OT: Just Do It: Impeach Bush!

[Jack]

Quote @ jim stone

And here comes Nader.


Nader Looks to Another White House Bid in 2004
[Reuters]
Thu Dec 18, 9:59 PM ET
<http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/my/my16.gif> Add U.S. National - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ralph Nader (news - web sites), accused by some Democrats of helping elect President Bush (news - web sites) by seeking the presidency as a Green Party candidate three years ago, said on Thursday he wants to make another White House bid in 2004 and will announce a decision next month.

[Photo]
Reuters Photo



The veteran consumer advocate said Democrats have not put up enough of a fight against Bush, but he was still weighing whether he had the financial and volunteer support to make another third-party or independent bid.

"I would like to run," said Nader, who gained nearly 2.9 million votes for president in 2000. "Substantively there is a strong argument for running. Now it's a question of resources -- just getting on the ballot is a major endeavor."

Nader has started an exploratory presidential committee to begin raising money for a campaign. He said he was uncertain whether he would run again for the Green Party, which has been split on his possible candidacy, or mount an independent bid.

Democrats blame Nader for siphoning votes from Al Gore (news - web sites) in the disputed 2000 election, particularly in Florida, where Nader earned 97,488 votes and Gore's loss by a bitterly contested 537 votes ultimately decided the race.

Nader, who argued in 2000 that there was little difference between the two major parties, said Democrats should "stop whining" and start mounting more of a challenge to the Republican Bush on issues like corporate crime, wages, taxes and the military budget.

"They know that Gore beat Gore," he said of Democrats. "It's just scapegoating."

He said his campaign could open a second strategic front against Bush on issues that Democrats had been reluctant to take on, like the size of the military or corporate malfeasance.

'HANDS TIED'

"If the goal is to defeat Bush, the Democrats have their hands tied on so many issues that a third political force could elaborate on," he said in an interview. "They are dialing for dollars from the same corporate interests and they aren't willing to really challenge him."

Nader said he would push for inclusion in the fall presidential debates if he runs in 2004 -- he and independent candidate Pat Buchanan (news - web sites) were excluded in 2000 -- and that part of his campaign would be aimed at breaking the stranglehold on the process held by the two major parties.

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in October found two-thirds of Americans did not want Nader to run again, and he acknowledged that some of his supporters in 2000 might back a Democrat this time because they were focused on beating Bush.

"There are a lot of people who supported us in 2000 who are anybody-but-Bush adherents, and going back into the fold of (Howard) Dean or the Democrats," he said.

He said Dean, the former Vermont governor who shot to the top of the Democratic field with his heated denunciations of Bush's policies, was "better than most," but still did not push Bush hard enough.

He criticized Dean's refusal to back cuts in the military budget and said he was "a pretty conservative governor."

"He's at a crossroads now," he said of Dean. "The Democrats are damaging each other far more than any Green campaign could. What they are saying about Dean ... all that will be used by Republicans."

Gore did beat Gore, and that's what it comes down to. Democrats and Republicans both suck. Nader is one of my favorite people in the world, and he better be allowed in the debates this time!


Ralph Nader doesn't lie. He is one of the most effective debaters I've ever seen or heard, and George W. Bush, Al Gore and Howard Dean are all afraid of him.

Feels good to get that out.

[NicoMoreno]

I knew what he meant with his screw public opinion comment, which is why I said I wasn't making fun of him.
Just taken by itself and in relation to an election only, it seems pretty funny.

Oh well, I get overly sarcastic sometimes...

Sometimes it would be nice if everybody just said what they thought and stopped posturing for votes. (USA and Canada) Then I think... it will never happen that EVERYBODY does it... so nobody can afford to...

[mjacob]

Before stealing the presidency, what had Bush ever accomplished? Lets see, he was a military deserter, a drunk and a drug user, and a C student. Everything in his life has been handed to him. Compare that to a guy like Nader, who has been in public service his whole life. Actually you can't compare them, can you?
Compare him to Dean, a doctor, someone who's business before politics was saving people's lives. Once again, you can't compare the two.

Are people blind? What does it take to see that this guy is a joke?

[pthouron]

Are people blind? What does it take to see that this guy is a joke?

Uh-oh, now you done it! Here we go again...
Seriously, I agree on principle. The fact that he is no laughing joke is that he still has the majority of the people in this country fooled (and when I say he, I mean his administration).

Most of the rest of the world isn't fooled, but it seems that we've decided the rest of the world doesn't count any more, if it disagrees.

Like it has been said in this thread before, you can't expect honesty or forthrightness from any side, really. But for us still not to admit that deception and double-talk have been turned into an artform for the past three years demonstrates the extent of this sham.

[The Weekenders]

I voted for Bush and I plan on voting for him again. Personaly I think this is a man who does what he says he is going to do. I might not agree with all of it but I have to give him credit for doing something about it.

I have yet to hear ANY potential Democratic nominee layout an exit strategy for Iraq. My opinion would be this is the case because there isnt one. Bush laid out his exit strategy as simply saying more or less "When its over and they have a democracy, we will leave". I have to agree with this.

I quoted the Marine letter in Saddam thread, FF, about some other things that are not reported.

I have come to the conclusion that this swelling of Bush hatred is exactly because he has been effective in a policy of engagement rather than appeasement. In some idealistic vision of the Left, we just aren't supposed to do ANYTHING because of the sins of our past. We are not allowed because we lack MORAL AUTHORITY compared to some mythical ThirdWorld entity. Close your eyes and hope that the UN or the EU will fix it.

We haven't lost enough soldiers to maintain this low picture of our Vietnam-era persona. We haven't slaughtered enough villagers, haven't rained enough death on innocents to verify the 60s visions. It's just unforgivable that Bush has succeeded and even got Saddam. I can't even imagine what will happen if we catch OBL. The possibility for spontaneous combustion among the Left comes to mind.

I was xmas shopping at Cody's books in Berkeley the other day. Went by the politics section. The amount of book titles against Bush and the Republicans was incredible. The Bush-Haters Handbook, the I Hate Republicans Handbook, the Dictionary of Bush Malaprops, books by Franken, Moore, Ivins, Carville, on and on. There were about two or three books from the Right side. One by Coulter and a few lesser. Of course, Savage's book (15 weeks in No. 1 spot on NY Times Non-Fiction List) was not for sale. Nor Bill Oreilly's (no sophisticated tome but a viewpoint nevertheless). No titles from Regnery, which publishes many of the right-wing views.

Its like Jonestown coolaid, man. Keep sucking the stuff, alienating most of America, maintain your elitist insistence that you know better, minimize 9/11, equivocate Vietnam to Iraq despite vast differences, on and on...Oh yeah, and make sure and urge your congressman to cut any increase of military spending, then turn around and blame Bush for an ill-equipped military.

I do not possess some shallow flag-waving mentality about this engagement. I know that war is horrid and that we will have some very damaged people coming back from Iraq that will alter our society in unknown ways. Few on this Forum are likely to yield the point that the blood purchase has ennobled our commitment to democracy because that just seems too naive and you cannot forget the laundry list of our past sins, including backing Iraq against Iran in the 80s after Jimmy Carter was humiliated.. I lay it before you nevertheless.

There is no guarantee that Iraq will not be stuck in civil war for years to come. But the way the Left and Dems deal with this is guaranteed to make US soldiers feel bad and alienated again. I pray that the Left will ease off on the Bush hatred because many soldiers are likely to identify with Bush as one of the few who does support them, notwithstanding Wizzer's denunciations.

Will you look a returning soldier from Iraq in the eye and flame on about how Bush is like Hitler, after they may have participated in identifying mass graves, torture rooms or the like? Does that ennoble your leftist cause?

Hating Bush will not win an election, presenting a cogent alternative view will at least establish some respect in the nation's eyes. It's time to grow up and stop being cutesy with the shallow putdowns of Franken, the insistence of the "illegitimate election," the nihilist views of Moore and so forth. It ain't working.

Bush has taken this aggressive stance since 9/11. The Dems had no entry or exit strategy other than "Let the Inspectors Do Their Jobs." I can just hear Al Gore in his preachy, you-are-an-idiot-so-I-have-to-talk-slow style saying this over and over again, as though the mantra will convert into truth. Firefighters note reminded me of this,.

[pthouron]

'Screw Public Opinion' was
expressing the understandable longing for people who say
what they think and stand for what they believe, and
damn the torpedoes. Not how democracy work, generally.

Well, then, I have little use for this form of democracy. If it is all based on compromise, what's the use?

[The Weekenders]

Compromise is life, in everything and political decisions too. The best solution politically pleases noone.

As for popular: The Founding Fathers were very concerned about the opinions of the moment and put safeguards to slow down the effects of that opinion. The debacle in France was going on simultaneously with the first few years of Washington's term and the Federalist papers inception. But earlier, in Boston, a series of riots had shown just how serious popular passions can be. The safeguards included the electoral college, appointed Senators (since changed to direct election at our peril but considered better than back-room favors) and our three levels of government checks and balances. All was designed to enforce compromise ultimately.

I am having a hard time believing what you just said, Pthou.

[Lorenzo]

I would have to agree, even though they didn't allow Nader in the debates last time, that when you compared the side by side interviews of the top three candidates, Ralph Nader made the other two look kindergartenish. There's no substitute for brains, but brains is not all that's required in the White House. But it helps. Staff appointments can usually take up the slack though.

Part of a problem with Nader in command is that of appintments. He'd likely do something other than appoint cabinet members smarter than himself. Most administrations, at any level don't operate too well when the administrator is capable of micromanaging the various department with an upper edge. Normally, as a CEO, you rely on your various experts for recommendation, the departments don't rely on the Chief Executive Officer for advice. With Ralph, the danger is that things could get a little messy in that area.

The reason Bush will probably win this election in a landslide, this time around, is because people don't know the other candidates or their records too well. Acquaintance is a big part of winning. That's why it's difficult to beat incumbents. Everyone knows Bush, and enough opposition to his policies is just not there to make the difference. Unless the economy gets critical, it won't be an issue either.

Health care could be a factor but look how the Rep. stole the thunder on that one. The Democrats argued against the Drugs-Medicare bill for that very reason, even I could read that one. What a check mate. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

[NicoMoreno]

Exactly...

But!

IT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE THIS!!!

The problem is "public opinion", not politicians. People respond badly to things they don't like... so politicians try not to do things people don't like.

And in the end they end up sounding like they are spineless, or they end up saying things to get elected that they have no hope of carrying out.

But, this is a generality. So do not take it to be a reflection of Bush, Gore or Dean. (Or, Chretien, Martin and even good old Eves )

I am just saying that no "democracy" is ideal. (According to the Greek, which is where it came from, democracy wasn't even something to be aspired to. They wanted a timocracy, which is only subtly different, but man what a difference it could make!) We have to deal with what we have the best we can.

[pthouron]

Compromise is life, in everything and political decisions too. The best solution politically pleases noone.

As for popular: The Founding Fathers were very concerned about the opinions of the moment and put safeguards to slow down the effects of that opinion. The debacle in France was going on simultaneously with the first few years of Washington's term and the Federalist papers inception. But earlier, in Boston, a series of riots had shown just how serious popular passions can be. The safeguards included the electoral college, appointed Senators (since changed to direct election at our peril but considered better than back-room favors) and our three levels of government checks and balances. All was designed to enforce compromise ultimately.

I am having a hard time believing what you just said, Pthou.

Weeks, this isn't the sort of compromise I was talking about. I realize nothing is ever black or white and you need some grey to help things along. What I am talking about is politicians (as most Democratic candidates of the moment) who compromise their beliefs and become virtually indistinguishible from those they are supposed to oppose.

[jim stone]

'Screw Public Opinion' was
expressing the understandable longing for people who say
what they think and stand for what they believe, and
damn the torpedoes. Not how democracy work, generally.

Well, then, I have little use for this form of democracy. If it is all based on compromise, what's the use?

Democracy was for centuries thought to be an unworkable
thing, for this reason. Plato called it a 'disease of the
state.' It is a dreadful form of government, the only
good thing about it is that the others are worse; also,
you can get people out of power without having to
kill them. Another saying I like: 'Democracy is worse
than a good czar; better than a bad czar. But there
are more bad czars than good czars.'

Democracy in large states is very much the political
analogue of capitalism. Politicians are wheeler-dealers
trying to sell themselves to the populace by catering
to various factions without alienating too many people.
Unprincipled people, or not very principled people,
do this better than principled people. As a consequence
our views get represented politically by
politcos; we are their clients, as it were, and
we pay them in votes.

Of course we're not very smart, but we do know
our own pocketbooks and our part of the
forest. So democracy works best domestically,
worst in foreign policy, where the consequences
of bad policy often don't affect us so sharply or where
the connection to what's happening to us isn't obvious.
For better or for
worse, the people are empowered, and we can
get rid of folks in power without killing them.

That, I'm afraid, is as good as it gets--unless you
get the very rare great political leader.
Most of the problems we go on about here
are simply what a robust and healthy democracy
is like.

If I may second Weeks on this: no, bush isn't a joke;
he isn't a terribly good president either, but somebody
who has survived well enough in one of the toughest
jobs in the world and may well win the next election
quite handily isn't a joke--trust me. Insisting that
political adversaries who are
effective politically are jokes, idiots, imbeciles,
etc is putting one's head in the sand and
begging for defeat.
Best

[The Weekenders]

Gotcha Pthou! I didn't think you......

I wonder what they do believe. I spent a fair amount of time with local pols here in Richmond, CA. One guy, who has been fairly successful, spent a lot of time courting our Neighborhood Council and got votes in return. I spent hours with him. To this day, I can't figure out what he believes, why he runs, etc etc. Even just the chase for power when it doesn't seemed to be wielded for a pronounced ideology mystifies me.

All the best.
W.

[pthouron]

If I may second Weeks on this: no, bush isn't a joke;
he isn't a terribly good president either, but somebody
who has survived well enough in one of the toughest
jobs in the world and may well win the next election
quite handily isn't a joke--trust me. Insisting that
political adversaries who are
effective politically are jokes, idiots, imbeciles,
etc is putting one's head in the sand and
begging for defeat.
Best

The difference between him and everybody before is 9/11. Pure and simple. Remove 9/11 (and the way his administration was able to exploit it) from the equation and you have a president with possible the worst record ever, on many counts: economy, environment, big business scandals, a tarnished image of the US worldwide...
I do grant him that he's had an uncanny talent to use this event and its aftermath to his political advantage. And we are responsible for having let him do it. I mean, this is the guy who, when pressed by Dyanne Sawyer on the issue of using WMD to take us to war, answered: "What's the difference?".

[Daniel_Bingamon]

What is a democracy? Ruling of masses, sounds to me like a lynch mob.

As I remember it in school:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We are a constitutuional republic. A republic has representatives for the masses of people. The balance of power in the house to deal with groups of peoples in geographic area and two for each state in the senate to make it fair.

The electoral system is a further function of our republic, a popular vote to deal with the numbers of people and the electoral vote to give the populated "fly-over" states a voice. I respect this system and regardless of the elections outcome, it was a good idea given by the framers of our system of government.

Sometime in the later 60's, the democracy term began to favor itself over the republic term. Most of this is by the influence by the school system in this country - having political direction to impress upon people. It takes years of seeking truth to get all this "programming" out your system.

Although I have voted for George Bush, I have certain religious beliefs. And yes, they do influence my political decisions. Although some may think that is a crime.

My beliefs come before my politcal party (whatever it might be at time).

One of the things that disturbs me about politics is that people tend to stay on these "party lines" because the majority of the part ideas might match with theirs. That might sound fine but it is deceptive to one's own self - I've had enough of that kind of political attitude.
If either side is going to do something that I don't like, I don't have to accept it. Make your voice heard for what you believe and not for partyline politics.

To thine own-self be true.

Happy Holiday season to all......

[jim stone]

Hey, nobody is saying you should like the guy, want him
president, think he's doing a good job; that's entirely
your call. I disagree with you about some of that,
but this isn't what I was saying.

If I were a Democrat I would not now proceed
on the assumption that Bush is an
inept nincompoop, a fool, a loser, and a political joke.
To the contrary. I would see him as a reasonably shrewd
politician and a political survivor. Of course you're
entitled to think what you want about the guy,
whatever it is. You know, people kept saying this
sort of thing about Reagan and he kept beating them.
If I were a Democrat, I'd want to win.

I mean, this is the guy who, when pressed by Dyanne Sawyer on the issue of using WMD to take us to war, answered: "What's the difference?".'

I don't understand this sentence. Are you willing to
explain...what she asked him and what he answered?
Don't have a TV.
Best