely to tip the state for Bush than to contribute materially to Nader's stated goal of reaching 5% nationally.

If he were going for 5% nationally, surely he should have been campaigning in the big, blue states, where people could vote for Nader without much risk of electing a Repiglickin' President.
Instead, he spent the final days of the campaign in the small swing states doing maximum damage to Gore.

Nader repeatedly claimed that there is no difference between Bush and Gore. In fact, he was actively working to put Bush in the White House. WHY?

[reggie the dog]

121. this is too easy

he is trying to push the Democrats to the left by getting the Dems running against him to adopt enough of his leftist policies to win. He knows he can not win but he hopes that he can pull the Democratic party to the left. If the Democrats do not do anything to woo progressives or leftists it is their own damn fault if these folks do not vote Democrat.

[AndyTiedye]

125. He Knows He Cannot Win, But He Can Spoil It For the Democrats

He knows he can not win but he hopes that he can pull the Democratic party to the left.

He has driven it into the arms of the right instead.

[reggie the dog]

126. only if the Democrats

care more about luring voters from the right, than from the left, will Nader's actions help the right. The "mangement" of the Democratic party is more to blame than Nader.

[reggie the dog]

128. an incident in Illinois I contributed to by voting

from the Illinois times. "In an interview Monday with Illinois Times, Nader continued to scold the party he once helped foster.

"Why should the Democrats listen to the Green Party if it's just going to contest Massachusetts?" Nader asked. "The Greens have abandoned the only leverage that a third party can have, which is to deny the major parties votes in close contests.""

from wikipedia

"Green Party Establishment

The Green Party became an established political party statewide, according to Illinois state election law, when Rich Whitney received more than 5% of the total vote for Governor. This status provides the party with several new advantages, such as lower signature requirements for ballot access, primary elections, free access to additional voter data, the ability to elect precinct committeemen, run a partial slate of candidates at any jurisdictional level, and slate candidates without petitioning. The only other statewide established political parties are the Democratic and Republican parties. It is rare for a new political party to become established statewide in Illinois, the last to do so being the Solidarity Party in 1986 and the Progressive Party before that."

Perhaps Nader is trying to do THAT for the Green Party and letting others do their part for legislative or state level executive offices.

and this from the Pennsylvaina Progressive

"July 14, 2007
Ralph Nader Press Conference Part 1

Ralph Nader is here at the Green Party national convention speaking on the issue of ballot access. One reason the Greens chose to bring this convention to Pennsylvania was to highlight this issue. Last year Carl Romanelli, who will also speak, ran for the U.S. Senate and had to get 67,000+ petition signatures to get on the ballot. Democrats challenged his petitions and got him off the ballot. Therefore the Greens are highlighting this issue at this year's convention.

What the Greens won't mention tonight is how Romanelli funded his petition drive, with funds collected from Rick Santorum's supporters, including some major war profiteers, or that he had eight months to collect those signatures. Democratic and Republican candidates only needed 2,000 signatures but they also had only three weeks in the dead of winter to gather their signatures.

I have a front row center seat for the press conference. Marakay (Mimi) Rogers ran for Governor last year and for Attorney General in 2004. She filed suit against the Commonwealth for the restrictive ballot access laws. The first speaker is Phil Huckleberry from Illinois. He heads the Green's ballot access committee.

He says the Green's first priority this year should be securing ballot access this year in preparation for 2008. He doesn't like the ability of citizens to challenge petitions. Their strategy to counter this was to transcribe the data in Illinois and were able to prove the validity of the challenges. He says the Pennsylvania challenge was also a "bad faith challenge."

One of the problems the Greens had here last year was the unfamiliarity with the state voter registration database and their inability to prove their signatories were valid, registered voters. This lack of prepartion cost them dearly. I thought it said something about their competence. "

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. The votes of the left are available to the Democrats..if they want them.

But, the politicians are triangulating to get the right wing votes while assuming that we will shrug, hold our noses, and meekly comply.

[LWolf]

77. And that's a mistake, at least in my case.

I don't "meekly comply" with anything.

[Renew Deal]

37. Bloomberg will be the more sensible option in 2008.

Nader is a perennial loser. Bloomberg will suck up lots of votes if he runs.

[defendandprotect]

58. Well, always be on the side of "winners" no matter where they stand --- !!!

Meanwhile, Bloomberg is a Repug ---

[helderheid]

39. PDA

www.pdamerica.org

[defendandprotect]

65. Nader is great; Matthews is slime ---

[Lilith Velkor]

43. SCOTUS, SCOTUS, SCOTUS

(And don't you DARE mention Bush v Gore) SCOTUS!

[defendandprotect]

66. We should be impeaching what's left of that gang on the SC ---

a court that's an embarrassment throughout the world ---

The Bush v Gore decision a move in the Nuremberg Court direction . . . !!!

[robcon]

45. The other part is that we Democrats don't "have to" go left to win.

With Bush's approval ratings in the toilet, we just have to claim competence, and we will win handily in 2008.

[Dhalgren]

46. I hope you're right...

[KG]

47. wow, now that's inspiring!

[defendandprotect]

59. So that we can "win" what --- ???

You just elected Democrats who won't end the war and keep re-funding it --
You want more of that?

Do you want to elect Democrats who again won't pass single-payer National Health Care?

Do you want Democrats who will continue the occupation of Iraq-- ?

What do you win if you win a right-wing Democratic-corporate party?

[AndyTiedye]

94. So That We Can Keep Another Wingnut From Getting on the Supreme Court

and overturning Roe v. Wade, for starters.

[Occam Bandage]

56. "So -- why didn't someone blame Buchanan? Why didn't someone blame the Libertarians?"

Because both of those generally draw votes from the Republicans. Nader drew votes from Democrats, and if just 1% of his Floridian supporters had voted for Gore instead, Gore would have won, despite the GOP dirty tricks.

Also, learn proper punctuation. It would make you look less insane.

[defendandprotect]

60. First . . . Gore did WIN overall --- including in Florida ....

Jews voted for Buchanan --- and certainly they were not going to vote for Repugs ---

There were huge estimates of votes for Buchanan which would have been votes for Democrats.

Review what happened --- you are misleading yourself.

The poor of that area would not have been voting for Repugs.

Buchanan had more than 3,000 votes which would have been Democratic votes.

This was a BUTTERFLY ballot which was used to confuse Democrats and it did ---

[Occam Bandage]

76. Butterfly ballot was designed by a Democrat, buddy. No conspiracy there.

Just good old-fashioned incompetent design.

[EFerrari]

84. Red herring. It wasn't about the design of the ballot but

about massive suppression of black votes.

[Occam Bandage]

101. Right, which is a totally different issue from the butterfly ballot and Buchanan.

[EFerrari]

109. The ballot and Buchanan seem to have just been conveniences.

They were going to take FL no matter what. They messed with black voter reg and precincts, especially military and college kids.

Katherine Harris sent BACK the list that would exclude felons and told the data company to loosen up the criteria. They wrote her back to say they would and, they couldn't stand behind their results.

They were going to take FL no matter what. Nader or no Nader, Buchanan, hellfire, whatever.

[Occam Bandage]

113. So, what would they have done if

2% of Nader voters had gone for Gore instead, and the final count showed Gore up by 1,400?

[EFerrari]

117. The thing is, you're thinking like a decent person.

You're thinking in terms of legitimate candidates.

The theft had been planned, it was in the bag. The final "count" would never have shown Gore up because there was no way they'd let Gore be "up". It was never about votes you could count in the hundreds or even, in the low thousands. It was a concerted campaign to make sure that it never got that close in the first place. Nader was just frosting for those felons.

Don't believe me. Talk to FL DUers who have been dealing with the profound corruption of FL elections lo these many years.

[Occam Bandage]

131. So they didn't actually count any votes in the first place?

That's a new one on me.

[EFerrari]

133. The whole count was rigged. They rigged voter reg, they rigged

when polling places would open, they suppressed the vote in low income, senior, student and military precincts. They sent around people to "pick up" ballots from seniors. They robocalled students to warn them that if they voted in the wrong place, their student aid would be shut down. These people are criminals.

So, sure, they "counted" -- but the count was already corrupted before the first vote was cast. And then, they shut down the vote counting before it could be completed. Google "Brooks Brothers Riot".

There are many threads on this in the Election Reform forum.

Nader just gave them one more place to hide the theft. He was insignificant to the scope of the election fraud, as far as I can tell anyway.

[defendandprotect]

88. Sorry, but there seems to have been . . . as Teresa LaPore has been connected to GOP ---

I don't remember the details of it, but I did read that further investigation of her
did show some kind of an involvement with Republicans ---

It was an "old-fashioned" idea that worked --- for the GOP.

[Occam Bandage]

102. LOL.

"I have no evidence, nor does anyone else, but I bet she was connected! She had to have been! My tiny brain fears the concept of 'coincidence!'"

[defendandprotect]

110. Yeah . . . "coincidence" . . .

Unfortunately, I didn't save the article, but I think Teresa was tracked to a new Republican working arrangement ---

[Occam Bandage]

114. Notice how conspiracy theorists never save the articles that would prove their claims?

Coincidence, I'm sure.

[EFerrari]

134. That's simply not true. It's incombent on YOU to do your own work.

Here's a corporate media report:

Why is Florida's voting system so corrupt?
By Ann Louise Bardach
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 24, 2004, at 3:45 PM ET
At least there won't be chad this time At least there won't be chad this time

One indicator of the dire state of electoral affairs in Florida is the fact that Theresa LePore, the election supervisor who designed the infamous butterfly ballot, will once again be on the job. It was Ms. LePore's ballot that awarded the votes of thousands of elderly Jews in Palm Beach County to Pat Buchanan, arguably costing Al Gore the election. Given the multitude of other failures in the state's voting system, that's the good news.

In the wake of the most scandalous election in U.S. history, which led to an unprecedented 36-day recount, most Americans believed that state and federal authorities would take steps to ensure that the country would never again go through such an ordeal. But in truth very few changes have been made, and those that have been implemented have raised new concerns. Yet nearly all of Flordia's current troubles share a common denominator—they were decisions made or endorsed by Florida's secretary of state and chief elections officer, Glenda Hood, who was handpicked by Gov. Jeb Bush in November 2002.

Gov. Bush's own task force on the 2000 election recommended that the Legislature change county election supervisors from elected to nonpartisan positions. But the Legislature did not act on this recommendation, nor on the suggestion of election reform groups that the secretary of state also be selected by a nonpartisan commission, to ensure the necessary firewall between election officials and politicians.

There ahttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=389&topic_id=2501904&mesg_id=2511801
Democratic Underground - Post a messagere excellent reasons for this recommendation. Following the contentious 2000 recount, e-mails on former Sec. of State Katherine Harris' computer revealed that she had been in contact with Jeb Bush during the recount, contrary to both their claims. Miami Herald reporter Meg Laughlin discovered that e-mail messages sent to Jeb Bush from Harris had been deleted after the recount. Harris then had the operating system of her computer changed, a procedure that erased all its data. "What was odd about what she did," said Mark Seibel, an editor at the Herald, "was that they installed an old operating system—not a new one—which makes you wonder why they did it."

http://www.slate.com/id/2105524

And, here's a sharper one from Brad:

BBV Files Lawsuit Against Palm Beach County, FL!

Charges 'Freedom of Information Act' Docs Not Provided by County.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1007

You honestly can't dip your oar into FL elections in 2000 and 2002, 04 and 06 and not expect to dig up filth.

[Dhalgren]

78. Also, a large portion of Nader's votes came from first-time voters

or voters who hadn't voted in years. So those would not have been Democratic voters anyway...

[Occam Bandage]

80. If only 1% would have voted for Gore, Gore would have won,

even with the GOP dirty tricks.

[defendandprotect]

89. Gore did win . . . and Libertarians and other parties must also then be at fault?

because they took in votes which exceeded what Gore supposedly lost by in Florida ---
what was it . .. 537 votes?

Actually, the count came down in the final days before the SC swooped in to something
like 104 votes or even less.

There were a number of parties involved --- not just Nader.

However, Nader is a threat to the Democratic Party --- he has been telling the public
what has been going on with the DLC and corporate $ for decades now.

[Occam Bandage]

100. Libertarians do not traditionally draw from Democrats, but rather

from Republicans. If Gore ended up winning, Bush supporters could have rightly blamed, say, Buchanan.

Seriously, though--how can you claim Nader didn't damage Gore on one hand, and then call him "a threat to the Democratic party" on the other?

[reggie the dog]

124. I beg to differ

Libertarians are USUALLY pro choice, anti war, anti patriot act, anti war on terror, and anti war on drugs. A lot of democrats will vote Libertarian because they think that Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians are all pro business so they may as well vote for folks that will leave them alone, not go to war, and let them smoke a joint if they want to.

[Occam Bandage]

132. You may beg to differ. Polling does not. Libertarians

(not of the trustafarian variety) believe that economic freedom underlies all other freedoms, and believe that Republicans, for all their social meddling, are generally correct on economic issues. Libertarians are closer to Republicans than to Democrats, and vote for Republicans far more often than they do for Democrats.

[reggie the dog]

135. well, if the Democrats would

only OPPOSE the war on drugs or the war in Iraq they would pick up a bunch of these people.

[jeffrey_X]

61. I watched last night and didn't know that much about Nader's history...

I have a new found respect for the man because I didn't know his body of work from the late 60's and all of the 70's. Shame on me. I've only been aware of what the media has told me about this man.

It was amazing to witness yet again the power of the Regean and neo-con era and how they destroyed so many grass-roots movements for the common citizen.

[defendandprotect]

67. YES! Most of what we all know about politics and what has been goin' on these

past decades we know because of NADER ---

He was one of the first to be warning us of "corporate-fascism" ---

The idea that he is a "consumer advocate" is a very limited concept for all that he has taught us
not only about politics and corporations but about life and courage and ethics.

Love the man!

[walldude]

69. Not going to get much love for Nader here on DU

I have been told that I personally lost the election for Gore by voting for Nader. Of course Gore told me when I met him that barring the fact that the election was stolen had he not taken the advice of his "handlers" and just ran the campaign the way he wanted and that may have convinced me to vote for him. And it just may have, I like him much more now than I did then. That said, according to some lock steppers on DU it's still my fault that Gore lost, even though Gore disagrees with them... :eyes:

[defendandprotect]

74. When people hear the truth things calm down ---

and not loving Nader is misunderstanding history --

Yes, the election was stolen --- Gore won in Florida and overall --
and the Dems didn't stand up against the steal --

And, I agree that we have two different Gore's --- one we saw in the election and a better one
today --

But offer me Gore or Nader and they'd be no contest --- Nader every time!


and who lost the election for Kerry?

Of course, this is all farce ---

And, again, Kerry didn't stand up against another steal --


So --- our problems have nothing to do with Nader and everything to do with the DLC and corporate-Democratic Party as it exists today.

[jeffrey_X]

129. Great posting.

The democratic party seems lost ever since it was forced to start playing on K street back in the late 80's, at least that's my take. Nader's vision and direction seem to be the true nature of the democratic party. I mean come on, strong consumer advocacy was the foundation for a true democracy only to be destroyed by corporate America backed by both the republican and democratic parties.

It's truly amazing what the election of Reagan in 1980 did to this country.

[joe_sixpack]

71. There is one thing that Nader said in the program that rings true to me...

He said, if you vote for someone simply because they're not Bush, or not a Republican, then there is nothing they are beholden to, and after they're elected, how can you hold them accountable? Nader said he went to Clinton and Gore in the last year of their term to talk to them about issues that were important to him. He wasn't satisfied with their response apparently. Issues that we talk about in this campaign still. He also went to Kerry before the 2004 election. The one sad thing to see was Michael Moore telling people in 2000 that it was good to vote your conscience, but changing his tune in 2004 and begging them not to, made him look pretty lame after how hard he campaigned for Ralph the first time.

[defendandprotect]

75. Agree with your observations . . .and, right . . .

on Michael Moore which I commented upon above ---

Sad ---

I can forgive Michael Moore --- I think he felt guilty that he might have led the country
astray and I hope that one day he'll correct this.

Bill Maher, IMO, is just a jerk --

[sellitman]

79. Nader wasted any ideas he had years ago.

Instead of moving the party left he attacked it at every chance. His financial support from the right made all you Nader worshippers look the fools you are.

Fuck Nader!

[defendandprotect]

90. Yeah, let's ignore the DLC having moved the party to the right . . .

let's ignore the corporate sponsored-DLC which moved NAFTA --

let's ignore the fact that Nader was "scapegoated" while the Democrats have done

nothing about two obviously stolen elections ---

AND, in fact, 40 plus years of computer steals ---

See: VOTESCAM --- the website which tells the story of Jim & Ken Collier and their book
which was suppressed ---
they investigated computer steals of elections for 26 years ---

2000 and 2004 weren't the first --- they were just the noisiest ---

[sellitman]

99. Ever wonder why...

Ever wonder why Nader had more support financially from the Right than the left?

I didn't think so.

[defendandprotect]

107. Do you want to provide some evidence of that --- ?

[defendandprotect]

108. Kerry Receives 100 Times More in Contributions from GOP Donors than Nader

Meanwhile, you might want to think about this . .

Kerry Receives 100 Times More in Contributions from GOP Donors than Nader

The anti-Nader Democrats have spread their big lie to discredit Nader and silence his anti-war and progressive message that Kerry could not rebut. The anti-Naderites hired Stanley Greenberg to conduct surveys and focus groups to determine how best to smear Nader. They found that falsely claiming Nader was funded and controlled by Republicans was the most effective line they could use—a line that can’t pass the laugh test when compared to the facts. They announced their findings at the Democratic Convention and then spread the lie through the Naderfactor.com and the United Progressives for Victory.



PS: But the reality was only 700 Republican contributions (no individuals, but individual contributions) had given donations to the Nader campaign and most of the contributors were people Nader had worked with on justice issues in the past. Even among these 700 the Democrats received more money than Nader/Camejo—$111,700 to $146,000. But, the Democrats continue to use the Big Lie—despite the facts.



http://www.votenader.org

[JCMach1]

86. 4-6 parties would be better

working in coalition to control the Congress.

The two parties keep their power because of and at the behest of their corporate masters.

[defendandprotect]

91. We need IRV voting --- and many European countries have had it for a long time ---

[JCMach1]

98. It would go a little something like this

Christian Right Party (have fun naming it; personally DOMINION party has a ring to it)
Conservative Party
Greens/Socialists
Liberal Democrats
Center Coalition
Libertarians

[defendandprotect]

105. Well, I'd certainly object to a "religous" party . . .

Of course, Europeans have continued to traditionally fund their religions with tax dollars.
I disagree with that, as well.

But Bush has dragged us into that arena -- very wrongly.

Try this ---

Neo-Cons/Republicans
Progressive Democrats
Green Party
Libertarians Left
Libertarians Right
Socialists
Fascists

[LSK]

122. What did Ralph Nader do to win Congressional Seats for a 3rd party?

Did he do anything in 2006?

[reggie the dog]

127. i dont know if he had anything to do with it

but the Green Party got 10% of the vote for Governor in Illinois in 2006.

The Democrats only got 49.8% and the Repulbicans 39.3% In a proportional representation scheme a coalition would have been needed either with the Greens or the .5% Constitution party.