oldenGoldenDecoy's picture

    Ralph ... Where art thou?

    It wouldn't be the same without Ralph

    Where's the five-time candidate for President of the United States?
     

    Nader

    It's been over two years since any activity has been published on the Multinational Monitor website that Ralph founded in 1980...

    Oh wait... Here's Ralph:
     

    Ralph Nader Seeks Primary Challenger For President Obama

    September 19, 2011

    President Obama may face some challenges among his own party during his 2012 reeelection campaign, after a group of liberal leaders that includes former presidential nominee Ralph Nader announced plans to challenge the incumbent during the Democratic primaries next year.

    Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, blamed by many Democrats for the loss of the White House in the 2000, is seeking a candidate to challenge President Barack Obama in the 2012 Democratic primaries.

    To launch the effort, Nader and his allies penned a scathing letter that was sent to more than 150 potential sympathizers, accusing Obama of betraying his liberal base and its progressive agenda.

    However, Nader insists the purpose of the effort is not to deny Obama the Democratic nomination, or undermine his chances in the general election.

    Continues here: ibtimes.com/articles/..../ralph-nadar-primary-obamachallenge

    So... Ralph keeps active the mantle of "An Unreasonable Man" into the 2012 primaries.

    "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw



    Posted for general discussion.

    ~OGD~

    Comments

    .

    The scathing letter...

     

    THE INVITATION TO CHALLENGE OBAMA IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES

    September 17, 2011

    Dear Colleague,

    We write to you in light of recent deteriorating events in Washington, D.C. Misguided negotiations by the Obama Administration over increasing the debt ceiling willingly put our nation’s vital social services on the chopping block while Bush-era tax cuts remain untouched. Clearly the situation has reached crisis proportions. In response, an innovative plan has been announced to reintroduce a progressive agenda back into the political discussion during the 2012 election season.

    Consider for a moment two very different scenarios for the 2012 Democratic presidential primaries.

    The First scenario, President Obama advances without contest to a unanimous nomination. There is no recognizable Democratic challenger, no meaningful debate on key progressive issues or past broken promises, just a seamless, self-contained operation on its way to raising one billion dollars in campaign funds.

    This scenario is what most observers expect. Mr. Obama will face neither opposition nor debate. He will have no need to clarify or defend his own polices or address the promises, kept and unkept, of his 2008 campaign. The president will not have to explain to his supporters why he directly escalated the war in Afghanistan and broadened America’s covert war in Pakistan, why he chose to engage in a military intervention in Libya, or why he has maintained the Bush Administration’s national security apparatus that allows for the suspension and abuse of constitutionally protected civil liberties–dismissing Congress all the way.

    In an uncontested Democratic primary, President Obama will never have to justify his decision to bail out Wall Street’s most profitable firms while failing to push for effective prosecution of the criminal behavior that triggered the recession, or his failure to push for real financial reform. He will not have to defend his decision to extend the Bush era tax cuts nor justify his acquiescence to Republican extortion during the debt ceiling negotiations. He will not have to answer questions on how his Administration completely failed to protect homeowner’s losing their homes to predatory banks, or even mention the word “poverty,” as he failed to do in his most recent State of the Union Address, even as more and more Americas sink into financial despair.

    He will never be challenged to fulfill his pledge to actively pursue a Labor-supported card check, or his promise to increase the federal minimum wage or why he took single payer off the table after he said he believes in it. The American labor movement, facing an unprecedented onslaught by the Right will not have the opportunity to voice its concerns and rally around a supportive candidate.

    The president will not be pressed to answer how he spent four years in office without addressing the ongoing destabilization of our climate or advocating a coherent and ecologically sound energy policy including defending his position on nuclear power and so called clean coal. Nor will he discuss regulatory agency deficiencies in enforcing corporate law and order in an era marked by a corporate crime wave having devastating economic consequences on workers and taxpayers and their savings and pensions. There will be no opportunity for the Hispanic and other relevant communities to speak out on immigration reform even as the Republicans continue to use it as a weapon of political demagoguery.

    Add your own concerns, disappointments, and frustrated hopes to this list of what will surely be left off the table during an express-lane primary. The valid disagreements within the Democratic Party, let alone the goals of progressives, will be completely overlooked. The media will gleefully cover the media circus that is sure to be the Republican primaries, magnifying every minor gaffe and carefully cataloguing every iteration and argument of the radical right. The cameras will cover the Democratic side only for orchestrated events, the whiff of scandal, and to offer commentary on how the campaign is positioning itself for the general election.

    The summation of this process will be a tediously scripted National Convention, deprived of robust exchange and well-wrought policy. And here the danger is clear: not only will progressive principles past and present be betrayed but large sections of voters will feel bored with and alienated from the democratic candidate. This would not serve the president’s campaign, our goals, or the nation’s needs.

    Thankfully, there is another option. This second scenario would allow for robust and exciting discussion and debate during the primary season while posing little risk to the president other than to encourage him take more progressive stands. It would also accomplish the critical task of energizing the Progressive base to turn out on Election Day.

    Imagine: A slate of six candidates announces its decision to run in the Democratic primaries. Each of the candidates is recognizable, articulate, and a person of acknowledged achievement. These contenders would each represent a field in which Obama has never clearly staked a progressive claim or where he has drifted toward the corporatist right. These fields would include: labor, poverty, military and foreign policy, health insurance and care, the environment, financial regulation, civil and political rights/empowerment, and consumer protection.

    Without primary challengers, President Obama will never have to seriously articulate and defend his beliefs to his own party. Given the dangers our nation faces, that option is unacceptable. The slate is the best method for challenging the president for a number of reasons:

    -The slate can indicate that its intention is not to defeat the president (a credible assertion given their number of voting columns) but to rigorously debate his policy stands.

    -The slate will collectively give voice to the fundamental principles and agendas that represent the soul of the Democratic Party, which has increasingly been deeply tarnished by corporate influence.

    -The slate will force Mr. Obama to pay attention to many more issues affecting many more Americans. He will be compelled to develop powerful, organic, and fresh language as opposed to stale poll-driven “themes.”

    -The slate will exercise a pull on Obama toward his liberal/progressive base (in the face of the countervailing pressure from “centrists” and corporatists) and leave that base with a feeling of positive empowerment.

    -The slate will excite the Democratic Party faithful and essential small-scale donors, who (despite the assertions of cable punditry) are essentially liberal and progressive.

    - A slate that is serious, experienced, and well-versed in policy will display a sobering contrast with the alarmingly weak, hysterical, and untested field taking shape on the right.

    -The slate will command more media attention for the Democratic primaries and the positive progressive discussions within the party as opposed to what will certainly be an increasingly extremist display on the right.

    -The slate makes it more difficult for party professionals to induce challengers to drop out of the race and more difficult for Mr. Obama to refuse or sidestep debates in early primaries.

    The slate, if announced, will receive free legal advice and adequate contributions for all prudent expenses in moving about the country. The paperwork is far simpler than what confronts ballot-access- blocked third party and independent candidates. For the slate will be composed of registered Democrats campaigning inside the Party Primaries.

    This opportunity to revive and restore the progressive infrastructure of the Democratic Party must not be missed. A slate of Democratic candidates challenging the president’s substance and record is an historic opportunity. Certainly, President Obama will not be pleased to face a list of primary challengers, but the comfort of the incumbent is far less important than the vitality and strength of his party’s Progressive ideas and ideals. President Obama should emerge from the primary a stronger candidate as a result.

    This letter is sent to several dozen accomplished persons known to identify with the Democratic Party voting line for a variety of reasons. We ask that you consider several requests. First, would you consider being a slate candidate after due reflection beyond what may be an immediate no? History has illustrated greater discomforts, material sacrifices and other profiles of courage in our country’s past for a perceived major common good.

    Second, if you are not interested in joining as a candidate, would you add your name as an official endorsee of the slate proposal. All endorsements are made as individuals and organizational or institutional affiliations are for identification purposes only. Your endorsement will be a vital signal of support and will help in compiling the strongest slate of candidates possible when we send out the letter to the candidate list, yet to be finalized.

    Third, can you suggest accomplished people to contact who may be interested in joining the slate as a candidate in one of the following fields: labor, poverty, military and foreign policy, health insurance and care, the environment, financial regulation, civil and political rights/empowerment, and consumer protection. This can be yourself if you feel it would be appropriate.

    Candidates and endorsements will be accepted on a rolling basis. All submissions or additional questions and comments can be directed to Colin O’Neil [email protected] or 703-599-3474. We appreciate your response.

    Thank you.

    Partial List of Endorsees

    All endorsements are in alphabetical order are made as individuals, organizational/institutional affiliations are for identification purposes only.

    Norman Birnbaum

    Professor Emeritus, Georgetown University Law Center

    Dr. Brent Blackwelder

    President Emeritus of Friends of the Earth

    Charles Cray Peter Coyote

    Actor, Author and Director

    Charles Derber

    Professor, Boston College

    Ronnie Dugger

    Founder, Alliance for Democracy

    James Abourezk

    Former U.S. Senator, South Dakota

    Gar Alperovitz

    Professor University of Maryland

    Co-Founder Democracy Collaborative

    Ellen H. Brown

    Lawyer and Author of Web of Debt

    Edgar Stuart Cahn

    Professor of Law, University of the District of Columbia

    Co-founder Legal Services for the Poor

    Pat Choate

    1996 Reform Party Vice President Candidate

    Director of the Center for Corporate Policy

    Ronnie Cummins

    Executive Director, Organic Consumers Association

    John Fullerton

    President, Capital Institute

    Rebecca and James Goodman

    Northwood Farm

    Randy Hayes

    Director, Foundation Earth Rainforest Action Network Founder

    Chris Hedges

    Pulitzer Prize Winning Journalist of the New York Times and Author

    Hazel Henderson,

    Author of Ethical Markets: Growing the Green Economy President, Ethical Markets Media, LLC.

    Alan F. Kay

    Author of Spot the Spin and Locating Consensus for Democracy Harry Kelber

    The Labor Educator

    Andrew Kimbrell

    Executive Director, Center for Food Safety & International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA)

    Jonathan Kozol

    Educator, Author of Savage Inequalities Lewis Lapham

    Former Editor, Harper’s Magazine

    Rabbi Michael Lerner

    Editor, Tikkun Magazine Chair, Network of Spiritual Progressives

    Jean Houston

    Psychologist, Anthropologist and Author of The Possible Human and The Possible Society

    Nicholas Johnson

    Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission

    Former Administrator, U.S. Maritime Administration

    Leland Lehrman

    Partner, Fund Balance

    Dr. Richard Lippin, MD

    Physician Forecaster, Board Certified in Preventive Medicine and Advocate for both Individual and

    Institutional Prevention

    Robert D. Manning

    Founder and CEO, Responsible Debt Relief Institute

    Author of Credit Card Nation

    Dr. Samuel Metz, MD

    Mad As Hell Doctors, founding member

    Physicians for a National Health Program, member of Portland chapter

    Carol Miller

    Community Activist, New Mexico

    E. Ethelbert Miller

    Board Chair Institute for Policy Studies

    Ralph Nader

    Citizen Advocate

    Michael Parenti

    Author

    John Passacantando

    Former Executive Director, Greenpeace USA

    Vijay Prashad

    Author and Professor, Trinity College

    Marcus Raskin

    Author of The Common Good and former White House Advisor Andy Shallal

    “Democracy’s Restauranteur” and Owner of Bus Boys & Poets

    Michelle Shocked

    Musician

    Gore Vidal

    Erich Pica

    President of Friends of the Earth

    Nomi Prins

    Author and former Managing Director at Goldman Sachs

    David Swanson

    Author, War is a Lie

    Chris Townsend

    Political Action Director, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE)

    Author and Political Activist

    Rabbi Arthur Waskow

    Chair, The Shalom Center

    Cornel West

    Professor and Author of Race Matters

    National Coordinator, Physicians for a National Health Program

    Harvey Wasserman

    Author of Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth

    Quentin D. Young MD

     

    Linked from:: blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/.../should-progressives-challenge-obama

     

    ~OGD~


    DAMN! That's some list!

    Run Ralph, Run 

    (If people still have a conscience, they'll vote for Ralph too.) 


    The alternative vote will never be allowed by the two capitalist parties.  


     

    "However, Nader insists the purpose of the effort is not to deny Obama the Democratic nomination, or undermine his chances in the general election."

    No, his purpose is to inflate his own ego.  What happened to Nader's 'We need a third party' bullshit?  It went away when scores of Americans blamed him for helping George W. Bush get elected.  Now, this son of a bitch opportunist wants to aid in defeating President Obama by weakening him through a primary challenger.  Oh sure, he says he's very concerned about Obama not being Progressive enough. Right. So he's going to enable someone even less Progressive to become President. Thanks for the help, jackass.  

    Nader's a phony, willing to use any pathetic reasoning to get his name back into the ring of public adoration.  It's time for this shadow of his former self, to go back to his retirement home and stop massaging his own ego through political manipulation.

    I wouldn't necessarily be upset with a primary challenger, if it was a real Progressive, but Nader's only in it for Nader, not as a real standard bearer for Progressive values.

     


    Unfortunately for Ralph he has made himself nothing more than a joke. Why it was just days ago when he was praising Sarah Palin as a populist conservative, which is such utter BS. Normal people see Palin for the grifter that she and her family are, but Nader, either said this to drum up coverage for himself, which places him in grifter territory or he believes it! What? I mean he isn't insane is he, because if he believes that, he must be insane. Either way the guy should be ignored, always and forever. He used to be such a great advocate for consumers, now he will go down in history as a narcissistic loon.


    Right. It's as painful as watching a coloratura whose voice has gone try to hit the high notes.



    Haaaaa, that's too funny.


    LOL Donal!


    Nice analogy.


    I know I read that.

    Palin and Bachmann attempt to place themselves with the masses attacking big corporate/government links and then...

    Bachmann thinks all income taxes should be abolished and nader praises this kind of thinking.

    Nader has pissed me off for years.

    You know Carter appointed all these Nader's Raiders to his cabinet and I saw a doc on them awhile ago. Their mentor would just castigate them constantly until they no longer wished to take Nader's calls!

    how in the hell a purist could praise Palin is beyond me.

    If Nader is not acting out of a search for money, he must be acting out of pure anger.

     


    "If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten".

    Neither the Democrats or the Republicans want to put labor first.

    How many more years will it take before people wake up and realize  

    "The issue is Socialism versus Capitalism. I am for Socialism because I am for humanity. We have been cursed with the reign of gold long enough. Money constitutes no proper basis of civilization.....

    • Of course, Socialism is violently denounced by the capitalist press and by all the brood of subsidized contributors to magazine literature, but this only confirms the view that the advance of Socialism is very properly recognized by the capitalist class as the one cloud upon the horizon which portends an end to the system in which they have waxed fat, insolent and despotic through the exploitation of their countless wage-working slaves.. "
    • http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

     

    Can't you all see; Obama compromised with the Republicans, so that he wouldn't have to go to the left.

    Now Obama seeking a second term, wants us all to believe he's come to his senses.

    Well folks, it's time to come to your senses, a capitalist serves the capitalist agenda above all other considerations. Labor be damned.

    Saving the banker class is what the capitalists serve, labor be damned.

    Talking about jobs and then continue blaming the republican capitalists, for not fighting for the people, gets you votes, from the koolaid drinkers.

    Too blind to see  the Democrat Capitalists really don't give a crap about labor, until election time.

    If you want to go left, steer the darn car to the left. Vote left.

    The republicans may have drove the car into the ditch, but Obama even if he gets the car back on the road is sill going in the wrong direction.

    !9 months of HealthCare debate, sure redirected the peoples anger from the banker class, (save the capitalists)  didn't it?   Some would call that a subterfuge.

    Did the capitalist healthcare providers win or did labor? Did the capitalist big pharma win or did labor? Both parties look to save the capitalist corporations and if they screw the people; so be it.

    While the corporations wax fat because both the republicans and the democrats to serve them, at the expense of Labor; whose expendable.

    subterfuge definition : subterfuge artifice, deception, deviousness, dodge, duplicity, evasion, excuse, machination, manoeuvre, ploy, pretence, pretext, quibble, ...

    WAKE UP a vote for anyone of the two parties,  weakens labor.  Until their is no resistance, no spoiler to interfere with the plans of the capitalist; where money is their God. Where all will bow down to their golden calf.

    Ask any Democrat or Republican about the Capitalist creed: He that has the gold, rules.


    We had a system once, remember?

    Even in the midst of the Red Scare of the 50's, labor was powerful and kept the WWII standard of fairness in this country.

    I could partially blame the Teamsters for backing Nixon but whatever the real causes, labor kept losing footholds until they are now only a small coalition of workers in this nation.

    RIGHT TO WORK!

    Bullshite.

    The damnable Southern Strategy worked and we all lost!

    Damn!


    That sure doesn't help, but I think it's deeper. Labor made the mistake of exchanging real power for a so-called seat at the table. No matter if we're talking about breaking the coal miner's unions in Kentucky and West Virginia back in the 80's (a *far* more significant loss for labor than the whole ATC thing, IMO) or talking about Wisconsin in 2011 ... when the chips are down, the Trumkas and Sterns of this world won't call a general strike. Period. Instead they just pour everyone's resources into a bunch of bullshit Democrats ... as if electing a few more of this or that party will change a damn thing.

    And what's the result? Union membership in the aforementioned coal states has fallen from over 100,000 members to under 14,000 ... and people are dying. Those unlucky enough to be with a local that held strikes at the time were left high and dry by the unions (led by a young Richard Trumka) ... and when they were broken anyone involved was blackballed from working. Meanwhile, in present-day Wisconsin ... they what? Got a couple more Democrats into the senate ... while an confidant of Walker magically found some-ten thousand ballots to rig the Supreme court (No... this doesn't look fishy ... no need to review or anything); meanwhile union workers are still on the job with cut pensions, wages and literal loss of the right to collectively bargain. But don't worry ... there's talk of another recall on!!!! Maybe in January they can start the process to replace Walker with a Democrat (in an election what, a whole 14 months before the next legit governors' race?).

    Also, by making the labor movement a lame-ass appendage of the Democrats - allowing the good of the union movement to be construed as the good of the Democratic party - it pretty much gives a great big FU to folks who don't like the Democratic party at all but might happily stand shoulder to shoulder if they  saw the purpose of solidarity as focused *DIRECTLY* on advancing the interests of labor. As it is, the Republicans do kind of have a point that the unions pretty much just exist to funnel the worker's dues into the brutally pro-corporate coffers of the Democratic party - even those of workers who aren't into the idea at all.

    I Imagine many families could have been supported by all those millions and millions poured in to Democratic politicians if, at any point in the last three decades, working members had stood up for a better future by bringing an industry or whatever to a standstill demanding a fair approach to dealing with labor.

    We can't ignore that one big reason Labor has been losing footholds is because Labor's strategy has been lame as shit. Who's going to risk joining a union after having watched their friends and relatives literally drummed out of state for union activity ... as Trumka stood idly by refusing to recognize the standards of solidarity? Nobody. They're going to keep their head down and take what they're given and hope nobody beats them.


     I consider myself to be a "normal" person. I expect that Sara Palin does likewise, and presumably you do too. Maybe we are all three right about that because a lot of normal people are normally AFU.  Sara Palin also considers herself to be a "Conservative" and also a "Populist". A significant percentage of political conservatives think that she is a conservative Populist. Webster says a Populist "...is a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially often capitalized." Doesn't Sara claim to represent the common people? Don't one hell of a lot of people say she represents them? Yeah, I know, picky picky.


    Whaaaatt????

    With that type of "normal" reasoning I'm sure our Anonymous poster will undoubtely understand the following...

    Sarah Palin can "consider" her ass is a turkey but it doesn't make her Thanksgiving.

    Now I'm off to see what else has just disappeared down the rabbit-hole...

    ~OGD~


    Hahahahaahaha, I see you've chosen like a good internet troll to be picky with the world normal, as opposed to supporting Nader's statement that Palin is a populist, which she most certainly is not. Sarah Palin doesn't support social services of any kind, except the kind that has her sneaking across the Canadian border so she can get free care from the Canadian government, without paying jack shit for it... which makes her a grifter. Palin represents no one but Sarah Palin. She is a narcissistic grifter and not a populist. If she were a populist she would have remained governor of Alaska to fight for the people. She literally represents no one, she quit representing people when she walked off the job.  She has no real job, except to sell shit all about herself to rubes. She is no different than Bernie Madoff. When Nader throws in with the likes of her, he is simply not normal, not progressive, and very possibly a racist piece of shit.


    Thank you ...

    Thank you for taking the time to follow our Anonymous (as you say) "troll" down the rabbit-hole.

    I really was too busy waiting for the grass to grow another quarter of one-inch before a started trimming it... There ARE more important things to take care of in the universe.

    ~OGD~


    Yes there are OGD... I had just finished my bike ride and i am always in a fightin' mood after I dismount! :)


    So, Olden, or should I call you Mr. Decoy, do you have a problem with people posting anonymously?


    Do I have a problem?

    No Anonymous. I have no problems whatsoever. What made you think that? Are you experiencing a feeling of inferiority by going by the name Anonymous? What am I suppose to call you? After all, that is you're current handle, right?

    Hell, you can refer to yourself as the Rabbit in the Hat for all I care.

    You see I've noticed, over time, your expedients here in this thread have progressed from being merely addlepated to being super-addlepated, hyper-addlepated, and recently ultra-addlepated. In fact, I'd say that now they're even mega-addlepated.

    So I really don't wish to know who you are.

    ~OGD~


    You are correct that I am currently using the handle "Anonymous".

     I find a lot of humorous irony in your responses to me and about me in this thread. You, who are posting as a decoy who looks like a duck and talks like a duck to the point of sounding like a quack.  You did not address me as Anonymous but instead emphasized that I was posting anonymously in a way that seemed to deride that fact. Thus my question to your [also anonymous] self, do you have a problem with someone posting anonymously. Adding to the irony you retort as if you had used Anonymous as my handle and then you accuse me of being confused. That's golden.

     Hey, no offense taken here or elsewhere in the thread. Quack on and stay phony, old duck. Keep trying to alter appearances so that something real will get shot down. I at least get a chuckle when all the shots fired turn out to be misdirected blanks. That chuckle is some small compensation for not getting a reasonable, or even sensible, response.


    Woa, big fella. You are being a bit loose with the charge of troll just because I disagreed with you about whether or not Palin is a populist. I did, after all, provide a dictionary definition of the word that I still think holds up as a description of her political stance and I did, in fact, support Nader's use of the term. Read my comment again and don't let your jerky knee type your response. I guess you could get technical about it and hold that since she is a conniving politician that she cannot be labeled anything else as well, but then I believe that you would be getting a bit picky to do so. Also, it would restrict you from labeling almost any other politician, including the ones you support, as anything other than conniving or some other disparaging word. That is, if you were trying to be intellectually honest.
     Also, I said,"Yeah, I know, picky picky"  in reference to my own comment to indicate that it was a small point just to make conversation. It didn't seem to me to be such a provocative attack that it would cause you to have blood pressure problems and go so far off as to suggest that because Nader says that Palin is a Populist that he is therefore very likely a "racist piece of shit". Where does that vicious attack come from?

     Being a troll or not, I try to not say anything in these blog comments that I would not say to a person's face in a public setting. Would you publicly call Nader a racist piece of shit while striving to build a coalition of reasonable people who acted in a reasonable manner so as to advance your political aims?
     
     Now, more about Nader and people's perception of him: A great many Democrats, liberals, progressives, whatever, agreed with a great many of the things that Ralph Nader had advocated for years leading up to the year his candidacy coincided with all the many other things that conspired to cost Kerry the election. That is why he got a lot of votes, although approximately zero of those votes from Republicans, but because so many idiotically hold him entirely responsible for Bush being elected they now attack everything he says even though his message has remained pretty much the same. Some, like myself, might characterize that as utter bullshit.  Nader is one person among several people and several identifiable groups who cost Kerry the election. Nader is neither the primary reason, nor is he responsible, for Kerry's and our loss. To have the knee-jerk reaction of striking out at him every time he promotes roughly the same message that used to resonate with so many of us because you have arrived at a simplistic conclusion that he cost the Democrats that election and did not skulk off and hide afterwards, but has instead stayed active in his life's work, is utter bullshit and it says much more about anyone who fits that description than it says about Nader.


    Big fella.. really.? Yes everyone on the interwebs is a man, it's the rule, since the beginning of nerd time.  Men are smarter and better and what do they know about the interwebs or politics or policy.

    I will repeat myself Sarah Palin is a grifter, she is not progressive, when Ralph Nader makes claims she is a conservative populist that is a blatant lie, and Anonymous, she represents no one but herself, she is not a member of government, she is not running for any kind of office, she has fanbois, followers, the same kind of people who send their money to Pat Robertson and his ilk, and she like them, represents no one but herself.  Nader is blatantly wrong in his assessment and no real progressive with a normal brain could ever find themselves making claims like that, it makes me wonder what-the-fuck Ralph? Is his obvious anger with the Pres based on racism, cause come on, really? Sarah the grifter Palin is a conservative populist? She is soaking up every bit of what her 15 minutes will offer and she is going to be richer than her wildest dreams.

    This makes Nader seem like a desperate man,  who to this day is unable to admit his mistake in the claims that Democrats=Republicans. That is a blatant lie, one that too many people are willing to accept even though every bit of evidence disproves this, and we have eight years of recent evidence to disprove his histrionics.  To this day he is unable to focus in on the difference big difference between Democrats and Republicans, we have 8 years of recent evidence refuting that blatant lie. NO WAY WOULD THERE BEEN AN IRAQ WAR IF AL GORE HAD BEEN PRESIDENT, IRREFUTABLE. We are where we are today because we spent uncontrollably on two wars without ever paying the bill, NO WAY WOULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED UNDER AL GORE, DEMOCRATS PAY THEIR BILLS, REPUBLICANS MAX OUT THE GOVT CHARGE CARD, IRREFUTABLE. Let's see, Al Gore and Barack Obama fundamentally believe in government and use or would have used the government like they did during the Clinton era by manipulating existing government regulations to promote the growth of minority businesses, FASA, running our government is so much more than just the Guantanamo, the CIA,Wiretapping, and Julian Assange, those are issues to be sure, but they in no way outweigh what it takes to keep our government evolving to better serve Americans.  It is about so much more than the outrage of the day. It's about separating The Forest Service from the USDAg, which will never happen under a Republican administration, and we will never preserve our forests if we cannot move to eventually separate the Forest Service from Ag, their missions conflict too much.  it's about tweaking little policies, (students loans, food stamps, unemployment, making more grants available to RD,  even though they fail sometimes. These things are important and the Democratic Party does a better job of stewardship of the government than any Republican would ever do, including the unelectable quadruplets Huntsman, Johnson, Karger and especially Ron "let's go back to 1900, no 1950, let's do without insurance" Paul. In that Nader is out there helping to spread blatant falsehoods in order to depress the vote serves only to ultimately screw the entire country with something that amounts to nothing more than a meme, without meaning or evidence, but is believed none-the-less.

    Nader deserves every single bit of derision he gets from me personally and anybody out there who was a sentient being during 2000-2008. That should be reason enough to work at all times to keep Republican barbarians out of office.


    TM. does saying "Woa big fella", as I did, mark me as some kind of sexist or male chauvinist pig? Really? Do you, after a little thought, believe that ? What if I had been addressing two or more people, some of them women, and I had said "you guys"? Are you just looking hard for any way to attack me personally because we differ on a point of politics and small language differences used to describe those different political ideas? The opening difference was that I thought it was fair to call Palin a populist even if she was also everything else you call her, all those disparaging names you call that woman. I am a male, yes, but was it obvious from what seems to me to have been a very gender neutral exchange on my part? What if I said in response to one of your angry retorts, "Hey, its obvious that you are a woman"? That, if it had happened, would, I think, have been a display of sexism worth responding to


    What a perfect response Anonyn, pick again on my one admonishment of your response, not the substance of the remainder of my response.

    To answer your question about sexism, yeah, you are a sexist or you wouldn't reach for the term fella as your immediate response to someone on the interwebs that you don't know. It is a trollish and dismissive response. Oh and technically as we are going to nit-pick,  whoa, has an (h) in it.

    But what is lacking from you is any response to the substance of my response to you which was long and is offered to prove that Democrats do not equal Republicans which is offered to disprove Naders lie.  Until you have a response to that, I have to say you have not supported why Ralph Nader is such a great dude and looking out for real Americans, when it is obvious he is looking out for himself and attempting to build his own power base. Is he doing that so he can have impact on the election, yet again? Where is your response to Nader's claim that Dems=Repub.. I have offered ample proof they are substantively different and of course in my mind Democrats are better, they often suck, and yet continue to be better.  I mean do you think I like Landrieu and Nelson... hahahah no fucking way, I hate their guts and yet they are better than the republicans their states would usher in if they weren't there. Where is the response to that? You have no response to that because you cannot provide adequate evidence that Dem's =Republicans to prove Nader's crazy assed meme. Running our massive government is about so much more than Guantanmo, Wiretapping and Julian Assange and I explain why. Where is your defense of Nader's ongoing attacks against Democrats? Of course you conveniently chose to not engage on the real issues, just my initial admonishment of you being a sexist. And you are one. Not everyone on the interwebs are men, don't call me fella and then expect me to remain quiet about the underlying sexism that is prevalent at blogs like this one. (Genghis and AMan that is not a slam against you or this blog, just an acknowledgement of sexism on the web and there is nothing you can do about it until men stop themselves from responding like sexists).  I believe my defense of Dem's is irrefutable, and you have done absolutely nothing to disabuse me or others of that notion. 

    Certainly it is true that Nader has marginalized himself to a great deal and very few people take him seriously as an individual who wants to usher in a new progressive era, because you don't do that by helping Republicans get elected, which is seemingly Naders goal, to get more Republicans elected, up to and including that lunatic Sarah Palin. That means Nader is the opposite of what a progressive is, and it is an indication he cares only for himself and any power he could possibly wield to direct people not to vote for Democrats. When people listen to him our country is worse off, he promotes the idea that Dem's do as much damage to the nation as Republicans and they don't and that is insulting and wrong and ridiculous.

    Why not try to actually support the things Nader says, why not respond to the substance of my responses to you, and not just the admonishment of your trollish behavior. 

    I'll be back later to see if you have it in you, until then I am going to hang out with William Katt.


    I don't believe for one second that Al Gore would have stayed out of Iraq.

    He would have capitulated, like the rest of the coward Democrats, when they gave the Authorization to use force.

    Like Roosevelt who said he would stay out of Europe's war but at the first opportunity he gave his rationalization to assist Europe.

    Before him, Wilson did the same thing and got us into WW1

    Like any politician, he'll tell you one thing, to get your vote and then once in office, he listens to someone else.

    Gore was the front man for NAFTA. IMHO that was the worst thing to happen to the American labor movement. Instead of selling our high end products; we became a colony to be exploited.

    When Obama the candidate, told the workers in the rust belt , that he would fight against these trade deals, it was to get our votes.

    We found out later he sent his advisors to Canada and with a wink,wink; Obama really didn't mean it; he only said those things to win the primaries.

    Tell the suckers what they want to hear, and badmouth your opponents who might spoil your chances of winning the election

    You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
    Abraham Lincoln

    Those who voted for Nader weren't the fools; we knew Corporate powers were the puppet masters of the two capitalist parties, unlike the SUCKERS who vote for them.

    They have to fool the suckers, it's the only way they can keep control.

    There's a sucker born every minute,  and the Republican (R ) /democrats ( r) want your vote. 


    Dear Resistance... I don't care what you think you you have no evidence to support the bullshit that Al Gore would have gone into Iraq, none, 0, zip, nada, you do what you always do, attempt to do what Nader told you, attack Democrats even though it is against your best interest.  You think Eugene Debbs is some savior, let me clue you in, he is dead and never had any significant power to effect any kind of positive change.

    Those links above supply I have provided the proof, irrefutable proof that Al Gore is not an idiot, nor would he have authorized an action against Iraq when we were attacked by Al Qaeda, who were harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    Those who voted for Nader were not just fools, they are people easily swayed by lies and propaganda, you will never disabuse me of that fact Resistance, never.


    Nader has fought corporate power all his life.

    Do you understand that distinction. and why Nader is the best candidate for taking on corporate power?

    I want to regain our country, from the hands of corporate power, We need a fighter.

    Nader has fought corporate power all his life. 

    Corporate power and their dupes, will  always call Nader a spoiler. DOH!


    You utterly avoided defending the lie that Gore would have gone to war in Iraq.   Why avoid defending your statement?  Of course you cannot, so you will not and you will continue on your efforts to get more Republicans elected and I am fighting against that and always will, so you will have to learn to deal with that. In fact attempt to refute my entire response to Anonymous with actual facts Resistance if you can, and offer some evidence, links anything at all. Until then I stand by my defense of Democrats, they are not the same as Republicans, never will be, not ever.


    Despite giving you what most high school students recognize as American history,

    I find that it would be irrational to believe, Gore the capitulator in the Florida recount,  would not have bowed under the enormous patriotic fervor. No way would he have risked looking like a sympathizer or coward.

    The Florida recount proved to me he was spineless, more worried about HIS political career, over that of those about to suffer under Bush.

    We knew we didn't want Bush and we would have taken to the streets to prevent it;  but the coward Gore capitulated, he didn't want to sully his reputation. If he'd have fought harder we wouldn't have had Bush. 

    If the Democrats had stood up against the Authorization to Use force.

    Democrats........ phooey  .....Nothing but corporate shills.

    Gore could have been the father of the New Revolution, instead he cowered away from the leadership role. Unwilling to risk taking on, corporate power.


    Nice Resistance, Bush and Cheney in particular made sure people believed the lie they floated that Iraq was behind 9-11.

    These are convenient facts you deliberately leave out, Al Gore never would have gone to War in Iraq, I've supplied evidence you've supplied nothing more than propaganda, Cheney and Bush convinced a nation to attack Iraq by lying about yellow cake and meetings with terrorists and too many people believed that, you think Al Gore would have done that? Bullshit you have no evidence which is why you never supply evidence to the crap you write. I know you will continue to do so, because your goal is to get Republicans elected. You are as fact free as every Republican I ever met.


    The Florida recount proved to me he was spineless, more worried about HIS political career, over that of those about to suffer under Bush.

    Absolutely, because what better way to further your political career than to not challenge a vote count and then never again run for office?

    That "enormous patriotic fervor" you talked about? It wasn't to go into Iraq, it was to respond to 9/11. Almost any Democrat in office (and several Republicans, probably including McCain) would have dealt with Afghanistan without seeing any need to drag Iraq into it. Iraq was manufactured. As such, even a "capitulator" (which I think is an unfair characterization of Al Gore, but whatever) would not have invaded Iraq because there was no support for it until a crisis with them was invented.

    If that's what "most high school students recognize as American history", then I weep for most high school students.


    Absolutely, because what better way to further your political career than to not challenge a vote count and then never again run for office?

    He didn't run for office because he came to the realization he was damaged goods.

    He had his 15 minutes and he blew it.

    When it was TIME, Gore capitulated to please his corporate masters, abandoning his labor supporters on the field; just as he had years before sold labor out when he advocated NAFTA.

    Gore just wise enough to know, many of his earlier supporters would not support him again.   

    The green house gasses produced by his BS, left a stench in the nostrils of labor.

    Then comes Obama, who tells labor and the progressives one thing and then abandons them once elected.

    Now in order to get re- elected  "Froggy comes a courtin"  


    More stuff you have no evidence of, especially the, Gore knew no one would support him, bull shit, more unadulterated bull shit.


    Gore is a politician who will lie to advance his elevation.

    You provided a speech he gave as proof that he would not have gone to war.

    I am sorry you are that easily deceived.

    Roosevelt gave a fine speech too, in order to get elected. both presidential candidates promised they would not enter the war. 

    "a reporter asked Roosevelt, "Can we stay out?" Roosevelt answered, "I sincerely believe we can, and every effort will be made by this Administration to do so." Roosevelt quickly took to national radio to assure the public of his peace-loving intentions: "Let no man or woman thoughtlessly or falsely talk of sending armies to European fields.... This nation will remain a neutral nation.... I want you to know that your government has no information which it has any thought of withholding from you.... You are, I believe, the most enlightened and best-in-formed people in all the world."

    excerpts from The Great Deceivers......FDR and the "infamy" behind Pearl Harbor  http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue04/deceiver.htm

    "Meanwhile, the pesky business of the 1940 presidential election was fast approaching. Republican presidential candidate Wendell Willkie rightly accused Roosevelt of being a warmonger and of having made a secret pro-war alliance with Britain, Canada, and Australia. Roosevelt roared back: "I give to the people of this country this most solemn assurance. There is no secret treaty, no secret obligation, no secret understanding in any shape or form, direct or indirect with any other government."

    "Roosevelt was prepared to tell any lie in order to appear as the super champion of peace: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars!"

    Roosevelt had good reason to put on a public face of peace, for national polls were running 95 percent against intervention. Stepping forward to lead this surge of anti-war sentiment was the nation's most highly respected and beloved hero, Colonel Charles Lindbergh. Little did Lindbergh dream, when he began a series of radio addresses in September 1939, that his effectiveness would so infuriate Roosevelt that he would become a prime victim of Roosevelt's most vicious and damaging assaults, continuing unabated until the time of Roosevelt's death in 1945.

    GORES SPEECH YOU LINKED TO; IS NO PROOF AT ALL, YOU HAVE ACCEPTED THE LIE....... A speech is not proof TMC

    Gore would have done just as the military industrial complex would have told him to do and the propaganda machine would have given Gore cover.

    He'd have done as the corporations would have demanded.

    Gore would have received the same yellow cake memo.

    Gore would be faced with a republican party claiming, the next time the attack happens, blame the coward liberal democrats. 

    Gore would have capitulated, just as he accepted the corporate controlled Supreme Courts decision.

     'now is the time for all good corporate party members to protect the status quo"  and Gore obeyed,  Roll over


    Bullshit to everything you wrote and yet again you've provided no evidence to support the utter bullshit you wrote about Al Gore and Iraq. I provided EVIDENCE, actual evidence, you have provided nothing but conjecture and shit you literally made up, or copied and pasted from some propaganda site. Then to reinforce the notion you are the master of irrelevant red-herrings, you have now changed the subject to Roosevelt and WWII, what the hell, can you not stay on subject, can you not defend your position with any kind of accuracy or evidence? Because every time you are proven wrong you simply change the subject, move the bar, attempt to add a new dimension to your everlasting gobstopper of complaints against Democrats. Your Roosevelt aside has no bearing on what we've been discussing, and it isn't even a decent segue into your argument about Al Gore going to war in Iraq. Al Gore's speech is evidence, something you seem to deny. Well just because you don't believe it is evidence doesn't make it so Resistance. Yes Gore is a politician, duh,  everyone who has held an elected position is a politician by definition, so what is your point? Oh because all politicians suck, yeah well you can make sweeping statements about people in those positions, but guess what that doesn't make it true. It is a sloppy analysis, one that requires no depth of thought, no nuance, it requires the belief that there is a difference between them and us... utter bullshit yet again. But you presence here isn't to make a real argument about anything, your presence here is to call Dem's names and claim them to be nefarious, all  the while supporting the election of Republicans. You need to support the factually incorrect statement you typed out that Al Gore would have gone to war in Iraq. You have yet to do that and until you do I am going to continue to insist you are full of shit.


    Go drink some more koolaid or get back on your meds.

    You provided no proof at all,  You claim Gore said this and that, as though that is  what he would have done.  

    I moved on with other examples of lying politicians and you still want to rehash, that which I had already discredited.

    Gore was a loser and everyone but a few of you koolaid drinkers, has moved on.

    I then provided proof of another lying Democratic icon showing where Roosevelt lied.

    It is apparent you just cant stand to hear anything that disagrees with your position; .......and you think Nader has an Ego problem; you need to look in the mirror.  

    As for supporting Republicans, either your tone deaf or just plain ......

    I don't like either capitalist party. I quote Debs because he was very prophetic in his pronouncement of how corrupt they are and would continue to enslave the working class. .

    He identified the problem over 100 years ago and he warned us about the blind and torpid workers who would continue to support the lying, thieving and corrupt Republican/democratic parties.

    You and others like you stand in the way of our emancipation.   

    I want neither a Democratic corporate shill, I darn sure wouldn't want a republican corporate shill.

    So please you're beginning to look like a mean spirited blogger, falsely accusing others about their true motives

    It's obvious hate motivates you. You sure your not a member if the Tea Party? 


    I want neither a Democratic corporate shill, I darn sure wouldn't want a republican corporate shill.

    The question is, are you happy being a Nader corporate shill? Guess who provided most of his funding in 2000?


    Invective and insults, but no substantive evidence of the charge you made that Al Gore would have gone to war in Iraq. You do know the speech I provided was given in 2002. You have offered nothing, you have yet to provide adequate proof to your charge that Al Gore would have gone to war in Iraq. You are unable to accomplish this one request. You made the charge, you need to offer some kind of evidence to that fact.

    Oh and that charge of Al Gore as capitulator, what exactly do you think he was supposed to do, overturn a Supreme Court ruling?  Did you want him to start a nation wide rumble? What are you asking? This is another example of a  baseless, sloppy charge deliberatly employed to obfuscate the facts at hand, and to convince people that all Democrats are the worst of all, ever, like Beelzebub.

    The Supreme Court ruled, they barred the recount, or barred the Florida Supreme court of ordering a recount, or something, but whatever it was it gave the election to Bush. What exactly could he do about that? Revolt?

    You know what Al Gore did, he put his country ahead of himself. He did not disrupt our government by attempting deliberately weaken the fabric of the government. He truly showed his greatness and his willingness to put his country ahead of himself. You are not going to get away with denigrating him for that act.


    If they find a reasonable challenger I would strongly consider giving them my primary vote.


    I desperately wish that Nader would disappear into a black hole--if only so that I wouldn't have to read any more angry debates about whether or not he's a narcissistic jerk who made Gore lose. On the other hand, his disappearance would probably just provoke a fresh round of eulogies and denunciations, and it would be worse than ever.

    So maybe it would be better if all the people who believe that Nader's character is an important topic to rehash yet again for the sake of posterity and/or the google wayback machine would suddenly disappear into a black hole where they could flame each other to their heart's content--or as much as is possible within the bowels of a singularity. I'd be cool with that.


    Latest Comments